Recent comments

  • thebigho111's picture
    thebigho111 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "Ultimately the question is this: What is the status of children in a libertarian society when the parents are not married?" I'm not sure what "status" is defining exactly but... If government intervention in the sense of subsides for breeding were banished, we would see destitution and poverty for two decades. In our current system of living, work requires lots of time. To give opportunities to your children requires TIME away from them and the cost of actually working. If you consider the prevailing stats regarding single mothers, it is quite obvious that AGE and EDUCATION are correlations if not causes. Pretend these have no affect on the human animal (especially ones who have no hope of their situation, never seen excellence by example, or father has left them) and I have a bridge to sell you... God forbid these children from be "helped" by missionaries or religious "altruism", for all you have done is relived the state hierarchy from control and handed them over to a mythological hierarchy headed by real men on planet Earth to control. "What are the legal rights of the mother and father towards those children?" -- Law should not intercede upon anyone's children. Law was not there upon the sex act, law did not have it in its belly, and law is an abstract trying to supersede the natural rights of all human beings over their offspring. Personally I feel a mother has primary custody rights over her biological children. It doesn't mean parents can not work out their respective situations. If you accept the idea of personal responsibility, then let them work it out on their own. Who needs a judge when a crime has not been committed? "Can there be a theory in a libertarian society that satisfactorily answers these questions?" -- Not until "libertarians" recognize that individualism is not just doing your own thing, but giving others the legitimate opportunity to do the same.
  • thebigho111's picture
    thebigho111 4 years 34 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    S. Fred Singer is a corporate whore. Read his bio or work history. A complete shill. In the January 2010 edition of Rolling Stone Magazine, journalist Tim Dickinson profiled the top 17 United States "polluters and deniers who are derailing efforts to curb global warming". Below is an excerpt from the article titled "Climate Killers" about Fred Singer. "A former mouthpiece for the tobacco industry, the 85-year-old Singer is the granddaddy of fake "science" designed to debunk global warming. The retired physicist — who also tried to downplay the danger of the hole in the ozone layer — is still wheeled out as an authority by big polluters determined to kill climate legislation. For years, Singer steadfastly denied that the world is heating up: Citing satellite data that has since been discredited, he even made the unhinged claim that "the climate has been cooling just slightly." Last year, Singer served as a lead author of "Climate Change Reconsidered" — an 880-page report by the right-wing Heartland Institute that was laughably presented as a counterweight to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's scientific authority on global warming. Singer concludes that the unchecked growth of climate-cooking pollution is "unequivocally good news." Why? Because "rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests." Small wonder that Heartland's climate work has long been funded by the likes of Exxon and reactionary energy barons like Charles Koch and Richard Mellon Scaife.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    One person invites another to his cabin deep in the woods in northern Canada. While the guest is there, a big storm whips up, making it impossible to exit. They will be snowed in for a week and it is so cold that walking out is not an option. The cabin owner does not want to feed the guest. The cabin owner wants the guest to leave. Not feeding the guest or kicking him out of the cabin means death for the guest. But everyone has the right to their private property, so the guest is out of luck. The cabin owner cannot ethically be forced to provide his property and/or labor to the guest for his survival. The guest either dies of hunger or exposure. Has a crime been committed? Parallel case?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Invader is certainly not the best word. Infringer? Encroacher? Trespasser? Kinda harsh, all. How about merely a guest, perhaps invited, perhaps not, who has been asked to leave.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Quick definitions from WordNet (invader) ▸ noun: someone who enters by force... That fetus is not an invader. Quick definitions from WordNet (ethics) ▸ noun: the philosophical study of moral values and rules Self-explanatory. Michael Kleen, would you make an exception if the woman was raped?
