Recent comments

"Right. But you have to own that then,” grilled Oliver. “You’re giving documents with information you know could be harmful, which could get out there.” Harmful to whom? That is the question. Harmful to the government? The same government that is spying on us, eviscerating or liberties, and bombing innocents overseas? If so, that is a GOOD thing. And is there any actual evidence that any human beings were physically harmed as a result of this? I mean physically, not embarrassed, but actually physically harmed? If so where is it?

Paul Hein: The tragedy is that we allow them to do it. Shame on US! I "voted" you a 9 on this essay, Paul. I would have "voted" 10 -- a perfect score -- were it not for these last two sentences. I have not allowed "them" to do it. So I herewith absolve myself of "shame". Nah, I can't be totally absolved of shame. There are times I just let 'er slip due to such complete saturation and lack of interest in changing -- often among my dear libertarian writer/friends. There are friends on this very page who, I suspect, rue the day I stumbled upon the late Delmar England's "Insanity As the Social Norm". For years -- even prior to my official enrollment into the confederation of anarchy -- I had come to recognize the fallacy of "we", and also of "reification": "Missouri casts 15 votes for the next grand wizard of the klan!..." Neither you nor I cast any votes. I suppose as in the case of a political "convention" one individual can be delegated to speak for and represent a delegation of individuals who have met, voted and agreed upon a specific candidate for grand wizard. But it would be beyond the capacity of political reason to ask them to say something like, "...the Missouri delegation casts..." That would border on ending obfuscation, upon which all political "planks" reside. But "Missouri" did not support Barack Obama or John McCain or Ron Paul. A certain number of people in a place they're calling "Missouri" may have, but neither you nor I supported anybody. Well, I can't speak for you. Reification has drawn more professing libertarian writers into the snares of collectivist mentality than we can shake fingers at -- not that it does any good to go shaking fingers at anybody. "Japan attacked the US at Perle Harbor." Wrong. "Japan" doesn't exist. Nor does "the US". People exist. We need to stop engaging in collectivist thought hawsers if we're going to be effective in proselytizing our "ism" of libertarian thinking. You've provided a good start with this essay. Here's a good documentary outlining the phenomenon (1 hr 22 min). It was posted and promoted on Dollar Vigilante just today. I do greatly appreciate this article, Paul. It is well-written and clear. I no longer feel like the lone voice in the wilderness. Sam

Mark: "...their ain't a whole lot of new rich people these days..." I am a sovereign state. I am also "... the new rich..." It really wasn't that great of an accomplishment, with a population of 1 -- but it is an achievement. My affluence came about through my divorce from measuring wealth in terms of "federal-reserve-notes". Oh, I keep some with me. Every day when I cross the border into a place they're calling "The-US" I find precious few merchants who would accept or even recognize anything other than FRN's. Ever now and again a clerk will hold the '20' I just handed her up to the light. I'll usually say, "that's counterfeit!". They generally stare back with that blank, suspicious appearance; although lately I've discovered a few will smile with a look of perception. Which is another reason for my prosperity: I don't need their approval for my self-esteem. Or the approval of those psychopaths who make up that abstraction called "the state". Because I now understand that anybody within that group, in order to maintain their employment and hope to rise to the top of their "division", will prevaricate. Obfuscation has been the bulwark of the science of rulership since the very first khans discovered they could become governors and senators and kings by allowing the inhabitants of the conquered villages to remain alive and continue to produce and trade; rather than to rape all the women, then slaughter all the men, women and children. Obfuscation is the bulwark of what has recently been defined as "Stockholm Syndrome" -- the desire of the conquered to gain recognition and amenities from their conquerors (also known as "patriotism"). The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

You didn't ask for my take, but I'll present it nonetheless: Years ago I ceased using the term "rights". It is no longer in my vocabulary. I make choices. I am aware there are people near and far who feel duty-bound to interfere with many of the choices I make. It is my responsibility, and mine alone, to defend myself from those interlopers. And, if my choices should give rise to behaviors that interfere with your tranquility or your well-being -- or that of those you love -- I can expect negative repercussions from you, or them. It will be your natural backlash from my impudence, not due to your "right" to be left alone. So I refrain from interfering in your life. I want you to like me. It's funner that way. As I see it (and I could be wrong), use of the term "rights" would imply that there are folks somewhere who are responsible for granting, maintaining or sustaining my "rights". They might, and they might not. If they don't, what am I going to do about it? Whine? Wring my hands -- gnash my teeth? If it's going to be, it will be up to me. Sam

Good day to you, Paul. I will presume that many, and perhaps most, libertarians believe in rights. Please elaborate about your perception of the term "rights." May I also presume that you do not think that rights are something that are defined and provided by government? I respect those who dare to think outside the box. Please again defend this position. Best wishes, T.

