Recent comments

Wow, that's a rather elitist attitude. Shades of "white man's burden"! The obvious moral of the story is that people should be prepared to defend themselves, not that diversity is bad or that dark skinned people are evil.

The author is wrong. I responded this way: ----------- “The problem with government welfare programs is not that the presumed intention to help people in need is a bad thing; it’s that the means is inappropriate to the end.” So… if the means chosen actually accomplished that end, you would be OK with it? No problem with coercion, violence and theft? I have news for you. What defines libertarianism is opposition to state violence, not utilitarian quibbles over efficiency. This article (and even more so, Peron’s) gets it exactly wrong. What we should do is back off on the hard sell. Instead we should tell people we think they should get the government they want, and in return they should let us get the government we want. For libertarians and anarchists, this means “leave us alone”. It is not our job to save the world, because the world does not want to be saved. But we may be able to convince people to leave us alone at least, provided we make it clear we have no interest in imposing our view of freedom on them. It is a more modest, less threatening goal. This means we should be advancing the idea of subsidiarity. There is no need for “one size fits all” government, that fits no one. The very worst thing we can do is say “We’re from the Libertarian Party, and we’re here to help you!” That’s so, even if we dress it up in terms of concern for them. They’ve heard that line before. You cannot impose liberty on others, and the hard sell doesn’t work either. Frontal attacks don’t work. We need to let example, and our own happiness, be our salesman. People will learn it is good to be left alone, in their own good time.

The "awful" marketing plan: "The producers stand by their marketing campaign, which relied heavily on the Internet to drum up support among members of the Tea Party, libertarians and other Rand enthusiasts." LOL. Once again we find evidence that the smart set is self-absorbed and clueless.

...

G'day Michael Kleen, Again, you seem to be falsely accusing me, this time of being, "one...who...vicariously claims to be able to just ignore the state...through promoting tzo's argument". And, again, I must ask you the same previously unanswered question, "Do you even know me, Michael Kleen?" For the record, I don't "just ignore the state", I am not a member of the state. BIG DIFFERENCE! And unlike tzo's recent suggestion to you, I do not merely say this to myself. I "walk the walk", at least according to my own well thought out standards. I have not used any kind of government ID or Taxpayer Identification Number of any kind, I have had no driver's license, nor have any of my automobiles [an SUV, a truck, a few cars, a motorcycle and a motor scooter] been registered with any STATE, in well over ten years. I have never had a passport, I have no physical address and no mailing address, as a consequence of this, I have not received, again, in over ten years, even one piece of "junk mail" [smile]. I have not been "employed" in well over ten years, though I do work about five or six days a week, generally, (sometimes substantially less in the winter months, occasionally more in spring and summer), nor have I applied for, or accepted, any kind of government benefits/privileges that one must be a member of any political corporation in order to procure, since withdrawing from membership in the STATE. I do not, as another false accuser here evidently accused me of, who, obviously, also doesn't even f**king know me either, I might add, "live off of [my] mom, live in her basement and walk to [my] other 'anarchist' friends house (who also lives with his mom) to smoke weed and play Call of Duty", nor have I ever claimed to be an "anarchist", as this government trained troll seems to be suggesting. My nativity was in the winter of '48, (according to heresay evidence, since I can't remember it), so I am not "young" or a "tool", and I pay my own way for everything my wife and I have, or do. And, finally, I do not have to, "fight the urge to suck-start a pistol", as this childish moron also falsely accuses me of; I have no suicidal tendencies whatsoever. So, you see, my friend, due to your lack of knowledge about me, you have gotten it completely 'bass ackwards'; it is because we, (my very brave natural law wife and I), have done it, to a degree unimaginable to most voluntary members of the STATE, (like yourself, evidently,) that we agree with many of, (but certainly not all, to which he can attest), tzo's messages. I thought I might find camaraderie in this online community, but I was wrong, oh my, how I was wrong! My wife asks me often, "Why do you waste your time and energy at HTB? It seems like no one there ever really 'listens' to anything you have to 'say'." [There are, perhaps, one, maybe even two, exceptions to what she is saying, but I dare not name them.] To which I have, up until now, at least, answered, "Well, you never know, maybe some day I will find a kindred spirit here." "So, how's that workin' out for ya?", she amusingly asks. "I have all but given up hope, my dear."

