Recent comments

  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    This is exactly right. The "Baptists" take pride in their promotion of coercion since they see it as a way of punishing sinners, which is, after all, God's work (figuratively speaking, since the same phenomenon would apply to secular interventionists too). Thus it should also not surprise us that our "justice" system is heavily skewed toward punishment, not making victims whole.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Let's not forget that George W. Bush and his "dovish" successor, George W. Obama, have killed more Americans than the al-Queda ever dreamed of.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    From a Nietzschean perspective, the concept of "evil" is part of the herd morality, which of course is why the the modern state was established in the first place - the protect the herd from "evil." So in that instance I think you're spot on.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day Bob Wallace, The state hasn't defined drugs as "evil", those men who make its private laws have defined drugs as "illegal", in order to keep them profitable, which of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with "morality".
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Kudos to B.R. on a persuasive and finely crafted column. It's high time libertarians stop ceding the moral high ground to progressives. Not just because transfer payments and business regulations do more harm than good, even focusing solely on the interests of the poor. Efficacy is nagging triviality in this context. No, first and foremost, welfare-statism violates every standard of basic human decency. You can't fund the welfare state--any state--without resorting to taxation. Taxation is just extortion by another name. I have a nit to pick nonetheless. B.R.'s tendentious characterizations notwithstanding, religious views will always have a place in the marketplace of ideas. Belief in God, Christ, virtue, sin, judgment, redemption, heaven and hell survived the coercive atheism of the Soviet Union, the bloodiest dictatorship in history, and they will survive (nay, thrive!) in any devoutly (!) to be realized anarchist society. They are neither "foisted on the uneducated" nor "coerced," in any reasonable sense of that word. This is not to disabuse B.R. of his own atheism. I just see no correlation between religiosity and statism. Some Christians (e.g., the late great Joseph Sobran) are anarchists; many atheists are ardent statists. Why alienate the religionists? Like the raw milk-trafficking Amish, they're as apt to strike the root as anyone.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Aha. Then perhaps in the future I should refer to "natural lawS" instead of "natural law" in order to make the distinction. In fact, I'll edit the article to reflect this.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    It took three shots to kill a Chihuahua? What kind of pea-shooter was she using? A BB-gun? Must be one tough little dog.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Metamouse
    Page tzo
    Excellent Tzo. The line: "[People] will become accustomed—conditioned, if you will—to accept [an] increasingly miserable state as normal." sums up where we are as a society perfectly. The Normalcy Bias overwhelms the majority of people until they are near starvation and lose it.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Whenever a police officer dies on duty, we are literally inundated with drivel about brave heroes putting their lives on the line blah blah blah. Then one shoots a dog. Or a child. Or your grandpa. And we are reminded that the men and women who would be gods are nothing but a bunch of sniveling, cowardly bullies.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    G'day B.R. Merrick, Thank you for your friendly greeting and kind words. I'm going to blurt this out, before even reading the rest of your reply, because I have to go to work early, this morning. I humbly apologize if this sounds condescending, but it is a very common error, even with the "experts", to confuse the laws of nature, which is physical law, (as in your examples of Mt St. Hellens and the laws of economics), with the law of nature, which is, in this case, the natural law of man. The natural law of man, according to Noah Webster (c.1825), is "a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings...and existing prior to any positive precept," which is virtually identical to the one you found in Wikipedia; "natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior". Once this separation between the laws of nature and the law of nature is clear in our mind it takes not much more than common sense to discover what the natural laws of man are, and how to properly apply them, on a case-by-case basis. The natural law is basically a negative law, in that what you don't want done to you, AGAINST YOUR WILL, you may not do to others, AGAINST THEIR WILL. And, the breaking of any of these laws is a manifest act of consent to have that which you do to others, AGAINST THEIR WILL, done to you. Examples: If you steal a hundred doll-hairs from someone you are manifestly consenting to have one hundred doll-hairs taken from you; if you take, or attempt to take, someone's life, AGAINST THEIR WILL, you are manifestly consenting to forfeit your own life, et cetera, et cetera. FOR'FEIT, v.t. To lose or render confiscable [liable to forfeiture], by some fault, offense or crime; to lose the right to some species of property or that which belongs to one [including one's life]... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary [Bracketed information added] This is why those who wish to rule over you and I, HATE, beyond most men's comprehension, the natural law of man, it "can function as a standard by which to criticize [man-made] law." Knowing this, they resort to their usual modus operandi, discredit and destroy. Same holds true for natural rights, so we play right into their hand when we try to discredit them. This is why Thomas Paine reportedly said this, "That men should take up arms and spend their lives and fortunes, not to maintain their rights, but to maintain they have not rights, is an entirely new species of discovery..." -- he understood their [natural rights] true value! p.s. The boss called and set our start-time back one hour, so I did, after all, get to read the rest of your reply. :)
