Recent comments

  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Police Reform
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Abusive parents. And like all abusers, when caught, their first line of defense is to blame the victims.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    G'day AtlasAikido, Well said!! Ten Star Award [indicated by a "thumb up"]!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Furthermore, you may be confusing "ideological thinking" with principles, Michael Kleen. principle 1. a rule of conduct, esp. of right conduct 2. such rules collectively 3. adherence to them; integrity; uprightness: a man of principle ~ Webster's 2010 New World College Dictionary
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "...in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements, and so great a dread of experiments, that they will probably not act upon this right [to ignore the state] until long after it is safe to do so." ~ Herbert Spencer
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Why do you resort to insults, Michael Kleen, do you really think they make your arguments stronger? But that aside, you seem to be confusing 'secession' with 'expatriation', as nearly everyone else does. One does not have to "move" anywhere when one secedes, i.e. withdraws from membership in the political corporation. And, "...you apparently missed these three questions, (the previous two times I posted them), since you failed to answer...", so I will try once more. (1) What is it you are looking for, the "magic bullet", the perfectly painless way to withdraw from membership in the STATE? [Edited for accuracy] (2) What is your strategy, change enough people's minds with your rhetoric, and "alternative news", that they will "alter or...abolish" the STATE for you? (3) Do you even know me, Michael Kleen? [This last one I have now asked four times!] Thank you, in advance, for your time and attention.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Re: The Revolutionary War (which created America) and the Civil War (which saved America) were close to being somewhat “justified.” The so -called Civil war--the South was not trying to invade the North. It was not a civil war. It hardly saved America. We are all slaves now. Abraham Lincoln destroyed the Philosophical Union and imposed a Physical Union--Force over Reason--using bayonets and a train of usurpations worse than England's George III--the reason for seceding from England in the first place--and Lincoln UNDID Jefferson's works and thereby added teeth (an understatement) to Hamilton's Proto-Fascist national banking super state agenda. They were both Revolutionary Wars. Re: the first War: The British are coming! Re: The second War: the British and their ways are already here with their Mercantilist agendas enforced by Abraham Lincoln's War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln's 'Second American Revolution' by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo32.html Re: The [first] Revolutionary War as the "creator of America". Freedom--from tyranny and its train of usurpations--is necessary and essential but not sufficient. See Thomas DiLorenzo's "How Capitalism Saved America" (now remnant thanks to the planks of Abraham Lincoln's Unnecessary War. It was also the bloodiest war in American History and waged on civilians and later on the Indians). http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance90.html Other entries: http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fw... Re: The Southern cause was "close to being somewhat justified." The Southern cause was "NOT [just] close to being somewhat justified." It was right and completely justified. Lincoln's stated purpose in the war was to destroy the principle of the Declaration of Independence that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Southerners no longer consented to being governed by Washington, DC, so Lincoln waged total war against them for four long years. Of course, he didn't put it this way but instead sugarcoated his objective with language about "saving the Union." At the time many Americans — including dozens of Northern newspaper editors — considered the act of compelling a state to remain in the Union at gunpoint to be destructive of the voluntary union of the states. And they were right. The Unknown Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo26.html Understanding the large body of knowledge that intellectuals Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises and their students-- including the ground breaking work of Thomas Dilorenzo's, "The Real Lincoln", and Stephan Kinsella's illuminating work on CopyRight copywrongs and its co-destruction of a Division of Labor society--are essential to UN-Blinding what IS UnSeen and impossible to glean by just reading what one's masters write, teach and spread around. Lysander Spooner, the author of the 1845 book, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery and a celebrated abolitionist, wrote in his 1870 essay, "No Treason," that "all these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,' of having ‘preserved the union,' of establishing a ‘government by consent,' and of ‘maintaining the national honor' are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats — so transparent that they ought to deceive no one." Thanks to 140 years of propaganda in the government schools, these "cheats" now appear to deceive nearly everyone. Notes: Lysander Spooner who authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, ... http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cof=L:http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewr... Re: "During these days we feel in our gut that when General Sherman said, “War is hell” he was only half right. Yes, War is hell for those who wish to secede from exploitative empires. As soon as Gandhi began influencing millions of Indians, he and some 60,000 of his followers were imprisoned in 1930. This led Winston Churchill to declare that "Gandhi-ism and all it stands for [peaceful resistance to tyranny] will, sooner or later, have to be . . . crushed." "Gandhi had replaced Lenin as Churchill's arch nemesis," writes Baker. A New Look at How Wold War II Happened by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo142.html Sherman was every bit as much a racist and white supremacist as Lincoln. He was also an anti-Semite, and of course hated red-skinned people almost as much as he hated South Carolinians — and would later kill them in even greater numbers. Slaves were raped, pillaged, and murdered indiscriminately along with the white population of the South, and Sherman did nothing to stop it. *This is documented*. It has been claimed in print that Sherman was some kind of egalitarian who was motivated by indignation over the degree of racial inequality in the South. (Cisco proves what delusional liars such Lincoln (and Sherman) cultists as Victor Davis Hanson are in "Abuse of African-Americans" by Sherman's army in Cisco's final, stomach-turning chapter. ...The union of the founders was destroyed in 1865. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians explains in great detail how, in addition to killing some 300,000 dissenters to rule by Washington, D.C. on the battlefield, the U.S. Army, under the micromanagement of Abe Lincoln, also murdered tens of thousands of Southern civilians, including thousands of slaves and free blacks, while stealing tens of millions of dollars of their private possessions as well. None of it was necessary, of course, for the purpose of ending slavery; all other countries on earth ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. This included the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Danish colonies, where 96 percent of all the slaves in the Western Hemisphere once existed. The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called "national greatness" and "imperial glory." The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state. Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo123.html
