Recent comments

  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re: How did she end up prototyping a gulch without the need nor the interest nor the inclination of govt that some are hung up on still." Re: That's part of what I got out of the book. I confess to only having read it once, but it was fairly recent. And Re: The one part of the narrative where I felt that I disagreed strongly was the shrugging judge at the end, changing The Constitution as if doing so was the final requirement for a freedom revolution. I posted a solution to your cogent identification (and put you with Lysander Spooner as he had come to a similar conclusion regarding the constitution (allowing what has happened or unable to stop what has come to be). Happily there is a way to get away from governing others by controlling ones-self and attracting those who are compatible (and the explicit root of what that is (a personal covenant of unanimous consent). I have enjoyed your articles. This is one: The Fake TV Challenge by B.R. Merrick, http://www.strike-the-root.com/fake-tv-challenge I had already prototyped and adopted this and you described it perfectly for me: Get dvds, wifi, cut the cable chord (Direct Actions)--sever the rat race 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...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Nice! Yes, Suverans2, I was thinking of Rand's: The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. She spoke of individual rights but I don't rely on rights, but on myself, peaceful innovation, rational self-interest, trade with compatibles/ erring on the side of freedom and my feet... I seem to have answered your question in your thumbs up post. Yes, you are right! I too was unable to add an edit. I think your logical arrangement of definitions (genus / differrentia; essentials/fundamentals via common denominators/measurement omission) was highly illuminating. Wonderful when someone understands what one has said and adds to it and improves it (grin). A note to myself: In Atlas Shrugged Rand used MANY "twinnings" of SALIENT similarities and significant differences between characters (Rearden and Boyle and Rearden and Stadler and so on) and this followed from her theory of concept formation (Objectivist Epistemology). One of the many multi-tiered ways she used to tie her characters and root her book in reality. She presciently foresaw what is happening today...
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The funniest thing I encounter is text blindness and the isogloss. 'Tis just a caprice of the feminine mind. In the end, both are consimilar. A feigned issue. One can only interwish nicery. The law burrows deeply? or The -law burrows- deeply? Big difference to strike the root. What would Thoreau do?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Civil War
    Web link Don Stacy
    Timothy Sandefur, ATTORNEY AT LAW, asserts that "secession was and remains totally illegal", in particular "unilateral secession". Some of us might want to see the particular Amendment to the Constitution, or the so-called law, "made in Pursuance thereof", which makes "secession...totally illegal". “It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede.” ~ Thomas Franck, (one of the five international law experts), as quoted in Suzanne Lalonde, Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of UIT POSSIDETIS 209 (2002) [Emphasis added] And, if it was NOT, and is NOT, "totally illegal", would it not be an overt act of aggression for a foreign nation to place armed troops on another country's soil [Ft. Sumter] without its express permission? Would this ATTORNEY AT LAW also say that the secession of the original thirteen united States of America from England "was and remains totally illegal"? Timothy Sandefur, ATTORNEY AT LAW, also needs to understand the fundamental difference between a Declaration and a Constitution; a Declaration 'creates' nothing, it is simply a lawful and/or legal notice, and in the case The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, specifically, it was a notice of secession.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    And, one of the funniest things I encounter, Bob, is someone who has trouble understanding simple sentence structure. The correct tense is "understand", Bob, not "understood". And, attacking the messenger with name-calling really shows the paper tiger behind your arguments.
