Recent comments

  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 9 years 7 weeks ago
    Quake
    Page Jim Davies
    To Madtekwriter: yes, I'll gladly admit that "my" image of god is that he is "omni-interfering" - except that it's not really my image at all. This being a nominally and predominantly Christian country, I'm using the image of god conveyed in the Judeo-Christian religion, ie the Bible. Presumably, I don't have to show you, do I, that that image is one of an omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent entity? That would be too easy. But it also portrays him as omni-interfering, though without using that particular phrase. Consider for example Matthew 10:29, 30 (KJV):- "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered." I suggest that a god who takes note of every falling sparrow and counts every hair on every head is pretty closely interested in what's going on. Your image of god appears to be that he set things up rather like spinning a top, and then withdrew to see how things turned out. Certainly, you're entitled to believe whatever you want; there is no shortage of myths about what god is like. But that "hands off" idea is not Christian, and does not absolve god in any degree from responsibility for the result of what he allegedly established. If you release the parking brake of a car on a hill and it careens down it and kills pedestrians, the fault is yours.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 7 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    You're welcome and notice too that according to the strict legal wording of their "supremacy clause" there is a restriction on the laws, i.e. they are supposed to be made "in pursuance" of the Constitution, but the "treaties made or which shall be made" have not that same restriction, inferred or otherwise. It is important to note that only about five percent of the international agreement entered into by the US Government requires Senate advice and consent (Art. II, Sec. 2). “April 12, 1952 -- John Foster Dulles, later to become Secretary of State, says in a speech to the American Bar Association in Louisville, Kentucky that ‘treaty laws can override the Constitution.’ He says treaties can take power away from Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the States and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their constitutional Bill of Rights.” [Emphasis added] July 18, 1993 -- CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the Los Angeles Times concerning NAFTA: "What Congress will have before it, is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system...a first step toward a new world order."
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 9 years 7 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    I see no real difference in Heinrich Himmler and Che Guevara. What kind of sick person would wear a Himmler t-shirt? Why would anyone want to wear a Che t-shirt?
  • dobropet's picture
    dobropet 9 years 7 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Appreciated.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 7 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Article 6.2 This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. [Emphasis added]
  • dobropet's picture
    dobropet 9 years 7 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Is it not the states right to decide what is necessary for it to enforce within it's own boundaries? http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/05/03/immigration-foreign-affai... And, if not, which I assume resides ultimately with the people of Arizona, doesn't the majority of it's citizens support the measure?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 7 weeks ago
    Immigration and Crime
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    "The practical difficulty with our government has been, that most of those who have administered it, have taken it for granted that the Constitution, as it is written, was a thing of no importance; that it neither said what it meant, nor meant what it said; that it was gotten up by swindlers, (as many of its authors doubtless were,) who said a great many good things, which they did not mean, and meant a great many bad things, which they dared not say; that these men, under the false pretence of a government resting on the consent of the whole people, designed to entrap them into a government of a part; who should be powerful and fraudulent enough to cheat the weaker portion out of all the good things that were said, but not meant, and subject them to all the bad things that were meant, but not said. And most of those who have administered the government, have assumed that all these swindling intentions were to be carried into effect, in the place of the written Constitution." ~ Lysander Spooner, No Treason<?em> (1867) Was Lysander correct in that statement? Apparently so. "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a goddamned piece of paper!" ~ Attributed to President George W. Bush (c.2005) I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper." ~ Doug Thompson, Capitol Hill Blue (12-9-5)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 9 years 7 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    "Defense" from whom, exactly? Alex's article presupposes "a society without government" but also assumes that it would need a "defense system responsible for that area’s protection." Why? A reasonable answer might be "to prevent invasion by neighboring governments." However, that assumes that neighboring societies continue to have governments, eager as ever to increase their power by raiding and looting nearby targets. Why, again, assume such a thing? If society A rid itself of its government, would neighboring societies C and M be unaffected? - hardly. Yet that seems to be the unspoken assumption in the article. I suggest it be closely examined. There's another aspect to this, perhaps deeper yet. If Society A shook off its governmental chains, how did it do so? - answer, by some extraordinarily powerful method, which we need not consider here - though I assume it would be a non-violent method, because of Tandy's paradox that if resistance to government is powerful enough to wage a successful violent revolution, there would be no need to wage it. Now, despite my profound doubts based on the preceding paragraph, suppose Government C does mount an invasion and re-enslave the residents of Society A, or part of it. What's to stop those residents using that same method to shake it off again in short order? There might in a free society be a small residue of violent individuals who persist in trying to live by theft instead of voluntary exchange, hence most people will keep weapons handy to defend themselves and their families. Possibly "protection companies" will offer their services for a fee, and prosper here and there, as need may exist. But armies, navies and air forces will go in to the same historical trash can as government itself.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 7 weeks ago
