Recent comments

  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 50 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 50 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 50 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 50 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 50 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 50 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Stop sacrificing innocent Afghans.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Enough already. Bring 'em back, discharge them and set them toward gainful private employment.
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    'But the likelihood of an inflationary spiral in a sluggish economy with a high rate of unemployment appears to be very low." This is true to a degree, but it also means the only thing keeping the U.S. economy from entering an inflationary spiral is continued stagnation. The mountains of cash on the books with the banks, plus any additional money created by further rounds of quantitative easing, make such a spiral an inevitability.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Good article, despite getting a tad fluffy at the end: "But ours is a revolution that... should require no violence." Even if you think so, it would be prudent to arm yourself, and learn the art of war as much as you can. Just in case your prediction was off.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    A dumb, collectivist argument.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Articles like this make me yawn. They are just so much bullshit.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 50 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I agree, but we shouldn't discount too much what happened. The ruling class still had to adjust to the new power shown by protesters. The people learned they do have at least some leverage. And there are certain to be more developments.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    "One cannot remain an anarchist and take part in...government." ~ Carl Watner "Governments are imaginary organizations populated by voluntary participants." "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist." "Since an idea must occupy the bottommost level of the natural hierarchical structure, all imaginary hierarchies—which necessarily need human participation in order to function—must be strictly voluntary. We can choose to participate in these imaginary structures if we like, but we can also choose to ignore or abandon them." ~ Excerpted from A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo
  • Guest's picture
    Temujin (not verified) 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    I wondered the same thing ^^^ And this: "It's a big loss" for the SEALs, one of the officials said. "The numbers are high." The official didn't have anything to say about the tens of thousands of Afghans killed over the past decade. Guess those numbers aren't high enough.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    It is always good to remember what Seneca the Younger said, ″Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.″
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    "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." ~ CNN World Hmmmm, should we believe this "military official"?
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Duh.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 2 years 50 weeks ago
    Shutter Sisters
    Web link Michael Kleen
    I thought that four of the five pix on the front page were utterly boring. Maybe I'll start a photo blog for men only; I'm guessing it would garner higher quality shots.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I have read a few articles relating to this subject, and I have noticed that the majority of comments come down on the side of the government. Public safety, contaminated lemonade, no exceptions, etc. All they need to do is hype one case—real or fabricated—of people getting salmonella from a lemonade stand and you'll see just about all the rest of the sheep swing over to the side of government. So considering the publicity this issue is currently receiving, I would not be surprised to see a lemonade-stand salmonella hoo-ha before the end of the summer. The "government knows best" meme shall not be challenged.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Her Dad should have posted a caveat emptor sign on her lemonade stand, you know, to warn would-be-buyers; "This LEMONADE STAND has not been inspected by the HEALTH DEPARTMENT, and this four-year-old girl did not, and WILL NOT, apply for a PERMIT. FREEDOM-LOVING INDIVIDUALS, LINE UP HERE".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    The title of this article, alone, should serve to clarify, in most people's minds, the difference between "civil" and "natural" rights, unless, of course, one believes that simply because they are a member of the human race they have a just claim to a "free cell phone". Disclaimer: This, of course, does not apply to individuals who believe they have no "just claim", i.e. "right" to anything.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I wonder how much of this is fueled by Big Brother's desire to keep an eye on people? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Some petty bureaucrat must have realized that millions of poor people were walking about without personal tracking devices.)
