Recent comments

Unable to recall yesterdays reading, but did come from Jews for the Protection of gun rights. Author presented documentation that the greatest group of Mass Murders are individuals who are mentally ill or are loaded with dangerous drugs which the drug companies do not release all the side effects How does one legitimately correlate mass murder by mentally sick people to law abiding citizens. Currently I have been unable to discover rage shootings by law abiding citizens with mass murder or even inappropriate firearm use except for emotionally distraught LEO's.

"Lone-Wolf" ur ignorant mainstream butts: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/loners-vs-loneliness/52703/ Sam

As well he should. When Mao Zhedong set the Red Guard cadres loose on Chinese university campuses among their first victims were the faculty and administration. We should be so lucky.

Wow. And people say that "miltary intelligence" is an oxymoron. :D

Thanks, Lawrence. Of course it's not so much a review as it is a commentary. BTW, the "Jupiter Ascending" Blu-Ray just hit store shelves.

Tax is "voluntary" in the sense that the gov doesn't send a tax collector and a squadron of armed dragoons to our homes and doorsteps to collect the money, that's all. In the stilted lanuage of 18th century English and American politicos and their scribes, that the gov "trusts" you to just come in and pay it, or mail a check, etc., constituted voluntarily payment to their mind. Throughout  most of modern European and English history the King came to you to get paid, His tax clerks accompanied by armed men to emphasis the point that there was no discretion about the matter. By 18th century standards that was mighty nice of the gov to let you pay at your convenience But "voluntary" it ain't, everybody knows it, and I'm always surprised that professional resisters take that bound-to-lose tack.

Nice one, Dr. Hein. While in prison for failure to voluntarily contribute financially to the Iraqi and Afghani wars, I reached a similar conclusion. It is, I think, the central issue for nearly all the evil of government. Every person who pays income tax is complicit in the crimes of war by Bush and most of the other rulers. Jim Davies correctly points out that not paying income tax is not sufficient to bring down government, but it is a good start. It is easy to see why they prefer a cashless society. Perhaps Bitcoin will gain sufficient traction to make a difference. I am currently enamored of the concept of structuring all one's affairs as loans, which are not taxable. I can sell a product or provide a service in exchange for a loan. It is worth a thought or two, since it is not legally reportable or taxable, and it is legal, as far as I can tell. It would be glorious to die at age 100 heavily in debt(but off the books), and never having paid money to the mafia.

Interestingly, I eventually was able to google up a copy of the article by Jeff Berwick (in my opinion his best, written years before he became infected with statism) that had been posted in 2011 on a Yahoo Group message: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FPE/conversations/messages/61165 Jeff and Walter Block have gone whole-hog into political action, and justify themselves totally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4eNTINmk8 "Like-Falling-Off-A-Log" Keep your hand over your wallet pocket, Mates! Sam

Sam submitted a comment to this article at "The Economic Collapse". I doubt that it will ever see the light of day. Here it is: From the article: "...The real problem, of course, is our out of control spending..." "...We simply cannot afford to keep spending money like this..." Whenever an author uses "we" and "our" I can know s/he will neither discover nor address the root of the "problem" (quotes intended). I was going to link Jeff Berwick's "The Most Dangerous Word" ("we"). However, now that Jeff apparently considers himself a libertarian potentate, has chosen to dabble in political action (he's started spelling "libertarian" with a capital "L"), seems he's had second thoughts and taken the article out of the archives. But his essay included a link to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy19YmQHHJU which sez it all. My spending is not out of control. Is yours? I can afford to spend "money" (or what they're calling it nowadays) like I spend it -- unless or until my resources threaten to give out, at which point I'll need to make other arrangements, which I can do. Can you? I strongly believe you have two ways out of this mess: 1) exorcize your superstition (if you still cling to it) that you have "representation" over in a place they're calling District of Collectivism...er, Columbia. You don't. 2) Abstain from beans http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_abstainfrombeans.htm Sam Seems many of these blogs will only entertain thoughts along party lines. Mine seldom meet that criteria. Sam

Astute of you to point that out, Mark. But as a retired educator, I can tell you that if you are going to teach "political science and history" under the auspices of Georgia Board of Regents you are not going to even save a niche in a corner of your brain for the possibility of anarchy. It ain't in the cards, even though anarchy is all about us. Larken Rose says it far more eloquently than I: few can even imagine not falling to some degree under the "authority" of a ruling class. Yet there can be no legitimate ruling class. Douglas does a good job lambasting the "lefties", stays relatively clear of denigrating the "righties", but never addresses the choice or the ramifications of 100% self ownership -- anarchy. I'm pro-life. I'm also pro-choice. The immediate reaction of most to the former self-proclamation is to group me with the "religious right". And to the latter I'll fall under the category of "progressive left" (whatever "progressive" is supposed to mean). I'm neither. I like the way our old and late friend, Harry Browne put it: Conservatives vs Liberals Conservatives say government cannot end poverty by force, but they believe government can use force and threats of violence to make people moral. Liberals say government cannot make people moral, but they believe government can use force and threats of violence to end poverty (redistribute wealth). Neither group attempts to explain why government is so clumsy and destructive in one area but a paragon of efficiency and benevolence in the other. ~Harry Browne Liberty A-Z p 35 I've said forever (almost) that the family is the only legitimate governing unit. All others are coercive interlopers. The human newborn -- unlike newborns in the "animal kingdom", who come into life with a factor we call "instinct" -- comes into life totally helpless, completely under the "jurisdiction" (again, whatever you think "jurisdiction" means) of adult caregivers; ideally a loving and dedicated Mom and Dad. Mom and/or Dad may one day in their dotage come under the "jurisdiction" of the now-grownup kids. I genuinely salute Douglas Young, however, for writing this nice essay. STR definitely needs more articles that can give rise to comment from all sides of the spectrum. Sam

You lost me at "within the law" as a qualifier for freedom of choice in a free society.  Once you accept the dictates of politicians as "the law" to be obeyed, then quibling over the individual laws they dictate is nothing more than an academic exercise in futility.  That's closing the barn door after the horses have run out.