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "Guess again, Bob." One of the funniest things I encounter is someone who quotes dictionary defintions because they cannot understood the advanced technical definitions. One of the greatest State-worshipping collectivists among psuedo-libertarians was Ayn Rand.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Civil War
    Web link Don Stacy
    Timothy Sandefur, an ATTORNEY AT LAW, (not a lawyer), wrote: "In all their writings, we witness the pathetic spectacle of professed defenders of liberty arguing in favor of the illegal “right” of a racist despotism to perpetuate its institutions without criticism; of the “right,” that is, to enslave." That statement is, in the words of Timothy Sandefur himself, "just shockingly ignorant, ...distorted, illogical, and ahistorical", in that I have yet to see any true "defenders of liberty" saying any such thing, let alone "all" of them. Off to a bad start, Timothy Sandefur, lying like that, but what can we expect from an ATTORNEY AT LAW.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted, because I added this, on, I think, the third editing. (I'm a perfectionist.) [2]"Basic" is defined by Macmillan Dictionary as, "forming the main or most important part of something, without which it cannot really exist"; therefore the only "basic political unit" is the individual man and woman.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day AtlasAikido, A well thought out reply! Thumb up! You wrote, "The book leads one to come to the counter intuitive of peaceful secession." Why would you classify "peaceful secession" as "counter intuitive"? Or, am I reading that wrong? And, it is important to note that this was individual secession; these freedom-loving individuals did not seek to force non-voters and dissenting voters to secede with them by putting it to a vote. PRIMACY OF THE RIGHT TO SECEDE The primary political right[1] of the individual...must be to secede from any larger political entity, whether they were born into it, were forced to join it, or voluntarily joined it. http://www.secession.net/ [1] Individual secession is a natural right, not a political right. Many think in terms of "state's rights" secession, especially in the United States, with such states opposed to secession by smaller political units. However, Secession.Net promotes "community-based secession," assuming that smaller entities like communities, towns, small cities, neighborhoods within larger cities will and must become the basic political unit, after the individual. (Ibid.) [Emphasis added] The only natural entity in the above paragraph is the individual man or woman, individual men and women therefore have natural rights. States, communities, towns, small cities, neighborhoods within larger cities, and "citizens", on the other hand, are created by artifice, they are, therefore, "artificial persons[1]", and as such they can only have artificial rights, i.e. legal rights, such as political and civil rights, and by civil rights is meant, "right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship". [1]Artificial persons. Persons created by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re:Column by Bob Wall[a]ce. Exclusive to STR Re:What a philosophy claims and what it delivers are often two different things. Marxism was supposed to create a heaven on earth but instead created a hell. I think Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, would also create a hell on earth. Huh. You don't have to know what's in it--a philosophy--or how it's cooked, no effort is required of you, just swallow it—and if it poisons you, it was your own fault, the cooks will tell you, you didn't have enough "faith."’ Paraphrased from The Journals of Ayn Rand, Notes 1955-1977. Well happily Rand broke that centuries long religionist faith based strangle hold. Back when there was no Mises institute nor internet, and her ideas were more than the one inch to pull oneself out of the conformance servitude idolatry of state and church. Re: Rand divided people into two groups: her perfect John Galtian heroes, and everyone else – whom she described as “sub-humans” living in “a hell.” She projected all “evil” onto her “looters” and “parasites” and reserved all goodness for her heroes. Such a division does not exist in real life. The Principle of Comparative Advantage and the Pyramid of Ability principle is how the division of labor society progressed (in spite of the State). The Steel Industrialist Hank Rearden was an Atlas but flawed as was Dagny Taggart the Operativing VP of a railroad in their acceptance of contradictions--accepting the wrong philosophy--and are resolved in Part III "A is A" of Atlas Shrugged. Re: In fact, this division into human/sub-human is one of the foundations of all wars. This all-good/all-bad split is also the basis of all propaganda, which is why Atlas Shrugged is in many ways a vast propaganda tract. (A good current example of propaganda was when the terminally addled George Bush claimed “the Evil Ones” attacked the United States “for our goodness.”) Actually Atlas Shrugged differentiates subsidy seeking businessmen and the heroes of the book Including Eddie Willers--who was not a business magnate and not an Atlas--and they are UNinterested in being subsidized by the state. And they come to understand that by Rand's principles played out, that they should leave the men-that-hold-a-whip over them to their