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Protecting the public from non-approved thirst quenching.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 50 weeks ago
    The Right to Travel
    Web link Michael Dunn
    G'day Michael Dunn, Firstly, you may want to edit your tag lines a bit better, incorrect spelling (crimainal, priveledge, dauhter, e.g.) detracts from credibility. The author of this article quotes the Free Enterprise Society: "Government, in requiring the people to file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel." Correction: I believe that if you check into it, your government requires persons to apply for driver's licenses...and is therefore not violating the peoples’ common law right to travel. Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis – Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. – Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914), “Maxim,” page 2136 Then this author quotes this, presumably as part of his defense of the "right to travel": "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125. And, who gets to decide what "due process of law under the 5th Amendment" is??? That's right, the fox guarding the hen house does.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 50 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    "Authority is yours to delegate or to keep, and no one can [rightfully] take it from you. Revoke your delegation of authority..." ~ tzo [Emphasis added] Declaration of Independence Formal Notice of Individual Secession Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, copyright 1991, page 940 When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for a man to dissolve the bands which have connected him with a body politic, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature and Nature’s God entitle him, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that he should declare the cause(s) which impel him to the separation. ″We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that [is to say] they are endowed by their Creator with certain Inalienable Rights″[1], "rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental"[2], that among these Natural Rights are Life, Liberty, and justly acquired Property, "together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can"[3]. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men[4], deriving their just powers from the Consent of the governed, – and whenever any Government becomes destructive of these Inalienable Rights, every man has the Lawful Authority to Withdraw his Consent, and to return to the separate and equal station to which the Law of Nature[5] and Nature’s God entitles him. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be Seceded from for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that men are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by Withdrawing from the governments to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to Secede from such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of this Man; and such is now the necessity that constrains this Man to Secede from this Government. The history of the United States Government, rather than securing, has a record of repeated injuries to, and usurpation of, Man’s Inalienable Rights, all having as their direct objective the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over men. I, Robert Wilfred, therefore, being a Lawful Man, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of my intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the Creator of the heavens, the earth and the seas, and all that in them is, solemnly publish and declare, this Man is, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent, that he is Absolved from all Allegiance to the United States, and any and all States under the authority of the United States, and that all political connection between him and the aforementioned States, is and ought to be Totally Dissolved; and that as a Free and Independent Man, I have full Power to Arm and Protect Myself, my Loved Ones, and my justly acquired Possessions, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Trade, Possess Land, Travel Freely and to do all other Acts and Things which Free and Independent Men may of Natural Right do. ******************************************************************************** [1] Excerpted from: The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America [2] Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, copyright 1991, page 1057 [3] "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." ~ Samuel Adams, signer of the American Declaration of Independence [4] “Our legislators are not sufficiently apprized of the rightful limits of their power; that their true office is to declare and enforce only our natural rights . . . and to take none of them from us. No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him . . . and the idea is quite unfounded, that on entering into society we give up any natural right.” ~ Thomas Jefferson (c.1816), author of the American Declaration of Independence [5] The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 Notice to the Agent is Notice to the Principal; Notice to the Principal is Notice to the Agent Amen and amen. Authors Signature ________________________________ First Witness ____________________________________ Second Witness __________________________________
  • JoshuaPettigrew's picture
    JoshuaPettigrew 2 years 50 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Adam Curry on the No Agenda Show podcast this past Sunday claims to be in possession of some classified TSA docs that were passed to him. According to him, TSA employees only get four hours of training for this! Four hours!!
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 50 weeks ago
    Fourth Ammendment
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I'm not making excuses for the professional perverts, but honestly, why are so many Americans still flying? And why, oh why would ANYONE bring a child to an airport?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 51 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Good article, Alex! "...Put your shoes on then, if you will. Liberty, our destination, awaits..." There are a few of us here who have already done just that. We've declared ourselves sovereign. Make no mistake: we did not petition parasitic state agents for "our freedom". And we did not move to Vermont -- or is it New Hampshire??? -- (then keep on referring to "our founding --or is it foundling --fathers" with tears of patriotism in our eyes). We just became sovereign. The State (employees thereof, since "The State" is an abstraction) immediately became just like the guys and gals who lurk in dark alleys intent upon mugging and robbing -- pains in the ass if you let 'em get the drop on you; but relatively harmless if you take such necessary precautions to avoid them whenever possible. But all the Ron Pauls in Texas could not pursuade us to go back into the voting and election games put on by state factotums to create the illusion of "consent of the governed" among the masses. Freedom is not that illusive. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 51 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "We need only walk away from the leviathan in sufficient numbers, and it will fall, never to return." ~ Alex R. Knight III Good luck on the "no violence", "sufficient numbers", and "never to return". At the risk of sounding very negative and with all due respect, Alex R. Knight III, I believe history shows us that the Powers-That-Be will seldom, if ever, truly give up their seat of power, with "no violence", just look at our own so-called Civil War; also, I fear that if we wait for "sufficient numbers", "the end of all such constructs" may never happen, which is why Gandhi said, "You must be the change you wish to see in the world", and lastly, "never to return" is, in my opinion, only a "fantasy".
