Recent comments

  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 26 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Given that the minimum wage is an abomination which hurts the poor, it would seem that, for once, the Obama administration was doing the right thing.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 26 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    G'day jd-in-georgia, Yeah, their new MOTTO is a wee bit different.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 26 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "The shallow consider liberty a release from all law, from every constraint. The wise see in it, on the contrary, the potent Law of Laws." ~ Walt Whitman And just what is this "potent Law of Laws"? The answer, as we have posted here twice before is... "The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page tzo
    And for you "game pieces" that believe the artificial entity known as the United States Government "owns" the approximately two trillion, four hundred and twenty-five billion, six hundred million acres of land commonly miscalled "the United States", you would do well to remember Richard Belzar's famous line, "If you tell a lie that's big enough, and you tell it often enough, people will believe you are telling the truth, even when what you are saying is total crap".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Without ever moving one's feet one can leave the artificial kingdoms and enter into the natural kingdom." This is why we have chosen individual secession, (as opposed to expatriation[1]), as the better answer. With expatriation one never leaves "The Great Game of Government"; one abandons or renounces one artificial kingdom only to become a member of another artificial kingdom instead of withdrawing[2] from the "stupid fecking game" altogether. __________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Expatriation. The voluntary act of abandoning or renouncing one's country, and becoming the citizen or subject of another. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page576 [2] Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Ibid. page 1351 [Emphasis added]
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 27 weeks ago Page tzo
    Thanks! "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." King James usually sez it best. Sam
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Once upon a time, the motto plastered on the side of police cars was "To protect and to serve." I have not seen this motto on posters or website... let alone squad cars... for years. Law-abiding citizens should be able to feel safe around the police and not in fear of them. These people are supposed to be fellow citizens with an often thankless job to do. However, we should not wonder whether or not we are actually protected by the police or if we are nothing more than potential "collateral damage" which is just another way of disassociating themselves from the citizens they are supposed to protect. In a war zone, soldiers (or as in the case of this article, "operators") are doing a job in a place that is not their home. Those citizens of the countries where they are serving are typically going to look at them with skepticism and when the job is done, these operators are typically looking forward to going home. Unfortunately, the police are already home. This militarization sets a very dangerous precedent.
  • Guest's picture
    IRAHS (not verified) 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I will take a liver and a side order of lungs....
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    You want to know another tragedy? The language of self-described "drug law reformers" who are outraged only by police violence against innocent people, in "botched" drug raids where no drugs are found. Every drug raid is a terrorist attack. And since evidence of illegal activity is found only after the shooting stops, ALL that violence is being perpetrated against innocent people.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Yeh right. We've heard that for decades. Believe it when I see it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page tzo
    Welcome back Sam, What a great word, sharper, "a person who swindles you by means of deception or fraud" [WordNet], since that is what the rules of "The Great Game of Government" are based on. "...through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day tzo, "The game is not reality, but it is superimposed over it like a giant 1:1 scale paper map." Exactly!! Trouble is we have been brainwashed since nativity to only see the "superimposed...giant 1:1 scale paper map", and most individuals will never give any real mental effort toward peeling it away in order to see the "reality" layer. Without ever moving one's feet one can leave the artificial kingdoms[1] and enter into the natural kingdom. "...be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." It's simple, but it isn't easy. __________________________________________________________________________________ [1] KING'DOM, n. [king and dom, jurisdiction.] ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 27 weeks ago Page tzo
    Excellent analogy, tzo. First you declare yourself sovereign. That releases you from the game. Does that mean agents of state are no longer pains in the ass? No it doesn't. All bandits and gangsters are pains in the ass: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/TaxationisRobbery.html But now you can take the same measures to avoid them that you take to avoid all the other thieves, robbers and shysters who beset you. You are no longer playing the game. But beware of the political robbers. With the ordinary holdup artist you have an advantage (if you're careless enough that he gets the drop on you): he knows what he is. He believes he is a robber. Once he gets your billfold and/or your watch or your ring, he goes away and leaves you alone. He does not wish to play further games with you. Not so with the political sharper. He is actually deluded into believing he is doing you a "great service". He would like you to speak in terms of "our country", "our leaders", "our president" -- "our forefathers". Thus he is far more virulent than all the good criminals lurking in dark alleys or along the waterfront. Beware the politico. Sam
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Touche, sir. Fine point and I stand, a little shame-facedly in light of the utter obviousness of your statement, corrected. Have a wonderful day and thank you for reading and commenting. Best Regards...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link strike
    From the comments on that article: Carl says: The sight of Daddy Bush and Slick Willie as BFF tells me all I need to know ………….. As for BABYBush’s “administration” …. who do you suppose wore the PANTS? Craig McKee says: The same people who wear the pants regardless of who is president. Exactly! Carl didn't have a clue, but he may now, because Craig gave him the answer. Daddy Bush never "wore the pants", as Carl appears to infer, Daddy Bush was (is?) controlled by those very same people as all the rest of the "puppets". "...the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." ~  Prime Minister of England, Benjamin Disraeli (during reign of Queen Victoria) Coningsby, by Disraeli; Longmans Co., 1881, page 252
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    Has anyone else received a private message from a newbie [joined 6/9/11] called Jana?