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re: ElasahBazlith, posted on May 18, 2011 "On sufferance? In 1848 the most commonly heard phrase was -"Free soil, free speech ,free labor, and free men." The good old days when men were men who had a cause. 'Tis taiseh to think one's penny silver of today? What happened to produce the timid men of today? Was it Ayn Rand? 'Tis funny to think these time bettering days. Why the clerisy of Ayn Rand?" But what of Ms ElasahBazlith's "clerisy" cause and obtuse jargon and conflations? And her response: "ElasahBazlith, posted on May 22, 2011 Look around these times that are self evident. Must be the text blindness and the isogloss. One should just re-read". Re: "Look around these times... It is necessary but certainly NOT sufficient AND Re: Look[ing] around these times [AND from the times of 1848 and on per ElasahBazlith's prior post] as so-called "self evident". I can almost see the pre-fox news-caster telling us in script or press or street mongering "in 1848 the most commonly heard phrase was -"Free soil, free speech ,free labor, and free men." But wait, Abraham Lincoln supported the 1848 amendment to the Illinois constitution that prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state. He supported a law that "kept pure from contamination" the electoral franchise by prohibiting "the admission of colored votes." He supported the notorious Illinois Black Codes that made it all but impossible for free blacks to earn a living; and he was a "manager" of the Illinois Colonization Society that sought to use state tax revenues to deport blacks out of the state. As president, he vigorously supported the Fugitive Slave Act that forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to slavery for a bounty and was about to break the back of the press/media and put the editors in jail and decimate the writ of habeas corpus and more.... See notes added to the end of this post. The Unknown Lincoln by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo26.html EB posits that her conflation of the times of the legislator and tyrant Lincoln 1848 with free soil, labor, speech, and men should be "re-read and "must be text blindness and isogloss". And buttresses her conflation with "The good old days when men were men--such as Lincoln--who had an [UN-Just] cause and war". And then proceeds with "What happened to produce the timid men of today? Was it Ayn Rand?" Apparently these times and the times of 1848 are NOT "self-evident" to EB as her post conflates the UNFREEDOM works of Lincoln's times--1848--with freedom*; and then with the freedom works of Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises and posits that Rand's and Mises students, "of today", Ron Paul, Dilorenzo and Kinsella etc as "timid"--and without "causes" let alone just. Lincoln destroyed the Philosophical Union and imposed a Physical Union--Force over Reason--using bayonets and a train of usurpations worse than England's George III--the reason for seceding in the first place--and UNDID Jefferson's works and thereby added teeth (an understatement) to Hamilton's Proto-Fascist national banking super state agenda. Lincoln's 'Second American Revolution' by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo32.html Understanding the large body of knowledge that intellectuals ("clerisy") Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises and their students-- including the ground breaking work of Thomas Dilorenzo's, "The Real Lincoln", and Stephan Kinsella's illuminating work on Copywrongs and its destruction of a Division of Labor society--are essential to UN-Blinding what IS UnSeen and impossible to glean as "self-evident" by "just" looking around and "re-reading" text. *Notes Regarding Abraham Lincoln specifically in 1848 (and from there on). http://www.google.com/custom?sa=Search&cof=LW%3A500%3BL%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fw... And regarding one of those entries: An African-American Icon Speaks Truth to the Lincoln Cult http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo139.html Lincoln not only talked like a white supremacist; as a state legislator he supported myriad laws and regulations in Illinois that deprived the small number of free blacks in the state of any semblance of citizenship. Bennett gives us chapter and verse of how he supported a law that "kept pure from contamination" the electoral franchise by prohibiting "the admission of colored votes." He supported the notorious Illinois Black Codes that made it all but impossible for free blacks to earn a living; and he was a "manager" of the Illinois Colonization Society that sought to use state tax revenues to deport blacks out of the state. He also supported the 1848 amendment to the Illinois constitution that prohibited the immigration of blacks into the state. As president, he vigorously supported the Fugitive Slave Act that forced Northerners to hunt down runaway slaves and return them to slavery for a bounty. Lincoln knew that this law had led to the kidnapping of an untold number of free blacks who were thrown into slavery..... Notes: Regarding Lysander Spooner who authored The Unconstitutionality of Slavery in 1845, ... http://www.google.com/custom?hl=en&cof=L:http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewr... Spooner, the author of the 1845 book, The Unconstitutionality of Slavery and a celebrated abolitionist, wrote in his 1870 essay, "No Treason," that "all these cries of having ‘abolished slavery,' of having ‘preserved the union,' of establishing a ‘government by consent,' and of ‘maintaining the national honor' are all gross, shameless, transparent cheats — so transparent that they ought to deceive no one." Thanks to 140 years of propaganda in the government schools, these "cheats" now appear to deceive nearly everyone. PS If there is a Proto Fascist "The Real Lincoln" would make more sense. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html I do not see Libertarians speaking of Abraham Lincoln the Great Centralizer as the route to their Libertarianism but of Ayn Rand and Ludwid Von Mises
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Far from "saving America," the War of Northern Aggression utterly destroyed whatever vague semblance of a voluntary association then existed among the States. The Southern cause was "close to being somewhat justified."