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    In a libertarian society, she couldn’t--not unless she was rich and didn’t have to work." Wrong! (a common theme throughout this piece, in my not so humble opinion, but I suppose I digress). I have been a single mother for 11 years. My children range from 11 years of age to 4 years old. They have never set foot in day care. I have always been their primary care giver. I've always homeschooled them. And, I have always worked. Before I began writing full-time, I worked at a variety of jobs. I only took jobs that I could do with children in tow. I use no social programs, have *never* been on welfare. You are not forced to pay for my children. And, since it is highly unlikely that they will end up in the prison system (except in the event of some political/principle matter they pursue when they become adults), or end up on welfare, or running up student loans that are defaulted on (seeing as they have first hand experience with self-education, self-sufficiency, etc.), I doubt that you ever will be. Thus, my single parenthood is none of anybody else's concern. And, just for the record, no child support. I don't believe that it is fair for me to "go after" a man who doesn't want to parent for money. The final decision is mine -- he couldn't force me to abort or to bear the child. I chose life, the child is my responsibility, and I do handle my business without burdening others. It is a pleasure to do so. We are a happy family.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    This article made me think of the work of John Taylor Gatto. Part of the problem with government schooling, as he sees it, is that it separates children not only from their communities and families, but from the natural world around them. Is it any wonder that more and more children are preferring indoor activities like video games, any more than the comfort and presence of their friends over that of family, or the more obvious reasons why children lack an interest in people of many different ages and life experiences? The coercive society in which freedom lovers live deadens the sould in so many ways, and now generations of Americans are getting turned off to nature. Not a good development.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "The philosophers and theologians who assert that birth control is contrary to the laws of God and Nature refuse to see things as they really are." I think of Puerto Rico, the number of poor people living there, and the predominate religion, which teaches to this very day that use of birth control is evil. This is why it is not enough for libertarians to oppose government, but all systems of coercion, including a religion that preaches such nonsense. The Roman Catholic Church may be a less intrusive system of coercion, but the end result is the same as with government action: death. And I openly confess that I, too, could very well be branded as a writer who has failed in this regard. I shall strive in the future to emphasize the beauty of the free market and its solutions over whether or not ideas of population should be "pro" or "con." Thanks, Lawrence.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    I cannot agree with the notion that a fetus is part of the woman's body [That notion is not put forward here.] or that "the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain." [Every human individual has the right to his or her own body.] It's ridiculous to call a fetus an "invader" or try to pretend that it is something less than human. [Nothing here implies that a fetus is less than human. One person invades the personal property of another if they are there without consent. Even if the person is a fetus. Please understand that your prior previous assumptions notwithstanding, Rothbard considers children, babies, and fetuses as either individuals or potential individuals that possess all the same rights enjoyed by all other individuals.] The fetus is clearly developing into its own person, a person who has a natural right to life. [Yes.] The mother has an obligation to protect that fetus because it is entirely dependent upon the mother for its survival. [Just like a doctor has the obligation to render service to a sick person if a sick person needs that service. What of the individuals who cannot survive on their own? Who has the legal obligation to keep them alive or else be called a murderer? Obligating an individual to perform service for another is called what?] If the mother were to "expel it," she would be condemning it to death and therefore would be responsible for violating that fetus' right to life. [Incorrect. If an individual, or potential individual, cannot survive on its own, no one else has the ethical (legal) obligation to render service to that individual in order to keep him alive.] A mother cannot have a "right" to violate someone else's natural rights, even if - or especially if - they lack the ability to speak for themselves. [Leaving someone alone or removing him from your personal property is not a violation of anyone's natural rights.] ****** Now, having said all that, it may be morally reprehensible at times to act in an ethical manner. But those are individual decisions, and should not be legislated. Ethics properly falls into the realm of legislation, while morality does not. I find Rothbard's argument consistent with his libertarian principles, even if some disturbing results appear. Are parents ethically obligated to feed their children? No. Morally? Certainly. Rothbard takes great pains to explain the difference between ethics and morals, and he remains consistent in his approach to issues. Perhaps he is wrong. Perhaps it is monstrous. But your above criticisms seem to be a bit emotional and do not really address what he has put forth. I am not here to say I agree with him on this, but I don't think you have successfully attacked the logic of his position. One individual's right to life does not imply that another is obligated to keep him alive. This logic leads directly to "the right to have food" and "the right to have a decent place to live" and "the right to health care," etc. Natural rights are negative, not positive. This is a particularly tough area for libertarian thought, but once you insist on having exceptions...
