Recent comments

  • FMAnarchist's picture
    FMAnarchist 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Am in agreement w/ all, evidently. Yes, continually re-stating the obvious then becomes the subconscious mantra for many. Myself included... so, should I recant? The piece was still "fluff". My reply was not specifically against Suverans2, but in defense of the low rating. It seems I was misunderstood, and this was taken personally. Absolutely *not* my intention. As far as this being my first response... I've been reading STR for *much* longer than I've been a member. Very nice of you to notice my "tenure".
  • dchadsey's picture
    dchadsey 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Last night I saw an episode of Police Women of Broward County on TV where they were doing a sting on "illegal contractors". Three armed police would bust in from an adjoining room once the "suspect" agreed to do minor remodeling without a permit. They were taking these guys down on the floor like armed robbers, then hauling them off to jail, handcuffed behind their backs. The Broward County government actually believes they are helping us. Financially it is all relative and the creative will survive. But now that such overwhelming powers have been assumed without a fight by local unconstitutional (no administrative branch) governments, we are all in jeopardy. Everyone pays attention to the national scene, but if you have tried to conduct any type of business lately without bowing down to the faceless bureaucracy of county government, you know the enemy is among us. Pole Dancing?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 23 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    R. K., you've hit the nail on the head.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    She should move to Portland, Oregon. I know folks there who garden their front yard. That smug bastard in the business suit really needs a date with some hot tar and feathers.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Yeah, although the article is a bit too minarchist for my taste, I think it is a good one. Mike is right, you can't state the obvious too much; particularly since it is done in an environment where statism is by far the dominant theme.
  • Mike Powers's picture
    Mike Powers 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    There are new seekers of liberty that may be reading Strike-the-Root for the first time. So, I don't think you can ever state the obvious enough. The concepts of individual liberty and personal freedom are not obvious to everyone.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    No need to apologize, FMAnarchist, you are certainly entitled to your own opinion. I do find it intriguing, however, that apparently my reply is the only thing you have found worthy of commenting on since joining STR over a year and half ago, particularly since a good many, if not a majority, of the articles here are "stating the obvious"; have been said "hundreds of times"; with "nothing new [brought] to the table"; and therefore, are, too, "nothing but...fluff" pieces.
  • FMAnarchist's picture
    FMAnarchist 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Then I'll try to offset the 10 rating with my 4. Yes, what he says in the article is true, but nothing more than stating the obvious. Those of us that are aware enough to be liberty-minded (proven by even reading Strike the Root), this has all been said hundreds of times. The author brought nothing new to the table, and seemed more intent on the inner reflections than actions to be taken. While he's not wrong, this was nothing but a fluff piece. Sorry, that's my opinion.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    G'day golefevre, Am I to presume that you gave this a one-star-rating because you disagreed with that particular sentence? If so, isn't that a bit like throwing the baby out with the bathwater? As a result of the one-star-rating I was forced to give this article a ten-star-rating in effort to raise it to a more appropriate level, because much of, if not most of, what Tyler Durden had to say in this article made total sense, and is, therefore, well worth reading.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Well, at least they "never exist" when they are perpetrated by those in power. Since 1909 a conspiracy between those in power is only a "conspiracy theory", something to be ridiculed, while a conspiracy against those in power remains a "conspiracy", something to be taken very seriously.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "If a government no longer fulfills its sworn duties to the people, and no longer serves the purposes to which it was originally intended, then it too must be cast off and replaced with one that does serve the people, or, it must be forced to return to its inherent foundations." No thanks. It is evident governments serve some people quite nicely and always at the expense of others. I'm not looking for a new pair of shackles.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Comment deleted by author.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    (Oddly enough, they still call themselves "peace officers.")
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Oh, dear, the US war on Islam is empowering the al-Queda. Who could have seen THAT coming? I mean, besides anyone with a triple-digit IQ?
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Hmmm ... this reads like a conspiracy. But those never exist!
