Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    "Good on the Judge! Respect for authority is one of the main reasons for the decline in standards in modern life. Everyone thinks they are equal to anyone else, when they are not. Criminals have offended not only against the Law, but against all those who try to keep it, who realise that rules matter in a civilised society. To call the magistrate 'Your Honour' or 'Sir' is not addressing the man, but honouring the Law. Only Morons think otherwise." ~ Pedro, Gt. Manchester, 3 November 2010, 4:23pm
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    "Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose" is one I weaned by children on! Ah, what fond memories that brings back. Thanks Duane Colyar.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Page tzo
    Solid 10, tzo!
  • Guest's picture
    VinnyG (not verified) 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    Thank you, Mr. Colyar. I am not familiar with the "Thidwick the Big-Hearted Moose" Seuss tale. "Yertle the Turtle" was, however, a favorite at our house when my children were young, and it also has what I regard as a suitably anti-authoritarian message. My grandchildren are now at good ages to be read to aloud; I will need to find a copy of "Thidwick" and add it to my arsenal. -VinnyG
  • Mike Powers's picture
    Mike Powers 4 years 12 weeks ago Page tzo
    Excellent column!
  • Mitrik_Spanner's picture
    Mitrik_Spanner 4 years 12 weeks ago
    Ebooks Everywhere
    Page Glen Allport
    x2
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 12 weeks ago
    Ebooks Everywhere
    Page Glen Allport
    Thanks for the review, Glen. I've been thinking of getting a Kindle myself, and your info here will be a big help.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 4 years 12 weeks ago
    Immigration
    Page Alex Schroeder
    "Arizona’s controversial bill SB 1070, ... indeed constitutes an honest effort to bring order to border areas." I respectfully DISAGREE! In my article ( http://tinyurl.com/ProhibitionFailed-Again ) PROHIBITION FAILED--AGAIN! -- What IS the Lesson of History? I point out that: What Arizona politicians [and apparently most everyone else!] have conveniently ignored is that the Federal government's UN-constitutional[3]--and therefore illegal--action of putting armed guards and gates at the established border crossings several decades ago (and gradually "tightening" entry requirements) has been the CAUSE of people crossing at other places along the border--repeating the historical experience of "The Wall" between East & West Berlin. Furthermore, the Federal government's UN-constitutional--and therefore illegal--War Against (some) Drugs has created a lucrative black market accompanied by violence--repeating the violent historical experience of the "Roaring Twenties" War Against Alcohol. ... PROHIBITION has NEVER worked! But the (unintended?[4]) consequence has ALWAYS been violence and "black" markets where none existed before. The proper solution to border violence is REPEAL of the un-constitutional, Federally imposed prohibitions on both travel and drugs. The PROPER course of action for Arizona and other states is to invoke the 10th Amendment and NULLIFY the Federal drug and travel prohibitions within their state’s boundaries. And THAT is what Arizona politicians have failed to identify and rectify. I REMEMBER when the current problems DID NOT EXIST. I remember forty years ago when the border crossings were not so heavily Federalized and the government prohibition on (some) drugs was still in its infancy. The increase in violence came with the increase in prohibition. When the government prohibition on alcohol was repealed, the violence and black markets ceased immediately! -------------------- Your comment: "What such likeminded individuals fail to grasp, however, is that immigration restrictions are an absolute necessity if we are to maintain publicly financed and provided services. The productive classes are already strained. There is simply a limit to the number of immigrants the country can absorb, particularly if they benefit from public services but do not pay for them." I dealt with these issues in great detail in my article “Ask the Right Question” ( http://tinyurl.com/Ask-Right-Question ) A very brief summary: "...the Welfare system already has rules that only citizens can receive welfare, but ... the Welfare supervisors violate the rules and do not require that Welfare dispensers confirm that the recipients are citizens." -------------------- Yes, I agree with your "What is the rational answer to both groups’ concerns?" However, we don't have to wait that long for workable solutions. And we do NOT have to put up with the fallacious arguments that I have touched on above and detailed in my articles. Dennis
