Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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 8 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
  • iliad's picture
    iliad 4 years 8 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    A valid point Suverans2. Since I have been reading commentary on sites such as STR and voluntaryist.com, my loyalty to flag and country has diminished to the point of being irrelevant. It has taken some time to un-learn all the lies. Burn baby burn.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 8 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    http://www.naturalnews.com/cartoons/Halloween-Costume_600.jpg Thanks to cartoon creator Mike Adams via www.NaturalNews.com
  • Guest's picture
    FreerThanFree (not verified) 4 years 8 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    While I believe it is and was a good idea for Jews and Zionists to have their own state, they're definitely were many mistakes done in choosing and establishing Israeal in the location of Palestine. The article makes some points in that direction and they are well taken. However, I would say that a "massive" Jewish immigration to the US would not have solved the problem, as a matter of fact there was actually quite an amount of anti-semitism present in the States, even in military circles and even after the war. Teh question inevitably becomes: Where else should a Jewish state have been established? The Nazis at an early time seriously suggested the island of Madagascar, but naturally that doesnt merit much discussion. Personally I always wondered why the Zionists didnt choose the Caucasus region as this is where most Jews are actually supposed to have come from (especially the Khazars). This to me sounds like it would have been a more authentic homecoming and it definitely would have been less of a powder-keg than Palestine. But I guess the religious connection had to win out in the end.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 8 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    Thank you for your pleasant and thoughtful reply jd-in-georgia. (And for the chuckle at the end. Tin foil hat, indeed. lol) If I may, the "just and necessary laws and the duties of social life" are not the artificial laws "written", i.e. "created" by men. It is the Natural Law. "If there be any such principle as justice, it is, of necessity, a natural principle; and, as such, it is a matter of science, to be learned and applied like any other science. And to talk of either adding to, or taking from, it, by legislation, is just as false, absurd, and ridiculous as it would be to talk of adding to, or taking from, mathematics, chemistry, or any other science, by legislation."[1] [1] NATURAL LAW or THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE, A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, a Usurpation, and a Crime by Lysander Spooner (1882) Must Read: http://www.panarchy.org/spooner/law.1882.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    BOOK II, CHAPTER 5 Of Property ... § 46. The greatest part of things really useful to the life of man, and such as the necessity of subsisting made the first commoners of the world look after - as it doth the Americans now [late 1600's] - are generally things of short duration, such as - if they are not consumed by use - will decay and perish of themselves. Gold, silver, and diamonds are things that fancy or agreement hath put the value on, more than real use and the necessary support of life. Now of those good things which Nature hath provided in common, every one hath a right (as hath been said) to as much as he could use; and had a property in all he could effect with his labour; all that his industry could extend to, to alter from the state Nature had put it in, was his. He that gathered a hundred bushels of acorns or apples had thereby a property in them; they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to look that he used them before they spoiled, else he took more than his share, and robbed others. And, indeed, it was a foolish thing, as well as dishonest, to hoard up more than he could make use of If he gave away a part to anybody else, so that it perished not uselessly in his possession, these he also made use of And if he also bartered away plums that would have rotted in a week, for nuts that would last good for his eating a whole year, he did no injury; he wasted not the common stock; destroyed no part of the portion of goods that belonged to others, so long as nothing perished uselessly in his hands. Again, if he would give his nuts for a piece of metal, pleased with its colour, or exchange his sheep for shells, or wool for a sparkling pebble or a diamond, and keep those by him all his life, he invaded not the right of others; he might heap up as much of these durable things as he pleased; the exceeding of the bounds of his just property not lying in the largeness of his possession, but the perishing of anything uselessly in it. § 47. And thus came in the use of money; some lasting thing that men might keep without spoiling, and that, by mutual consent, men would take in exchange for the truly useful but perishable supports of life. § 48. And as different degrees of industry were apt to give men possessions in different proportions, so this invention of money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them. For supposing an island, separate from all possible commerce with the rest of the world, wherein there were but a hundred families, but there were sheep, horses, and cows, with other useful animals, wholesome fruits, and land enough for corn for a hundred thousand times as many, but nothing in the island, either because of its commonness or perishableness, fit to supply the place of money. What reason could any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use of his family, and a plentiful supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced, or they could barter for like perishable, useful commodities with others? Where there is not something both lasting and scarce, and so valuable to be hoarded up, there men will not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it never so rich, never so free for them to take. For I ask, what would a man value ten thousand or an hundred thousand acres of excellent land, ready cultivated and well stocked, too, with cattle, in the middle of the inland