Recent comments

  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Suverans2: Thanks for pointing out the absurdity of KenK, the troll.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    And, the human beings responsible would be held accountable for adding man-made toxic chemicals, which cause harm, to their tobacco. They could not hide behind "corporation" veils.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    G'day rita, You may already know this, but in case you don't, you can click on the "edit" below your post and make corrections.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    "He...comes across to most people as a kook whenever he opens his yap..." ~ KenK Your slip is showing, KenK. Spoken like a true collectivist. Just sayin'.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Thumb in the air for Paul.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Yeah, I know, I misspelled "government." I do that when I think faster than I type.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "It's incumbent upon the officer to make contact" -- and whether the contact turns into detainment depends on the circumstances encountered by the officer. It's been my observation that the people most likely to be "detained" for resisting arrest are the ones who have broken no law. Gee, I wonder why the governemt is broke.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    G'day Sam, Words of wisdom, my friend.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    This is an excellent bit of commentary, Paul. I believe I understand your position and certainly respect it (because it respects others, and is both intelligent and well-intentioned). I have a very unusual perspective -- meaning only that I don't know many people who share it -- and THAT, along with issues of wording, are mostly what we're talking about, in terms of differences between our views. On people being damaged: they are, that's the simple truth, and I say that plainly. I don't conceal this from them. You, Paul, are damaged. So am I. If it's easier to hear, the word "hurt" is just as accurate. People ARE hurt in early life -- if there are any exceptions to this, I don't think I have met them -- and no, for the most part, I don't think people are going to get "fixed." I certainly don't think anyone is going to get fixed or cured by reading anything I might write, because "getting cured" involves deep feeling of whatever repressed experiences someone is carrying around. The number of people willing to do that, or who even know that such a thing might be possible, is close enough to zero as to make no difference in the world as a whole. On the off-chance that anyone reading this might be interested in the idea, check out anything by Dr. Arthur Janov, starting with 1970's The Primal Scream. Janov's blog (Google it; the STR spam filter blocks almost every URL I try to add) is worth reading and is a good, bite-size-at-a-time introduction to his ideas. The basics are this: Neurosis is the repression of feeling, and the remedy is to feel. Not to talk about feelings, or come up with insight about feelings, or change your behavior, but to actually FEEL those things that were too much to feel when they happened, long ago. As I said, the number of people on the same page is, basically, zero. What people CAN do, fairly easily, is change their behavior towards pregnant women, newborns, infants, and children. You don't have to get well to do THAT. You don't have to get well to support smaller government (or no government), either. If enough people begin to understand that both freedom AND compassion are important, then they'll change their behavior accordingly, to whatever extent feels right to them (which includes whatever extent their psychological defenses allow). THAT is how the world can change for the better, even without trying to fix (most of) what's wrong with the world now, and without expecting people to get "fixed" or "cured" when, in fact, almost none of them are even interested in trying to do that. So I agree completely, Paul: it really has to come from inside. That means, to me, that future generations must be treated better than ours has been -- if so, then THEIR "insides" will be healthier, and with any luck at all, that trend will continue. We can help kick-start the process; your writing and mine, and the freedom movement in general, can help put people today in touch with the real part of themselves -- the part that knows, despite the lifetime of propaganda and repression, that both love and freedom are what every human being needs, and are what the WORLD needs if we're ever to have something better than the global tyranny being planned for us.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "People generally aren't influenced by argumentation" -- I agree, Paul, but, like you, I write anyway. One of my points is that getting a more accurate paradigm or framework into people's minds dramatically increases the chance that they will understand the world in that more accurate way; repeated exposure to the new paradigm is, however, needed. Ten or twenty years of exposure isn't uncommon before someone sees something that has been right in front of them all along; I'm thinking of people I know who were certain the drugwar was necessary despite all the data showing how harmful it is, and only after many, many exposures to the idea that ALL THAT DATA had an explanation did it pop into their heads that yes, coercion and violence against drug users and sellers might not be a good idea. "I am pretty doubtful of this notion of "damaged people"" That's what the links and references are for. Believe me, the science is overwhelming that trauma (pain, be it emotional or physical) early in life leads to unhealthy emotional, behavioral, and physical consequences. The paper on the ACE study linked in Section 7 above is reasonably short but absolutely makes the case: The