Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    This comment to the article (by Popular Science of all folks) augments a comment I just made to Ken on another thread. My ongoing mantra is that the human family is the only legitimate governing unit. Others are merely coercive interlopers, enforcing their "jurisdiction" with loaded firearms. I look forward to the day that genuine anarchy prevails, and those intruders are all cast into outer darkness. I have no idea how it happens that Moms are equipped with this immune-giving and highly nourishing milk when they give birth. All I know for certain is that they are -- most of them. I'm not a religious man, but I consider this function of human procreation a miracle. Watch this old 9 minute video, by a true scientist who appears to be more religious than I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    I sense in your comment an indwelling, subtle misgiving of hard-shell individualism in deference to comfort in mild collectivism. Now, please don't misinterpret what I'm saying here, Ken: I'm definitely NOT accusing or lumping you in with collectivists. You would not be here and remain here and comment on and participate in the discussions here if you fit that category. You don't. You're an excellent "devil's advocate" for this forum. But use of the thought, or the interpretation '...Stirnerite view that they are "the law unto themselves"...' tells me something about how you approach testing the strength of my argument. So at the outset I must repeat that my oft-used "sovereign state" is itself a test of strength of the reasoning of critics I might have. Many "libertarians" seem to have a knee-jerk emotional reaction to use of the term "state". Well, aren't we supposed to "...hate the state..."??? So if I were (in sobriety) to rephrase it, I would be constrained to use the expression "in a state of sovereignty" (as opposed, for instance, to being in a state of melancholy). But if I did that I'd lose the "state" reaction, which is priceless. So, for now, I'll remain a sovereign state. I do not know how the world about me will play out once central political government collapses and disappears -- never to be resurrected; but replaced by free market, "common law" consequences that you outlined. I hope to be alive and cognizant when that takes place. It will be interesting (in a macabre sort of way, I suppose) to observe how the likes of Charles Manson will fare in a totally free "society". I have a hunch that the entirety of that murderous debacle was exacerbated egregiously by and within the structure of monopoly "justice" existing in California (and the world) at that time. As it is yet today. Will the Charles Mansons in a free world have the capability of getting off first base with their evil deeds? Won't free (and armed) folks have them stopped in their tracks before they leave childhood? I have faith that is how justice will develop once central political "authority" is scuttled once and for all time. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago
    He Pays No Tax!
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    To repeat an oft-made comment by me, I sort of hope Trump "wins" next month. Not that I have a dog in the fight or believe my world (which revolves around MY belly-button :-] ) will be affected one way or the other. But, like the "Brexit" vote, it could give us some indication as to how many of the unwashed masses are moving in our direction. "Win" or "lose", we can still glean some signal from the vote -- and it will be fun to see how many of the hoi polloi have been able to skinny out from under the constant inundation of the press and, as you mention, the 12 year indoctrination. Each day or week or month I gain an insight or two that solidifies my desire to be and to remain a free, sovereign "state". And I also have an indwelling curiosity as to just what percentage of adults around me are also are absorbing some of the increasing "alternative media" phenomenon. Just when I feel most alone in this thing, someone up or down the street will say or write something that gives me hope. As I commented recently, last time I voted (1964 -- devastated by the trouncing of my hero, Barry Goldwater) there was no such thing as the internet. "Mainstream media" was for the most part all there was. I suspected my new-found friend, Karl Hess, was rather of a kook -- until he introduced me to Harry Browne. Lots of h2o under the bridge and hope for the future. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 weeks 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    If each "sovereign" person had the Stirnerite view that they are "the law unto themselves" and so acted accordingly, the world we live in would swiftly become a Hobbesian hell, and in very short order, Sam. At least that's how it seems to me. I'm no legal scholar but this is how the whole thing about societal order seems to me to work, (when it works) at optimum. Culture > politics > laws. In a group where most people have shared values about right & wrong, cultural norms (i.e., "laws") are well known, so there's no need for arcane legal webspinning nor any opportunity to lobby lawmakers for special considerations. An ad hoc panel of judges picked by the defendents and plaintiffs themselves should be able to come to some form of settlement both can live with about 99 percent of the time. Persons that ignore court summons or decisions would swiftly find themselves unable to live or do business in a community if they did so by being declared an outlaw.  See Sam, if you are a sovereign state unto to yourself, so is Charlie Manson. (I dont think I need to explain the problems with that, do I?)  If some Amish people, for example, want to live how they like & according to their beliefs, their courts would probably get it right the vast majority of the time (n.b. "right" as in something that everybody can live with.) So revenge, retaliation, "pay backs" etc. are greatly disincentivized.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Absolutely. "...as long as the law remains a state monopoly, there will always be a political struggle for its control..." (John Hasnas, Myth of the Rule of Law) "We" have a long, long hill to climb, Ken. I strongly recommend anybody meditating your above assessment read Hasnas' short essay as linked above. Especially the conclusion, where he states, "...The time has come for those committed to individual liberty to realize that the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law..." Of course Hasnas talks about "...the establishment of a truly free society..." But I do not foresee a critical mass of individuals abandoning the idea of "the-rule-of-law" in order to establish a-truly-free-society. Therefore, I've found it necessary to establish a truly free society. A society of 1. I am a sovereign state. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 weeks 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    The real answer is abolishing government and government police. The entirety of the legal system should be local courts of justice who seek restorative settlements between parties. The only "crimes", as such, should be the seven (of the original eight) common law felonies. Everything else should be a private tort. Tweeks and reforms to the present system are but tail chasing that lead in circles. If you want to end prosecutors, bureaucrats, judges, and cops abusing us, then we have to end their authority over us entirely. 