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Caveat
    Page tzo
    Thanks again, Tzo, for hitting the nail on the head without bruising nearby fingers.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 51 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen, thanks for putting together another presentation of the libertarian-love connection. It might be interesting for you to follow in the coming months a new school project that we libertarian/anarchists (not LP) in San Diego are pursuing. It is a form of learner-directed school that emphasizes internal motivation instead of rewards and punishments. On FaceBook until we build the web site, we have a group called Summum Bonum Learning Center (https://www.facebook.com/groups/191576390889811). It is a new kind of alternative school we are planning here, and I believe it is unique in the learning and libertarian communities. It is an alternative school that uses much of the good aspects of the Summerhill and Sudbury schools, but without the coercive democratic voting aspects of both. The principals are all libertarians and trainers and former educators. Like you, we are deeply interested in healthy psychological perceptions and communication -- including the observations of the non-violent communication method of Marshall Rosenberg (http://www.cnvc.org/). I'm putting together the business plan, which will be revealed at Libertopia in San Diego here in October 2011 (http://libertopia.org/). Like you, we have found the toxic psychological crippling of our society affects libertarians just as much as the coercivists of the left and right, and our group at Cafe Libertalia, which hosts a weekly Mises Mondays discussion, has many members that are hip to nonviolent communication. It's good to see so many people getting hip to this perception.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    G'day rita, I still fail to see why you say, "The only people prohibition was ever meant to protect were paranoid whites from the minorities they oppressed and certain politicians from well-deserved obscurity." I am currently of the opinion that "prohibition" of drugs is to "protect" high drug prices [1], since a blind man can see that that is precisely what the so-called "War on Drugs" does. The product is difficult to acquire or produce, dangerous to handle or not easily available legally, if at all. If goods are illegal, such as some drugs, their prices can be vastly inflated over the costs of production. ~ Wikipedia "Prohibition" obviously does not stop the selling, buying, or using them, (as anyone with half a mind can learn from the history of the Eighteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution). It may, in fact, have the opposite effect; it may encourage it, particularly with the so-called "minorities"[2], due to the high profits. ____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] "The United Nations has reported that the retail market value of illegal drugs is $321.6 billion USD." [2] I believe that the "paranoid whites" are actually the minority race of the world population, and slowly(?) becoming the minority race of the Unites States.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    Yes, Suverans, I suppose I was. I should have said "the prohibition of drugs, including that 'noble' experiment, alcohol prohibition."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    I am reminded both by Rita and you--Suverans2 of this: Thaddeus Russell tells a renegade tale to Lew Rockwell. Professor Russell’s new Renegade History of the United States speaks volumes to the eternal conflict between those who hold power and all the ordinary peoples. The Founding Fathers wanted the British regime without the King. The wonderfully anarchic culture in the colonies alarmed them to the core [including the drinking and carousing in the pubs] of the whites and non. The abolitionists, who were deeply Puritanical, felt that slaves were too free in some ways, and Reconstruction was the first Afghanistan – the push of New England to control the entire world. Thad Russell sees Obama as the throwback to the worst of the Progressives, desiring total control over peoples’ lives. Meanwhile, the regular left misses or ignores the dark side. "Thaddeus Russell has broken free of the ideological prisons of Left and Right to give us a real, flesh-and-blood history of America, filled with untold stories and unlikely heroes. No waving incense before the sacred personages of Washington, D.C. here. This wonderful book follows the best American traditions of iconoclasm and – what is the same thing – truth-telling." ~ Thomas E. Woods, Jr., author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History| http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/01/26/184-the-founding-... PS For them who followed in the footsteps of the control freaks it's ALL about "controlling" us. They can and do print money but rather rape the pension funds of those who work for them in addition. Why? Because they are plain vicious!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 51 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Ron is banging his head against the wall, but I did find myself laughing and applauding.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    G'day rita, "The only people prohibition was ever meant to protect were paranoid whites from the minorities they oppressed and certain politicians from well-deserved obscurity." ~ rita You lost me there, rita. I have no idea how "prohibition" was, (or is), "meant to protect...paranoid whites from the minorities they oppressed and certain politicians from well-deserved obscurity". Are you referring to drugs, as if that is the only thing your government "prohibits" you from doing? Exactly? Withdraw from membership in the group. "We the People, living under natural law, do have the [natural] 'right' to secede from ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT and will continue to do so until our last breath." ~ sc 1000 "I would suggest using the Declaration of Independence as a good place to start....just update the text with modern phrasing [and personalize it] and insert appropriate examples of tyrannical abuses. Whether or not an armed conflict would result, would depend on the players involved." ~ Tuppence [Bracketed information added] _______________________________________________________________________________ Quotes taken from: http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=161120.0