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    I cannot agree with the notion that a fetus is part of the woman's body or that "the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain." It's ridiculous to call a fetus an "invader" or try to pretend that it is something less than human. The fetus is clearly developing into its own person, a person who has a natural right to life. The mother has an obligation to protect that fetus because it is entirely dependent upon the mother for its survival. If the mother were to "expel it," she would be condemning it to death and therefore would be responsible for violating that fetus' right to life. A mother cannot have a "right" to violate someone else's natural rights, even if - or especially if - they lack the ability to speak for themselves.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Trying not to be rude, but when reading your column I have to assume that this whole libertarian thing is very new to you. The short answer is that bad things happen to people. People make bad decisions. Libertarian philosophy states that bad thing do happen to people, and you are more then welcome to help in any voluntary association you wish, but you cannot force associations on other. You are stating the same argument as drug use, or drunk driving, or any or a myriad of social problems. No aggression, theft, or fraud means no crime. People look out for themselves or form associations to pool risk based on free association. If you feel that a moral or ethical society would be compromised by single mothers, then the onus is on you to do something about it personally, without using aggression. The great thing about a libertarian free market system is that, without government, people that share the same concern as you are free to pursue as many solutions to the "problem" as minds that can bring ideas and capital to the table. The whole Idea of being a libertarian is that you realize that there is no monolithic all over society answer for anything, but hundreds of solutions, sometimes equally effective. If you want an example solution. If I were a woman, I would practice safe sex and make men sign support contracts before having sex with them, just in case. Simple, neat, elegant, libertarian.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "If she wants it, then it is considered human. If she does not want it, then it can be aborted as an annoyance. Being human is dependent on opinion?" From Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty, page 98: The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus. Most fetuses are in the mother's womb because the mother consents to this situation, but the fetus is there by the mother's freely-granted consent. But should the mother decide that she does not want the fetus there any longer, then the fetus becomes a parasitic "invader" of her person, and the mother has the perfect right to expel this invader from her domain. Abortion should be looked upon, not as "murder" of a living person, but as the expulsion of an unwanted invader from the mother's body. Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers. What we are trying to establish here is not the morality of abortion (which may or may not be moral on other grounds), but its legality, i.e., the absolute right of the mother to have an abortion. What we are concerned with in this book is people's rights to do or not do various things, not whether they should or should not exercise such rights. "What is the status of children in a libertarian society when the parents are not married? What are the legal rights of the mother and father towards those children? Can there be a theory in a libertarian society that satisfactorily answers these questions?" Chapter 14, 'Children and Rights,' of the above-mentioned reference is online here: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/fourteen.asp
  • leucocephala's picture
    leucocephala 4 years 34 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    As an atheist, I've paid attention to LRC's views about religion and "cultural conservatism" with a fairly attentive eye. I know Lew and some of the crew are quite religious, but I actually give them a lot of credit in keeping the two issues separate. Having cut my libertarian teeth on Ayn Rand, I would hope that I could identify a personality cult when I see one. And I think Hoppe was put through the PC wringer unjustly. I'm satisfied that his comments clearly differentiated between "all" and "average" and were not offensive. (Do gay people actually have lower time preferences? I have no idea. Maybe.) Obviously you've had closer interactions with LRC than I have, so I do appreciate your comments and will keep my eye out in the future. I mean... isn't that why I always stop at STR, too?
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 35 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    What makes anyone think that the US government is bound by its own promises? (See "Social Security cuts.") Being a branch of the US government, all the Postal "Service" has to do in the future is refuse to honor the stamps they are now calling "forever."