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Great excerpt, Glen. My own experience in insisting on cash with doctors has been an eye-opener. Without any complaint on my part (I've always been able to afford the care I needed, and have always tried to save up for it), I find the doctors' fees are always reasonable, usually diminished, and they seem to have no trouble with the lack of paperwork that goes with it. Perhaps if more Tea Partiers in their individual lives insisted on cash, a lot more doctors would get turned on to freedom.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    This is hitting them where it hurts, for sure -- if the State isn't the nice helpful mommy/daddy people keep pretending it is, then -- what IS it? Nice work! Found this today while researching something for a column: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw17.pdf -- "Reinventing Civil Society: The Rediscovery of Welfare Without Politics" by David G. Green Civitas London, 1993 Excerpt:"This book began as an attempt to consider the lessons the former communist countries of Eastern Europe might be able to learn from Western experience of voluntary welfare provision. But, as the study proceeded, it quickly became obvious that we in the West have done almost as much harm to our own voluntary associations as the communist countries, not as part of a deliberate effort to create a mass society of individuals ruled by an elite, but as a result of the inadvertent displacement effect of the welfare state. By narrowing opportunities for personal idealism in the service of others, the welfare state has eroded the sense of personal responsibility and mutual obligation on which a resilient civil society rests." The chapter on Medical Care begins on P. 65: "Medical care was being provided in a variety of ways at the turn of the century.1 The very poor relied on the Poor Law, and provision for the majority of the population fell into three main categories. First, many sought medical care as private patients and paid a fee to the doctor of their choice. The fees charged varied according to income, with rent taken as the chief test of ability to pay. Second, a large section of the population obtained care free of charge through charities, such as the outpatient departments of the voluntary hospitals or free dispensaries. And third there were many pre-payment schemes, commonly called contract practice, based on the payment of a fixed annual capitation fee."
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Yes. I think Progressives (and really, almost everyone) are more concerned with maintaining their own positive self-image, than they are about people who fall victims to their muddle-headed policies. The latter can always be blamed on their philosophical enemies. Keep in mind, though, that there are lots of poor people being killed in the Middle East, and that is at least as much a conservative project as it is a progressive one.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Stupid, stupid article. The comments are worth reading though, almost uniformly opposed to a ban.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    I find it really hard to get through to Progressives on certain things. They assume that those who object to high taxes are greedy, only looking to buy some more luxury items. I protest and say that I would be happy to give the money that I currently pay in taxes to worthwhile organizations. I don't want my money being used for wars of aggression, the TSA, the FDA, etc. They see the damage done by the reckless bankers and think that these problems are inherent in business enterprises. Their flawed assumptions are powerful enough for most of them to not even want to have a dialogue with libertarians.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    G'day to you too, sir! I defer to you on all matters of natural law, because I didn't even accept it fully until after I debated with you on another article. I am still engaged in an internal debate (somewhat) on natural rights, where I also look forward to your comments. When I think of natural law, I am referring to what I got from Wikipedia: "Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) has been described as a law whose content is set by nature and that therefore is universal. As classically used, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature and deduce binding rules of moral behavior. The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (meaning 'man-made law', not 'good law'; cf. posit) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law." My reading of this is: Natural law tells me that Mt. St. Helens is a physical phenomenon that does not think; therefore, it has no regard for human life. So when it blew, it took 57 people out of this life, rich and poor alike. (When I write about natural law, believe it or not, this is the macabre scenario I keep coming up with in my mind.) The sentence you pointed out where it seems to be "respectful of persons" is, in a way, a personification of natural law, or just my writing style. What that means is that when the laws of economics bend to the coercive nature of regulation, economic inequities will be most harshly felt by sentient beings with little means to pay for desired goods and services. Economics will work according to what individual actors do to the economy, whether volitionally or coercively. Like Mt. St. Helens, a higher price doesn't care whether you're rich or poor. But when you look at your hospital bill, it certainly seems like the price has malicious intent, doesn't it? You also said, "If you are saying that natural law is not respectful of the persons (masks) of men, I agree." Then I think we are definitely in agreement.