Relationship of Adverse Childhood Experiences to Adult Health: Turning gold into lead. There is an ocean of other data from many sources, and it all points to this: emotional damage (much of which is caused by the State, as anyone who lost a family member in a drone attack could tell you) is [edit: among other things] a powerful tool for keeping the State in power and for molding all those unthinking (or badly thinking) supporters of the State and its demogogues. "My view is that people are generally going to stick with their worldviews until some shock breaks them out of it." Many paradigm shifts have happened without such an apparent shock (the new paradigm kinda IS the shock, really) -- the Enlightenment, Newton's laws, the germ theory -- such things changed minds because enough evidence had built up to support a change in view and the new paradigm fit the new data extremely well. This column was written to show that The Doctrine of Love and Freedom meets that criterion: it explains a large number of important facts that the paradigm of Left-Right Statism clearly does not, and which the libertarian framework itself is only partially able to explain. "Many more will come around when the empire crashes" I hope you are right, but I don't see much evidence for that in history. Russia isn't much more free now than under the Soviets -- it sure isn't anything like a libertarian oasis -- and every dictator who has toppled in recent decades, from Marcos to the Shah, has been followed by more tyranny. The faces and rhetoric change but wrecking a nation and replacing the power elite with another group of psychopaths doesn't really bring much improvement.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    I emailed my kids the Jon Stewart article and clip yesterday. Theirs (and Stewart's) angst over the situation is, of course, part -- a very small part -- of the reason I would never "vote". I would never vote because voting is a violent act. I would probably vote for Dr Paul if I were forced under penalty of death to participate in the bread and circus presentation called an "election". My vote be an attempt to coerce all those who want to be subservient to agents of state to submit to Ron Paul. And to me. Under threat of violence. Under the circumstance I would need to believe that Ron Paul, if elected, could tame the beast of political authority. I don't. It would also depend upon enough of "the electorate" joining me inaugurating him gang leader. They wouldn't. But why would a sane individual get involved in this crazy making Jon Stewart so aptly pointed out? In a sense I admire Dr. Paul and my sons and daughters-in-law and grandchildren for plunging ahead in the eye of this lunacy. I would like to think they might succeed in being a major force in bringing about the collapse of state. I hope more Jon Stewarts come to see and have the cojones to report as he did the absurdity of the political frolic. If so expect to see riots and dissension sufficient to snarl the state into extinction sooner than we expect. Be prepared, however, to whet your sovereignty skills in face of what will most certainly rise up to take the place of this beast called the state. It won't be pretty, but we can survive in freedom. Yes, we can. Sam.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "repeated exposure to the new paradigm is, however, needed." Agreed. But the point I am trying to make is that it matters what form this exposure takes. If you look at people as damaged, even if they are, and that you are going to fix that damage, you are not going to connect with them. If you look at this as simply a marketing problem, or a question of more effective evangelism, you are not going to connect with them. I say it is better to not think of people as being damaged - instead, to think of them as a combination of their genes and their thoughts and their experiences, both good and bad. The advantage of this is that at least you can be honest with people. If instead you look at people as damaged, you have to conceal what you are about. Could you go up to someone and say, "I think you were damaged by your upbringing, but if you listen to me, I can fix this damage of yours?" Of course not, that would get you nowhere. But if that is what you are thinking to yourself, you are not being straightforward with people, are you? I went through most of my life trying to fix the world, but the world was not having any of it. And now I think I was wrong to do that. I don't want to fix the world any more; I just want to live the rest of my life as free as I can be, and ideally without fear. If others see what I am doing and decide on their own they want that too, well good. But it is not necessary that they do. I have only a very low standard for them, that they can easily meet: leave me alone. That's not to say I don't argue for freedom; obviously I do. But I do it because I enjoy it and hope others can get the point. If they don't, that's OK too. I don't think people can be voted free, or argued free either. It really has to come from inside.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    The spook agency tying up the 'loose ends' and sanitizing the operations. Looks like they are gonna need a few more guys who will ''eat their guts and beg for seconds.'' I suppose you cannot trust the bullet stoppers to keep their mouths shut.Also they might wake up and join the right side,Can't have any rambos fighting for the otherside. Ventura does serve a purpose tho....... http://artapp.net/Jesse-Ventura's-New-B ... t-....html Among the 25 U.S. special operations forces killed in Wardak province were 22 Navy SEALS, considered to be the "best of the best." Seven Afghan troops also died. http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/0 ... ?hpt=hp_t1 The majority of the Navy SEALs who died belonged to the same covert unit that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, though they were not the same men, the military official said. The troops died during a "quick reaction" mission to assist military personnel pinned down by insurgents in a fierce firefight, a U.S. military official told CNN. How many freedom fighters,opps i mean UNFRIENDLIES were killed?