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    "Who do you blame when their government does something to the United States or a U.S citizen, in retaliation for your government's interventions in their affairs?" I can paraphrase what, Charlie, one of my neighbors, has said to me about Iraq, "We should just nuke 'em! We should just level the whole place!" "So, Charlie, I'm curious, what would you say, if I could prove to you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Iraqi people had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11? What if I could prove to you that 'WE' attacked them FIRST?" http://www.lilithgallery.com/articles/america/George-Bush-Senior-Iraqi-O...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Jacob G. Hornberger asks: "Is it morally right for [your] government to bomb people in other countries in the hope of bringing them democracy? Is it morally right for [your] government to engage in invasions, wars of aggression, occupations, assassinations, coups, embargoes, sanctions, torture, abuse, and other interventions in the affairs of other countries?" Abraham Lincoln said that the U.S. government is a "Government of the people, by the people, for the people", therefore, (regardless of whether you believe this to be true or not), guess who the people of those other countries blame when your U.S. government, "bomb(s) people in other countries in the hope of bringing them democracy...[and] engage(s) in invasions, wars of aggression, occupations, assassinations, coups, embargoes, sanctions, torture, abuse, and other interventions in the affairs of other countries"? Who do you blame when their government does something to the United States or a U.S citizen, in retaliation for your government's interventions in their affairs? "How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it..."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Jacob G. Hornberger writes: "...for libertarians, the solution to the woes that besiege our nation includes the following: Repeal, don’t reform, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, subsidies, grants, and every other coercive welfare-state transfer program. Abolish every single welfare-state, central-planning department and agency, including the Federal Reserve. Abolish the income tax and the IRS. Legalize all drugs. Dismantle America’s military empire, bring all the troops home from everywhere and discharge them, and dismantle the military-industrial complex." So, "libertarians", how's that working out for you? How much have you truly accomplished thus far; how many of these things have you "repealed, abolished, legalized and dismantled" by working within the system over the last forty years[1], or so? Endnotes: [1] The Libertarian Party was formed in Colorado Springs in the home of David Nolan on December 11, 1971. (Source: Libertarian Party:Our History)
  • Guest's picture
    Jake Roundtree (not verified) 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Very good argument. Per does a good job of critically interpreting what otherwise seems like a mundane and insignificant expression by considering it in light of a robust anarchist political economy.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Tzo, like Paul, you are (sadly) correct. Every time I re-think this, it gets much worse. I'm going to have to read "The Puppetmasters," which I confess to not having seen yet. The level of impoverishment that we currently experience -- financially, psychologically as a result of the prevailing culture of "studied ignorance," moral degradation, and the outright oppression of government and the violent backlash of things like the War on Drugs (ask anyone who lives in a bad neighborhood, but only if they realize the connection; those who are wealthier prefer to remain blissfully unaware of the mayhem this policy has caused) are literally stupefying. There's an entire dimension that is un-touched by the article. Thanks for the thoughtful posts. And golefevre, you correctly identify the sense of guilt/shame that can hit us when things are done with our money that are positively mortifying -- like war and public schools and the drug oppression and all the rest of it. It makes me want to wear a bag over my head when I go outside; I'm that existentially embarrassed.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Awesome point, Paul. I like Heinlein too. Maybe there IS hope for me then? ;-) What could a free people do with that part of capital and time that is taken in the name of taxation? At the very least, evil things could not be done in our name.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    And I would say that it's even worse than that. The money is taken from you, it is used to put up obstacles in front of you, AND you are deprived of putting that money to use for yourself. With no taxes and no government obstacles and every individual being able to earn and save and invest the results of his own labor, well, it is indeed hard to imagine how much better off we all might be.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Paul, thanks for writing, and I have to admit you are absolutely correct. The things that the government does with the money end up causing us even more harm. One easy example is this bogus "war on terrorism," by which the U.S. government's hit squads go abroad, kill and maim people, which creates angry victims, who may wish to retaliate against the civilians in the U.S., who are simply not "protected" from this blowback by the absolutely useless armed forces of the U.S.. So yes, there is indeed a "negative value" to the so-called services provided by government employees of any kind. And think of the mind-numbing damage caused by the public schooling system alone -- turning potential thinkers into automatons, criminals, and fools in mass quantity. Thanks for your thoughtful addition to my piece.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Very good, Per Byund, however, IMO, it would be more correct to say, (...if you willingly REMAIN IN THE GAME, surely you must accept and abide by its rules!) See my thoughts on this here: http://strike-the-root.com/planning-to-vote-on-tuesday#comment-1362
