Recent comments

Maintaining the world political feudal system is necessary for the preservation of the state. The business of warmongering is not only profitable to the military and its merchants of death but it also creates a world where rule and presumed legitimacy comes from violent force. Much of the warfare-states power to regulate and tax comes from their extorting money from people by using the fraud of national defense. These mercenary terrorists are not defending any individuals rights, they are defending the criminal cartel of the state. They're defending their power and their license to continue committing crimes and waging war against freedom to gain more political and economic dominance over their subjects. ~ The Case Against the World System of Political States http://tinyurl.com/2c6f8bk

"Support our troops" is just a euphemism for "Support our empire" (and where would government be without euphemism?). Of course, it has nothing to do with supporting our troops, most of whom probably just want to come home and stop occupying the countries of others. I made a bumpersticker that says, "Support our troops by bringing them home", and have got a lot of compliments on it.

Excellent article, although I might point out that "love it or leave it" is not necessarily a bad idea: http://www.strike-the-root.com/what-is-to-be-done-with-statists A couple of comments though. Indian tribes, while not having strongly-developed individual property rights did recognize collective property rights, for example the control of hunting grounds by a tribe via superior force. One example might be the contesting of Crow hunting lands by invading Sioux and Cheyenne (who were in turn pressured by "white" Americans); Crow scouts worked with Custer around the time he was killed, because of this invasion. So their lands were not held statically; they could only hold that which they could protect by force, and what they did own was originally taken by force. Thus the takeover of their lands by "whites" was not actually any different than what they were already operating under; the real difference was that they did not have the numbers or technology to successfully defend their land. Also, it was not entirely a case of the US government invading and taking their lands. It very often was civilians doing the invading, and the government played the role of support in that endeavor. Problem is of course, that our own ownership of that land is not any more valid than the government's, since it derives over the years from originally stolen land. Well, our title to land is not based on an ethical foundation, but that's no excuse for not starting to work that way. Reparations may be addressed in various ways; Walter Block has addressed this point. I prefer to think that you don't really own any property that you cannot defend against theft, the defense being either direct do-it-yourself style, or something delegated to an institution you voluntarily subscribe to (e.g. vigilance committees, or something similar such as Molyneux' DROs). The problem with any kind of government "protecting" your property "right" is that you don't voluntarily subscribe to them, and they steal more property over the years than they protect.

Thank you for your reply. As I have stated elsewhere on STR the DOI is not perfect, which is why, in my personal declaration of secession, I "corrected" it (see above), but IMO it does not declare that every individual must belong to a man-made government, nor does it state that "individual secession" is a violation of the natural law, in fact, IMO, it declares just the opposite by stating emphatically that it is a "self-evident" truth that "men are...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these' [is] 'Liberty". If men have a just claim (an individual right) to liberty, then they must certainly have the right to secede from oppressive governments.

"Love it or leave it, but if you leave, you are obligated to give your consent to be governed by someone else. The individual’s inalienable right to freedom has just been declared null and void." ~ tzo Not so, my friend, the individual's right to liberty has not "been declared null and void", not if he chooses individual secession rather than expatriation; these are two entirely different acts. Secession. The act of withdrawing from membership in a group. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1351 Expatriation. The voluntary act of abandoning or renouncing one's country, and becoming the citizen or subject of another. Ibid. page 576 “The right of self-government rests on the right to withdraw consent from an oppressive government. That is the only really effective restriction on power, in the last analysis.” ~ Clyde Wilson, Secession: The Last, Best Bulwark of Our Liberties "In the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements and so great a dread of experiments that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so." ~ Excerpted from The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer http://tinyurl.com/2d2vz44

"I, too, have heard the arguments that talk about "equal rights," but how can we have "equal rights" when we are not equal?" ~ B.R. Merrick Huh?!?!? Because, B.R., it is just as wrong (opposite of right) to murder, enslave and rob a short man as it is to murder, enslave and rob a tall man. How can we have "equal rights" when we are not equal? Simple answer, because "we" are not "rights". Rights are something we "have", i.e. possess, they are not what we are.

"If it was 'just' to beat him to a pulp while he was attacking you, and if it was 'just' for someone to jump in and beat him in order to save you, why is it 'unjust' to beat him up a week later, or hire someone else to do it, if you encounter him on the street? Time has passed, is all the difference. Is that a critical difference?" ~ tzo Yes, there is a critical difference, the first two are for defense, the second appears to be strictly for retaliation, and retaliation is not restitution.

