Recent comments

  • rita's picture
    rita 8 years 3 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    I've lived in Arizona since 1961. I grew up with Mexicans; they've been my classmates, co-workers, neighbors and friends. And I, for one, am deeply ashamed of the waves of bigotry and hate emanating from my once-beloved Arizona. With the passage of SB 1070, Arizona's bigot law, our so-called "leaders" prove once again their contempt for the intelligence of the people who elected them. And with their support of the law, the people prove that contempt well-founded.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 3 days ago
    A Lion in Daniel's Den
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, did any Iranian ruling elite actually say that Israel should be "swept into the sea," or was that a mistranslation, as I have been led to believe from what I have read online? My understanding was that the statement (if it's the one I remember from a few years ago) was incorrectly translated into English. The correct translation would have said that the current regime in Israel should be removed from the page of time, or some such thing. Were they referring to the government, or to Jews in general?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 3 days ago
    Public vs. Private
    Page Paul Hein
    One cannot have "private" property if one chooses to be, or remain, a member of the group known as "public", that is to say a "citizen[1]". When one chooses to do so, he has sold his birthright (his natural liberty) for a mess of pottage (membership-only entitlements, privileges, civil rights); (only freemen, i.e. semi-sovereign[2] individuals, retain their natural rights), so, as Paul Hein correctly stated, "...you have put the yoke upon your shoulders. Quit complaining, and pull!" Proverbs 23:1 (KJV) When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: 2 And put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. 3 Be not desirous of his dainties [entitlements, privileges, civil rights]: for they are deceitful meat. [Bracketed information and emphasis added] [1] CITIZEN. In general. A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas,) possessing all the rights [civil rights, not natural rights] and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties. ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 206 [Bracketed information added] Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary [2] One is said to be semi-sovereign only, and not sovereign, when in any respect or respects he is liable to be controlled by a paramount government. The "paramount government" of the Freeman is the "laws of nature" or to be more precise, the "Natural Law of Man". In order for the Freeman to retain his own Natural Rights, he must be obedient to the Natural Law of Man, that is to say, he must respect everyone else's Natural Rights. "Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" ~ Doctrine of the Mean 13.3 To the man who tells the truth, give a fast horse; he will need it to escape on.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 4 days ago Web link Derek Henson
    Very good article, IMO. “Critical voices regularly chastise anarchists without indicating that they fully understand what anarchism actually is.” Anarchy. ...At its best it pertains to a society made orderly by good manners rather than law, in which each person produces according to his powers and receives according to his needs, and at its worst, the word pertains to a terroristic resistance of all present government and social order. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 84 So, according to Black's Law Dictionary, “at best” anarchy is communism [“To each according to their need, from each according to their ability.” ~ Karl Marx] and at its worst it is terrorism. All in favor of “anarchy”, in either form, as defined by Black's Law Dictionary, raise your hands. As we can all plainly see by that horrible definition, in order to claim any word for our own, i.e. use of it, we must give, along with it, our succinct definition of the word, if it is our desire to be understood by the largest number of individuals. One can easily see that Randall was correct in the above quoted assessment by looking at just a few definitions for the word “anarchism”. (Source: http://public.onelook.com/?w=anarchism&ls=a )
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 4 days ago Web link Derek Henson
    The Currency Act is a Canadian act. That quote was from the last line of the article.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 8 years 4 days ago Web link Derek Henson
    Canada rules may be different than USA rules. But the guy should have kept the pennies for the metal content. Even zinc is worth more than paper. 2,000 paper ones is still a nice protest. I'm sure that if they are "worn" enough, they would even jam the currency counter machines.
  • Jim Carter's picture
    Jim Carter 8 years 5 days ago
    Fix the Economy?
