Recent comments

  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Homeschooling Is Easy!
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Hi, livemike: Could you translate that? I really don't know what you are trying to communicate?
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 7 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    This is an excellent article, Mr. Diehl, describing the state schooling system and its damaging effects. I do, however, have one nit to pick. You say: "The students are made to sacrifice a major part of the natural maturing process so that they will learn the subjects deemed appropriate by society and their teachers." It is representatives of the state, not society, that determine what subjects students must learn. Conflating society with the state’s minions is part of what we are schooled to do; and must recognize in order to overcome.
  • morristhewise's picture
    morristhewise 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Most Libyans have become unmanageable and are no longer wanted in a peaceful oil producing nation. Without government support they will relocate to Algeria,Egypt,Tunisia, and Niger. The sooner the better.
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Homeschooling Is Easy!
    Page Paul Bonneau
    You mean conveying knowledge to an individual organism or small group of organisms that's evolved over millions of years to acquire knowledge and over at least hundreds of thousands of years to be taught by an older member of it's species in small groups is easy? Just like any basic understanding of the evolutionary history of mankind would say it was? Gee who'd thunk it? Well anyone who doesn't listen to The Official Story (TM).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Jesus Christ, Pirate
    Web link Michael Dunn
    This may seem off topic, but it seems an appropriate place, in my opinion, to point out some interesting things. First, Christ, is not Jesus'[sic] last name. Second, he was not Jesus[sic] Christ of Nazareth, he was Jesus[sic], the Christ, Nazarite, i.e. the anointed nazarite. And, what is a Nazarite? H5139 נזר נזיר nâzı̂yr nâzir naw-zeer', naw-zeer' From H5144; separate, that is, consecrated (as prince, a Nazarite; hence (figuratively from the latter) an unpruned vine (like an unshorn Nazirite) ~ Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary The italicized, blue words in the above definition are the closest English synonyms Dr. James Strong could find for the word Naziyr/ Nazarite, i.e. separate, prince, unpruned For we have found this man [Saul, of Tarsus] a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the NazaritesG3480 ... G3480 Ναζωραῖος Nazōraios Thayer Definition: Nazarite = “one separated” ~ Thayer's Greek/English Lexicon of the New Testament Yahushua [JESUS] was, arguably, the first "individual secessionist", teaching "individual secession". "If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you."
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Homeschooling Is Easy!
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks, Paul. I'll have to insert a few words into that sentence in the future to keep it strictly accurate. It guess it should read: “For many busy parents, home-schooling is not 'supposed to be' an option – despite the extraordinary success of home-schooled children. Many parents do not 'think they' have the time, skills, and resources needed by their children to flourish.”
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 7 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Vahram: Excellent first article! Although full of many good insights, in particular, I enjoyed the following observation: "Ultimately, the passive learners become highly refined specialists on one particular sliver of reality, while largely ignoring the rest of existence and passing off all other knowledge as someone else's field and responsibility; nothing is integrated with past knowledge and the student excels only at regurgitating and applying professionally the same conclusions that were presented to him during his schooling." The impact of this over-specialized form of thinking/living is evident in so many negative ways in our culture. As a result of this sliver-specialization, we have few well-rounded generalists who can "put it all together." That's why you have so many brilliant businesspeople, inventors, and writers who parrot the statist status quo. After achieving success in a tiny realm, they still hold onto the ridiculous political pablum of submission and dominance and violence -- despite their other achievements. So when interviewed about anything outside their narrow field of interest, they can be counted on to parrot the usual nostrums of trust in authority, etc., and the rest of the sheeple nod their heads -- reassured that yet another "expert" has judged that the current political obscenity is indeed the best of all possible worlds. Thanks for posting!
  • AlephT's picture
    AlephT 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The war on terror hasn't been very well liked, and the CIA's extraordinary rendition program hasn't helped matters. According to the Guardian, it has proven rewarding for certain United States businesses. A case names some businesses that contracted to transport terror suspects to torture centers. See it here: CIA extraordinary rendition aid linked to private US companies.