The article would benefit from some more numbers, e.g. looking at US military expenditures over time, and comparing them with other countries: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

I like the term "homicidal humanitarianism," too. I got it from the writers at The Last Ditch. I like to use it as a comeback with the neocons who refuse to dignify Muslim terrorists with the term "suicide bombing." No, that's really "homicide bombing," they tell me. Yes, I parry, these extremists' tactics stand in sharp contrast to what our brave boys do dropping bombs on villages and wedding parties from their fighter jets. That's what we call "humanitarian bombing."

Of course the people in charge of the 'egalitarian' redistribution will have to be a little more 'equal' than everyone else, since they will be making and enforcing their decisions. Hmm, all this sounds vaguely familiar somehow.

"No, we can’t do much for those who were treated unjustly over a century ago." I agree, but it appears to me, from reading what is available on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_reservation concerning the vastly confusing, multitudinous rules established by the state, that natives may live on the reservations, but as the reservations are enforced by law, they cannot be said to truly own the land. Since no one can buy it, no one can assign a value to it. Therefore, the "tenants" have land of no value, which is the death of wealth. All this, thanks to a government that killed many of their ancestors, and then spent the remaining decades lying to everyone about what they'd done, in textbook after textbook. One thing that could be done is to walk away from systems of coercion, even those meant to "protect" others, and let those who live on the land own it outright. They will find, all of a sudden, that their land has tremendous value.

The head of the nail has been hit. This article brings to mind another article I read in STR a while back found here: Andy Griffith and Civil Society

One can take a steak, season it and cook it to perfection and it would still be a steak. Now let's replace the steak with cow manure. Perhaps it can be seasoned to the point of palatability, but again it would still be just cow manure. Our big government chefs are convinced that this manure is good eating. They have been sampling out of the pot for so long that they are unaware that eating manure is just plain wrong. Seriously, very good writing. Now if we can only hope that America is ready to brush their teeth and seek something else to eat besides manure.

Interesting scenarios, and I don't think I have the ability to sort through them all at once, but Scenario 3a is a new one. In the first three scenarios, I interpreted the nose punching as a way to distract the thief in order to retrieve the stolen money. If it's gratuitous nose punching, it may still be retributive in an "eye for an eye" sense, or perhaps I'll come down on the side of unnecessary coercion. I haven't decided yet, but 3a is new to me. And it is fun to chew on!

Extraordinarily well written. I was thinking some of the very same thoughts this morning while working on my tiny, pathetic pecs, but not so much in economic terms, more politically. There may very well be laws that have been passed that have benefitted my life in some way, but what was lost? What was the economic/emotional/political/social expense? In my mind, not a single "beneficial" law passed by a war-making government excuses the enormous hurt of this death-oriented machine. How have I truly benefited, and at whose expense? Since so many have been incinerated and their lives lost to history, I will never know, and that is far more serious to my mind than any perceived benefit from political solutions. And I think the author's call for people to "[t]hrow your lot behind the 'anti-Americans' demanding your government mind its own business" is sage advice, but sadly that is not what was sold, which is still one of the reasons this war goes on. The effort was successully made to convince the populace that their very lives were dependent on stamping out terrorism, because 19 people who hailed from within the same geographic area allegedly pulled off the worst terrorist attack of all time live on television. I'm pretty sure that although it has diminished over 9 years, that one is still selling.

"Conservatives scoff at the notion government can run a daycare center—even as they insist it is fully qualified to run a global empire." Superb!