    Immigration and Crime
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    The Constitution is SUPPOSED TO BE the supreme law of the country. ~ DennisLeeWilson "...the adoption of the Constitution was the merest farce and imposture, binding upon nobody." ~ Lysander Spooner http://lysanderspooner.org/node/63 Quod prius est verius est; et quod prius est tempore potius est jure. What is first is truest; and what comes first in time, is best in law. Co. Litt. 347. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added] The law of nature [the natural law of man] is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 [The natural] law [of man] is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth. ~ Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner (1882)
  • Wilton D. Alston's picture
    Wilton D. Alston 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Wilton D. Alston
    This is an essay that was actually co-authored by me and Stefan Molyneux. For reasons having to do with the hosting platform, it does not (and cannot, apparently) show Stef as a co-author. Simply because I'm proud of the work that Stef and I did together, I will spell that fact out here in the comments.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    The article has many very interesting points. I disagree with the statement that “Black markets are anathema to a free society”. Black markets—which are, in fact, UNREGULATED markets—are the ESSENCE of a free society and they are the ONLY market that keeps people from starving in a heavily regulated society! Complete removal of the regulations would also eliminate the “Murder, theft, smuggling, and even slavery” which are ALL part and parcel of REGULATED markets. I also note with interest—especially in the comments—the many calls for “respect the law” and “enforce the law” and “make the Feds do their job”. However, because ALL these Federal “laws”, rules, restrictions and regulations are themselves ILLEGAL, the solution is NOT reform but immediate REPEAL! THAT would be true “enforcement of the law” and true “respect for the law”! The Constitution is SUPPOSED TO BE the supreme law of the country. As I stated in my 2007 article by the same name: "Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!" REALLY! It is TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control! Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/yeyd7kq
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Immigration and Crime
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    I note with interest—especially in the comments—the many calls for “respect the law” and “enforce the law” and “make the Feds do their job”. However, because ALL these Federal “laws”, rules, restrictions and regulations are themselves ILLEGAL, the solution is NOT reform but immediate REPEAL! THAT would be true “enforcement of the law” and true “respect for the law”! The Constitution is SUPPOSED TO BE the supreme law of the country. As I stated in my 2007 article by the same name: “Immigration control is UN-Constitutional!” REALLY! It is TRUE! The US Constitution does NOT AUTHORIZE immigration control! Check it out at http://tinyurl.com/yeyd7kq
  • Guest's picture
    Diogenes5 (not verified) 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    I felt this article to be half-baked. In my mind, there is no difference between a private army or a Government run army, aside from how the money is raised. Once an army is up and running it can simply take whatever it wants, from anyone, and descend into piracy. They might set up checkpoints, shake people down in their homes, or cut extortion 'protection' deals with businesses and institutions. Private armies are no more trustworthy or accountable simply because they, at the time, require contributions to keep things running. The problem, as I see it, is that regardless of something's intentions, it's the enabling power granted by violence and brute force -- threat of harm and death by a group capable of inflicting it -- that is the problem. Cutting to the point, what I see is negative human nature (widely amplified in groups, who collectively don't have to take total individual accountability for their actions) to dominate provided the ability and power to do so. For example, corporations... they aren't ever content with their power, they don't sit around having amassed great power and not apply it to anything destructive. Power is almost always exercised, you can and SHOULD expect for that to happen. What is there to stop any influential renegade type from influencing the command of this private army, molding it into some kind of Neo-Soviet ideology through increments and 'redistributing the wealth of the community for the greater good'? What would challenge their power as an organized force? A standing army... I think that has been tried before... I am in favor of a citizen's milita, with the kind of social pressure discussed in this article but far less coercive. The whole "You can't fly on our airline because you refused to pay societal protection money (taxes)" is VERY mafia-esk and really changes nothing. You could buck the 'tax law' now and have the same effect... you wouldn't be able to show your face anywhere, have a credit card, etc because the IRS would be watching. That's how the current Government operates things; "You don't agree with out politics, you're a potential terrorist and can no longer get past TSA." I would rather see voluntary positive incentives toward certain behavior put forth by the people receiving the benefit out of gratitude... such as 'You have joined the militia, to show our thanks in our ability to continue doing business without threat of outside invasion, here is some beer and a pizza.' Since being apart of the militia doesn't come with a salary there is no need to tax, it's volunteer work. Now if there was an invasion on the East Coast that required more men than they had in the militia, I could see the East Coast citizens hiring a temporary army to supplement their militia forces. What's money mean if your entire city is going to be destroyed and you along with it? Hopefully nothing. Nothing is perfect though, mine included, so I give thanks for the article.