parts of America, where he had no hopes of commerce with other parts of the world, to draw money to him by the sale of the product? It would not be worth the enclosing, and we should see him give up again to the wild common of Nature whatever was more than would supply the conveniences of life, to be had there for him and his family. § 49. Thus, in the beginning, all the world was America, and more so than that is now; for no such thing as money was anywhere known. Find out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbours, you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions. § 50. But, since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man, in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage, has its value only from the consent of men - whereof labour yet makes in great part the measure - it is plain that the consent of men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth - I mean out of the bounds of society and compact; for in governments the laws regulate it; they having, by consent, found out and agreed in a way how a man may, rightfully and without injury, possess more than he himself can make use of by receiving gold and silver, which may continue long in a man's possession without decaying for the overplus, and agreeing those metals should have a value. § 51. And thus, I think, it is very easy to conceive, without any difficulty, how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things of Nature, and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it; so that there could then be no reason of quarrelling about title, nor any doubt about the largeness of possession it gave. Right and conveniency went together. For as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon, so he had no temptation to labour for more than he could make use of. This left no room for controversy about the title, nor for encroachment on the right of others. What portion a man carved to himself was easily seen; and it was useless, as well as dishonest, to carve himself too much, or take more than he needed. ~ Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690) by John Locke
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    Sorry, Suverans. I guess by 'real', I am trying to pin freedom more esoterically than in a matter-of-fact kind of way. Per the Black's definition you have provided, '... such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life,' when perhaps one day that human laws may not be necessary. I assume we are talking about written rules when referring to necessary laws. In essence, I try and think of the thousands of years we have been getting around on nothing more horses and/or carriages. It has only been within the last 150 years that we have been getting around by means of internal and external combustion, from cars to space flight. Although we can still get around on horse and carriage, the use of cars and airplanes seem to give us more freedom. Dang, there's that word again. One day, rules and laws can evolve just as our transportation technology has. That will be a great day, indeed. That will be a day of 'real' freedom, which transcends something a handful of people put on paper for all of us to live by. I guess I need to put my tin foil hat back on my head. Somebody is knocking (just kidding).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    Now you've gone and done it, tzo, you've opened that dad-blamed can of worms! lol I think the real challenge with land possession began when man went beyond "extract[ing] the resources necessary for human survival", as you so appropriately stated it, and stepped into the world of "accumulating wealth", of taking more than he could use, the world of "greed". “For greed, all nature is too little.” ~ Marcus Annaeus Seneca
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    Real freedom is inside of you. ~ jd-in-georgia Freedom. ...The power of acting, in the character of a moral personality, according to the dictates of the will, without other checks, hindrance, or prohibitions than such as may be imposed by just and necessary laws and the duties of social life. See Liberty ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 664 [Emphasis added] How is it that this, (assuming of course that that is what "real freedom" is), is "inside of you"? I agree that the desire for freedom is certainly innate, i.e. "inside of you", if that is what you mean. Or is it that "real freedom", to you, differs from "freedom"? "The cry of the soul is for freedom. It longs for liberty, from the date of its first conscious moments." ~ Josiah Gilbert Holland
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    ″Despite all the flags fluttering on First Avenue there are no nations any more, only companies; International companies.″ ~ Kuman-Kuman (Character in the movie The Interpreter)
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    I pretty much agree with Iliad. I too am a veteran and although I have strong personal opinions on several issues, real freedom means not only tolerating various opinions or choices others have or make but to respecting those differences as well. Real freedom means real differences will exist. My perspective on life, my ability to make moral choices, my willingness to change so that I may grow as a human being all come from my growing knowledge of what freedom really is. Freedom is unique. Contrary to what we have been taught, real freedom is very much free. Real freedom is inside of you. On the same token, it is so precious that once you find it you cannot put a price on it. You can also give it away but in the ideal scenario it is a mutual give-and-take situation. In this situation, freedom can be very much like an investment. I just know that by recognizing others enjoying a personal freedom in something I may not like or agree with ironically makes me feel even more free because I know for certain that I am not a lemming but an individual and that is a good feeling.
  • Mike Powers's picture
    Mike Powers 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Voting Sophisms
    Page Mike Powers
    Thanks!
  • Cryptoman's picture
    Cryptoman 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Voting Sophisms
    Page Mike Powers
    "government is a zero-sum game. The State cannot satisfy the wants or needs of one individual or group without subjugating others as a result." Priceless. Great article!
