Recent comments

Well done! A perfectly bite-sized and thought-provoking essay in a classic style. Powerful, too: even having known (for decades) the truth of what you say, it still shocks to read it in plain language.

Ooooh, war, huh Good God y'all What is it good for Absolutely nothing Say it again War, whoa, Lord What is it good for Absolutely nothing

Here's something you'll get a kick out of . . . http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/73845.html December 22, 2010 The FBI Has Updated Bin Laden’s ‘Most Wanted’ Page… Posted by David Kramer on December 22, 2010 04:50 PM …but there’s still NO MENTION of 9/11. Hmmmmm. USAMA BIN LADEN Murder of U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Conspiracy to Murder U.S. Nationals Outside the United States; Attack on a Federal Facility Resulting in Death REWARD: The Rewards For Justice Program, United States Department of State, is offering a reward of up to $25 million for information leading directly to the apprehension or conviction of Usama Bin Laden. An additional $2 million is being offered through a program developed and funded by the Airline Pilots Association and the Air Transport Association. Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world. [Where's 9/11???] Bin Laden is left-handed and walks with a cane.

Congratulations, Steve LaTulippe, this is one of the most coherent columns I have read in a long time. And, it is not the first time that you have written something that the common man, (like myself), can understand. I find you 'guilty' of making sense here, http://www.apfn.net/Messageboard/04-01-04/discussion.cgi.54.html and here http://www.infowars.net/articles/august2008/180808Neocon.htm and here http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/november2006/071106Grass.htm as well. In fact, you seem to have an habit of being able to reach simple-minded folk, like myself. Thank you, and looking forward to more of the same. Addendum. Just read this in one of your articles in the Lew Rockwell Archives, "a circular firing squad", and the vision that it engendered caused me to laugh so loud I was afraid of waking my woman. ROFLMAO

Hi, Suverans2. I meant that creating hybrids and new strains of plants and cross-breeding animals to create different effects has been practiced for centuries. I don't know what the results of this new stuff are, however. Sorry about the confusion.

Wonderful first article. (Well, first article for this site, anyway.)

Hi, Suverans2: I have no disagreement with either of those Schulman statements either when presented in a context as you have provided. Monsanto, which is a creation of the state in more ways than I can count (and its products), may be screwing things up -- although it is hard to tell at the present moment. People have been cross-straining and doing similar things for years, although they've taken it into new places that may have some bad consequences. I can only hope that if a Hazlitt-like long-term, widespread damaging effect is produced that it can be dealt with properly. Similarly, I fully understand and agree about the misuse of conceptual realism (collective terms used to categorize and "group" into a phrase any references to large numbers of individuals) -- especially by socialists and sociologists as well as econometricians and mathematical modellers. Like Mises, I think methodological individualism is vital. I do, however, use these commonly accepted words that refer to large groups of individuals because they are part of the language, but among libertarians such as ourselves, I think we understand their proper function and misuse. Perhaps Schulman felt this had to be explained, but I'd hate to see an outright ban on such terms, which would be to mimic the French and their enforcement of word usage by their academy. You'd be surprised that there are writers among the Lewciferians who have entirely anathemized both conceptual realism and nominalism both as unabashedly wrong in all cases. These disparate writers were probably unaware of each other. It is true that either one of these modes of communication can be misused, but the devil is always in the details. With respect to the late-medieval debates on these issues of conceptual realism vs. nominalism (and I think one of the great achievements of the Middle Ages was the de-mystification of conceptual realism and the acknowledgment that Socrates and Plato and their followers were dead wrong in believing that concepts were more real than the physically existing reference points), the over-demonization of either the use of concepts or the restriction of thought to an extreme nominalist expression that is best characterized by those who would say "it does not exist if you cannot measure it," otherwise known as extreme positivism (which has its own internal problems as the quantum physicists have discovered) is an error to be avoided. As we all know, some things can be measured, but that which is measured or measurable does not convey the totality of meaning regarding a thing, which is why Mises preferred ordinal rather than cardinal enumeration when it came to subjective valuations by human beings. He ranked them but did not assign a cardinal number. I can see that you understand the problems I have encountered by even raising these environmental issues. It has been said by critics affiliated with the Lewciferians that my introduction (much of Part 1) was too hectoring to tolerate, but I felt it was necessary to clearly and emphatically lay out not only how deep and how widespread, but HOW UNCONSCIOUS AND NON-SELF-AWARE this anti-environment sentiment had become within the libertarian community. The purpose of this series of articles was to bring this misguided trend to the attention of the community. As one commenter above noted: the way to combat a (socialist) lie is not to manufacture your own contrary and equally extreme lie. It is simply to state the truth. You would be surprised -- or maybe not -- at how much flak I've taken over the last two years in simply proposing to get out this message. Again, thanks for reading.

