Recent comments

I understand what you mean, but I would say loss of volition is death, as volition is inseparable from individuality, and since coercion leads directly to this loss, I equate it with death. (And I know that the words are not synonymous.)

"...ladies and gentlemen, in your capacities as voters--and I know you are voters, for you wouldn't be here if you hadn't registered to vote--you elected representatives to determine how the government, which you have said you want, should be funded..." ~ Jim Davies And like the term "taxpayer", one is a "voter", whether he chooses to vote or not, if he has the members-only privilege of voting.

Loss of natural rights is death.

I've read many of Jim Davies essays--there are so many good ones--but this is among his best. Scintillating, if such a word could apply to such a thing.

Aggression may be common but it is not all encompassing to human nature as you insist it is. I manage to get by day after day purely on voluntary interactions with my fellow humans. I did not use agression to get my girlfriend, my job, my friends, my home, my motorcycle, etc, etc. If we have the capacity to live generally peacefully with each other, then that is something worth striving for. Saying that humans are just naturally violent and then throwing up your hands in the air is a cop-out. What makes humans different is that we have the capacity for rationality, embrace that and you'll have a better understanding of what we're talking about here.

Truman is not on the dime. FDR is on the dime. I know that you probably realized this after making the post. In either case, both did a good job on doing their part to both start and end the involvment of America in World War II. Of course by 'good job' I speak sarcastically. Was American involvment in this war inevitable? I think it's a safe bet to say yes but on the same token (or in this case dime) we metaphorically started the war by jumping out of a moving plane without a parachute and ended it by cutting off a head to cure a headache. Some people think this type of weapon could still be of use. It makes me sick to think that people are still having babies in this world on the brink of destruction. After our use of these WMDs, the US and the USSR got into a multi megaton pissing contest for nearly 45 years. People thought that after the Iron Curtain fell, we would not have to worry about that threat. Personally, I have a problem with that kind of laxity considering the amount of deadly technology combined with the numerous untrustworthy governments in the, uh, civilized world. I finally got around to reading Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' and albeit a very hideous distopian vision, it is far from being a totally impossible vision of the future. Everybody hug your kids tonight! And peace be with you, Mr. Merrick. Only time will tell if people are willing to open their own eyes.

In the original post, Rockwell said: "Some black-robed occupier in California may not overturn a popular vote against gay marriage..." I would ask, can some black-robed occupier in California overtun a popular vote against n*ggers if he finds it unconstitutional? Is there something sacrosanct about popular opinion to be found within libertarian ideology? He goes on to say: "Unfortunately, in the American system, there are only states rights. This was a mistake. There should also be town rights, county rights, etc. as Jefferson noted." If anything called rights truly exists, perhaps someone could educate me how states, towns, counties, etc. can have them? And at the top of LRC it still says "Anti-state." I wonder.

"Politics is aggression." And coercion is death. Works for me. And spot on about soccer moms, whom I collectively refer to as HYSTERICAL soccer moms.

According to this source (http://tinyurl.com/2b5n23c), the U.S. currently has over 5,000,000 so-called "laws" on the books, wonder if that would be considered "more numerous"? ;) As President Ronald Reagan said, “I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”

Hi Guys, Thank you for the response. I agree with you Tony, that I do not want to waste one red cent on protecting places like South Korea, Japan, Germany, or any other country that can support their own military. I think our nation finds itself in this position because of the Cold War. After WW II, England and other nations did not have the economy or material to compete with the Soviet Union once they started seizing territory in Eastern Europe. The Soviets, and other Communist/Marxist nations did not make it secret that their intentions were to rule the world and make the globe into a "workers paradise" (a.k.a. everyone is poor). The US stood up to the Soviets, and our military spending is one of the reasons why the Soviet economy and empire collapsed. We were left at the top of the mountain, and Europe was able to build up their non-producing welfare states because they relied on the US to protect them. Those in Europe that were not happy about the situation were actually the ones to blame. If it were not for Europe's tribal wars of the 20th century, I do not think we would be in the position we are in today. On a side note: I have been to Normandy, and those people did enjoy that we "liberated" them from a true totalitarian government. Since our nation decided to involve it's citizens in WW II, we were thrust to the top of the heap. If I had to choose between a US or Soviet empire winning, I would choose the US for of empire. I think history propelled our nation to where we are today. I guess totalitarianism was a poor word to choose describing the Roman Empire, since the word is a 20th century invention. My point was to say that the Roman period of history was too diverse to compare to the US. Thank you for the definitions, but you will have to admit that totalitarian governments usually have a "strong man" that rules over a group of false senators. The word was invented to describe men like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. I am not sure that the military destroys the US economy. The military is expensive, but pork barrel spending, bail outs, and corruption makes military spending seem inconsequential. It takes many men and women with minimal education, gives them training and skills that they can use in civilian life, and pays for an education afterward. Many well disciplined, ward working, and educated people leave the military and enter civilian life. These people substantially contribute to the American economy. When you compare veterans to civilians, we are better educated, more productive, and have a much lower crime rate. If you read the last part of my original response, you will see that I am not that cynical. I do believe that there is a chance that our government can change, but I do not see any examples of this today. If there is an example of a truly "libertarian" country that exists today, I would like to know where it is. But, there is not one as far as I can see, and that is why I do think it is inevitable for governments to waste money. I am just looking at the evidence available today. Everyone promises great things, just look at our last election. But, once a certain party gets in power (no matter who), the promises are forgotten. I do not believe that any exchange of ideas is useless since it exercises our mental abilities, but our discussion is purely academic since we do not hold sway over policies as individuals. If there was a concealed-carry law in every state and city, you would not have to worry about someone (already on welfare) holding you up. Welfare makes slaves out of those that depend on the state, which is a bigger strain on the state than the military. I think the biggest problem in the US is our education system that does not really "teach" anything. Our high school graduates leave with a diploma at the age of 18, and do not have anything in the way of skills to compete in the workforce. Most students do not know their history or rights and not everyone was meant to go to college. So, our trades are being lost. I wonder how the education system would work under a truly "libertarian" government? I do not see a change, since those with the means will get the better education in the end. Talk to you later! -Steve