"Average citizens, he argues, must once again take their public responsibilities seriously and elect representatives who will take their oversight duties to heart and bind down this technocratic Leviathan with the chains of the Constitution." Yeah, that'll help (rolls eyes). What a moron.

You can always buy an aftermarket CSA plate holder if you really want  to express that sentiment.  CSA and other so-called specialty plates were only conceived as a way to provide extra money for the state.

You're an inspiration Doug!  How do we order/see the movie?

The only serious attempt at imposing outside rule on the zomians in modern times was in the 90s and 00s when the US DoJ made $$$ grants and military/police hardward available to eradicate opium production. Once the $$$ for that ran out, the whole situation regressed. So their strategy worked again.

From the paper: "...Even many anarchist economists such as Bruce Benson, Bryan Caplan, and Robert Higgs are fairly pessimistic about whether the state can ultimately be eradicated and repelled..." Throughout, the writers commit (among other fallacies) the "wrong question" fallacy: keep them asking the wrong questions and you never have to worry about answers. It is not a question of whether "the state" can ultimately be eradicated and repelled. The state does not exist. People exist -- psychopaths all when pertaining to mindless abstractions such as "the state". The question is whether support for the state can ultimately be eradicated and repelled. As the internet awakens a greater and greater mass of individuals to government and media chicanery -- as more and more ordinary folks come alive and abstain from beans -- there will be drastic changes in what we perceive as "the state". How that will all turn out -- when taken with the inevitable economic upheavals in the offing -- is anybody's guess. Sam

Ah, Mark. But remember diversity. Change is good. Keeps us aware of who the authoritarians are. Who know what's best. For us. Sam

If "DST" is such a good deal, why not set clocks ahead 2 hours -- or six hours??? (Same mentality as "minimum wage" argument -- why not a law requiring pay of 100 federal reserve notes per hour???). Actually, I've got a better idea: set clocks ahead one full day -- 24 hours! That way we could eliminate Monday, and all the debilitating hassles therewith! No sense being sad, pathetic or small -- it takes men with great wisdom and vision to make a village. Sam

Amen.  This population control bullshit needs to end.

That's just a rounding error to them.

Agreed. On both counts. My oldest daughter (age 55 -- yikes!) is about to retire from a lucrative state job. She's worked for government since she was 18. She'll draw considerably more in her retirement than my earnings ever amounted to through most of my working years. Of course, since the state is broke there's always anxiety amongst the retirees drawing the big bucks. They understand state agents in the form of governors, senators, etc., break contracts easy as a duck shoot -- no apologies. Of course I'm her Dad and don't think of her as psychopathic (or sociopathic). I'm as proud of her as any of her other six brothers and sisters. I'm also aware one must practice self-dishonesty to remain in state employ -- which, as you say, is part of the indoctrination. Like you, I spent time as a government hireling (serf) -- draftee, then ocs, then state patrol (as a trade off for early release from commitment as commissioned officer). This back in the days before police-state mentality. If a state policeman un-holstered a sidearm or a baton in those days he would face investigations and hearings and boards like you wouldn't believe. That was in the 50's -- Jim Crow was alive and well -- a factor of which I remind those who chide me for leaving police work. Racism goes with the job -- you do what you're told. You do not think. Or feel. Sam

Strange that Masnick (author, "Tech Dirt") sees this as out of ordinary -- but amazing that any of us reading on this page could also fathom as such. Has anybody here come to expect "justice" from an organization of psychopaths grouped under the mantle of what they're calling "U.S. Department of 'Justice'"?? "...the government can basically seize whatever it wants, just by claiming it was somehow related to a crime, but the seizure is only a temporary process. If the government wants to keep it, it then needs to go through a separate process known as civil asset forfeiture, which is effectively the government suing the assets..." People writing for Tech Dirt make no claims to anarchy -- or even libertarian "ism" sofar as I know. It is my opinion, however, that in order to effectively grasp anarchy one must come to understand something so basic it shouldn't bear stating: that mindless abstractions such as "...the government...('it')" do not exist. People exist. Psychopaths all, if employed by that group of woolgatherers. So if you let yourself fall under the "jurisdiction" of the white man, feel privileged if you come away with your shirt and your undershorts. Sam

If people simply gave up on the fantasies about government "help" and realized that everyone, including regulators and people in food corporations, work in their own interest, then this problem would be solved. They need to break the law, just like the homeschoolers did. The more who break it, the better off they will be - "safety in numbers".