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Isn't politics fun? Of course the media can ignore Paul all they want to. It's their media after all. But there is going to be a cost in doing so. They are sacrificing what little credibility they have left.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Great comment, tzo. "teach the next generations properly from an early age" -- yep, and of course that's why every State insists on running or regulating the education process. But it's not just education; preventing emotional damage begins in the womb (there's a relevant study featured at today's PhysOrg.com about prenatal stress affecting the children of the stressed mothers, in mice for this particular study; url removed in hopes of getting this comment past STR's over-vigilant spam filter), during birth, during infancy and of course throughout childhood. Modern, hi-tech birth practices -- including the now-record number of C-sections being performed (over 25% of all US births) often cause trauma, block or weaken the mother-child bond, and otherwise cause emotional repression of pain that lasts a lifetime -- and which makes people more likely to fall victim to demogogues who promise to provide the things that stand in for what the people didn't get when they were small (love, compassion, etc) and to pin blame for whatever is unpleasant in life on scapegoat groups. The emotional repression and diminished sense of connection also make it much easier for people to support, and even to cheer on and insist upon, repressive, police-state measures (for "security" or other supposed benefits) and assaults on other groups, be they drug users or those with the wrong political views.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Thanks, Suverans2! Good marketing/promotion info.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Because he has no chance whatever perhaps? He's in his late seventies and comes across to most people as a kook whenever he opens his yap. Just sayin'.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    "We're in the business of kicking candidates out of the race..." That is correct. "Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, [Dan] Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations." ~ http://www.corporations.org/media/media-ownership.gif
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    The Fear of Loss is More Powerful Than The Hope For Gain!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    G'day Samarami, Has anyone you happen to know seen this clip? The first seven, or so, got it right, you are not supposed to even mention your opponent's name, thus making him non-existent, the last talking head from CNN, I believe, was merely an idiot. If all else fails, try . . . Subversion Definition: Preventing your opponent from getting a hearing. Catch-phrase: Head 'em off at the pass. ...Gaining control of the media and pretending your opponent doesn’t exist.... http://creationsafaris.com/images/BM-BD-Subversion.jpg
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago
    Oroborus
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I've got a fricken' headache after listening to this...but the lyrics are REALLY meaningful. http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/g/gojira/oroborus.html ROFLMAO
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link strike
    From the article: 'McKinley describes himself "as a small government, free-market focused owner of a small business," but...' Don't you just love that "but"? It's always there. What he means is that he's for the free market, except when he's not. There are also state programs for the same thing. Wyoming, the most "conservative" state in the nation, arguably, has the same sort of program. It's just a scam, welfare for airport and airline people.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "School choice" is just another euphemism for government "education", funded by theft.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    While I am in general agreement with this article, I have some quibbles with it. First, the notion that if we only craft our message properly, more people will sign up. Nock's essay "Isaiah's Job" warns that maybe this is the wrong way of looking at it. But even if you don't break humans down into "Remnant" and "Masses", there are problems. People generally aren't influenced by argumentation, not outside their area of expertise. I don't agree that there are a few thinking people and many who don't; instead my view is that virtually everyone thinks in some area, that I call their "area of expertise", but outside of that they just depend on a worldview to give answers. For example a mechanic may know an amazing amount about how to get power with reliability out of an engine; but he just takes his worldview's default when the subject of war comes up. And arguing against a person's worldview is pretty hopeless. As Dale Carnegie put it, "You can't win an argument". I am pretty doubtful of this notion of "damaged people", although of course in extreme cases that is so. I think people are actually quite resilient. A good thing too, otherwise no one would survive their parents! I think we have a tendency to look at people who don't agree with us and say, looking down our noses, "He must have had a terrible childhood." Or we try to evangelize freedom, just like the leftists used to do back in the seventies - remember that old phrase, "consciousness-raising", as if the people they were targeting for their evangelism were unconscious? That always struck me as a bit presumptuous, yet here we are doing the same thing. I