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    @Suverans: Thanks for the name lessons! @luecocephala: I already documented several examples both in the article itself and in many of the subsequent thread comments, so I won't be repeating these. You should also know that the topic of this article and the fact that Mises himself made these points was rejected as even a mild reminder by both Lewciferian organizations in the past when I made separate private overtures to that effect. And no, I don't think that Lew is the embodiment of evil (he does much good), but he sticks to his errors relentlessly; consequently, I tag him with this silly title. In addition, I suggested some mild improvements on Ron Paul during the campaign -- but especially Ron's horrible centralized campaign effort, which was run by paid individuals as opposed to his unpaid volunteers. See my two-part article (Postmortem on the Marketing of Ron Paul, also on STR) for this in depth. Further, I pointed out to him that his blind support for Hans Hermann Hoppe's homophobic (and, more to the point, economically incorrect) assessment of gay men and women was a cause celebre at Lew's site for a long time. Even though I love Hoppe's work, his collectivist comments were economically ignorant (a stereotype of short-term thinking on the part of gay people, which applies to straight people even more when you think about it, if such stereotypes can even be applied to individuals without violating even the most basic attempts at accuracy). The point is that Lew is a cultural conservative, which is perfectly fine as an individual choice for him, but he too often tries to twist libertarian principles conform to these personal whims -- thus distorting it into an unrecognizable dogma. Now that you know what to look for, you can keep an eye out for yourself in the future. The point is that Lew thinks he's the "pope" of libertarianism and that his every utterance is "ex cathedra" (in contrast to the real pope, who separately defines such statements). For Lew, his whims are identical to libertarian theory, when, in fact, he is just blowing smoke up people's collective a**es. It really does much to undo his genuinely good work. The Lewciferian sobriquet is merely my attempt to show that his contentions are every bit as wrong as any statist's and that his tenacious clinging to error is really as perverse as any genuine luciferian's opposition to a more balanced and truth-based stance vis-a-vis Christianity (Lew is a devout Catholic, or so he claims, and this can mean anything as the Catholic church is not monolithic in its makeup, despite the claims of some). As long as this continues, I'd like to keep playing with my Lewciferian(TM) label to help keep Lew honest, and I encourage others to adopt it. He and his group have become as organizationally intolerant as the Kochtopussy he so reviles. Cruise the Mises.org site and his own for these topics and see what I mean.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    In Roman astronomy, Lucifer, (from the Latin term lucem ferre, "bringer, or bearer, of light") , was the name given to the morning star, (the star [sic] we now know by another Roman name, Venus), because it "rises ahead of the Sun". It was translated from heylel ben shachar (Isa. 14:12), and was an idiomatic metaphorical way of calling someone "madly boastful". Quick definitions from Macmillan (madly) adverb ▸in a very excited or uncontrolled way ▸very, or very much ▸in a way that shows that you have a mental illness In the Aramaic text, which replaced Ibriy [Hebrew], the expression was used to describe a Babylonian king, and NOT the "chief angel who rebelled against God's rule in heaven" or "satan"; these two myths were created by other religionists much later. The true "luciferians" (madly boastful ones), of today's modern "Babylon" are as insane as their namesake, the Babylonian king, who said, "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God...I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!" Well HERE is what I think about that.
  • leucocephala's picture
    leucocephala 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hmm. I'm not much aware of this walling-off, utter silence, naked assertions business you speak of. I usually stop at LRC and STR daily, but I guess I'm not in the loop on current intra-libertarian squabbles. Though I do cringe at the excessive use of "awful" and "evil" as descriptors on LRC. But still... lucifer himself? Any specific examples of this skullduggery you care to name?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hi, Leuco: It may be unnecessary, but it's certainly not undeserved. Not only are many of them quite regular in the practice of labeling others (see Kochtopus, etc. and the regular diatribes against those with whom they disagree), but they've become their own Kochtopus by closing off debate, walling off in utter silence when backed against a wall, intolerance of all criticism of either themselves or of Ron Paul (even when it is good-natured and mild and positive), and of offering naked royal assertions instead of arguments, etc. So I hope you'll forgive me for occasionally letting off a little steam. Despite much of the good work they do, I think they have earned this new catch-phrase.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 35 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Let's see if I can say this one more time, with vigor -- Anything developed for military use will eventually be used by police against the people they are sworn to protect. Not just criminals, not just drug dealers. There's a war going on, right now, right here, the front lines are ion our neighborhoods, our schools and our homes, the soldiers are those we used to call "law enforcement officers" (oddly enough, they still call themselves "peace officers") and the enemy is us. All of us.