Recent comments

Of course I'm prejudiced from a lifetime of feeling coerced by conventional wisdom into teaching "science" in lieu of science. And then anarchy slipped up and bit me in the arse. But I like Fred Reed generally. This article was quite perceptive, but not among his best. He'd have done better letting the whiners write this piece. This is one of his best. As I see it. In it, he forces "libertarians" to become libertarians. Those who have the moxie to read past the first couple paragraphs. Sam

STR's spell check app changed my mis-spelled "federal" into "feral" in the story discription blurb above. Ironically funny, but it fits the context of the story quite well. Deus ex machina? Heh. 

Perhaps the basic purpose of government is to govern (to control, rule, etc.). State-sanctioned money (which is created as interest-bearing debt and is systemically scarce) is essentially their money and it is basically an instrument of control that is used to acquire wealth and power for those who govern (and for their families, friends, associates, etc.).

The headline: "...Will Hillary Lead Us Deeper Into a Quagmire in Syria?..." I realize the "Anti-War" folks are generally statist by nature (nobody can be "anti-war" and not be statist to the extent that they believe psychopaths grouped into "states" can do anything BUT take their citizens to war"). But if they'd like to act like libertarians it's time they cease using "Us" in their proclamations. Hillary -- "win" or lose -- won't lead ME deeper into a quagmire in the piece of land they're calling Syria. I'm stayin' here. And I suspect the writer of the Anti-War article isn't going to Syria either. Just sayin'. Sam

Long as I'm here making comments, Paul, should just as well address your admonition, "...keep your head down, your mouth closed, and your actions inoffensive..." Good advice before, during, and after the inevitable calamity that will accompany the collapse of government as we know it. My hope is that the internet reformation will have taken strong enough hold of a critical mass of folks on this pale blue dot called "earth" -- to the extent they will not long for another group of psychopaths to lead them back to tyranny. Sam

Brilliant a man that Dr. Paul is, he remains statist to the core. "...Little government is good, big government is bad.....Tame, sterile government is good; virulent, authoritarian government is bad.." Problem is, the nature of the beast is to metastasize and permeate. Always. That's what "history" is about. As a youngster in government ("public" ha ha) school I was taught that a state (monopoly upon violence) was necessary to prevent fat cats from forming monopolies and taking advantage of the people (among other things, like take their "citizens" to war). It didn't dawn upon me until after the last time I voted (1964, for Barry Goldwater) that monopolies cannot exist in a free marketplace -- they require government, and "regulation", to come into being. That a state was the most egregious, vicious monopoly of them all. So now to the fight among the hoi polloi pertaining to borders, walls, etc etc. Keep 'em divided, then conquer 'em. Problem, reaction, solution. Sam (copied from comments section in posted article)

The scariest thing you can say to a cop, bureaucrat, or assholes in general? "Just so you know ma'am our interaction is being audio & video recorded. (Bonus points if you have your cam set up to automatically upload to the cloud, where prying eyes or violent hands can't alter or destroy it.) Just remember tho, no slurs, insults, or douchey behavior on your part either, cuz it records it ALL; you, them, EVERYTHING, so watch your mouth. 

The black ghettos in urban North America are now in open warfare* against the state. Led by their lumpen prole "criminal element" to be sure, but armed struggle is armed struggle, whoever engages or leads it, eh?  The An Caps, libertarians, LPers, FSPers, & etc. walk around openly armed (to assert their right to) and then, when confronted by gov police, back down, submit to being disarmed and/or arrested. How I see it Mr. Sam. * "If you're being shot at, then it's WAR, whatever the official press may call it." (Anonymous soldier when asked about whether the 1950-53 Korean Conflict was a "police action" or an actual "war".)

"Problem + Reaction + Solution" (I'm not necessarily a David Icke fan, but he describes it well in this short video): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEz5fQ_Pm-g If you google "Cartel Land documentary youtube" there are a number of "hits", one or more of which might let you see the entire thing for free online. But this is a good post, Crusade. It's always nice to see you back. Few truly want to see the nature of the state for what it really is: Mystification, Superstition -- Religion. Violent religion. Today is "Super Sunday" for me (I work 2 jobs -- 7AM to 10PM every Sunday. Lots for an 81 year-old, but need the bike rides to stay young and healthy). I'll try to watch "Cartel Land Wednesday - Saturday, the only times I'm actually "retired". Sam .

