Recent comments

  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "[A]lthough the masses grew in ever-increasing numbers—high art, music, education, and individualism in general suffered. European culture began to decay. Violence and militarism (especially of the uniform variety) became the order of the day." Well, if this isn't the most apt description of modern America, I'd like to know what is. I have lately been thinking about what the major influences are for anyone and everyone on this land mass. Two of them are the Industrial Revolution and American Christianity. We all live in a post-industrial society, and like Ortega said about how "we will never return to a time before the advent of the modern State," we will never return to a pre-industrial society, as industrial knowledge is too widespread at this point. Likewise, American Christianity, whether it is embraced or not, affects every individual living on this land mass, for better or worse. It is a force that must be understood. I hadn't considered the fact that everything we think, say and do, just like the Industrial Revolution, is also tainted and shaped in various ways by the State. A very provocative idea, and one that needs deeper consideration. Excellent article. And as an aside, I would have to agree that music has suffered as a result of the modern state. The apex of great music (in the art-house classical tradition) was the first half of the twentieth century, with a handful of pieces hitting the high mark after 1950. Very sad.
  • dobropet's picture
    dobropet 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Although the article is well researched and professionally written I have to disagree on some points. Although she cites only 2 incidents in which illegal aliens, crossing the border from Mexico into America, have caused somewhat of a "stir" in America(the Hezbollah fund raising incident involving Mahmoud Youssef Kourani), she does not cite the second in this article. Just a quick glance on some relevant sites and you can find the Fort Hood shootings(Nadal Hassan), or the numerous Afghans AWOL from the Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas: http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/jul/afghans-go-awol-u-s-military-... What about the woman attempting to use incendiary devices(also in Texas), of which were never detonated? http://www.wfaa.com/news/Possible-terror-incident-in-Fort-Worth-84316367... Is she attempting to portray all of the evidence against her statement(opinion) as false? What about the individual attempting to bomb a skyscraper in Dallas? http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/May/10-nsd-622.html What about this bit of information? http://www.kens5.com/news/national/95580009.html I admit that simply saying that you'll attempt to bomb American cities does not equal human rights violations, but at what point do we attempt to protect ourselves from these threats without succombing to an outright police state(of which we already are, if you've read anything Will Grigg has written)? That is not an endorsement of law enforcement as much as it is an endorsement of private protection enforcement. And, for the record, the amount of illegals from those that the government claims sponsor terrorism does not relate to the amount of damage inflicted upon those that are completely innocent by way of tolerance(one person armed with only one gun can only kill as many people that will be allowed from the amount of bullets loaded or supplied within that gun). I argue that such toleration can be damaging. Also, when Govenor Brewer claimed that it was possible that illegal alien terrorists could potentially cross the border to inflict damage, didn't it stand to reason that such an outright acceptance of that possibility would have alarmed the public even further? Could it have been possible she was simply protecting her constituents from fear mongering and endangering, not just those citizens, but those who were in the state legally? Not all areas of this threat have been properly scrutinized, I do agree there, but who do we trust to investigate such matters? Those that are opposed to war(simply on the basis that it is war), those who've dealt with such atrocious nature and have garnered the ability to disclose it's underlying efforts within our society, or the current administration and their "hope and change" system?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    His torture-induced “confessions” will be admissible. ~ None Dare Call It Tyranny by Sheldon Richman, August 16, 2010 Is it because “It can conduct a war crimes trial in a military kangaroo court” that the maxims of law no longer apply? Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Page tzo
    “Yes, I use the roads, I send mail, I go to school, etc., because the absence of other options due to government monopolies causes me to take these actions.” ~ tzo Every individual has the right to use the highways, which use you pay for when you voluntarily purchase fuel. There was a story on the Internet about a man who makes his own fuel and is now being charged some kind of "road usage tax", which, I surmise, only serves to validate that the roadways are indeed paid for by fuel taxes. 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 By voluntarilypurchasing a stamp you pay-as-you-go to “send mail”. There is, however, a long standing debate about whether or not Abraham Lincoln's “free” mail delivery and pickup at your door or a post office box is available to those of us who have “withdrawn from the State” and thus no longer ask for or accept member-only-benefits. I, personally, choose not to use Lincoln's “free” mail delivery and pickup. No “other options” to government controlled schools? How about home teaching for your children and self-teaching for yourself?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Individual secessionist, not individualist secessionist, but thank you, Tony. Have a great day.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Individualist sessionist: I like the term. But I like the term "anarchist," too. I don't scare people off when I use it. They know who I am. They know I'm harmless. I just tell them anarchy means absence of government, not absence of order, and that the conflation of government and order is just part of the racket. Then I tell them government preserves far more disorder than it prevents. If I'm lucky, their whole house of cards comes tumbling down.