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Did you mention it's an un-funded plan? Why should you need to, they're all unfunded plans. The government has no funds.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    Well said, Liberal in Lakeview, well said. P.S. Been wondering, are you what is called a Classical Liberal?
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    "a country and its government are not one and the same, they are two separate entities" We can assign the word, government, to an entity provided that the entity is a set. The set would have as its members numerous people such as legislators, prime ministers, judges, cops, taxgatherers, etc., but the set would not be an entity that exists in the physical world. Instead it would be a mental object. Furthermore, if more than one person conceives of this set, then there is more than one government. On the other hand, if we assign the term, government, to the behavior of the members of the aforementioned set(s), then we have a way to place government in the physical world. But when dealing with government in this sense of the term, it's important to recall that in spite of all the symbolism and pomp and circumstance, all we really have are a bunch of individuals acting in concert with one another and pushing around other individuals. If we want to eradicate government, there is no physical entity to eradicate, but only a relatively few individuals to disperse such that they can no longer act in concert with one another. (Granted, millions of benighted nationalists might clamor for their replacement with people who can act in concert for the purpose of governing.) The term, country, has its own idiosyncrasies. It could refer to some patch of land, which in any case existed long before anyone projected onto it terms such as England or USA. Or it could refer to a group of people, i.e. to a set people. But as with the set of governors, this set doesn't exist in the physical world. Unfortunately, the blood and soil man commingles the two different concepts, and mostly in accordance with borders drawn arbitrarily by his masters and stringpullers. He is the loudmouthed patriot, the warmonger, the boor who can be found driving around with an image of the American flag and bald eagle painted on the rear window of his pickup truck. Sometimes an FBI agent, too. There's serious problem with the word country when its used in the latter sense, to refer to a set of people. What, exactly, are the criteria by which we include members in this set? Is it based upon borders proclaimed long ago by a few members of a set called government? Let's take the case of someone who grows up in Detroit, as did I. It so happens that numerous Canadians live a little to the south and south east of Detroit, in Windsor and nearby areas. Why should any intelligent person in Detroit ever have counted as members of his country all the people in, say, Queens, San Francisco, or Dallas but not the Canadian? It's quite likely that the Detroiter and Canadian have more in common than the Detroiter does with many people on the west coast, east coast, or Texas. A similar argument holds for the Canadian in southwest Ontario with respect to people in Vancouver, Quebec, etc. So the Detroiter may include in his country someone in Windsor, but not the San Franciscan or other person who is supposed to be his fellow countryman and to whom he is yoked by a few knaves in places like Lansing and the DC. As you suggested yourself, your country is your civil society, but, given the limitations that come with being human, one isn't likely to have social relations on a personal basis with more than a few hundred or few thousand people at the very most. All the rest are mere strangers, and while that's no excuse whatsoever for deprecating their rights, as flagwavers and warmongers are wont to do with those they regard as foreigners, it remains true that those strangers have little claim to be counted as part of one's country.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 27 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    A friend of mine recently introduced me to the concept, and so naturally I see the word everywhere now. Strange how that happens... you can go years without ever seeing a word, (or if you do your brain just conveniently forgets it,) and then when you learn it you notice it all over the place.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Evan, If you truly did that without looking it up, go to the head of the class. Two out of four, is certainly better than I did, which was none out of four; I had to look it up. Quick definitions from WordNet (orthogonal) ▸ adjective: [1]having a set of mutually perpendicular axes; [2] meeting at right angles ("Wind and sea may displace the ship's center of gravity along three orthogonal axes") ▸ adjective: [3]statistically unrelated ▸ adjective: [4] not pertinent to the matter under consideration