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    The Civil War "saving America" and "close to being somewhat justified," really? Other than that, nice column.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I see where you're trying to go with this analogy but it doesn't really work for several reasons. If the The Natural Rights Protection Agency was a private organization, I'm assuming there would be other, similar groups and I could just leave or join another group (or I could work to jettison the people responsible for moving the group in this new direction). However, your analogy for the State doesn't work because you can't leave "the State," you can move to other States - but then you would be stuck with the same problem. You could only move to States that were more free than the others, or to Antarctica, the ocean, or out in the wilderness somewhere where you can pretend the State doesn't exist. You could work to abolish that State, but you would need the cooperation of most, if not everyone, who depends on that State. The relationship between society and the State is far more complex than your analogy would assume, but as always, the dualistic mindset (it's either this or that) is one of the failings of ideological thinking.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "We Have Nothing to Fear but Government Itself" "Government" is a bogeyman, it is an artificial entity. "... in fact government...affords the individual no choice but to comply or be harmed." Sheesh, Alex R. Knight III, that statement, only perpetuates the fear! Folks, there's nothing you can do "but...comply or be harmed". “If you think you're too small to make a difference, spend the night with a mosquito" ~ Dalai Lama
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "For many years, appeals to the U.S. Constitution have been used to fight the growing encroachment of government on our natural rights." Question, what would you do if you became a member of The Natural Rights Protection Agency and that protection agency began 'encroaching' on the very rights they were supposed to protect?
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 2 years 47 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    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!
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 47 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The response to AtlasAikido's post was posted further down the thread, so his response was moved there.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 47 weeks ago
    Why Slutwalk?
    Web link Jad Davis
    What clothes does a grandma or geriatric wear to intice the rape? What does an infant or a child wear to intice the rape?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I think this article is an excellent example of why Constitutional government will always degrade into tyranny. The fellas who make the laws get to interpret the "restraining" piece of paper to their advantage. Within a system in which brute force compels obedience to law, only brute force (revolution) can "reform" it. But if that same reformed system (Constitutional government) stays in place, then you're just running another lap. This article can perhaps help people see the futility of using the system to change the system and just maybe get them to consider other options—like abandoning it—when they hear them. Eventually, when things get stupid enough, it won't sound so crazy.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hi, Glen, my experience with Richard Rider has left me with many reservations about him.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Artificial. As opposed to "natural", means created or produced by man. California Casualty Indemnity Exchange v. Industrial Accident Commission of California, 13 Cal.2d 529, 90 P.2d 289 Created by art, or by law; existing only by force of...[human] law. Humanly contrived. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 [Emphasis and bracketed information added] "A mature adult is supposed to know the difference between the real world and the games people play, between the natural and the artificial. He or she is supposed to be able to keep such things in perspective." ~ Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Just curious, if any of you "sovereign men and women" read Frank's short treatise on Natural Law, and, if so, what is your feedback on it? Natural law, natural rights, natural liberty, et cetera, are only relevant[1] to free men and women, that is to say men and women who have not voluntarily "subjected themselves to the dominion of a [man-made] government", or those who have withdrawn from membership in all man-made "political" groups. "That the majority shall prevail is a rule posterior to [coming after] the formation of government, and results from it. It is not a rule binding upon mankind in their natural state. There, [in the natural state] every man is independent of all laws, except those prescribed by nature. He is not bound by any institutions formed by his fellowmen without his consent." ~ CRUDEN v. NEALE, 2 N.C. 338 (1796) 2 S.E. 70. [Bracketed information added] ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] relevant adjective ▸ directly connected with and important to what is being discussed or considered ~ Macmillan Dictionary