  • befreetech's picture
    befreetech 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Well done. Thanks for the great article. I'd add: 1. It was preferable for us to have our child at home, thus avoiding any poisonous mercury laden, brain damaging, autism causing vaccinations and a myriad of other types of harm that can come to a child born in a hospital. We had a great midwife assist us with the baby's emergence. She has since left the united states for Jamaica because of the onerous "midwife license" requirements made it harder and harder for her to do it the way it should be done. 2. We set the date of our child's emergence to paper using our own "affidavit of embodiment" and recorded that in our county courthouse. In this way we avoided getting or having a conventional "birth certificate" which transfers the welfare of the child to the care of the state whereby you as parent are only the caretaker and the government / state decides what's best for your child's welfare, giving Child Protective Services - a division of Human Resources, the default authority to take your child from for any reason they may conjure, or no reason if they like. 3. We were able to get a passport for our child absent the Slave Surveillance Number and birth certificate by obtaining a "certificate of no found record". We got this by the normal application for a birth certificate from the state department and since it doesn't exist the "certificate of no found record" establishes proof that our child has no state issued birth certificate and therefore is not a ward of the state. In this way you can assert your right to travel for your "American National" (not citizen subject). Thanks again!
  • Marc's picture
    Marc 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "I do not pity them. They gave us a mandate. And now they are reaping the grim harvest of that mandate" is a truly remarkable quote. I believe that H.L. Mencken one said something like democracy is the idea that the public knows what it wants and government will give it to them good and hard. I stopped voting a decade ago but may make a single exception if Ron Paul gets nominated. Call be naive or a glutton for punishment if you like but it would be the closest thing to a genuine political alternative in my lifetime.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    It's not that anarchists don't have a blueprint. They have a blueprint, all right--but it's a blueprint tied to consent, not coercion. Morality matters. What's that? Appeals to morality get us nowhere? Reasonable people will disagree, you say? Well, on this much at least reasonable people do agree: the hallmark of morality is universality. The State *by definition* stands in violent opposition to universality. Coercion--the initiation of force--is wrong. Everybody knows it's wrong. A four year-old playing in a sandbox knows it's wrong. Even apologists for the State know it. But that doesn't stop them from carving out an exception for the State. Lew Rockwell sums up the double standard masterfully: "What is the state? It is the group within society that claims for itself the exclusive right to rule everyone under a special set of laws that permit it to do to others what everyone else is rightly prohibited from doing, namely aggressing against person and property." This is precisely what the anarchists are trying to put the kibosh to. True, putting the kibosh to State criminality in no way assures you're putting the kibosh to the freelance version. But the freelancers are having their way anyway. Why not stick it to the State gang first? Aren't they the most vicious criminals of them all? Take away their veneer of morality, and let the chips fall where they may.
  • tanhadron's picture
    tanhadron 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    Great piece! Love the comparison between Constitutionalists and communists. I experience the same frustration in arguing with my twin brother, who is of a libertarian / Constitutionalist bent. I've tried to convince him that the Constitution is just another statute, albeit a "super statute"; another rule, another regulation subject to interpretation, modification, violation, or indifference--except this super-statute, written by the Founding Gods--er, I mean, "Fathers"--induces an almost religious deference to its contents and only bolsters and perpetuates the mythic "rule of law." Sadly, it seems to me that although Constitutionalists and communists both argue for the superiority and workability of their "blueprint" or "system" were only the "right-minded" people administering it--couldn't it also be said that the proposed "blueprint" or "system" of anarchists--i.e., that of a "non-system"--likewise needs the right-minded "non-system" oriented people who will abide by it? In other words, an anarchistic society must be populated with non-system oriented people who will have the intellectual and moral fortitude to not resort to demagoguery in promulgating a system or blueprint for workability. The "right minded" administrators of the system, then, become those who shun blueprints. (Sigh). It's a never-ending battle! Anyway, great piece!