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 3 days ago
    Consent and Secession
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "...why he continues to be allowed to publish on Strike the Root..." (emphasis decisively mine) And why not??? Would you prefer STR to be an exclusive "club" -- not to permit "...outside..." perspectives? Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 8 weeks 3 days ago
    Consent and Secession
    Page Paul Bonneau
    My contention is that "rights" are in reality little more than opinions. However, they possess two essential characteristics: 1.) They must be something that at least a significant portion of the population recognizes as such, and; 2.) they must be things that you have a reasonable chance of defending or restoring, in the event they are abrogated, by either peaceful and/or violent means.   Think about it: If you were alone in the world, would you have "rights?" The entire concept becomes superfluous. We only entertain the idea of "rights" once other humans come into the picture. This pretty much deep-sixes the idea of stand-alone concrete "rights" that don't depend upon outside human approval. Any contention to the contrary, again, is instantly reduceable to mere opinion.    Beyond that, Jim, your need to attack, attempt to belittle, and talk down to anyone who happens to disagree with or distemper you -- even when they present a perfectly valid viewpoint worthy of consideration -- seems to continue unabated, doesn't it?  So you shouldn't wonder when others prefer to sever communication with you altogether.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 4 days ago
    Consent and Secession
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I'll take the word of Carl Watner over that of Paul Bonneau any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.   As for rights being a "religious" concept (ie one grounded not in fact and reason but on faith) my STRticle Liberty: Rooted in Rights should dispose of that nonsense. It quotes Murray Rothbard on the subject, in part with "For the assertion of human rights is... because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe."   Bonneau is therefore setting his opinion against those of two of the most distinguished minds in the libertarian movement, and so once again raises the question of why he continues to be allowed to publish on Strike the Root.    
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 5 days ago
    Consent and Secession
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Oh, and I intended to comment on your main point: Carl Watner having difficulty letting go of latent statism. I see this as rather of an indisposition suffered by many "libertarian" authors nowadays. To truly strike at the heart of the root seems to create an eerie angst of sorts. Is there such a thing as "collective will"? The term appears to address fear of complete independence or a total individualistic poise that seems to create trepidation within rather than action without. It's almost as if I'm afraid that if I become totally independent -- an individualist -- I cannot be a good neighbor or friend or grandpa. A contagion that must be exorcised, I think, if one is to project good libertarian thought. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Armed SA squads were indeed part of the Weimar political unrest the fledgling post-war government couldn't hope to control, and most of their futile efforts to do so were instigated by Allied pressure.   I do feel that any contractor or business that provides products to governments should be expected to know that whatever is supplied will be put to detrimental -- if not in fact nefarious -- ends.  Yes, I think we can safely hold them liable for seeking profits from such a customer base.  In the case of IBM, it's pretty clear that it was known what all the early vacuum-tube computers and punch cards sold to Hitler would be used for.  The tattoos on the arms of camp inmates were the numbers fed into IBM machines for tracking and informational purposes.  Today, there are RFID chips....