In defense of J. Neil Schulman, though I do not know the man, and have myself taken exception with, at least, a couple of things he has written, it would seem from this statement, (which is, by the way, one of the things I was agreeing with), "The function of private property rights is to create multiple environments, a sphere of control within each of our own property boundaries. Significant and damaging incursions onto someone else's property is almost always regarded as actionable under any conceivable libertarian legal system, minarchist or agorist", that he too would find the individuals controlling Monsanto corporation guilty of trespass when their Franken Foods are found on a man's land who did not ask for them to be there and does not want them there, regardless of whether they caused that man harm, or not. I was also agreeing with this, "The very concept of "population" is collectivist and anathema to the libertarian who regards all human rights as held by individuals. Reproductive rights are a subset of individual rights, and others have no more right to limit someone else's fecundity than they do to demand someone else produce children for them as workers or cannon fodder", since I too believe that all human rights [just claims] are held only by individuals, that is to say, that the rights of the group can be no greater than the rights of the individuals who make up the group. I conclude that the concept of "the people"[1] as contrary to libertarian principles, as well. On the other hand, I disagree with all three parts of this statement by J. Neil Schulman, "The libertarian premise bypasses the entire question of whether there is such a thing as a “right” number of people, just as much as libertarians reject the concept that there is such a thing as too much or too little property, or that the "globe" is the wrong temperature." I think you have shown quite nicely, in your three-part thesis, that this is absolutely not true of all libertarians. And, what the hell does the "globe" being the wrong temperature have to do with the price of eggs in China on Saturday afternoon? By accentuating the word "globe", I suppose he is trying to say that all libertarians fail to think of planet Earth as their home. Furthermore, in my opinion, planet Earth is the temperature it is supposed to be...at this particular point in time. Let me conclude by saying I believe that far too many of our species seem to think that we are ABOVE "nature", because we believe we can control certain aspects of it, but it is my opinion that if and when we get too far out of line, "nature" will "correct" us, and in no uncertain terms. Which is why I am dead set against Frankenfoods, (an appropriate name, in my opinion). Once they unleash these "abominations" on us all, (which they have already begun doing), and these "freakish creatures" are no longer within the "sphere of [their creator's] control", there will be no recalling them; their f*ckups will very likely effect every living being on the planet...PERMANENTLY. Think, The Island of Doctor Moreau, come to your neighborhood...FOREVER! [1] "[The People] are the ultimate, guardians of their own liberty." ~ Thomas Jefferson No, Thomas, the individual is the ultimate guardian of his own liberty.

