Recent comments

>I also look forward to government-run restaurants, to a government-run music industry, and to replacing our chaotic, unregulated computer, software, and electronics industries with compassionately run government versions, Hah! Yes, exactly... that's a great meme; keep hammering on the comparison between the computer industry and the "cell-computer" industry... the technologies are similar, but the regulation environment keeps the "cell-computer" companies from doing much that's useful. -Bill

No, but we have the right to be left alone (unless we harm someone) and CHOOSE to be happy. Slavers have defined us exercising out "right to be left alone" as an assault on "common interest", another way of saying we are guilty (from the perspective of slavers) of the original sin of "refusal to be subservient". THINK about it, and CHOOSE wisely: http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/ross/ross2.html Darwin and Evolution PROVES: Survival EQUALS ability to adapt to environment EQUALS ability to CHOOSE correctly EQUALS freedom. http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/ross/ross1.html The concept of the right to be left alone dates back to a 1928 Supreme Court wiretapping decision called Olmstead vs. the United States in which the Supreme Court Justice Brandeis said "the protection guaranteed by the amendments (of the Constitution) is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect . . . They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions, and their sensations. They conferred as against the government the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." Of course, Orwell warned us: Anything can be rationalized away by subverting the REAL meaning of underlying words and concepts thus destroying all knowledge built on them. Redefine or limit the scope of "equality" and, you subvert all law.

When you get down to basics, this and virtually all conflict are proxy issues in the eternal WAR between the productive (those who produce more than they consume) and the greedy (those who consume more than they produce). This is the root cause of the rise (honesty in control) and fall (predators in control) of civilizations, for all of history, including NOW. Easily proven: http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/ross/ross1.html Civilization was once protected by the "rule of law", now rationalized away by predators on the bench: http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/ross/ross3.html

Hi Bill Walker: I didn't say we would run out of food: I said we might have a food SHORTAGE that would raise prices (independently of other forces that raise prices, such as monetary inflation and global population growth). Evidence is strong that this is a real possibility in the next year or two, and in any case: there are many millions of people around the world who ALREADY cannot get enough food to prevent malnutrition and even starvation. When you live in a wealthy society and don't have such problems, it seems silly that shortages could be around the corner, but -- as I pointed out in the column -- more than 37 million in the US are already unable to feed themselves without assistance. I expect that number to grow, and if foodstocks are lower than expected, the shortage will contribute to higher prices. But yes: you, personally, will probably still be able to eat. As for me, I put in a garden last year, so I'm hopeful that I'll be able to eat also. As for oil, here again I am not saying we'll "run out" of oil. There will be oil available a century from now; the question is whether new sources of oil will come online in a timely fashion and in sufficient quantity to satisfy demand in a world of rapidly-growing population and with huge nations (India and China, in particular) ramping up their use of oil so fast it makes your head spin. China -- where no one but Party bigshots had cars in the recent past -- is already a larger market for new cars than the US. [ http://www.miamiherald.com/business/international/story/1372479.html ]. Individual examples of oil production in particular places are meaningless; the global oil supply is struggling to meet demand and even IF it can keep up over the next few years, new sources of oil are, on average, a LOT more expensive to harvest and to refine than oil has been in the past. Ergo, the expectation for higher prices (not to mention the forces of monetary inflation and population growth) and probably for shortages. Not "running out of oil", but shortages of oil. During the '73 oil embargo the shortfall of oil was a mere 5% compared to what we'd had available before the embargo, and the results were lines around the block for gasoline, 5-gallon limits at many stations, odd/even rationing (based on one's license plate number), and other annoyances. And, of course, a huge uptick in prices, a recession, higher unemployment, and so on. I was there; I remember.