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen, I'm only half-way through this article, and I'm loving it! Your identification of the psychological component is vital. And the psychological dysfunction at the heart of the left and right sides of the political spectrum is a reflection of this unhealthy psychology at the root of statism. I can't claim ultimate precision in what I'm about to say now (nothing is in psychology, which is messy because it involves people), but one can easily say that the unhealthy "id-dominated" personality (or "child-dominated" in transactional psychology) is served by the "left" part of the political spectrum, and the unhealthy superego-dominated personality (or "parent-dominated" personality) is served by the "right" side of the spectrum. Further, the anarchists appeal to the healthy and integrated ego personality (or "adult" personality) but often don't acknowledge or realize this. This is not and cannot be a clean division, but you get the drift. The problem of parenting is so strong in its impact (the lack of respect for infants and children from their perspective) that statism is almost hard-wired into kids as a result of what is considered a "normal" child-rearing experience. Stefan Molyneux has explored some of this in his discussions of non-violent parenting. In a similar and parallel vein, there is a also a growing awareness in the anarchist community about the use of non-violent communication (NVC) as taught by Marshall Rosenberg (here's the link: http://www.cnvc.org/). It, too, acknowledges the need for love as you mention and its genuine expression. I can't thank you enough for bringing this up. This failure to acknowledge the power and importance of love is precisely what is missing among libertarians who get caught up in things like being anti-environmentalists (not just against the statist aspects of the environmentalists, but being anti-nature itself and suspicious of attempts to preserve and act as a responsible steward over natural resources and other life forms). Thank you for so clearly and succinctly expressing your thoughts on this so far. I'm going to recommend this article within my circle.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    Thanks, Michael!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    G'day B.R. Merrick, I not sure I understand: (1) "It’s natural law, and natural law doesn’t care whether you’re rich or poor, “progressive” or “conservative,” or alive or dead." If you are saying that natural law is not respectful of the persons (masks) of men, I agree[1]. You then proceed to say, "This why the natural law"... Why it what, "...mows over poor people first", (which is the next part of that sentence)? That would make it respectful of the persons of men, if I am not mistaken. But I admit, I may be reading it wrong. Any help would be appreciated. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] I think, however, that you may find that the natural law of man is the law of the living, and not the dead.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page tzo
    One thing I would question, tzo, is this: "The idea that government possesses just authority over human beings is false." Would you agree that a human being can lawfully "authorize[1]" another human being (a monarch), or group of human beings (a government), to have "authority" over him? (Of course, this question is asked with the obvious understanding that no human being can lawfully grant authority over anyone but himself.) _______________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] authorize verb: give or delegate power or authority to ~ Macmillan Dictionary
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 5 years 20 weeks ago
    How to Hurt the Poor
    Page B.R. Merrick
    I really enjoyed this column, B.R., especially your last couple of paragraphs - keep it up!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Page tzo
    G'day tzo, I think it a downright shame, one of the greatest contributions you have made here at STR, in my opinion, and not a single accolade. But, I guess, in an odd, and sad, sort of way, it actually makes sense, because when you wrote this... "All governments must have citizens in order to exist.   If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in the government organization. If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. There is no paperwork to fill out. One can just walk away, and fix the thought within his mind that he is no longer participating in the imaginary hierarchical organization that is called government, and just like that, he is out. It is, after all, his innate human right to rule over everything within the lower realm of imaginary creations.   