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Look around these times that are self evident. Must be the text blindness and the isogloss. One should just re-read.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re: ElasahBazlith's "Tis funny"? Posted on May 18, 2011 And Re: "On sufferance? In 1848 the most commonly heard phrase was -"Free soil, free speech ,free labor, and free men." The good old days when men were men who had a cause. 'Tis taiseh to think one's penny silver of today? What happened to produce the timid men of today? Was it Ayn Rand? 'Tis funny to think these time bettering days. Why the clerisy of Ayn Rand?" Funny (Pronunciation: (fun'ē), —adj., -ni•er, -ni•est,—n., pl. -nies.3. warranting suspicion; deceitful; underhanded 5. strange; peculiar; odd. How funny is taking the Proto-Fascist UNFreedom "good old days" works of "The Real Lincoln" [the UN"timid" Tyrant of 1848]--and his Politics in the Realm of Scum--AND conflating it with Ayn Rand? "The Real Lincoln" by Thomas Dilorenzo http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/w-williams1.html So does Ayn Rand belong in it (The "Politics of the Realm of Scum")? I say No. See posts on this thread. And what of Ron Paul? () Article by Doug Casey. There is no way to avert the train wreck now (as presciently depicted in Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged"). The plus-51% of the population on the dole alone guarantees it – that’s the point of no return. Not to mention the abject failure of the government education system, and many other factors discussed above and in the article "Politics of the Realm of Scum" Does Ron Paul belong in it too? http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey84.1.html "Hate-Group Racketeering" On adding a person's name to the neo-hate proto-group-trap du jour Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo on May 21, 2011 10:56 AM http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/88498.html I would hardly call DiLorenzo nor Casey nor Ron Paul timid nor anti-freedom (and certainly not Ayn Rand nor Ludwig Von Mises whose shoulders they are standing on in their own right). But what of Ms ElasahBazlith's "clerisy" cause and obtuse jargon? Perhaps Hamilton, Clay and Lincoln and their evidenced Proto-Mercantalist/Fascist agendas?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Re: A New York county is launching a registry for animal abusers which could also help to identify potential violence against women and children. [And] I concur with Rita, the ominous article--Pet Abuse Registry May Also Protect Children--badly needs to be linked with: Just as we're told that practically any development justifies "expanded vigilance" against terrorism, just about any adolescent problem or behavior can be depicted as an indication that the youngster is "at risk," and thus needs to be confined in a BM facility to get "straightened out" through means that include unambiguous torture. The Authentic Cruelty of a Synthetic Man by William Norman Grigg http://lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w213.html But then Politics Is the Realm of Scum So does Ron Paul belong in it? Article by Doug Casey. There is no way to avert the train wreck now. The plus-51% of the population on the dole alone guarantees it – that’s the point of no return. Not to mention the abject failure of the government education system, and many other factors we’ve discussed before. http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey84.1.html
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    This article badly needs to be linked with some stats on the growing number of family pets being shot by police in their increasingly violent war against everybody.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    G'day Michael Kleen, Good to see someone concerned about "Frankenfood", but be aware that this only pertains to "fruits and vegetables", and that, currently, "More than 60 percent of the food products on grocery shelves contain genetically engineered ingredients". "If you want to avoid GMO's — genetically modified organisms — you're out of luck. They're not listed. You could, until now, simply buy organic foods, which by law can't contain more than 5 percent GMO's. Now, however, even that may not work. It's unlikely that these [Frankenfood] products' potential benefits could possibly outweigh their potential for harm. But even more unbelievable is that the FDA and the USDA will not require any of these products, or foods containing them, to be labeled as genetically engineered, because they don't want to "suggest or imply" that these foods are "different." (Labels with half-truths about health benefits appear to be OK, but that's another story.)"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Sharon Secor, This won't be well received, but "common law[1]" marriages between citizens are also open to STATE intervention. "Earle Lilly, a noted divorce lawyer from Houston, ...represented a woman who claimed Dave Winfield as her common-law husband and won a $1.6 million judgment." "Citizenship", alone, "invites exactly this sort of intervention", since, like cattle (chattel), we become the "movable property" of the government, when we "submit [ourselves (individually)] to the dominion of [the] government", or when we don't (individually) rebut the presumption that we have submitted ourselves to the dominion of the government. The "rancher" gets to decide what his "cattle" can, or cannot, do. The only way out of this is to "withdraw from membership in the [herd]". ______________________________________________________________________________________ [1] If the two of you are not "citizens" of a government, your marriage will be called a "natural law marriage", because you will be of the natural state, or state of nature. Conjunctio mariti et faeminae est de jure naturae. The union of a man and a woman [as opposed to "persons" or "citizens"] is of the law of nature. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary, Maxim of Law
