Recent comments

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.

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 )

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.

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.

Now that is moronic. "Methinks thou doth protest too loudly."

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.

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?

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.

Good article Michael. An excellent point on how Nietzsche's ideas are cherry picked by so many in order to abuse them.

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.

Agreed, Paul! That's not who I am.

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

"...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

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.

"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

Agreed. Another powerful article by 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!

Indeed that is an excellent distillation of the inherent conflict. And I love the punch line.

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.

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.

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

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]

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

All "coercion leads directly and immediately to death"?