Isn't it amazing just how powerful we are as sovereign human beings?" ...you stripped away virtually all excuses for being a member of the STATE, if one, in truth, doesn't want to be a member. That having been said, I am truly honored to be the first to publicly applaud your effort. I tip my hat to you for having the courage to write such a piece. A true strike at the root, in my opinion. Thank you, tzo.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    A fairly conventional view; e.g., "There are many other concepts that play a role in politics, that are currently misconceived or otherwise detached from reality, and that people need to understand if they are to support a free society. A short list would include “equality,” “power,” “coercion,” “capitalism,” and that staple of high school civics, the difference between a democracy and a republic." Yeah, the one is mob rule, the other a disguised oligarchy.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Bravo!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Excellent persuasion, Glen. I am looking forward to Part II.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 20 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Love the way you organize and delineate your thoughts, Glen. Then you say, "[H]ad we gone with civil society (AKA 'anarchy'), there would have been even more wealth but no kernel of coercive power to grow into a tyranny." This reminded me of the masses of immigrants that streamed here once they found out, thousands of miles away, in lands that spoke different languages, that there was freedom to be found here, of course, but more importantly, there was WEALTH. They didn't immigrate to join the Democratic party. They didn't brave days or weeks in a crowded boat to lobby Washington. They didn't pick up bits and pieces of a mongrel European language in order to run for office in some "minarchy." They came because of the massive amounts of wealth. One of them was Ayn Rand. You are entirely correct. Living in the 21st century is astounding.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    @Sharon. Thank you for your comments, but also thank Tzo for providing yet another insightful piece! @Suverans2: Thanks for explaining your nameless status.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    And, speaking of "civil death", did anyone happen to catch these pearls, in the movie Castaway, starring Tom Hanks: "Get some sleep. We got another big day tomorrow. It takes a lot of paperwork to bring back a man. - Bring you back to life, man. - " Did Chuck, (Tom Hank's character in the movie), need to be brought "back to life"? No, he was very much alive! However, he was "civilly dead". What the "lot of paperwork" was about was the legal gyrations it was going to take to re-attach the living man to his old STATE created "artificial person", i.e. his "legal persona", or "juristic personality". I was yelling at the screen, "Tell 'em, "No thanks", Chuck, tell 'em "NO THANKS!".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    G'day Sharon Secor, (Hope you aren't offended that I used your full screen name, as I try to do with everyone; I assure you none is intended.) You are very welcome. While I am back here, there is one thing I would like to clarify. I was accused of writing "under a confabulated screen name behind which I hide" and of lying [i.e. "making claims I cannot live with"]. Neither of these accusations are true. I am not hiding, I am private, and I am not lying about my studies, or anything else, (notwithstanding I am, no doubt, in error on some issues). As difficult as it is for members of the STATE to imagine, I am an individual secessionist, and as such I haven't used a "legal name" issued by any STATE in over ten years, nor have I used any STATE issued Taxpayer Identification Numbers, licenses or I.D. cards for the same number of years. I have no "ADDRESS", and no "MAILING ADDRESS" other than "To be called for in General Delivery". Therefore, one couldn't get the STATE to "verify" anything. I am civilly dead[1], I am an unperson[2], there is no "paperwork trail"; the "trail" ended well over ten years ago. __________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] civil death. Law. The change of status of a person equivalent in its legal consequences to natural death. ~ Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1960, page151 [2] Main Entry: un.per.son Pronunciation: '&n-'p&r-s[^&]n, -"p&r- Function: noun Date: 1949 : an individual who usually for political or ideological reasons is removed completely from recognition or consideration ~ Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary & Thesaurus
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The Kill Team
    Web link Jad Davis
    This story demonstrates how little the armed forces cares about it's supposed objectives in Afghanistan. What they care about is that they don't look bad. That's why there was so little effort to catch people who were undermining the political efforts of the US government (the ultimate objective of any war) and the combat efficiency of their own unit. Neither of these things matter, what matters to the army is not getting caught doing these things, or if it's impossible to cover up, making it look like it was the work of a "bad apple". You know how to tell if it's really a "bad apple"? Look at how afraid the perpetrators were of being discovered and how much they assumed others who saw suspicious things would ignore them. On both counts this isn't that.
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Suverans2 and Lawrence M. Ludlow -- I want to thank you both for the time and effort you both invested in your comments. It was a pleasure to read such detailed discussion, a real pleasure. Thanks Again and Best Regards...
