Recent comments

  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    So you are nothing more than a Government-Loving, Statist, Individual-Monarchist? I guess I am as well. :>
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    "Government would have us believe that it is already a voluntary organization (you are free to love it or leave it), and so even though we know it currently is not, we believe that it could be." ~ tzo I beg to differ, my friend, GOVERNMENT, (i.e. those men and women who wish to rule over us), would have us remain ignorant of the fact that it IS a "voluntary organization", that we have the natural right to leave IT, at any time, for any reason. We have always had The Right to Ignore the State http://www.constitution.org/hs/ignore_state.htm "Submission to Authority is always and everywhere voluntary" ~ Rose Wilder Lane But that is not to say that the bullies who wish to rule over us are going to make it easy for us, just like the bully in the schoolyard isn't going to make it easy for anyone to withhold their lunch money, which they have "just claim" to. The last thing that bully wants to see happen is just one little boy or girl say, "F**k you, I'm not giving you my lunch money any more!", because he knows others might just join him or her, and if and when enough do, EVERYONE will see that "the king really doesn't have any clothes", they will ALL see the bully for what he really is. Their "love it or leave it" slogan is a "rope a dope" gesture, it only refers to expatriation, i.e. leaving the land of ones nativity, and is, IMO, meant to distract us from secession, i.e. The Right to Ignore the State. Those who can, should; and those who can't (usually for health reasons) should give support to those who do.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    TICKET AGENT: Can I help you, sir? FAKE ME: Yes, I'd like to get a round-trip ticket to San Diego. TICKET AGENT: When would you like to leave and return? FAKE ME: I would like to leave tomorrow morning and return on Sunday. TICKET AGENT: Business class or coach? FAKE ME: Coach, please. TICKET AGENT: Okay... That'll be $616. How would you like to pay? FAKE ME: VISA. TICKET AGENT: Okay, thanks. FAKE ME: One more thing. TICKET AGENT: Yes? FAKE ME: I'd like to be treated like a common criminal, to be manhandled and asked intrusive questions ad nauseam. TICKET AGENT: Really? FAKE ME: Yes, it helps me to feel safe. If they treat us all like dirt, I know they're doing their jobs. TICKET AGENT: Oh, okay. Well, I'm sure we can provide that. FAKE ME: Can they look really bored when they're groping my nuts? TICKET AGENT: I'll ask them to throw that in for you. FAKE ME: Thanks. I'm scared to death of terrorists. Having my nuts groped in a bored manner makes me at least FEEL safe, even though I'm probably not; even though it will probably be my fellow passengers who help me out in a pinch, like the underpants and shoe bombers. Stewart Baker says, “Instead of making this Wednesday National Opt-Out Day in which a bunch of self-appointed guardians of liberty slow down the line for everyone by asking for pat-downs, maybe what we need is a day when everyone who goes through the line says, ‘Thanks for what you do.’” As a self-appointed guardian of liberty, Mr. Baker, and in the spirit of the season, I'd like to ask you to shove it. I haven't flown since before 9/11, and I'm not sure I ever will again. Maybe I should become a pilot and buy my own little plane? How much for a two-seater?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    It's so easy for us to get ourselves caught up in semantics and definition games. Here's John Hasnas: "...112 Anarchism/Minarchism Defining Terms and Limitations I am presenting an argument for anarchy in the true sense of the term; that is, a society without government, not a society without governance. There is no such thing as a society without governance. A society with no mechanism for bringing order to human existence is oxymoronic; it is not “society” at all. (from "The Obviousness of Anarchy") http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf Now, tzo, I define myself as a "sovereign state" (there's that S-word we all seem to hate). That means I am responsible for my own governance (and my own government I suppose you could say). Since I believe as you believe, I can openly state to you that it is against the law for me to attempt to take something that rightfully belongs to you or to somebody else. Theft, murder, violence -- these are all against the law. For me. I suspect you will agree those acts are also against the law for you, since you write many excellent essays here (as opposed to, say Huffington Post) -- but I can't speak for you. It also means I am responsible for my own freedom. Nobody can grant me freedom. But I am free. I live in "occupied territory" (the state), but all free men and women that I know of live in states. Some free people reside in penitentiaries, since the US has now become a "prison state". Irwin Schiff comes to mind. Be free. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Paul: "...The really important secession should be that of individuals, escaping from their own mental cages. They should stop believing in government, or imagining that government protects them. There will be de-facto secession, but it will come from the bottom up. The state governments might eventually get around to it, but they will be following the crowd, not leading it. Nope, writing a letter to your state legiscritter will not do any good..." ********************************************************* Absolutely. Good comment! I often get the feeling many "anarchists" and "libertarians" who post and/or write essays are implying that "we" ("anarchists"???) must somehow figure out a way to "bring about" anarchy, which further implies "we" must be accessory to imposing our beliefs upon everyone within our "community" ("state"???). Not. I am sovereign -- a "sovereign state", if you will. I have not attempted to impose my statehood upon family members or neighbors or friends. I'm freely and openly declaring my sovereignty to you right now, but you need not take any action to "join my community" if you feel my style of anarchy is not compatible with your lifestyle. I believe the fact you're here reading STR is a likely sign that you and I can be good neighbors even if you adamantly disagree that I can truly be a sovereign state. And when push comes to shove we can trade amicably without aggressive acts toward each other. Anarchistic and libertarian communities will truly come into being from the bottom up. Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Here is a Facebook response from a person who uses "Voluntaryist" as his middle name that highlights the confusion that comes out of fuzzy language: "...I have no problem paying taxes for roads because I use them. Although I don't think I should have to pay for registration for my car or a license. We are a free country and it was never intended to make you pay to be able to "legaly" travel somewhere. Taxes should be voluntary if you ask me. If I want to contribute to the high paying salaries of the government it should be up to me to pay it if I want. Dear God I hope Ron Paul runs for president." What does this guy really believe? Hard to tell. I honestly think he does not know himself.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    "Americans had better not allow the DC Leviathan federal government to inflict martial law on us." Well, Americans don't have any say in the matter! It's coming whether you want it or not. It's a slow-motion train wreck, something you can only stand aside and watch. I'm not particularly fearful of martial law. For one thing, you said it yourself, "A martial law situation in America now will be one in which it will be difficult to distinguish the 'officials' from the criminals." Martial law will be difficult for us, but it will also be difficult for the ruling class. Some irate "peons" may well decide to retaliate against the ruling class, and nobody will care when one or another of them gets cut down. "Good riddance!" The violence goes both ways; not just from them to us. I also don't worry about the military too much. You write as if you'd never been in it. For every sadist in the military, there are 10 men and women who know the government has screwed them. Even the Soviet Union couldn't keep all its military units in line at the end; how much less will the American ruling class? And think of all the ex-military who can handle a rifle just fine... Secession is a good thing, but don't put too much hope in state governments. They are slimebags only moderately less objectionable than the federal slimebags. The really important secession should be that of individuals, escaping from their own mental cages. They should stop believing in government, or imagining that government protects them. There will be de-facto secession, but it will come from the bottom up. The state governments might eventually get around to it, but they will be following the crowd, not leading it. Nope, writing a letter to your state legiscritter will not do any good. The real difficulty, post-crash, will not be martial law, but keeping economic life going. The way to do that is form associations with the more worthy of your neighbors, business associates and relatives.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    A neighborhood can set up an organization they want to call the neighborhood's "government," in which various aspects of the neighborhood are "governed," such as trash collection, policing etc, with the funding of such an organization being voluntary, and with any resident in the neighborhood having the ability to opt out. At least in theory. I prefer to define the "State" as "compulsory government," because, regardless of what the dictionary says, a "government" isn't necessarily compulsory, but a State is usually an organization that assumes control over a territory, regardless of any individual's right of self-ownership and regardless of private property within that territory.