  • gallego71's picture
    gallego71 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Are these people really out of their minds!!!
  • Mitrik_Spanner's picture
    Mitrik_Spanner 5 years 49 weeks ago Page tzo
    I've practiced living as free as I can for 30 years without always knowing or thinking about the unseen effects on those around me and the mental effects on myself. It helps to bolster one's fortitude for the task (of living free) to think of the idea of the journey (the path) as an end in itself. Thanks for the good words and ideas.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Page tzo
    MCS -- Dorothy pulls back the curtain to reveal the Wizard at the controls -- he reacts as he sees Dorothy -- Dorothy questions him -- the Wizard starts to speak into the microphone -- then turns weakly back to Dorothy -- CAMERA PULLS back slightly as the Lion, Scarecrow and Tin Man enter and stand behind Dorothy -- OZ'S VOICE ... -- Oz -- has spoken! DOROTHY Who are you? OZ'S VOICE Well, I -- I -- I am the Great and Powerful -- Wizard of Oz. DOROTHY You are? WIZARD Uhhhh -- yes... DOROTHY I don't believe you! WIZARD No, I'm afraid it's true. There's no other Wizard except me.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Good day Tony Pivetta, I don't disagree with the conclusion that your "sensory-sensual space-time data" has caused you to arrive at, (which is precisely why I am an individual secessionist, I steadfastly refuse to associate with individuals or groups that are prone to “violence and chaos”); but my point was, and is, if we use words that scare the crap out of "most people", they will immediately be “turned off”. We can't communicate with people who are “turned off”. And, to try to re-educate more than six trillion individuals to think differently about that word is a complete waste of time, in my opinion. By comparison, when I tell people that I am an "individual secessionist", they don't have a knee-jerk-negative-reaction, because they don't really know what that is; so they are instead, more likely to be drawn into conversation with me. From that point I can start my explanation in many ways, depending upon the attributes of my audience. One good way, I have found, is to begin by asking questions. "What would you do if you had a friend who began lying to you, most of the time?" Some of the rational ones might answer, "If I couldn't get him to stop lying, I'd have to stop associating with him." At which point I can say, "I understand exactly how you feel, I would do the same thing you would." I might then next ask, "Do you feel that people in government tell you the truth, most of the time?" If they answer, "No, I don't, I think they lie to us, most of the time!", then I can say, "Me too, that's why I've stopped associating with the government. That's what 'individual secessionism' is, it is when one individual withdraws from membership in the political association." Unfortunately, most individuals, regardless of how much they might bitch, complain, and moan and groan about government, discover, with this new found "cure" that is now put before them, that they would rather not do without the benefits, privileges and protection they get in exchange for their freedom, and as a result they will no longer want to communicate with the individual who pointed out that “cure” to them, because he will be like a burr under their saddle, he will be a constant reminder that they have, of their own "volition", chosen the wider and easier path. So be it, we all have free will, we always have, even if it kills us. ;) “The right of self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent from an oppressive government. That is the only really effective restriction on power, in the last analysis.” – Clyde Wilson, Secession: The Last, Best Bulwark of Our Liberties ″Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.″ ~ Winston Churchill
  • miamizsun's picture
    miamizsun 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I concur. I'm fairly new to Molyneux and from what I can gather his work is outstanding. I purchased all of his books and I'm just about half-way through them. Highly recommended. This video is an excellent piece to send to everyone you know. Also Murphy over @ Mises.org is doing a five part presentation of property right (free society) that appears to be a good thing as well. Hat tip to STR for everything. Please know that I'm grateful and spreading the word. Regards