  • AnomicAjax's picture
    AnomicAjax 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    I certainly agrre with your post and think that the last paragraph speaks volumes. But how many of those, let me say, members of the Herd, could read those words and still say, "Well no, that certainly does not describe me." Thanks for a great article.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    An excellent analysis of the core of "popular" political systems and the need for a paradigm shift away from them as well as all the other varied forms of social organizational schemes that are based on governmental control. If human beings insist on continuing to play this game, they will only discover that the ones with power will continue to figure out better, more subtler ways to control those without power. This is not a predator/prey in the wild arms-race model, this is a farmer/livestock maximization-of-production model. I regret to inform you, dear citizen: You are not a gazelle, you are a cow. Or perhaps a turkey.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    R. K. Blacksher, I intended to add: this is among the very best synopses of "why anarchy" I've read. Excellent work! I hope you work on more essays for STR. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    JD: "To further the argument, the right people do exist. By right people, I mean the kind of people that have the ideas on a new way that could truly further the cause of liberty. However, they would find it morally reprehensible to participate in a system where they would have the power of life and death, let alone create rules, over fellow human beings". My siren song: Those "right people" have declared themselves sovereign and recognize "a new way" is to lead by example, not deign to "rule". These folks have withdrawn (to the extent possible) from the existing religion (state worship). They have ceased voting, "voluntarily" submitting forms and "returns" to agents of state. They have come to recognize and teach the principle of self-ownership -- I am responsible for my own well-being and my own behavior. (http://www.isil.org/resources/introduction.swf) And, as my friend, Mark (above post) wrote on STR some years ago: (http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis_m/davis1.html) ..."if you want to be free you should start acting free..." Sam
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bill Walker
    Yesterday during the Fourth of July parade in Amherst, NH, I distributed campaign literature for Gary Johnson. I was surprised at how many people asked me his position on immigration and "the border". The only country NH shares a border with is Canada. BTW, Gardner Goldsmith pointed out that the US Constitution makes *naturalization* a federal function, but not *immigration*.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    Word! You know a system of governance is self-defeating when the "right people" to lead are the ones who refuse to do so while the "wrong people" excell at obtaining leadership positions.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "Many bleat about wanting a smaller, Constitutional government, [or no government] but few of them will actually give up any government goodies to get there." ~ tzo [Bracketed information added to quote]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "What might be concrete step number one?" ~ tzo "You must be the change you wish to see in the world." ~ Mohandas Gandhi
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    G'day Sam, Congratulations, my friend, on your 23rd grandchild.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 24 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    "The problem is that within the confines of any system of domination and exploitation, “the right people” simply do not exist." This basic statement is the glue that can make the argument for anarchy stick. I am not as intelligent as most of my fellow root strikers. It has taken me a while to take off the rose, white, and blue colored glasses provided by years of state education. To further the argument, the right people do exist. By right people, I mean the kind of people that have the ideas on a new way that could truly further the cause of liberty. However, they would find it morally reprehensible to participate in a system where they would have the power of life and death, let alone create rules, over fellow human beings. Do we not know right from wrong? Can't we all just get along? Sorry... pretty lame and cliche. Still, it does not make it wrong :-)
  • kylegriffin's picture
    kylegriffin 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    War in a serious issue we are speaking here not only destruction of properties,lives but as well as its cost of battle.In fact,A report has been unveiled by Brown University scholars tallying up the expense of American battles since 2001. The study found the battles in Iraq and Afghanistan have expense almost $4 trillion and have ended in over 250,000 deaths. The proof is here: Wars cost American taxpayers almost $4 trillion in past decade.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    This was also reported on the LewRockwell.com blog: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/90515.html However there was an update: "UPDATE Three LRC'ers have written me convincingly to question Mr. Vey's methodology and conclusion."
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    In theory, an incremental change through legislation is possible. But it isn't likely. Freedom will come from education, by changing hearts and minds through sites like this. Changing hearts and minds will result in paradigm shifts. Nobody will see it coming. It will come.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "I'm not sure how incremental change can be implemented. Does someone have some concrete examples of political action that can be or has been launched that increases freedom?" Well, this may be going a bit overboard, to imagine that freedom can NEVER be increased legislatively, in any respect. I think that would be a very hard case to make. It's not necessary to make it. The problem is not that in one particular or another, incrementalism fails; it is that in overall freedom, it fails. That failure is WHY we have resets on occasion. People finally can't put up with the crap any more. They toss the old worldview and start acting significantly different. Usually that significant difference is something other than begging for crumbs from the legislative table.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    clover is a persons screen name, so the title is in reference to people who "think" like that person who calls him or her self clover.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    By jolly, I think you're right!