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Scott: [If by “government” the minarchist means a (small) state, then it is criminal and unlibertarian. If by “government” they mean merely the non-state institutions of law and justice in a free society, then we are not opposed to it because such institutions are not inherently aggressive. In other words, when minarchists talk about government, the question is not how we classify it or what the best words are for state, government, etc., semantically: but rather: the question is: does the “government” that “minarchists” (?) favor engage in institutionalized aggression, or not? If not, it’s not a state, and it’s not unlibertarian. If it does, it’s merely a type of state.] The above paragraph shows that Mr. Kinsella allows the concept of "voluntary government" to exist, with the "state" being the word that designates whether a system is voluntary or not. Look up any definition of a state, and you will see the word government. Now follow the logic: Wherever there is a state, there is a government. If a government can be voluntary, then a state based on such a government would be be voluntary. If one allows for voluntary government, then one allows for voluntary states, and all meaning is lost in the words being used. Then throw the word "anarchy" in the garbage, because if you allow voluntary governments, then anarchy can have no meaning whatsoever. Mr. Kinsella hates the state. He should also hate government, because it is synonymous with the state in that it always denotes aggression. If a person believes in 100% voluntary organization and association, then he needs to acknowledge that the government and the state are unethical, and that he is in fact an anarchist. Say the words out loud and mean them because he understands exactly where he stands. Stratispho: I agree with you 100%, but I have had many discussions where it has been difficult to determine just what a person truly believes because of the vagueness that has become inherent in many of the pertinent terms. To discuss this subject accurately, we need objective terms every bit as much as a physicist needs them. Anarchy, capitalism, democracy, government, and ethics do not carry the same precision as do the words atoms, quarks, momentum, and gravity. "Language is emergent, and word meanings change depending upon how people use the words and how they are defined in the dictionary" is a common excuse for corrupting language. It may seem like I am quibbling over semantics, but I think it is very important that specific words actually correspond to specific concepts, or else effective communication becomes, like little Ralphie says, unpossible.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Agree. If it's voluntary, it is not government. It's the market. One could talk of "associations" handling functions that are routinely usurped by the state, but it would be too confusing and misleading to talk about a voluntary government. A dog is not a cat, and you can't make it into one.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 21 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    "Are you saying that in your opinion that it is impossible to create a "government" without "flutter", a "government" based on the laws of nature, with the natural law (of man) as its foundation, a "government" whose sole duty is to protect the natural rights of its voluntary members?" I think it is possible to create such a thing, but that it is very unlikely it will remain so limited for long. The longer it exists, the more money will flow toward it, and the more you will see mission creep and empire-building. That is what humans in power do, even if their power base is initially voluntary. In the long run, the protectors will become the tramplers. "Protection implies submission." "Are you certain that people slaughtering each other over trifles to the benefit of a few is not "natural law"? It may well be a natural law. However humans are not as limited as other organisms. We have culture, technology, science, communication. In effect, we can modify natural law. That is why tyranny today does not look like the tyranny of the Assyrians; the parasite class has had to evolve to stay ahead of technology and culture. It's not a given that they will always stay ahead; in fact the trend appears to be in our direction. If everyone would just get on the Internet and buy a battle rifle, they'd be done. :-)
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Stephan Kinsella had this great post regarding the State, and compulsory vs. voluntary government. http://www.stephankinsella.com/2010/05/the-nature-of-the-state-and-why-l...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Good one Michael! I agree, looks like the utility of mass gatherings is at an end. Although, if we got a hundred thousand people with battle rifles on the mall, as some have suggested, it might make an impression. :-) I do like Jon Stewart, though.