Leave it to Suvey to throw in odd quotes without stating a reasonable argument. I thought anarchists were good at thinking for themselves? I guess not.

Actually, I'm using your standards. You're the only one here who claims to be able to just ignore the state (or at least vicariously claims, through promoting Tzo's argument)

I give props to this man for trying: (remove spaces) http:// www.nola.com/news/ index.ssf/2008/05/ feds_sink_teeth_into_dentist.html

"I'm not saying it can't be done..." So you are saying it can be done. Very good; that's a starting point, my friend.

My point about the cash is that by using dollars printed by the state, you are agreeing that the state is a valid entity. The value of money, after all, is largely determined by the faith people have in the government that backs it.

"Those that say it can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it." ~ Chinese Proverb

G'day Michael Kleen, What is it you are looking for, the "magic bullet", the perfectly painless way to leave the STATE? You are in way-y-y too deep for that to ever happen, my friend. We have wandered so far off the path that there is no easy way back. Sorry. What is your strategy, brother, change enough people's minds with your rhetoric, and "alternative news", that they will "alter or...abolish" the STATE for you? If so, let me know how that works out for you. And, where did, "get rid of all your cash", come from?! (Guess you didn't read the 4th comment to this thread.) Why on Earth would a free man do that?! Do you honestly believe that merely using Pesos to trade with while you are sojourning on that part of the Earth called MEXICO, somehow magically transforms you into a subject of the MEXICAN government? You don't think that I've not been "pulled over by the police without a driver's license"? You don't think that I've not flown to Hawaii and back without any government ID whatsoever? And, you don't think that if I really wanted to sojourn on the part of the Earth known as CANADA, that I couldn't do it without voluntarily enslaving myself? If you do, you'd better think again, brother. Let me explain something to everyone here. I don't expect anyone to do what I have done. I just get really tired of hearing that empty excuse, IT CAN'T BE DONE.

Thanks for the explanation B.R. and for the link to the de Coster article.

And here's a far better defense of a woman who, in my opinion, needs very little defending, and this from another woman, no less: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/85952.html

Read his other comments, GregL. At least he's consistent. My introduction to Ayn Rand was probably in 2001 or 2002, in a documentary aired on the Independent Film Channel. Riveting. But Wallace's other comments (also disparaging Murray Rothbard) clearly show a man who has contrary views of some sort with two intellectual giants. Maybe someday he'll enlighten us with a fact or two, or maybe even an anecdote, as to why he disagrees with Rand and Rothbard. Or perhaps he'll just go on being contradictory. If that's the case, I plan on ignoring him.