Souverans2: Sorry about the misinterpretation, but I think you'll understand when I explain how it happened. As you can see, this article is as much about the knee-jerk cover-up of the Lewciferian crowd and other "orthodox" libertarians over any discussion of the environment that differs from theirs -- including throwing Mises under the bus (check out the Mises quotes in part 2). Consequently, when Schulman chose not to discuss the points raised in the article about the challenges faced in this real-world situation of statism and (sadly) the unowned "commons," and instead chose to deny what is happening to adhere to the lock-step meme of the Lewciferians, I realized he opposed the observations I made. Then, when the first thing you did was agree with him, I assumed you were part of that crowd, too. When you then added the bit about the Monsanto suit, I tried to see how this would work in your mind (as one opposed to the points I made based on your approval of Schulman). Since Schulman denies the existence of "neighborhood effects" because he chose not to discuss the real world, I naturally made the connection that Schulman=Monsanto, which denys their role as "polluter" in the whole matter (even though I don't think you could take them to court barring significant damages). Then I tried to fit myself into the scenario created, and that meant I was the "farmer," and you see how it goes from there... To me, these pages are all about dialog, and that means discussing what people wrote. I naturally assumed you were discussing the points laid out. So you can see the connections I made (I hope!). Anyway, thanks for reading.

G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow, I am caught totally off guard by your reply, my friend. I assure you I wasn't trying to put any words in your mouth, in fact, I have read, re-read and read again, my reply to J. Neil Schulman, and I honestly have not the vaguest idea what words you are referring to. In the name of fairness, please tell me what you think these words are? Secondly, I am definitely NOT "on the side of the tax-farmer Monsanto"; nothing could be further from the truth! The damages that come to mind when Monsanto's BIOENGINEERED FRANKENFOODS invades someone's farm mostly pertains to "organic" and "non-GMO" growers, at the moment. Once their fields are contaminated, their "organic" and "non-GMO" crops are ruined and can't be sold as "organic" and "non-GMO", and perhaps for more than one growing season...perhaps even indefinitely. Further, I think it costs these farmers just as much to fight Monsanto's frivolous law suits as it would to bring suits against them, but I could be wrong. One "little state" has done something to offset the cost of suing these mega-corporations. "While Washington is asleep at the switch, the state of Vermont is doing something. In March, by a stunning 28-0 vote, the Vermont senate passed the Farmer Protection Act, to hold the biotech giants legally accountable for the contamination of any farmer's crops by a corporation's GMOs." ~ Frankenfoods And, again, I have not the slightest notion of what you mean when you say that I "have made the wrong argument about the wrong side" and that I was "hoping [you] wouldn't notice the switch". If you are pro-Monsanto then you and I are DEFINITELY on opposing teams. Thanks for your time and attention.

Please see response below (I hit the wrong button). Briefly, you invented a scenario and attacked the position of Schulman, who is actually in the same position as Monsanto, except that in the story you cite, Monsanto sued. I agree that Monsanto's suit is of course nonsense. Similarly, the farmer's would be if he had no real damages to claim -- which usually makes frivolous suits a rarity. Sadly, these arguments do not address the point of the article, but they do show that you are willing to pretend I said something I didn't, attack it, and then declare victory. My breath is not taken away by these knee-jerk responses to the "e" word and to the "p" word, but I generally try not to invent superstitions about words.

J Neil: Thank you for inadvertently making my point. To answer requires only the following question: Did you object when these "pro-growth" libertarians spoke out in favor of increasing populations? When they used the "population" word, did it raise your ire in the same way? My guess is "no" because you share their bias. The problem is that they claim to "know" for all of us. That is the nub. And by failing to note their use of this now-collectivist word, you have revealed your dog in this fight. Only you can know why you have taken that route. Similarly, as used in this article, the word "environment" has been used to refer to trespass. By pretending that it doesn't you have created out of thin air a straw man to beat upon. Again, put down your reactions and think about what I have said. The hostility to market-based agnosticism betrays an anti-market way of thought.