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The Camel's Nose
    Page Paul Hein
    Unfortunately, I think that a better title of this essay would be "Rustling the Leaves of the Flowering Dogwood". Surely this would contrast sharply with the theme of STR, but had it been so, at least the essay could be plausibly construed as advice for distracting the political class from the tactics by which you intend to "overthrow the state government", whatever that means. It should be sufficient to state, though I suspect that it's not, that refusing to get your license plate tabs renewed is futile. If you live in a city like mine and have to park on the street, it just might get your car booted, too. It is pleasant to imagine the simpering of members of the Show Me province's political class when, or if, they read the first three sentences of your essay. That simpering would suggest that although they are on the verge of bursting out in raucous laughter, they have learned to control the urge to do so. That remark about baby steps, however, would be too much for the young and for poorly disciplined members to bear. Anyhow, once the simpering had run its course, they would shake their heads in amazement at your naiveté and then return to whatever they were doing before you provided them with comic relief, which is very good for the heart and for the mind. I doubt very much, however, that anything you wrote would be deemed serious enough to warrant mention on the law blogs except, again, as a source of comic relief. Perhaps it might prompt a brief conversation in the chambers of Missouri's supreme court about the need to intensify the indoctrination of the young in the supposed virtues of republicanism. Now, why shouldn't the political class be confident of their position? Eventually, the cops and lawyers among them, and even time itself, will catch up with you and swat anyone who takes your advice, just as any run-of-the-mill gadfly, kook, or naive rabblerouser should be swatted. Please stop being so childish and start learning, or remembering, the ways of your province, esp. the ways of those who swear an oath to uphold its monopolistic sytem of law proclamation and enforcement. Suggestion: Start here, esp. at Rule 8-15, then go back to 8-01 and proceed from there.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I think this kind of political theatre often is misunderstood by most folks.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    There's a quote I read once on STR, I believe from Mencken, about how the problem with defending jusice is that you have to be willing to defend scoundrels, because it's against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first levied. Replace "scoundrels" with "suspected drug users" -- for decades the ACLU has refused to make a stand against flagrant violations of the constitutional rights of drug suspects. By demanding a different level of justice for honor students than for drug suspects, the ACLU, self-proclaimed defenders of the constitution, have helped elevate police to their god-like status. What these cops did to that girl was wrong, yes, but not because she's an honor student. Most of us are not honor students; that doesn't, or shouldn't, make us any less deserving of protection. The constitution exists for all of us. The ACLU, on the other hand, exists only for itself.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Mama Tried, You Failed
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Interesting that this was originally published at a conservative website. It's mostly the rhetoric that I grew up with. When you buy all of it (because some of it is certainly true, as I see it), you fail to notice cause and effect. There's a crucial difference between blaming Mommy and Daddy, and noticing cause and effect. I know where my "perfectionism" comes from. I don't blame anybody but myself for continuing to fret over small stuff. I'm a grown man. But it gets better to deal with it and be honest about it when I understand where it comes from. This is called "root striking." The conservative answer is "spanking." Unfortunately, the current soft, mushy, psycho-climate we live in, that this author decries, does not get to the root, either; in this regard, I agree with the author. But he never bothers to get there himself. People will read this and reject the research of Alice Miller, because some people will see her as one more psycho-babbler who blames Mom and Dad for everything. She doesn't. That is just, plain clear. Perhaps the author would agree with Miller; perhaps not. I like one of his closing sentences: "I’m not saying your parents have no influence over your life. Being physically or sexually abused catapults the victim over the Wall of Culpability into the land of Not Your Fault, but what’s everyone else doing there?" Well, I can tell you what I'M doing there. I'm trying to figure myself out. It has a lot to do with falsehoods I still believe and the way I've become "hardwired," depending on action and my reaction, whether the action is one placed upon me by another, or one that springs from me. We learn A TON from our parents. Both hard-line conservatives and softy-lefties fail to recognize this. He fails to see the connection in one of his own links. Earlier in the article, he says, "Your mother can’t even influence what you eat." If you follow the link, you will see that the mother's actions on instructing her child as to where and when he should be spending his time has AN ENORMOUS influence on that to which he is exposed, and it will definitely change what and how he eats. Do children who grow up with lots of affectionate love, with freedom of operation during their day, with older people who are committed to the relationship, ever turn to drugs? If not, then shouldn't we be paying closer attention to that? I think the author is on to something by linking to "Free Range Kids." I hope he continues in that direction.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The Kill Team
    Web link Jad Davis
    You're right; it can't.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Mama Tried, You Failed
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    No, what he is saying, is where is there "fault" in a victimless "crime". The only reason we are discussing drug addiction as some kind of "fault" is because the state enforced morality goon squad has decided that some drugs are bad and others are just bad if you operate heavy machinery. There is no fault in drug addiction, there is only personal choice. There would be no need to lay any blame if the state did not get involved in what people do with their own bodies. Also, having a legitimate gripe about something is different then trying to deflect blame. If there is 10% unemployment, and government regulation and credit prospects do not allow the start of your own business, and you have done everything you can to become gainfully employed, who is now at fault? It seems the real problem here is low brows who style themselves as intelligent or insightful don't understand the difference between a reason and an excuse. As a computer gamer you see it a lot, a person on a server gets busted for cheating, and his response is "stop whining", because the cheater seems to think the cheated have no legitimate issue. This blame the victim mentality is a perfect fit for the state worshiper. Hey bud, it's YOUR FAULT the state HAD to bust down your door and shoot your dog, you CHOSE to break the law! Omitting of course the debate about the rational and legitimacy of the law and action altogether, we will just worship the state. I really don't think you get this whole freedom and liberty thing.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Most Excellent!!! Ten Stars! You should send this review to Stanley. Or post your review on Amazon,to awake the sleepy.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 5 years 20 weeks ago
    The Camel's Nose
    Page Paul Hein
    Good article, Paul!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Mama Tried, You Failed
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    The author of this article set the trap, "If you’re unemployed...it’s somebody else’s fault"; and it appears that you have fallen into it with this, "...it takes the state to complete the circuit..." Isn't that just one more way of saying, "it's somebody else's fault", rita?