    Web link Michael Kleen
    I used to have a high regard for Whitney. He has recently lost touch with reality---or sold out to Keynesists.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 5 days ago Page Scarmig
    Maxims of the law are holden for law, and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted. 1 Inst. 11. 67; 4 Rep. See 1 Com. c. 68; Plowd. 27, b. ~ John Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary This Maxim of Law, one of the legal axioms which "shall be taken for granted" by the STATE's so-called JUDGES, is something that may be of greater concern. Partus sequitur ventrem. The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father. Regardless of the dubious origins of this maxim, are 14th Amendment citizens considered voluntary slaves by the aforementioned so-called JUDGES, as I and others have come to believe they are? If so, then the offspring will follow the condition of the mother, just as in all other cattle (animate chattel property). Now, according to Noah Webster (c.1828) there are two entirely different kinds of freemen, 1. One who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another; one not a slave or vassal and, 2. One who enjoys or is entitled to a franchise or peculiar privilege; as the freemen of a city or state. For what should be obvious reasons, most will readily perceive that it is definition number one that applies to the above Maxim of Law. With franchises and peculiar privileges come certain "disadvantages". Que sentit commodum, sentire debet et onus. He who derives a benefit from a thing, ought to feel the disadvantages attending it. 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 1433. ~ Maxim of Law taken from John Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary One of these "disadvantages" may be that you don't own your offspring, the STATE does. This would explain why the STATE can "legally" come in and take the offspring whenever it chooses, basically. Any pretexts its AGENTS may choose to make manifest for this taking are merely to keep the rest of the herd from stampeding.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 5 days ago Web link Derek Henson
    "Under the Currency Act, nobody is obliged to accept more than 25 pennies as payment for any product or service." Property Tax is not a "product or service". Payment proffered and refused, debt negated.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 5 days ago Web link Don Stacy
    Now that is moronic. "Methinks thou doth protest too loudly."
  • Guest's picture
    realrockvince (not verified) 8 years 6 days ago
    Porcupines
    Page Jim Davies
    Directly because of the Free State Project, my girlfriend and I are moving to New Hampshire in 3 weeks! We're coming from Southwest Florida. Almost all of my friends are saying things like "congratulations", "good for you", or "this is what you've wanted to do for a while, go for it!" Go to freestateproject.org and read "101 Reasons to Move to New Hampshire" (it's a short read). You'll be convinced. It took us 3 years to decide to move. Others have said it only took a few days. Think it over. You'll know when the time is right to move, everybody's different. PS: New Hampshire has the 4th lowest unemployment rate right now (behind North Dakota, South Dakota, and Nebraska).
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 6 days ago Web link Don Stacy
    Suverans2 and Reed apparently feel that men who are inclined either heterosexually, homosexually, or both ways, should be kept from intimate contact with children who are the same sex as the adults to whom they feel attraction. Given that there are children of homosexual, heterosexual, and bisexual men who find themselves of the same sex as the men they are being raised by, I cannot see how making such broad assumptions about male sexuality is helpful. That, to me, is moronic. And I stand by my original assessment of a funny article that Don Stacy thought was funny, and STR's owner saw fit to publish. It's a pity that Suverans2 and Reed had to ruin it for me with soft bigotry and nonsense.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 6 days ago Web link Don Stacy
    Apparently you didn't see the question preceding the first one you show as your evidence. "Would we want young sexually obsessed heterosexual males, which is simply to say young heterosexual males, to be in charge of pubescent Girl Scouts? Especially given that Scoutmasters have the moral authority of adults whom, after all, children are accustomed to obey?" ~ Fred Reed So, according to you I guess I should say, "It's hard not to take it personally when I am lumped in with pedophiles (which definition I was clear on previously, I assure you) because I "might" be so inclined, due to heterosexuality. Here is the bottom line, "...those individuals who are, "pedophile" or "ephebophile" would very likely be attracted to positions of authority over children, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or bi-sexual. That is the point that Fred was trying to make, I believe." I agree with Fred on that. You evidently don't. Oh, and by the way, the article Gay Sex Right on Battlefield wasn't "Funny, funny, funny, funny, funny", in my opinion, it was moronic. Let's just hack the branches somewhere else, shall we?
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 8 years 6 days ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Reading the article was eye opening. Reading the following comments was deafening. Of the nearly 150 comments (at the time I read the article), none of them addressed the real issue: The government is both educating and arresting the child. Government: the entity funded by taxpayer money. The parents may want to sue this government and in all likelyhood will receive some kind of compensation in the form of taxpayer money. The only real loser here will be the taxpayer. If every teacher I knew (and many of them are unemployed because their states are going broke) would just turn their backs on government and the special interest unions that proclaim to support them, they may be able to focus on getting down to the real business of teaching (and genuinely caring) about students. And parents, given the choice, why do they not even entertain the thought of having all taxes abolished which fund a failed education system and instead use that money to educate their own children as they see fit? Do we need a state entity ultimately serving special interest and furthermore growing into a behemoth with no soul to help our children-all of them-see the potential they each may have as individuals, whether they have disabilities or not? Asperger's syndrome is serious. Treating a little girl with this disorder as a common criminal is Draconian. Our system has broken to the point where government could ultimately institute a new form of segregation (I won't say eugenics although nothing government does should suprise us) and the 'average' American would be okay with this. Tell this to an 'average' American and they will likely laugh and call you a crackpot. Then, maybe, we can feel nervous?