also don't think we have been underemphasizing compassion all that much. It's usually part of the discussion whenever freedom comes up. My view is that people are generally going to stick with their worldviews until some shock breaks them out of it. When the worldview fails them, only then are they going to be open to another paradigm. And that will happen soon. I don't think there is anything irrational about this behavior, because no one has unlimited time in his life; he must default some opinions to what his worldview tells him. I don't think people are stupid, or damaged or anything else of that nature. They are just being people, that's all. That's the sort of beast we are. Anyway if people could be so easily swayed by argument, they'd be swayed back the next time they ran into a statist with a plausible line. The wonder is not that what we have been doing has gotten so little result; but, given how humans work, that it has gotten so much. Let's not be impatient. Many more will come around when the empire crashes.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen, thank you for writing this piece. It's the perfect complement to your other writings on the need for both the sina qua non of the nonaggression axion/self-ownership concept and the equally valid perception about the value of empathy and love. PS: At the upcoming Libertopia festival in San Diego (http://libertopia.org/), there will be a presentation by the Summum Bonum Learning Center (a learner-driven learning center), which is now being organized around an educational process that recognizes this two-fold need in the education and raising of children. This educational venture will not be launched until September 2013, but those involved in its development are keeping these twin aspects of liberty at the heart of this learner-centered mode of education.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I agree very strongly with you that the emotional component is ultimately important, as emotions will overpower logic for deeply-held beliefs. Throwing data at an unwilling freedom-convert results in an emotional wall of defense. Logic will almost NEVER break down that wall. The human part of humans is emotion. If you can connect with the emotions of an unwilling freedom-convert you will have a much better chance of working with him. How to do that? How to convey the data of your argument and at the same time appeal to emotion without triggering the automatic emotional defense? That's the tricky part, and I imagine it's different with every person. That's why it's important that sites like STR are around, pumping out a stream of arguments that come in from every angle, because there is no small set of arguments that will universally make an impression. And this is another great article, Glen, reminding everyone not to forget about the human connection that is necessary to spread the ideas of freedom and compassion. It is all too easy to get angry at people who won't listen, but I am coming to believe that many people can't listen, especially to overly-assertive arguments. Many are so emotionally damaged that demanding logic from them in certain areas of thought is like demanding that a person with a broken leg sprint across a field with you. It just won't work. You have to take the time that is necessary to fix the damage to the point where you stand a chance of moving forward. Nothing else will work. Of course the easiest route is to teach the next generations properly from an early age so they do not sustain such crippling damage, and then after all us old codgers die off they will be in a better position to shift the paradigm.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 2 years 35 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    Excellent, right on target. You have an engaging style as well. Hope your work finds an audience beyond the choir!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 35 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    I changed the 60-Minutes link to a video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part II of II
    Page tzo
    "Quit the club! Don’t participate! It is your prerogative! Your psyche, your Being, your Self, is at stake. If you believe in the soul, then that too, is on the line." ~ tzo "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and attach not to the morally impure thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father[1] unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the all ruling controller."[2] __________________________________________________________________________________________ "And I heard another voice from the sky, saying, "Come out of her, my people, that you be not co-participants of her offenses, and that you receive not of her strokes (punishments/calamities)."[3] ___________________________________________________________________________ [1] Father ...(2.) A name applied as a title of respect to a chief, ruler, or elder, etc. ~ Easton's Bible Dictionary [2] Literal translation of 2Corinthians 6:17-18 [3] Literal translation of Revelation 18:4
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 2 years 35 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    Your Albright quote is priceless. She really reveals how the lunatics are running the asylum. Another good example of the wisdom of Washington can be seen on this YouTube Video taken from a recent "Meet the Press" telecast. We get to see Alan Greenspan's true financial genius and that somehow printing more money will always keep our credit alive. Check the analyst sitting next to him. His face is asking, "excuse me, but what the hell?" The military-industrial complex has turned both Albright and Greenspan into complete morons. In this war, probably more than any war I have studied, does the playwrite Aeschylus enlighten us with the quote that; In war, truth is the first casualty.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    How to Identify Legal Plunder ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "We are now all so used to the state robbing others on our behalf, and protecting our selfish interests with fiat regulation, that we have become incapable of doing the right thing." ~ Andy Duncan Well said, Andy, well said.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 35 weeks ago Page jd-in-georgia