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Mama Tried, You Failed
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    HA HA HA... Very funny, Rita.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Mama Tried, You Failed
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Saying that if I'm addicted to drugs or unemployed, it's my fault implies that somehow YOU, via the state, have the right to punish me for my drug addiction/unemployment. I'll gladly accept full responsibility for my own choices, in fact, I always have. But drug addicts, regardless of their drug of choice, rarely segue straight from drug addiction to unemployment; it takes the state to complete the circuit: Drug addiction/drug raid/drug arrest/drug felony/unemployment. There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave us alone. My drug addiction only became your problem when you sent in the SWAT team.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    A lot of vigorous arm-waving here, Lawrence. I must confess I don't completely understand all the points you are trying to make. I thought this was rather amusing: First, you write (with apparent disapproval), "The simplest way to water down the prohibition against killing is to redefine it." But then you seem to do the same thing, re-defining "kill" as excluding self-defense. Either that, or you don't think self-defense is justifiable. Neither one of these conclusions appears tenable to me. The only other conclusions one can draw, are either 1) the word was not correctly translated, and really did mean "murder", or 2) God was either mistaken, and needed to edit his pronouncement on Mt. Sinai, or God was just insane, or 3) Moses wrote it down wrong, or 4) There was never any God up there talking to Moses in the first place. There may be others. This extra business about war, I don't see how it applies at all. There is still a prohibition on murder, and that is what war is about. Anyway, just as you noted, whatever the Bible says, these people will justify their murder. WMDs, or whatever. So the fact they do so is hardly an argument that the correct word is other than "murder". I'm not a Biblical scholar; I'm not even Christian. Using "murder" in that commandment simply makes more sense to me, because "kill" leads to the reducio ad adsurdum that self-defense is not possible, in an Old Testament filled with God-approved crimes. It just doesn't read true. This is not an ex-post facto justification for war, not even close. However, I may well be wrong about this. Maybe it does really mean "kill", and that it just another indication that the Bible is full of nonsense. That is possible. I only brought it up because a Christian friend of mine made this point pretty vigorously. Personally, for those who take the Bible seriously, I'd rather they thought it means "murder" than "kill".I don't think my Christian friends should be disarmed by their beliefs, any more than I think they should cook up justifications for war with them. There's got to be a reasonable middle ground there somewhere. Defense is justifiable, aggressive war is not.
  • Melinda L. Secor's picture
    Melinda L. Secor 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    HA HA...yes indeed. Wouldn't you think that after years of banging his head against that brick wall of bureaucracy he'd get the idea that working within that system for "reform" is an exercise in futility? Interesting how people close their minds in that little box....assuming that the way it has "always been done" is the only way it can be, regardless of the glaringly obvious fact that it hasn't worked in the past and surely isn't working now. They just keep doing the same things and expecting different results.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Talk about an idiotic conclusion! How's this for a howler: "We need lots of mid-level managers who are not afraid to put their jobs on the line." An ex-bureaucrat, no wonder he lives in la-la land. Reform is impossible. Only bankruptcy and revolution will fix this problem.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government." [Emphasis added] From "the government"???? What you have is a "government of, by and for the people"[1], therefore wouldn't it have been a more accurate statement had Stephen Moore written, "collecting a paycheck from "the people", particularly the proletariat, that is to say, "those [people] who do manual labor or work for wages" in his opening paragraph? After all, isn't that the ultimate source of government funding, it's voluntary working-class members? Try to imagine the condition of any STATE apparatus if the proletariat were to simultaneously withdraw from membership in it[2]. __________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] "Government is an organization that consists ... of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist." ~ A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government [2] "If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in the government organization. If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. There is no paperwork to fill out. One can just walk away, and fix the thought within his mind that he is no longer participating in the imaginary hierarchical organization that is called government, and just like that, he is out. It is, after all, his innate human right to rule over everything within the lower realm of imaginary creations. Isn't it amazing just how powerful we are as sovereign human beings?" ~ Ibid.