Yes, fear is the *real* foundation of governments, but they deflect attention from that stark fact with propaganda. Thus, the average American believes his democratic State, whatever its imperfections, actually enjoys the consent of the governed. His Soviet, Nazi and monarchist counterparts believed the same about their States. The libertarian is able to cut through the mythology. Government is force.

"Fear is the foundation of most governments..." ~ John Adams

No man can *rightfully* be required, under pain of death or great bodily injury, to do anything. But if someone holds a gun to my head, I'm probably doing what he tells me, and the righteousness of his holding a gun to my head becomes academic. This is the case whether the gunman is a freelance criminal or a criminal on the government's payroll. One does not endorse a gunman's code of ethics (such as it is) by yielding to his demands. I pay my taxes for the same reason I hand my wallet over to any armed bandit demanding it: to preserve my life and (other) property.

"...if someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to fund one or the other, I'm definitely funding the welfare state." ~ Tony Pivetta NL.1.3.3 Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate. ~ Lysander Spooner

David Harsanyi misses the point of this "legal" battle, IMO, these persons want their god[1], the god called STATE, to be the all-powerful third party in their marriages, because they want all the benefits and privileges that their Omnipotent Benefactor can force others to give them, the rest of the rhetoric is just smoke and mirrors. [1] ″…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god.″ ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

The number of illegal immigrants in Arizona's prisons, like the disproportionate number of minorities in prisons everywhere, is the result of racist laws and racist policies. In no way does it justify locking them up in the first place; only a politician would be arrogant enough to pretend it does. It's a well-documented fact that dark-skinned people in the US are more likely than whites to be arrested, and having been arrested, more likely to receive a longer prison sentence. Poverty is also a factor -- people who can't bond out are forced to appear in court in jail uniforms and shackles, which prejudices judges, and to rely on court-appointed defense attorneys whose only interest is getting you to sign a plea. Factor in the language barrier, and it seems to me that the number of illegals in prison more likely proves that most of them, besides the initial crime of being here, are peaceful and law-abiding.

I wonder how many people Kent sent to this hell-hole during his career. I wonder if he believes that all the inmates should be released, or if he believes that he's somehow entitled to special treatment. I wonder if he would have done any different had he been aware of how inmates are treated and I wonder why ALL judges and ALL prosecutors aren't required to spend time in the places that they so casually send others. And I wonder why judges are called "honorable;" I've certainly never met one who was.

Hello Steve, A very thoughtful, polite and articulate reply. However, you may want to look up the word "totalitarian", since it really has nothing to do with a single "leader", nor whether or not there appear to be elections. Here is a great reference site: http://public.onelook.com/?w=totalitarian&ls=a "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." ~ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language "of or being a political system in which those in power have complete control and do not allow people freely to oppose them" ~ Merriam-Webster 2010 Online Dictionary