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "All voting is a sort of gaming [gambling]..." ~ Henry David Thoreau I am not advocating that the employees of the corporation known as citizens, should vote, I am only saying that it's not important to the parasitic class if their employees don't vote. Using Henry's "gaming" analogy, if you have voluntarily, albeit unknowingly, entered into a "rigged" poker game, it matters not whether you opt to use your right to cut the deck [vote], because you are certain to lose either way. The only reason the card-cheat [parasite] offers you the "cut" [the "vote"] is to perpetuate the illusion that the game is not rigged, so that all the players don't opt out of the game. The answer? As I see it, the only way to cut your losses is to "opt out of the game". Jim Davies was right, when he said, "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." ~ 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 (tzo)”, 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, IMO, the only peaceful way to “abolish it”. "The right of self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent from an oppressive government. That is the only really effective restriction on power, in the last analysis." ~ Clyde Wilson, Secession: The Last, Best Bulwark of Our Liberties
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago
    Immigration
    Page Alex Schroeder
    "It is quite risible that their only legitimate complaint can be that in the mixed economy, all are enslaved to all." ~ Alex Schroeder Seems that you are, more or less, coming to much the same conclusion that Frédéric did. "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." ~ Frédéric Bastiat Whether or not the U.S. corporation is a "mixed economy" could be hotly debated, however, since virtually no evidence of laissez-faire capitalism can be found in that so-called mix.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 12 weeks ago
    Immigration
    Page Alex Schroeder
    If you believe, as I do, that "conservatives" support the welfare state every bit as much as leftists do, then their position at least makes some sense, in that it is at least consistent. That's why your solution (that I too have pushed whenever this comes up in a debate) holds no appeal to them. The leftist position seems to be inconsistent, I agree. I can only assume that the electoral advantage is more important to them. Yes, they might worry that too much strain is put on the productive class, but if more leftists are put in office (to "fix" things) that is what matters. Actually I don't think they worry about straining the productive class. My favorite example was one writer who advocated a 100% tax for incomes above a certain level (presumably, hers). They simply don't think the goose that lays the golden egg can be killed. It will take actual hunger for that lesson to sink into them, if anything at all can do it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    It's even worse than that. Your scenario would work if the money was stolen from us, and immediately burned in a pile on the sidewalk. But it's not. It is taken from us, and then used to harm us in other ways than the pure theft did. We have to spend yet more precious years just getting around the obstacles that the ruling class has put in our way. More time complying with regulations, more time working to pay for goods priced higher by regulation and taxes... It's simply hard to imagine how much better, how much longer in real terms our lives would be, without these parasites on our back. It's a bit like that old Heinlein book, "The Puppet Masters".
  • Guest's picture
    Ralph (not verified) 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    SNAFU.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it..." Henry did not say it is disgraceful to participate in it, i.e. to take part in it by voting, he said it is disgraceful to be associated with it, i.e. to be connected or joined together with it. Those not "associated" with it cannot legally "participate" in elections, only "associates", i.e. "accomplices" may legally vote. complice NOUN: Archaic An associate; an accomplice. ~ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language http://tinyurl.com/2d38bu2 "Readers of Strike The Root recognize that there are two principal demands that their governments make upon them: pay your taxes and vote." Your government doesn't "demand" that you vote, as this author himself proves in the very next paragraph. "However, as yet in most nations of the world, failure to vote in government elections carries no penalty." Your rulers don't REALLY care if you "participate", they only want you to voluntarily continue to be an "associate". If they REALLY gave a sh*t whether you voted, not voting would carry a penalty. "As Thoreau pointed out, "All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon . . . . Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it."" And NOT VOTING for the right is doing NOTHING for it, as well. "How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it..."