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 8 years 1 week ago Web link strike
    Good article. It is time to turn off the television sets and WAKE UP, not GO TO BED.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Web link Don Stacy
    I wrote: "But because of my preference for adult men, Reed is saying that putting me in charge of males of a younger age is not a good idea." You responded: "Again, you attribute some things to Fred, which I cannot locate." It is located here: "Why then do we think it wise to put homosexuals, who as Scoutmasters enjoy moral authority as well as that stemming from simply being adults, in intimate contact with young boys?" And here: "And, while I don't think that most homosexuals are pedophiles, some certainly are." I could just as easily say that while I don't think that most heterosexual women are pedophiles, some certainly are. Why give these female pedophiles the opportunity to be den mothers? To paraphrase you, Suverans2, not all heterosexuals are attracted only to adults. It's hard not to take it personally when I am lumped in with pedophiles (which definition I was clear on previously, I assure you) because I "might" be so inclined, due to homosexuality. There is no connection, in my mind.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 8 years 1 week ago
    On the 'Rule of Law'
    Page Per Bylund
    This is a subject of great interest to me. Great article and comments. Hasnas wrote a great paper on the Myth of the Rule of Law that may interest some: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 8 years 1 week ago Page Michael Kleen
    Good article Michael. An excellent point on how Nietzsche's ideas are cherry picked by so many in order to abuse them.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago Web link Don Stacy
    "But because of my preference for adult men, Reed is saying that putting me in charge of males of a younger age is not a good idea." ~ Fred Reed Again, you attribute some things to Fred, which I cannot locate. Where did he mention your, or anyone else's, "preference for adult men"? Not all homosexuals are attracted only to adult men. I was in Jacksonville, Florida during the late sixties when a law was passed protecting homosexuals and saw first-hand what happened there. Where was there any mention of "interrogation"? "General dislike and misunderstanding of homosexuality"; I don't suppose you happened to notice that a good deal of his article talked about heterosexuals and young girls? I think you may be taking this way to personal and I assure you, it is not intended that way. I told you about my friend's father only to demonstrate that men attracted to boys seeking the position of Boy Scoutmaster is not UNIQUE, as you seemed to intimate by the all-cap word, ONE. Pedophilia, by the way, is "sexual perversion in which prepubescent children are the preferred sexual object", not adults. And, not every adult who is attracted to, or even has had sexual relations with mid-to-late adolescents, is a "ephebophile", but those individuals who are, "pedophile" or "ephebophile" would very likely be attracted to positions of authority over children, whether they be homosexual, heterosexual or bi-sexual. That is the point that Fred was trying to make, I believe. Hope this helps.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 1 week ago
    How Facts Backfire
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    An interesting article, but the bias is everywhere. For example, the obvious whack of this gatekeeper of information at the "information glut" available with the Internet. Or, the notion that in a study quoted, the correct answer is that only 1% of the federal budget is welfare. This is only possible if welfare is defined so tightly as to be meaningless - thus Socialist Security and Medicare are supposedly not welfare, school programs and college loans are supposedly not welfare, corporate welfare is not welfare. It's like he's pining for the good old days when the newspapers could tell people the "truth" and people actually believed them. Sorry old chap, those days are gone. And good riddance.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 1 week ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    From the article: ---------- Some of the defense attorneys bristled at the arrest of Faulcon. "They really didn't have to do that," said Frank DeSalvo, a lawyer for Bowen. "Nobody is going anywhere. We've never thought about doing anything other than face these charges." Kaufman and Dugue weren't arrested. A date for the men's initial court appearances wasn't immediately set. ----------- Yeah, it looks bad to arrest murderers. Can't have that, can we?
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Agreed, Paul! That's not who I am.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 1 week ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    "We, as a society, have endorsed this approach. We have created, and tolerated, a world where police officers who tase school-teachers are allowed to continue to patrol the streets. It is not conspiratorial. It is who we are." No it ain't. No one I know, except a few bozos in the "brutalizing class" (as Molyneux calls them) endorsed anything like this. It was imposed on us. Because we have not immediately responded with greater violence against the brutalizers, is due to self-preservation. It is far, far from endorsement.