"You may believe that the punishment must fit the crime, but however the punishment fits will be entirely arbitrary." ~ B.R. Merrick Actually, I may or may not, but what I was saying is that perhaps that is what Ayn was inferring by her use of the word "retaliation". That aside you state "however the punishment fits will be entirely arbitrary." "[E]ntirely arbitrary" seems a bit strong, did you perhaps mean to say somewhat arbitrary? "And if retaliation can be used against the initiation of coercion, then why may I not retaliate against a group of individuals who claim lordship over me solely to protect my "rights"?" ~ B.R. Merrick Within reason, you may, but do they, in fact, merely "claim" lordship over you, or would it be more accurate to say, they "presume" lordship over you? Implied consent is that manifested by signs, actions, or by facts, or by inaction or silence, WHICH RAISE A PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONSENT HAS BEEN GIVEN. ~ A Dictionary of Law (c.1891), page 263 [Emphasis added] Do we imply consent by giving "signs" that we have consented? Did we "sign" things that we should not have "signed"? Are our "actions" those of semi-sovereigns or those of subjects? Can the STATE show, by way of "facts", that we ask for and/or accept member-only benefits? Do we imply consent by way of "inaction or silence", that is to say, have we ever formally rebutted the "presumption" of consent? I, too, disagree with Ayn on some points, and strongly, I might add, but we'll save that for another time.

In all three scenarios you laid out, it looks to me like they all fall under: "I want the coercion to stop, and to be compensated if desired." If you desire compensation, then scenarios 1, 2, and 3 are all doable. Punishment is irrelevant.

You may believe that the punishment must fit the crime, but however the punishment fits will be entirely arbitrary. And if retaliation can be used against the initiation of coercion, then why may I not retaliate against a group of individuals who claim lordship over me solely to protect my "rights"? And just so you know, I very much enjoyed "Atlas Shrugged." In spite of my disagreements with her on some points, I think Ayn Rand was a fascinating individual.

In defense of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand stated in her treatise entitled Man's Rights (http://tinyurl.com/5sjfuh) was, “A civilized society is one in which physical force is banned from human relationships—in which the government, acting as a policeman, may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use”. And, in her dissertation entitled The Nature of Government (http://tinyurl.com/ybroc2y ) she wrote, “The necessary consequence of man’s right to life is his right to self-defense. In a civilized society, force may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. All the reasons which make the initiation of physical force an evil, make the retaliatory use of physical force a moral imperative. ” As we can all see, Ayn makes no mention of a “right to retaliation”, per se, she correctly, (IMO), only speaks of the individual's natural “right to self-defense”. Now, let us define “retaliation”. RETALIA'TION, n. 1. The return of like for like; the doing that to another which he has done to us; requital of evil. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Requital, “in a bad sense”, can mean "punishment, as the requital of evil deeds" (Ibid.). By way of example, is Ayn saying, if a man murders someone's child, that individual has the "right to retaliation", i.e. the right to “...return of like for like”, that is to say, that he may rightfully murder the murder's child? Or, is she saying that he has the right to “requital of evil”, that he may rightfully “punish” the murderer for what he has done? Hopefully, we can all agree that Ayn meant the latter, because logically one does not have a natural right to initiate force, in this case against that innocent child. I'm sure all the rational individuals here at STR will agree that evil deeds can “rightfully” be punished. (It is not the purpose of this comment to discuss who's prerogative it is to punish the perpetrator.) So, why did Ayn use the word “retaliation”? I can only surmise that she used that word as a way to limit the extent of “punishment”, that is to say, it was her peculiar way of saying, “the punishment must fit the crime”.