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    I agree with you one hundred percent, B.R. The State represents the ultimate triumph of the most hardened, bloodthirsty mobsters known to man.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    I am well aware that most people associate anarchy with violence and chaos. I don't care about most people. My central nervous system has organized sensory-sensual space-time data to arrive at the opposite conclusion: I associate the State with violence and chaos.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "Have we not seen that human happiness is the Divine will — that only by exercising our faculties is this happiness obtainable — and that it is impossible to exercise them without freedom? And if this freedom for the exercise of faculties is a condition without which the Divine will cannot be fulfilled, the preservation of it is, by our objector's own showing, a duty." If it is impossible to exercise faculties (volition) without freedom, then it follows that freedom is life, whereas coercion is death. Yeah. I'll buy that.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Well, that was easy enough. Thanks!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Silver and gold, in your actual possession.
  • iliad's picture
    iliad 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Well said!
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Financial minds, can you help out a confirmed doofus? When Taleb says "staying in cash," what exactly is he saying you should do with your money/investments? I have foreign stocks with Euro Pacific Capital; is he saying those aren't safe, either? Any financial advice and/or definitions of these phrases is welcome.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Whether or not I am "in the 'right' when attempting to defend it" is subjective. This is why most people will not lift a finger to stop the exectuion of a child molester/murderer, but will react with a natural, innate empathy when someone esteemed innocent or good is violated. Their subjective minds, filled with empathy, sympathy, justice, and what they feel is right, react negatively to abhorrent behavior directed at the weakest among us, for the most part. So I still don't see where the "right" is in existence, or where I would need it if I am surrounded by empathetic individuals who share a mutual interest in life-oriented society.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Tony, organized crime triumphed when the state was created. It's the mafia most people prefer. That is a very sad realization, with which I am compelled to live every day.
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    All you schoolyard bullies; listen up. All your lives, you've been told that you shouldn't hit girls, or kick dogs, or beat up on people who are smaller than you, and that one-on-one is the only way to fight fair. Don't worry, though; once youy've grown up you can be a cop and get PAID and PRAISED and RESPECTED for doing all those things PLUS you get to carry a gun and SHOOT people just for fun.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Hi Tony, I know, from reading here, that virtually no one will agree with Noah Webster (c.1825[1]), but the highlighted words in his definitions were the reason for my misplaced humor about “unorganized” crime. (They are also the reason why "I have never advocated anarchism", it is, in the minds of the vast majority of people, associated with violence and chaos.) AN'ARCH, n. [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion; one who excites revolt. Milton. ANARCH'IC, ANARCH'ICAL, a. Without rule or government; in a state of confusion; applied to a state or society. Fielding uses anarchial, a word of less difficult pronunciation. AN'ARCHIST, n. An anarch; one who excites revolt, or promotes disorder in a state. Stephens. AN'ARCHY, n. [Etymology omitted] Want of government; a state of society, when there is no law or supreme power, or when the laws are not efficient, and individuals do what they please with impunity; political confusion. [1] Noah's dictionary was reportedly completed in 1825, but it took him three years to find a publisher for it, because no one in jolly old England would do it, he came to America. Hence, it became known as American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    People will organize in society, whether for good or nefarious purposes, with our without a government. The question is whether an anarchist society will be freer, wealthier and more *orderly* than a statist society. More to the point, the question is not whether the State prevents some disorder. Surely it must, if only by happenstance. The question is whether the State prevents more disorder than it preserves. Looking at it in the cold light of reason, I see little evidence in the State's favor.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Wouldn't anarchy result in "unorganized" crime? LOL Sorry, couldn't resist the temptation.
