Recent comments

  • madelineS's picture
    madelineS 3 years 51 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    B of A won't transfer WikiLeaks any funds or process any funds to the organization. It has joined several other financial institutions in refusing to handle payments for Wikileaks, the latest blow to the secret-releasing organization's efforts to continue operating under pressure from governments and the corporate world. You will find numerous companies that are doing the exact same thing, and Bank of America is just the latest. Some believe that finance corporations are doing so before a WikiLeaks release of bank documents in 2011.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 51 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Wow. This is an exceptional essay, Scott. It was clearly researched, linked, and written with great care and intelligence. You've described the nature of the State generally, and of our own in particular, with great depth and economy -- the overall image is very clear and on-point. Welcome to STR, and I look forward to more of your work (also, thanks for introducing me to your own site). It isn't surprising that the on-going WikiLeaks saga is prompting writing of this caliber from old hands and from writers new to STR; few things in recent history have shown up the true nature of the State as starkly as the leaked material and, even more, the response to those who have set the cables loose in the world. Bonus: Here's an example of the stunning behavior of establishment toadies in regards WikiLeaks: an 11 min 15 sec interview with Glenn Greenwald (on the side of truth, justice, and [the Tom Paine version of] the American way -- sounds like humor but I mean every word) versus Fran Townsend on CNN via Mox News. This is an in-your-face example of the difference between Assange's few supporters, as represented by Salon columnist Greenwald, and Assange's detractors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XInz4i6AV8M Bonus #2! - http://www.peopleokwithmurderingassange.com/ -- a collection of quotes from Sarah Palin to Bob Beckel of Fox News about how terrific it would be if Assange were assasinated.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 51 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    I think you're right about the cruelty Manning is being subjected to. Hate to even think it, but it just fits too well with Power's behavior generally.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 51 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    I keep thinking I've read the article that explains the whole Wikileaks fiasco, and then something brilliant like this comes along. Another reason I think Manning is being treated so harshly is so that anyone else who gets any ideas has adequate warning: "This is what we'll do to you, too." They are truly monstrous.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 3 years 51 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    23 hours a day in solitary confinement? Sounds like Lauren Canario's and my own experience in Hillsborough County DOC in Manchester, NH. That, plus being forced to wear a respiratory mask and rubber gloves during the one hour outside of your cell, is standard treatment for prisoners in Manchester who refuse to take the TB shot.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 51 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    Another good research reference: http://www.kolumbus.fi/mdewit/rationalistlaw.htm
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 51 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    Evolving to something new: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGUsq8GNKeY
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 51 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    Hi MassOutrage, I appreciate the detailed response. So much better not to deal with generalities [my comments in [brackets]: I suppose that some people can theoretically live together in a strictly volunteer manner, but I can't think of a time when it has actually happened. http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=126 http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_E... You are operating in theory, rather than in reality. [see above] Government is indeed a fearful and usually tyrannical entity. No argument there. But you must not live in an area like mine with hordes of fatherless, conscienceless young men, who kill and steal for fun. Even the police cannot bring them to heel. [So the government is powerless to stop the problem that it created. Therefore we need government. Do you doubt that the primary reason these conditions exist is due to government? This is their preferred strategy: Create huge problems that could not occur without their influence and then propagandize the situation so that everyone thinks that government is the only solution to those problems. Does it get better, or worse? Then just give the government more power and money and they will solve it. Eventually. Just a little bit more time and money...] That is just on the personal and city level. On the larger world level, where are you reading your history? Empire-mongers and barbarians have always abounded in every time and place, who have enlisted numberless fools to go off and fight wars for them, using simplistic arguments about patriotism, nationalism, the promise of loot, or even the fun of killing. (e.g. Rome, Greece, the U.S., the Soviet Union, the Nazis) Even large-scale, well organized efforts have often failed to save people from death and destruction at their hands. Just Think of the Ottoman Turks, nearly destroying Europe, or the hordes who descended on Rome repeatedly during its decline. Violence is more the norm than the exception. [Searching history for examples of successful voluntary societies may produce a very short list indeed. But this should not be used as proof that successful voluntary societies are impossible and government is necessary. There was a time when scouring the pages of history showed that slavery was necessary to a successful society. Steam engines and cars and airplanes were impossibilities until they in