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    According to the American declaration of independence, the only lawful purpose of a de jure government is to secure the unalienable rights of its individual members, because the moment it steps beyond this solitary rightful duty it must necessarily become an aggressor. Because of this G. Edward Griffin makes the valid point (IMO) that this organization should be called a protectorate rather than a government. This protectorate, I currently believe, must be a well-armed militia, i.e. "...the able bodied men [excluding genuine "pacifists", i.e. those who truly would not lift a finger to physically defend themselves or their loved ones if attacked] organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations." I believe that this "law" would be in conformity with the natural law[1] of man. Frederic Bastiat may have said it best, I believe. "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. Each of us has a natural right - from the Creator[2] - to defend his person [body and soul] his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two... If every man has the right to defend - even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right - its reason for existing, its lawfulness - is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups... If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect individuals, liberties, and properties, to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all. If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the simplest, easiest to accept, economical, limited, non-oppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable - whatever its political form might be." I suspect that this concept could be easily tested by asking each individual a question, perhaps something like this, "If you were attacked by a superior force would you want someone to aid you in your defense?" If you answer yes, then naturally you could be expected to do the same for your neighbors, it would seem to me. [1] The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. - Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 [2] For anyone not believing in a "first cause", please feel free ignore this as ignoring it will not detract from its intrinsic value.
  • Guest's picture
    KingofthePaupers (not verified) 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Alternative Currency
    Page Monica Grand Pre
    Monica Grand Pre: "It is improbable that any two systems would be identical or interchangeable." Jct: Beautiful article though it is quite probable that all community currency systems are basically identical and interchangeable. In 1999, under the Time Standard of Money, I paid for 39/40 nights in Europe with a timebank IOU for a night back in Canada worth 5 Hours which I recorded on my public do-it-yourself timebank account: http://johnturmel.com/unilets.com No matter how you cut it, you can always tell me how many units of your currency you pay to the Hour so you can trade internationally in Hours while you can trade nationally in LETS Greencredits. It's only a matter of time until they merge into one big world-wide time-trading UNILETS timebank.
  • Guest's picture
    PDXcurrency (not verified) 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Alternative Currency
    Page Monica Grand Pre
    It is wild to read this article from October 08, 2003. Monica has some real vision of how things work and writing about it 7 years ago before the sub-prime mess and the 'almost' crash of the economy. Community currency and local currency have begun to really take off in the US and Europe. TimeBanks are growing rapidly, hour exchanges and barter exchanges are becoming very common in small towns and big ones. I think there needs to be a more careful look at why some programs succeed like the Berkshares or Ithaca Hours and why many others fail after the initial excitement fades. Bishop http://www.twitter.com/pdxcurrency
  • JoshuaPettigrew's picture
    JoshuaPettigrew 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Notice the statist solution given: increase gov't spending and power.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    Best reply goes to Mike. Here's a flowchart... Haven't won a war in 60 years? >>>>>>>> Don't bother with illegal invasions. - Mike, NY, NY, 29/4/2010 01:28 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1269463/Afghanistan-Po...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Hi Emmet, Appreciate your reply, however, I'm not convinced that it is "out of fear of [the government]". The following story will make my point for me, I believe. THE DEVELOPMENT OF GROUP ATTITUDE Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string, and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana. As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all of the other monkeys with cold water. After a while, another monkey makes an attempt with the same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon, when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it. Now, put away the cold water. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs, he will be assaulted. Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one. The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment…with enthusiasm! Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, and then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs, he is attacked. Most of the monkeys that are beating him have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs, or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know, that's the way it's always been done around here. And that, my dear friends, is how group attitude develops.
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Black's definition would be truer if included some minor additions: "Citizens" are members of a political community who...have... (grudgingly) submitted themselves to the dominion of a government (out of fear of the same) for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    The “Town” has had “authority granted” by whom? "Citizens" are members of a political community who...have...submitted themselves to the dominion of a government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 244 By those who submit to it.
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I do understand that slide, you can't win.