  • Guest's picture
    sanjaypmisra (not verified) 8 years 1 week ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Great link; additionally, here is a link to a video created by Dr. Dan Mitchell to inform viewers about tax competition. Please consider posting it in hopes that the message spreads. http://www.youtube.com/afq2007#p/u/40/nJWLemN29Wc
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Web link Don Stacy
    I don't think my reaction is a "knee-jerk" reaction at all. Reed said, "The questions are, first, the practical question of whether a figure in authority should be put in charge of children in whom he might have a sexual interest." The operative word, as I see it, is "might." A man who is attracted to the same sex MIGHT be interested, even though I cannot recall a time, even when I was young, that I would have been the least bit interested in "a boy of eleven" as Reed said, or a boy of 12 or 13 or most 14-19 year-olds, for that matter. But because of my preference for adult men, Reed is saying that putting me in charge of males of a younger age is not a good idea. Unlike Reed's straight friends, I would have to be interrogated before being able to associate with boys, who are far more interesting to me than teenage males, all for legitimate, innocuous, non-sexual reasons. No thanks. And I have known many male teachers of the heterosexual variety who have been secluded in music lessons with females. You can't have music lessons out in the open: too much noise. And Reed never mentions why it is acceptable for Cub Scouts to have den mothers, all of whom are of the opposite sex. If there are females out there willing to molest children, then why aren't females subjected to the same discriminatory practice? Is it possible that a grown heterosexual woman MIGHT have an interest in a boy of 9 or 10? Yes, men are sexually driven. There's a billion-dollar industry built around it. But being sexually driven does not lead one to pedophilia, or even ephebophelia. Unless there's some statistics somewhere that I'm not aware of. And I am assuming that you are not eyed in the "barracks" or shower because you always shower at home? Sounds good to me. But it also seems to me that both you and Reed are making assumptions that are based in the culture's general dislike and misunderstanding of homosexuality. (Not that you or Reed dislike homosexuals, but that we are all submerged in a culture that has traditionally shown great disdain, which is bound to affect the way we think.) I'm also sad to hear of your young friend's trauma at the hands of his own father, but I fail to see how basing a standard of this voluntary association on specious beliefs about homosexuality is going to prevent pedophiles from joining, or how it would have prevented a guy (who was at one point probably married, and assumed to be straight) from being a Scoutmaster. Furthermore, there are many pedophiles who molest children of both sexes, which has even less to do with liking grown men. It seems to me that there ought to be a smarter way to screen out pedophiles. Barring any man who likes men sounds more like centralized control, the rather unworkable, nonsensical rules that are favored by bureacracies, not libertarians. Ultimately, we are all in agreement that the Boy Scouts and the military can do whatever the hell they want. They can count me out, though.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago Web link Don Stacy
    "...Decisions of this variety are usually couched in terms of civil rights and the duty not to discriminate against homosexuals. This of course isn't the issue at all...." ~ Fred Reed I believe Fred is pointing out the libertarian issue that because free men possess the natural right of association, they have the inherent right to discriminate against, ("to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual merit"[1]), homosexuals, or heterosexuals, or social engineers, or against Marxists and Leninists, or Feminists, or anyone else we might wish to discriminate against. His article is simply pointing out the logical reasons why we might want to discriminate against homosexual men as Boy Scout masters. “So I guess I shouldn't have been secluded in a room with boys who wanted piano lessons?” ~ B.R. Merrick “Secluded”, being the key word, B.R.Merrick, it is my opinion that it wouldn't be a wise decision, on your part, (especially if you failed to disclose your sexual orientation to the boys parents), any more than it would be a wise decision on the part of an heterosexual male to be “hidden from view[2]” in a room with a young girl who wanted piano lessons. This is why most doctors bring in a nurse as a witness when dealing with the opposite sex behind closed doors. "Specifically, men may not participate alone with girls and will not take girls on overnights, camping trips, extended trips, or events without two female adults." ~ Girl Scout Council - Northeast Texas "A gay man must also be a de facto molester of children. Lovely. ~ B.R. Merrick Where did you read that?! Fred wrote just the opposite: "...while I don't think that most homosexuals are pedophiles, some certainly are--and you don't suppose they would seek out positions as Scoutmasters, do you?" ~ Fred Reed "...he intimated that because ONE homosexual adult might molest a ten-year-old, NONE of "them" should be