fact appeared. The Earth was most definitely the center of the universe until it wasn't. Searching history for precedent ignores progress. Humanity is not static, but dynamic. If something is possible, then we can figure out how to do it. That is the real lesson of human history. That and the fact that when some person or people decide to do something challenging, the mass of humanity ridicules the idea because it has never worked before. Then it works and everyone accepts it and moves on to ridicule the next new idea. Rinse, repeat.] The notion that insurance companies could organize adequate defenses to these perpetual threats from thugs and dictators, internal and external, is fantasy and wishful thinking. Here it comes over the hill - The Grand Army of the Gecko! Finally, your idea of a justice system is also not realistic. I work in the court system, and see the insanity of it. [I have no doubt that the governmental justice system is clinically insane.] Your premise is that a private one would be different, but why would it be. It is the same imperfect people, wherever you go. It will consist of the same venal, self-serving, power-mad fools whether public or private. [A private one would be different because it would have competition. The current monopoly system is not interested in justice because it doesn't have to be. It is concerned with preserving and growing itself, and nothing more. Private competition would wipe out such an inefficient beast. Who would pay for its services if there was a better alternative?] [I would also suggest you consider the history of common law, the basis for our law, and its creation and implementation through private, not public, means. Law writ by human beings based on natural law and human rationality, enforced by private judges in a free market. That is history. Government expropriated this private system and now the world gives them credit for it because that is what the government schools teach. The merchant law is another large legal system developed by entirely private means that has been absorbed and distorted by government monopoly.] http://libertariannation.org/a/f61l1.html http://mises.org/daily/4147 http://mises.org/daily/2265 And that painful reality of human nature - which your theory fails to take into account - is at least a reasonable argument for why we need a savior. Man, left to his own, is usually violent, derisive (like you and Mr. Davies), or just self-serving. In a land bereft of Godliness, Hobbes was right, unfortunately. [The fact that humanity has lasted as long as it has points to the success of cooperation over that of violence. The current world situation, dominated by governments and their violence, is the real threat to humanity. We haven't gotten this far because of government, but in spite of it. No government ever invented a light bulb. The light bulb was invented because the government was kept out of the way. If a land is truly bereft of Godliness, it embraces government. And if humanity would perish without government, so be it. There can be no excuse in any just God's eyes to initiate violence, brother against brother, in order to achieve some preferred end. If humanity cannot live without coercive systems as a means of "preemptive defense" then it should indeed perish as it is not worthy of existence. I cannot see any rational justification for the combination of a just God and government.]
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 51 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    "Quit using a fricken chattel number, (to receive some kind of benefit(s) or privilege(s)), and the I.R.S. will never have you "put in a government cage" for income tax violation(s) again." *** Agreed, but. In this country, given that a person has a set of work skills, he may have the option of earning $10/hour "underground" or $20/hour minus taxes with a T.I.N. Humans respond to incentives. Starving oneself and one's family on principle is not everyone's cup of tea. I believe you give too much credibility to the criminal organization when you say that you are contracting with them and so you have to accept their terms. There is no contract. They have a virtual monopoly on employment through the criminal T.I.N. system, and if I use that system it is because I can benefit from it. I will take everything I can from the criminal organization and there is nothing I can do that rightfully binds me to their system. By accepting whatever they hand out, I do not make a contract with them. No contract exists within a coercive relationship. It is a war. So one can use the T.I.N. and still complain about the system, because without that system he should be able to contract for $20/hour (or its equivalent in a freed job market) without paying taxes. If the government took complete control over food distribution, and it's getting close, should everyone forego food in order to avoid making contract with them? Don't use a T.I.N and you don't have to worry about the IRS. Don't drink raw milk and you don't have to worry about the FDA. Don't own a gun and you don't have to worry about the ATF. Do exactly what the police officer tells you and you don't have to worry about going to jail. Don't buy property and you don't have to worry about paying local government property tax. Don't buy food or gas and you don't have to worry about sales taxes. Don't live in the US if you don't want to follow the rules. Yick. People are going to do what they think is the best for themselves and their families depending upon the current situation in which they find themselves. One can wish that all would take a principled stand against aggression, but that seems implausible. Only when the boot heel presses down with enough force does the mass reaction occur, and that reaction is not so much principled as it is the desperate act of cornered animals. This response has now spiraled out of control. fin.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 52 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    “This rather is the kind of cynical, authoritarian deception practiced by the IRS: its alleged income tax is a "voluntary system" (they really do say that) but if you don't volunteer, you may be put in a government cage.” ~ Jim Davies As I have stated until I am virtually blue in the face, you “VOLUNTARILY” identify yourself as a TAXPAYER[1] by “VOLUNTARILY” using one of their “Taxpayer Identification Numbers”. Quit using a fricken chattel number, (to receive some kind of benefit(s) or privilege(s)), and the I.R.S. will never have you "put in a government cage" for income tax violation(s) again. [1] Taxpayer. One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax. I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14) ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1462