I'm sorry, but in spite of this woman being obviously very smart and studious, the problems I have with her premises are legion. First of all, this is the first time I have heard of the "right to retaliation." (Forgive me, but I am, after all, a confirmed doofus.) Having explained it, I understand where she's coming from, but it once again brings up the issue of "rights," which, to me, are nothing more than individual observations of natural phenomena. They are logical (or somewhat logical) conclusions, but not necessary in my view. But the problems only worsen from here, and it's probably a result of my disagreement with the above premise. "Rand’s justification for this is that if private individuals took justice into their own hands, this would lead to thuggery and mob rule (1964c, 108–109)." How so? We have mob rule right now. If the government imploded tomorrow, the majority (or mob) on this land mass would rush right back to Washington, D.C. in a violent effort to re-establish "our heritage." The government is a group of individuals who take justice into their own hands. From the footnotes: "In a state of nature (anarchy)..." Finally! We agree. Anarchy is natural. This is what Stefan Molyneux tried to bring up in "Everyday Anarchy," I believe. "For example, if a person had to choose between telling the truth or not to a Nazi storm trooper as to the whereabouts of a Jew whom he has hidden, then lying would be called for (see Machan 1998b, 27)." Okay, this may be off the subject a bit, but I disagree here also. Lying is never "called for," and I'm speaking here as one who has lied. None of my previous lies was ever justified, only the cowardly way of dealing with a fearful situation. The ideal, when confronted by a Nazi officer demanding answers, is to say, "I will not tell you where I have hidden my Jewish friend, you death-oriented f*ck." I only read "Atlas Shrugged" once, but I'm quite certain that John Galt never lied, did he? Even being tortured is no excuse for lying, although it is certainly understandable. To lie is to initiate coercion, as it were, against the truth, which is immovable and an essential component of volition. Every lie I ever told was death-oriented. "Retribution may also include punishment (incarceration), particularly if the person is a potential threat to others." Define "threat," and explain why anyone should ever be punished. If someone initiates coercion against me, I want the coercion to stop, and to be compensated if desired, and that's that. If I cannot be compensated, then I want to be left alone. The minute I want someone to be punished, I am, in essence, desirous of revenge, which is initiatorily coercive, and death-oriented. To this day, I indulge vengeful fantasies based on earlier hurts, and I now acknowledge that such thinking is death-oriented, which is factual, as based on my article "Coercion Is Death." "I argue that it is morally incumbent upon a person to retaliate if his rights have been violated by another." Define "morally," and how this stacks up against "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do" (Luke 23:34), or "So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (Matthew 18:35). That's about two thousand years worth of philosophy she's going up against. She'd better know her stuff, but based on the premises thus far that I've read, she's not convincing me. I don't believe in Jesus anymore, but I consider myself a "Post-Christian," meaning that the wisdom in the Four Gospels is so massive, that I think everyone ought to be familiar with it. And when I say "ought," I mean that I want everyone to be familiar with it. We'd all be a lot better off. "Virtues, like living beings, are mortal." Define "virtue," and the only living things known to science are plants and animals. Perhaps this was a metaphor, or hyperbole? Unless there's some super-smart sci-fi geek out there that can enlighten me further. In the article I've already mentioned, "Coercion Is Death," I use death to describe the death of volition, relationships, and wealth because I see these three things as being inseparable or crucial to individuality, which is indeed living. I'm living it now. And loving it. "A case could be made that if A contracts for B to perform in the leading role of a play three days hence, and B fails to do so, then A has a right to compensation (payment for damages or some equivalent of that). The basis for this would be the Principle of Reciprocity. However, Rothbard would counter that B cannot alienate his will. That is, the actor has the right not to show up. Such an agreement or contract is unenforceable." Rothbard is correct. This is why theatrical producers hire understudies, and why they write the checks. "I believe that the right to life implies that the accused as well as those incarcerated are entitled to physical integrity; that is, their punishment should not result in cruel or unusual pain and suffering." Define "physical integrity," and how this integrity does not include my ability to physically move myself to the location I desire, if by chance, I ever find myself falsely accused and convicted by the government that needs to initiate coercion on behalf of children's "rights." Furthermore, please also define "cruel or unusual," a definition that has devolved so far down that it now merely means "organ failure." I never even got to the part where she talks about children and their "needs," and I don't think I will. I cannot comprehend that whatever argument she uses would answer any of the above. I appreciate her efforts, and she’s on her way to something I can agree with, but not nearly far enough.

Not "earth-like", "earth-size". "Up to 140 of the newly-found planets are similar in size to Earth, scientists have said."

Thanks B.R., I did look him up, e.g. http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/allport/allport21.html ...and find his arguments persuasive. Between this view, and Per Bylund's that all voters are cowards, I'll take Allport every time. To me it is a tradeoff. Either course (defensive voting versus non-voting) has some advantages and disadvantages. I don't criticize those who go for the strictly non-voting stance, nor do I criticize those who violate anarchist purity by making the occasional defensive vote. The problem is with mindless voters who merely slightly prefer one tyrant to another, but no matter what they are going to vote for a tyrant. As well the problem is with those who wish to improve humans via legislative coercion. I have a technique for making clear the morality or utility of any action: imagine everyone does it. If everyone voted defensively, we'd quickly be more free. If everyone refrained from voting, thus making government illegitimacy plain to see, we'd also quickly be more free. So I think either course, at least by this measure, is a good one. It is counterproductive for advocates of either course to beat up on the others.

If they can do it to us, they can, and will, do it to you.