  • Bill Ross's picture
    Bill Ross 9 years 8 weeks ago
    Power Makes You Stupid
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    An attribute of criminal power (ability to coerce) is unaccountability for your actions. Power insulates itself from consequences using the threat of our guns, pointed at us, to prevent our retaliation for their crimes. It is not power that makes you stupid. It is irresponsibility and therefore lack of the feedback required to learn, adapt and therefore survive. Darwin warned us: Survival EQUALS adaptation to environment EQUALS ability to choose correctly EQUALS freedom: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/36 Power, because of lack of feedback (facing consequences of THEIR actions) is doomed to non-survival, due to unfitness and inability to learn or adapt to reality. THINK about it: http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/33 The only valid question is: Will we allow them take us and civilization with them?
  • winston smith's picture
    winston smith 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    thank you, buzaman!!!
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 9 years 8 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    I highly suggest that those who haven't see it yet, to view Bob Higg's 3 hour interview on CSPAN Book TV, it's a great primer for anyone new to the ideas of liberty.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Quotation strike
    A Treatise on Natural Law, Natural Justice, Natural Rights, Natural Liberty, and Natural Society; Showing That All Legislation Whatsoever is an Absurdity, an Usurpation, and a Crime (1882) The science of mine and thine – the science of justice – is the science of all human rights; of all a man’s rights of person and property; of all his rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is the science which alone can tell any man what he can, and cannot, do; what he can, and cannot, have; what he can, and cannot, say, without infringing the rights of any other person. It is the science of peace; and the only science of peace; since it is the science which alone can tell us on what conditions mankind can live in peace, or ought to live in peace, with each other. ~ http://praxeology.net/LS-NL-1.htm#ch.1
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page tzo
    Inalienable Rights are Natural Rights These Natural Rights are referred to as “unalienable rights” in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4, 1776. Unalienable.Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523 ABRIDGE', v.t. 3. To deprive; to cut off from; followed by of; as to abridge one of his rights, or enjoyments. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. - Wikipedia [Emphasis added] Each of us has a natural right [a “just claim”] - from the Creator - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. – http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 8 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    If you are correct in this, Jim, then neither of them read Psalms 2:2 (KJV) The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD [Jehovah], and against his anointed... However, you might not be correct in this assessment, because Paul is also attributed to 'saying' this about Jesus, at Colossians 2:15 (LITV), "having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it." Which is the reason, of course, is why the first charge brought against him was teaching people not to pay tribute (taxes) to the Caesar. Luke 23:2 And they began to accuse him, saying, We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to give tribute [G5411] to Caesar... G5411 ...a load (as borne), that is, (figuratively) a tax (properly an individual assessment on persons or property...) ~ Strong's Greek Dictionary
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 9 weeks ago Page Bill Butler
    I am under the opinion that the judiciary is administering the bankruptcy of the U.S., (declared by Roosevelt in 1933), and that the judges are not allowed to consider any case law prior to 1938. Is that correct? If that is correct, and if your government is a "government of, for and by the people ("the people" being its consenting members)", are not "the people (i.e. the consenting members)" directly responsible for paying off this bankruptcy according to the agreed upon terms, thus creating a whole new set of rules?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    quenny, Please tell us what leaving Afghanistan and Iraq has to do with Barack Hussein Obama's health care reform bill. Ever wonder why not one of these omniscient collectivists ever suggest a "purely voluntary health care association"?
  • Guest's picture
    quenny (not verified) 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Leaving could be one of the hardest part of letting go... In this world we have to stand using our own feet. The Obama Wall Street Address at Cooper Union College was meant for president Obama to further explain his stand point on the health bill that can be going to the Senate later this week or next. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives, and only has just a little ways left on its way to becoming law. This reform bill has many optimistic and questionable sides to it. All I ask is that before you get all hot headed and worked up over it, do your research. Really spend some unbiased time finding out precisely what this bill is about and just how it will impact your life; you may be surprised at what you find.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    The next freedom construct must be, neither government nor anarchy, but a protectorate. A protectorate is negative in its function. It acknowledges the legitimacy of collective force but only for the protection of life, liberty, and property. ~ G. Edward Griffin
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 9 weeks ago Quotation strike
    These Natural Rights are referred to as “unalienable rights” in The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America of July 4, 1776. Unalienable. Inalienable… Inalienable rights. Rights which can never be abridged because they are so fundamental. – Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged Sixth Edition, pg. 1057 Legal rights (sometimes also called civil rights or statutory rights) are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local laws, customs, or beliefs. In contrast, natural rights (also called moral rights or inalienable rights) are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and politically relative. - Wikipedia [Emphasis added] Each of us has a natural right [a “just claim”] - from the Creator - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. – http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link strike
    Now if we can just get Congress to spend its time watching porn instead of legislating.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    It may also have a "side effect" for individual secessionists, i.e. individuals who have seceded from the governments of men, they are among those "who can't provide proof of legal residency".