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 35 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    So the government made a promise, which the people were FORCED BY LAW to buy into, and now the government wants to renege on the promise, because THEY, not we, mishandled the money they took? Sorry, I'm not buying it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Question: Providing that a man [a human being] is not a member of the body politic[1], i.e. he is not a "person[2]", and plainly rebuts any presumption that he is, and providing he has not, intentionally or through gross negligence, harmed anyone or engaged in "disorderly, dangerous conduct disruptive of public peace", does an agent possess the lawful "authority" to arrest[3] that man without his express or tacit consent[4]? Definitions [1] MEM'BER, n. [L. membrum.] ...4. An individual of a community or society. Every citizen is a member of the state or body politic. So the individuals of a club, a corporation or confederacy, are called its members. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [2] "...A person is here not a physical or individual person, but the status or condition with which he is invested... not an individual or physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons... The law of persons is the law of status or condition." ~ American Law and Procedure, Vol 13, page 137, (c.1910) [3] Arrest. To deprive a person of his liberty by legal authority. Taking, under real or assumed authority, custody of another for the purpose of holding or detaining him to answer a criminal charge or civil demand. State v. Ferraro, 81 N.J.Super. 213, 195 A.2d; People v. Wipfler, 37 Ill.App3d 400, 346 N.E.2d 41, 44. Arrest involves authority to arrest, the assertion of that authority with the intent to effect an arrest, and the restraint of the person to be arrested. Village of Hoffman Estates v. Union Oil Co. of California, 13 Ill.Dec. 277, 370 B,E,2d 1304, 1308. All that is required for an "arrest" is some act by officer indicating his intention to detain or take person into custody and thereby subject that person to the actual control and will of the officer, no formal declaration of arrest is required. Com. v. Brown, 230 Pa.Super. 214, 326 A.2d 906, 907. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 110 [4] TAC'IT, a. [L. tacitus, from taceo, to be silent, that is, to stop, or to close. See Tack.] Silent; implied, but not expressed. Tacit consent is consent by silence, or not interposing an objection. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    "...drivers in Florida will be mandated to allow police to jab a needle in their arm and extract blood at DUI checkpoints should they refuse to submit to breath tests." [Emphasis added] I refuse to sit, lie down, roll over or play dead for any man, without my voluntary express consent! DRIVER. One employed... Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1856 DRIVER-- one employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle..." BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY, (1914) p. 940. Driver - One employed in conducting or operating a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals, or a bicycle, tricycle, or motor car, though not a street railroad car. See Davis v. Petrinovich, 112 Ala. 654, 21 So. 344, 36 L.R.A. 615; Isaacs v. Railroad Co., 7 Am. Rep. 418, 47 N.Y. 122. Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Ed DRIVER. One employed... Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th Ed, 1951 “The activity licensed by state DMVs and in connection with which individuals must submit personal information to the DMV - the operation of motor vehicles - is itself integrally related to interstate commerce”. Seth Waxman, Solicitor General U.S. Department of Justice BRIEF FOR THE PETITIONERS Reno v. Condon, No. 98-1464, decided January 12, 2000 Supreme Court of the United States Since I am not "employed[1]" by anyone to "conduct or operate" my unregistered, private automobile, nor am I "licensed by [your or any other] state DMVs", or involved in "interstate commerce[2]", I am not a "DRIVER". I am a free and sovereign man. And, as a free and sovereign man I do not consent to breathe into anything, I do not consent to be stabbed by you with anything, and I do not consent to be arrested by you, or anyone else. Happy New Year and have a nice night. Definitions [1] Employed. Performing work under an employer-employee relationship. Term signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contract or orders to do it. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 525 [2] Interstate commerce. Traffic ["Commerce"], intercourse, commercial trading, or the transportation of persons or property between or among the several states of the Union, or from or between points in one state and points in another state commerce between two states, or between places lying in different states. Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L.Ed. 23; Wabash, etc. R. Co. v Illinois, 118 U.S. 557, 7 S.Ct. 4, 30 L.Ed. 244. It comprehends all the component parts of commercial intercourse between different states. Furst v Brewster, 282 U.S. 493, 51 S.Ct. 295, 296, 75 L.Ed. 478 [Bracketed italicized information added]
  • leucocephala's picture
    leucocephala 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "Lewciferians?" I find this name-calling highly undeserved.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 35 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Can't help but note that the "commander in chief" spent Christmas in Hawaii with his family, in warmth, comfort, relative peace and all the safety our tax dollars can buy. Happy Holidays, you hypocrite.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    "I'm always critical and suspicious of people who have political plans they would like to offer or impose." ~ Colyarde For what it's worth, I agree, Duane Colyar, which is why you don't find the word "political" in front of the word "plan" in my original query to you. "I personally fear that not much can be done as long as individuals buy into the delusion that government offers security, for which all too many are willing to sacrifice their liberty." ~ Colyarde Again, I must agree. "A people that follow a leader's offer to bring them out of the Wilderness can and will be led back in by yet another leader." ~ Colyarde What if they had a virtually unshakable moral compass? In other words, what if they had a near perfect foundation to begin building on?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 35 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Sounds like a good way to start a revolution.