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Those who baldly assert anarchy will result in the triumph of organized crime fail to demonstrate--theoretically or historically--that it is inevitable it will do so. (In the only case study of attempted anarchy I'm aware of, medieval Iceland's chieftain system did very well in providing privatized security and defense arrangements over the course of several centuries.) But even if they're right, so what? If organized crime inevitably triumphs under anarchy, then we're right back where we started: with "a gang of thieves writ large," as Rothbard defined the State. What have we got to lose?
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    "Anarchism will only lead to more crime (especially organized)..." The state is what you get when criminals organize.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    Must read! "The foregoing will enrage the whole sodden bolus of therapists, psychological beard-scratchers, counselors, feminists, fruit-juice drinkers, and congenitally insecure promoters of sun block. But it worked." http://tinyurl.com/33q4ro3
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    "If you support such laws, there is no ground on which you can consistently do so without believing that other people are your property"... ~ Kevin Carson That is exactly what the PTB believe! Protectio trahit subjectionem, subjectio projectionem. Protection draws to it subjection, subjection, protection. Co. Litt. 65. ~ Maxim of Law, Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary "Citizens" are members of a political community who...have...submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 Dominion. Generally accepted definition of “dominion” is perfect control in right of ownership. The word implies both title and possession and appears to require a complete retention of control over disposition. Eastex Aviation, Inc. v. Sperry & Hutchison Co., C.A.Tex., 522 F.2d 1299, 1307 ~ Ibid., page 486 "But, but, but...I didn't know that I was submitting myself to the dominion of a government for...protection." Well, you do now, you now know the "root" of the problem, CITIZEN, so what will change? How will you strike the root? "Like any other association, a government exists for the ends of its members, and has no authority over anyone outside it." ~ Kevin Carson And, there it is!! Thank you, Kevin, thank you! ″Having heard all this, you may choose to look the other way…but you can never say again that you didn’t know.″ ~ William Wilberforce 1759-1833
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    “The legitimate powers [authority] an individual possesses — the right to life, liberty and property, and the consequent power [authority] to defend those rights without harm to innocents — can be exercised cooperatively by any number of individuals in concert.” ~ Kevin Carson They can legitimately defend those natural rights, singly or cooperatively, because, “the loss of natural rights is death”, and all rational individuals realize it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Not intended to be "word play", my learned friend, it is just that I ascribe to what Voltaire wrote, "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” and what Ayn Rand believed, "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions", because words are all we have to work with here. So, your fantasy, it would seem, is to "improve the system" we now have, with "a majority of the people on earth barely literate". Good luck. "Glenn Beck on a chalkboard"...lol...got a chuckle out of that comparison, so, thanks. Presidential candidate Palantine: Can I ask you something? Travis: Sure. Presidential candidate Palantine: What is the one thing about this country that bugs you the most? Travis: I don't know. I don't follow political issues that closely. Presidential candidate Palantine: There must be something. Travis: Well, whatever it is, he should clean up this city here...because this city is like an open sewer, it's full of filth and scum. Sometimes I can hardly take it. Whoever becomes the president should just...really clean it up, know what I mean? Sometimes I go out and I smell it. I get headaches, it's so bad. It's like-- They never go away. It's like the president should clean up this whole mess here. He should flush it down the f**king toilet. Presidential candidate Palantine: Well, I think I know what you mean, Travis. But it's not gonna be easy. ~ Excerpted from Taxi Driver Script - Dialogue Transcript by Drew's Script-O-Rama
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Great article! I created the graphic I use for my icon and offer it as a dramatic and historic way to convey the same message: "Politics is Aggression". For those interested, it and similar ones are available at http://www.cafepress.com/artemiszuna/1951959 The best buy for labels is the 48 pack of 3" dia labels for $32. http://www.cafepress.com/artemiszuna.240955157
  • rita's picture