  • Guest's picture
    MassOutrage (not verified) 3 years 52 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    I suppose that some people can theoretically live together in a strictly volunteer manner, but I can't think of a time when it has actually happened. You are operating in theory, rather than in reality. Government is indeed a fearful and usually tyrannical entity. No argument there. But you must not live in an area like mine with hordes of fatherless, conscienceless young men, who kill and steal for fun. Even the police cannot bring them to heel. That is just on the personal and city level. On the larger world level, where are you reading your history? Empire-mongers and barbarians have always abounded in every time and place, who have enlisted numberless fools to go off and fight wars for them, using simplistic arguments about patriotism, nationalism, the promise of loot, or even the fun of killing. (e.g. Rome, Greece, the U.S., the Soviet Union, the Nazis) Even large-scale, well organized efforts have often failed to save people from death and destruction at their hands. Just Think of the Ottoman Turks, nearly destroying Europe, or the hordes who descended on Rome repeatedly during its decline. Violence is more the norm than the exception. The notion that insurance companies could organize adequate defenses to these perpetual threats from thugs and dictators, internal and external, is fantasy and wishful thinking. Here it comes over the hill - The Grand Army of the Gecko! Finally, your idea of a justice system is also not realistic. I work in the court system, and see the insanity of it. Your premise is that a private one would be different, but why would it be. It is the same imperfect people, wherever you go. It will consist of the same venal, self-serving, power-mad fools whether public or private. And that painful reality of human nature - which your theory fails to take into account - is at least a reasonable argument for why we need a savior. Man, left to his own, is usually violent, derisive (like you and Mr. Davies), or just self-serving. In a land bereft of Godliness, Hobbes was right, unfortunately.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 52 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    Your and my solution may not be that far apart, in fact, they may be virtually identical. Quit Government Employ. You'll have to do this eventually, if your job is involved with government at any level, directly or indirectly - so the sooner you exit, the easier it will be. ~ Jim Davies [Excerpted from Segment 18 of The Online Freedom Academy http://www.tolfa.us/L18.htm ] Governments "employ" citizens. They "pay" them with benefits and privileges. “All governments must have citizens in order to exist”, therefore if enough individual citizens secede from it, i.e. "Quit Government Employ", it will die, just as any parasite will die if it does not have a host. It is the only peaceful way to “abolish it”. "How bad do things have to get before you do something? Do they have to take away all your property? Do they have to license every activity that you want to engage in? Do they have to start throwing you on cattle cars before you say “now wait a minute, I don’t think this is a good idea.” How long is it going to be before you finally resist and say “No, I will not comply. Period!” Ask yourself now because sooner or later you are going to come to that line, and when they cross it, you’re going to say well now cross this line; ok now cross that line; ok now cross this line. Pretty soon you’re in a corner. Sooner or later YOU'VE GOT TO STAND YOUR GROUND WHETHER ANYBODY ELSE DOES OR NOT. That is what liberty is all about." ~ Michael Badnarik [Emphasis added] P.S. Vox Day is the pseudonym used by Theodore Beale. "He describes the New Atheists as being "irrational" and "clowns of reason" and blames their non-belief in the existence of God on a "social autism" which he believes is the result of a mild form of Asperger's syndrome ."
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 52 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    A common, yet baffling (to me) non-sequitur is the illogical leap made from the proposition that a society could exist without a government to the conclusion that there would be no justice system. Somehow, the bad guys cannot be dealt with without government. It is straight impossible. Inconceivable. The writer seems to share in his god's all-knowingness in that he is quite certain what would result if a group of human beings actually decided to live together in a strictly voluntary manner. He is the fish who can only imagine the pond when there is more out there that his lack of imagination or knowledge cannot even begin to fathom. Ouch. Shot right in the foot with his own fish pond. And when I regain my breath from rotflmao, I will address the last line that claims that the state is a respecter of property in contrast to the unwashed hordes of individual barbarians.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 52 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    I've very glad to see my interview sparked a response! Truthfully, I was disappointed with Vox Day's reply to my question about the economic philosophies underlying "right-libertarian" thinking. I tried to press him on it, but he avoided saying anything concrete. I know he didn't want to send me an essay, but it seems that after writing so many columns about it over the years he could have effectively dealt with the question rather than just dismissing it with such broad strokes.