  • Colyarde's picture
    Colyarde 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    I'm always critical and suspicious of people who have political plans they would like to offer or impose. I personally fear that not much can be done as long as individuals buy into the delusion that government offers security, for which all too many are willing to sacrifice their liberty. A people that follow a leader's offer to bring them out of the Wilderness can and will be led back in by yet another leader. Thanks for you comment.
  • Colyarde's picture
    Colyarde 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    I couldn't agree more!
  • Colyarde's picture
    Colyarde 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    Valid criticism, Paul. I should have added a few words in that paragraph clarifying that the delegates to the Convention were not unaminous in wanting to limit the power of the new federal government. Hamilton, for one, would have been happy with a monachy. My premise, however, I believe remains valid, the powers that were granted have been greatly expanded, as all power will. Thanks for your thoughful comment.
  • bill_starr's picture
    bill_starr 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    "... an economy can be controlled only by controlling people." Good double entendre there, whether intended or not.
  • johncioffi's picture
    johncioffi 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Mr. Davis, I consider myself a member of that "non-existent species" you refer to; a Christian Anarchist. I do not support any government, only the authority of The God of Abraham as manifested in Jesus Christ. I think it comes down to semantics. If you believe that to be an Anarchist the individual is the Idol to worship, then I guess I am not of that ilk. If you believe, as I do, that freedom comes from God and that any man made authority is usually contrary to freedom, than Christian Anarchy is quite rational. Man is the problem, not God. Rights are Inaliable; that is they come from God. John Galt is, literally, fictional.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    G'day usc, perhaps you'd profit by reading what a retired USAF lieutenant colonel has to say about Brad Manning ?
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    PFC Manning is innocent until proven guilty, is being tortured, and as far as I know, the only "evidence" against him is the word of a very untrustworthy government snitch. Much of the rest of your argument is the same as the one used during the Cold War, which was started, fomented, and worsened by the state. If we need a standing army so badly, where the f*ck were they on the morning of 9/11?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    So, tell us, Duane Colyar, about your plan to stop this ever-expanding fascism?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    B.R. Merrick and tzo, I have thought, many times, about doing that very thing, and now that I have actually been asked for the very first time, (since our[1] 11 year journey began), I may just "put pen to paper", so to speak. But know this, it may turn out to be a documentation of "what not to do" more than a "what-one-needs-to-do", because our "act of withdrawing from membership in [the] group"[2] was, using 20/20 hindsight, perhaps an unnecessarily "long and winding road", and my biggest mistake was believing that there was some complicated "process" that one had to do. In truth, the most difficult "process" will be, as Saul of Tarsus so eloquently put it, "the renewing of your mind". Thank you for asking, and thank you, tzo, for apparently seconding the request. I will seriously take it into consideration; might be fun. [1] My natural law wife joined me in this quest for liberty. [2] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), definition for secession.
  • Cryptoman's picture
    Cryptoman 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    +1 The real mistake was not setting the pen down after the Declaration of Independence.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Like
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Suverans2, will you ever be writing an article on the process you went through to throw off the chattel number and voluntarily secede? I, for one, would very much enjoy reading the details.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 35 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    Yeah, them too.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    "...our founders attempted to create a federation of states where the power of the central, federal government would be severely limited..." That is the conventional view. The more cynical (and in my opinion, more accurate) view is that of Spooner and recently of Kenneth Royce. The real founders, those ordinary men who fought for freedom, and men like Patrick Henry, were outmaneuvered by the nascent ruling class of Washington, Hamilton, et. al.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    ...or the LEFT.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    It's all about "control". "It will soon be possible to assert almost continuous control over every citizen and to maintain up-to-date files containing even the most personal details about health and personal behavior of every citizen, in addition to the more customary data. These files will be subject to instantaneous retrieval by the authorities. Power will gravitate into the hands of those who control information." ~ Excerpted from Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era by Zbigniew Brzezinski An aside: Anyone here care to guess how difficult it is to "to assert almost continuous control over" and "maintain up-to-date files containing even the most personal details about health and personal behavior of" individuals who don't use any chattel numbers?
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 35 weeks ago
    Vox Dei?
    Page Jim Davies
    I have to credit WorldNetDaily and Vox Day with turning me further away from government, but it isn't nearly far enough. Maybe Mr. Day will continue to move away from systems of coercion over the next few decades of his life. Whether he does or doesn't, I know that for my own freedom revolution to be won, the God concept had to die, and it has. It's a shame to see such an intelligent writer disparage the free market, when everything good about his life most assuredly comes from it. There is too much belief still in systems of coercion among those who have affiliation or belief in anything coming from the right.