    rita 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    Gee, this "new Russia" sounds very much like the United States of America.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Quick definitions (govern)[1] verb:  direct or strongly influence the behavior of [it's voluntary members] verb:  [to] bring [them] into conformity with rules or principles or usage [rules, principles and usage of the natural law (of man)] I believe, (and maybe I am living in la-la-land, perhaps it is only a fantasy), that if a government, which I prefer to call a "protectorate", were based on the above simple principles that its membership, after a slow start, would grow exponentially. THE LAW The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose, but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law has become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself is guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish! If this is true,[and it is] it is a serious fact, and moral duty requires me to call the attention of my fellow-citizens to it. LIFE IS A GIFT FROM OUR CREATOR We hold from our Creator the gift, which includes all others. This gift is life - physical, intellectual, and moral life. But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. Life, faculties, production - in other words, individuality, liberty, property - this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from the Creator precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. WHAT IS LAW? What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from the Creator - to defend his person [body and soul] his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every man has the right to defend - even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect individuals, liberties, and properties, to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. A JUST AND ENDURING GOVERNMENT If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the simplest, easiest to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable - whatever its political form might be. Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government. It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions. The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities. ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frederic Bastiat [1] http://public.onelook.com/?w=govern&ls=a [Bracketed information added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    I was not aware that Poland, in 1939, or any other year, had a "de jure Government, that derived its just powers from the consent of the governed, and only used those delegated powers to defend its consenting members' natural rights, and not to aggress against them with the intent to "dominate and master" them." So, basically, your fantasy is the status quo? Nice. p.s. And for the record, you might want to know I have never advocated anarchism.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    No, sir, you don't "consciously decide" to try to defend your life, it is only NATURAL that you try to defend your life, it's INNATE, you were, therefore, PREDESTINED to attempt to defend it; it's a natural reaction. However, if you are not in the "right" when attempting to defend it, you may have a very difficult time trying to find anyone who will support your effort...oh, maybe a bleeding-heart liberal, or two, carrying protest signs, but no one else. If you doubt this, go to the next available execution of a child molester/murderer.
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Hi Tzo, Thank you for the response, but I just think your ideals are just government by another name. I am a libertarian, but I believe there needs to be a framework of government. Anarchism will only lead to more crime (especially organized), factions will battle that think they are just in disputes, since there is no final judge of decisions. The rich will control much more than they do now, especially in the area of education. I used to teach at a low income school, and most of the parents were worse off than the children. Countries like the US will turn into Renaissance Italy where city states protected themselves, and there will be crime families that run everything from necessities to luxury items. And, I have not even added the cultural, language, and religious aspects of difference that would hard to overcome. Do you think fundamentalist Muslims would like your ideals or their leaders even listen to you? You have great idealism, but I just do not think your philosophy is based in reality. Thank you. -Steve
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Again with the word play. Yes, Trajan was a Roman Emperor, but you don't have to dissect my name like Glenn Beck on a chalk board. I do not work for MoveOn.org, and I didn't go to Obama's church. My Master's thesis was on Trajan's invasion and colonization of Dacia. I proved why he was able to successfully invade Dacia, while other commanders previous to him could not. Trajan expanded the empire to its furthest reaches of the time by reaching the Persian Gulf and he died on campaign. Many Roman historians consider him the Roman Alexander. He is not my "hero," but I do respect him as a leader and military commander, since I spent a year studying him. Look, I appreciate your idealism, but I do not think your ideals are practical or realistic. You would have to have a society of philosophers to achieve your goals, and a majority of the people on earth are barely literate. It is one thing to overthrow a government, but another to improve the system.