allowed near boys." ~ B.R. Merrick I grew up with a boy whose father sought out the position of Scoutmaster; we found out, years later, after MUCH damage was done to his son, and other young boys, that he was a predator, so it is obvious, to me at least, that James DALE may not be the only ONE, as you intimated in your response. Aside from that, show me where Fred stated that "NONE of 'them' should be allowed near boys". And, I can assure you, I am NOT eyed by other men in my bedroom [barracks] and in the shower, which is what Fred commented about concerning the right to privacy. Fred's article, I thought, was well-balanced, thoughtful and in complete harmony with libertarianism. I perceive you may be having what is commonly known as a "knee-jerk reaction"; sometimes when we are too close to the tree it makes it difficult to see the forest. [1] Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/discriminate [2]Retrieved July 15, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secluded
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Web link Don Stacy
    I find it interesting that in the article to which you linked, Reed, a supposed libertarian, never objects to the single thing that any libertarian ought to object to, concerning the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision, and that is that the Boy Scouts, being a private organization, can discriminate at will. That should have been the point, the only point, and the entirety of the point. Instead, he intimated that because ONE homosexual adult might molest a ten-year-old, NONE of "them" should be allowed near boys. So I guess I shouldn't have been secluded in a room with boys who wanted piano lessons? It is bad enough hearing the put-downs, the jokes, the negativity non-stop. A gay man must also be a de facto molester of children. Lovely. "Men do not like being eyed by other men in the barracks and showers." I agree that individuals can have whatever boundaries they prefer, but I think that most of you should understand that you are already eyed by other men, on a regular basis, and you don't know it. Due to the put-downs, the jokes, the negativity non-stop, most gay men have gotten very good at hiding it. Those that don't get punched. A shame that what could be taken as a compliment has to be turned into "unwanted intimacy." How difficult life must be for the rest of you.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    Try not to make TOO much sense, tzo. We must systematically figure out how desensitize the masses after years of governmental schooling and corporate brainwashing. There are so many people content on sitting on that crowded velvet cushion, even though it now has many mystery stains and smells like stale beer farts.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    "Freeman points out that the land is not owned, and so he has claimed it from nature as his own." That's Freeman's first mistake, arguing with idiots and members of the brutalizing class. Waste of time. How about this for an alternate story: Freeman turns around, and Citizen then notices the gun on Freeman's hip. Freeman walks up to Citizen, says, 'There is no government; there is no law. There is just you and me out here. If you have any sense, you will fuck off. Now."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Here, really, is the objection to having the openly homosexual in the military. Men do not like being eyed by other men in the barracks and showers. Pretending that the issue is discrimination rather than sexual privacy makes harder arguing against homosexuality in the barracks, which is why the pretense is made. The reality is that soldiers don't want a gunny sergeant, who they know is gay as an Easter bonnet, who has the power to make life miserable, leering at them if the towel drops. If I suggested that male soldiers be permitted to shower with the women, everyone would understand without explanation the objections of the females. If I then suggested that I suffered discrimination because I couldn't shower with the women, people would laugh. But, for reasons that elude me, the objection to unwanted intimacy is thought frivolous if the sexual predator is of the same sex as the prey. It isn't frivolous. Especially when children are involved, it isn't." ~ Fred Reed Well worth the read. http://www.fredoneverything.net/HomoScoutiens.shtml
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Web link Don Stacy
    Oh, my God. Funny, funny, funny, funny, funny. "The Onion" gets me hot under the collar every once in a while, but then they, uh... "whip out" something like this. Brilliant!
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    Agreed. Another powerful article by tzo.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    tzo has lived in my head since reading his treatise entitled A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government. http://tinyurl.com/2ej6cxd Keep up the good work, and thanks, brother. FREE'MAN, n. [free and man.] 1. One who enjoys liberty, or who is not subject to the will of another; one not a slave or vassal. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    My copy of WORDsays this column is 499 words long. It's an EXCELLENT column; word for word, one of the most powerful and persuasive bits of pro-freedom writing I've seen. Nice job, tzo!
