Recent comments

  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 4 years 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 weeks ago
    Voting Sophisms
    Page Mike Powers
    Thanks!
  • Cryptoman's picture
    Cryptoman 4 years 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Scott, First time at the plate and you hit a home run; bravo.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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 22 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.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 22 weeks ago
    Rethinking 'School'
    Page Michael Kleen
    One suggestion: let's stop using the Ministry of Propaganda's terms for things, and call them what they are. It's not "public school", it's "government school". It's not "public funding", it's "tax funding" or even "funding via theft". This may sound pedantic, but I think the very first step we have to take in recognizing reality and dealing with it, is calling things by their proper names. Other than that, it's an excellent article.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    "The conclusion I arrive at is a simple one: You cannot apply morality when you are bare of choice and free-will." 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. There are choices in schooling. Homeschooling is available everywhere in the US. Of course as a child, rather than a parent, your choice may be limited. If so you are "bare of choice" so don't beat yourself up! As to HR departments, yeah, they are a problem. But work opportunities depend a hell of a lot more on work history and ability and willingness to work than they do on something as worthless as a high school diploma. Getting started is the problem, and the solution is to start with small companies (with no HR departments) or use personal contacts (that can bypass HR departments). Lower your expectations, start small, and work your way up. In a couple of years, HR departments won't matter to you. I spent an entire life working for small companies. The one time I ended up in a big one (that purchased the company I was working for), it was pure torture for me, like working for government I suppose. Ugh! I got out fast. College? A pure waste of your time. Go read what Gary North has to say about them over on lewrockwell.com. Also, I'd suggest trying to look forward, and not questioning past choices you made. You can't rewind and try them over. We don't have time travel yet.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    Anyone else here curious as to why and how Vaughn Bateman's user profile says, "Access denied"? Must Read! http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    Off the subject of this essay, I realize, but perhaps some of you will find some value in this. “Knowledge makes a man unfit to be a slave.” ~ Frederick Douglass, born Frederick Augustus Washington Bailey Title 18 USC 31 Chapter 2 Sec. 31.6: Motor Vehicle means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes1 on the highways in the transportation of passengers2, or passenger and property, or property or cargo. Sec. 31.10 The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration3 with any business, or other undertaking intended for a profit. By their own legal definition of Motor Vehicle, my Conveyance is Not a MOTOR VEHICLE, and therefore, Not subject to the MOTOR VEHICLE CODE, since I am Not using this mechanical contrivance “for commercial purposes”. Driver -- One employed4 in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle... ~ Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Pg. 940 [Emphasis and footnote added] Further, I am Not a "Driver" since this Sovereign man is Not employed and is Not using the highway5 for traffic6, for business, or for profit. Definitions: Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991) 1 Commercial use. Term implies use in connection with or for furtherance of a profit making enterprise. 2 Passenger. In general, a person who gives compensation to another for transportation. The word passenger has however various meanings, depending upon the circumstances under which and the context in which the word is used; sometimes it is construed in a restricted legal sense as referring to one who is being carried by another for hire; on other occasions, the word is interpreted as meaning any occupant of a vehicle other than the person operating it. The essential elements of “passenger” as opposed to “guest” under guest statute are that driver must receive some benefit sufficiently real, tangible, and substantial to serve as the inducing cause of the transportation so as to completely overshadow mere hospitality or friendship; it may be easier to find compensation where the trip has commercial or business flavor. A person whom a common carrier has contracted to carry from one place to another, and has, in the course of the performance of that contract, received under his care either upon the means of conveyance, or at the point of departure of that means of conveyance. Guest statute. …A “guest,” under provisions of guest statute, is a recipient of the voluntary hospitality of the [driver] owner, that is, one who is invited or permitted by owner or possessor of automobile to ride with owner-possessor as a gratuity. Gratuity. Something acquired or otherwise received without bargain or inducement. Something given freely or without recompense; a gift. 3 Consideration. The inducement to a contract. The cause, motive, price, or impelling influence which induces a contracting party to enter into a contract. Some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to one party, or some forbearance, detriment, loss, or responsibility, given, suffered, or undertaken by the other. Restatement, Second, Contracts §§ 17(1), 71. It is a basic, necessary element for the existence of a valid contract that is legally binding. [Emphasis added.] 4 Employed. Performing work under an employer-employee relationship. Term signifies both the act of doing a thing and the being under contract or orders to do it. Highway. A free and public roadway, or street; one which every person has the right to use. Note: The word “person”, as it is used in this Non-Statutory Notice, is to be strictly confined to mean, “Natural Man”, and Not “juristic personality”. 5 Free. Not subject to legal constraint of another. [Emphasis added] 6 Traffic. Commerce; trade; sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, and the like. The passing or exchange of goods or commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in goods or money. ...See Commerce. Must Read! http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    They are not "government roads", they are "free and public roadway(s), or street(s)". Highway. A free and public roadway, or street; one which every person has the right to use. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 728 "The right to travel is a well-established common right that does not owe its existence to the federal government. It is recognized by the courts as a natural right." ~ Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941 11 Am Jur (1st) Const. L. Sec. 329, 1135: "Personal liberty largely consists of the right of locomotion - to go where and when one pleases…The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highway and transport his property thereon, by horse-drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but a common right, which he has under the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 22 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    Well done Vaughn. Your obvious ability to identify, analyze and articulate such moral questions prove that intelligence is not measured by regurgitating rote answers to ignorant gatekeepers. IMHO learning a marketable skill is more important than getting a degree, high school or college. "The conclusion I arrive at is a simple one: You cannot apply morality when you are bare of choice and free-will." That is when you have no good choice then it is okay to compromise your principles? That can be a slippery slope, but we all do it to some degree. Balancing our quest for virtue with survival in a mean world defines what it is to be human. The utilitarian in us all must be weighed against our desire to be moral creatures. Survival is the primary driving force in all animals and a powerful force. Futile gestures (like not driving on government roads) that come to no appreciable end in the name of morality do seem foolish, even counterproductive as sometimes we must retreat in order to fight another day. The human challenge is to identify those principles and seek to be virtuous while recognizing our limitations. That we are all sinners does not justify sin, but a moral person strives for perfection even while knowing that it can never be achieved. So I agree that we must choose our battles judiciously or suffer the consequences. You're a good man, keep your chin up.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 23 weeks ago
    Just Say No!