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    The only people prohibition was ever meant to protect were paranoid whites from the minorities they oppressed and certain politicians from well-deserved obscurity. That nonsense about protecting me from my own choices can easily be disproved with a little research into the nature of illegal drugs -- most of them are neither dangerous nor addictive -- and drug arrests, most of which involve a drug that has never, ever killed anyone and a level of violence that would be unacceptable from American soldiers in any other part of the world. That said, please explain exactly how one "leaves the circus."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 51 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Re: John deLaubenfels's "I've watched Kevin Carson get more and more outlandish in his condemnations of IP, but this has GOT to take the cake. I guess, according to Carson and his wild-eyed friends, I'M a murderer, because I support copyright. What incredible nonsense!" John brings up the issue of what IS productive and what IS destructive? And takes it personally. Is he a "murderer"? Or intellectually dishonest or still catching up with new ideas? He does not state what in the article makes him--John--a murderer? But then he does not support his assertion but leaves it out there--by implication--that it is "incredibly" obvious. Let's talk about "copyright" since that's what he refers to (I thought the article was about "patents") but he did not address that. Either way I will touch on both. I am not in the fashion industry but I do enjoy the open ecology of creativity--innovation and its modeling--that results from NO copyright. And the riffing off the zeitgeist process. Elevating things to cover our naked bodies into something considered art... Sort of mundane? Perhaps let us proceed a little deeper.... Johanna Blakley studies the impact of jokes, food, automobiles, furniture, magic tricks, hair, open source, tattoos, fire works, rules of games, and the smell of perfume on our world. Compare the Gross Sales of those NON-IP industries Vs those with Intellectual Property. It aint pretty. One could say pretty ugly! "How a world without copyright would exist”? http://www.ted.com/talks/ johanna_blakley_lessons_from_fashion_s_free_culture.html Two different mindsets. Two different worlds. Nothing is absolutely original--we all ultimately stand on the shoulders of others--yet this turns out to be tremendously freeing from confusions about Independence and Dependence and what is actually productive and what is not (It does require some thinking....) Which leads into embracing Emulation... If You Believe in IP, How Do You Teach Others? Mises Daily: Monday, November 16, 2009 by Jeffrey A. Tucker http://mises.org/daily/3864 But if John think's Food and Autos are no big deal Then oh well...live and let live. Please go ahead and continue practicing copyright IP as it is, in the face of the emergence of alternatives that are Feeding and Transporting the world w/o IP. Next thingy on the subject of the article. Patents Want to say a walnut is good for you? No way! It cannot be patented so shut the fuck up says the FDA! It is good for too many things. Walnuts Are Drugs, Says FDA http://lewrockwell.com/tennant/tennant42.1.html If you think it's just walnuts that the FDA has a problem with watch them snack on this man's achievement and the terminal cancer patients he HAS brought back from the death sentences and worse (if that is possible). This is what big pharma PATENT hungry govt/biz Statism has wrought. This goes back to the 70's. June 22, 2011 Fighting Cancer, Inc. Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 22, 2011 08:44 AM Stanislaw Burzynski, MD, PhD—a Houston physician and biochemist—has saved the lives of many "terminal" cancer patients through alternative treatments. Naturally, he was targeted by the FDA, agent of big pharma. This is his amazing and inspiring story. The movie, btw, is very much worth watching. (Thanks to Marian Tiberiu Vintilescu) http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/ archives/90136.html Cheers! PS So let us add to the evidence presented by Kevin Carson on IP and the "murder"--if there is malice aforethought--of a division of labor society (which consist of individuals)....
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Bitcoin Cannot Fail
    Web link Mike Powers
    Thank you, Greg.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    The "connection" most "bozos" don't see, (or refuse to see), is this: Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. Care to guess what one of the main "disadvantages" is? "Allegiance", which is, "Obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives." And, to complete the circle, a major part of the "protection" that "government gives", is ____________? You guessed it, "prohibition", which is really not much more than "protection" from yourself, in an effort to make your life "bozo-proof". Obedience. Compliance with a command, prohibition, or known law and rule of duty prescribed. The performance of what is required or enjoined by authority, or the abstaining from what is prohibited, in compliance with the command or prohibition. So, if you are tired of being a "bozo", leave the "circus". ;)
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Incompetence At Best
    Web link Westernerd
    The destruction of human life and liberty isn't an "unintended consequence" of the drug war -- it's the WHOLE POINT. Of course our so-called "leaders" don't want it to end. It's giving them exactly what they want.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Since when did the "Journal of Liberty" have a drug exclusion? What an absolutely revolting article. Maybe I'll keep it around in case I ever ingest poison and need to induce vomiting.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 51 weeks ago
    Food Tyrants
    Web link Westernerd
    "The progressive campaign against obesity relies on the assumption that the individual no longer owns his or her own body" HELLO! Can you spell "prohibition"? Can you spell "drug war"? How about "mandatory substance abuse treatment"? For decades, the vast majority of Americans have sat in fat, dumb, happy silence while literally millions of us were harrassed, arrested, imprisoned and gunned down in cold blood on the assumption that "society," aka "our government," owns our bodies. Oh, but threaten to take away their Quarter-pounders, and listen to them wail. And you think even one of these bozos sees a connection? Not freakin' likely. This would be funny if it weren't so tragic.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Found a quote by Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones that rita will, no doubt, agree with. lol “I’ve never had a problem with drugs. I’ve had problems with the police.”