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I don't believe the words agorist/agorism have been co-opted either. OneLook Dictionary Search has 19,317,398 words in 1063 dictionaries indexed and it only has one, single, solitary source, (Wikipedia), for a definition for these two words. Sorry, couldn't post this with the link to OneLook Dictionary Search embedded. Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Greetings AtlasAikido, Thanks, but I can't say that I ever thought that this Paul was Paul Bonneau. I believe there are at least three Paul's here at STR, so it can, perhaps, be a bit confusing. This Paul was referencing the word anarchy being used in a negative fashion in Herbert Spencer's, The Right to Ignore the State, where Herbert wrote: "In a thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive of anarchy." Regarding the word "agorist", I particularly like this from Wikipedia, "Agorists...consider property rights to be natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership." To be more precise, all of our natural rights are derived from the primary right of self-ownership. Sorry, couldn't edit this with the link to The Right to Ignore the State embedded. Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Suverans2, Paul is NOT Paul Bonneau according to the user profiles. (Could NOT post the links as it triggered spam editor). The article uses the term anarchist in a positive fashion, even if it is taken to be negative by some. This is an anarchist site (last time I looked). But then Paul could clarify this, which is what you and I requested in the first place. I prefer Agorist to abolitionist or anarchist. Living Free in an Unfree World: Stefan Molyneux at Libertopia 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OLSkhR-ve8s#at=195
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 27 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    At right angles to? Or something like that? In terms of concepts, it means irrelevant or beside the point.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    From the article: "Camping, sadly, also survives and is free to cause the world more grief." So, Camping should be killed? Or jailed? It's not Camping causing the problem. It's idiots who pay attention to him. There is no way to "fix" this problem, certainly not via state action nor assassination or other such violence. The thing to do is stop worrying about it. Let idiots suffer the consequences of their poor choices. If innocents also get caught up in that, oh well. Life is filled with hazards, even parents can be hazards.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    Quick, anyone, without looking it up, what's the word "orthogonal" mean?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    Beautiful sounding words, jd-in-georgia, and once we've overcome the years and years and years of government indoctrination center "brainwashing" and tv "programming" and "his" eyes are finally opened, and we've convinced "him" that we all have free will, and that there's more to life than a six pack and satellite tv, and we've taught "him" to swim in the deep end of the pool, where reason and logic reign supreme (good luck on those last two), Joe Lunchbucket will do WHAT for us?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Heroes? Not a one by Jim Davidson jim@vertoro.com http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle622-20110605-04.html L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 622, June 5, 2011 "The cops have gone crazy. There's lots of this going around, these days."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Hi, Suverans2, agree, the word anarchy certainly has been co-opted. May I propose a better word and it is "Abolitionist". This was pointed out to me and I believe Lysander Spooner used it. The Abolitionist Argument in 35 Seconds http://strike-the-root.com/abolitionist-argument-in-35-seconds Call Me an Abolitionist, Please http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html Yet in conversation I point out that I am a Trader and do not even go to the level of the Abolitionist issue although it is there and can be pulled up--at least the principles--to counter the word anarchy being used in the negative. And I use the ideas of Stephan Kinsella to speak to how copyright cartel monopolies are actually destructive and unproductive to division of labor societies as is was the train of usurpations of "The Real Lincoln" (authored by Thomas DiLorenzo). This leads to fun conversations about freedom in the fashion industry--and others--and how embracing and using the ratification of ideas that emulation (copying), innovation and its diffusion, adoption and improvement are life giving and move one's own world incrementally forward, individual by individual and are certainly more profitable than policing one's customers and calling them pirates as Disney does (whilst making block busters such as "The Pirates of the Caribbean"). "How a world without copyright would exist”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 "The Real Lincoln" conversation leads to the works of Hamilton and Mercantilism--the British are already here--and how that led to the Fed Reserve and the Economic hitmen/jackal police state ties; and William Grigg's name soon comes up and perhaps his article on the Quantum of Suffering (On the real military-welfare-oil complex connections of James Bond's Quantum of Solace movie). And then it is UNusual that one is NOT requested to write down the names of this site (Strike the Root) and The Daily Bell, Lewrockwell.com and Mises.org And it is redundant to re-state but these are Anarchist or Anarco-Capitalist or Anarco-Libertarian sites. LOL
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 27 weeks ago
    Doug Casey on Phyles
    Web link Jad Davis