own devices--peacefully (understanding the sanction of the victim and more below). Re: Rand apparently truly believed when the world collapsed after her two dozen or so heroes withdrew into Galt’s Gulch, they would emerge to rule over the ruins. Would they rule benevolently and establish a permanent free market? More truly is self-rule which is what the heroes embodied and practiced and continued to practice by walking away--unfortunately Étienne de La Boétie was not on my reading list thirty years ago but resolve to serve no more follows from Galt's Oath. Re The answer: no. The answer is NOT "no" in Atlas Shrugged's 1000 pages. The book leads one to come to the counter intuitive of peaceful secession. Re: The only true, eternal social division that exists is between the “elites” (I use that term neutrally) and the “masses.” I believe it is far more fundamental than “left” and “right.” And Re: I’ve heard this split defined as “ranchers” and “cattle.” For thousands of years, way back to Jesus and Aesop, it’s been called “wolves” and “sheep.” Vilfredo Pareto referred to the elites as “wolves” and “foxes.” And Re: The purpose of the elites is to maintain their economic and political power – to maintain what James Burnham in his book The Machiavellians called their “power and privilege.” This means using the power of the State to exploit the masses, which are mostly inert until pushed too far by the elites’ lust for blood, power and money. Then many times there is violent payback. This is what Rand warned against as the attila and witch doctors and she gave a peaceful Thoreau like solution to that in Atlas Shrugged... Re: All politics is based on force and fraud. As such, the elites will always use those two weapons against the people to maintain their position – force is violence and fraud is lies and propaganda. All States are founded on, and run on, lies and violence. That word "politics" has been co-opted--self governance is possible for even us simple folk. How hard is that? Re: Could Rand’s “perfect” elites be trusted to rule? No. They would use their political power to exploit everyone else to enrich themselves. Her perfect heroes are purely fictional – they don’t exist in real life. Tell that to Steve Winn in Macau and the C.J. Rodgers CEO Cypress Semi Conductor and ...They do not rule. They create jobs...They are Atlases.... Re: This exploitation of the masses by the elites using the power of the States has been the history of the world. Even if Rand’s heroes established the free market, their descendents would overturn it. More of Wallace's malevolent metaphysics and there is an antidote to that mind set in Rand and Mises and so on...But 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 Lincoln as the route to their Libertarianism but of Rand. Re: I am reminded of Lord Acton’s saying: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I prefer the saying, “Power intoxicates, and immunity corrupts.” And Re: Dostoevsky put it in The House of the Dead, "Tyranny . . . finally develops into a disease. The habit can . . . coarsen the very best man to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate . . . the return to human dignity, to repentance, to regeneration, becomes almost impossible." The Swiss understand that by having a 4% referendum of signatures they can rescind a law and can serve as a "check" on political power and their cantons (states) do not like each other... Rand differentiates Political power--the power of the gun--from Economic power. And what to do when a society has reach the point when too many businessmen use the power of the state as a club. Thoreaux was more interested in the business of life than the civil disobedience thingy so apparently was Rand. Re: Political science (perhaps political economy is a better term) should start with how things are, not how scholars and writers want things to be. By starting with how things are, political economy becomes a science, and being a science, cures or prescriptions can be formulated. And Re: In physics and chemistry, scientists start with how things are. Yet, in economics and political science, thinkers/tinkerers often start with how they want things to be, or how things will be if their prescriptions are followed. It’s why there exists that old saying, if you took every economist in the world and laid them end to end, they’d all point in different directions. Re: Rand did not start with how things are. She started with how she wanted things to be. Like all leftists (and she was in many ways a leftist, in addition to being a narcissist), she did not understand human nature, which is why she thought a vanishingly small minority could rule over humanity, permanently establish political and economic liberty, and not become corrupted by unlimited power. If you have problem with this argument it should be taken up with the Mises institute. They just went thru this mindset from congress critters who accused the Austrian Economists of the same whilst speaking for Ron Paul. Look up DiLorenzo... Rand understood enough: Such as The Laws of Identity, Causality and the principles of Freedom and Rationality. The Trader Principle and the Division of Labor. The Principles of Rational Selfishness and Justice. Not the least the The study of Capitalism the study of the production of wealth in a division of labor society (remnant). Paraphrased there is Rand's Galts Oath "I swear by my life and love it that I will not live