  • Guest's picture
    annacrasto (not verified) 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    i just took a insurance plan from a reputed health insurance agents, i feel like i am secured to a certain extent.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    "The mayor of Filettino [Luca Sallari] has loftier aspirations: He wants his town in the hills east of Rome — population 598 — to become an independent state under a monarch." ~ Luca Sallari, the current mayor of Filettino Gee, I wonder who the first "monarch" would be? “It’s everyone’s dream to be a prince.” ~ Luca Sallari And, who, exactly, would be a "prince", "in a state under a monarch"? MONARCHY, n. [Gr. See Monarch.] 1. A state or government in which the supreme power is lodged in the hands of a single person. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language PRINCE, n. prins. [L. princeps.] 1. In a general sense, a sovereign; the chief and independent ruler of a nation or state. Thus when we speak of the princes of Europe, we include emperors and kings. (Ibid.)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Paul Hein
    Paul, you posted this a few days ago and I'm just getting around to commenting. Nice piece! Few call into question statements such as, "Texas supports Arizona's immigration laws...". I don't support any redneck goons a thousand miles east of me ramming egregious police state edicts through supposed "representatives" and having them signed by some little lady who might just should be home with her family. No sir ree Bob. You were able to show how by legerdemain this kind of fallacy becomes nationalistic buffoonery. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    Roach: "...I just don't think that all human actions boils down to economics,..." All human actions may not boil down to economics, but Mises seemed to believe all economics boiled down to Human Action: http://mises.org/Books/humanaction.pdf You make some good points, Roach -- especially in regard to your Gr. I perhaps need to peruse Robert Taylor's piece more thoroughly to uncover the innuendo you apparently think I overlooked. JULIET: 'Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself, though not a Montague. What's Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, Nor arm, nor face, nor any other part Belonging to a man. O, be some other name! What's in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call'd, Retain that dear perfection which he owes Without that title. Romeo, doff thy name, And for that name which is no part of thee Take all myself. From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1600: (I once heard Shakespeare wrote this as a snide joke about the Rose Theater -- competitor to his Globe theater -- which is rumored to have had certain odoriferous characteristics due to poor 17th century attempts at "inside plumbing"). But whether we're debating "capitalism" or "Gr", the odor probably does not change that much. The idea of a free voluntary exchange of goods and services unfettered by parasites of state still beats anything I've ever studied regarding economics. Some dare call it "capitalism". Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    "what this article, and other works like it, is attempting with the term "capitalism" (a term that the vast majority of the world's population has associated with the current economic system for at least a hundred years) is essentially the same, and will negatively effect growing ideas about actual free-market thought." This holds true for all variations of the word "anarch", ("The author of confusion; one who excites revolt."[1]) also. _______________________________________________________________________________ [1] Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • chris.baden's picture
    chris.baden 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Be Free
    Page Mark Davis
    Great article Mark!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 8 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    The visitors from another planet would conclude we all have a taste for farce, for the absurd.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    There's no cure for stupid. "A fool and his money are soon parted."
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Now THESE are the people who ought to end up hanging from lamp posts.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    It gets worse -- a large percentage of people who use pain meds containing Tylenol do NOT do so under medical supervision. More and more doctors, physician's assistants and nurse practicioners have set themselves up as the keepers of our souls and refuse to prescribe effective pain relief for patients who have a "history" or a "potential" for "drug abuse" -- which isn't even a medical term but a political one. Predictably, this has given rise to a thriving black market in pain meds, the most common of which are Vicodin and Percoset, another medicine laced with poison. Drug warriors are evil incarnate, but at least their motives are clear. What's not clear is why the medical profession has allowed itself to become the state's executioners.