Dear Tony, A very thought provoking and interesting article. I served in the Army as an airborne infantryman (paratrooper) for 8 years and I served in countries all over the globe. I do agree with your premise that we should not be the world police force. I did not enjoy spending a year on the DMZ in South Korea, having a staring contest with North Korea's drooling automatons. While in the military, I did not care if people "supported the troops" back home or not. The military is a segregated society, and we were our own family, who do not need the compassion or sympathies of others...especially from civilians. Today, the military is a volunteer force, and we knew what we were getting into. Although, it was nice to get cookies from my mother once in a while. I do differ in that I believe some of the missions I supported were very beneficial to the host countries, and actually helped them get back on their feet. I was in Colombia (the country is spelled with an 'O') for several years, while working for the School of the America's (now called WHINSEC), and we did some great things there. I know, I know, the SOA does not have a great reputation because of a lot of false propaganda that was spread by the Cubans. No, we did not teach other countries soldiers how to assassinate their foes. Others say, "Dictators like Noriega went to the SOA." Well, I went to Northern Illinois University for my B.A., does that mean I am going to go on a shooting rampage, like the guy did three years ago...of course not. There are crazy people everywhere. We taught American fighting techniques, like the Army Infantry Manual (FM 7-8), and we taught them to employ the Geneva Convention on captured guerrillas and not throw them out of helicopters as they did in the past. Through, 'Plan Colombia,' we were able to stabilize the Colombian government, and they have free elections, with fewer assassinations and kidnappings as in the past. Is the Colombian government the best in the world, no, but the Marxist guerrillas (FARC), are much worse. Believe me, I saw their handy-work with my own eyes. We did not 'invade' Colombia, it was a mutual cooperation. I was alone with a platoon of Colombian Rangers (Lanceros) in the middle of the jungle as an adviser, and I felt safe since I had helped train those men. Is military spending high? Yes, but remember that European countries that have minuscule military forces, like Iceland and Norway, have astronomical taxes and spending for social programs. In fact, Iceland's economy collapsed under such financial forces. So, it does not matter if it is military spending or not, governments will find a way to waste our money. For example, the total US military budget for 2010 is $663.8 Billion, but the total US government budget is $2.381 Trillion. So, the military budget is much less than a quarter of the total federal budget. Only 18% of the federal budget actually goes to the military. A majority of the budget goes to health and human services. Also, I am a military historian, and the opening quote about the Roman Empire is quite a bit misleading. The Romans went through many different stages of governance through their hundreds of years of existence, as it was once a Republic. Also, the Romans did produce many goods to export, especially ideals. I do not believe that we technically are in the "Empire" stage yet, since we do not have a totalitarian leader that is unelected, but we are not far from something major happening, I do admit that. I am an optimist, and I do believe that we are still in the republican phase of governance, and there is a good chance that things can change for the better. But, Julius Caesar can cross the Rubicon again, and we will become a true empire. Thank you for the article. -Steve

Behold the irony of a death-oriented system of coercion being used to run a supposedly life-oriented science. The end result is death. It will result in death here when it is implemented. The irony will continue, until everyone is dead, or converted to life. And what the hell is a "Minister for Women"? Why didn't they interview the Minister for Silly Walks?

That was a pretty interesting story. A plutocrat's jail experience. At least he seems to have learned something from it.

Not every American[1], not every individual "born in America", Anthony Gregory, only those who "are members of the political community who...have...submitted themselves to the dominion of [the] government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights", i.e. just 14th Amendment United States citizens. As I have written elsewhere, individuals "who are in no way parties to [the] covenant [the Constitution] or transaction, nor bound by it", are "strangers" to the "national" debt. A "stranger", (legally speaking), is, "one who, in no event resulting from the existing state of affairs, can become liable for the debt, and whose property is not charged with the payment thereof and cannot be sold therefor". "A friend once astutely suggested that a sign of maturity in these matters lies in the question of whether you define yourself by what you're against or what you're for. Do you just rage against Leviathan, or do you really seek freedom in the life you have now? Really contemplating that question, and acting on the answers you find, can have a startling effect on many aspects of your life. In terms of physical and emotional comfort, it's not necessarily a positive effect. So it's important to choose carefully. Leviathan doesn't care what you think or what you say, as long as as you don't say it too loud. But when you start doing freedom, you can get yourself into trouble. And by doing freedom, I don't mean [just] obsessing about guns. I mean actively disregarding the Beast in favor of getting on with your life, understanding (this part's really important) that that sort of disrespect can get you eaten, and bloody doing it anyway." ~ Joel http://theultimateanswertokings.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html [1] AMER'ICAN, n. A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language

Is there a "right" to health care? (The question, as written, assumes that all "rights" come from one source.) "Rights are natural, civil, political, religious, personal, and public." ~ Noah Webster (c.1828) Yes, government health care is now a "civil or political right", it is an "entitlement", a "benefit" of membership in the corporation known as United States, but, no, it is not a "natural right". One has the "natural right" to care for his own health, and to voluntarily assist those who ask for his or her help in caring for theirs.

How interesting to look at house prices relative to gold! When you write about speculators purchasing government debt, I recall Hazlitt who reminds us that on balance, imports will equal exports. Our export markets for real goods are subverted by dollars returning to purchase Treasury "securities" instead of goods--or at least that is the official story. This diversion is one of the truly tragic realities of our time. Capital is diverted from efficient uses and into the hands of thieves.