  • Guest's picture
    MassOutrage (not verified) 3 years 52 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    The fish in the pond says, "It is not logically possible for any life to exist outside of this pond, and there isn't a shred of objective proof that it could. This universe consists only of this pond, and nothing more." Mr. Davies is making the same argument about God and about those who may have good reason to believe in God, while saying there is not a shred of evidence to support the opposite position. Mr. Davies' logic does not get past the pond, but that does not mean he can prove there is no life outside of it, as he so blithely assumes to do. Whether he agrees with the proof or not, there is objective, logical, reasoned evidence that God exists and that Jesus is who he says he is. It can't be proven with mathematics, but we don't require that for many things we know to be true. The question of whether God exists or not is, first, a presupposition, which is buttressed by reasonable proofs. The other problem with Mr. Davies' solution is that some persons "do evil", as he points out. In fact, quite a lot of them do. We must have some mechanism for dealing with that evil. Large swaths of the citizens in every country and time have never subscribed to his aspiration to respect the property of others. They don't and could not care less if he does. They'll just take it. His no-state idea ignores that unfortunate reality. A state is a terrible thing indeed, as it is so susceptible to theft, corruption, and misuse of power. But no state is even worse, since the hordes will usually not respect property.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 hours ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Suverans2. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. I haven't delved into this field yet, and it's good that you're bringing it to our attention. There's a lot of IP application to this, too, eh? I'm considering a piece on the roots of IP (actually copyright) myself. The origins go back far before the events in English law that Kinsella points to -- not only in early incunabula printing but even in manuscript copying. But it's a difficult project. It will build on top of the Gutenberg article that I wrote a few years ago for STR. But as you bring up, this agriculture-industry-fascism/subsidy-IP "complex" is getting more dangerous each year, isn't it?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 day ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If you are a citizen/subject of the U.S. government, here's how your FDA will protect you...NOT!! "There is No Right to Consume or Feed Children Any Particular Food; There is No Generalized Right to Bodily and Physical Health; There is No Fundamental Right to Freedom of Contract." ~US Dept of Health & Human Services and US Food & Drug Administration
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 day ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Yep, it was illegal because they knew it was the "winter solstice celebration", of the Pagans, with a new face upon it, of course. It was all part of the Roman syncretization (mixing) of religions to make the "state religion" palatable, i.e. "catholic", (which means "universal)", for virtually all their citizens.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 1 day ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow, Perhaps reading, for yourself, the latest Wikileaks' leak on the GMO conspiracy will serve to motivate you, and hopefully others, in learning more about this issue. "Country team Paris recommends that we calibrate a target retaliation list that causes some pain across the EU since this is a collective responsibility, but that also focuses in part on the worst culprits. The list should be measured rather than vicious and must be sustainable over the long term, since we should not expect an early victory." http://213.251.145.96/cable/2007/12/07PARIS4723.html That was from "Craig Stapleton, the US ambassador to France...co-owner of the Texas Rangers with former President George W. Bush, (his wife, by the way, is George Bush's cousin)", talking about "retaliating" against European countries opposed to Monsanto's GMO crops. http://www.naturalnews.com/030828_GMOs_Wikileaks.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 1 day ago Page Alex Schroeder
    Excellent article, Alex! I will be linking to it the next time I run into doubt about anarchism.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 1 day ago Page Glen Allport
    Thanks Glen. I have seen these comments here and there trying to tie Wikileaks to CIA, etc. Hard to take seriously, and pretty easy to refute, but your column is the best thing I've seen for this purpose, and I will link to it from now on when I see such comments. There are also other ways: 1) The sheer volume of the cables. If Wikileaks were a CIA operation, it would have confined itself to perhaps a thousand carefully-vetted cables, with maybe a few embarrassing revelations; but nothing of this magnitude. 2) The point that releasing such information represents a huge cost to the ruling class. What then do they buy at such a cost? Control of the internet? So, how is is that ordinary people would prefer to surrender control of their best source of information, to the same agency clearly capable of putting out lies and disinformation to start wars - as revealed by the cables? The cables themselves defeat this purpose.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 1 day ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Let's see... do I trust these murderous bastards in government to protect me from naughty companies providing the internet? Sure, makes all the sense in the world...
