Recent comments

Hey Paul! This is a good one! With your usual feistiness, but hey! Slavery is objectionable even though you can't tell so much by looking around these days. And Sam, thanks for all your comments, I read the Delmar England material you recommended and really enjoyed it! I agree about the forums, I guess currently they think libertarian ideas need to be dumbed down or something. After all, it's an election year, LOL

Anybody who knows me would be disappointed if I ever did a thing -- or refrained from a thing -- because it was a rule, or a law, or a regulation, or a policy. If it don't make sense -- to me -- I ain't a-gonna comply. "Voluntarily", that is. I might comply if confronted by jurisdiction. The only jurisdiction in existence anywhere on this pale blue dot is force of arms. I believe a man with a loaded gun. Or woman (l-rd have mercy! :-]). Especially those wearing state costumes. They're definitely the most dangerous of the armed. You've outlined the religion -- the superstition -- called "state" quite adequately: "...slave mentality in action on Internet forums. In the gun forum I frequent, there is even a sub-board dealing with the intricacies of the law, where members debate endlessly over the fine points and jump through hoops in an often futile attempt to stay on the “right side” of laws for which there is never any victim--except for themselves if they get caught violating one..." You've put your finger on the enemy, Paul. Most libertarian forums have virtually gone to seed, literally and figuratively. Unless there are some I've missed. I counted only ten comments posted here over the last two weeks. Half were mine. In past years I've seen (don't know that I've ever counted) at least 25 or 30 -- and probably more -- comments in a single day. Granted, some were needless squabbling -- particularly when "religion" entered the topic. Or "rights". And I fully agree with your conclusion: like Frederick Douglass, my goal must be to "...dispensed with (my) slave mind-set...". Unlike Douglass in his day, I'm old. I ain't got that much time left to become free. I'd better do it now. Here. Today. Where I'm "at". Sam

I like the idea but politicians can't, generally, answer simply "yes", "no", or "no comment": https://youtu.be/tBIKP4W50-I

When those feeding from a common nosebag • Make laws, • Enforce laws, • Prosecute laws, • Hire prosecutors, • License “defense” attorneys, • Pay “judges”, • Build jails, • Contract jails out to private entities, • Employ and pay wardens, • Employ and pay guards, • Employ and pay parole officers, You’re dealing with tyranny – not “…an unbiased system…” But when a large and unsavory segment of the population demand central political authority, it's what you get. Live with it. Either that or abstain from beans and become sovereign (I may post an additional comment later regarding "becoming sovereign". Sam

But  Melinda is correct. CNN commentators are mostly PC douchebags, even in sports, and so fuck em anyhow.

If stories like this keep coming along, Strike will need to have a "New Jersey" hash tag soon. What is it about NJ pols that they feel there is no human behavior or action that is not with their purview to regulate? If you go there or to NY, CA, CT, the people themselves seem okay, but then look at the legislatures they vote in. Incomprehensible.

Mishochu, I read countless articles daily such as this and this, and this; and I want to think that you and I and all anarchists and libertarians are on the cutting edge of something very, very big. That's on my "good" days. That's when I'm encouraged by the Internet Reformation. Then, a day or two later, reality sets in. Our numbers are dismal by comparison. And even among ourselves we're needy to gee and haw with the machinations of psychopaths hiding under the mantle of "state" in order to sidestep the beast. "Non-profits" are strictly state devices to assure -- or ensure -- "voluntary compliance", or conformance. Yet I strongly encourage what you're doing to encourage homeschooling and inoculate against statism. Don't get me wrong -- we individuals declaring sovereign statehood can't ignore the serfdom that has encapsulated all our neighbors, friends and families. We have to manipulate and mold our lives to keep the dangerously armed agents in state costumes off our backs. I've often used the rattlesnake analogy -- I can't or shouldn't go to the woods (in the snake-infested part of the world where I grew up) without adequate leg, hand and arm protection. Can we preach and teach our "society" into freedom in order for we ourselves to experience freedom? I strongly agree with you: for me anyway, I have to be free. Today. Here. Where I'm "at". I'm strongly into octogenarian-ism. I don't have time to wait for the world around me to achieve liberty and freedom. If it's going to be, it's up to me. Now. Sam

I'm beginning not to care about proselytization. And instead turning things on their head and earn only Bitcoin (converted and stored as metal) and create a non-profit to handle property taxes (non-profits are exempt where I am). I'm thinking of having the non-profit focus on home schooling and the needs of home schooling families (which may do some little towards inoculating against statism). Forget this free future, I want it for my family now. With technology it is beginning to seem a lot easier to do what I'm calling "live sovereign in plain sight".