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Common Law Marriage Fact Sheet IF YOU LIVE IN A STATE THAT DOES RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE: If you live in one of the above states and you "hold yourself out to be married" (by telling the community you are married, calling each other husband and wife, using the same last name, filing joint income tax returns, etc.), you can have a common law marriage (for more information on the specific requirements of each state, see next page). Common law marriage makes you a legally married couple in every way, even though you never obtained a marriage license. IF YOU LIVE IN A STATE THAT DOES NOT RECOGNIZE COMMON LAW MARRIAGE, there is no way to form a common law marriage, no matter how long you live with your partner. There is one catch: if you spend time in a state that does recognize common law marriage, "hold yourself out as married," and then return or move to a state that doesn't recognize it, you are still married (since states all recognize marriages that occurred in other states). However, this is murky legal territory and we don't recommend experimenting with it! ___________________________________________________________________________________ Earle Lilly, a noted divorce lawyer from Houston, represented a woman who claimed Dave Winfield as her common-law husband and won a $1.6 million judgment.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    ....I would add that whilst Ayn Rand was moving the world fulcrum flow forward inch at a time and appearing "rigid" and "wooden" to some....I would submit she was self inoculating herself too. But without the timing and division of labor pressures of technology or the internet to press the "big" problem of intellectual property issue home she tripped over it. But she started to front-load her book sales (the reality thingy was pressing home). I will put up a link to that when I find it. Here is the link: 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 Ayn Rand's royalties from her work Night of January 16th gave her the first taste of financial independence, and how she later came to believe that she had not received enough. With each successive negotiation for book royalties and film rights, her terms became ever higher and ever more strict. ...Now, in a free market, there is nothing wrong with an upfront payment for first-run rights to a book or movie. It is by being first past the post that profits are made. Rand had perfectly sound instincts (a person should charge as much as he or she can for first run) but Rand's rationale was rooted in a modern notion of intellectual property... It goes on to show that not until N. Branden stopped intervening in word usage of Objectivism did it the philosophy flourish and change the western world and influence the Libertarians. And clearly this IP issue tied up her movie release and production. But we now know--not everyone, but it is out there now--that Intellectual Property (patents ad copyright) is a monopoly mine field that held back the division of labor society. And this ground breaking knowledge is thanks to some of her and Ludwig Von Mises innovative thinking students: Stephan Kinsella and Jeffrey Tucker. But I love this music: Atlas Shrugged Movie Music: The John Galt Them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2mULGktiw&feature=related "How a world without copyright would exist”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 From http://blog.mises.org/13327/l-neith-smith-on-ip/#comment-703028 By Curt Howland
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 48 weeks ago Page George F. Smith
    Just excellent, and an incredibly important topic. War after war, including the war on drugs, the war on supplements, the war on free speech, the war on unpasteurized milk, and a thousand other coercive and violent assaults on people are funded by and ultimately only POSSIBLE (certainly at such levels) because of central banking and fiat currency. Wars and other systematic assaults on people cost money, and even an onerous tax system can only squeeze so much from the citizens. Fiat money does the rest.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Actually, a "double-tap" is two quick shots to the same place. For example, the "Mozambique drill" is a double-tap to the chest, followed by a shot to the head. If Burrows is going to write about jargon, he ought to get the jargon right.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 48 weeks ago
    The Old Farm Shed
    Page Paul Bonneau
    @ Pivetta That's just sentimentality. Bonneau's right. Looks cool, but not worth damn. Forget about it and move on.
  • Guest's picture
    MarylineM (not verified) 2 years 48 weeks ago
    Life Sentence for Weed
    Web link Michael Dunn
    This is completely ridiculous. Maryline
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 2 years 48 weeks ago
    The Old Farm Shed
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Even as a natural-order anarchist, part of me still wants to believe the Constitution advances libertarian ideals. Politicians swear to uphold it. Doesn't it count for something when we show how they're violating it at every turn? Then again, libertarians have been doing that since the dawn of the Republic, and Thomas Jefferson's "natural order of things" still holds: "Liberty yields and government gains grounds." Time to catch the clue bus, I suppose. Hats off to you, Mr. Bonneau! Your analogy is all the more devastating and beautful for its simplicity.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Sharon Secor, All I get is the "Google Images" page when I click on the link...is that the humor? Perhaps this will help, with thanks to Censure's lead. http://graphjam.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/funny-graphs-policeman-light...
  • Guest's picture
    Censure (not verified) 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    http://graphjam.memebase.com/2009/11/30/funny-graphs-policeman-lights/
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Thanks, Harry Felker Great points!