  • usc's picture
    usc 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Just found your stuff, and for the most part I have been enjoying it...but since I slightly differ on the area of national defense and the military, and wars for that matter than most hard core Libertarians, I have to disagree with this essay, however well written and argued that it was. PFC Manning is currently in the U.S. Army, and as such is actually not subject to the Constitution, however flawed you may find it. He is actually subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And in this instance Article 106...which clearly states that what he did was wrong. "Communications Intelligence" is covered nicely in 106a.C. One of the desperate few things that a government must do is to defend it's citizens from foreign powers. It is not something you can do by yourself. It requires training and skills one does not get without effort. It requires finances and logistics and large transports that are pretty much out of reach of normal people...at some point some one has to foot the bill for that, organize, command and lead large troop formations. This is outside of the capabilities of man to do alone. That said, PFC Manning is not a Journalist. He's not "whistle blower" of the sins of the State. He is a Soldier. And as such his "whistle blowing" isn't whistle blowing it all. It is treason. It is counter to good order and discipline. It is a danger to the safety and welfare of the American people. Whether you believe that such a military should exist, whether you believe that other Americans, volunteers entirely, should be or can be charged with your defense, you can not deny that there are bad men who want to do you harm and as such you, as we all do, require defense and volunteers standing on the wall 24/7 to provide for that defense. And a Soldier sharing our communications in an open way provides information to those bad men who want to do us harm. We can debate "preemptive" war if you'd like, personally I am in favor of it. I think if a man declares his intentions to do me harm or coerce me into compliance to his slave inducing ideology I have a moral and ethical right to resist him. If a Nation State declares it's intention to close with and harm my country in any way available then I believe our Nation has a right to close with and destroy the enemy, even if it means firing the first shot. You may not, most Libertarians do not. But then again I am starting to believe that most Libertarians are actually Anarchist in Libertarian clothing. In the end, PFC Manning is a traitor. He has helped the enemy. We are not safer for his actions. He has emboldened our enemies with his actions. It is against the Law. Our Government does lie, cheat and steal and does use coercive force against us it's citizens and others around the globe, but none of our Government's actions excuse those of a Soldier in the U.S. Army who's sworn duty is to the United States Constitution and the People of this country...not the "truth". Out
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 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. Just because you believe it to be more lucrative to be a member of the gang doesn't make it involuntary. And, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who has subjected himself to the dominion of the government is free to bitch and complain about having to pay his dues (income tax), but what he may not rightfully do is claim that his membership is not voluntary, and that, my friend, is my whole point. Starving oneself and one's family on principle is not everyone's cup of tea. For the record, my woman and I are far from starving and I would be willing to bet that we eat better quality food than do the vast majority of individuals who voluntarily choose to be or remain under the dominion of the government. 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. A contract is “an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not do a particular thing”. I say applying for and/or using a T.I.N. to obtain benefits IS a contract; and I say applying for and/or using a government license, of any kind, IS a contract. I do not apply for or use a chattel number, I do not apply for or use any of their licenses, because I DO NOT ACCEPT THE TERMS attached to them, (I prefer to be free), I, therefore, am NOT contracting with them. They have a virtual monopoly on employment through the criminal T.I.N. system... Yes, they do, but that's because there is not one individual in ten thousand who is willing to “just say no” to the ruler's “dainties”. ...and if I use that system it is because I can benefit from it. Of course, that is what I have been saying all along; individuals VOLUNTARILY remain part of that system because they "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. I understand, but I assure you, if you read the “fine print” on all the benefits and privileges you're “taking” and “accepting” you will find there ARE binding obligations attached. No contract exists within a coercive relationship. Agreed, but...is it really “coercive”, or is it just “very inconvenient” to leave the pond. It is a war. If that it true, and I'm not saying it isn't, what good does it do us to sit around bitchin' and complainin' about it? The "Jim Davies" of the world are, (IMO), living a pipe dream if they believe that they can “re-educate” enough people to empty any substantial number of government offices, particularly the office of "citizen". "You must be the change you want to see in the world." 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. Well, of course he can complain, my friend, and you're right, life outside the pond can be a “bit more difficult”. Freedom has a price tag, that's for sure; just ask that pregnant nanny I found a few years back who had chosen to leave the pond; those who thought they “owned” her chased her for many days, but last I checked, she and her two kids were doin' just fine...and still free! 