for another man nor ask another to live for me" which leads to "resolve to serve no more", Étienne de La Boétie: Ending Tyranny Without Violence and The Zero Aggression principle and Thoreau's Get on with the business of your life. Here, the State Is Nowhere to Be Seen: Mises Daily: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 by Wendy McElroy 'As the crazed election season approaches and straw hats are dusted off, it is prudent to remember what the 19th-century American anarchist Henry David Thoreau called "the business of living."' http://mises.org/daily/5250/Here-the-State-Is-Nowhere-to- Be-Seen The Case for Frugality Mises Daily: Friday, April 08, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5183/The-Case-for-Frugality VS The "inevitability of Marx" and his implicit and explicit adherents "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". Does Rand deserve to be to defended? I think so... The post by Mr Wallace seems to be more tied to the resurgence in the Atlas Shrugged book sales second most read book in the world...and his having a problem with the way things have turned out in his homeland not to metnion his other problems (see above). Some anarcho libertarians--more than Mr Wallace has clue--have used Rand's works to set themselves free of an Unfree world. I refer to the following post for the things possible (instead of the Marxian inevitability despair and utopia traps that Mr Wall[a]ce continues to posit here and other threads) Even though her description of Galt's Gulch is a functional anarchy (no rulers), Rand abhorred what she thought of as "anarchy" and she explicitly embraced the idea of minimal government. HOWEVER, as George H Smith points out "...Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds". “IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM” http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=34.0 And Carrie Burdzinski identifies good reason why SOME Objectivists do not apply these principles. “Objectivist Resistance to Anarchy: A Problem of Concept Formation?” Column by new Root Striker Carrie Burdzinski. http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/burdzinski/burdzinski1.html And Dennis Wilson ties it all together from what Ayn Rand says about the gulch in her letters; Judge Narragansett’s activities in the closing pages of Atlas Shrugged; Galts Oath NAP/ZAP and the L. Neil Smith’s Covenant of Unanimous Consent. The Covenant also satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner and B.R. Merrick. Look for the first five asterisks ***** In: “A personal journey from Objectivist morality to political “anarchy**” http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=10.0 http://tinyurl.com/2dm6kgj ________________________________________ http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle379-20060806-03.html
  • Guest's picture
    Al (not verified) 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Zenigma
    Page tzo
    Yes, tzo and Glen, 20 years is about right. I wasted about that much time doing politics before I finally acknowledged the futility. What can I say, sometimes I'm a bit slow. Since I've gotten off the futile path, I travel down one more promising. It will take me more than a year - as I said, I can be a bit slow - but I'm no longer in a hurry.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    I was taught that law meant -that which is laid or fixed, to lie-. 'Tis established OR enforced by a sovereign authority. Where lies the law in conformity to the constitution? Over the hill? Care to mutilate the feet? The -law burrows- deeply?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Since the previous one was so well received by all you "sovereign men and women", here's another one for you. It too is by Frank van Dun. It is his treatise on the difference between Lawful and legal. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Abstract. This paper presents an etymological approach to the confusing language of law and rights. It attempts to uncover the archetypical situations and relationships that appear to have been the original referents of words such as 'law' and 'rights', 'legal' and 'just', as well as other words that are indispensable in discourses about law and justice: 'freedom', 'equality', 'peace', 'authority', 'society' and others. The concepts of the lawful and the legal can be clearly distinguished. The distinction between them sheds an interesting light, not only on the lawyer's conception of law, but also on the old controversy over natural law. From the analysis there emerges a distinctly liberal conception of social order as well as a naturalistic, non-normative conception of natural law, with no metaphysical or theological connotations of a "higher law". The elements uncovered by the analysis provide a coherent scheme of law that can serve as the basis for a non-deontic, rights-based logic of law. ~ The Lawful and the legal by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law [Emphasis added] _____________________________________________________________________________
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Self may be a remnant to be left. 'Tis just an element of compound words. As in -self originating-. Or would it be -self culture-? Either way, remain -self willed-. One should always look at life as being dreadless. One must have the ability -to hold forth-. There are those in this world that fail -to put in mind-.