    Nice column, jd-in-georgia, and very positive. Anyone in the freedom movement knows how rare it is to see a person open their mind to voluntaryism, and I appreciate your sharing a bit of your own path with us. You mention your faith, and I'll mention that while I am not a believer (of the supernatural elements), I very much do believe that Jesus' core, secular teachings are an amazing gift to mankind and -- because they describe the most important elements of human nature and the human condition -- are in harmony with many other religions and philosophies that have some version of the Golden Rule at their center. These teachings are completely in harmony with voluntaryism, with non-Statism, with genuine freedom: a person who loves others does NOT aggress against others. Few people seem to make that connection, at least where the State is concerned. Christians could be and should be (some are, but not nearly enough) a major force for non-coercive, non-State, civil society. I hope your journey to voluntaryism is representative of a similar enlightenment for increasing numbers of the faithful. One of my related columns might be of interest to you; it's "The Earthly Lesson of Jesus' Crucifixion, and Why His Secular Teachings Live On" [url removed because my comment was rejected by the STR's "spam filter", and I'm hoping this will fix the problem]
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 35 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    Terrific column, as always Tzo. Clear enough that I can imagine it actually getting through to some people, and certainly it will help strengthen the understanding of those who are already in, or near, the non-Statist camp. Interesting tidbit: my first column for STR was "Government is Not Compassion" (part 1) http://strike-the-root.com/columns/allport/allport1.html -- and IT, too, opened with the same quote from Nietzsche, but from a translation by Walter Kauffmann: "Indeed, a hellish artifice was invented there, a horse of death, clattering in the finery of divine honors. Indeed, a dying for many was invented there, which praises itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, on the state1 A Kindle edition of Kauffmann's "The Portable Nietzsche", which includes Zarathustra and quite a lot of other material, is available ( http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Nietzsche-Library-ebook/dp/B001R9DI3Y/ref... ), along with a few other of his translations of FN's work, plus Kauffmann's study of FN "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist". I find Kauffmann consistently excellent and very readable, very artful, in his translations, but everyone has their own favorites.
  • Guest's picture
    Temujin (not verified) 2 years 35 weeks ago Page jd-in-georgia
    Great read \o
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    And, "criminal activity" is whatever your chosen master says it is.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago Page jd-in-georgia
    Well said, jd-in-georgia, at least you know, (and have the courage to admit), that you were putting yourself on the pedestal of "intellectual". Some of us, even as adults, are not aware that that is what we are doing, and if we are cognizant of it, are not courageous enough to admit it openly. With respect, a tip of the hat to you, sir.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    "It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." ~ Upton Sinclair
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Yeah, that'll fix the problem. Let's not forget who militarized local police - that same federal govt.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    The writer lacks writing skills, but I believe has a message to broadcast. He appears to recognize the fallacy in the reification of "the government" or "the state", but his writing needs a host of grammer and punctuation correction to become clear. I have for a long time preached against the "we" word -- and other uses such as "our" leaders or "our" forfathers. I have no "policymakers" (except those who meet from time to time between my ears :-|). This author appears to substantiate that approach. Governments, states, countries, nations do not exist. Only human beings (tyrants dressed in sheeps' clothing often as not) exist. All lines (boundaries, borders)are fictitious and their defence is an act of war. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 35 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Well said, Per! Today I "do grandkids" so my son and daughter-in-law can campaign for Ron Paul -- the big "straw poll" in Ames, IA is Saturday and today is first day of IA State Fair. They (pg with their ninth [9th!!] child) would like me to come to Ames and vote for Dr Paul in the straw poll. I have told them no. I will lend every support to them and the family, all of whom I love. But no, I will NOT "vote". To me "voting" is "feeding the beast", and I love my family too much to feed that monster, in spite of their sincere belief that it can be tamed if "we" just elect the best set of shysters to "office". They don't understand. Naturally. Anarchy is a tough bean to chew when you've been reared on governmentalism. But it takes a slight message here and a slight message there. "You can be free -- but not by supporting political authority..." And firmness. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago
    Yes We Can
    Web link Mike Powers
    You cannot buy votes and cut spending at the same time. A look into the face of the "The Enemy"