"Besides, you cannot jump from crypto-fascism to freedom in a single bound, like Superman leaping over those tall buildings." Hmmm, I have at least some reservations about this statement (putting on my conventional political hat for the moment). For example, New Zealand made a significant jump in the direction of liberty a while back, by goring everybody's ox at the same time. If they had done it piecemeal, the usual interest group politics would have arisen to stop it. It's one thing for people to recognize that the system cannot go on as it is; another thing entirely for one interest to be singled out for the sacrifice. However, maybe this is picking at nits, since "going actually Constitutional" surely qualifies as at least as large as the improvements in New Zealand. About the only drawback I can see, is that ordinary people would resume their belief in the government religion, which is looking pretty shaky at the moment. So I'm not sure in the end that Constitutional government would look better for anarchists. "But, again, if both candidates would actually limit themselves to the somewhat minor responsibilities of the presidency as outlined in the Constitution, why would any of these things matter?" True, as far as that goes. But your argument has a flaw here. What if one candidate would adhere to the Constitution, and the other would go Hitler? Then it surely would make a difference, as you have already admitted that Constitutional government is way better than the current situation. Then voting makes sense, and even I would do it. This assumes their positions are evident and they are not lying. Of course the reality is that a true Constitutionalist will never become President. But it is certainly within the realm of possibility that one candidate is substantially worse than the other, and that that information is reliable enough. Doesn't voting make sense then? Don't we expect people to act in their own interest? I cannot bring myself to condemn voting per se. Sometimes it makes sense to support a better candidate, assuming it's possible to detect that he actually is. Sometimes it makes sense to support the worse candidate, if you think the situation is not recoverable conventionally and that a societal reset is in order. And sometimes it makes sense not to vote, if both candidates are odious or you can't detect which one is better - or even if you can, that the need to be independent of the system, or to condemn the whole system trumps any difference you can detect. I happen to think the latter happens with overwhelming frequency, so in effect I am a non-voter, and encourage others not to vote. The election is usually between Tweedledee and Tweedledum. From LeFevre's article: "When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will." I like LeFevre's article, but I think this is largely wrong. To whatever extent one can determine the intentions of others (not much), the dominant reason seems more to be some variation of "less harm to me" than of "I want to screw my neighbor". It would be interesting to add an "opt out" vote in an election, anyone voting that way getting to opt out of the laws passed by the winner of that election. I bet a lot of people would take it. Also, intentions hardly matter, do they? Who cares what people intend? What matters is what they do.

Thanks, Alex!  My, so it is; nearly 11 years. How time flies, when you're having fun.   That one (Primary Day in the Trash) features in STR's non-voting archive, but there is a large collection of other, splendid articles there. It's an excellent resource.

Seems these types of articles always stop short of grasping the overview: "...NATO exists to manage the risks created by its existence...” That, my friends, is the definition of monopoly state -- also referred to as "government" ("Our-Great-Nation", "My-Country" et al.) NATO is but a miniscule sliver of that megalopolistic behemoth. Sam

I have worked as a precinct officer (the person who looks up a person's name and issues them a ballot) for 11 years now. I have seen and heard it ALL - excuse after excuse after excuse. Believe me, I'm not one of those people who are going to shame you for writing this article. Shake a finger at you - call you UN-patriotic....because that would be un-American of me. You do have every right NOT to vote, NOT to disclose your political party - you have the right to free speech.... With that being said. When I work at every election (there are 2 every year if there isn't a presidential), I see mostly older or upper middle/working class, law abiding people come to vote. The rest are "new" American citizens who are proud to have the privilege to vote. I understand what you mean concerning the corruption of the government which is ruled by corporations and greed. In my opinion, I think "not voting" in a whole, is not the solution. I believe everyone has heard of the 'electoral college'. It's a secretive institution that chooses who we should vote for. Well, this obsolete 'program' was first constructed for the American people due to the fact that, in those days, it was common for the majority of voters to be illiterate. In China there have been protests against this same issue. They wanted to vote for whoever they want without any interference. The young generation took after such actions like the 'occupy movement' and held mass occupation in protest for their right to vote. My point is, telling people to stop voting isn't going to do anything because there will be people who are going STILL to vote. We have to tackle the problem at the root or it will never be fixed.