G'day Geoffrey Transom, Sadly we are all (for the moment) obliged to retain the ear-tags of one or other of the 'demes' established by our overlords to better enable them to rob us blind to fund their palaces. I haven't had in my possession, or used, an “ear-tag”, (any government identification, of any kind), in well over ten years. I have investigated the means by which one can become ACTUALLY stateless; quite apart from making a declaration to that effect (which I have) and taking all steps to ensure that one pays little or no pelf to the Masters (did that too), there is NO mechanism by which one can abrogate 'citizenship' in a way that is recognised by our overlords. (Again, I stress - for the moment). Ah, I see, “ACTUALLY stateless” means, in your opinion, that unless your self-proclaimed ruler “legally recognises” it, it isn't ACTUAL? You may be interested to know that one of the definitions for “actual” is, “existing in fact whether with lawful [legal] authority or not”. If you don't think your overlords ACTUALLY “legally recognise” individual secession, i.e. withdrawal from membership in their political corporation, you should try getting one of their member-only benefits and privileges without your “ear-tag”, i.e. without your chattel number. The problem, you may be experiencing, is that you cannot make a “declaration” that you are not a member of any man-made STATE, and then turn around and use your “ear-tag” whenever you have an appetite for one of their benefits/privileges. Not saying this is true of you, but most men want to have their cake [member-only benefits/privileges], and eat it too [without paying for them]. When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: and put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties [membership-only benefits/privileges]: for they are deceitful meat. ~ Proverbs 23:1-3 Like that truly great man Paine (and like Diogenes) I consider myself 'kosmopolites'; a 'citizen' of the world. As such I would never support the nation-state within whose self-claimed borders I live - not in peace, not in war, not in welfare transfers, not even in providing tax-funding for respite care for babies in chronic intense pain or for the detection and apprehension of child molesters. Any killing I do, and any transfer payments I make, will be at my own discretion, not that of one of the tax-parasites. As with all livestock, we are deemed the property of one or other of the various collections of tax-parasites that rule us (or kill us if we genuinely refuse to obey: there is no getting away from that dictum: you do what they tell you, or you die.) It's codified in their 'law': in Australia you can only renounce Australia citizenship (leave the herd) IF you have already obtained permission to JOIN ANOTHER HERD. You make three points here. The first is that “the various collections of tax-parasites that rule” “deem” that you are their “property”. That, Geoffrey Transom, is a “rebuttable presumption” in law. The second is, “you do what they tell you, or you die", to which I reply, have you ever tried it, as a non-citizen/non-member/nonperson, or is that merely an assumption? And, thirdly, I believe, if you were to show us your “codified Australian law”, you would find that what you describe as "renouncing Australian citizenship" pertains to “expatriation”, and that you will not find the least mention of "secession", particularly “individual secession”, i.e. individual withdrawal from membership, "renouncing Australian citizenship". The rationale is simple: the tax-parasites generally contain their livestock within 'borders' (the invisible lines on maps that cause periodic conflagrations in which the livestock are sent to kill each other). One of the sops to 'liberty' that the masters deploy, is to permit some of their livestock to cross these 'borders' subject to an increasingly-stringent set of criteria (including, now, being either irradiated, or cock-fondled by some obese retard who failed the entrance exam for being a mall-cop). You must be a member of their “livestock”, i.e. human resource, or they cannot lawfully send you anywhere. Question for you, Geoffrey Transom, what would you do if a private airline chose to irradiate you or cock-fondle you in order to fly on one of their planes? So IF the masters permit their livestock to mingle (to a truly MINUSCULE extent), how are they supposed to figure out who belongs to which master? For now, they can't mandate electronic tags like we use in pets and cattle; so we have 'passports' that show who our masters are. That also helps the masters know who owns the offspring if the livestock from two different farms breed (hint: it's NOT the livestock themselves). The key here, again, is “their livestock”. They “figure out who belongs to which master” by simply watching to see whose “ear-tag” you voluntarily choose to use to get member-only benefits/privileges. “...they can't [lawfully] mandate electronic tags like we use in pets and cattle....” Stef Molyneux did a superb video-podcast (vodcast?) about nations as tax-farms. I keep saying "for the moment" because I genuinely believe that the time is coming when we Mundanes will decide that we have had enough of 'homo cheneyensis' (as I call the parasitic subspecies that enriches itself at our expense). I have already decided that I have “had enough", which is why I have voluntarily chosen to withdraw from membership in their gang. What is “cheneyensis”, some kind of reference to Dick Cheney, as though he is somehow a worse "human flesh trafficker" than the rest of them? Perhaps it will be when the man in the street realises that if he adds the present value of current and future deficits to his present tax bill, it implies that government is taking more than half of his lifetime remuneration (taking in all forms of tax, plus the future tax required to repay deficit-driven government debt). Sadly, that would require that the man in the street understands present value calculations; in other words, it is unlikely to eventuate before the development of AI and human-AI interfaces. My friend, why are you talking about the “man in the street”, as though he were someone else; you and I ARE that “man in the street”. You must be the change you wish to see in the world. ~ Mahatma Gandhi

I gave this link ten stars for your take on it, Sharon. I fear what the tipping point will be for present society, since this apparently isn't it. I haven't flown since 2000. I hated it then. I don't ever want to fly again.