Larken Rose video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

You're being facetious, I know. And no, I was not pointing out personalities, especially you. I forget the last time any of us argued over "might-makes-right". You and I are fairly well in agreement with the "right" of that phrase ("rights" controversy) that has caused so much angst amongst anarchist potentates. But my point (not worded the best) was that "jurisdiction" can only exist through submission and/or force of arms (might). Often there is a combination of the two -- or one follows the other -- as in Stockholm syndrome. I believe Stockholm syndrome, or capture bonding, is the condition among the masses at an extremely high percentage (90% to 95%???) that has given rise to and sustains each and every nation or country that has ever come into being and that now blankets the earth. The superstition that always keeps a "nation" in place is called "jurisdiction". Murry Rothbard in "Anatomy of the State" outlined it boldly. That the only legitimate governing unit is the family unit. Parents, in anarchist setting, have jurisdiction over newborns (might, if you will) until adulthood, or "age of consent" (variable -- can only be legitimately determined by joint resolution between parent and child or, in some situations "either/or" -- for instance if the kid gets big enough either to run away or to whip the old man's butt :-[ and take over the farm, throwing her parents out into the cold). Later, the child might assume "jurisdiction" over aging and feeble parents. Sam

Good essay and good topic, Paul. Probably the very best 1 minute treatise on "jurisdiction" is encapsulated in this video that everyone has seen at least once: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE There are two ways one might acquire "jurisdiction" over another: submission, and might. Some of us will argue over "might-makes-right", but the very act of bickering about it implies to me that they have already in their mind submitted to "jurisdiction" by psychopaths acting under the guise of "authority" -- no force of arms necessary. I often present the only legitimate jurisdiction: the human family. All other jurisdiction emanates from coercive interlopers. Jurisdiction of violence or threats thereof. Newborn infants are totally under control ("jurisdiction") of Mom and Dad. They would not survive without it. Aging parents often accept jurisdiction from adult sons and daughters in those sunset years. Jurisdiction of love. Sam

"Why should a person obey the pros’ laws? Because his life will be made a living hell if he disobeys." I believe this is the main point that our insolent questions should lead to. If everyone understood this fact of life, legitimacy would crumble and people would start ignoring the bastards. But definitely, question everything. Question authority, like the old bumpersticker said.

So government forbids unlicensed foreigners to live here unless they do, in fact, live here. And when they live here, if they drive, they are handed a license to drive lest they should drive without a license. Not being true citizens they are of course not allowed to vote (assuming any of them wish to) but now, in California, those who can drive are to be compelled to be able to vote. Is that about it?   Just another day in La-La Government Land.

I love desert landscapes.

Corporations are the legal inventions of states. Without states they wouldn't exist.

Good points, Paul. Shades of Butler Shaffer a few years ago over at Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/06/butler-shaffer/green-statists-at-the... Sam

And they remain 'Slave Catching Patrols'.

Uh, is this article accurate? Saying that government water treatment is better and cheaper than private treatment? Oh-oh...

Jim: While I have no particular disagreement with your conclusions as to the origin and nature of "rights" (other than mere semantics, i.e., how can one own, per se, what one already is), your own conciliation that "rights" can be -- and as we well know, so often are -- violated, places such assertions in a kind of a priori status.  This is to say that, while the logic may be airtight, its application is not, necessarily. e.g., The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto had a "right" to live.  Fine.  But how much good did that "right," in practice, do them?  If "rights" can be said to exist concretely, irrespective of human action, then how?  And of what tangible value is that knowledge, or assertion thereof?  Such contentions are reduced to mere abstractions. I have come to think of "rights" as far more easily and accurately defined thusly: "Rights" (for lack of a better word) are, in practice, opinions.  And they require 2 prerequisites:   1.) They must be rooted in an idea that at least a sizeable number of others are willing to recognize as such (e.g., I have a "right" to free speech, but not to beat up anyone who angers me). 2.) They must further be such that, if they are abrogated or violated, one has a reasonable chance of defending or restoring them, whether by peaceable or violent means (if my free speech is violated, many will come to my support if not aid; the violators will be in a minority, and quickly defeated.  If I beat my neighbor because I don't like his views, I will receive very little support, my detractors will be many, I will be defeated).   Otherwise, it's all well and fine to assert one's "rights" -- and one can even be right, from a standpoint of rationalism.  Unfortunately, you can't always take that to the bank.   You almost invariably present a fine rebuttal.  :-)  I await yours in the sincere hopes of learning something.

What's the point of being a cop, unless you have access to coerced sex?

There is money to be made; careers...