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Hi Suverans2, Yes and yes and yes! I went looking for a post from you when I did not see it on the page I was on. And here you are 12 hours later... One of the reasons I enjoy Whedon's "Firefly" and "Serenity" on hulu or dvd on my pc--Not T.V. per se--is: It plays out in the present/future, with a crew of individual adventurers trading freely with themselves and compatibles. They avoid those who lord it over others…and this is productive! It is part of Get dvds, wireless wifi, cut the cable chord (Direct Actions)--sever the mundane with its self-serving cancerous insinuations and "Get A Life"--as in my own--(Direct Results) without permission, vulnerability, need nor urge to change others... http://www.strike-the-root.com/fake-tv-challenge I think he--AtlasAikido--left and moved to Atlantis without sailing on the Titantic...LOL Also enjoy this music: Atlas Shrugged Movie Music: The John Galt Theme http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV2mULGktiw&feature=related
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Lawrence, Re: "I [you] must have been confusing you [me]". "Confusing" only in the sense that you led some of your posts with caveats about "faults" regarding those you admire (Rand). See your posts to Mr. Merrick. (But it is not just you. He does it too). But you have explained much, so good for you. On further prodding after calling you to explain your preamble you have come forth as "loving" her work and contribution to "anarchy". Ok I get that. I don't think it is necessary to be concerned with the concrete bound and the zombies. So I don't bother with the Rand "fault" caveat. And that leads to Mr. Childs. As for Childs in his letter dated in 1969: that was sheer genius (sic) or bad luck and timing copying in Brandon after her split with him in 68. And more importantly starting off with I am here to help you Miss Rand, ahemm with your logic and floating abstractions. Ouch! Wonderful that Child had summed up the utopia impediments (I won't copy them here they are in the link below). But did he secede as in Shrug after from reading her book on anarchy "Atlas Shrugged"? Perhaps he should have proceeded from that direction being the genius he was said to be? Perhaps he got caught up in the awe of improving the Newtonian Pulley? Rand ESSENTIALLY SOLVED the problem of her "earlier works" by writing 1000 pages that lead to principled peaceful self anarchy, how, why and what to look to etc. and she did not have Dilorenzo's "The Real Lincoln" to turn to. Perhaps Child's had his own application problems and interests? Did Childs Find Freedom in an UNfree World? Did he take Thoreaus advice that I have posted on this thread (Wendy's Frugality and Here there is No State articles). I much prefer Carrie's on Objectivist Concept Formation problems, or George H. Smith's on how her principles lead to anarchy or Dennis Wilson's wrap up and clean up of Lysander Spooner's issues and the journey from Objectivism to anarchy--see above or below. But then it TOOK TIME to get to that point. Did it not? If Mr. Childs was waiting for the rest of the world to catch up or expecting Rand to be that fulcrum to a group then he missed the boat to Atlantis, "A is A" rational selfishness thingy. Perhaps he was too busy himself rearranging the deck chairs on the Group trap Titanic and ended up perhaps like Eddie Willers. I would not focus on that but it is one of the things Rand is faulted for not modeling anarchy Thoreau or Galts Gulch style. I must be a Real Fictional anomaly. Greetings Lawrence... As in literature and economics so in life. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathaniel_Branden The Rand-Branden business partnership lasted till May 1968. Rand announced in the The Objectivist, Branden would no longer be her intellectual heir and ordered all future printings of Atlas Shrugged not to carry his name in the dedication page. At the time, Rand did not reveal she was having a secret love affair with Branden who was twenty four years her junior and he was leaving her for a younger woman who was also an attractive model whom Branden would eventually marry. However, Branden divulged this information in his book, Judgment Day: my years with Ayn Rand.[2] http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html First published in 1969 in SIL's Individualist newsletter, The purpose of this letter is to convert you to free market anarchism. As far as I can determine, no one has ever pointed out to you in detail the errors in your political philosophy. That is my intention here. I attempted this task once before, in my essay "The Contradiction in Objectivism," in the March 1968 issue of the Rampart Journal, but I now think that my argument was ineffective and weak, not emphasizing the essentials of the matter. I will remedy that here.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Atlas: I must have been confusing you. I've loved her fiction and would never have satirized it if it had not been the case (good satire requires great intimacy with the target text!). I merely found her positions on Israel and NASA kind of goofy -- as well as her dictates on art and psychology. Fortunately, many former Randians evolved -- as I did. It is those who dipped her in concrete (and she did some of that to herself) and treat her like holy writ who have the problem. I hope I was clear about that. I loved many of her essays nonetheless and her portrayals of others. I have to confess that it was her hatred of libertarianism that first interested me in it and informed me of its existence. So I owe her for pointing me in the right direction there, and thence to anarchism.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Lawrence, Re:Atlas: I wouldn't have changed a thing about Ms. Rand's fiction. That is certainly a different caveat than but for her "plenty of faults". Wonderful and refreshing. I look forward to that new caveat regarding Ayn Rand. Re:They were great accomplishments, and I have nothing to even come close to it. All of us make these tiny errors, and as we develop and learn as human beings, we realize the flaws in our earlier work. Well this is the nub of it. Understanding How ideas work and applying them. However, actually implementing them--as you know--standing on her shoulders and others can be an uphill battle. Re: The idea of going back in time is impossible and silly. It is a wake up call to what is taken for granted. And it begins to open up the problems of writing with a fountain pen and a full scap vs today's technology and the access to knowledge that IS IN our minds. The Intellectual property issue was something back then that she tripped over and it was because the technology and internet break thru had not happened yet. There is a time for everything. Re: Yes, her dialog was wooden at times (and it made it into the good but flawed film that was recently released), but I don't think it matters in comparison to the wonderful things it communicated. Undoing centuries of rust infested canned philosophies and writing of a world outside of the one we still live in--the rat race whilst--embracing a division