The other day I came across a French theologian's concurrance with me on Jesus' use of irony regarding the coin:   From “Anarchy and Christianity,” by Jacques Ellul, pp.59-60. Copyright 1988. We now come to texts which record Jesus’ own saying and which exegetes regard as in all probability authentic. We do not have here early Christian interpretation but the position of Jesus himself (which, evidently, was the source of this early Christian interpretation). There are five main sayings.   Naturally, the first is the famous saying: “Render to Caesar.” I will briefly recall the story (Mark 12:13ff.). The enemies of Jesus were trying to entrap him, and the Herodians put the question. Having complimented Jesus on his wisdom, they asked him whether taxes should be paid to the emperor: “Is it lawful to pay the taxes to Caesar or not? Should we pay, or should we not pay?” The question itself is illuminating. As the text tells us, they were trying to use Jesus’ own words to trap him. If they put this question, then, it was because it was already being debated. Jesus had the reputation of being hostile to Caesar. If they could raise this question with a view to being able to accuse Jesus to the Romans, stories must have been circulating that he was telling people not to pay taxes. As he often does, Jesus avoids the trap by making an ironical reply: “Bring me a coin, and let me look at it.” When this is done, he himself puts a question: “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” It was evidently a Roman coin. One of the skillful means of integration used by the Romans was to circulate their own money throughout the empire. This became the basic coinage against which all other were measured. The Herodians replied to Jesus: ”Caesar’s.” Now we need to realize that in the Roman world an individual mark on an object denoted ownership, like cattle brands in the American West in the 19th century. The mark was the only way in which ownership could be recognized. In the composite structure of the Roman empire it applied to all goods. People all had their own marks, whether a seal, a stamp, or a painted sign. The head of Caesar on this coin was more than a decoration or a mark of honor. It signified that all the money in circulation in the empire belonged to Caesar. This was very important. Those who held the coins were very precarious owners. They never really owned the bronze or silver pieces. Whenever an emperor died, the likeness was changed. Caesar was the sole proprietor. Jesus, then, had a very simple answer: “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s.” You find his likeness on the coin. The coin, then, belongs to him. Give it back to him when he demands it.   With this answer Jesus does not say that taxes are lawful. He does not counsel obedience to the Romans. He simply faces up to the evidence. But what really belongs to Caesar? The excellent example used by Jesus makes this plain: Whatever bears his mark! On coins, on public monuments, on certain altars. That is all. Render to Caesar. You can pay the tax. Doing so is without importance or significance, for all money belongs to Caesar, and if he wanted he could simply confiscate it. Paying or not paying taxes is not a basic question; it is not even a true political question.   On the other hand, whatever does not bear Caesar’s mark does not belong to him. It all belongs to God. This is where the real conscientious objection arises. Caesar has no right whatever to the rest. First we have life. Caesar has no right of life or death. Caesar has no right to plunge people into war. Caesar has no right to devastate and ruin a country. Caesar’s domain is limited. We may oppose most of his pretensions in the name of God. Jesus challenges the Herodians, then, for they can have no objections to what he says…      

Ha! Nice article! I have started growing last year in the Netherlands. When I visited Cali last year ran into somebody who was growing in the Forrest near Santa Cruz. It inspired me to start growing back home as well since 5 plants are legal here :-) I wound this website is very useful because they give away a free Growguide in pdf format. And they write a lot about growing for beginners as well. http://www.ilovegrowingmarijuana.com/grow-marijuana-washington-legal-way/

Thankfully, when I (finally) came to anarchy, I was not so naive as to think there was anything like a "freedom index" where predators were fewer, more far between, or more tame. If I were to move to a place with fictitious borders commonly referred to by the unwashed masses as "Florida", it would be because the weather is more amicable than say, a place also outlined by mythical lines and labeled by the uninformed as "New York". I prefer my old home location called "south central Texas", because I enjoy not only the weather, but also the sparsity of people. Interestingly, the folks over at that foundation (whatever that's supposed to mean) calling themselves "John Locke" have "found" Texas in its entirety to be rated "#12" (presuming that if I moved another 600 or so miles up to that cold and barren piece of earth labelled "Oklahoma" I would become more free by a factor of around 34% -- but would have to suffer the red dust and the dull traders :-]). My mantra is this: if I'm gonna be free, I gotta be free. Wherever I go there will be psychopaths, virtually all of whom will attempt to limit my freedom in one way or another. That is a factor built into that “social chaology" (thanks, Lawrence Samuels) that is so important to accept if one is to be truly free. My observation is that if "libertarians" would concentrate on encouraging their families and friends and neighbors to abstain from beans, freedom would become more entertaining for them. Sam