  • Stratispho's picture
    Stratispho 4 years 21 weeks ago
    The G-Word
    Page tzo
    Tzo, as someone that proclaims to be a voluntaryist I don't want any government, and I don't know any anarchists or voluntaryists that do want a "voluntary government". The term is contradictory in concept as there is no such thing as a voluntary government. Voluntaryists are looking to create a society free of force without a group of people having a monopoly on violence. Not sure how that would work by having a government.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 21 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    For decades, the vast majority of Americans stood by silence while the rest of us, including our children, were subjected to violent intrusion of our most private places in the name of "protecting" the country from drugs. The only difference between TSA groping and drugwar groping is that drugwar groping takes place at gunpoint in the privacy of our homes. Oh, and the fact that, unlike the drugs in my urine, the gun in your pocket can actually do another person harm. Here's my proposition: Let the "protectors" put their money where their hands are. If I submit to your "Rape-i-Scan," or agree to let you watch me urinate, or allow your drug dog to get anywhere near my child, and the plane blows up or my child becomes a mule for my drug dealer anyway, I want compensation. I want accountability from the people whose wages I pay. The "war on terror," like the so-called "war on drugs," is a forever war. And We, the People, are the enemy.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 21 weeks ago
    'Moon'
    Web link Robert Kaercher
    I like this one too.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 21 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    "so, to avoid paying taxes?" No. "you are owned by your country..." No, YOU are owned by your "country", i.e. the government, because YOU have apparently "submitted yourself to the dominion of the government", that is to say, YOU are evidently a "citizen", i.e. "subject"[1], which makes YOU one of their voluntary servants; I choose not to be owned by anyone other than myself. "you can't be a slave to yourself." That is correct, coreystreet, "you can't be a slave to yourself." "the only way you have a right to abstain from taxpaying is if you SOMEHOW avoid utilizing any of the services that our country provides." Fascinating! "Services", what an interesting choice of words. Do you work for the government, corystreet, I mean, in addition to being one of its "subjects". The legal definition of services is, "Things purchased by consumers that do not have physical characteristics (e.g., services of doctors, lawyers, dentists, repair personnel)."[2] That aside, your statement leads me to think that you believe that YOUR government is your "provider". Which of those "services" do you think YOUR "government", an artificial entity, "provides" for you? The only "service" that a de jure (rightful) government can lawfully provide is "protection" of its members individual natural rights, their right to life, liberty and justly acquired property. On a scale of 1 to 10 how would you say YOUR government is doing protecting those rights for you, coreystreet? And, just so you know, the only benefits and privileges one must "SOMEHOW avoid" are "member-only" benefits/privileges, and that is easier than you may have imagined, coreystreet. An individual is not "entitled" to any of these "member-only" benefits/privileges without the master's chattel number, just like the rancher may choose not to feed cattle that don't belong to him, that don't have his number in their ear, the state isn't required to "feed" persons that don't belong to it. "if you are just protesting where our tax dollars are being spent then i suppose that is a different situation." You "suppose that is a different situation"? Please, do explain what you mean by that, different from what, coreystreet? One last question for you, "do you believe that every man has the natural right of voluntary association?" “How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau ____________________________________________________________ [1] Subject. ...Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1425 [2] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1369
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    I wonder if you could help me with something. You wrote: "When societies organize themselves with governments in charge, they inevitably fail. This is an observable, universal, repeatable and predictive phenomenon" When has a "society" ever failed-and define "fail"? I can't think of one. Governments might be said to "fail", but where, with the possible exception of Somalia, has a government ever actually ceased to exist? It certainly did not in the former USSR. India still has a powerful government, despite shift from british rule, as does Pakistan. They change names, they shift form, they might de-centralize-but they keep going, someone will always take the reigns and reinstate the shattered bureaucracy. Are you certain that people slaughtering each other over trifles to the benefit of a few is not "natural law"? Apes maintain rather brutal hierarchies, after all. I've always thought "natural" ought to be a thing to get away from-it is after all in many ways truly red in tooth and claw....rather like government.
  • Guest's picture
    coreystreet (not verified) 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    so, to avoid paying taxes? you are owned by your country, which you are a part of. you can't be a slave to yourself. the only way you have a right to abstain from taxpaying is if you SOMEHOW avoid utilizing any of the services that our country provides. if you are just protesting where our tax dollars are being spent then i suppose that is a different situation.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    In the United States it is one of the five "Taxpayer Identification Numbers" (http://tinyurl.com/3c6yb), it is a chattel number, the number of a "bondsman". BONDS'MAN, n. [bond and man.] A slave. 1. A surety; one who is bound, or who gives security, for another. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    To say nothing of the real holocaust, via firebombing, FDR perpetrated on German civilians--and on Eastern Europeans seeking refuge in Germany from the Soviets. Then FDR's successor perpetrated firebombing and atomic holocaust on the Japanese. The Good War: never before or since have the forces for Good been so clearly aligned against the forces of Evil.
  • Guest's picture
    coreystreet (not verified) 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    shocker the fact that we still punish law breakers financially blows my mind. consequences with disproportionate impacts, such as fines, are where all the judicial problems begin.
  • Guest's picture
    coreystreet (not verified) 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Scarmig
    i'm missing what the benefits of refusing a social security number would be...