Sam, you've put your finger on a vital point: can the State be rolled back to zero?   Yes, it's been around for about 400 generations - and on its present scale in the US for about 4 generations. We face a big job.   The first para of "A Little Good News" links to a ZGBlog showing why and how I think it can be done, even so. I know of no other way. My book Transition to Liberty details the likely progress. But what of the alternative you name: a "cataclysmic collapse of their 'system'"?   Several times in recent history, states have collapsed; often after losing a war. In every case, government either continued (eg Zambia) or was replaced (eg Germany.)   So will you spell out how a total collapse here would necessarily produce a free society?

"...Now think about envy, covetousness, jealousy – and its sociopolitical end-product, socialism, and whatever we can possibly do to oust it and its influences from our lives forever..." It was important that I learn early-on that there is not a lot I can do about YOUR "...envy, covetousness, jealousy..." (and the end-product of socialism). But there is something I can do about MINE. Well, in a sense, Alex, since both you and I are here on STR I can have some influence upon you and perhaps a few others, and you're certainly having an influence upon me -- and many others. But keep in mind -- probably 99.5% (more or less) of folks who engage in envy, covetousness and jealousy (and who root for socialism) are not here and will never read your article or my comments. And I don't have time to go out and attempt to recruit a sizable dent in that 99.5%. So I've got to find a way to be free. Here. Now. Today. Where I'm "at". Freedom starts between my ears. The challenge of anarchy is learning to circumnavigate and sidestep the socialistic trip-hazards. I may not eliminate them all, but I can learn to avoid allowing them to constantly trip me up. It's eerie, the number of people who appear to crave central political authority -- and ensuing socialism. And it appears that my primary defense against those throngs is to abstain from beans. Sam

Here's Simon Black's version: https://www.sovereignman.com/trends/new-legislation-proposes-to-bail-in-... (Aw, shucks! After going back and reading the posted article I note GovtSlaves has printed Black's version also, so this link is redundant. As you were). Sam

Were I a voter I'd vote for Trump. If for no other reason than Trump is a trader and investor, not a career war monger. In fact, I would vote for Trump for the very reason all governmentalists and most mini-libertarian types insist that nobody should vote for him: he has never "held" ..."public office"...(translation: Trump has been a producer in lieu of having been a robber and a thief). Murray Rothbard, in a footnote to "Anatomy of the State", quoted Franz Oppenheimer, who said it best: [4] Franz Oppenheimer, The State (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926) pp. 24-27: There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. . . . I propose in the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the "economic means" for the satisfaction of need while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means". . . . The State is an organization of the political means. No State, therefore, can come into being until the economic means has created a definite number of objects for the satisfaction of needs, which objects may be taken away or appropriated by warlike robbery. Of course, once one has gained comprehension of this, s/he could never participate in one of those bread-and-circus events ever again. Sam

Good article by Raimondo.

