Recent comments

Wish you would lay off the anti-God stuff--unless you’ll admit that your image of him, in addition to being “omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent” also includes him being “omni-interfering.” You have a view of God that is very different from mine. Your view lacks a concept of “free moral agency.” You suppose that religious folks think that God is like some chess player, moving pieces around some heavenly chessboard--therefore, no free moral agency. Truth (as I see it, anyway) is that actions have natural, logical, principle-driven consequences (e.g., people allow themselves to be ruled by governments, then governments abuse their subjects), and God is the ultimate non-aggressor--he only acts where and when free moral agents give him license.

Please include author's name along with the title on the main page. I make it a point to read a select group of authors first and almost missed this article because author identity is unknown until link is opened.

Stefan Molyneux did a video interview on Haiti a month or so back. Here's the link below and draw your own conclusions. And Jim, thanks for your contribution and thoughts on the matter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijf2hIwBgFc&feature=youtube_gdata

You may be right, but if that referendum had been held on September 12th, 2001 we would probably have nuked Afghanistan. I'm not sure that level of democracy is a genie I'd want out of the bottle.

This is probaably the simplest and clearest explanation of the shortcomings of GDP as a measurement that I have ever seen. Given the contant attention being paid to GDP by the MSM, it's well worth reading if you'd like to improve your understanding of GDP.

I admire Carson. I am surprised though to see him on STR.

no matter how much (or little) their just using the paper that 'they' print in the first place, the peoples use is to launder it into some weak form of legitimacy, they get the land and mineral's to play with.

Funny.

From the poll: 33. Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not? Feb. 12-15 2010 Yes, has weapons 71% No, does not 26% No opinion 3% This was based on about 500 interviews. I hope it does not reflect reality.

Nicely done column; gets to the root of things. The power elite are thrilled to have people on the "left" and "right" jockeying for a chance to add their own favored tyranny to the mix; when the voters tire of the current party in power and put the opposite wing in charge, the new "leaders" begin adding "their side's" desired tyrannies WITHOUT dismantling the tyranny added by the previous crowd, despite campaign promises. This ratchet effect ensures that government power grows reliably, year after year. Smoking bans, as Alex points out, are just one example of the process.

I wonder if Congress will ever get around to passing a similar resolution regarding the Holodomor, the muder of more than 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin.

Glad to see STR is back. . . the first time I hit the site after it went down, my Anti-Virus alerted me. . . so nice that all wasn't lost. STR is the first site I hit in the morning, it goes great with the first cup o'mud and a cig. You guys rock.

Me too. STR was always the first site I looked at in the morning. Welcome back.

I was very concerned when you were down due to the virus. I am glad to know that the world has not lost a great friend of human liberty. Welcome Back.

As I read in the article about Valentine's Day being a christian holiday based on reverence to a so-called christian saint, I couldn't help but think of Plato and the Noble Lie observed in it's modern form in the Straussians and the various religionist movements that grip people in subjugation, mentally as well as physical and political. To make matters worse are how these religions so clearly and continuously violate real ethics and morals while uttering the noble lie that in all of heaven and earth, they are the sole source for all morality, ethics and worst of all, truth. On this day of myth and purpose of filthy lucer, I'm hard pressed to think of who is the more unwise, the Saudi's who follow our lead or our own western culture who continue to stick their heads in holes and refuse to stand like the free individuals they should be and were intended to be. Thanks Robert for posting the article.

lol

I see it everyday in Honolulu, just in their driving and parking. They can´t seem to understand that the lack of respect from the citizens is due to their lack of respect for the law. Instead they just want us to obey unquestioningly. They are more cowardly than regular bullies because they hide behind the uniform and the state. Walking through downtown Honolulu, I´m more likely to get robbed and insulted for jay walking than mugged or harassed by drug dealers. They at least leave me alone and don´t insult me with the idea that they are protecting me.

The question could also be: Why confuse an ethical free market with capitalism. It makes my dick itch when people fixate on semantics in politics, but I try to stick to original meanings as much as possible. The word that always comes to mind as the perfect example is 'liberal'. 'Libertarian' is rooted in egalitarian imperatives, but we work from the prefix, discuss ethics and there's nothing more libertarian that scrutinizing power at all times, so looser usages of 'libertarian' doesn't bother me because libertarians are scrutinizing the ownership of the term. But 'capitalism' has an extremely distinctive meanings from the roots of the word's creation by Karl Marx. I think it was a mistake for classical liberals to equate laissez-faire philosophy with the corporatism Marx was identifying as capitalism. The Misesean definition is the reactionary one -- isolating the definition of 'socialism' to be Bolshevism and 'capitalism' as the opposite of that -- not what Prof. Chartier is discussing.