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 1 day ago Web link Michael Kleen
    If destroying a person's life over mnarijuana is unacceptable, it's equally unacceptable to destroy a life over heroin or cocaine or meth (yes, even meth). Or are the lives and freedom of pot smokers swomehow more precious than the lives and freedom of the rest of us? What I want to know is, why is it acceptable for government to destroy lives at all? The so-called "war on drugs" is being waged against ALL Americans, not just pot smokers. US drug policy is nothing but a system of laws enacted and enforced for the sole purpose of destroying human life. Some people believe that evil of this magnitude can be "reformed." I, for one, do not.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 2 days ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and then. Still good news though.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 4 years 2 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Well done! A perfectly bite-sized and thought-provoking essay in a classic style. Powerful, too: even having known (for decades) the truth of what you say, it still shocks to read it in plain language.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 3 days ago
    A Drug War Mutiny
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    "What is a mutiny? A rebellion against authority." ~ Brian Martinez To be more precise, Brian, it is "a refusal by a group to accept someone’s authority"[1]. And, with that, we find ourselves, once again, believing that some "group" will magically make things right for us, instead of taking "individual" responsibility. ″Power [i.e. authority] rests on nothing other than people's consent to submit, and each person who refuses to submit to tyranny reduces it by one two-hundred-and-fifty-millionth, whereas each who compromises [with it] only increases it.″ ~ Vladimir Konstantinovich Bukovsky I do not consent! [1] Macmillan Dictionary
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 3 days ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Ooooh, war, huh Good God y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again War, whoa, Lord What is it good for Absolutely nothing
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 4 years 3 days ago Page Glen Allport
    Thanks, Lawrence -- that's an important issue that I didn't address in the column, and since I don't think I could say it any better than you have, I've added mention of your comment in the body of the column itself.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 4 years 3 days ago Page Glen Allport
    Here's something you'll get a kick out of . . . http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/73845.html December 22, 2010 The FBI Has Updated Bin Laden’s ‘Most Wanted’ Page… Posted by David Kramer on December 22, 2010 04:50 PM …but there’s still NO MENTION of 9/11. Hmmmmm. USAMA BIN LADEN Murder of U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Attack on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death REWARD: The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association. Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world. [Where's 9/11???] Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane.
  • Guest's picture
    stuartbramhall (not verified) 4 years 3 days ago Page Glen Allport
    I'm afraid this whole media storm around Assange reminds me of the whole O.J. Simpson circus in a way. I recall it very distinctly because I was a single payer activist. The week of his arrest (1993) was the same week health care reform (after being headline news for a year) died a quiet death in Congress. So what is the corporate media trying to conceal by beating Assange's sex life to death? Most of the information in the recent cables release is already widely available on the Internet. At the same time I find it surprising to find absolutely nothing about the "strategic" reasons the US is at war in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Nothing about the Pentagon agenda to foster the secession of oil and mineral rich Balochistan from Pakistan as a US client state - just like Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and other former Soviet republics. Nothing about CIA support for the Baloch separatist movement. Nothing about the CIA training young Baloch separatists in bomb making and other terrorist activities to disrupt operations at the Chinese-built Gwadar Port (intended to transport Iranian oil and natural gas via Pakistan to China). I blog about this at http://stuartbramhall.aegauthorblogs.com/2010/11/28/afghanistan-and-the-...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 days ago Page LaTulippe
    Congratulations, Steve LaTulippe, this is one of the most coherent columns I have read in a long time. And, it is not the first time that you have written something that the common man, (like myself), can understand. I find you 'guilty' of making sense here, http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-01-04/discussion.cgi.54.html and here http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2008/180808Neocon.htm and here http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/november2006/071106Grass.htm as well. In fact, you seem to have an habit of being able to reach simple-minded folk, like myself. Thank you, and looking forward to more of the same. Addendum. Just read this in one of your articles in the Lew Rockwell Archives, "a circular firing squad", and the vision that it engendered caused me to laugh so loud I was afraid of waking my woman. ROFLMAO
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 4 years 4 days ago Page LaTulippe
    Terrific piece, and welcome to STR! You've done a fine job of putting the disappointment we all feel about the MSM (Cretaceous Media?) into words. And those who don't READ or watch "professional journalism" any more should know just how vile the profession, as a group, has become.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 4 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hi, Suverans2. I meant that creating hybrids and new strains of plants and cross-breeding animals to create different effects has been practiced for centuries. I don't know what the results of this new stuff are, however. Sorry about the confusion.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow, With all due respect, to the best of my knowledge, there is no such word as “cross-straining”, and it has not been going on for years; it is happening for the first time in the history of the earth. “What's wrong with Genetic Engineering” “Genetic engineering is a radical new technology, one that breaks down fundamental genetic barriers -- not only between species, [but between “kingdoms”, i.e.] between humans, animals, and plants. By combining the genes of dissimilar and unrelated species, permanently altering their genetic codes, novel organisms are created that will pass the genetic changes onto their offspring through heredity. Scientists are now snipping, inserting, recombining, rearranging, editing, and programming genetic material. Animal genes and even human genes are being inserted into plants or animals creating unimagined transgenic life forms.” A little bit of knowledge can be, particularly in this case, a VERY DANGEROUS thing.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 4 days ago Page LaTulippe
    Wonderful first article. (Well, first article for this site, anyway.)