    Sounds a bit like panarchy...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 27 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    "...the moral issue is unaltered by the fact that you, as opposed to them, are issuing the bogus notes." I don't know if I can agree with that, primarily because the ruling class has outlawed competing (and more honest) currencies. It's similar to the issue of roads and other government "services". Yeah, one can be a welfare queen, and that is morally objectionable. But just driving on the road? There comes a point where a person has to use what is available, and if the government has usurped and monopolized some part of what would be a free market economy, we are forced to use that. I don't see the moral problem (in other words, I don't think morality requires us to live in a cave). Morals usually concern choices, and if there are no choices...
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 27 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I did stuff like that for ten years. Proved nothing and accomplished nothing sorry to say, other than giving myself a "criminal record", spending a few thousand bucks on fines and lawyers as well spending a few days locked up. I also got hit, punched, gassed and sprayed too. Accomplished nada. Like the theme of this site says strike the root, not the leaves or branches, eh?
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 27 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    You are correct, Suverans. But (we) the choir must sing loud enough to make Joe Lunchbucket's eyes open. We must convince Joe that we all have freewill. The more we exercise freewill, the more we realize that there is more to life than a six pack and satellite tv. Not that there is anything wrong with beer and television, but these things do not define life. We need to teach people to swim in the deep end of the pool, where reason and logic reign supreme. Joe may find that the beer will begin to taste better and that he may scream at the television less often. "Every new government's more expensive than the last, watch the fresh ways they have to waste our taxes fast." ~ from IN LOVE WITH THE SYSTEM by the Forgotten Rebels.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    Fun article, Paul Hein, but you are preaching to the choir, friend. Joe Lunchbucket, (Average American Citizen[1]), only has one question for you, and please, answer it with a simple "yes" or "no", because anything more will, more than likely, bore or confuse him, "Can I still trade, this whatever-you-wanna-call-it, for a six pack of beer and satellite TV?" ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Embedding the link triggered the spam filter upon trying to post this comment, so you'll have to remove the space after http and www, (one space wasn't enough) and copy and paste it, if you would like to read, (or re-read), this article. http ://www .strike-the-root.com/92/tzo/tzo3.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day AtlasAikido, Though I have not been authorized to speak for Paul, I don't believe he was objecting to the use of the word anarchist, he was, like you, (I believe), against its use in a negative connotation. He, like you, apparently believes that it should only be used in a positive way. And, my point was that the word anarchist will "mean", to the 6.79 billion people (2009 estimate) of the earth, what the majority of those 6.79 billion people "believe" it means, and that is "one who favors "chaos" and violence". AN'ARCH, n. [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion [chaos]; one who excites revolt [violence]. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Bracketed information added] (Go look at the rest of these http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,anarch when you have a free moment.) Now, we can disagree with that all we want to, but that will not change, in the minds of most people, the "negative perception" of the word. In order to change the deeply entrenched "negative perception" of that word to a "positive perception", we would have to somehow convince the majority of those 6.79 billion people to think the exact opposite of what they now do. Honestly, my friend, what do you believe the odds are of actually accomplishing that superhuman feat? And, even if we could, through some monumental effort, change the general perception of that word to a positive, would it have been energy well spent? I, for one, think not.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 27 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    You are very welcome, Paul. As I am sure you will concur, we seldom will agree with every word usage by any author. Regarding Herbert's use of the word “anarchy”, we must remember that this was written c.1851, so to get a feel for the meaning of that word, in that time frame, we must use a dictionary of that era. With that in mind, here are the 5 words Noah had with anarch as the base in his 1828 dictionary. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,anarch The words in these definitions that will grab people's attention are: confusion, revolt, and disorder. This is to be expected because the word “anarchist” got its boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind. Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,-- the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one. And so Vacancy and general Abolition having come for this France, what can Anarchy do more? Let there be Order, were it under the Soldier's Sword; let there be Peace, that the bounty of the Heavens be not spilt; that what of Wisdom they do send us bring fruit in its season!-- It remains to be seen how the quellers of Sansculottism were themselves quelled, and sacred right of Insurrection was blown away by gunpowder: wherewith this singular eventful History called French Revolution ends. ~ The French Revolution, by Thomas Carlyle It will be an uphill battle, every step of the way, trying to supplant, in the minds of the world's population, this negative perception of that word, (probably planted there by rulers and wannabe rulers), with a positive one.