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 12 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Hence, we now have a certain percentage of voters who in 2008 chose the candidate for 'Hope and Change' and are now baffled that they are actually getting 'More of the Same'. The systematic indoctrination of we in the masses to cast our votes is so infused into our culture that the very notion that this system could be considered flawed, if not a complete failure, is incomprehensible. Some will not vote for Statist Candidate A because he/she urinates on their leg while telling them it's raining. However, Statist Candidate B can completely saturate the shoes on their feet and they will be okay with that because, well, he/she is the lesser of two evils and for some reason their urine somehow makes a good rain substitute. Shockingly, in the big scheme it does not matter that evil is still evil. Let's think outside of the box... the ballot box, that is.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    Great article, and Sheldon's references are even better! Though it, in my opinion, deserved perhaps eight stars [Very good] , I gave it a ten in order to offset the two one's it apparently received. Must read! http://www.la-articles.org.uk/FL-5-4-3.pdf
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 12 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    The Struggle for Ratification The Articles of Confederation had left the states completely sovereign, at the insistence of the radicals. When the delegates left Philadelphia, they were confident that the new Constitution in contrast would make the central government completely sovereign. The document's "necessary and proper" clause, "general welfare" clause, "supremacy" clause [Article VI.2], and all-encompassing preamble implied substantial discretionary powers. ~ Excerpted from The Constitution as Counter-Revolution: A Tribute to the Anti-Federalists by Jeffrey Rogers Hummel
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    My antagonists, on this issue, claim Article VI.2 really means, "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made", in Pursuance of their beloved Constitution. If this were true... I wonder why "The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the [Bricker] Amendment"? And, I wonder why, during the last FIFTY-PLUS-YEARS following the loss of the Bricker Amendment, only a "watered-down" version of this Amendment, (which lost by 1 vote), has ever been introduced again? I mean, after all, it would only have "put in writing" what they claim the Supremacy Clause "really" means.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    Found, in Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary, the following, seemingly "rational" Maxim of Law regarding "necessity", (among many), after posing that above question. Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise permitted, necessity allows, and necessity makes a privilege which supersedes the law. 10 Co. 61. Then, of course, "necessity" must be strictly defined. NECESSITY. In general, whatever makes the contrary of a thing impossible, whatever may be the cause of such impossibilities, 2. Whatever is done through necessity, is done without any intention, and as the act is done without will, (q.v.) and is compulsory, the agent is not legally responsible. Bac. Max. Reg. 5. Hence the maxim, necessity has no law; indeed necessity is itself a law which cannot be avoided nor infringed. Clef des Lois Rom. h.t.; Dig 10, 3, 10, 1; Com. Dig. Pleader, 3 M 20, 3 M 30. 3. It follows, then, that the acts of a man in violation of law, or to the injury of another, may be justified by necessity, because the actor has no will to do or not to do the thing, he is a mere tool; but, it is conceived, this necessity must be absolute and irresistible, in fact, or so presumed in point of law. 4. The cases which are justified by necessity, may be classed as follows: [The first one seems to apply to my scenario, so the others have been omitted for the sake of brevity.] I. For the preservation of life; as if two persons are on the same plank, and one must perish, the survivor is justified in having thrown off the other, who was thereby drowned. Bac. Max, Reg. 5.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    "Would the ethics under consideration in the previous questions change if the original shipwrecked group had found the island occupied, killed the inhabitants, and then took possession of the island?" In the scenario you have given us, if it wasn't in self-defense, these members of the "original shipwrecked group" are guilty of murder, unlawful, i.e. unethical, killing of one human by another...unless, of course, one says that the lives of "the inhabitants" was not their rightful property, because they were unable to defend them; in which case there can be no such thing as murder. But some things that would make your question of ethics much more difficult, tzo, are (1) what if the island had only the capability of barely sustaining those inhabitants, and (2) there was not "a smaller, rockier, somewhat less bountiful island a few hundred yards off to the east", and this shipwrecked group killed the inhabitants in order to survive: would the ethics under consideration change? Tough call.