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 4 days ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen, thanks for writing this piece. It needed saying! We've seen so many "warnings" that Wikileaks can be used by GovCo simply because a number of the posts that have been revealed through Wikileaks indeed show the repetition of disinformation by various GovCo functionaries as they communicate to each other. Anyone familiar with "organization-speak" understands that these people often repeat to each other statements that are obvious lies to the rest of us who know better based on the reports of experts (such as the false statement that Iran poses a thermonuclear threat because of its power-generation program). Just because these GovCo employees butter-up their bosses by repeating these lies does not mean that Wikileaks is trying to disseminate these lies. It only means that we have been allowed to peek into the perfervid world of government boosterism that is required for "advance" within that evil realm.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 4 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hi, Suverans2: I have no disagreement with either of those Schulman statements either when presented in a context as you have provided. Monsanto, which is a creation of the state in more ways than I can count (and its products), may be screwing things up -- although it is hard to tell at the present moment. People have been cross-straining and doing similar things for years, although they've taken it into new places that may have some bad consequences. I can only hope that if a Hazlitt-like long-term, widespread damaging effect is produced that it can be dealt with properly. Similarly, I fully understand and agree about the misuse of conceptual realism (collective terms used to categorize and "group" into a phrase any references to large numbers of individuals) -- especially by socialists and sociologists as well as econometricians and mathematical modellers. Like Mises, I think methodological individualism is vital. I do, however, use these commonly accepted words that refer to large groups of individuals because they are part of the language, but among libertarians such as ourselves, I think we understand their proper function and misuse. Perhaps Schulman felt this had to be explained, but I'd hate to see an outright ban on such terms, which would be to mimic the French and their enforcement of word usage by their academy. You'd be surprised that there are writers among the Lewciferians who have entirely anathemized both conceptual realism and nominalism both as unabashedly wrong in all cases. These disparate writers were probably unaware of each other. It is true that either one of these modes of communication can be misused, but the devil is always in the details. With respect to the late-medieval debates on these issues of conceptual realism vs. nominalism (and I think one of the great achievements of the Middle Ages was the de-mystification of conceptual realism and the acknowledgment that Socrates and Plato and their followers were dead wrong in believing that concepts were more real than the physically existing reference points), the over-demonization of either the use of concepts or the restriction of thought to an extreme nominalist expression that is best characterized by those who would say "it does not exist if you cannot measure it," otherwise known as extreme positivism (which has its own internal problems as the quantum physicists have discovered) is an error to be avoided. As we all know, some things can be measured, but that which is measured or measurable does not convey the totality of meaning regarding a thing, which is why Mises preferred ordinal rather than cardinal enumeration when it came to subjective valuations by human beings. He ranked them but did not assign a cardinal number. I can see that you understand the problems I have encountered by even raising these environmental issues. It has been said by critics affiliated with the Lewciferians that my introduction (much of Part 1) was too hectoring to tolerate, but I felt it was necessary to clearly and emphatically lay out not only how deep and how widespread, but HOW UNCONSCIOUS AND NON-SELF-AWARE this anti-environment sentiment had become within the libertarian community. The purpose of this series of articles was to bring this misguided trend to the attention of the community. As one commenter above noted: the way to combat a (socialist) lie is not to manufacture your own contrary and equally extreme lie. It is simply to state the truth. You would be surprised -- or maybe not -- at how much flak I've taken over the last two years in simply proposing to get out this message. Again, thanks for reading.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 5 days ago Page Glen Allport