  • roach's picture
    roach 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    with respect, this article that i am responding to, the one that you have exclaimed is "nice work", is indeed "arguing about the meaning of a word". the article itself is arguing over the meaning of capitalism. so is the "nice work" that you have complimented also supporting the "marxist global agenda"? or is it only when i challenge your half of the cold war dialectic that i am? if you are interested in "stepping outside the dialectic", then maybe you should ponder the idea that economics is not as simple as a marxist/capitalist dialectic. many of marx's "ideas" were taken from proudhon's work anyway, and proudhon attempted to create a mutual credit banking system. mutualism, the original anarchism. i do not believe that the free market is inherently bad or some other rubbish. i just don't think that all human actions boils down to economics, and if that's true, then not everything should be considered as capital, nor held account to the market. nor do i think that capitalism is a synonym for free-market. it has a historical meaning which is far different. you live in society, and that means you have to interact with other beings, and in doing so you have to use viable mediums. capital is one such medium, sometimes useful, sometimes not. language is another one, sometimes useful, sometimes not. i can call my car my "gr" all i want, and my friends will eventually get my meaning, but most people will just think i'm dyslexic or slightly off, and will generally ignore what i say when i'm referring to my "gr". what this article, and other works like it, is attempting with the term "capitalism" (a term that the vast majority of the world's population has associated with the current economic system for at least a hundred years) is essentially the same, and will negatively effect growing ideas about actual free-market thought.
  • roach's picture
    roach 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    edited ^comment meant as a reply. apologies
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    Roach, after reading your post I wish I had included in my post just above yours the following quote from the Hegelian Dialectic review: Hegel's dialectic is the tool which manipulates us into a frenzied circular pattern of thought and action. Every time we fight for or defend against an ideology we are playing a necessary role in Marx and Engels' grand design to advance humanity into a dictatorship of the proletariat. The synthetic Hegelian solution to all these conflicts can't be introduced unless we all take a side that will advance the agenda. The Marxist's global agenda is moving along at breakneck speed. The only way to completely stop the privacy invasions, expanding domestic police powers, land grabs, insane wars against inanimate objects (and transient verbs), covert actions, and outright assaults on individual liberty, is to step outside the dialectic. This releases us from the limitations of controlled and guided thought. http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm We can debate back and forth all day over how we perceive Noam Chomsky might have defined "capitalism" and it won't change Robert's defense of a free and open market unfettered by "regulation" from agents of state. Arguing over the meaning of a word indeed "supports the Marxist's global agenda". Without state agents' interference (that is, in a truly free environment) free individuals will save and/or borrow the resource needed to produce a product or service. Call it what you will, most refer to it as capital. If the product is good and the entrepreneur masterful and efficient in his manufacturing and his assessment of the marketplace, everyone benefits. He does not lobby "legislators" of state for tariffs, laws or embargoes in his favor to handicap or eliminate competition and artificially raise prices and profit margins. All business monopolies are the creation of politicians. The free market filters away the ingredients that give rise to monopolies and unfair business practices. In the absence of politics, capitalism (unless you're simply bound to be averse to that term) is honorable and forthright. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Anyone who feels a need to whine about agents of states murdering and assassinating, "a practice prohibited by U.S. law..." should be reading John Hasnas' "The Myth of the Rule of Law": http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm Samj
  • roach's picture
    roach 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    wow. it's hard to know where to start with what i think is wrong with this piece (you probably don't care, but i'll try and tell you anyway, since someone decided to just post a link to this peice under a comment i made about real historical capitalism, instead of actually engaging with anything i said). you quote noam chomsky, in an article defending capitalism. have you ever bothered looking at chomsky's views on capitalism? or is he up in those "ivory towers" expect for the two seconds that you find him useful? lemme help you with that. he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist" (that's a codeword for anarchist… but the kind of anarchism that has an actual history dating back further than 1960. libertarian socialism has been a synonym for anarchism since the 1850's). here's a quote from chomsky.. "In a capitalist system, you don’t have any rights. And in fact when modern capitalism developed in the early 19th century – this is post-Adam Smith or anything like that, but Ricardo and Malthus and so on – their principle was pretty simple: you don’t have any rights. The only rights a person has are what they can gain in the labor market. And beyond that, you’ve no right to live, you’ve no right to survive. If you can’t make out on the labor market, go somewhere else. And in fact they could go somewhere else, they could come