  • Guest's picture
    Jakartaman (not verified) 4 years 13 weeks ago
    The 'Muslim Menace'
    Page Jim Davies
    I remember sitting on my patio on Rasuna Siud in jakarta 1992. Over a few cold Bingtan's I said to my friend - now that the cold war is over and we won there will not be a third world war among nations. However, knowing mankind, there is now a void that will be filled. I think there is going to be a ideology war east against west. I did not nail exactly Islam vs other religions but upon further refection I should have fell upon it. The war we are fighting is real and people are dying - If the radical Muslims could get their hands on a suitcase nuclear devise - I submit they would not hesitate to use it. I would also submit that Germany/France/England are not just tolerating Shia law intrusion into their daily lives. This "immigrant problem" is not like the others. The others were from a nation and want to be Americans not live here and take over our laws. My belief is the USA will not be over run my Muslims not because of our government but because we have our second amendment rights
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    SWAT teams. The final argument of the state.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Aside from the fact that Kirkpatrick Sale apparently believes he would be freer being ruled by a "state government" rather than a "federal government", he misses an extremely important point when writing about the Sixteenth Amendment. He omits, completely, the fact that that Amendment unequivocally[1] states, "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." “April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky that ‘treaty laws can override the Constitution.’ He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” "The problem of international treaties superseding the U.S. Constitution and undermining the foundations of our Republic is not a new one. ... ...they hit upon a solution: the Bricker Amendment. Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the "Bricker Amendment" to the Constitution read as follows: * Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. * Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty. * Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article. * Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. The Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Amendment. Leading the opposition was Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. This was the same John Foster Dulles who had said, two years previous, that "The treaty power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse," and warned that "Treaties can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the states and give them to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights." Hammered with this quote by Clarence Manion, Dean of Law at Notre Dame University, and a leading proponent of the Bricker Amendment, Dulles could only take refuge in the argument that this President would never compromise U.S. sovereignty. Although the Bricker Amendment started out with fifty-six co-sponsors, it eventually went down to defeat in the U.S. Senate, 42-50, with 4 not voting." ~ http://www.antiwar.com/essays/bricker.html [1] UNEQUIV'OCALLY, adv. Without doubt; without room to doubt; plainly; with full evidence. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    "You can find your own way to quietly, peacefully walk away from the table government has set." Amen and amen.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    I was reading this, "Duane Colyar has published papers in professional journals regarding the residential treatment of children...", and wondered what "residential treatment of children" meant. What I found was this, "a residential school or institution is a place where people with mental or physical problems can live while they are given treatment and being cared for[1]". AGENT: "Are you a "resident"?" Me: "No, not me, no sir! I've seen the kind of "treatment" you give people and how you have "cared for" them! I think I'll just take my chances out here with the alligators, it's safer." [1] Macmillan Dictionary
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 4 years 13 weeks ago
    Terms of Association
    Page Jim Davies
    I addressed some of the issues you raise in an article I wrote about the Covenant of Unanimous Consent, titled “…to institute new Government, laying its foundation…” tinyurl.com/yjpmdsc I was thinking in terms of a small community but it could apply to larger ones as well--or a "Gulch" community that expands over time. The originator of the Covenant viewed it as applying to the whole country. I point out that Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of interpersonal relationships based on those moral principles. Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers ...--the Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize. The Covenant also satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner. Instead of being a document that describes how the government shall act, and a document YOU did not sign, the Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if you agree. Those who do not sign (the “dissenters” mentioned by Ayn Rand in 1964) are not punished, they are simply and clearly warned what to expect if they violate the rights of Signatories. Dennis
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 4 years 13 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    I am reminded of this from an earlier STR article: You cannot be free by obeying the rules. You cannot be free by waiting for someone to rescue you. You cannot be free simply by hoping for a brighter day tomorrow. Freedom comes from within. "Freedom comes from within. It does not come from without. It does not come from a charismatic leader. It does not come with a set of instructions....It does not come from being given your freedom only after you prove yourself to your parents, teachers, pastors, or other authority figures. It does not come from any God who demands obedience before He promises blessings (or threatens curses). It does not come from delineated rights. It does not come from The Constitution. It is you from whom freedom springs. It is you in whom freedom thrives. No one gave it to you. Like Dorothy and her ruby slippers, your way home was with you all the time." You just didn't realize it. Do you understand? You are freedom. Contrary to that tiresome cliché, freedom is free. You are free when you join the military. You are free if and/or when you are drafted. You are free when they put a gun in your hand and bark an order. You are free to say, "No." Even when you are certain that you aren't, you are free to deal with it internally any way that you wish. If you are falsely imprisoned for rightfully resisting, you are still free. As the example of Viktor Frankl shows us, freedom can exist even within a death camp. [Note: Think a death camp is an extreme example? Contemplate the serenity of John Galt, even while he was being tortured by his oppressors. Ayn Rand understood this! ....Dennis] ... You can find your own way to quietly, peacefully walk away from the table government has set. ... An education in freedom will take time. When I first started, I scoffed at some of the ideas with which I was confronted. I eventually embraced them all. You will follow a logical path that will eventually lead you to the same open air I am now breathing. Let Us Awake Now by B.R. Merrick Click here to read the entire article...: http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/merrick/merrick4.html