An excellent critique.

Very informative. Where is the line to be drawn between running down a libeler in order to bring them to court and the persecution of a troll? Hard to say.

I believe tyranny WAS slowed by the vote on Prop 13. Pro-gov groups of all stripes pissed and moaned about it for decades, programs were cut, various proposed increases in spending had to be scrapped, and so on. I don't disagree with you that in the end, the beast just kept on growing. Look at California today! What a mess! But Prop 13 was passed in 1978. It capped property taxes and made it more difficult to raise taxes in other ways (here's the full text of the measure as adopted: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A ). Yes, it's been largely overwhelmed, but for a long time it kept the CA tyranny at bay -- slowed it down, at any rate. Don't knock that; real people benefited from more freedom and lower taxes. Just because the CA legislature and various special interests managed to overwhelm the restrictions of Prop 13 and continue wrecking California doesn't mean it didn't benefit millions of people -- and for that matter, it STILL benefits the people of California. Prop 13 is proof -- no question -- that anything which leaves a coercive Power in place is insufficient. So what? Does that mean that an entire generation had to be taxed out of their homes? Prop 13 voters COULD have abstained, because the measure didn't completely end tyranny, but that would have been foolish. Do you really think people should NOT do what they can to fight tyranny? To cut the level of money taken from them by the State, and (inevitably) used to make things worse? It would have been nice if the movement that brought Prop 13 to fruition continued on in a manner that continued cutting down the State in California. But even without that, Prop 13 was a major win for liberty, in the lifetime of those who voted for it. It was, to a large extent, a temporary win, but then life itself is temporary. [Added comment]: That last statement is important: life is temporary. Heck: life is SHORT. You and your family will not be here on this Earth forever. Does it make sense for you, and those you care about, to suffer more tyranny than necessary just because TOTAL FREEDOM is not yet available? Would you stay in a filthy cell in the Gulag forever just because getting OUT of the Gulag wouldn't give you TOTAL freedom? Or does it make sense to oppose tyranny in the ways, and to the extent, that you CAN, in the time you have available on this Earth? I don't oppose anyone who takes the position that only full abolition is acceptable: that's a personal choice. But neither do I oppose those who want to oppose tyranny in the less-than-complete ways available to them that might actually result in an increase in liberty for themselves and those they care about.

People have the right to act in ways that might potentially reduce the tyranny they suffer from -- voting for lower taxes, for instance. The Prop 13 example (used in my comment above) is a good one: millions of people were spared dramatic property tax increases; in turn, many got to keep their homes instead of being taxed out of them. The argument that voting for Prop 13 somehow "harmed" liberty in the long run is worth considering, and I do consider it -- but mostly I think it's silly. I do not blame anyone for doing something to IMPROVE the situation for themselves and their families, in a way that does not agress against anyone, IN THEIR OWN LIFETIMES. I'll say it again: if people wait for perfection before acting, if they insist on supporting nothing but an immediate leap to full abolition of all government, then they will live their entire lives under tyranny, and will have thrown away many chances to improve the situation for themselves and for others. Full abolition is the goal; refusing to do anything to reduce tyranny in the meantime does not move us toward the goal and is counter-productive in the short-term for certain, and probably in the long term as well. On slavery, btw -- Britain (among other nations) ended slavery without a civil war, and while it was done by a vote in Parliament instead of by direct vote of the people, voting for anti-slave candidates certainly played a role -- and if the matter HAD been put to a direct vote, and the slaves were freed that way, they'd still have been just as free as after our civil war. Again, I don't see any problems with that. And c'mon: VOTING versus a war with 650,000 dead, millions maimed or wounded, civil liberties ended for the duration, entire cities wrecked, and the Southern states crushed under an added layer of de facto tyranny for decades. Which is the real threat to liberty: a non-aggressive vote to end slavery, or war?

the real link is here --------------> http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_69966300-1402-11df-b1e3-001...

http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2010m2d2-Arizona... This is the actual link. . . the one labeled "original article" doesn't work.