"...they need direct action..." Having never identified with "an-cap" -- or any movements or isms -- I've taken the only (and the very best) action possible: I've become free myself. I long to see the day when all 7 + billion sovereign states will have seceded from all political "authority". What we've always compliantly accepted as "the state" will have collapsed and disappeared once a critical mass of individuals declare their sovereignty. Sam

Foreign elites say shit like this and then wonder about what Trump's appeal to ordinary people is? Go figure?

Correction: I need to "...try to abstain from beans..." Strike the "we". What you do is your responsibility, not mine. Sam

Thanks much Alex from a fellow libertarian anarchist who also started getting what he needed from the 12 steps 25 years ago at the end of this month. I too was convinced that the program works, after much struggle, by a second chance at life after two decades of drug- and alcohol-fueled adventures with jails, institutions, and near death experiences. While it was a "nudge from the judge" that motivated my first attendance at meetings, my experience with 12-step programs around the world since then has shown them to be the most anarchic organizations imaginable. There are no rules, no rulers, and no one to tell you what to do in 12-step recovery. If some people decide they should order others around, they are usually disregarded and ridiculed by those who know better. AA certainly doesn't work for everyone, and only a dogmatic few would claim otherwise. And it could never work if it was forced on others. Just like government, attempting to control others by force is a long-term impossibility. But dogmatic types exist everywhere, including among those who say they believe in freedom. Funny they don't see the contradiction in claiming to know the one true way to be a libertarian anarchist/voluntaryist. Stay lucky, Jonny

It's good for the an-cap movement that this stuff goes on I suppose, (e.g., the possession and the open carrying of weapons needs to be re-normalized most places in American society), but I fear liberty ain't gaining any ground with it either tho. Really, it's just clawing onto what we already have, in terms of "legal rights". Laws are a lagging indicater, culture, history, and custom being much greater social normalizers. https://youtu.be/SjpoVjyXuGw Some of these things go better than others. https://youtu.be/HrJISO2tRJY On the other hand,  many unintentional authority encounters go to shit right away. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXQDKksEpfo How much these candid camera techniques help toward actually abolishing the state and holding gov police accountable is debateable. IMO an-caps don't need any more shitlording on social media, they need direct action. No blog post or instagram pic is gonna stop water flowing down hill. Only physically blocking and redirecting the water will. Make of that what you will.   Over & out.      

The late Sam Francis coined the term anarcho-tyranny . Francis was a paleo-con who was not steeped in an-cap nomenclature (which may annoy spergs who insist on a Stanford Encyclopedia  of Philosophy level 30,000 word definition) and so I paraphrase: The social controls against violent, anti-social, or aberrant behavior are relaxed or dismissed altogether while the full cultural and legal apparatus is deployed against people and groups that resist social engineering schemes by the left. To wit: The state won't help you with street crime, but it will land on you like a ton of bricks if you resist allowing strange people into public lavatories with your children.   I hope this helps. Don't complain to me if you have quibbles with Francis' definition. He made it, he owns it. Sounds like a pretty accurate discription of today's modern America tho.   Where I live activists walk around with guns and then record the proceedings when the cops show up and put it on youtube. Better than nothing, but still pretty weak.    