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 28 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Re: Paul's "Outside of a use of the term "anarchy" I disagree with? I see Suverans2 noticed this as well. And I have to concur that the above did stand out as an odd comment. This is an anarchy site (last time I looked, but then maybe I need to look again, perhaps I am assuming?). Hmmm What part of the following is Paul in disagreement with? Is the term "political atheist" ok? Is there a concept for an "on target and excellent resource" BUT disagree on the term? Inquiring minds would like to know? But more importantly if one enjoys being here and living here and reading our works then what's with the disagreement? And why no clarification? And oh yes...and I do not think I have disagreed with ANY of your articles--if you are Paul Bonneau? So damn it, Paul. Please post a supporting link next time, or change your id so one knows one is dealing with the same? And can refer to your articles? Something like: http://www.strike-the-root.com/there%E2%80%99s-no-such-thing-as-statist by yours truly (PB) would have helped someone understand where you are coming from. Perhaps you have a favorite that comes to mind? I am thinking of the article you wrote about statist on one side of town and us on the other... and to let them be. Please supply that link. So feel free to add yourself as a 4 point to the 3 I set below as another way of coming at this. 1. Carrie Burdzinski identifies good reason why SOME Objectivists do not apply the following 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 2. It is at times like this useful to imagine how a truly laissez-faire--hands off--society, one entirely emancipated from the shackles of state coercion, might exist and operate. Morris and Linda Tannehill examine this very idea in The Market for Liberty: Is Government Really Necessary? The Statist will ask but how will you do this and that and this and so forth? * How, the statist is heard to question, might common disputes find resolution without the currently preferred monopoly of the state's courts? * What about private monopolies that would ruthlessly jack up prices and bleed us working-class proletarians to death? * By what means might a laissez-faire society offer protection from foreign aggressors? * How might the personal liberties underpinning the whole system be protected if it were not for the tireless work of the state's police and its myriad other law-enforcement agencies? In response: "Freedom is not only as moral as governmental slavery is immoral," the authors write, "it is as practical as government is impractical." The Tannehills argue persuasively, the free market provides solutions that governments would never dream of. "The big advantage of any action of the free market," contend the Tannehills is....see link Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally The part I particularly liked was this: Whenever there arises in conversation the mere suggestion of a totally free, laissez-faire market — the possibility that human beings might even be able to survive (much less thrive) without the safety net of state control — apologists for "benevolent government" invariably step atop their soapboxes and ask, "Yes, but who will provide education for the masses, if not the public schools?" or "Who will care for the sick and weak, if not the public hospitals?" Indeed, these are questions that deserve thoughtful, honest answers. But these questions assume realities that are not in evidence. They suppose that "the public" (i.e., the state) actually has money to "provide" these services, rather than, as is actually the case, first having to expropriate (steal) it from private, productive individuals. Furthermore, the fallacy of benign governmental control relies on the idea that governments can provide essential services more reliably and cost-effectively than the private sector. In other words, the government's obligation to provide essential services is more reliable and effective than the private sector's opportunity to provide essential services. Admittedly, this debate does not lend itself to easy, black-and-white conclusions. But as the Tannehills argue persuasively, the free market provides solutions that governments would never dream of. "The big advantage of any action of the free market," contend the Tannehills, is that errors and injustices are self-correcting. Because competition creates a need for excellence on the part of each business, a free-market institution must correct its errors in order to survive. Government, on the other hand, survives not by excellence, but by coercion; so an error or flaw in a governmental institution can (and usually will) perpetuate itself almost indefinitely, with its errors being "corrected" by further errors. Private enterprise must, therefore, always be superior to government in any field. (It is worth mentioning here that corporations acting in collusion with the state are not private enterprises as the Tannehills define them. They are simply entities that have co-opted the government's "gun-for-hire" to do their dirty work for them. Think Wall Street "bailout" recipients and their army of DC lobbyists. Indeed, think any institution at all that seeks unfair protection or promotion from the state.) Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally 3. Furthermore: Pro-government teachers, preachers, beneficiaries, lawyers, journalists and employees all insist that the word "anarchist" means one who favors "chaos" and violence. That is a LIE. It is not just a lie, it is the opposite of the truth; for it is government that causes chaos and violence. So to help clear the confusion, let's define these terms. Government, as used on this web site, means an organization that governs those within its power. If you're within reach of a government, it is taking some of the decisions that affect your destiny. There are possibly better ways to define government; but that will do for now. Anarchism, in contrast, means "absence of a ruler". It's one of a series of words derived from Greek: "monarchy" is government by one person, "oligarchy" by a few persons, "plutarchy" by some rich persons, and so on. The prefix "an-" means a negation or opposite, and the suffix "-archy" means "rule", hence "anarchy" means rule by no persons. An "anarchist" is one who believes society runs best when nobody rules or governs it; when each of its members makes 100% of the choices that affect his or her life and therefore none at all of those affecting anyone else's. Naturally, pro-government people hate that idea, because they would not be able to strut around ruling other people or live off their labor. So they do all they can to discredit anarchism. As above, they lie; they try to redefine the word, to scare people into supposing that it means "chaos". On this web site, we'll examine the true source of chaos and violence. To compound the confusion, some people call themselves "anarchists" but openly destroy the property of, and call for controls over, the peaceful behavior of those they hate - so proving that they really favor government. So we have to recall the definition: a genuine anarchist doesn't want to rule anyone, except himself. We love freedom - and not just for ourselves. We're happy for everyone else to enjoy it too. Welcome, therefore, to this site and the following ; it introduces Anarchism and hopefully removes all confusion. We hope that after reading what it's really all about, you'll re-think what's on target and what is not. 11A119 The War on Liberty by Jim Davies, 5/31/2011 Zero Government Blog http://theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/index.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 28 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Why are our natural rights sometimes referred to as our "inalienable rights", or "unalienable rights"? "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams Because a man cannot be "alienated" from his natural rights "by human laws", but rather only by his own individual authority, either by express or tacit consent or by forfeiture (a form of implied consent).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Haege got more bad news in the mail Wednesday afternoon. He received a $275 fine from the City of Minneapolis." Don't even open it, scrawl across the envelope, diagonally, REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOUR WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITHOUT RECOURSE.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 28 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Thanks for the link, Suverans. Outside of a use of the term "anarchy" I disagree with, it looks on target, and an excellent resource.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Few people will read this story, and then come to the obvious conclusion of questioning occupational licensing itself. Sad. At least this idiocy hasn't yet reached Wyoming, that I am aware of. Licensing and other legal requirements help destroy a civil society.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day tzo, Civil death, in law, is that which cuts off a man from civil society, or its rights and benefits, as banishment, outlawry, excommunication, entering into a monastery, &c., as distinguished from natural death. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added] We see from the above definition that "outlawry" is a form of civil death. There is, therefore, at least one other man who is in agreement with me that civil death can be a "voluntarily entered into, status". 1. Voluntary Outlawry As a corollary [consequence] to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state — to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying towards its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law... ~ The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Did you see this comment from MKAllen, jd-in-georgia? Mr. Isenberg did a great job simplifying the very complicated subject of finance and debt. I couldn't stop thinking about what the conversation would look like if I had the same talk with my three teenage children. I imagine after explaining to them how their mother and I had pawned them to the loan shark for money and probably were going to have to default they would reply "so are we getting pizza or not?" I would then stress that because of my fiscal irresponsibility they soon might be running numbers for the local pawn shark. They would reply with something along the lines of "sooo... are you saying we can't order extra toppings?" Yes indeed...all three could have a great future in congress! Unfortunately, this reaction would not be restricted to teenage children only; most adults would respond similarly. "So-o-o-o, are we going to get 'free' health-care benefits or not?" "Does this mean I can't get another extension on my unemployment benefits?"