here and exterminate the population and settle here. But in Europe, you couldn’t do that, so some remnants of the whole feudal system and conservative structures and so on did lead to – after all, Europe had huge labor movements, the German social democratic party grew out of very powerful movements, and they just forced the development of what became social market systems.". you'll notice above that chomsky is not referring to 'mistaking the american system for capitalism', he is describing the real history of capitalism and it's consequences, including massive popular movements that do not like being held to the whims of 'the market'. it is what capitalism has always meant. people have been saying that "capitalism is violent" for almost two hundred years now. it is not a new thing to say. just because you didn't notice it before doesn't effect that. you should realize that the term "capitalism" itself has been used in an insulting way by the left since the left invented in the early 1800's, when french socialists referred to it as 'capitalisme'. it's pretty much always been a reference to 'fat cats with cigars', both theoretically and practically. i know these aren't things one learns in an average school system, but they are true. it was actually french radicals that disagree your understanding of politics and economics that popularized the term 'capitalism', yet you seem to be mad that the same type of people are still using it in the same exact way. so let's go back to the play that seems to come out of the official propertarian handbook (i've heard it many times). "why can't we just go by the definition in the dictionary?". ok. lemme get my dictionary from nicaragua. i bet it'll say something a little longer and more historically articulate than your definition. or, as Chomsky would say, "well, who wrote that definition, and who wrote that dictionary? did it suit their needs to talk up capitalism? are they themselves capitalists? who gets to approve the definition?" i bet you'd be unhappy if i said that we should agree on 'socialism' as defined by a dictionary written by anarchists and socialists during the heyday of printing anarchist materials. and you also refer to yourself as an 'anarchist', and as far as many dictionaries are concerned, "anarchy" is synonymous with chaos, though i would think you would disagree. and don't tell me that we should use the dictionaries that you prefer because "we all agree that they're right" or some other such nonsense. by the same logic we should accept that capitalism is unpleasant for many people. the whole point of your rant was that you don't like how everyone supposedly muddles the name of something you hold in high regard. another problem with your idea of capitalism, is this "voluntary exchange". what about just acquisition? how can an exchange be free and pure if it is an exchange of something that was stolen beforehand? if i steal your car, the give it to my kid, when my kid sells it, it still wouldn't be a "voluntary exchange", because you never volunteered to let go of it in the first place. The U.S. sure didn't nicely ask for the land it currently sits on (yes, that effects all the land titles it has issued over it's history). barrack gold and others aren't nicely asking papuans to move away from the fertile parts of their land that they use to feed themselves so that a chemical hell can be unleashed to melt the rock away, leaving mercury laced water and gold. the original corporations from england didn't ask for any of the many many things that they stole and then sold, creating the economic foundations of the colonies. something usually only becomes "capital" after it is taken from the original possessor (who likely valued it according to their own needs) by it's first title holding property owner (who values it according to the market), thus transitioning it from its many dimensional capacity to it's one dimensional reference point as 'x amount of capital' beyond all of this, you should also stop being so one dimensional as to think that any "ism" can be reduced to an eight word statement. it's a middle school level analysis. even high school asks for more. it's as ridiculous as boiling down the complex, 150 year old political theory of anarchism into "anti-state". Even old school anarchists at least boiled it down to 'fighting against the triumvirate of the state, capitalism, and the church', and then kept describing what they meant for another 20 minutes or 3 pages (depending on the format). "ism"s have histories too, and knowing and understanding those histories is just as important towards understanding the theory as knowing and understanding the theorists. so i think i'll stick to continuing to use the term 'capitalism' as i have been doing so, as a reference to a political-social-economic system that has a long and violent history, including the enclosure process, colonization, enslavement, and world wars.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    A little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing, especially when the only true goal of the one wielding it is profit.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    Back on my side of the court already? LOL Comin' back to you, my friend, with a "back-spin". :> In-alien-able does not mean that you cannot lose them through consent or forfeiture. You, perhaps, didn't see this on my August 31st post above ("back-spin"): "Our natural rights, "rights antecedent to all earthly governments", are in-alien-able, (not in-a-lien-able). In-alien-able means, as 2nd President of the U.S., John Adams, so succinctly put it, they are "rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws"...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Maybe I don't know how to read, but it appears to me that Alexander Cockburn thinks the 9/11 conspiracists, which he packaged along with JFK and RFK conspiricists, have NOT been "vindicated", i.e. proven right.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "I agree, Semmes..." I would add, however, that the evidence put forth by the Architect and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is more logical, and therefor more credible, than that of the NIST and the Warren Comission reports, combined.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    And, apparently, the enormity of the lie makes it credible.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    It is difficult to argue sensibly on this. "Government", by it's very nature, is conspiracy of the most gigantic and heinous variety. The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam