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 5 days ago
    Consent and Secession
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Étienne de La Boétie had a peculiar skill nearly 500 years ago in assessing your quandary: I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him. Surely a striking situation! Yet it is so common that one must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle of a million men serving in wretchedness, their necks under the yoke, not constrained by a greater multitude than they. ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf Robert Higgs over 5 years ago: https://mises.org/library/consent-governed Apropos for the season, Paul. I hope a much, much larger plurality will take your cue and awaken this fall and choose to abstain from beans. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    True that.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 8 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    The House Boy has effectively utilized the Cloward-Piven strategies for the destruction of the U.S.A. Once that is eventualized, do you honestly believe everything will become a strike-the-root ideology or will this nation become the United States of Communist/Marxist America??? Once a politician becomes elected by the huddled masses, he or she no longer has any interest or use for those people who voted them in. They turn a deaf ear and pursue their idiotic ideologies until it is time for them to come and reason again why they should be re-elected. "Look at all the good I have done for you!" What good. I find it to be craziness. Someone once said that the Constitution was not a legal document. Well. That is accurate and the politicians discovered this years and years ago. I believe, in the final end, which I will more than likely not be around for, this chunk of property will be man-o-ah-man-o! Oh, oh! What will be will be. What say you?
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    LOL - Thanks Paul.  Only saw the first Die Hard movie. Used to live not far from Nakatomi Plaza in Century City. Stalking in Los Angeles: Nakatomi Plaza from Die Hard    Memorable dialogue throughout that action movie, some of it from Hans Gruber. Think Hans was the guy that helped the Clinton Foundation create and fund ISIS.   Die Hard: Hans Meets McClane - YouTube    
  • rothbardian's picture
    rothbardian 8 weeks 5 days ago Web link rothbardian
    Sam, The author I'm sure understands your point. He is an ancap as well. At the same time that we abide by our principles, it is useful to understand how we got here. Also, the 17th isn't something people think about. IMO it's useful to show people who are libertarian leaning or minarchist that every thing the State does, no matter how "democratic" sounding, perverts liberty. I get your gut reaction to "school the minarchist" or the person who has the gall to discuss these kinds of "solutions", since they aren't solutions at all. The State doesn't regulate itself or limit its own power.  Again, it's an intellectual exercise. One could criticize Ron Paul and the "End the Fed" crowd for the same reasons.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Good job here, Alex. I had not realized that the gun controls were in place before the Nazis took over; I'd thought they were instigated by Hitler.   Did you find in the book any reference to what I thought was the widepread, open use of guns by the Nazi SA before he was elected? - they marched and bullied extensively, I thought with rifles on the shoulder. But if those were all verboten in the Weimar republic, how was that possible? - the SA was not then a State outfit.   By the way (I'm an ex-IBMer) do you feel that a government contractor or supplier should be held responsible for the use to which customers put their products? One can refuse to accept government orders (I did, later, in my small business) but if they are accepted, surely the whole responsibility for use lies with the purchaser? The question becomes the more acute when recalling the orders for unusual quantities of bug poison ordered from I G Farben.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 hours ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Everyone should be armed. It is madness to entrust one's personal security to the murderous state. http://strike-the-root.com/become-dangerous
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 3 hours ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I sometimes wonder at the crap people are willing to put up with, to remain in the government school indoctrination centers. And then they complain about the treatment they get!