  • Carrie Burdzinski's picture
    Carrie Burdzinski 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Carrie Burdzinski
    Thanks to everyone who commented! :-) I think you are touching on the even deeper root of the problem: parents who are neither independent nor courageous. They do not trust themselves to comprehend reality, to evaluate facts, to judge their observations, and to make the best decisions for their family. Because they are afraid of the responsibility of relying on their own judgment, they elect politicians who appeal to their feelings of fear and inadequacy. "We are the government experts. We will keep you safe. We will tell you what to think. All you have to do is blindly obey." Parents then shirk their responsibilities and accept government dogma. It becomes a vicious cycle, because most children who are raised with this mentality will continue to accept the idea that government is needed to take care of them. The solution is brave, heroic individualists who are not afraid to discover and speak the truth, thereby inspiring others to do the same.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Congratulations, ElasahBazlith, you went 'trolling' and caught a sucker...me. LOL
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Guess again, Bob. self noun▸who you are and what you think and feel, especially the conscious feeling of being separate and different from other people ~ Macmillan Dictionary Too bad "collectivists" waste their time on libertarian websites.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    @ ElasahBazlith, That was in response to this, "The psychiatric definition of narcissism is..." Bob Wallace did not say, "The witch doctor definition of narcissism is..."
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The opposite of indivualism is not collectivism. That's a straw man. True opposites are freedom versus the State, the Political Means versus the Economic Means. No one is "an individual." Our "self" is created by our relationships with other people. You can't be a father without a child, a spouse without a husband of wife, etc. No one is "independent," because we are involved in an infinite web of relationships with other people, the environmetnt, etc. Are of us are part of a "collective." Rand is a complete fraud, a third-rate philosoper, a philodoxer. Too bad "libertarians" waste their time with nonsense. I've yet to meet one who understood even the basics of Object Relations Theory, which inn one form or other, runs backs thousands of years.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The aspector , jawn, that is right, change subject. Throw a cat in the meal? Nah I would rather wait to see which way the cat jumps. And you? FUNNY Enough to make a cat laugh? STOP STOP To early for the forfex. Forhend the forinsecal .
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder See modern mainstream media operations manual. When it comes to a choice between a PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION GANG MEMBER or a witch doctor, I would choose the witch doctor. At least you could get the chicken back for YOUR dinner. Why grant plenipotentiary license? To make prize of?
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Carrie Burdzinski
    Rita's right about the alienation. But the question remains: why do parents take the government's word about anything? Hasn't the State's well-documented legacy of lies, enslavement, conscription, extortion, confiscation, counterfeiting, kidnapping, mayhem, mass murder and assorted villainies taught them anything? I am reminded of a clip of dialogue from the movie *Kafka*: Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you? Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt. Gabriela: They’re authorities! That’s reason enough. My parents grew up in Belgium and Italy, coming to North America as young adults. As working-class ethnics, they looked to the government to create jobs and protect them from exploitation from "the rich," so I can't say I had a libertarian upbringing. But food is central to social and family life among Italians. They certainly wouldn't have put any stock in diktats issuing from their presumed betters concerning what they should or should not put on the dinner table. They trusted their own judgment too much for that. Despite their socialist leanings, moreover, they maintained a healthy skepticism about "the authorities." It's a wonder otherwise intelligent human beings don't. My compliments to Prof. Burdzinski on a concise, persuasive and finely-crafted column.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day rita, As you no doubt noticed, those were not my words, I was quoting Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary. Of course, you are correct, things have evidently changed since that writing and several states now bar "citizen felons" from voting, even after they have completed any custodial sentence; this is because political rights can be taken by "due process of law", and "due process of law" is whatever the corporation you voluntarily choose to be a member of says it is. But the reason you are "still...subject (voluntarily) to the laws made by those elected" is because you voluntarily choose to retain your "membership" in a STATE and/or in the UNITED STATES, which you made manifest when you unequivocally stated, "...something like 12% of the "citizens" do NOT have the right to vote. I'm one of them...". "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." ~ XIII Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Most individuals "voluntarily choose to retain [their] membership in a STATE and/or in the UNITED STATES, because they believe that life outside of the system would not be "easy", or as "lucrative" ["for filthy lucre’s sake"], as inside the system. They are probably right on both counts. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom..."; well, you know the rest.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day Bob Wallace, You apparently didn't see my question. Individualism & Ender = Endervidualism Does this author have a problem with, and wish to end, individualism? The opposite of individualism is collectivism. And, if you are a collectivist, i.e. "a supporter of collectivism", it would certainly explain your apparent hatred of Ayn Rand and/or her writings. "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." ~ Ayn Rand Strange, I do not see anything even vaguely resembling, “splitting things into airtight compartments of all-good and all-bad, pure good and pure evil,” in the diagnostic criteria for “narcissistic personality disorder” listed below. Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) (4) requires excessive admiration (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm
  • RoyceChristian's picture
    RoyceChristian 3 years 10 weeks ago
    On To Tripoli!