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 9 years 9 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    What a set of pipes, vocal joy.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 9 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    "People who put up with anything the system dishes out to them, are no friends of liberty, either. There has to be a line in the sand. Joe Stack had one, and his was crossed. That's all." Thank heavens that in the process of ramming his plane into that building that there were not other victims of the IRS's theft sitting in those offices with the two people who were killed, trying to defend their property in a less violent fashion.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 9 years 9 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    Actually, "evil" is relative to what the individual thinks. When I say that government is "evil," I am merely stating my opinion. I see government as the physical embodiment, the officialization, if you will, of what I consider "evil," which is the desire to possess The Ring of Power, or to control what other individuals do. If you get rid of this government, the virus that creates it still exists within too many individuals walking around on this land mass.
  • Guest's picture
    CarlaZ (not verified) 9 years 10 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    To gain democracy,it should begin with the the people who rules our country.We cannot immediately have it but it should reflect more on the implementation rather that just saying that we need democracy.I just remember the Oklahoma City bombing that happened 15 years ago that created a big impact on democracy because people have different perception of it.It is 15 years given that the Oklahoma City Bombing took place where 168 innocent people died just doing their day to day activities. Many people remember watching the news and seeing the devastation and destruction. 200 kids were left parentless, or with disabled parents. Hundreds more left in fear. This kind of destruction can't cause any good outcome. As this bombing and domestic terrorism showed, it is not the way to make change, because there were no radical changes made due to the bombing. The only thing this bombing did was uniting Americans together and shows us that hatred can't prevail.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 10 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    The author spends a little too much time condemning Stack and exonerating IRS employees for my taste. Every one of us makes choices in life, good choices and bad choices. Unfortunately, the consequences for those choices are often not immediate, and sometimes don't happen at all. Bad choices are not always punished, good choices are not always rewarded. The choice to become an IRS employee is an evil one. Most who make this choice evade the consequences. The two who were killed by Stack did not. Oh, well. That does not make them just ordinary folks. They were still evil. They suffered a rather improbable consequence, but it was directly tied to what they did for a living (victimizing others), and the choice they made to do that. And Stack is not to be compared with Grigg either. When Grigg is as persecuted as Stack was, when the CPS actually takes his kids, we will see how he reacts (I suspect, with violence, which is the correct response). Oh, and paying a traffic fine in no way compares with what Stack put up with. I agree with Merrick that, "Government is the physical manifestation of a much deeper evil." We are all guilty of it in some way or another. But our ability to see and understand that evil, and rid ourselves of it, depends in part on our seeing that choices have consequences. Most people need to see that bad choices can be punished; and seeing that, they have plenty of incentive not to make bad choices. Joe Stack performed a service for liberty; he did not harm it. People who put up with anything the system dishes out to them, are no friends of liberty, either. There has to be a line in the sand. Joe Stack had one, and his was crossed. That's all.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 years 10 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Unfortunately, this article implies a bright dividing line between producers and expropriators, where there is no such line. Most producers see no problem with sending their kids to a government school, receiving Socialist Security, or raiding Middle Eastern countries for their oil. So the first battle of the war will be within the brains of these people, deciding which they really want to be - producers or expropriators. Tea Party folks will have to face up to the fact almost all of them are hypocrites.
  • kborer's picture
    kborer 9 years 10 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    That Joe became a government of one hits close to the mark. To say that government is not the root of evil, but the individuals who compose it, is a mistake. Considering government to be a separate entity to those individuals of whom it consists is a collectivist notion. Only actions can be evil and only individuals act. This does not change the fact that government is the locus of evil action.
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 9 years 10 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    With mass civil disobedience war may not be needed. Authority can only be grounded on acceptance by the subjects. Let us stop accepting this authority. Étienne de la Boétie teaches us that we merely need to stop helping the state for it to fall. I tried to post a link to the work "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude" and the spam filter thought I was spamming. Anyway, if you are interested you can probably find it by Googling either the author or the work.