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 9 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    Agreed. I wouldn't mind at all if he indicts Cuomo and Deblasio.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 9 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Jonny, it's nice to see your comment. And you're so right. In my comment above I started out by claiming to propose the "answer" to Alex's query, "...What Defines Success in Alcoholics Anonymous?..." But my answer left the heavy side of the puzzle out. Old timers in AA insist one MUST go much further than to say, "I have not had a drink of alcohol today". The genuine answer is: "I have not found it NECESSARY to take a drink today". Because the Big Book never once admonishes the problem drinker to try not to drink. From stem to stern it provides ways of thinking and ways of living that make it UNNECESSARY to take a drink. But in addressing whether and how to stop drinking it insists one must first identify the problem: are you, or are you not (an alcoholic)??? Then, in the first part of Chapter 3 (end of p31 and start of p32 of the above referenced online publication): We do not like to pronounce any individual as alco- holic, but you can quickly diagnose yourself. Step over to the nearest barroom and try some controlled drinking. Try to drink and stop abruptly. Try it more than once. It will not take long for you to de- cide, if you are honest with yourself about it. It may be worth a bad case of jitters if you get a full knowl- edge of your condition. The "program" addresses how we should treat our neighbors, friends, coworkers, family members, etc. It's all about feeling OK about ourselves and our relationships with others. How to get along in a not-too-friendly world without finding it necessary to drink alcohol. So to the analogy with anarchy. Most who will ever read this understand that if everybody -- EVERYBODY -- would stop voting (and "stay stopped") our "problem" would soon be solved. That, along with ceasing to submit confessions to the white man ("file returns -- voluntarily" ha ha) outlining all resources and earnings. That, of course, is a greater hill to climb, because "we" have already given the beast his head in that regard. Reining him in brings forth the only "jurisdiction" in town (outside of family governance) -- loaded firearms in the hands of dangerous criminals. Our friend, Jim Davies, can illuminate a late mutual friend, Irwin Schiff's plight dealing with state gangsters -- and what happens when one attempts to publish and teach truth in an unfree world. But everybody won't. I remember early in my sobriety, I was in the midst of unbelievable lawsuits and parole violations, threats of further incarceration, etc., -- my AA sponsor (of soon to be 40 years) took me aside and admonished: "Sam -- don't TRY to make sense out of the world around you. IT-DOES-NOT-MAKE-SENSE. Just remember that, and you'll never need to drink again!" Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 9 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "Disutility" is an excellent assessment. And I'm pleased to see the link to your article of over 4 years back. Because I think it might have been that article (and the many comments thereto) that gave rise to my lament concerning lack of participation on so many of these forums of late. The essay was a good one; but it was that, along with the comments it elicited, that inspired me to rate it a "10". I was tempted to make a list of the many participants in that discussion ("pro" and "con") who seem to have totally disappeared. But decided against it for a couple of reasons. To incorporate your remark from a separate recent thread: "...But I don't think we should draw the conclusion that people are losing interest in liberty. Overall I see it going the other way..." Agreed. This thing is not going away. It's here to stay. And, hopefully, to grow exponentially. As an observation on the side, I sort-of hope Trump "wins"; 'tho I could care less one way or another who acquires the title of grand wizard of the klan. But it might indicate finale to mass and docile acceptance of mainstream propaganda on the part of the unwashed masses. Like "Brexit", it might cause them critters to twist and turn some -- but probably not stop the stampede toward destruction. It will no doubt take a drowning in their own phlegm to effect that. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 9 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    All true, but I'd still like to see Bharara indict Cuomo and Deblasio before he becomes a high priced defense attorney at some primo Manhattan law partnership.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 9 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    Good riddance to Preet Bharara, but even if he’s not reappointed, I’m sure he’ll be back in some capacity. The fact that he’s going after a few corrupt politicians to pad his resume hardly exonerates him for all the harm he’s done. He’s a politically ambitious statist who has been particularly aggressive in prosecuting the non-crimes of gambling, insider trading, and money laundering. Freedom and personal liberty mean absolutely nothing to him. Besides his vigorous prosecutions against bitcoin and internet gambling and payment processors, he also issued a subpoena and imposed a gag order on Reason Magazine for vague supposed “threats” against the Silk Road judge in its comments section. Reason later condemned the action for "suppressing the speech of journalistic outlets critical of government overreach".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    Cities do not pay for them. Taxpayers do. Taxpayer dollars are the easiest dollars to spend.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    "But what memorable dialogue did you ever hear in a popular superhero movie? Anything? Ever?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9imRk3N2kS4 Just kidding, Douglas. :-) I notice these days, if you want memorable dialog, you have to watch a foreign movie and listen to a translation of the original dialog, heh.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Growing Up
    Page Mark Davis