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Article was scant on details. Is there any ventilation? It could get real hot in there or you could suffocate. Privacy issues too, if you're at a camp ground.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    I shall try harder in the future. My apologies.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    I had no idea that the "STR crowd" was so much better educated than I am, I had to look some of those words up. Apodictic?? I'll try to remember my place in the future. And, according to Jim Davies: “If every reader of STR were as knowledgeable and experienced as you [all], I guess it was all a waste of time [for me to even mention this to you]. But you never know, perhaps there was someone reading this idea for the first time. In fact, if there wasn't - if STR consisted only of people like you - we'd be in pretty deep trouble.” All I was trying to say in that reply to you is that it's okay to use bombastic[1] language, but perhaps it would be helpful if we defined those ten cent words for people outside the "STR crowd", like me. [1] bombastic adjective → using words that are intended to impress people but do not sound sincere or do not express things very clearly ~ One Look Dictionary Search
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    I agree, Bill St. Clair, that our friend tzo didn't show that "simply designing a better government [particularly one based on the natural law] wouldn't get rid of the flutter in the human domain just as designing better bridges has eliminated it in the physical." "If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the simplest, easiest to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable - whatever its political form might be." ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html The trick is not to learn from "our" mistakes, but rather learn from "others" mistakes. If we don't limit our discussion to only "democracy", when we are talking about "government" in general, there are plenty of "mistakes" to learn from, since the history of governments apparently goes back at least 5,000 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government#Origin What we don't have, as far as I have ascertained, is an example of a government founded, in truth, on the natural law. The great American experiment seemed to start out that way, according to some of the words of their declaration of secession, but it most certainly did not adhere to that foundation with their new Constitution.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    Suverans2: Fortunately, I'm communicating with the STR crowd. I have to agree that Mises' vocabulary is a bit much, but I am discussing Mises, so I use his words. It's more for the Mises readers since I was just writing about that recently in the "Libertarians and the Environment" series here. But message received. I'll try to do better in the future.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    Are you saying that in your opinion that it is impossible to create a "government" without "flutter", a "government" based on the laws of nature, with the natural law (of man) as its foundation, a "government" whose sole duty is to protect the natural rights of its voluntary members? The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 Or, are you only saying that when we do this we'll have to give it a new name, a name other than "government", or it will "muddy the waters"? If it is this latter, I can go along with that. What do you suggest we call it, my friend? I'm kind of partial to calling it a "PROTECT'ORATE, n. Government by a protector." (Source: Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    Meaning no disrespect, I'm curious, Lawrence M. Ludlow, do you really believe that the average man, with a government education, is going to understand ten cent words like "analogous" (similar), "praxeology" (the study of human action and conduct), "apodictic" (necessarily true or logically certain), "praxeological", the last three of which even got tagged as non-words by Mozilla Firefox's automatic spell check, or that he's going to frequently consult a dictionary, so he can at least TRY to understand what you are writing about? 10 cent word When someone puts a term into simple speech they are using a 10 cent word and usually obfuscating things. Obfuscating? Way to use a 10 cent word! ~ Urban Dictionary http://tinyurl.com/2d3sds6
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    "...if you do not surrender the tribute, into the concrete box you go." Yeah, that's what I keep reading, but I'm still patiently waiting for the "evidence" to pour in showing that non-members who don't take any "member-only" benefits/privileges and who don't use "Taxpayer Identification Numbers" are "taxpayers". http://strike-the-root.com/taxation-is-robbery Taxpayer. One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax. I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14). ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1462 I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14) Taxpayer The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
  • RoyceChristian's picture
    RoyceChristian 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Now if only we could get private security firms to take over from the marines in all the countries the US currently occupies. There'd be more accountability, better service, at a better price... ... Oh wait.