    Web link Westernerd
    "Endless war" is unlikely. Gaddaffi's forces are finite and his people hate him. He has lost control of Misurata and the border regions close to Tripoli. Every time his forces leave cover to travel to head towards a target or get supplies, they are being attacked from the air or from the opposition on the ground. His allies have abandoned him, his ministers and diplomats have defect and many in the military are defecting every day. Not to mention that the US hasn't played a huge role in this conflict and has largely left Leadership to NATO and the European countries.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I don't know where you live, Suverans, but in my neck of the woods, something like 12% of the "citizens" do NOT have the right to vote. I'm one of them, but still I'm subject (involuntarily) to the laws made by those elected. One of my ancestors came to America as an indentured servant (voluntary servitude). When the debt was paid, she was free. I, on trhe other hand, will never be.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The drug war will never end because people will always want drugs, and as long as there's a demand there will be a supply. But don't fool yourself that's it's not "winnable." Every time you have to stand in line to buy cold medicine, the masters win. Every time you or your children are random drug-tested, at work or at school, the masters win. As Mexico melts down and over 2 million Americans languish in cages, the masters win. Because prohibition is, and always has been, a tool of oppression. And its spin-off war has never been anything but an excuse to ramp up the fear and the violence, increasing the oppression and furthering the careers of lawmakers and law enforcers. At the small price of human life. They win.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I recently discovered "The Nietzsche Reader" (ed. Keith Ansell Pearson) - it gathers together a lot of the best and most recent translations of his work, including obscure pieces and earlier writings like "The Greek State." I highly recommend it.
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "Narcissism is egoism" The psychiatric definition of narcissism is splitting things into airtight compartments of all-good and all-bad, pure good and pure evil. It doesn't matter if it's Narcissistic Personality Disorder, Borderline Personality Disorder, or Sociopathic/Psychopathic Personality Disorder. All you have to do, on a mass scale, if look at Communism, Nazism, or any genocidal monotheistic religions --Judaism, Christianity, Islam. Where do you think the idea of an all-good God and an all-bad Devil came from? It also applies to Rand's religion and her close-minded fanatical followers.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Glen, thanks for these wonderful quotes and the suggested translation. Now I can begin -- slowly -- to possibly understand this rather complex source!
  • SlipperyPencil's picture
    SlipperyPencil 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Carrie Burdzinski
    Even worse than the commercials is this study where pregnant women will be given drugs to prevent obese babies, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8505630/Babies-given-anti-o...