I just love paying taxes. I love a government that threatens me with violence if I don't "volunteer" a portion of my income. I love a system of sales, marketing and "brand dilution" that encourages disposal of perfectly good commodities rather than dropping prices. How much of this disposal practice falls under the "disposal of obsolete inventory" in the Universal Accounting Procedures where the full-book value is deducted from sales? Would any serious company engaged in the very serious business of making a profit care about some "brand dilution" nonsense (come on, IT'S WAL-Mart and H&M here, folks) if it were not an advantage on the bottom line, and hence, the total tax liability? Of COURSE they wouldn't. They'd maximize every sale, every possible margin. So the next time you see someone that needs warm clothes, blame the IRS. Thank you, Stefan Molyneux and Frederic Bastiat for making this one exceptionally easy to diagnose.

Great column, Bill! Spot-on analysis and the writing is a joy, to boot.

Great column, Per, as always. You've over-simplified just a bit, though. Voting is mostly a way to disempower the people, yes, and a way to hide the cruelty of State coercion behind a mask of pseudo-legitimacy. Voters are generally participating in tyranny and aggressing against their fellows. But there ARE times when voters are offered a chance to REDUCE or even ELIMINATE some portion of the State. For example: You live in South Carolina in 1850, and a statewide proposition is on the ballot to END slavery. Do you refrain from voting, or do you vote to free the slaves? Voting to REDUCE or ELIMINATE tyranny is not aggression toward others; it is at the very least an expression of brotherhood with those being oppressed, and a way to possibly improve the situation in a non-violent manner. Wouldn't it be nice if the South had ended slavery on its own via the ballot box (not that Lincoln gave a bleep about the slaves, of course; that isn't what the war was about but still: it would have been terrific if slavery had been ended prior to 1865 and without bloodshed). A more recent, less dramatic (but real) example: Prop 13 in California (1978). From the Wikipedia article on the subject: "The proposition's passage resulted in a cap on property tax rates in the state, reducing them by an average of 57%. In addition to lowering property taxes, the initiative also contained language requiring a two-thirds majority in both legislative houses for future increases in all state tax rates or amounts of revenue collected, including income tax rates. It also requires two-thirds vote majority in local elections for local governments wishing to raise special taxes. Proposition 13 received an enormous amount of publicity, not only in California, but throughout the United States.[2]" Dramatically reducing taxes and making it harder to RAISE taxes is a good thing indeed; not anything like "freedom" but still something that reduced tyranny in a real, on-the-ground way and which allowed many Californians to keep their homes when they'd been on the verge of being taxed out of them. By now, other sources of tyranny have wrecked CA beyond what most would have believed back in '78, so yes: as long as the State remains, it is a danger, and it always strives to grow. But opposing State power via the ballot box with Prop 13 did slow the growth of tyranny and improved lives for many Californians for many years. It was NOT a form of aggression in any fashion. I am aware of arguments that such partial victories are counter-productive, and I don't agree with them. The voters (and non-voters) who benefited from Prop 13 could and would have waited until they were dead for a Stateless society to come along and free them from their slavery. ABOLITION of all forms of initiated coercion is my goal, but I have no quarrel with those who want whatever reductions in tyranny they can actually get in their own lifetimes. My point is that voting can, in rare cases, be used in support of freedom, and in those rare cases it is not merely non-aggression but perhaps even a moral duty. Voting in favor of human rights and for the reduction of tyranny is NOT the same as voting to increase or re-arrange an existing tyranny, which is why the chance to do so is very rare. The many arguments against voting do not sway me in such cases. I discussed the subject in more detail in To Those Who Vote, and Those Who Don't: http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/allport/allport21.html

Why? Its simple really: law of supply and demand. Demand falls (economy sucks), supply goes up, given competition, price must fall. Solution: destroy excess supply, try to match supply to demand, to maintain price. Same way war economically works (for some, basic secondary school math required): http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/ross/ross1.html

This is the first time I have even seen anything about this story. Thanks for linking to it. Assuming it is true, imagine the outcry and how the U.S. might respond if children in this country were intentionally killed by foreign operatives.