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I'm with you, Sam. The term is new to me. I found nothing relevant in the online urban dictionary, but Wikipedia's entry includes the following "Symbolism and Mythology" blurb: "A common idiom is 'to be (live) in clover,' meaning to live a carefree life of ease, comfort, or prosperity." So maybe it means someone with a devil-may-care attitude about the expanding police state.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I'm curious: what is a "Clover"? I mean other than a herbaceous plant (genus Trifolium)? Do people apply it to just "progressives" (politically "liberal")? Or does it include people in both camps -- liberal and conservative? Or is it anybody who ain't a libertarian? Is the term in use anywhere besides in this essay? Thanks. Sam
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I think she's referring to the War on (Some) Drugs. If that's the case, and she's using formation of the Drug Enforcement Administration as her starting point, it's only 38 years old. Of course, the War on (Some) Drugs is much older than that. The "war against its own citizens," moreover, is at least as old as the republic itself. You can make the case the Revolutionaries of 1776 waged war on their own "citizens" by going after the Loyalists (who, after all, had as much right to maintain their ties to the British Crown as the Revolutionaries had to break them) in the campaign for Independence.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    G'day rita, Perhaps you didn't read this. G'day tzo, You wrote: "Here the Constitutionalist jumps in to point out that the Constitution—the basis of this government—is not the source of rights, but merely the declaration that those innate rights shall not be infringed upon by the government." It's not even that, in my opinion, because, to be more precise, their beloved Constitution states that their voluntary members innate [natural] rights cannot be infringed upon by the government without "due process of law" , and, as has been mentioned elsewhere, "due process of law" is whatever the fox guarding the hen house says it is. "No person shall...be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation*." ~ Excerpted from Amendment V of the Bill of Rights [Emphasis added] * Care to take a guess at who gets to decide what "just compensation" is? Furthermore, if that is true, then the opposite is also true, that is to say, if their voluntary members innate rights cannot be infringed upon by the government without "due process of law", then their innate rights can be infringed upon by the government with "due process of law", which, again, because it bears repeating, is whatever the fox guarding the hen house says it is. P.s. rita, your "right", i.e. your "just claim", to your justly acquired property is not a "Constitutional right", it is an innate right, i.e. a natural right.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    2011 minus 40 equals 1971. Why 1971, rita???
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. So we say, a tacit agreement or covenant of men to live under a particular government, when no objection or opposition is made; a tacit surrender of a part of our natural rights; a tacit reproach, & Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the date for US involvement in Afghanistan is 2001. 2011 minus 2001 equals 10 years, give or take a few months. Our government's war against its own citizens has been going on for 40 years. How is it that Afghanistan is called the longest war in American history?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page tzo
    Like this: "It's a much easier task to convince others to let you be, than it is to convince them to drop their world-view entirely and adopt yours. It's not a good tactic to divide ourselves from others. Better to find what common ground we can, and work to enlarge it."
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The ACLU doesn't have to fight every individual case if they would get off their collective butts and uphold our Constituional rights to private property. Everything about the prohibition of drugs -- not just illegal traffic stops based on racial profiling, which this case clearly was -- EVERYTHING about it violates the Constitution.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Decriminalization" is NOT the same as "legalization." Decrim merely means no prison time for possession or use, and usually stipulates arbitrary "for personal use" amounts that have no relation to reality and can only be verified by the same ol' same ol' methods of spying, invading, violating and robbing currently in use by drug warriors. AND since decrim normally keeps selling illegal, and if all I can legally possess is what I can use in one day, all you've done is increase profits for my local dealer, who is still breaking the law, and the violence continues. The only people who fear legalization are the people who make their livings destroying other people's lives and the people who worship at the feet of those who would be gods.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page tzo
    Like this: "Always be mindful that to them [citizens], the state is their parent and family and we all know what happens when you insult someone's momma. Only they can convince themselves that momma don't love them."
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Free men shouldn't allow their children to be taught lies, either -- "liberty and justice for all" -- what a joke.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Paul's comment sez it all for me. The only thing I want from agents of state is to be left alone (I know better than that, however -- parasites cannot resist infecting the host if s/he gives them half a chance). They can "legalize marriage" between dogs, cats and donkeys as far as I'm concerned. What members of state gangs declare "legal" or "illegal" is for the most part simply minor inconveniences for the anarchists among us. The Texas Two-Step was conjured up for the likes of us -- to learn to dance around state impediments without holding hands with the thief. Paul mentioned "homeschoolers". Yes, we have to decide every now and again whether to partake of the stolen largess the criminal gangs gleefully offer (since they've grudgingly accepted the fact they cannot and will not force us into their state indoctrination centers); or whether to bypass and pay the price for freedom. We tend to choose the latter. It's rare we can recapture any loot from the bandoleros without getting sucked into their "voluntary participation" con games. Sam
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    How did Orwell put it? "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face--forever." Now take a stroll through the cop-thuggery videos pockmarking YouTube. That future is now. If that's my face on the receiving end, I don't want the boot removed in increments. I want the cop to pull back a bloody, footless stub! Happy Independence Day, everybody!
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    More misplaced outrage -- police should not be allowed to treat ANYONE this way, mentally handicapped or not.