As your subject article outlines, "...some government people - rulers - are less vicious than others. There are degrees of evil..." No argument here. And, there's certainly "...not much wrong with encouraging peace..." Had Dr Block published some of his work here or other discussion forums in which I had participated at the time, I would have been remiss not to make favorable comments (certainly regarding "Defending the Undefendable", which I used as an "anarchist maintenance manual" for many years prior to my showing up here). I would agree with you regarding his take on abortion. Also I applaud his work with respect to private roadways. No argument with any of this. Block has done excellent work towards liberty and freedom for us all sofar as I'm concerned. When Harry Browne ran for grand wizard of the klan, I was disenchanted to say the least. I remember a letter by Jack Pugsley that expressed my sentiments succinctly regarding what I considered at the time to be "Harry's feet of clay". And, as I continue on this ride there will be other head-jarrings I'll need to contend with -- and keep my peace. After all, I can't be right all the time. I thought I was wrong once. Then discovered my error. :-[ . Sam

From "Rule vs Morality": "...The first thing to derive from that axiom is that government in all its manifestations is wholly immoral. Consequently it is impossible for a governor (ruler) to be moral, any more than a rapist or thief could be moral; each would be a perfect example of an oxymoron..." Your essay consists of your typical good perspective. One thing I find disturbingly puzzling is when former "libertarian" icons (at least those I once thought of as "icons") succor prospective governors (rulers) such as Ron Paul and/or Donald Trump. Read this: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/07/no_author/scholars-trump/ There is often the temptation on my part to write rebuttal(s) to Walter Block. Then I have to stop and understand: no matter what I might have to say to Dr Block, he will steadfastly garner his armor about himself and defend his "position". I am no match to Block in the art of verbal swordplay. Nor would I wish to be. 'Though I can only speak for myself, I suppose many of us possess undergirding with feet of clay. Sam

Something in me caused me to stop short in my allusion to the religion phenomenon. Perhaps it's because I want y'all to like me, and I know there is a mindset surrounding the venue here that discounts anything of a religious nature. The human mind, or spirit, is a puzzler. The only libertarian writer I've encountered who seemed willing to tackle the human mind has been the late Delmar England, whom I never met either on-line or in person. And who gained little recognition or credibility in the "libertarian" world (quotes intended). Yet, unless one broaches and tries to understand the human mind, she will make little headway in promulgating "libertarianism" -- or liberty. In my humble opinion (which ain't so humble). Enough about England. I give certain credence to the Hebrew Bible. Not because I believe in an omni-god who's sitting up there somewhere "...making a list, checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty or nice..." That has nothing to do with the methods I use to refrain from discounting the centerpiece apparently used by virtually all religious leaders we know of in this "bible-belt" part of the world. Even the Muslims use bits and parts of the Book to substantiate their ideals. To say nothing of, for, or against "the Jews" (most who use that term know nothing about to what or to whom they refer -- another topic for another thread, perhaps on another forum altogether). I use four scientific observations to substantiate my claim (that the Book has certain reliance): 1) It's about the most popular book in town. I suspect you have at least one version, interpretation, rendition, translation and/or "exposition" somewhere. 2) It is utilized by and considered to provide the substance of almost all religion that we know of by their leaders and their promulgators. 3) Most who claim to preach from it drift so far afield from it's central theme that it's humorous -- if it were not so deadly tragic. 4) It's a book of anarchy from stem to stern. I'll deal with the last (4th) observation as it pertains to STR and most of our discussions here. I look at this chapter to be the fulcrum, or central theme, that underpins the book -- and that ties it to anarchy, and to STR, and to most of the other forums to which many of us visit and subscribe. It appears that there is an eerie, almost electromagnetic "pull" (I call it "spirit" for lack of less religious-sounding descriptor) in the human mind toward subservience -- the desire to be ruled, to be "protected", to be "secured" -- from "them" (the bad guys, whomever they might be). And, even though the evidence is right out in front of everybody, it only seems to occur to the .001% (that would be me, and, hopefully, thee) that the real, genuine threat comes from the "Protector" -- the "Securer" -- The King. So, Ken, I have hope. Some might call it hope against hope. I have hope that somebody will read this and will seek to become free of that "pull", or "spirit", that lands them right back into belief in partisan politics, and rulership. I have faith, I guess you could say, in the Internet Reformation. Sam

Keep in mind this was a collectivist operating in a collectivist world. It is easy for an individual to procure an AR-15. Don't submit. The black market is the only truly free (well, mostly free 'long as you don't get caught by the white man) market. Sam