  • iliad's picture
    iliad 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Marc J. Victor
    Most people do not understand how, as a veteran, I can support and even applaud flag burning even though I don't necessarily agree with it. Your article articulates my feelings perfectly. Good job.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    Yes, having land set aside for common use leads to the tragedy of the commons. The supposed solution to this is to privatize everything. But that is to have people own land beyond what they can directly put to use and leads in this case to splitting the island up into large pieces of private property that excludes newcomers. Of course land owners are free to rent portions of their land to newcomers, but the situation still seems a bit like a land monopoly or at least oligarchy. Is land a special case of property rights? Can a rich person own as much land as he wants to the exclusion of everyone else even if he just lets it sit and do nothing? The source of all goods is the Earth, and if a few control the land, the root of all usable resources, then where does that leave everyone else? Even if initial claims were all limited to what the owner could use, that would not stop the wealthy from buying properties from others and accumulating 'uge tracts of land. Do you have to use it or lose it? Does that need to be an essential clause in all land property titles? Or would a truly free market not allow such vast imbalance to occur?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago Quotation strike
    "To silence criticism is to silence freedom." Excellent!! The original intent of "Freedom of Speech" was to prohibit government from silencing criticism of it. The original intent was not so individuals could use vile, offensive language in public.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    G'day Puck. This is only my opinion. I'm not certain that this discussion will go in the direction of "how" the first claim is established, i.e. the "mechanics" of it, (if that is what you meant by "how"). And, quite frankly, for the purpose(s) most individuals want this kind of information for, it may be immaterial anyway, since the following variant of Voltaire's assertion has evidently been proven, time and again, to be correct; "It's dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." But I will say... Quicpuid acquiritur servo, acquiritur domino. Whatever is acquired by the servant, is acquired for the master. 15 Bin. Ab. 327. And, as a general rule, it doesn't take much of an investigation to determine who or what one's master is. No one is his own master, i.e. a law unto himself; if he is not subject to man's artificial laws, then he is subject to true law, the Law of Nature, the Natural Law (of man). True law is discovered by man, not created by man.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    “The 20 go about building their individual homes, agreeing that these separate and limited areas are each individual’s private property, and that the rest of the island is common land for all to extract the resources necessary for human survival. … Are the private land claims where each individual’s home sits ethical?” ~ tzo I would have to answer, yes, they are ethical, because they apparently do “not violate another’s person or property”, provided, naturally, that each has claimed only what “he himself can put to use, and no more”. I forsee the “common land for all to extract the resources necessary for human survival” presenting much larger problems.
  • Puck's picture
    Puck 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    This particular topic--how is the first claim established--is one that I have not seen explored fully enough.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    Is the “public land” claim[ed] by the 20 inhabitants ethical*? There is no living entity called "public", so "public land" is just another way of saying that it is land that no other "human being" has yet made a "just claim" on. A "just claim" being, "as much land as he himself can put to use, and no more”. So, no, it is not ethical for the 20 to claim land that could sustain 200. If it were, why stop there, why not just claim the entire planet, (as the self-proclaimed masters are evidently trying to do), and be done with it?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 9 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    I hope the drug warriors will do the right thing and pay for the damage they did to this couple's home.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    As for its root-striking-strength, I'd rank this one up there with The Physics of Peeling Paint http://blogs.physicstoday.org/update/2010/09/the-physics-of-peeling-pain... And, having raised goats, the "dance" pictured appears to be the prelude to a standing-full-body-ram, so don't stand too close while it's doing that "dance".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    I believe that universality must be a part of ethics. Agreed. I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human interactions, as all humans a priori are owners of their own bodies. Agreed. I believe that it is self-evident that all humans are the sole owners of their own body and the life within it, and because they do own them they are at liberty to choose to forfeit/contract them away. I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human beings homesteading (first come, first served) resources from unowned nature in order to survive. Agreed. But to claim unclaimed land as personal property... If one's homestead, i.e. the home and adjacent grounds occupied by an individual or family, is not a personal possession, what would make it wrong for some individual, or some group of individuals, possessing more strength, to simply come in and take it? Many authors give up and say that whatever arrangements are made for land ownership are arrangements agreed upon by the society. Of course now universality has left the building. A small society with many guns can all agree to claim a large part of the Earth for themselves. Yes, with a "large part" meaning, more than the individuals that make up that collective can personally put to use. How about this angle: If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own yourself, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own yourself. Agreed. Universal. And, agreed. If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own whatever food you gather Yes., and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own the fruits of your own labor. Agreed. Universal. And, agreed. If you are alone on an island, how much of that island can you properly call your own so that if others show up, there can be no dispute over what is your property? What universal formula(?) can be applied so that we land within the realm of ethics? More specifics are needed, but as an ethical starting point I like what you wrote in your treatise entitled A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government: “A human being may justly claim as much land as he himself can put to use, and no more.” http://tinyurl.com/3xr5xf7
  • Guest's picture
    Terry Hulsey (not verified) 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Your article is good statement of the plight of the Palestinians, worth repeating. Americans continue to indirectly participate in the daily humiliations of the Palestinian people, despite the superabundance of information available on the Internet. A few examples: http://vdare.com/roberts/090507_israel.htm http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article11419.shtml Yet, out of a perverse reading of the Bible, many willfully blind themselves to the facts: http://www.cufi.org/site/PageServer Instead of John ("Dual Covenant") Hagee's organization, support Birthright Unplugged: http://www.birthrightunplugged.org/
  • iliad's picture
    iliad 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Scott, First time at the plate and you hit a home run; bravo.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    I believe that universality must be a part of ethics. I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human interactions, as all humans a priori are owners of their own bodies. I can understand universal ethical statements regarding human beings homesteading (first come, first served) resources from unowned nature in order to survive. But to claim unclaimed land as personal property... Many authors give up and say that whatever arrangements are made for land ownership are arrangements agreed upon by the society. Of course now universality has left the building. A small society with many guns can all agree to claim a large part of the Earth for themselves. How about this angle: If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own yourself, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own yourself. Universal. If you are alone on an island, you can properly say you own whatever food you gather, and it doesn't matter if others show up, you will still own the fruits of your own labor. Universal. If you are alone on an island, how much of that island can you properly call your own so that if others show up, there can be no dispute over what is your property? What universal formula(?) can be applied so that we land within the realm of ethics?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Hail, Ruritania!