  • Guest's picture
    1 more damn screen name to remeber (not verified) 8 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    some things I dint think about in my first post 1) is that if the wells fargo in your area still refuses to open acct w/o ssn or 2) there is no wells fargo in your area. in both instances if I were you I would contact the listed individual to verify before going in to open the acct. Ask if it is true and if so why they happen to offer accts that way. Also ask what is their basis for doing that (ie. is it against fed law forbiding them to require it). that might give you some ammo to go into another bank. Also try to get it in writing
  • Scarmig's picture
    Scarmig 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    Indeed that is an excellent distillation of the inherent conflict. And I love the punch line.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    Wow... tzo DOES live in my head!
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago
    All Joy and No Fun
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    This article leaves me speechless, and also unsure of how I should feel. There are moments, little flashes of light, where the author almost seems to understand underlying causes, and so forth, but much of what was written, including some of her own conclusions, do not take into account the nature of freedom, and the nature of coercion. "But the abundance of choices -- whether to have kids, when, how many -- may be one of the reasons parents are less happy." The idea that "too many choices" can lead to less happiness makes no sense, from any free market perspective. If this statement were true, then all arguments for freedom fall flat. People are unhappy when they have no choice, or when only one choice is acceptable, as when people are coerced into doing something. More choices engage people, and are bound to create happiness. Unhappy parents "become parents later in life." Really? So age is a natural factor, or is it more to do with the false expectations and outright lies that so many of us believe? There is no proof of age's changing people's behavior toward children, unless you take into account that older people have less energy than younger people, but that does not appear to be what the article is referring to. "There are right and wrong ways to discipline a child." There is no right way to discipline a child, and I do not include putting locks on cupboards, putting a fence in the yard, or giving out warnings about activities that may prove dangerous. Discipline is spanking (on the erogenous zone), grounding, taking away choices (see above), toys or "privileges," arguing, etc. And what was the author doing building a wooden model of a parking garage in front of a curious toddler? Why didn't she lock important things away? Why are grown-ups so absent-minded around children? "One of the things he noticed is that countries with stronger welfare systems produce more children -- and happier parents... More generous government policies... would certainly make parents happier." One of the author's "solutions," then, is to steal money from millions in coercive fashion, to aid coercive individuals in introducing coercion on defenseless children, so that they will think of this system as "good," and reintroduce numerous systems of coercion on their own children someday. "[S]he was particularly struck by the female contributors who’d made the deliberate choice to remain childless. It enabled them to travel or live abroad for their work; to take physical risks; to, in the case of a novelist, inhabit her fictional characters without being pulled away by the demands of a real one. There was a richness and texture to their work lives that was so, so enviable, she says." This is pure, feminist fantasizing about other people's lives. Feminism was never intended to just put more women in the work force, it was intended for a few women to obtain the enviable positions that had previously been held by men, and mostly European, Christian, land-owning, well-connected, white men. Work, in general, stinks. Men are routinely thinking of ways to get out of more work. Now many women are as well. Great job, girls! And the most defenseless among us, the children, will suffer the brunt of it. "Most studies show that marriages improve once children enter latency, or the ages between 6 and 12, though they take another sharp dive during the war zone of adolescence." I'm not surprised that "adolescence," a made-up word, is a "war zone." These young adults are sent to prison five days a week, denied their free time by having to do prison work at home, and constantly reminded of their "adolescence." Their ovaries and testicles say different. After a long day, the parents "were exhausted and staring at the television." See my very first article at STR, about this poisonous, poisonous instrument. What the parents really did was to experience a dull, peaceful high. It's a drug. And they're drugging their children with it as well. "But they also provide unrivaled moments of frustration, tedium, anxiety, heartbreak." Reading the section about the mother yelling at her child about homework (the prison work mentioned above), I can see why it is tedious, anxiety-producing, and heartbreaking. When you choose to apply a system of coercion in any relationship, it will die. The relationship between this mother and son will be permanently dysfunctional as a result. "What it doesn’t show is the love this mother feels for her son, which we can pretty much bet has no equal. Nor does it convey that this unpleasant task she’s undertaking is part of a larger project, one that pays off in subtler dividends than simply having fun." Oh no, she doesn't, and no it doesn't. There is nothing about "love" in what the mother is doing. If she really thought she knew what was best, she would remember her own individuality, her own process of learning, the pain of making a mistake, and the joy of correcting it. She would leave him alone in his own process, and listen instead of lecture. If she really loved him, she would not send him to prison unquestioningly. This is not love. This is control, and trying to turn the thing despised into something more tolerable, perhaps even loveable, at a later date. It is death-oriented, and reading about it makes me very sad. And there is nothing that is going to pay off in "subtler dividends" later on, except more lies, hypocrisy, ignorance, and death orientation. I need to get home and get started on it, but I can tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that all the problems listed in this frightening article have to do with people who believe that coercion can be initiated for good. This is false, as all coercion leads directly and immediately to death -- four deaths in succession. (Stay tuned.) Secondly, I think these parents are still under the illusion that they were loved oh-so-very much by their own parents, as Alice Miller said, but are almost totally unaware of how they were hurt as children. I have seen the repetition of this hurt in action, even in my own life toward my nieces and nephews when they were little. It is easy to reproduce when you are unwilling to face it in yourself. It leads almost immediately to coercion, which then leads directly and immediately to death. I will say this about the article, though. In spite of all the hurt and coercion used against me, at least I had parents who spent time with me because they wanted to, and who didn't agonize over the lives they lost when they had kids. I feel very, very sad for every child victim of these idiotic, coercive, unskilled, unloving, hurt, lonely, and pathetic parents.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Yes, but I am using "death" to describe more than just physical death. There are four deaths as I see it now (physical death is the fourth and final), but you will have to wait for the article.