    Page Paul Hein
    "Can you go into a store, order thousands of dollars worth of goods, and then tell the clerk to send the bill to assorted strangers?" ~ Paul Hein Strangers. ...Those who are in no way parties to a covenant or transaction, nor bound by it, are said to be strangers to the covenant or transaction. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1421 [Emphasis added] Nope, sure can't, but, unless I am mistaken, anyone who is a 14th Amendment citizen, or a citizen of a STATE, is not a "stranger to the covenant", he/she is in some way a "party" to the covenant. "Yet your elected “representatives” do it regularly..." ~ Paul Hein Only if one is a 14th Amendment citizen or a STATE citizen, are they "your elected "representatives". They sure as 'hayel' don't represent me. In fact, as a living being, I can't communicate with "representatives". Representation of persons. A fiction of the law, the effect of which is to put the representative in the place, degree, or right of the person represented. Civ.Code La. art. 894 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1302 As a nonperson[1] I am unable to communicate with "A fiction of the law", I am only able to communicate with living beings. If you doubt this, the next time you are dragged into one of their so-called courts, just ask their JUDGE, "Can I talk to you as a man[2]?" ;-) Endnotes: [1] nonperson n. UNPERSON; specif., one who is officially ignored by the government ~ Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 923 [2] Homo vocabulum est naturate; persona juris civilis – Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. ~ Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1914), “Maxim,” page 2136 Must Read! http://strike-the-root.com/failed-theory-of-relativity
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 4 years 23 weeks ago Page Vaughn Bateman
    I would say, by the good quality of your writing, that dropping out of public school was probably the best thing you could do. Nothing beats self-education - You should try to get a scholarship and go to college. Even if having a GED means you'll be rejected from the top colleges, any college at all is better than none. We need more people like you in the academic world..
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 23 weeks ago Page tzo
    "Objective ethics is thus seen, quite correctly, to be the mortal enemy of government, in that if this idea is ever widely accepted, government necessarily disappears." ~ tzo [Emphasis added] Amen, tzo, amen!! Furthermore, as I see it, it is the ONLY "MORTAL enemy of government"; all the other ways and means that have been tried have eventually led right back to the same old thing, except that over the centuries "the same old thing" seems to have gotten progressively worse. Quick definitions (mortal) ▸ adjective: causing or capable of causing death Looks like you got two tens, tzo, and that equals what I would have given this treatise, a whopping twenty! Thank you for all your time and effort. "There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking the root." ~ Henry D. Thoreau
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 23 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    In a sane society, drugs would be treated like any other commodity, produced and sold by duly licensed, regulated and taxed businesses, and, once bought, would become the property and the reponsibility of the consumer. In a sane society, the only person with any interest in your urine would be your doctor, and not even your doctor woulf be allowed to take it from you at gunpoint. But then, we don't live in a sane society, do we? People who love to hate Mexican immigrants like to say that the US is a "nation of lws." But that's not true, either. In a "nation of laws", it would be illegal for anyone, regardless of how they are dressed, to enter a private home, business or vehicle without permission and take, by force, sn individual's personal property. In a "nation of laws", the laws would apply to everyone equally. What we have here is a nation ruled by fear and dedicated to punishment. The suffering of the many to insure the job security of the few. THAT's the American dream.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 23 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Another "legacy" of Johnson's war on poverty is Nixon's war on drugs, which he declared as a political ruse to trump Johnson's coddling of the poor with his own "tough on crime" stance. Both poverty and Nixon's war are still with us, each one feeding off the other.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 23 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Meanwhile, here in AZ, public schools and libraries and town offices are closed one day a week, children are being cut from medicaid and AHCCCS for adults as well as in-home care for the disabled has been gutted. The state, you see, is broke. Oh, but we can pay for His Majesty the Sheriff Arpaio's antics, can't we? And a hideous wall across the desert to protect us from the one country that remains, for some strange reason, our friend?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "My magnificent youngsters! Are there finer ones anywhere in the world? What material! With them I can make a new world."
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 23 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I lived for four years next door to a foster home where the young children of suspected drug users were housed with teenaged sex offenders. The DARE program is nothing more or less than government-sanctioned child abuse.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 23 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "They think that government, like a fairy, will disappear once we stop believing in it." ~ Steve Steve, if everyone simultaneously stopped believing in government, (albeit that will likely never happen), you would find that it never truly existed. But that aside... As real as the "free-rider problem" may be, I think 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. “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.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 23 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Don't forget the delivery of the mails. Very important stuff also. But seriously, those who don't give enough to charity certainly need guns pointed at them so they cough up what you think is right. Those free-ridin', no charity-givin' slackers need to pay on up or git on out. I get that message straight from Jefferson's words. You and me is on the same radical wavelength there, amigo. Long live the 'government is a solution' meme! Uncle Sam is no fairy! Hoo-ah.