    Mark, while I generally agree with your article, I must at least question parts of it. First, every parent is an amateur. By the time they (think they) have parenting figured out, they are done being parents. Second, every child is an individual. They react differently to different forms of correction. Just to give an example, Stefan Molyneux takes a similar approach. He has even gone to the extent of telling on his forum, how he handles his girl, and showing videos of it. His method of avoiding spanking and other physical methods, while still stopping his girl from anti-social actions, is to hover constantly over her and to distract her from her actions when she goes wrong. In what way is this supposed to train her in independence from the state, which seeks to do the same thing to all of us? Some kids can take a whack now and then without turning into basket cases, and may even prefer it to long periods of verbal "discussion" (which is hardly a case of two equals coming to terms). So many who preach against spanking think that the alternative of psychological manipulation is without any drawbacks, for some reason. I say, the default should be the methods you discuss. An alternative, if that doesn't work, is just letting the child experience the consequences of poor choices. When that isn't practical either, try something else. Timeouts aren't such a bad idea, while they work. Personally, I think a multiple methods work, and which ones do that, depend on the mental state of the child more than anything, and also on the demeanor of the parent when delivering the correction. What I see happening that disturbs me, is *too much* correction, no matter what method is used. Let 'em know what things are wrong, but then let 'em experience the consequences (within reason). One other thing that I find less convincing from the anti-spanking contingent, are the words they indulge in to describe their opponents in this debate (not you, just generally). It leaves me the distinct impression they are more concerned with delivering a good whack than they are with the welfare of children. OK, one other thing. It's a rare parent who does more damage to their children through inadequate parenting, than the state does to children in government schools.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Ignorance of Bliss
    Page Anarchoblake
    The indoctrination is hard to break, even among the more aware. And as Sam points out, you will never make much headway among the masses. Political economy is far outside their area of expertise. Strangely though, with all these problems, human life does improve over time. I suppose the truth manages somehow to sink in, over the decades. I have noticed some of these trends on forums, especially lately. "My experience of men has neither disposed me to think worse of them, nor indisposed me to serve them; nor, in spite of failures, which I lament, of errors, which I now see and acknowledge, or, of the present state of affairs, do I despair of the future. The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient, the work of progress is so immense, and our means of aiding it so feeble, the life of humanity is so long, and that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave, and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope." -- Robert E. Lee
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "the only possible motivation for Dodes’s position is to carve out a name for himself in academia by positioning himself as a “pioneer” in “exposing” AA and 12-step alcohol recovery, all the while selling books, collecting royalties, and getting paid for speaking engagements." Maybe not the *only* possible motivation, but perhaps the most likely. So much for academia... When people are free to speak their minds, inevitably some will be assholes about it. This reminds me a bit of the whacking one sees libertarians administer over recycling, because it is not "economic", etc. Guess what, even in a completely free society, some people will recycle anyway, economic or not. If their own calculations suggest recycling is a good thing, then why is it anybody else's business? Yes, government injects coercion into recycling, but don't they do that with everything? That's not a hit against recycling. I have noted the disutility of criticizing religion before: http://strike-the-root.com/dehumanizing-people-is-fun
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Slaves of the Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    As to where all the people are going, I've noticed too. The Free State Wyoming forum has gone pretty quiet, and Vanderboegh's forum is down (although he was always minarchist). The one forum I'm on that is hopping is NW Firearms, and the moderators do their best to keep overt political comment completely off, although that has got to be difficult with a subject like firearms. Maybe people are getting tired of being reminded they are slaves and powerless. Can't say I blame them. Maybe this article was a mistake! But I don't think we should draw the conclusion that people are losing interest in liberty. Overall I see it going the other way.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Slaves of the Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "but I fear liberty ain't gaining any ground with it either tho." Missouri is now the what, 10th or 11th state to recognize "constitutional carry"? Progress is being made somehow... Of course these are again, actions of the legislature. Better than nothing for them to decriminalize something innocent, but not as good as everybody just carrying despite what the law says about it.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 9 weeks 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Congratulations!  You searched really hard and found this example of migrants committing crimes.  Do you imagine that no crimes are committed by people born in the UK?  But those don't interest you, do they?  They don't help you grind your axe.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 9 weeks 4 days ago Web link rothbardian