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 8 years 1 week ago Page tzo
    Nicely made point in purely simple terms where the last sentence nails the core ideal home! Instead of preaching to the choir if you will, tzo spoke directly to citizen and held up a mirror the whole time for citizen to look in.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    Data Required on Vital Statistics Certificates 12VAC5-550-100. Birth certificate items. A. Certificate of Live Birth, Commonwealth of Virginia, for registrations at time of birth, shall contain the following items: ...and an optional item for the parent to request the State Registrar to report the birth to the Social Security Administration for account number issuance. http://www.vdh.state.va.us/Vital_Records/documents/regulations.pdf
  • traysea413's picture
    traysea413 8 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    I am diligently searching for information that will help assist me in refusing the birth certificate/and or the social security number for the new baby I am having in January. I have read some information online that suggests asking for a Certificate of Live Birth is better than an actual Birth Certificate. Can anyone tell me what the benefit of doing this is? Also, any ideas on where I can find Virginia Law that addresses the issue of refusing the social security number? I want my baby to be free. Any help is much appreciated
  • Guest's picture
    1 more damn screen name to remeber (not verified) 8 years 1 week ago Page Scarmig
    Along with some other very interesting tidbits and case law, the following was found at this web page :http://www.usavsus.info/Reference-RM/RM17.htm Wells Fargo Bank A friend was just in Wells Fargo Bank in Renton , Washington.  He went in to cash a check.  The lady helping him asked if he had an account.  He explained that he did not because he had no SSN.  She asked him if he would be interested in opening an account if she could do that for him without an SSN.  He said, "Yes," and he opened an account with no hassles whatsoever. The Wells Fargo employee who helped him was Angie Saladis, Asst. Vice-President.  The Wells Fargo bank branch is in the Safeway Market, 17230 - 140th SE, Renton , Washington 98058.  Phone number is (425) 204-7995; FAX (425) 204-8332. Apparently, Wells Fargo Bank has branches in 26 western states.  One would assume that this policy is uniform among those branches, and anyone encountering any difficulty opening an account without an SSN can have their local branch contact the above branch to confirm the Renton branch experience
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago
    Taxation is Theft
    Web link Mike Powers
    After being an Individual Secessionist[1] for about ten years now, here's how I have come to believe it works. Income tax is an "involuntary contribution[2]" on "voluntary members". If one chooses to be, or remain, a member of a "country club" one must pay his "dues[3]". When one withdraws from membership in the "country club" (secedes), and no longer partakes of its "member-only benefits", one no longer owes "dues". These "dues" (involuntary contribution) should not be confused with a "greens fee" (voluntary contribution). An example of a "greens fee", or a voluntary contribution, is shopping at a store, when that store must pay a sales tax because it is licensed by the government. Paying a sales tax is purely voluntary, for the shopper, because we are not being "forced" to shop there, notwithstanding that we have strayed so far from being self-sufficient it may seem like we are. This is why Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991) defines "Taxpayer" thusly: "One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax." [Emphasis added] If the foregoing is correct, we now know, "who is subject to a tax on income". This is why it has been said that the income tax is voluntary, because membership is voluntary. "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". I do not consent. [1] Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. – Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1351 [2]CONTRIBUTION, n. ...Contributions are involuntary, [such] as taxes and imposts; or voluntary, [such] as for some undertaking. - Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [3] Dues. Certain payments, rates or taxes. As applied to clubs and other membership organizations, refers to sums paid toward support and maintenance of same and as a requisite to retain membership. - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 501 [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago
    Only Cowards Vote
    Page Per Bylund