"...What Defines Success in Alcoholics Anonymous?..." Answer: I have not taken a drink of alcohol today. It's really that simple. I truly hope you haven't (that is, if you call yourself an AA member and have the desire to stop drinking). Because I truly care about you -- even though we've never met or attended the same meetings. But whether you do or do not drink does not affect "the success of AA". My abstaining from alcohol today does. I come to STR for the very same reason that I attend AA. It can be lonely "...out thar in radio land..." Few understand. Here's the fact: 1) AA: Only an esoteric few of us comprehend the affliction and the angst that accompany the knowledge that we simply cannot have a drink of alcohol without consigning ourselves to a world of drunken debauchery. Many "shmexperts" will come forth to argue over that. That's why (or one of several primary reasons why) we remain anonymous and don't advertise our "program-of-recovery". Let the shmexperts bicker and argue with each other and leave us in peace. If it turns out your psychological and physiological situation is anything like mine, you have enough on your plate without pulling them into the foray. 2) Anarchy: Once again, I'll let John Hasnas (2nd paragraph of his essay) do the talking: Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order. And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse. I'll refrain from boring you with my take on "anarchist theorists". Suffice it to say that none of us has experienced freedom from the white man since before the first Europeans set foot on the eastern shore of this continent. It might be a while before we do. You might think this a peculiar analogy -- "non sequitur". It's not. I've been involved with AA for over 50 years. Looking back, I recognized that AA was indeed, for me, "home". I didn't know exactly why at the time -- it took some years to come to analyze it for it's real worth. This was even prior to the 1964 US presidential debacle with which I was heavily involved. My hero of the moment, Barry Goldwater, got his butt trounced by a criminal named Lyndon Johnson. That involvement, and its results, sent me out on a long, debilitating bender. And it landed me in lengthy lockup in the white man's prison system. A marvelous learning experience. AA is the most libertarian collection of individuals in town. I abstain from the term "movement". It's our way of life. But AA as an organization is vulnerable to parasites -- and attacks. As you mention in your essay, Alex, AA's "position" (there can actually be no such thing) is to leave the parasites -- as well as attackers -- be, and to go on with our business of helping each other stay sober. It's the only thing we can do when you think about it. We have no authorities (you used the names Jim Jones or David Koresh) -- or even spokespeople. We are truly anarchist by nature. You can't speak for me, and I can't speak for you. "Our leaders are but trusted servants. They do not govern" Dr Bob is quoted with what has become an AA motto, or declaration of sorts: "...wherever, whenever someone reaches out for help, I want the hand of AA to always be there. For that, I am responsible". So, we end up with members forming groups in and about jails, rehab facilities, etc. -- wherever problem drinkers are hoping to become set free from the insanity that got them there. And out into a cold, unthinking, unresponsive, misunderstanding "society". And, like Hasnas' outline of anarchy quoted above, things get turned around in the heads of nonmembers (and a few newer members as well). Outsiders and newbie's will tend to associate Alcoholics Anonymous (the "movement") with the host(s), rather than to see each of the members as individuals who are there to help. There are no AA officials to countermand that Orwellian twisted thought process. And, due to the apparent success of AA, those rehab and government officials (often professing AA members themselves) will sling their lassos around AA with abandon, to make it appear that it's "...I got you, Babe...". That tends to inflame criticism of AA in the heads of the ill-informed and the uninformed. And the naysayers. There is an abundance of AA naysayers on the web -- perhaps as many as libertarian and/or anarchist naysayers. When you think about it, a local "judge" has every bit as much "right" (please let's not get back into that "rights" silliness) to send his or her victims down to Catholic Catechism as she does to send them to AA meetings. But the difference between the Catholic Church (or any church) and AA is anarchy. The priests and the bishops and the boards of directors wouldn't stand still for it. On the other hand, they might welcome it with open arms. But most members of AA acting as chairmen simply sign the attendance sheets and go on staying sober. AA is not without controversy -- lots and lots of it. I've attended business meetings where the issue of the signing of attendance papers has come up. Some (governmentalist types) insist "we" should always wait until the meeting is almost over to sign. That's to make certain the parolee doesn't slip out before the l-rd's prayer. Others declare "we" shouldn't sign them at all. Then they generally take a "group conscience" vote. I always say, "I don't care what you guys vote. I'm still going to make my standard announcement at the beginning of any meeting I chair: 'Anybody with "papers" should have them signed immediately by the guy or gal sitting next to you. Then, you are free to either leave or stay. You're certainly more than welcome to stay, but you do need to understand that whoever sent you here had no authority to do that. I'll not refuse to sign or cause you any difficulty serving time'." And a fun time was had by all. Sam

Is this any evidence that it is falling apart? Perhaps we should be glad that our fellow ancaps are doing less doomer blogging and preparing themselves for contingencies, and or being capitalists and improving the world. Yeah I agree, with Jim, I don't even know what the throwaway line about what anarcho-tyranny even means. 