  • Semmes's picture
    Semmes 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I have spent at lot of time. I am in the choir. The NIST report is as good as the Warren Comission report. I was only trying to say that Cockburn is a tool. I only addressed some of his points. I have seen otherwise intelligent people see the BBC footage where the reporter/newsreader announces WTC 7 has collapsed 15 or 20 minutes before it goes down. These intelligent people don't believe their own lying eyes and do cartwheels trying to explain why that can't mean what it means. People are so brainwashed and locked into their fairy tale world view you can't even spoon feed them facts in small doses without the cognitive dissidence creating an angry reaction. The real importance of 911 is about the Wars we are fighting that have bankrupted the country, the rise of the Police State here and loss of our liberty. I guess the real story here is about slaves that make their own chains.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I agree, Semmes, spend just a little time looking at some of the non-governmental research that has gone into 9/11 and one will come away with extreme skepticism regarding the gubbermints explanations. Then add to that that Fires Have Never Caused (any other) Skyscrapers to Collapse and one would have to be much more than "stupid or sloppy" to dismiss ONE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FORTY-EIGHT architects and engineers, i.e. non-conspiracy theorists, "willing to put their professional reputations on the line without payment", who apparently think that it was an "inside job".
  • Semmes's picture
    Semmes 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The way I analyzed 911 and all the stories is as if it were something I was going to invest my money in. Whom are the players, who is putting out information and explanations. Who do they work for or connected with? What is their agenda? Who are the winners and losers in this situation. Why is Cockburn quoting the opinion of an expert connected to Wolfowitz while dismissing the opinions of at least 1500 who were willing to put their professional reputations on the line without payment as merely a small percentage of engineers world wide. He states that a huge crew would have had to enter the buildings during regular business hours to wire it up even though it is a known fact that in the weeks prior on the weekends there was "elevator maintenance" with large numbers of people with materials going in and out requiring the shut down of security. There was a group of Israeli Art students actually living in one of the towers in the weeks prior. Cockburns' other expert is a aeronautical engineer and ordinance expert. So what. You would think he would consult one of the specialized companies in the world to are involved in large project demolition. The part about structural steel going soft is not worthy of comment. He also expresses the standard canard that no conspiracy could exist without somebody leaking it. What about the Manhattan project, D-Day, Gulf of Tonkin, assorted assassinations......on and on. The man is not stupid or sloppy, he is dishonest. He wouldn't get my money.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I'm skeptical of all the explanations I've heard. I'm not a believer in any of the official or unofficial conspiracy theories. And I'm especially skeptical of skepticism.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Cockburn is not anti-state by any means so as I read him, I keep this in mind. Beyond that, I do agree on the idea of state ineptness which he seems to prove somewhat giving several examples. But then on that same note I'd ask Cockburn why he therefore holds such trust in the institution of the State to begin with in the face of such ineptness proof. If they are that inept to even carry out simple conspiracies, how can they then be trusted to carry out simple gov't central planning and dare we not even speak of the more complex things? I respect Cockburn and Counterpunch as it's a daily read for me along with STR but this one had elements that left me scratching my head. And I don't subscribe to the many 9/11 theories (I think the damn things collapsed eg no explosives) but I'm not closed minded to consider the many questions. I mean I do have to acknowledge the longshot odds of 2 planes hitting these building in such a way as for both to fail and come down in the same way. I do think it beat the odds but I don't discount at all people who question that. I see that as a healthy thing unlike Cockburn who as I see it right now would disagree. Would 10 years after Pearl Harbor have Cockburn slamming Dec. 7th conspiracies of FDR knowing when 60 years later he admits FDR probably did know? What will a Cockburn in 50 years say about 9/11? Why in 1951' you are a nutjob and now Cockburn's remarks are considered acceptable and even intelligent? Cockburn is fair in some criticisms of 9/11 theories and especially the rabidness of it's disciples. But I think what really scares the schitt out of Cockburn is the poll numbers of people who just no longer believe blindly what they are told by the State. This IMO is at the core of what panics Cockburn but then he can always turn that into a conspiracy to sell to the Counterpunch readers!