    "Osama bin Laden has still not been arrested nearly a decade after the 9/11 attacks our government blames on him; neither the perps of the 9/11 attacks nor the bureaucrats and officials who failed in their duties so catastrophically that day have been inconvenienced by prison, fines, or anything else." Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes. 10 stars right there.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    In defense of J. Neil Schulman, though I do not know the man, and have myself taken exception with, at least, a couple of things he has written, it would seem from this statement, (which is, by the way, one of the things I was agreeing with), "The function of private property rights is to create multiple environments, a sphere of control within each of our own property boundaries. Significant and damaging incursions onto someone else's property is almost always regarded as actionable under any conceivable libertarian legal system, minarchist or agorist", that he too would find the individuals controlling Monsanto corporation guilty of trespass when their Franken Foods are found on a man's land who did not ask for them to be there and does not want them there, regardless of whether they caused that man harm, or not. I was also agreeing with this, "The very concept of "population" is collectivist and anathema to the libertarian who regards all human rights as held by individuals. Reproductive rights are a subset of individual rights, and others have no more right to limit someone else's fecundity than they do to demand someone else produce children for them as workers or cannon fodder", since I too believe that all human rights [just claims] are held only by individuals, that is to say, that the rights of the group can be no greater than the rights of the individuals who make up the group. I conclude that the concept of "the people"[1] as contrary to libertarian principles, as well. On the other hand, I disagree with all three parts of this statement by J. Neil Schulman, "The libertarian premise bypasses the entire question of whether there is such a thing as a “right” number of people, just as much as libertarians reject the concept that there is such a thing as too much or too little property, or that the "globe" is the wrong temperature." I think you have shown quite nicely, in your three-part thesis, that this is absolutely not true of all libertarians. And, what the hell does the "globe" being the wrong temperature have to do with the price of eggs in China on Saturday afternoon? By accentuating the word "globe", I suppose he is trying to say that all libertarians fail to think of planet Earth as their home. Furthermore, in my opinion, planet Earth is the temperature it is supposed to be...at this particular point in time. Let me conclude by saying I believe that far too many of our species seem to think that we are ABOVE "nature", because we believe we can control certain aspects of it, but it is my opinion that if and when we get too far out of line, "nature" will "correct" us, and in no uncertain terms. Which is why I am dead set against Frankenfoods, (an appropriate name, in my opinion). Once they unleash these "abominations" on us all, (which they have already begun doing), and these "freakish creatures" are no longer within the "sphere of [their creator's] control", there will be no recalling them; their f*ckups will very likely effect every living being on the planet...PERMANENTLY. Think, The Island of Doctor Moreau, come to your neighborhood...FOREVER! [1] "[The People] are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson No, Thomas, the individual is the ultimate guardian of his own liberty.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Lawrence M. Ludlow, No harm done, my friend. Thank you for taking the time to explain. Suverans2
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 5 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Souverans2: Sorry about the misinterpretation, but I think you'll understand when I explain how it happened. As you can see, this article is as much about the knee-jerk cover-up of the Lewciferian crowd and other "orthodox" libertarians over any discussion of the environment that differs from theirs -- including throwing Mises under the bus (check out the Mises quotes in part 2). Consequently, when Schulman chose not to discuss the points raised in the article about the challenges faced in this real-world situation of statism and (sadly) the unowned "commons," and instead chose to deny what is happening to adhere to the lock-step meme of the Lewciferians, I realized he opposed the observations I made. Then, when the first thing you did was agree with him, I assumed you were part of that crowd, too. When you then added the bit about the Monsanto suit, I tried to see how this would work in your mind (as one opposed to the points I made based on your approval of Schulman). Since Schulman denies the existence of "neighborhood effects" because he chose not to discuss the real world, I naturally made the connection that Schulman=Monsanto, which denys their role as "polluter" in the whole matter (even though I don't think you could take them to court barring significant damages). Then I tried to fit myself into the scenario created, and that meant I was the "farmer," and you see how it goes from there... To me, these pages are all about dialog, and that means discussing what people wrote. I naturally assumed you were discussing the points laid out. So you can see the connections I made (I hope!). Anyway, thanks for reading.