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    So, basically you want your fantasy country to be Poland in 1939? Nice.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    According to the bio at the bottom of the nauseating op-ed, "Richard A. Falkenrath, a principal of the Chertoff Group, a risk-management consultancy, is a former deputy commissioner for counterterrorism for the New York Police Department and deputy homeland security adviser to President George W. Bush." Strange that they left out the final sentence: "He is also a complete d*ck." A very nice, succinct retort at Reason, I might add.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    I may not be able to "RIGHTFULLY defend" my life if I "do not have a 'just claim' to it," but I can certainly VOLITIONALLY defend it, which is the most likely, logical reaction.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    "Every individual, unless he forfeits it, has a natural right, i.e. a "just claim" to his own life, liberty and lawfully acquired property, (and no one else's)." ~ Suverans2 This is why "natural" rights are sometimes referred to as "inalienable" or "unalienable", the individual cannot be alienated from, i.e. dispossessed of, his natural rights by the laws of men. The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 Only you can forfeit your own natural rights, by not recognizing and respecting the natural rights of others. "Attack another’s [natural] rights and you destroy your own." ~ John Jay Chapman
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    I posted a lot of quotes merely to demonstrate that at least one other individual, here at STR, and all the authors of those quotes, must know that "rights" exist. "Volition, however, is provable and existent." ~ B.R. Merrick volition noun: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention will noun: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention You may believe that volition, or will, is "provable and existent", however, you may have a very difficult time doing so with those individuals who believe in predestination. For example, do you believe that every individual makes a "conscious choice" to be homosexual, or is it predestined, (at least in some cases)? Yes, B.R. Merrick, I most certainly agree that artificial entities have no rights, but what you question, in the first half of that "main point", is whether rights, i.e. just claims, exist. Loss of natural rights is death. You cannot even RIGHTFULLY defend your life if you do not have a "just claim" to it.
  • Guest's picture
    jrtorsa (not verified) 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Do you believe this is the way out?
  • dobropet's picture
    dobropet 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    I disagree, I know several illegal immigrants that are taking subsidies from government(food stamps etc.), and that's just around my block. Most of which have expensive cars to tote their upteen children to government run(taxpayer funded) school. There may be a majority working for a living as the article states yet that does not account for the entire population of illegals in the U.S. Other factors come into play when addressing illegal immigration, not just work status. What about the "war on drugs" moniker that helps cartel members sell illegal substances to American citizens(which of course is only the governments attempt to demonize those who use them)? Would they not be considered illegal immigration workers? What of the cities that offer free drivers licenses to illegal immigrants? Doesn't our tax dollars fund those services expected of the state and local authorities? If contract employers hire those men willing to work at a cheaper rate than their legal counterparts, what incentive exists to ensure they are paying taxes like most American citizens? I've worked for atleast 3 different contractors and none of them inquired about the taxes I owed to the I.R.S. as they paid in cash to not only me but those who couldn't even speak english. How do you hire someone who can't even speak english, who quite possibly is illegal, and takes the work at a lower rate and not correlate that he is KNOWINGLY being paid less? If he knows he's getting less money for his work then he understands what the rate should be, and that he should be getting more, which could allow him to expose his employer to scrutiny by the B.B.B. or the I.R.S.(or la raza for that matter)? No, illegals don't come here for the welfare our government dishes out to what it perceives as the underpriviledged, they come here for the freedoms we enjoy in spite of the welfare state we provide, hoping their efforts do not go unheeded which eventually leads to the welfare state.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    He probably didn't curse him because he's a reverend. They're like that. I doubt the show's producers would have been able to get away with it if the guest had been an ordinary survivor. The lack of empathy in the world is staggering. That instrument, television, is a drug. The damage it does is permanent. There is currently just as much empathetic lack for a war that has murdered more than a million. Just turn that thing off, everybody. You don't need it.