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 11 weeks ago
    The Proletarian Mind
    Web link Michael Kleen
    A wonderful piece explaining how wage slavery kills the human spirit. Read it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." ~ XIII Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Voluntary servitude, on the other hand, is not only legal, but also lawful. Every citizen [one who has voluntarily enslaved himself] has the right of voting for public officers, and of being elected; these are the political rights which the humblest citizen possesses. ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856 Edition [Bracketed information and emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Narcissism is egoism, 1a : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action b : a doctrine that individual self-interest is the valid end of all actions 2 : excessive concern for oneself with or without exaggerated feelings of self-importance, or egocentrism, thinking only of oneself, without regard for the feelings or desires of others ; self-centered, neither of which, in my opinion, has anything at all to do with "splitting things into...pure good and pure evil". Individualism & Ender = Endervidualism Does this author have a problem with, and wish to end, individualism? The opposite of individualism is collectivism.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Great use of dogs to help explain the human condition! I sometimes think STR should REQUIRE dog examples in every column, but that would be going too far. I disagree with you on incompetence vs evil, however: Bush, for instance, PLANNED to invade Iraq even before the 2000 elections. That's not incompetence; it's criminal behavior (invading another nation on false pretenses -- and after campaigining on "a humble foreign policy") including mass murder. If "evil" means anything -- I'm talking about the here-and-now world, not anything supernatural -- then I'd say that qualifies. As for ideologies and the tendency to see everything in black or white, them or us, completely true or not-true -- for the most part, I agree.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I'm another Nietzsche fan, and I agree: he's sometimes hard to take. It helps a great deal to use one of the better translations; I'd recommend those by Walter Kaufmann. Kaufmann was both scholarly and, most important, adept at laying some of the music and poetry of Nietszche's writing into his translations. I'm making the assumption that the artistry IS in the German original; I don't speak the language but I can say that when I read most translations by anyone other than Kaufmann, I cringe. I used this quotation at the top of my very first column for STR in 2002 (Government is Not Compassion): "Indeed, a hellish artifice was invented there, a horse of death, clattering in the finery of divine honors. Indeed, a dying for many was invented there, which praises itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, "On the New Idol" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, part 1, translation by Walter Kauffmann. The rest of this section is equally dramatic and clear. For instance: "State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth: 'I, the state, am the people.' That is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life." I'd recommend The Portable Nietzsche -- a Kindle version is available, thank goodness -- for a both a nice collection of his aphorisms (a Nietzsche specialty, as you surely know), longer sections (The Problem of Socrates in Twilight of the Idols is a favorite), and of course Zarathustra. 90% is annoying or overly-neurotic or local news and gossip or otherwise not interesting to me; the remaining 10% is often stellar and deep enough to make re-reading every few years a joy.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "When it comes to politics, the mass of people never learn, because the mass of people cannot think, only feel; they don’t follow principles, only leaders." This MAY be overstating things a bit. My impression is that most people don't follow leaders so much as hold their nose and pick the least offensive alternative (according to their values). And that they do generally follow principles, but inconsistently; and they are easily taken advantage of, by playing on their emotions, particularly on their fears. And I think people do usually learn over time. In other words I don't have quite the black and white view of the average Joe as you do. ;-)
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Hi, Michael: Thanks for your reply and for clarifying these changes. It helped a great deal. Apparently Nietzsche isn't like Plato (or Augustine for that matter) who changed for the worse as he got older -- becoming more and more statist. You've helped to clarify this a bit. I find Nietzsche to be a very challenging writer to understand -- very passionate and emotional with a vocabulary all its own at times, as so many of the Romantics were. Thanks again.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    *-jugal- A person who behaves unacceptably by societal standards, and uses every possible environmental element to his advantage even if it is dishonest and cruel. It is a temporary arrangement made to fix up the problem. It is used in all industries to keep the production flowing while temporary arrangements are made .
  • tomcat's picture