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Pass this on to your kids (or your neighbor's kids if you don't have any of your own.) I could not have explained their collective financial futures in America better than Mr. Isenberg.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Oh, stop pretending that our so-called "leaders" give a rat's a** (can I say "ass"?) about our children. These are people who don't even take a crap without studies and surveys and projected trends in public opinion. Do you really expect us to believe that they didn't KNOW how destructive zero-tolerance is? And it took them TWENTY years to figure it out? And what about those whose lives have been destroyed, not recklessly, or unknowingly, but deliberately destroyed in 20 years? Who will save them?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day tzo, Yes, that is true, in fact, most sources will define these terms as an "imposed...status", however, as we can readily see from Noah Webster's last example (directly below), civil death can be a "voluntarily entered into status"; and his &c. [etc.], means there are other ways. Civil death, in law, is that which cuts off a man from civil society, or its rights and benefits, as banishment, outlawry, excommunication, entering into a monastery, &c., as distinguished from natural death. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added] Technically, the only way the word nonperson is used "legally", I believe, is in reference to "nonperson crime" (or "nonperson felony"). "[d]esignation of a crime as person or nonperson depends upon the nature of the offense. Crimes which inflict, or could inflict, physical or emotional harm to another are generally designated as person crimes. Crimes which inflict, or could inflict, damage to property are generally designated as nonperson crimes" However, on another level it can also mean something entirely different. Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus. A person is a man considered with reference to a certain status. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1143 non·per·son (nän′pʉr′sən) noun a person [a man or woman] who is completely ignored, as if he or she does not exist, specif., such a person [a man or woman] lacking any legal...status ~ Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition (c.2010) [Emphasis and bracketed information added]
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 28 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Paramilitary police are a relatively recent state invention. They’ve metastasized into a domestic occupation force, enhancing government, institutionalizing injustice, plundering with permission, Tasing with perversion, cloaked in full immunity, and not protecting people. Whatever you do, don’t call 911. As a mundane, your home is no longer your castle. 204. Police Epidemic On June 1, 2011, In Podcast, By admin http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/06/01/204-police-epidemic/ Lew Rockwell interviews William Norman Grigg. * A Note on Burke’s Vindication of the Natural Society by Murray N. Rothbard * William Norman Grigg: LRC Archives * William Norman Grigg: Pro Libertate blog * William Norman Grigg: Pro Libertate radio program And 18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent to Life In U.S. Prisons End of the American Dream http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/public-schools-like-prisons.html
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Oh, please! How many UNARMED civilians do these a**holes kill every year? Do they even count? Worried about their precious selves -- that's not a "new worry." It's what they've done all along.
  • Guest's picture
    chrisD (not verified) 3 years 28 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The president used the autopen to signed the Patriot Act. It's understandable since Obama is in France and the bill is in the USA. The president's signature is creating controversy, as he authorized an autopen signature, which is a mechanical device that produces an exact copy of a persons' signature. I found this here: President renews Patriot Act from Europe by using a robotic autopen, newstype.com.