Quote: It is truly sad when someone in a position of authority can make such a statement. My sentiments exactly, West is obviously a very twisted individual, and of course, is the kind of machine mind the state is happy to have fill a position of influence, oddly, today such lunacy is an order of egotistical piggery that's very noticably in ascendancy in post's of power.

Anyone for coffee?

The author has NO coherent idea of the nature of capitalism.

We're going to use a different system from now on, and our developer just hasn't set it up yet.

The frustration in Roger's latest blog entry practically clubs us over the head. What I really admire most about Roger's writing is that he doesn't pull punches. He's direct and to-the-point and there is very little room for misinterpretation. Most Americans, if confronted with the question of why these soldiers died will say, "they died for our freedom" despite the litany of evidence that shows just the opposite.

A broker recently told me that the American dollar will crash within two years. Welcome to Zimbabwe!

People need to understand the definition of a right. We all have the same rights. We all have rights to do things for ourselves--the rights to travel, buy and sell, earn livings, manage our lifestyles, raise our children, manage our property, etc. We do NOT have any rights to FORCE others to provide things for us--i.e education, housing, food, health care. We do NOT have any rights to initiate force, steal or meddle with the persons, property, or lifestyles of others.

Whether people are fat or not is a moot point. The entire food stamp program is an unconstitutional, communist FRAUD that should be entirely eliminated. The same applies to 'public' education, 'public' housing, health care, welfare, foreign aid, abusive safety and environmental regulations, drug, gambling, and 'porn' prohibitions, useless 'wars' in Korea, Vietnam, and the middle east, anti-climate change 'treaties,' and other garbage.

the nobody vote i a good idea, though having Never voted (or ever will) i have no need to give my if i would have vote to any, even if it would be nobody, as nobody should get the vote under any circumstance voting has ceased to exist so much so i have to look for the word in a dictionary every time i hear/see it :)

You had me until this: "shooting people who try to scale a border fence." As far as I'm concerned, that's Trespassing, and when you trespass, you *should* expect to backstop 00. There should be consequences to violating someone else's property. Not that the property involved belongs to "the Government," (it doesn't) but that it belongs to ALL Citizens - and the Property Owners have said, No Trespassing. Let's look at this on a smaller scale - you and 4 of your friends own a chunk of land. Even if 4 of the owners think that Trespassing should be allowed, it violates the property rights of the 5th owner if you 4 assisted Trespassers on the property. Add to that, using his honestly acquired resources to assist them (against his will), and limiting his ability to honestly acquire resources (by expecting him to work for the lower wages paid to Criminals on the lam), and the violation becomes even more egregious. . . It's one thing to ask politely to come on someone else's Property - it is another thing entirely to make the choice for them. 'Nuff Said.

anyone with a defective electrical signal can crap on their neighbour for the cause when there's a war of land grabbing and mineral rights on the move

There is a group of people who think of themselves as being in "Al Quaeda" so it exists as much as any organisation does. The article states that the man "apparently" was connected to al quaeda and there is some appearance that he did. I'm not convinced myself but it's at least plausible. The article is worthwhile and a minor possible error in attributing blame is hardly worth trashing it for.

This piece doesn't make common sense. For every dollar Backman's family got back, how many did the government take? The author never even asks the question.

Beware the people in uniform. They are the terrorists, and they blame you--their victim. That's how terrorism works. Until government is gone, we will continue to have terrorists. MKG

Decades ago somebody wrote a book called None of the Above, advocating putting that as a choice in all elections. Conditions today tell you how far that idea went. The problem with getting something like that on a ballot is that the voting process is controlled by corrupt politicians supported by an even more corrupt media who won't allow it to happen no matter what. Asking people to assert their own intent in not voting is cumbersome and impractical. Unless there is leadership and legitimate political processes, if you don't vote, the prevailing attitude that you are apathetic will prevail. Any leader who arises to promote this idea will be quickly struck down--either discredited, or will meet an unfortunate accident, or may even be 'suicided'. Until these tactics are discredited, we won't see any change. MKG