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 5 years 49 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Hi Steve, Anarchy is a general term that means 'without government.' What is government? An organization that depends upon forcibly extracting money (taxation) for its existence. I subscribe to the idea of voluntaryism, wherein all transactions between people are voluntary. This necessarily excludes the existence of government, so is a brand of anarchy. I do not say that force is bad, I say that aggression is bad. Force is necessary to defend oneself against aggression. You have to understand the distinction between the two words, and not to conflate them. Aggression is initiating force (unjustly) and defense is retaliatory force set against an aggressor. Since the former always will exist, the latter is also necessary. But they are quite different. If my company agrees to police your neighborhood for a fee, we have voluntarily come to this agreement. You are the customer, I am the service provider. If for any reason you are dissatisfied with the service, you can terminate the agreement. You can then contract someone else, or decide to do the job yourself. Contrast this with government service, where taxes are extracted up front under threat of violence, an aggressive act, and then service is forced upon the 'customer' whether he wants it or not. The customer is not free to contract another service provider, because the government claims a monopoly on that service. This is what I mean when I say that politics is aggression. Your cow example misuses the word aggression. Attempting to get your cow back is not aggressive, but defensive. Society can have just as sharp a set of teeth as a government when it comes to legal and judicial services. Legal and judicial services traditionally arise in society independent of government, so this is not just theoretical. It is historical fact. Those who wish to ignore the law are simply denied the protection of the law. Anyone in society can do whatever they want to the 'outlaw' and the outlaw has no legal recourse within that society. This tends to discourage people from ignoring society's laws, as it puts a big target on his back. So once again, of course there has to be repercussions for aggressive behavior. Pacifism is not a part of my argument. How are laws decided? Human reason. Like I said, we've been there, and done that. It is not controversial. The violence you witnessed in Colombia was very much due to the Colombian government. Why do governments supposedly exist? To defend their citizens. That is why they are there. What is the Colombian government's excuse for not being able to do the one thing it was designed to do, protect its citizens? They disallow the citizenry to freely possess firearms (expensive, and permits required) and then they fail to protect them? Fail, fail, fail. Your Communist example is yet another example of government slaughter. The government killed all those people, who else? Governments killed some 200 million people in the last century. This is their expertise. Is government necessary for national defense? Look at the U.S. military against Vietnam and Afghanistan. Now imagine 300 million gun owners protecting their property and families against a hapless invading army. And why couldn't a government-less society possess nuclear arms? Look, I don't deny that the logistics of changing over from a government system to a voluntary system is daunting. Lots of very complex issues. There are no blueprints, because no one can plan a free market. Many people have written many pages on the subject, and it does not seem as impossible as it at first sounds. I will post a few links here if you are interested in reading more, because an internet thread cannot hope to cover all the details. It's a big subject. If you are interested in researching more, great. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Anarchy_and_Eff_Law/Anarchy_and_E... http://www.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&lpg=PP1&dq=anarchy+and+the+l... http://attackthesystem.com/dealing-with-crime-in-a-free-society/ http://mises.org/daily/4147 http://mises.org/daily/2265 http://mises.org/daily/1356 http://libertariannation.org/a/f61l1.html DROs http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux2.html http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux3.html tzo
  • gallego71's picture
    gallego71 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    WOW!! That is the most uncaring thing ever done! I'm surprised the rev. did not curse him.
  • gallego71's picture
    gallego71 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    The majority of illegal immigrants come here to work. To earn money so they can send it to their families back in their country. Its quite true that i have not met an illegal who is taking government subsidies. Though i have seen many American born who are taking government subsidies even though they can work its just that they dont want to
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Down is up, losing is winning and reality be damned. Why does Kobe beef fetch such a high price over the ground chuck at Walmart? Why do many think grass-fed beef TASTES better than factory-made beef? We desperately need another age of reason. I am glad for advancement in the sciences and in agriculture, but group think mentalities that are maintained by bullying and monopoly tactics inhibit healthy thinking and time-tested ideas.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 49 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    A state now built on MONSANTO GMO corn, at that.