  • Bill Ross's picture
    Bill Ross 9 years 10 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Mathematics of Rule" proves who will win and why. The irony is, this is a re-run of a war that was already won, whose result forms the very basis of former western civilization (the rules by which we cooperate for MUTUAL self-interest): http://www.nazisociopaths.org/modules/article/view.article.php/c1/32
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 9 years 10 weeks ago Page Roger Young
    I agree with Jim Davies, in fact I will go further. Whichever of the major parties happens to “in power” at the moment automatically makes a large number of people who are loyal to the major party “out of power” more likely to sympathize with our point of view. I myself was once a Republican and began to drift more and more towards libertarianism during the Clinton years. I saw the abuses with Ruby Ridge and the Waco Massacre and began to question the very role of government in “protecting us”. If, in the 1990’s, I had read an article with the title “Please, Rush Limbaugh, Just go away” it would have made me LESS likely to pay attention to the actual arguments presented in that site. At this point in history we should present our arguments in such a way as to show them how we are alike, not how we are different. If a Republican becomes president in January of 2013 we should do the same for Democrats. Michael Cloud has a wonderful set of recordings called “The Essence of Political Persuasion" that teaches libertarians how to speak to people on the “Right” without alienating “The Left” and visa versa. It is a wonderful set of recordings and all of us can learn from him. http://www.theadvocates.org/epp.html
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 9 years 10 weeks ago Page Roger Young
    This column is accurate, and the key question, pertinent: "When will [people] realize that they DON’T need any leaders AT ALL?" However isn't it better to demolish idiots by showing the falsehoods in what they say or do, and if possible by questioning their premises, rather than by accusing them of having squeaky voices or stumpy legs? Glenn Beck still isn't thinking outside the box, but he does broadcast some true stuff and it seems inappropriate to belittle him without even having heard what he says. I believe the name for that style is "ad hominem." Put it this way: suppose a Tea Partygoer happens upon this article. He is angry about the increase in government under Obama, and eager to find out what's up. He likes Sarah and Glenn. Will this article motivate him to read more in STR and discover why nobody needs any leaders at all?
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 9 years 10 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    From the article: "So what about Kanin’s report, which found that over 40% of rapes reported to police are false? I wouldn’t suggest that Kanin has a political agenda — but I do think his methodology (which consists of tabulating police data from an unidentified small town) was overly credulous." It could be - depending on the small town. When companies wish to test market a new product in the United States they pick a location that has demographics that roughly represent a cross-section of the demographics in the United States. I do not know if something like this was done in this study. Studying human behavior is not like studying human biology or health. Culture - including religious beliefs - must be taken into account. For example, let us suppose that, in this small town, 90% of the residents were members of a religion in which women were considered very lowly and consensual sexual behavior outside of wedlock is a grave sin that would make them an outcast for the rest of their lives. A woman who was caught having consensual sex might have an incentive to claim it was rape even if she loved the person. Was this the case here? I do not know. I do not know what town it was.
  • Guest's picture
    CarlaZ (not verified) 9 years 10 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Just imagine if every thing a person does is illegal.Do you think he would be able to survive without fear and doubt?I don't think so! Like for example,a person who escape in paying taxes.Of course there is a corresponding penalty for that.Among the big things which governs income tax rates and tax theory in general in these United States is something called the Laffer Curve - which makes sense since it is a real laugher. It was made popular by Jude Wanniski, a crony of Donald Rumsfield, Dick Cheney, and later, Reagan and Bush, and the debate goes that there's a midpoint of taxation rates which makes for optimal collection and use of tax funding, which is intended to be basically payday cash advances from the individuals to the government. It's distinctly tied to Keynesian economics, and the Austrians (free market, libertarian types - not Reagan, btw) dispute its efficacy.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 9 years 10 weeks ago Page Roger Young
    I'm sorry Roger, but I must agree with rcrefugee's assessment, not much substance.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 9 years 10 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    It is great to have another essay from B.R. I think he's onto something here when he speaks about truth as a condition needed in the pursuit of freedom. Stack most certainly concluded with an untenable position when he initiated the violence. To sort of paraphrase Stefan Molyneux, the moral justifications for taking such actions become more and more convoluted the further we move away from truth. I think that the main truth that Stack willfully ignored was that the initiation of force is never morally justified. In my view, "winning" freedom will mean that one day we can persuade enough individuals not only to hear the counter argument against government, but also to hold to intellectual and moral honesty by knowing the simple truth that the initiation of force is immoral. If we can be honest in looking for the truth, I think the "diffusion and confusion" that tzo wrote about (here on STR, 4/04) is greatly diminished.