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Suverans2: Sadly, you have made the common anachronistic mistake of trying to make sense of (i.e., reading information into) a document ex post facto from a reference point that has no bearing on a text laid down by an original writer operating in another context -- i.e., one that differed from the one assumed by you. Your citations merely prove the point. Here are the reasons: Textual studies in academic circles do not permit this imputation of meaning after the fact based on purposes laid down after an original writer sets down his or her thoughts. First, the idea that you can "make sense of" and iron-out contradictions in the disparate collection of heterogeneous works known under the collective name as "the Bible" is absolutely absurd. These books were written by dozens of people over many centuries in many places and have been pieced together in patchwork fashion with many replacements, alterations, and repairs. They are not, never were, and were never meant to be a coherent series of documents that were intended to make sense as a collective whole. To thus attempt to “make sense” of them is absurd. They are simply what they are. They are not a corpus of knowledge. They are bits and pieces and have been known to be bits and pieces for centuries. As you pointed out, the usage of the words “kill” and “murder” are absolutely contradictory. To try to make sense of Jesus’ use of a word and the meaning of a writer centuries before him is part of this absurdity – as if the two had to make sense TOGETHER. So-called “books” such as Exodus are not a coherent single record laid down by a single writer. These cobbled-together works have various authors with various usages over various periods of time. They cannot be brought into “harmony,” which assumes a relationship between them that simply does not and has never existed except in the minds of those who attempt to “unify” them in ways never intended – or even imagined – by their original writers Your citations merely illustrate the problems in the arguments proposed by Vance and his sources. Furthermore, the sources I cited make this clear, and they tease out the contradictory usages just as yours do. Rather than meeting these arguments head-on in a dialog in which ideas are actually exchanged, examined, and disposed of in systematic fashion, you merely submit new claims without disposing of the arguments that I made. That is not a dialog, and as a result, it cannot take things farther along. You have merely made assertions without having addressed (and disposed of) the material at hand. At least I attempted to see where you were coming from, and my depiction of the exact process that you used to construct your original statement is dead-on accurate. I wish you would have paid the same courtesy to me. The fact is that we are stuck with a statement (the original one under discussion) written long ago by a writer living in another context from ours. This writer put down a word that is so often used in a non-specific way that a long tradition of experts have rendered it in the non-specific sense rendered by St. Jerome, Origen, and other writers of the first five centuries of Christianity. You should remember that the Hexapla text used by Origen (and which probably was used by Jerome to make his revision of the Old Latin translation) contained what was – at the time and certainly is true with respect to the texts remaining today – the finest textual material available. That the introduction of the term “murder” by evangelical statists and Zionists in the last century has contaminated a long tradition of translation should not be swept under the rug. That these people, too, try to anachronistically “make sense” of documents that were never intended to be coherent parts of a larger whole shows how common your mistake is. But historians must always beware of this sophomoric error. Face it: these documents simply are. They cannot make sense together. They have numerous authors writing at numerous times and at various cross-purposes. To insist as you do that we must use the term “murder” so that it can make sense and meet the requirements of a theology that is current today and will be gone tomorrow and did not exist yesterday is absurd. You could say the same for my interpretation, of course, but I at least have given you a reason to see how the current controversy was “invented” by the injection of politics into this theological discussion within the last century. It should make you feel better that this is a common mistake and has been made by those who are better than both me and you, but it is still an error. Finally, you make a great point of using my full name in a sarcastic way in your reply. Unfortunately, I cannot do the same with respect to you. I do not write under a confabulated screen name behind which I hide and can make claims that I cannot live with. I cannot make claims about myself that cannot be verified. Likewise, I do not value my opinion so highly that I comment compulsively on every topic that finds its way into STR regardless of the level of energy and skill I command. I have opinions, yes, but I know that in most cases, somebody else has an “informed opinion” that matters much more than mine, so I usually keep my silence. I note that your comments in dozens of articles are frequently tangential and allow you to sidetrack a conversation into a rat-hole of one sort or another. This is a case where you have weighed in and have forgotten that a pseudonym may protect your non-cyber identity, but it cannot disguise what you are doing.