    Page tzo
    Last question, first. If ethics[1] do not apply, if "right" and "wrong" are not applicable, then there is no discussion? If there is no such thing as a "just claim", a proper "right" to anything, whoever has the most "guns", i.e. "power", owns the island, or at least as much of it as they can take and defend. In fact, ethics notwithstanding, if they have enough "guns" they can lay claim to the whole earth. End of discussion. [1] Quick definitions (ethics) ▸ noun: the philosophical study of moral values and rules ▸ noun: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    If you'll re-read my last two sentences... “Insanity is doing the same thing, over and over again, but expecting different results.” It is time for us to stop the insanity, it is time for us to put our heads together and find a better solution, don't you think, Steve. The "perfect solution" doesn't exist, but a "better solution" surely must. ...I think we may be saying the same thing, unless, of course, you simply prefer to just take this... "...you must agree, Steve, history has proven, time and time again, that government is not a good solution; from national defense to charity, it has always failed miserably" ...out of context. Good luck on this one, Steve... "We need to show them that even when the government stays involved, it's role can be decentralized and reduced, e.g. via outsourcing." [Emphasis added] Oh, and you should see all the bruises I get from the "pats on the back" I receive in this place, Steve. ROFLMAO
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Just Say No!
    Page Paul Hein
    "Probably better to just quietly produce less, so you are not of interest to the plunderers; and to take your business dealings to the black market or agora. And stand aside to watch the slow motion train wreck in the economy." ~ Paul [Emphasis added] You're gonna get a bad reputation if I keep agreeing with you, Paul, but alas, once more, I'm afraid I must. I apologize in advance if you get ostracized because of me. Sorry. Quick definitions (ostracize) ▸ verb: avoid speaking to or dealing with ("Ever since I spoke up, my colleagues ostracize me") ▸ verb: expel from a community or group ~ http://tinyurl.com/29dkj8z
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    "Sometimes we are bare of choice. Sometimes there are other choices, that just happen to be a bit inconvenient. I'd say, don't spend too much effort beating yourself up when the first is the case, but don't try to throw everything into that category either, as a way of excusing bad choices when better ones were available." ~ Paul Sound advice, IMO, Paul. But, I was "coerced" into saying that; I was afraid someone was going to "put a gun to my head" if I didn't. ;)
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 4 years 9 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    >you must agree, Steve, history has proven, time and time again, that government is not a good solution; >from national defense to charity, it has always failed miserably. As a libertarian/anarchist, quite active in the movement, I of course agree that government provides suboptimal solutions. But I'm not the one you need to convince. When you make sweeping, obviously false statements like "[government] has always failed miserably", you lose not merely the statists, but normal freedom-liking Americans, and me too. Saying such things here at STR will get you lots of pats on the back, but it will take a lot more to convince the statists. We need to show them how civil society can produce more efficient solutions. We need to show them that even when the government stays involved, it's role can be decentralized and reduced, e.g. via outsourcing. http://jonathangullible.com
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 9 weeks ago
    Just Say No!
    Page Paul Hein
    "If the tax-feeders can congregate in the thousands to demand more benefits from the productive, surely the productive can do the same thing to demand that the plunder cease!" Seems doubtful. The productive don't have time for that; after all, they are out there producing! Anyway, the ruling class would ignore such a demand, if they don't outright make an example of the complainers. Probably better to just quietly produce less, so you are not of interest to the plunderers; and to take your business dealings to the black market or agora. And stand aside to watch the slow motion train wreck in the economy.