'..."it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry"...' Thanks for catching and pasting this caveat by Dr Whitehead. Perhaps I might well take back my diatribe (some of it). And, your "...Power of One..." is important. I'm in agreement -- I'll always lean toward the individualist, away from the collectivist, mindset. Collectivism is what the idea of war, even "guerilla war", is about. I had such traumatic experience as a snot-nose kid in Korea (too many arms, too much ammo, too much idle time on the hands of too many snot-nose kids -- too many stupid "accidents" leaving too many friends dead and permanently wounded) that I've shied away from firearms while raising a large group of kids in relative peace. I've learned to live a life of freedom and liberty without leaning on the idea of gun-ownership for myself -- not that I'm on the collectivists' "gun control" side of things by any means. 'Nuff said about that. There are things one can do. Here are some videos (I think they're free, but you might discover they won't work for you, because we might be paying for Black's "Sovereign Man" newsletters): https://secure.sovereignman.com/plf_planb/b/training/video01_planb/?utm_... I've said for years that it is not necessary for me to "make" anybody else free in order for me to be free. Yes, I can write and talk about freedom, and I can encourage my neighbors, friends and family by personal example (by the way I live my life); but when the final bell tolls it will be up to the individual as to whether she will be free or slave. It has to start between the ears. Individually. Sam (Oh -- by the way. Please abstain from beans -- although I'm aware, Jim, that it is not necessary to admonish you in that regard :-] )

Your comparison begins with "Any military commander..." and within the context of armies facing each other which have similar degrees of command, control and discipline, you may well be right.   But that doesn't apply here. The government forces have that structure; we their victims do not. Only a guerilla war might succeed in putting that 3200:1 advantage to good use.   There's a much better way than that long, arduous and bloody course. John Whitehead wrote "it will require a change of heart among the American people, a reawakening of the American spirit, and a citizenry that cares more about their freedoms than [the State's] fantasy games" and while I'd prefer "mind" to "heart" and "people" to "a citizenry", I reckon he's about right. Once that understanding of and desire for freedom is widespread, the government's goose is cooked - regardless of its military capability.   Here's how.

Forgot to include the story of Robert and Danille Kahre, who's story feeds neatly into Paul's essay: http://freedomshenanigans.blogspot.com/2009/08/robert-kahre-who-paid-in-...

It's my hope to live to see 7,500,000,000 (plus or minus a billion here or there) sovereign states. Feel free to come out to my state if you want to blow a reefer. But beware: I live on the border, and just across that fictitious line the narcs will incarcerate you for not only lighting up, but even possessing a joint or a bag. The late Carl Sagan had it in perspective: https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=23&v=jYtXoUZbUCQ He understood borders to be meaningless excuses to murder and kill. Sam

John Whitehead is persistent about whining and whimpering over the machinations of collectivism and "the-state". I've never seen him suggest to his readers that they abstain from beans -- the first step in the alleviation of the condition about which he complains. Never trust a writer who habitually and incessantly uses the dangerous "we" word: "...Unfortunately, we waited too long to wake up to the government’s schemes...We did not anticipate that “we the people” would become the enemy..." I can't speak for "we". I began the awakening process well over 50 years ago, last time I voted or participated in a bread-and-circus presentation called "election". Liberty for me began to arise the day I-the-individual divorced we-the-people between my ears. "...We are fast becoming an anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of our revolutionary forebears incapable of mounting a national uprising against a tyrannical regime..." Whitehead might be "...anemic, weak, pathetically diluted offspring of forebears..." So might you. I can't speak for John Whitehead -- or you. But I am not anemic, weak (well, at 81 I'm perhaps not as strong as I was at 40), or diluted "offspring of forebears..." I have no forebears that I know of. His final two paragraphs disclose him as a strong proponent of state. He just believes "we" must elect the right people. John Whitehead is not a friend of freedom or liberty. Sam

Tell that to the BLM inspired mass murderers and the lone wolf jihadist assassins that have been plaguing us the last few weeks Mr. Whitehead. Clearly they didn't read your inspiring essay.

If Hiltlery Clinton wins, I expect more or less the same response as Erdogen's. Not kidding fam.