"...nation-states are just tribes writ large." I don't know about that one. I agree humans are naturally tribal. I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. In one sense, it is just a manifestation of our social nature. I do know that nation-states do their utmost to turn one internal tribe against the other. "Blacks" against "whites", Jews and Muslims and Christians against each other, liberals against conservatives, gays against straights, and so forth. For example, we have "Affirmative Action" not because it reduces racism (quite the contrary), but because it serves the state's need to get racial conflicts going. I tend to think of nation-states as something quite new, compared to tribes which are older than humanity; an outcome of the agricultural revolution, distinct and in opposition to tribalism.

“If the Coal Age promised anything thrilling to the kind of mind which thrives on managing the behavior of others, that promise would best be realized by placing control of everything important—food, clothing, shelter, recreation, the tools of war—in relatively few hands, creating a new race of benevolent, godlike managers, not for their own good but the good of all. Plato had called such benevolent despots "guardians."” ~ Excerpted from The Underground History of American Education by John Taylor Gatto

English must be this author's second or third language; this was painful to read. But that aside, why is it that virtually all of these advocates of secession fail to take this act to its lowest, (and most moral), common denominator, individual secession? Is it because they are afraid to act alone that these so-called secessionists adopt the modus operandi of statists, which is that of dragging along with them, kicking and screaming, people not desirous of their goal? And, why are the freedom loving individuals, who espouse, live and promote "individual secession", ostracized[1] by those most clamorously claiming to be "secessionists", "individualists", "anarchists", "voluntaryists", and "libertarians"? “To believe in something, and not to live it, is dishonest.” ~ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi [1] Quick definitions from Macmillan (ostracize) verb ▸to stop accepting someone as a member of a group and refuse to talk or listen to them

People who say that the drug war is "unwinnable," or that prohibition has "failed" are misssing the point. Neither prohibition nor its spinoff war was ever meant to reduce drug use. Prohibition is, and always has been, a tool of oppression, and the so-called "war on drugs" is nothing but a vehicle to further the careers of lawmakers and law enforcers by destroying the lives of the people they're elected to serve and sworn to protect. The reason to end prohibition is not that it has failed. The reason to end it is that it has succeeded, beyond anyone's wildest dreams. And every day, with every act of police violence against unarmed civilians, with every preventable overdose death, every new case of needle-borne disease and every dollar enriching the drug cartels, the drug warriors win.

"Accreditation is a means of protecting the student from evil fly-by-night higher education predators that may try to separate the unwary consumer from his money in exchange for an inferior or nonexistent education product." If you've spent any time in college courses then you know this completely false. My fellow students and I spent most of our time in college bemoaning the ridiculousness of our classes, the seeming stupidity of our professors, and especially the incomprehensible $300 textbooks. And this was an accredited institution. Accreditation FAIL and quite miserably at that. If they were supposed to be protecting us from "substandard" education by charlatans, then they missed the mark completely. The state school across town was even worse. The degree is the bullshit tolerance test, but for the day to day employers want hands on, on the job experience. Great article!

"Do not give consent..." ~ Norm Kent Great advice, Norm! I do not consent to be a member of your body politic! Body politic or corporate. A social compact by which the whole people covenants with each citizen, and each citizen with the whole people, that all shall be governed by certain laws for the common good. Uricich v. Kolesar, 54 Ohio App. 309, 7 N.E.2d 413, 414 ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 175 [Emphasis added] If you do not want to be "governed by certain laws", withdraw from membership in the group, "dissolve the political bands which have connected [you] with [the body politic] and...assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle [you]". I do not consent to be a member of your body politic!

You know how to tell if a drug warrior is lying? His lips are moving. His majesty the czar says there's no more drug war, but, at least in my world view, when wars end soldiers put down their weapons and prisoners are released. As long as drugwar soldiers (who, oddly enough, call themselves "peace officers") are roaming the streets, armed to the teeth and trolling for victims; as long as my friends, my kids' friends and my friends' kids live in cages, I will assume that the war continues unabated.

For what it's worth, Michael Moore just earned a place on my list of personal heroes.

