Recent comments

The article states "Despite his deep-rooted individualism, Thoreau was readily moved to activism against injustice. " Shouldn't this be BECAUSE of his deep rooted individualism?

Some anarchist. All Chomsky ever talks about is foreign policy, the domain of the statists.

well it can lie, cheat and manipulate as well as any other format, especially if mainstream pop music.

Larison's comments were interesting but I found even moreso the comments section. As to the comments (negative) concerning the History Channel, I agree that many presentations are done from a bias POV and the background of the question who (?) is left to the viewer to determine and most people don't. Depending on their own bias, they accept or reject the ideas presented and that's just our human nature. At the same time, the History Channel does throw out ideas (sometimes) that provoke thought and to challenge the status quo and that to me is what's healthy and needed. Yesterday STR ran a story on the CIA, LSD and NY Subway system and ironically the History Channel ran (for the uppteenth time) "Secrets of the CIA". Now someone sees that on the history channel, provokes thought and an internet search and pooof, they discover STR. OK, I'll revealing my own bias here but you get the point. Provoking thought and the need for further individual study into a subject is an awefully needed thing these days and I welcome it from wherever it comes. Resisting my own personal bias, I wanted to ask some in the comments section if instead of the History Channel, would they recommend FoxNews or reality TV on the Fox Channel instead! The more I see of TV these days the more I feel intellectually insulted and appreciate the qualities of old Looney Tune cartoons as being more mentally stimulating. More often than not, I enter a room with the TV on and in about 2 minutes I feel the urge to stand up, look at the TV and shout, "aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh SSHHAADDUUPPP!" I love Foghorn Leghorn (another bias of mine) LOL!

Fasting triggers cellular apoptosis but no one is going to make any money off of that.

i would tend to agree with 'ottersonroger' (first Comment) that it reads very much like what would be expected from a factually lacking Politicaly biased view of events/history. if the writer is without agenda/political affiliation - what would the reason be for such a narrow minded article (no offence meant) the link has a few interesting Facts (though i wasn't there) that may help form a different angle of attack for next time . http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=haiti

Constructive criticism is always welcome, ottersonroger, but here I saw criticism without constructiveness. What aspect of Haiti's history, I wonder, leads you to suppose that its people have suffered too little government instead of too much? FYI, there is no "party" here on STR. Even a quick visit to the "non-voting archive" should satisfy you that we eschew all political affiliation. Check out http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html True, we are philosophically libertarian, in that we see government as parasitic even at best; we start from the premise that every human is his own self-owner, and therefore that any governor, who would take away from him some at least of the life decisions he wants to make for himself, is antithetical to human nature. Possibly you have embraced the opposite premise. I'd be interested to learn which aspects of your own life you wish somebody else to rule. Jim Davies

Very incomplete, superficial understanding of Haitian history. Selected points are chosen only if they support the party line.

I know how most STRers feel about voting, okay? But with that said I have long felt that if the American people could vote on this "world policeman role" as they do with referendums and ballot proposals on the local level, that America would very quickly return to the neutral, unentangled nation it started out as.

I never though i'd see the day when using (government issued!) cash would be a sign post to terrorists.

Chilling.

Like a box of 21 gourmet chocolates. Each delicious and satisfying. Even better all in the same box. Bravo Sir.

excellent!

Thanks for the info, I'm doing research about this one. You helped me, thanks again. Mr. Petrillo MMA Pound for Pound

I would have appreciated this justified attack on eminent domain much more if the author hadn't engaged in shilling for corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. The latter is a particularly egregious example to cite, as a study has shown that this corporate welfare queen has received more than one billion dollars in state subsidies, often via abuse of eminent domain. News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/

This highlights the inherent weakness of positive law that ignores individual human rights. No matter its original intent (and that can always be argued), its subsequent interpretation can only be detrimental to human freedom. Yeah, let's all get back to that Constitution, wherein it is stated that the government controls all the land and private property does not exist. That's a fine foundation for a free society.

Welcome back STR! I was checking 4-5 times a day waiting for the site to come back up. A good friend is back!

Agreed, I'm very happy to see STR back online. I must have checked the site 20 times a day for the last week.

How can you logically argue for animal rights in one breath, and in the same breath mock health care rights? Or, put differently, at what size of organism does the right to _defense_ end? We can build a defensive military and police to protect the right (to defend health) of humans against humans, and maybe against some wildlife, but when it gets microscopic, suddenly it's absurd? What about Steve McQueen's blob? If it came rolling down the street, but it was determined it was unicellular, does that mean everyone it's consuming would have to pay for their own defense? What about an alien invasion? I think the health care debate is one where libertarian thinkers have failed miserably to have any coherence, for precisely the same reasons presented here for animal rights. All enlightenment arguments for classical liberalism are ultimately health based...

Thumbs up.

WTF? Hollywood glam shots?

Now THIS is why I enjoy this site so much. I learn something new every time I visit. I honestly did not realize that Marx was the originator of the word "capitalism." I had a very clear, simple understanding of the word capitalism (one of an accountant, really). But what we find as a core belief...it really isn't the true definition of capitalism, is it? Maybe laissez-faire IS the better term. I've invested some time reading various authors in the subject of economics (mainly because the Keynesian models that were crammed down my throat in business school began to be personally rejected a few years ago), but it seems that I really am at a point where I need to read Marx and understand the origin of some these terms better. I've been dismissive of Marx, always deferring to others on the subject of "Das Kapital." This is a good impetus to pick up a copy and try to work through Marx's text.

The premise of this speech is interesting and certainly a speech I'd like to hear. However, I finding parsing of language more than just a little annoying, especially in light of how much damage has been done by others redefining conventional definitions. Chartier's simplest definition of capitalism is succinct (if little understood by most) and essentially what makes trade, wealth and true egalitarian prosperity possible for a growing majority of the population. Why confuse capitalism with corporatism?

This is an essay that was actually co-authored by Stef and me, Wilt Alston. For reasons having to do with the hosting platform, it does not (and cannot, apparently) show me 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.