  • GreenClover's picture
    GreenClover 4 years 13 weeks ago Page Duane Colyar
    So true that govt. cannot create wealth, but most Americans cannot understand this most important issue. I'll probably be disappointed in Tuesday's election cause, at the very least, 90% of congress members will be re-elected again (normal is 98% in past elections). Might want to read a great book out that's just come out cause it's about each of us. TIME magazine had an article out last week that civil war could happen in America if the economy gets worse. Enjoyable book. www.booksbyoliver.com
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    To the individual who gave this one star. You may have taken the title literally. That "congratulations" was a backhanded compliment, i.e. "An insult in the guise of an expression of praise".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Anyone here read the comment by Rita? "Every cop in america is a willing soldier in a war of oppression, and the enemy is us. They’re not here to protect us, or to serve us, despite the words painted on the sides of their cars. They’re here to serve themselves and protect their own careers, and in doing so break more laws in ONE DAY than most of us do in a lifetime. And unlike OUR crimes, every one of theirs has victims."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago
    It Never Stops!
    Page Paul Hein
    Excellent essay, Paul! A great reminder this, "Politicians obviously do not lead; they rule. They are rulers, not leaders." "Politics is intimately connected with lying and deception. At election time, the lies come thick and fast. But a lie, even if repeated ad infinitum, remains a lie." ~ Paul Hein True, Paul, true, it does remain a lie, but only to a hand-full of people who are still able to think for themselves. “There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.” ~ William James, the "father of modern Psychology" "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    "Property, again, only exists for those who can defend it." ~ Paul Then, AGAIN, according to that twisted logic, there can be no such thing as theft. THEFT, n. The act of stealing. In law, the private, unlawful, felonious taking of another person's goods or movables, with an intent to steal them. To constitute theft, the taking must be in private or without the owner's knowledge, and it must be unlawful or felonious, that is, it must be with a design to deprive the owner of his PROPERTY privately and against his will. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Theft. ...The taking of PROPERTY without the owner's consent. People v. Sims, 29 Ill.App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178, 179. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page1477 And, you therefore cannot rightfully say that "taxation is theft", http://strike-the-root.com/search/node/taxation%20is%20theft because, according to your ****** ** rules, it can't be: if the government is able to take it and defend it, it's its property, fair and square. End of ******* story! "There is no need to even think about "first claims". No part of this earth, except maybe Antarctica, has been available for appropriation (without displacing existing populations) for many thousands of years. It's a moot point by now." ~ Paul Jesus Christ, Paul, I'm scratchin' my head over that one, too. Just in North Carolina, alone, there are four "national forests", including the Nantahala, Pisgah, Croatan and Uwharrie National Forests, all totaling about ONE MILLION, TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY ONE THOUSAND, FOUR HUNDRED AND EIGHTY ACRES, where, I'm sure, a man and his family could make a "first claim" on a tiny little ten or fifteen acre parcel without "displacing existing populations". Nantahala National Forest: Size: 531,286 acres Pisgah National Forest: Size: 510,119 acres Croatan National Forest: Size: 159,886 acres Uwharrie National Forest: Size: Size: 50,189 acres
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    "ALL that is needed for freedom to exist is tolerance, and refraining from aggression (in a broad enough segment of the population). There is no need whatever to respect others or what they do." ~ Paul Great point!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 13 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    "...real freedom means not only tolerating various opinions or choices others have or make but to respecting those differences as well." Woops, you went too far there. ALL that is needed for freedom to exist is tolerance, and refraining from aggression (in a broad enough segment of the population). There is no need whatever to respect others or what they do. When I use the word "tolerance", I mean it in the original dictionary sense of the word, not the propaganda put out by the likes of tolerance.org. I wrote about that here: http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle523-20090614-08.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 13 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    "A small society with many guns can all agree to claim a large part of the Earth for themselves." Not only can they agree to do that; they do it! Look at our quest for oil in Iraq. It's up to the people living in the claimed areas to dispute this claim. Now, if the governments in those areas have seen fit to disarm their people, they shouldn't be surprised when they lose everything. And if the people in those areas let their government (who are no better, after all, than the outside bastards trying to take over) disarm them, then they shouldn't be surprised when they lose everything too. Property, again, only exists for those who can defend it. Ethics? It is a survival mechanism within a society, that apparently does not operate at all between societies. And even within some societies, it would be considered a luxury. There is no need to even think about "first claims". No part of this earth, except maybe Antarctica, has been available for appropriation (without displacing existing populations) for many thousands of years. It's a moot point by now.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    An excellent article. Hornberger hits this one out of the park. Although the STR headline here was completely off the mark, since liberals too get a beating from Hornberger.