    tomcat 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    The way the State of Israel was created is indeed nothing new in History.The Europeans did it during the 19th Century and all the Centuries before in Africa, America and Asia. One Justification for Colonisation was the Fact that the People who lived in these Parts of the World never had created States -at least not the Kind of States which the Europeans would have acknowledged as such- and thus all the Land belonged to those who were able to take it, if necessary by Force. - Might is Right- Of Course it didn' matter that the Natives had been first and might have lived there for Generations . Instead they got generous Offers of peaceful Coexistence:They could stay in their "Homelands" as long as they didnt get in the way of the new Masters; they also got the Offer to work as Servants or do other dirty lowpaid Work. Unfortunately in to many Cases the stupid Natives stubbornly clung to the Ilusion that the Land actually belonged to them and ungratefully rejected the Offers of peaceful Coexistence.So in the late 1940's colonial Langgrabbing was already out of Style.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Lawrence, as you've pointed out, Nietzsche was a complicated man and it is often difficult to determine exactly what he meant. It's even more difficult with his thoughts on the State because they are scattered throughout his writing. For a while, I thought he was being contradictory because in his earlier writing on the classical Greeks seemed to acknowledge a purpose for the State, while his later writing changed dramatically and he condemned everything about the State. He could have just changed his mind. But, I think he's talking about two different things - the State prior to the modernity and the State after modernity. Both of them are problematic, but the pre-modern State (he believed) at least had some redeeming qualities. Now, there's a question of whether he was advocating a return to this type of government. The answer is absolutely not. There are several passages where he explicitly says he doesn't "wish to return to any past periods." I think he was just describing things as he saw them. Does that make any sense?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    bam
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    The feds have no right to ban the possession, use or sale of ANY commodity, so as long as the "people" allow the proihibition of any drug, the people have no standing to complain about the feds overstepping their "rights." Medical marijuana is slave-talk. The only thing that prescription-only marijuana does is allow a certain few of us to ask the masters' permission to live our lives. Well, if you have to ask someone else's permission to live, what does that make you, if not a slave? And slaves have NO rights.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Okay, is there anyone out there who doesn't know that TSA agents are professional child molestors? (Boy, talk about turning a personality disorder into a career) Fly if you must, but for Christ's sake, protect your children -- leave them HOME.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Carrie Burdzinski
    There's a lesson, here, in these hypothetical scenarios where hypothetical parents, given opportunities to have actual conversations with their children, opt for alienation instead. THAT'S what the masters want; that's why they constantly urge parents to lie to their children about drugs, why they encourage kids to snitch on drug-using parents. Because alienated children make such good weapons. Nowhere is the evil of government more evident than in this blatant use of children as pawns, but you gotta ask, what kind of evil lurks in the hearts of parents who allow it to happen.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Look at it this way, T S A ... it is just telling you, (tea sah), Teaser. Let us just say that the whole story leads to the tormentor. It must be true for the minikin american, this is due to the lack of being fremescent. That is right, ------ go to The Friend. Enjoy the interminable sufferings. How jugal. Care to cherish the fester?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Michael, thank you for providing this and your earlier writings on Nietzsche. I have always found him (like Sartre) difficult to read and full of contradictions and non sequiturs and flowery but unclear writing. As a result I have not read him extensively. After reading this essay and your earlier one, I have to ask you a question. It seems that Nietzsche has a kind of ambivalent attitude to the state. At times he seems to revile it, yet when it comes to the creation of the state (or its germ) as you described here, he seems to feel it a positive thing because it supports his bias toward the spirit of genius that cultivates the "arts" -- whatever they may be perceived to be at the time (either philosophy or the other artistic endeavors). In that sense, is he much different from those who support state coercion so that they can have their symphonies and operas? I find this question difficult to express, and I'm hoping you can clarify it a bit. Do you find these ambiguities in your readings of him? Thanks again for introducing this view on Nietzsche.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 3 years 11 weeks ago
    Arizona Secession
    Web link Michael Dunn
    In an earlier version of this story (March 15, 2011) there were a few additional items, such as this one: "[People in Baja Arizona] actually want to stay in the union. It seems Arizona doesn't." I republished it here: http://tinyurl.com/3vlsf9f A libertarian gets split between the political wishes of the two "camps", neither "camp" is fully libertarian, but what one camp lacks, the other has. Perhaps we can split Arizona THREE ways. (Any "libertarian" split would HAVE to get my property away from the domain claimed by NINE Star 'Jeneral Joe' Arpaio!!) http://tinyurl.com/Jeneral-Joe
  • ctrev's picture
    ctrev 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Of course, everyone including you, has a right to their opinion and a right to share it. I for one, do not look to Aljazeera for information which is the source of this article. States rights refers to political powers and in this regard any "state" has a "right" to exist. Time and again peaceful coexistence has been rejected, not on the part of Israel.
  • Michael Dunn's picture
    Michael Dunn 3 years 11 weeks ago
    Big Box Monsters
    Web link Michael Dunn
    You may be right, I guess I was focusing on areas where I agreed with him regarding a problem and hadn't disregarded his concerns because we have different solutions. The author makes the all to common error of conflating capitalism with corporatism, which certainly creates some gaping holes. However, all though he seems to be confused about capitalism and socialism and the false left- right paradigm, in the end he really is calling attention to the power of the consumer. So maybe he is a future voluntaryist.