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Inside North Korea
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    This is an important documentation of true tyranny.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Ron Paul on the TSA
    Web link Michael Kleen
    Sadly, when Ron Paul mentions those who have fallen victim to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he consistently refuses to cite the most innocent of the victims -- not the invading and meddling soldiers that he never fails to mention, but the poor destroyed people who have fallen victim to U.S. foreign policy by the tens of thousands (and in the case of Iraq, many hundreds of thousands). Is it just a "slip," pandering to his audience, or simply because they do not vote or otherwise count in his political calculus?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    tzo: Thanks for the article. In an analogous way, Ludwig von Mises' use of praxeology as the science of human action embodies these natural laws, and it even posits that some of them are apodictic. They have to be accepted on their face just as many other "starting points" for investigation are in philosophy. Likewise, he warned, societies that are built upon violations of praxeological insights will always fail to accomplish their stated objectives. Nice going.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Well, I guess that makes 2 Holocausts that FDR turned a blind eye toward. Now, remind me why he was such a great president ...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    Government, in this analogy, is not really a thing but rather the lack of a thing. It is the lack of respect for the natural law. One cannot build a better bridge that can withstand flutter until the bridge respects the physical laws of flutter. Once that happens, the flaw is no longer in the blueprint. Conversely, if the flaw remains, flutter will eventually win. Excellent point about the relatively long time that passes between government failures, which makes it difficult to identify a pattern and a source of the problem. Of course, the history we learn is from the perspective of the government schools, and one cannot expect them to question their very existence as the possible cause of societal failure. They teach the opposite lesson, that societal order is impossible without government. When the USSR collapsed, a relatively recent occurrence, no news channel pondered out loud that perhaps this was the inevitable result of having a government, but rather that this was the inevitable result of having that particular type of government. If one views history without the government goggles on, then some different interpretations of the evidence can be made. But as long as governments own 100% of the land area of the planet, it is a bit difficult to put alternative ideas into practice.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    My definition of government includes coercion, and so in this respect, I stand behind my statements. Government and taxes are inseparable in my definition. I understand (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong.) that your definition of government includes voluntary social organizations. Funding of such organizations would be contributions, or payments made under contract between consenting and informed parties. It would seem odd to call them taxes. Such an organization can only preside over land justly claimed and owned by its constituent individuals. This is the trickiest aspect of all of this, as the vast majority of Americans think that "their" "voluntary" "participatory" government justly owns and has jurisdiction over all the land it currently claims to the exclusion of everyone else. It just seems to me that if you include voluntary associations under the heading of government, the water muddies up a bit. But again, I think the toughest aspect of defining what is just and what is not is the determination of how the planet can be rightfully parceled out among the 6 billion humans who are currently along for the ride. Again, to pick nits, the Founding Fathers were tyrannical in that they claimed the right to collect taxes by force from all those who found themselves within the government's jurisdiction. How did the government acquire the land that corresponded with their claim to jurisdiction? Was it a just claim? Under such conditions, even a 1% tax is tyranny, because if you do not surrender the tribute, into the concrete box you go. Someone else has a higher claim upon you and your property than do you. That is the root of the problem that is government. Hopefully that ramble wasn't too incoherent.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 4 years 22 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Well, as I understand it, airports can't really just opt out. They can hire a private firm to perform the functions of the TSA and this private firm would work under the supervision of the TSA. Not quite the same as the free market where the airports/airlines would simply be responsible for their own security without any involvement from TSA. - Greg
  • Bill St. Clair's picture
    Bill St. Clair 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    Nice comparison of physical to natural law, and interesting thesis that a central state is a violation of natural law. I think you're probably right, but you haven't shown that simply designing a better government wouldn't get rid of the flutter in the human domain just as designing better bridges has eliminated it in the physical. Unfortunately, the time for flutter to appear in the human domain tends to be more than a human lifetime ("a democracy lasts for 200 years..."), so it's very difficult to properly learn from our mistakes.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Flutter
    Page tzo