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Lawnmower man was cutting grass at 0430 when 99 percent of people are still sleeping rather than for the cutting itself. Misleading headline.
  • Semmes's picture
    Semmes 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Here we go with the big lie again. Cockburn holds his integrity cheap. He alludes to known mainstreamed governmental cover ups and conspiracies to gain trust and then puts out the neo-con bull shit. This article is pure disinformation. I hope he didn't sell out cheap or all least got the negatives and all the copies of the photographs. I suppose we should scrap our navy. One missile hit or as in WWII a Kamikaze hit and our ships will melt to the gunnel's.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    At 4:30 a.m. it's not a "good deed", it's idiocy. lol
  • Guest's picture
    joe barry (not verified) 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Great Depression
    Web link Don Stacy
    The promotion of the three primary Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) should come as no surprise. The government is the entity in everyday life that usually rewards venal, unprofessional and vicious behavior on the part of its apparatchiks because that is the primary means by which government gets things done." Weg mit der panik  
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 8 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    Ain't it the truth!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    Hmmm. So your position is that inalienables are alienable. Huh? right back atcha. :>
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    "Yes, I agree that one may delegate away rights completely and permanently if one desires. But it seems to me they remain his rights because if he ever changes his mind, it is his natural right to reclaim them." Huh? Isn't that a contradiction, tzo? Either you completely and permanently delegated them away, or you didn't; you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Not take anything from the "promisee"? I just had to delete everything I wrote. My EDITOR (wife) said it was too harsh. :)
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    Yes, I agree that one may delegate away rights completely and permanently if one desires. But it seems to me they remain his rights because if he ever changes his mind, it is his natural right to reclaim them. Do you believe that a lifetime contract of servitude should be enforceable? Even if voluntarily entered into, if the delegator of rights changed his mind it would become involuntary servitude. Can a contract justifiably enforce involuntary servitude? Per Rothbard, any contract that is based on a promise of future labor or goods is unenforceable, as a broken promise disappoints expectations but does not take anything from the "promisee." Frustrated expectations are not property trespasses. Of course if the "promisor (sp?)" accepted something up front in exchange for the promise, then he would owe the other what he accepted based on that promise. If I contract to give someone $1,000 in one year if he gives me $10 now, and I fail to deliver, I owe him $10 (plus interest, perhaps?).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    The above got posted twice, because STR was evidently down. And, rather than waste this space...(there's no "delete" option)... power (n.) c.1300, from Anglo-Fr. pouair, O.Fr. povoir, noun use of the infinitive, "to be able" ~ Online Etymology Dictionary Authority, literally means, the "condition or quality of being author"; and, what one creates, one has the right to control, which explains the STATE created personae[1]. Thus, one may simultaneously have the "authority", i.e. "the right to control", but not have the "power" to do so, i.e. not "...be able" to control. As Ron "Tater Salad" White so eloquently put it, "I Had the Right to Remain Silent...But I Didn't Have the Ability". And, the STATE can have the "power" to control you, without having "authority" to do so. As the so-called Declaration of Independence put it, "deriving their just powers [proper authority] from the consent of the governed". Now the question is, have you somehow given the STATE reason to presume that you have consented to be governed by it, perhaps by utilizing the persona[1] created, by the STATE, just for you? _____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of...government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    G'day tzo, First question, who can one "loan" or "rent" his right to life, liberty and property to, if "all men" already have them? "All men have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property...", though it should be noted, and is self-evident, that some do not realize they possess them, just as you stated above. That said, I certainly do agree that one may "delegate" his "natural, essential, and inherent rights of defending life and liberty...and protecting...property". The only difference you and I may have, on this particular subject, is that I say that if these rights are "yours", you do have the authority to delegate them away, completely and permanently, if that is your desire.