of labor society is probably how should I say it more World Fulcrum flow forward inch at a time and probably appears wooden to some. Imagine that! Re: Many of Rand's flaws are entirely excusable as examples of this. The only serious concern I have about her and some of those who claim to follow in her footsteps is their rigid adherence to errors that should have been abandoned in here subsequent non-fiction essays. For example, the "open letter to Ayn Rand" written by Roy Childs many years ago was an opportunity for the Randians to evolve. Many of them did, but they had to leave her official graces to do so. That kind of "hardening of the categories" that they exhibited was a sad thing. Here's the link for Roy's essay: Thanks, I am familiar with it and I would add that whilst Ayn Rand was moving the world fulcrum flow forward inch at a time and appearing "wooden" to some of the best of us I would submit she was self inoculating herself too. But perhaps without the timing and division of labor pressures of technology or the internet to press the "big" problem of intellectrual property issue home and which she tripped over but started to front-load her book sales (the reality thingy was pressing home). I will put up a link to that when I find it. You are NOT--it appears--a "Randian" in the sense you use it on others. So they are apparently in the canned philosophy mode even when the times and division of labor would say that Child's points are worth considering and that the IP issue is indeed sensible. Apparently you are able to step to your own beat and so am I. That makes two of us. So what are we? In summary I would say that it would be "silly" and improbable for you to caveat your works with--I [you] have plenty of "faults" small and large and one of those is being having "wooden" issues. But have it your way, when the next time you do some heavy lifting such as concrete pounding a New Foundation on capitalism or secession or reason over force or...--try playing a violin afterwards or during or because someone is trying to convince you of such when you are in action when the time is NOT ripe! The mind is a fine tuned machine last time I looked. The hand to mouth to brain cells nicotine monkey on the back was another inherited problem that eventually killed her. I don't hold Rand responsible for uncritical zombies nor for helping the tobacco industry types nor those who will not help themselves and smoke because Rand smoked. They have been with us a long time. And they will even join up and perhaps assimilate the unwary with package deals. But they are not my drooling beasts and not because I say so...
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 2 years 48 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    Thanks, Glen (and Paul). The movie really has a lot of other fine points to it. Usually, with these movies, the makers like to showcase all the gorgeousness of royal interiors, the opulence of their lifestyle; not so in this film. It's full of narrow, confining hallways and darkened parlors. Colin Firth meanders through an ornate prison for the duration of the film. When he gives a halted speech accepting his kingship, he looks at one portrait after another of previous monarchs, and you can just feel the superiority vs. inferiority battle raging in his head while he stutters his words. Marvelous.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Harry Goslin
    The experiment of providing unlimited funds for a school district has already been tried: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html Strangely enough, it didn't work. Gee, I wonder why?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    This certainly isn't a complete answer, but in a truly free market the huge monopolistic behemoth corporations, creations of government, would not exist in their current form. A company in a free market would have to rely on its customers, period. If a company was even suspected (forget having to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt) of polluting or carrying on in some unacceptable manner (Unacceptable to whom? Their customers. Actual human beings who can choose to purchase a service or not from a variety of sources), then they would lose business and quickly go out of business if they did not remedy the situation. If human beings actually demanded electricity without the unwanted side effect of spewing mercury into the air, I guarantee that ingenious individuals would solve that problem in a free market. I would venture to say that the solution exists right now, but since there is no free market, we don't see it. Our scientific achievements have ground to a halt due to IP and government enforced monopolies. Schools, cars, roads, trains, postal service, utilities, all look pretty much the same over the last century because there are no competitive markets to drive them forward or evolve them into something else. If every home had a power generator that ran on water or a magnetic generator, there would be NO power companies spewing crap into the air. The problems we see in the world are CAUSED by government interference, and the only solutions, we are told, are more government regulations. This is false. Humans do not need government to stop greedy humans from crapping in the nest, they need the nest-crapping government to go away. Most of the self-destructive behavior we see in our species is because someone is waving a gun around to cause it, to their great profit. Stop enabling the sociopaths seems to be the best solution. Also interesting related reading: http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly?sms_ss=facebook...
  • hacksoncode's picture
    hacksoncode 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Sadly, the only conclusion that I can draw from that essay is that there's no possible way to hold people accountable for actions that damage others properties in a diffuse and indirect way, even if that damage is extensive, and the causal connection between the behavior and the class of damage can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. According to Rothbard, if you can't prove a causal connection between one specific attacker and one specific victim, you can't hold them accountable, and you can't join attackers in a suit unless they acted in concert. The reasoning for this seems to be no more than "because I think it's wrong". This is one of the many reasons I find Rothbard's particular flavor of libertarian ethics both logically inconsistent and morally offensive. It's also incredibly ignorant of science. Air pollution eventually has a direct (if small) impact on every square inch of the planet, much of which was already homesteaded by the time the industrial revolution started. There can logically be no such thing as "homesteading a right to pollute" in the case of the air. In other situations, such as water or ground pollution, and certainly noise pollution, that argument might be possibly valid (though one would have to conclude similarly that some parts of the ocean have been homesteaded since antiquity, and there are very few areas on the Earth that are hydrographically completely isolated).