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 20 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    Lawrence M. Ludlow: You accuse me of, "simply turning to the Hebrew dictionary at the back of your Strong's Concordance and Googling a highly disputed issue"? For your information I spent many years studying the so-called BIBLE, and by studying it I don't mean simply reading it; I mean learning the Aramaic language that the books of the so-called Old Testament were written in, (and a few of the oldest New Testament books), and ancient Greek (modern Greek is different), looking up damn near every word, ferreting out not only their definitions, but also how they were used, both literally and idiomatically. You and your spin-doctor "experts" are going to have a difficult time justifying the "Thou shalt not kill" (thou shalt not take a human life [for any reason]) mistranslation of the Sixth Commandment, instead of the correct "Thou shalt not murder" (thou shalt not take life [without just cause]), when you, and/or they, try to make it work with other verses of the so-called BIBLE. Here are just a couple of examples. Numbers 35:15 These six cities shall be a refuge, both for the children of Israel, and for the stranger, and for the sojourner among them: that every one that killeth [nakah] any person unawares [by mistake] may flee thither. 16 And if he smite him with an instrument of iron, so that he die [muth], he is a murderer [ratsach]: the murderer [ratsach] shall surely be put to death [muth muth]. 17 And if he smite him with throwing a stone, wherewith he may die [muth], and he die [muth], he is a murderer [ratsach]: the murderer shall surely be put to death [muth muth]. Muth, as you no doubt know, means, " causatively to kill" or "put to death", (and never murder), and the doubling of it is the Aramaic way of saying, "surely". Deuteronomy 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel: 5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die [muth]. 6 At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death [muth] be put to death [muth]; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death [muth]. 7 The hands of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death [muth], and afterward the hands of all the people. So thou shalt put the evil away from among you. Tell me, Lawrence M. Ludlow, how you would translate the Sixth Commandment "thou shalt not take a human life for any reason" and still put a murderer [ratsach] to death [muth]? One of your so-called "experts", Wilma Ann Bailey, uses, in my opinion, a lie, "and a lion can kill (rtsh) someone, but would never be considered a murderer", to support her mistranslation. But, at least, she got the correct transliteration for resh tsade chet, (rtsh), more than I can say for some of the others. 1Kings 13:24 And when he was gone, a lion met him by the way, and slew [muth] him... 26 therefore the LORD hath delivered him unto the lion, which hath torn him, and slain [muth] him... 1Kings 20:36 Then said he unto him, Because thou hast not obeyed the voice of the LORD, behold, as soon as thou art departed from me, a lion shall slay [nakah] thee. And as soon as he was departed from him, a lion found him, and slew [nakah] him. Jeremiah 5:6 Wherefore a lion out of the forest shall slay [nakah] them... "Lion" and "young lion" show up a total of 104 times in the KJV of the so-called BIBLE, and there is only one instance where they appear together and that is here, at Proverbs 22:13 The slothful man saith, There is a lion ['arıy] without [outside], I shall be slain [ratsach] in the streets. It should be duly noted that 'arıy, translated "lion" here, is also an Aramaic idiom for "violence", which is, in my opinion, precisely the way it was used here; it was a figurative lion in the streets, i.e. violence in the streets, and anyone who has actually studied the Aramaic, as Wilma Ann Bailey evidently claims she has, knows that. [Hint] So, you might want to check your sources credibility, and what axe they are trying to grind, before you quote them. Thank you for your time. P.S. If you were a Christian you'd probably know that at Mattith'yahu (gift of Yah) 19:18... (KJV) Jesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness... (KJV-1611) Iesus said, Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steale, Thou shalt not beare false witnesse... (LITV) And Jesus said, "You shall not commit murder, nor commit adultery, nor steal, nor bear false witness... (The Scriptures 1998+) And [1]יהושע said, “ ‘You shall not murder,’ ‘You shall not commit adultery,’ ‘You shall not steal,’ ‘You shall not bear false witness’... _______________________________________________________________________________________ [1] That, by the way, is one letter short of the original spelling, יהושׁוּע yad hey waw shin waw ayin [Read from right to left]; a name that went through such violent transmutations that even the translators screwed it up. ;)
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 5 years 21 weeks ago
    Oh, Stanley
    Page tzo
    PS: You will note that in the excerpt above (from Laurence Vance), the argument is "front loaded" in favor of your argument, Souverans2. In other words, I have made your argument as you did and have cited your authorities. Then, however, we see upon closer examination, just how the idea of translating the word as "murder" instead of "kill" (which is the correct undifferentiated rendition) evolved. Unless you have a comprehensive knowledge of the use of words up to the point of its insertion in a text, you simply cannot make a judgment. That is why sources must be questioned. You may, indeed, question those cited by me. But at least I have provided an argument and a context. If one studies these things as the historians of the Annals School do, you will see how important this context is. PS: I am not a Christian, but it is important to be more exhaustive and to know "why" before you pronounce on "what."