If the Social Security bill could have passed the House, Social Security individuals could have received one $250 check in addition to their regular benefits. Because Social Security won't have a cost-of-living boost, or COLA, in 2011, lawmakers wanted to throw seniors, veterans as well as the handicapped a $250 bone. The GOP prevailed in killing the bill on the grounds that the nation could not afford adding another $14 billion to the deficit.

"Indeed, it’s safe to say that the only truly bipartisan belief in politics today is that the less Americans know, the better." I can not argue with that statement.

There are over half a million prisoners of war in the US doing time for victinless drug crimes. That's not counting those convicted of other crimes whose paroles or probations were revoked for drug use or sentences aggravated for prior drug felonies. That's not counting the children of drug raids, guilty only of being present, condemned to spend their youth in foster homes (where they may or may not be housed with teenaged sex offenders), turned out and forgotten at 18; no one keeps track of how these children, "protected" by the state from drug-using parents, spend their adulthoods. If you're an American, and you're not deeply ashamed of this country's travesty of justice system, you're not paying attention.

To the best of my knowledge all insurance companies are corporations, and all corporations are “created by or under the authority of a state”. Corporation. An artificial person or legal entity created by or under the authority of the laws of a state. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 340 It is the nature of law, that what one creates, one controls. This natural law is the force that binds a creature to its creator. The state creates these corporate/legal entities and they are, therefore, subject to “state laws”, also called "civil law"[1]. Civil law applies only to state creations, and these are called “persons”, in general, and “artificial persons”, in particular. Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Calvin (from Black’s Law Dictionary, Second Edition (1910), page 577 Insurance “corporations” are “artificial persons”, hence they can only have communion, i.e. partnership, that is, (literally) participation, or (social) intercourse, or (pecuniary) benefaction[2], with other “artificial persons”. To clarify this, in order for a human being to get benefits from an “artificial person”, in this case an insurance “corporation”, that human being must stand surety for an “artificial person” created by, you guessed it, the state. This is why the government can require the “corporation” you work for to require numbers on its “employees” (artificial persons), and their, what is it you called your children (human beings), Renee, ah, yes, your “dependents” (artificial persons). Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by *human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 *Notice that these “artificial persons” are created and devised by HUMAN LAWS. Question, what other kind of laws are there? For the answer to that question see the legal definition for "civil law" in the endnotes. ;-) Anyway, the state numbers all of it's “chattel”, i.e. all of the “artificial persons” it creates, and therefore has dominion over, just as the agents of the state recommend that you put your number on all of your “chattel”. Quick definitions from Macmillan (chattel) noun ▸ something that you own chattel early 13c., chatel "property, goods," from O.Fr. chatel "chattels, goods, wealth, possessions, property; profit; cattle," from L.L. capitale "property" (see cattle, which is the O.N.Fr. form of the same word). Etymology Online CATTLE, n. 1. Beasts...in general, serving for tillage, or other labor... Hence it would appear that the word properly signifies possessions, goods. ...3. In reproach, human beings are called cattle.* ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language *Now, we can better understand why citizens of states are, in reproach, called “sheeple”. The state is not required to provide anything for any human being it doesn't have "dominion"[3] over. So, how did the government gain "dominion" over so many human beings? Read it for yourself. Citizen. ..."Citizens" are members of a political community who...have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of the government..." ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 [Emphasis added] They "have...submitted themselves to the dominion of the government..." Hopefully, now you can understand the state requirement for a social security number, your “badge of servitude”, in order to receive benefits and privileges (entitlements) from the corporations it has created. Endnotes: [1] Civil law. That body of law which every particular nation, commonwealth, or city has established peculiarly for itself; more properly called "municipal" law, to distinguish it from the "law of nature". ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 246 [2] Dr. James Strong's Greek Dictionary [3] Dominion. Generally accepted definition of "dominion" is perfect control in right of ownership. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 486 [Emphasis added] ______________________________________________________________________________________ "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth." ~ H.L. Mencken