I take it, Alex, that you are one of the 33% who have been sober these ten years, so congrats are clearly due.  It's hard for me as one who can handle and enjoy moderate drinking to appreciate the grip it can get over some folk, but obviously it's powerful and any who can break that grip are surely the stronger for it.   To criticise AA when it's producing better results than any other method (yes?) seems a waste of time and may even hurt people by deterring some who need it from taking part. I'm sorry to read that even anarchists are doing that.   Who, though? - if I understand your article correctly, Mr Dodes did a poor job but you say he is not one of them. So who are these libertarians who have echoed him, and are they proposing any improvement on AA?

It may be very gentlemanly of you not to "name names", but the article is headed "Voluntaryist Vitriol" and without citing specific examples I suggest it has not substantiated that theme. If someone has published a false and damaging view, why not call him out - as you did Mr Dodes?

The whole ancap thing is kinda falling apart. Many of the ones I know/knew have dropped out of activism altogether, a few have become alt-righters. (Look at Stephan Molyneaux, et al.) I don't know about ancapistan ever happening but anarcho-tyranny is a real possiblilty. 

Great points, Paul. I work in the coin / precious metals industry, so a few notes: Those $50 silver dollars are collectibles; the "bullion" versions of the U.S. Mint's American Silver Eagle coins sell for a small premium above the melt value of its silver content (1 troy oz), so a little over $20. But your point stands. The legal tender value of a Silver Eagle is a farce. Sure, they're redeemable for 1 "dollar," but who would do so when you can sell the coin for at least the spot price of silver? The mint confers legal tender status onto the coins just so it can say they are "silver coins." (If they weren't legal tender, they'd merely be "medals" instead.) You could fairly call them specie, but they aren't intended to circulate—nor should they, upon rational consideration, at least not at a rate of one fictional USD. We should certainly ask ourselves why an ounce of silver is $20; throughout the history of this country, a silver dollar coin was standardized at 0.7734 troy ounce of silver content. That standard didn't change for well over a century. The government changed the composition of U.S. coins after 1964 so that dimes, quarters, and half dollars no longer contained silver. At the time, it was becoming profitable to hoard coins for their silver value rather than using them as money. Like Sam mentions, the value of the dollar is only due to fiat (government decree)—you must accept our worthless money under penalty of law! Nothing tangible backs this absurd monetary system. It's less useful to think of the price of silver as "going up" than it is to say (as you have here) that the "dollar" is a futile measuring stick. It's lost over 95% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve opened its doors in 1913. Federal Reserve notes are simply debt obligations masquerading as capital. Meanwhile, the relative value of the precious metals have been remarkably steady over that time.

Thinking to amend my most recent response to Paul's comment on Alex's essay, I decided to post another remark. Because, looking at my earlier comment where I used the arbitrary figure 99.5% (of general population who will never read what we write here -- or other anarchist forums), I think truth would verify a much stronger -- more like 99.995% -- figure. That's during my more anarchistically unenthusiastic phases. The waning days of summer and autumn seem filled with political holidays (one coming up in just a few more days) designed to unabashedly sell socialistic murder and mayhem to the hoi polloi as being good and deserving of their celebration and their support. Hard acts to follow. Which put me to mind of an article Butler Shaffer posted several years ago: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2008/07/butler-shaffer/the-july-4th-lie/ And even Butler -- one of my many mentors -- seemed to cling to vestiges of statism with his tongue-in-cheek recommendations for additional holidays. Alex is right: "...The fight against socialism is not one waged against a mere difference of opinion, but, to be sure, a struggle for every aspect of human survival itself..." I believe we're going to win the struggle. I believe my 26th grandchild -- a little girl, Naomi Mae, born last Thursday -- will grow up to see the victory. I'll be fortunate to still be capable of witnessing her triumph. Gotta keep biking every day to make it happen. And, of course, continue to abstain from beans. Sam

One wonders about people whose worldview is so infused with and dependent on such a disreputable emotion as jealousy. Are they not ashamed? Maybe there is not much shame left in this world.

"After all, it's an election year, LOL" Yes, people go temporarily insane during the silly season. I suspect that is why STR et. al. go begging at times.