    But what they do is grant legitimacy not only to a candidate or party, but to the system of dog-eat-dog politics. ~ Per Bylund Another thing that they do by voting, Per Bylund, is prima facie evidence that (a) they are voluntary members of that political corporation, and (b) that they will accept whatever outcome the vote-counters tell them it is. "It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes" ~ Anonymous "The coward hides behind smoke screens, representatives with fancy titles, and faceless, anonymous systems that carry out their deeds." ~ Per Bylund Add this to your list, "The coward tries to convince others to do, what he himself will not do or has not done".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago
    On the 'Rule of Law'
    Page Per Bylund
    I am but the messenger, what is convincing you is the pure logic of the evidence presented. Lysander was right, the natural law (of man) is a science[1]. NATURAL LAW; OR THE SCIENCE OF JUSTICE: A TREATISE ON NATURAL LAW, NATURAL JUSTICE, NATURAL RIGHTS, NATURAL LIBERTY, AND NATURAL SOCIETY; SHOWING THAT ALL LEGISLATION WHATSOEVER IS AN ABSURDITY, A USURPATION, AND A CRIME. http://lysanderspooner.org/node/59 [1] SCIENCE, n. ...In philosophy, a collection of the general principles or leading truths relating to any subject. Pure science...is built on self-evident truths; but the term science is also applied to other subjects founded on generally acknowledged truths...or on experiment and observation... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago
    Life Without Rights
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...” ~ Voltaire To demonstrate, for everyone, just how critical that sage advice is, here is a portion of "A Final Word of Caution" found in the PREFACE of Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991). "The language of the law is ever-changing as the courts, Congress, state legislatures, and administrative agencies continue to define, redefine and expand legal words and terms. Furthermore, many legal terms are subject to variations from state to state and again can differ under federal laws. Also the type of legal issue, dispute, or transaction involved can affect a given definition usage..." If you don't define your words, the PTB will "define, redefine and expand", them for you, and you best believe, it will almost(?) never be to your benefit. And, when its agents are talking to you, you should never, never, never ass-u-me that you know what they are saying, because you don't! legalese n. the conventional language of legal forms, documents, etc., involving special vocabulary and formulations, often thought of as abstruse and incomprehensible to the layman ~ Webster's 1988 New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition, page 771 After reading “A Final Word of Caution” you now know the reason that it is often thought of as “abstruse”, i.e. “hard to understand”, and “incomprehensible”. Found these on About.com under the heading “Political Humor”, but it is only humorous to the ignorant. "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." –Bill Clinton, during his 1998 grand jury testimony on the Monica Lewinsky affair "It depends on how you define alone…" –Bill Clinton, in his grand jury testimony "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another...”
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    All "coercion leads directly and immediately to death"?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 8 years 1 week ago
    On the 'Rule of Law'
    Page Per Bylund
    Thank you for your thoughtful reply, B.R. Merrick. Firstly, you were right to ask, “...what is a ruler?”, because, according to good old Noah Webster (c.1828), there are two possible answers to that question. RU'LER, n. 1. One that governs, whether emperor, king, pope or governor; any one that exercises supreme power over others. 2. One that makes or executes laws in a limited or free government. Thus legislators and magistrates are called rulers. In order to answer your last question, “...how...does any “legitimate” ruler rule?” we will have to use this part of the second definition, “One that...executes laws in a...free government”; in this case, the natural law (of man). Execute, in this scenario, and according to the same source, means, “to carry into effect”. A “legitimate” ruler would “carry into effect” the natural law (of man). “Leader”, in my opinion, would have been a far better choice of words than “ruler”.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 8 years 1 week ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    I'm getting pretty itchy to write the next article I promised, about how coercion leads directly and immediately to death. Is it not plain enough from reading the above blog post that this is not so? And the first people to suffer from any coercive act are the weakest. The poor are the weakest among us, but at least coercive "progressives" will feel good about themselves.