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Their real motto is as follows: "To protect each other and to serve ourselves."
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Atlas: I wouldn't have changed a thing about Ms. Rand's fiction. They were great accomplishments, and I have nothing to even come close to it. All of us make these tiny errors, and as we develop and learn as human beings, we realize the flaws in our earlier work. The idea of going back in time is impossible and silly. Yes, her dialog was wooden at times (and it made it into the good but flawed film that was recently released), but I don't think it matters in comparison to the wonderful things it communicated. Many of Rand's flaws are entirely excusable as examples of this. The only serious concern I have about her and some of those who claim to follow in her footsteps is their rigid adherence to errors that should have been abandoned in here subsequent non-fiction essays. For example, the "open letter to Ayn Rand" written by Roy Childs many years ago was an opportunity for the Randians to evolve. Many of them did, but they had to leave her official graces to do so. That kind of "hardening of the categories" that they exhibited was a sad thing. Here's the link for Roy's essay: http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    And whenever someone dares to criticize the men who would be gods, some cop-lover invariably pipes up with some drivel about how cops don't get to "pick and choose" what laws to enforce. If that were true, I say, they'd be so busy arresting each other they wouldn't have time to rummage through our toilets and trash desperately seeking excuses to justify their own existences.
  • rita's picture
    rita 2 years 48 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    The headline says it best, but Vox got it backwards -- the police are the enemy, and the state the servant of the police. Every public employee, elected or hired, from the lowliest paper-pusher to the president, serves the interest of the police. The police serve no one but themselves.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day AtlasAikido, We, (my natural law wife and I), too, "shrugged", over ten years ago, and as a result of that we are "in" the world, but not "of" it. “I would add some--including myself once upon a time--would sit and RELY on "rights"...” ~ AtlasAikido Point well taken. It is useless to “sit” on our natural rights, we must “act”, based upon our natural rights. We “rely” on natural rights only to determine if our acts are just (right) or unjust (wrong). Also, it is, most times, critical, when speaking of “rights”, that we specify the kind of “rights” we are referring to, since all rights are based on membership; the natural rights of man are based solely on membership in the human race, artificial rights are based on membership in artificial man-made groups. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights (Copy and paste.)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re: Mr Ludlow's, Good points. I wonder what Wallace's real beef is with Ms. Rand. She has plenty of faults, but I still love her for knocking me upside the head -- so to speak -- and waking me up. I don't think anyone else could have done it. She re-introduced the moral element into the picture in a powerful way by showing how socialists are first-rate victimizers and cannibals. A question. So what do you propose Ayn Rand could have done as a different writing style or plot theme or character development? You are an accomplished writer in your own right. I enjoyed what you wrote. And if she had written what you write, would you have gotten your dose of wake up (freedom)? After all you now know what you needed. After the fact? She was prescient on what is going on right now and even what may come... Could you or one imagine a bench mark of oneself, back in time without internet and lap top computer and without access to a division of labor society and all of the books on-line at one's finger tips? And could one tear out what one now knows because of her and others (which is the Intellectual Property "Copywrong" thicket currently being un-ravelled and which she inherited and tripped over most especially because the internet and technology has pressed this issue)? If one cannot do this, is this entirely different from what she had to contend with, with those around her and her peers and indeed with herself? What was she--Rand--to mitigate, to recover, to change? I have to say that this continual "fault" caveat reminds of bowing and scraping (I have noticed that here on this site amongst other things and I am still working this thru) but I would say her heroes are shorn of these "fault" NON-Essentials. Thank goodness. I am personally more interested in her Innovations, which were significant as was her worked out prototype of "Galt's Gulch" in "Atlas Shrugged", which was the pinnacle of her legacy. She was an Earthling and surrounded by govt, religion and people nursed on centuries of "canned" philosophies. She left a hint to the real problem of frozen abstractions--doing one thing and then replacing it with some equivalent. It has taken me a life time to lift the veil and to be free of it. She did the heavy innovative lifting as did such students as Harry Browne--in his own right and he was super benevolent and a model of much of what he wrote--and yet people still drop the solution.... She described Dagny as expecting others to have the same values and then she took that to its ultimate conclusion. She corrected that and showed how. When I read Lysander Spooner I don't have to wade thru this "but for his faults" Nor Harry Browne's "faults" nor Mr. Ludlow's or Mr. Merrick's as a preamble. I certainly don't come at things that way.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 2 years 48 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    On sufferance? In 1848 the most commonly heard phrase was -"Free soil, free speech ,free labor, and free men." The good old days when men were men who had a cause. 'Tis taiseh to think one's penny silver of today? What happened to produce the timid men of today? Was it Ayn Rand? 'Tis funny to think these time bettering days. Why the clerisy of Ayn Rand?