  • J3rBear's picture
    J3rBear 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    I think Nader poses some legitimate questions because there are those that have co-opted the tea party movement and they are certainly not principled libertarians - they are just disenchanted conservatives. This is not what all tea party folks are, but it is a significant chunk of them. There are many people that associate themselves with the tea party movement that have absolutely no problem with the "war on terror" for example. It's important to point out the hypocrisy within that.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 13 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    Smart man, iliad! Un-learning all the lies is the key. Except, we must never become complacent by thinking that we have already "un-learned all the lies"; ...we have promises to keep, And miles to go before we sleep, And miles to go before we sleep. "And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind..." ~ Saul of Tarsus
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    I think you are correct that many of them are former Perot supporters. I had just turned 18 in the election Perot first ran. I did not think of myself as "libertarian" at the time but I knew something was very wrong with both major parties. I voted for Perot as a protest vote.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    From reading these questions, it's clear that Nader knows nothing about the core of the Tea Party. A lot of the tea partiers are the same people who supported Perot in the 1990s, and they are well aware of these issues. All Nader is doing is reacting to the people who have attempted to ride the Tea Party surge - ie. the Palin & Hannity types. Nader's ignorance really shows with question #2 - those bailouts were what touched off the Tea Party to being with. I think most Americans were unaware of the government money handed to corporations until it was in such an extreme amount during last year's financial crisis
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 4 years 13 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    I am actually kind of disappointed this piece was posted on STR. I DO consider myself part of the TEA Party Movement. I cannot speak for all of us of course, many of us joined the “movement” for many different reasons. We are not all automatons. I will answer these “questions” for myself. 1. I support ending the military budget entirely. In fact I support ending the government entirely. 2. That would indeed be impossible. I have never MET a member of the TEA Party who supported any of these things. That was kind of the point of the movement actually. We ALL opposed TARP for example. 3. Above all else I support INDIVIDUAL sovereignty. This includes recognizing an individual’s right to trade with another person on the other side of an arbitrary line. 4. Mr. Nader seems to think that the TEA Party movement is all about “law and order”. This indicates he does not understand it. What a surprise. Few elitists do. Tell you what Mr. Nader, I support decriminalizing all drugs and prostitution among consenting adults. Does that make me a “law and order” person in your book? 5. No, you can’t. I oppose that PATRIOT act. So do many TEA Party members. Not all, but probably a majority of us do. 6. Against GOVERNMENT regulation of such, yes. I can. In a true free market court system they would be held responsible for actual harm. 7. Give me a true free market and I can find competitors to these institutions if I so choose. 8. I am not for ANY system of politics, clean or otherwise. 9. I and an increasing number of TEA party members oppose the wars. As for eminent domain? I oppose it entirely. Most TEA Party people I have met would agree it has been “abused” and want the government to use it only in narrow cases like roads, bridges, fire departments and police stations. I have never met a TEA Party member who would support the kind of thing that was inflicted upon the Kelo Family. 10. This is the most absurd question of all. What is a “fair share” of theft? Even if one is a minarchist one would have to admit that the vast majority of what the federal government does is unconstitutional. What is one’s “fair share” of paying for things that are not even authorized by the Constitution? PIRS