Terrific column! Very smooth and absolutely spot-on. I appreciated the reminder of the good that America still retains; as the bad grows ever-worse, its easy to forget that not everything is horrible.

Although there is much to admire about Thoreau (and my audiobook of "Civil Disobedience" is, along with Bakunin's "God, Man and the State" and Paine's "The Rights of Man", a constant fave), his technophobia and mild misanthropism is what makes a good deal of his broader philosophy unpalatable for me. (I'm a technophile, and while I am thoroughly misanthropic at times, it's on a case-by-case basis). A good deal of Thoreau's material comes across as what we today would refer to as 'passive aggressive'; mild hectoring and a 'holier than thou' attitude. 'Simplify simplify'... yeah yeah; what about just letting folks get on with their lives, wherever AND HOWEVER they want to live them so long as we're all living consistent with the ZAP? Thoreau seemed to suffer from the idea that his set of preferences (for being solitary and living without even the technology of the day) was the only 'valid' set of preferences, and that others' were inferior. While we all think our preference maps are the 'best' in some subjective sense, the idea that they are a universal 'best' set is the same sort of nonsense to which Statists subscribe (albeit with more alacrity). The long-run consequences of living by Thoreaus dicta: high infant mortality, short lifespans and less material well-being... supposedly compensated for by the smug sense of feeling enlightened. In short, the same sense of internal-self-righteous-gratification-by-mortification that leads hipster-douches to join the iCult and buy overpriced underperforming gadgets (yes, it's voluntary, but dear God make it stop!). (I didn't use my new $149 3G-wifi-bluetooth-GPS 7" ZTE 9 tab to write this... but I could have. And my tab does not track my every move and save the results in a hidden file, like iPhones and other iDreck do).

Come have a look around Detroit - there's plenty of that going around. Welfare recipients driving Escalades, not space exploration.

You are nothing but a republican bigot. You would not know freedom if it bit you on the ass. Real freedom is about doing away with the police and military power that is at the heart of all our problems with the government. You probably work or sell to a military contractor or the government and find it is good for business. Business be damned it is about the freedom of the people. You want a gun so you can tell other people what to do. Might makes right. That is what are country was trying to get away from. Church's and Military Rule. They never mention the free ENTERPRISE system and repeatedly warn against the damn church stupid. They also did not hate government only when black presidents were in office. When a repubican started a war they did not flock behind him. Suddenly thinking it was alright and calling themselves patriot. Patriot my ass.

This author wrote: "Canada will be wiped from the face of the Earth." A minor correction. CANADA is not a tangible entity, it is only a "graven image", i.e. a mere thought committed to paper, therefore only the "graven image" of CANADA can be wiped from the face of the Earth. The land upon which that "fictitious overlay" supposedly lies, will remain until the day the Earth itself fades into oblivion.

"There is only one fundamental right [just claim] (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right [just claim] to his own life." ~ Ayn Rand

"The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THE AUTHOR." ~ Excerpted from Common Sense by Thomas Paine [Emphasis added] Those who desire to rule over all of the Earth's inhabitants are determined to extirpate[1] the defenders of "the natural rights of all mankind". ____________________________________________ [1] EX'TIRPATE, v.t. [L. extirpo; ex and stirps, root.] 1. To pull or pluck up by the roots; to root out; to eradicate; to destroy totally; as, to extirpate weeds or noxious plants from a field. 2. To eradicate; to root out; to destroy wholly; as, to extirpate error or heresy; to extirpate a sect.