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 2 years 35 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    "Create alternative societies within our own neighborhoods and bring people bit by bit." Talk about "Striking the Root!" Very well said Per.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    G'day tzo, Yes, I noticed that, too; not sure why that author wrote that line, that particular way, because his/her very next sentence corrects this error, "That is, that under anarchy no one is permitted to openly rule over another person, though people will still create rules for the use of their property by others." And, "their property", of course, includes life and liberty; two things this author, unfortunately, never elaborated on, which is why I only gave this article eight stars. I really liked the intro, e.g. "There are only people--individuals--acting everywhere, thus the government or the state is simply made up by the yielding subjects--and the people acting as officers. What gave them this right of deciding what other people can and cannot do?" The author's question, in my opinion, was answered in the sentence preceding it, "the yielding subjects". CONSENT, n. ...We give consent, when we yield that which we have a right to withhold... Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "We may say, that anarchy means 'no ruler' or 'no rules.' There is a big difference between 'no ruler' and 'no rules,' and so putting an 'or' between them as if they were equivalent is not correct. Watch http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf in order to help clear up your confusion about what is aggression and coercion and what is self-defense. Equating anarchy with the assumption that no one will do anything wrong, or than there will be no rules that will be enforced, is to misunderstand the subject.
  • Guest's picture
    MassOutrage (not verified) 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I did not like this article, as it does not account for the unstated rules most anarchists don't admit to having as their basic presuppositions, nor does it account for the reality of basic human nature. It reduces complex human interactions to a level of mechanical functioning that does not reflect how real life is lived by anyone. Its premise is stated simply: "We may say, that anarchy means 'no ruler' or 'no rules.' That is, that under anarchy no one is permitted to openly rule over another person, though people will still create rules for the use of their property by others." Well, that is a bunch of rules to start. We must respect the property of others, and the person of others, which is two rules. in fact, those two principles are the foundation of all western law. Of course, the tyrants have added all sorts of legal positivism to those basic premises, but they remain the theoretical foundation of our legal system. The article implies that a number of other unstated laws are required to operate a system of anarchy. For example, the respect of other persons for those two major rules is a third major rule. What do we do with those who stubbornly refuse to show respect for persons or property. The anarchist will have to hire someone to violently coerce the outlaw to conform to the rules. Now, we don't have anarchy anymore. Frankly, this whole system is constructed on a mechanistic view of humanity which is unrealistic. Its author must not live near any chaotic city areas where conscienceless sociopaths abound, and untold numbers of others have major mental disorders which dispose them to do violence to the person and property of others. It just won't work. In my city, the police can barely respond to the murders and lesser personal and property crimes fast enough. After nearly twenty years observing the real world in the legal system, I adhere to the Ron Paul position of small government. Oh, the illogic, says the writer. Who decides the rules? How can we have government if it inevitably expands into tyranny? Fair questions. Well, someone has to have some rules, and the anarchist actually believes in them, while not admitting it. The Paul position is more honest, because it acknowledges the human tendency to tyranny, but doesn't try to pretend that people are mechanical beings. Doing all this is a messy, illogical, unsatisfying business, but no alternative is yet available until humans become perfect at loving their neighbor.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    This, too, in my opinion, is worthy of contemplating, "...equality means equal rights, and rights can be equal only if there is no ruler, which means anarchy." All-in-all, a 'very good' treatise.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Now let us see how a distribution of rights can be deduced from free will. If a value from a bit of the physical world is not claimed by anyone and a first valuer changes or preserves it to serve his value, he makes a claim of ownership or right to that value. In the absence of any later valuers making contrary claims, the claims of first valuers would automatically and naturally result in an assignment of ownership..." ~ Three Arguments for Anarchism by Richard D. Fuerle How refreshing! The author of this article seems to actually understand that having a "right" to something, means having a "just claim" to that thing; and this holds true whether it be one's life, liberty or physical property. If we could only get this one message through to the human inhabitants of planet Earth, imagine the positive impact it could have toward the goal of peaceful coexistence, the world over.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    That was actually pretty good. Makes you want to punch those smug apparatchiks in the face.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 35 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Stop sacrificing innocent Afghans.