  • Guest's picture
    smithman (not verified) 4 years 6 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    The sensible thing to do is to run from the pigs.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 6 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow, I am caught totally off guard by your reply, my friend. I assure you I wasn't trying to put any words in your mouth, in fact, I have read, re-read and read again, my reply to J. Neil Schulman, and I honestly have not the vaguest idea what words you are referring to. In the name of fairness, please tell me what you think these words are? Secondly, I am definitely NOT "on the side of the tax-farmer Monsanto"; nothing could be further from the truth! The damages that come to mind when Monsanto's BIOENGINEERED FRANKENFOODS invades someone's farm mostly pertains to "organic" and "non-GMO" growers, at the moment. Once their fields are contaminated, their "organic" and "non-GMO" crops are ruined and can't be sold as "organic" and "non-GMO", and perhaps for more than one growing season...perhaps even indefinitely. Further, I think it costs these farmers just as much to fight Monsanto's frivolous law suits as it would to bring suits against them, but I could be wrong. One "little state" has done something to offset the cost of suing these mega-corporations. "While Washington is asleep at the switch, the state of Vermont is doing something. In March, by a stunning 28-0 vote, the Vermont senate passed the Farmer Protection Act, to hold the biotech giants legally accountable for the contamination of any farmer's crops by a corporation's GMOs." ~ Frankenfoods And, again, I have not the slightest notion of what you mean when you say that I "have made the wrong argument about the wrong side" and that I was "hoping [you] wouldn't notice the switch". If you are pro-Monsanto then you and I are DEFINITELY on opposing teams. Thanks for your time and attention.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 6 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    P.S. I just re-read "Part 1 of 3" and, as on my first reading, (as I recall), I can find nothing objectionable about it. Well done.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 6 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Please see response below (I hit the wrong button). Briefly, you invented a scenario and attacked the position of Schulman, who is actually in the same position as Monsanto, except that in the story you cite, Monsanto sued. I agree that Monsanto's suit is of course nonsense. Similarly, the farmer's would be if he had no real damages to claim -- which usually makes frivolous suits a rarity. Sadly, these arguments do not address the point of the article, but they do show that you are willing to pretend I said something I didn't, attack it, and then declare victory. My breath is not taken away by these knee-jerk responses to the "e" word and to the "p" word, but I generally try not to invent superstitions about words.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 6 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Suverans2. Thanks for writing, but you are arguing with words you have put in my mouth. Monsanto's suit would be in line with J Neil's attitude, not mine. This puts him on the side of the tax-farmer Monsanto. Further, one usually has to show damages to file such suits, and a farmer who wished to sue Monsanto would have to pay the freight for his lawsuit and prove damages. That would not be easy. So you have made the wrong argument about the wrong side. Were you hoping I wouldn't notice the switch? I'm sure you can do better.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 6 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    J Neil: Thank you for inadvertently making my point. To answer requires only the following question: Did you object when these "pro-growth" libertarians spoke out in favor of increasing populations? When they used the "population" word, did it raise your ire in the same way? My guess is "no" because you share their bias. The problem is that they claim to "know" for all of us. That is the nub. And by failing to note their use of this now-collectivist word, you have revealed your dog in this fight. Only you can know why you have taken that route. Similarly, as used in this article, the word "environment" has been used to refer to trespass. By pretending that it doesn't you have created out of thin air a straw man to beat upon. Again, put down your reactions and think about what I have said. The hostility to market-based agnosticism betrays an anti-market way of thought.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 6 days ago
    Laughing Terrorists
    Page Paul Hein
    "The TSA goons LIKE to do it!" No doubt some of them do. For most, it's probably just a job with a good pension and benefits. Don't expect any of them to quit on principle, though. ""I vas chust followink orders!" I agree the terrorists have a sense of humor. I can't wait to see what happens after the suppository bomber gets caught (no doubt after being escorted past security by a CIA agent).
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 6 days ago Page Bob Wallace
    "...nation-states are just tribes writ large." I don't know about that one. I agree humans are naturally tribal. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. In one sense, it is just a manifestation of our social nature. I do know that nation-states do their utmost to turn one internal tribe against the other. "Blacks" against "whites", Jews and Muslims and Christians against each other, liberals against conservatives, gays against straights, and so forth. For example, we have "Affirmative Action" not because it reduces racism (quite the contrary), but because it serves the state's need to get racial conflicts going. I tend to think of nation-states as something quite new, compared to tribes which are older than humanity; an outcome of the agricultural revolution, distinct and in opposition to tribalism.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 6 days ago Page Guest
    I'd agree that the author's enthusiasm for American schooling is misplaced (especially in academic areas), although I doubt the area of economics education is quite as bad as what he describes for France and Germany. But if American kids are learning about the free market, they are probably getting it from their parents, despite the govt. school propaganda. But then, that is one more area that Americans are better off than French or Germans. Even American parents with kids in government school, do not depend entirely on those schools to impart values. And it is no surprise that homeschooling (both "compliant" and "non-compliant") is common here, and is completely illegal in Germany and probably France too. It was illegal here in the past, in many states, but Americans kept doing it despite the laws. Yet another advantage here is that Americans do not revere the law or the authorities near as much as Europeans do. "Fuck the government" is our motto, generally speaking.