  • newjerusalemtimes's picture
    newjerusalemtimes 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    The woman was in obvious neglect of the child, not for allowing her 10 year old child to ride one mile to school, but for allowing the child to ride it to a communized Public School, where the very first thing children are made to do is to Pledge Allegiance to an oppressive Death Cult.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    I'm gonna go with LS here. Rights are inalienable because you always have first claim on them. You can "loan" them, "rent" them, or not realize they're yours, but the moment you know what they are you can rescind the delegation of them at any time. This power means that they are always yours and are inalienable, and cannot be contracted away even if you decide you do not want them, because you can always change your mind, and the other contracting party would have no choice but to return them. This pretty much make voluntary slavery contracts invalid from the get-go. This is why it is valuable for governments to make sure that people do not even understand that they possess such inalienable power, because sovereign populations do not get duped into believing that coercive governments are just organizations.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Legal Obedience
    Web link Don Stacy
    "Lysander S. Spooner, one of America's great 19th-century thinkers, said no person or group of people can "authorize government to destroy or take away from men their natural rights; for natural rights are inalienable, and can no more be surrendered to government -- which is but an association of individuals -- than to a single individual"." I seldom disagree with Lysander, but I must make an exception here. Our natural rights, "rights antecedent to all earthly governments", are in-alien-able, (not in-a-lien-able). In-alien-able means, as 2nd President of the U.S., John Adams, so succinctly put it, they are "rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws", rights may not be alienated from the individual by human laws. On the other hand they do belong to the individual, to dispose of as he likes, and he can, therefor, "without committing a crime", choose to "surrender" them to either a corporation [government], or a single individual. What he cannot lawfully do, is surrender anyone else's natural rights without their consent; they are not his to "surrender", just as Lysander stated in the forepart of that quote.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Glen, this perception is absolutely correct and has been the case for at least 3 decades. When I was teaching in the Detroit Public Schools for a short time, many of the teachers there would never have considered sending their own children to the schools they occupied. Most of these schools were infested with unqualified staff members and a panic mentality that infused them without relief. I'll never forget my first day as an intern (student-teaching). The school where I was posted was full of banners inside that were horribly misspelled. I later found out that they were prepared by the teachers, not the students! Furthermore, even though I was a history, Latin, social studies teacher, I was regularly posted teaching French (I spoke it well) and English. The unfortunate students at some of these school were never taught to compose essays that anyone would ever want to read. They had it drummed into them to compose paragraphs that followed a useless and stifling format consisting of a lead topic sentence, a middle section, and a summary sentence that recapitulated the preceding content. The result? A horribly repetitious cascade of words that were never capable of developing into anything but a of bird-cage lining. I recall having to fill out (the kids did it for me because it took so much time) three kinds of attendance -- to obtain funding of course from the appropriate sources! In addition, while a few of the schools at the time were well run, an east-side high school (Denby Senior High) regularly had as many as 50+ teachers absent. They were in fear for their lives, and they daily warehoused hundreds of students at a time in the auditorium because of the staff shortage. I was glad to shake the dust of that system from my feet, but I'll never forget how sad I was and how unhappy the students were who had made a human connection with me. I still think of those poor kids and what they were subjected to in the name of teachers' unions, overpaid administrators, and the obscene fraud that they were actually getting an education!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hi, Glen. Thank you for your kind words. It is significant that so many people within the voluntaryist community have been exploring the need for a program that comprises both the concept of love/empathy and the standard voluntaryist notion of liberty. I have received a great deal of satisfaction reading about your discoveries in this area over the past few years, and the existence of people like you, who understand the nature of this dual focus, has been an inspiration and catalyst. Several people from the local group here (which meets at Cafe Libertalia) have been investigating this possibility for the past 2 years. Until about 6 months ago, they attempted to work within a Sudbury group, but they discovered that many of the members have a tragic unmet need to feel secure by imposing democracy on the children in their schools -- even though they seem to understand the problems of doing such a thing and our reservations about them. It's only been in the last 6 months that we decided to go forward independently. We recently completed a detailed business plan and have been moving forward on a very intense schedule. The possible existence of a local Sudbury school may actually provide a "critical mass" of public awareness that will benefit the Summum Bonum Learning Center, and we have been able to keep on good terms with many members of the Sudbury group.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Another point: Public school teachers pay to get their OWN kids out of the public school system at about TWICE the rate that parents in general do. Search for "Public schools no place for teachers’ kids" at the Washington Times (from 2004 but still posted and worth reading). About 20% of public school teachers send their kids to a private school, and in some cities, it's as much as 44%. In other words, those who know public schools best -- from the inside -- are even more desperate than the general public to get their own kids out of our public schools.