    A "Must read!" if I've ever seen one. Only one small criticism. You wrote: "Government is an inherent structural flaw that would defy natural law, just as the Tacoma Narrows Bridge was built in defiance of the laws of physics." Isn't that a bit like saying, that because the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed, "bridges are an inherent structural flaw that defy the law of physics"? More to the "root" of the problem, the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapsed because it was "built in defiance of the laws of physics", and governments collapse into tyranny because they are "built in defiance of the natural law". You once wrote: "Objective ethics [natural law] is thus seen, quite correctly, to be the mortal enemy of government, in that if this idea is ever widely accepted, government necessarily disappears." [My emphasis and bracketed info added] You came very close, my friend. IMO, it would be more correct to say, "Objective ethics [natural law] is thus seen, quite correctly, to be the mortal enemy of tyrannical government, in that if this idea is ever widely accepted, tyrannical government necessarily disappears." That is why the builders of government reject the natural law, and brainwash their subjects into rejecting it as well. Thank you for your solid efforts.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Taxation Is Robbery
    Web link Mike Powers
    Yahoo! Answers What does "Deafening Silence" mean? Best Answer - Chosen by Voters It's soooooooo silent because you want it to be otherwise.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Passage of the Patriot Act was indeed a heavy loss for us, Rita, and therefore a big win for the Federal Government. But you seem to say that it was a win also for the Muslim murderers, and I don't understand that. Why would Al Q'eda wish to hand a major victory to their principal enemy? Meanwhile, if anyone has an answer to the question posed in the penultimate paragraph of my piece, I'd be eager to read it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    Good point Rita. Looks like the foreign patriots (aka "terrorists") win no matter what we do. I think the best thing to do is carry some porn in your cell phone. Then just before going through the patdown at the airport, look through it and get yourself a boner (if you're able, of course). Might as well trump the TSA's absurd with some of your own. Let's see, can a person be arrested for having a hard-on?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. It's the same mistake made when people besmirch the ladies of joy when they call politicians whores.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I do wonder if there is any cognitive dissonance within Ron Paul. He is ultimately a politician, so perhaps there is the answer. And please don't compare the walking pukes in DC to wine and cheese. I actually LIKE wine and cheese!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Exactly, Wes, see my comment to Tzo...
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Wes and Tzo: Yes, "Now, massa', you know you're only supposed to whip us with a regulation-length-and-thickness whip and use blue latex gloves instead of lavender to probe my cellulite-ridden a**. It says so right here in my UCC booklet #C-43 ver3.2.1.4 with the update addenda memo of 11-11-2010 as amended by appeal #48. If you keep this up, I'm going to report you to the authoriTAH, and Ron Paul will really get you in trouble. Big time!!! It will be on your PERMANENT RECORD, and then a commission will be appointed to make sure that it never happens again, and we'll all be fine from now on..." ...Larry runs from room tearing out his hair and disappears into the mist...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yes, this whole thing is typical of a civil disobedience campaign. Put pressure on the massa to please, please, change his laws to make it a bit easier for us citizens. The structure's just fine, thanks. Just don't whup us quite so hard, OK?
  • Guest's picture
    wbertrand (not verified) 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yes indeed, Larry, the grope seen 'round the world! The TSA are coming...the TSA are coming!! I suppose this just goes to show that people will tend to suffer under the most tyrannical rule as long as their most personal property is not messed with. Just look at people living in communist dictatorships, or any dictatorship for that matter, or even slave societies (not to diminish the ills of our own, of course). Obedience to "authority," especially blind and reflexive, is apparently fine and dandy until the most concrete and immediate aspects of one's personal property are infringed upon...then individuals start waking up. Well, better late than never. Yet, leave it to a politician to try to quell the outrage by introducing a Congressional Bill: Ron Paul Introduces HR 6416: The American Traveler Dignity Act (the speech) http://dailypaul.com/node/149693 (the legalese) http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills... Unfortunately, this has practically nothing to do with American travelers' dignity, but rather with repealing immunity and subjecting those "in charge" to the same treatment...to generate a little empathy, perhaps? What amazes me is how Paul speaks so matter-of-factly about those "in charge," i.e., the people in government. Hmm, why does he speak in such terms? Because he too has incorporated the obedience to "authority" meme. You can see the conflict in his own mind about the nature of disobedience too: on the one hand he issues solutions like having those "in charge" suffer the same indignities as the taxed-and-regulated populace as well as beseeching those "in charge" to support his directive for those "in charge" to back off a bit of their oppressive acts against us; and then, on the other hand he applauds the Opt Out Day activism that really strikes the root (at least in this matter). Of course, the fact that he doesn't resign from his "in charge" position speaks volumes about his stance on obedience to "authority." Just as the TSA "procedures" are mere security theater that inculcate obedience, Congressional sausage like Paul's encourage people to remain trapped in the master/slave paradigm.