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? Oh, tzo, I expected so much more from you, my friend. First of all as I have previously, (and no doubt generously), guessed, there's not one in ten thousand that will forgo anything, they will continue to “take everything [they] can from the criminal organization” and continue “accepting whatever they hand out” 'til the bitter end. And, secondly, you needn't concern yourself too much about those few individual secessionists who have chosen to leave the pond, there's plenty of good food on this earth for us. (Last night we had tasty meat balls, made from deer meat, buried in a most deliciously seasoned tomato sauce, with a side of cabbage and homemade whole wheat bread. Is your mouth watering yet? [wink]) Don't use a T.I.N and you don't have to worry about the IRS. That is correct. Don't drink raw milk and you don't have to worry about the FDA. Because I'm not a member of your body politic, I can "legally" drink whatever the frick I like, because the FDA rules do not apply to me, they only apply to those who have “subjected themselves to the dominion of [the] government”, which only makes "raw milk" more difficult for us to acquire. Don't own a gun and you don't have to worry about the ATF. I never worry about the ATF, (as though it's some kind of living being to be afraid of), or the men and women who belong to it, because their rules do not apply to me; their rules only apply to their voluntary members, individuals who have “subjected themselves to the dominion of [the] government”. Do exactly what the police officer tells you and you don't have to worry about going to jail. I can honestly tell you that I NEVER do “exactly what the police officer tells [me] to do”, (because, thus far, I've not harmed anyone), and I rarely go to jail. Furthermore, what few times I have gone to jail they've held me the appropriate three days to check out my status to see if I'm one of theirs, and when they can find no nexus (connection), they have released me. I have never accepted, (let alone “signed”), a ticket, I have never been fined or beaten, and I've only had a gun pulled on me once, and that was at my own request, so I could truthfully claim my car was taken viet armis, “with force and arms. See Trespass.” (Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1568) Don't buy property and you don't have to worry about paying local government property tax. Do not submit yourself to the dominion of the government, don't use a fricken T.I.N., and don't register your LAND with the local government taxing agency. Will the “bully in the schoolyard” still come after your “lunch money”? Quite likely, because “right does not make might”, which is why it is “dangerous to be right when the government is wrong”. Don't buy food or gas and you don't have to worry about sales taxes. Agreed. Or, don't buy food from a “taxpayer” who is obligated to pay a sales tax. Don't live in the US if you don't want to follow the rules. Yick. I don't "live in the US”, I live on the Earth, the “US” is a fiction. If “you don't want to follow the rules” of the corporation, then don't be a member of the corporation. 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. For what it is worth, I totally agree with you. And I am not for one minute telling anyone they have to follow in my footsteps; I just want them to know that there is another choice, and that there is at least one who has opted for it, nothing more. What really was an eye-opener, for us, was to find out that Individual Secessionists are pretty much ostracized even in so-called "freedom loving" groups like this. So be it. One can wish that all would take a principled stand against aggression, but that seems implausible. My friend, it is IMPOSSIBLE to get “all” doing what you wish they would do, (my Daddy says, "Sh*t in one hand and wish in the other, and see which one fills up first", but in order to be honest with myself, I had to admit that it is POSSIBLE for ME to “take a principled stand against aggression”. 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. And the “desperate act of cornered animals” is seldom a wise one, and almost always an ugly one. This response has now spiraled out of control. Fin. So, my friend, tell me, what is your “plausible” solution to the problem of out of control government?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    "But is merely uncovering the State’s true nature really a crime?" ~ Scott Lazarowitz No, it is a prime example of the true intention of "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press". Your rating: Must read! Well done, Scott Lazarowitz.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 4 years 35 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Good points, both. And as more and more material gets released and then gains an audience, the net effect will, inevitably, be to lower the public's opinion of the elite even more, and to make people question the elite's supposed "right" to run our lives, to take our money, to send our children into harms way in aggressive wars, to favor corporate advantage over individual rights, and all the rest of it. In turn, THAT will make the "Assange is a CIA asset" idea even more untenable than it is now. WikiLeaks isn't a psy-op: those who loudly insist it is are the ones running the psy-op.
  • madelineS's picture
    madelineS 4 years 35 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 4 years 35 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 4 years 35 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.