    Nichta: "...Getting power out of Washington and into the hands of the people and local governments will move 'us' toward re-establishing what the Framers of the Constitution sought to create: a nation of liberty. Repealing the 17th Amendment is a step in that direction..." Once one allows the term "power" into his or her vocabulary, s/he's no longer thinking in terms of liberty and freedom. Her mindset is locked in serfdom. I mean, where is "Washington"??? And where are "...the hands of the people..."??? How local is local??? Just what, exactly, are you talking about when you say "...re-establishing-what-the-Framers-of-'the'-Constitution..."??? And who is the "us" that are going to do the re-establishing??? If "it" was once established, what happened, and why is "it" so egregious that "it" needs to be "re-established"??? Anarchy is simple, and it's free. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 10 weeks 3 days ago Web link KenK
    On election night 2008 after he was declared winner, Obama made his triumphal appearence in Chicago with Roman Empire style imperial columns, which looked to me over wrought and cheesy, but I gave the guy the benefit, that he probably didn't know any better or that maybe that's what was arranged for him by his staff. Read this piece and you'll see that this guy is really believes that HISTORY, in the Marxist sense, CHOSE him to lead AmeriKKKa out of the darkness and into the light of SJW approved modernity. Bottom line: What an asshole.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 10 weeks 3 days ago Web link KenK
    "Legal money" in the sense that it isn't counterfeit or an attempt to defraud.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 3 days ago
    Growing Up
    Page Mark Davis
    Having a total distaste for the funeral phenomenon, I've donated my rangy old cadaver to the local med school anatomical dept with specific instruction: no liturgy, no "memorial service", no urn full of ashes, no obit, no crap. "...If you wanta say nice bull-crap about me, say it now -- when I can hear it! If you wanta get me flowers, get 'em now -- while I can smell 'em!..." In having one of those animated discussions at a family gathering some time back, one of my sons, always the jokester, announced: "Hey guys! Let's have Dad's funeral next week!" Sam
  • Brian Mast's picture
    Brian Mast 10 weeks 4 days ago
    Growing Up
    Page Mark Davis
    I like your article Mark. I think that parents should be considered as guardians, rather than owners, of their children. Perhaps there would be less child abuse if people didn't think of their children as being owned by them. I have some further thoughts to add to yours. I am one formerly abused child who does not love my mother at all. I will not attend her funeral when she passes away either. It is far better for me to not attend it than to attend it and to blurt out "That is a lie: She was not a good, loving wife and mother!" at the speaker saying those nearly obligative customary final words. Customs such as this and automatic forgiveness would not exist in a just society. Saying all of the deceased were "good and loving" during funerals cheapens the meaning of those words and dishonors the ones who actually were "good and loving" people. I fully support forgiving people who are honestly repentant and who have made reparations to people who have been wronged. Forgiving the unrepentant cheapens all of the work and effort that was made by the repentant people wishing to restore their honor. Many people who call themselves Christian including my mother feel free to act like the devil because, in the end, they will have to be forgiven once they say the magic phrase: 'please forgive me'. I will probably just see my relatives from out of state afterwards. Most of them are religious Amish and Mennonite people. Some will undoubtedly ask why I didn't attend it. I will tell them the summarized version of what I said in my second paragraph. They knew that she was abusive. Until that time; I will continue living my life as if she doesn't exist.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 10 weeks 4 days ago
    Growing Up
    Page Mark Davis
    Thank you, Sam. Your comments are always insightful.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 4 days ago
    Growing Up
    Page Mark Davis
    I meant to add one more thought to Mark's nice essay and my comment. And this is stuff I've posted many times previously: the family (the only legitimate governing unit) will one day come all the way around. The children, now adults, will become responsible for care of elderly and perhaps senile and dying parents. I do not know how all this is going to work out once monopoly and egregious "government" finally capsizes in its own swill and anarchy results. Because there will be various levels of parenting skills and interest, as well as adult children who will have no desire to be responsible for demented parents (or disabled children of their own). I can't put my finger on Mr. Davies' article where he outlines "crime" (by agents of state) as opposed to "krime" -- but I'm sure the later will not go away in the total absence of central political authority. There will still be irresponsibility and encroachments by nogoodnicks. These issues will be dealt with in the marketplace. You might say I have "faith" in the marketplace. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 4 days ago
    Growing Up
    Page Mark Davis
    The human family is the only legitimate governing unit. Each presumed "jurisdiction" is a coercive interloper -- nothing more (enforced with firearms). The human newborn is unique among all other living beings in that s/he arrives totally and 100% dependent upon adult caregivers -- hopefully loving Moms and Dads -- together, in a loving and dedicated relationship. S/he arrives on the scene lacking those phenomena we like to call "instincts" observed in the animal kingdom. Everything must be learned -- again, hopefully, from loving Moms and Dads (and, all too soon, from siblings, playmates, government educators, "society" [a mindless abstraction], etc etc). Parents must protect newborns from exposure, unsanitary situations, hunger, and ever-present dangers such as falling and touching or imbibing dangerous items. As you mention, good parents will soon recognize the need to allow more and more "freedoms" as time develops -- until that ultimate and alarming first adventure with keys to the car and going out into the cold, cruel, and dangerous world on their own. How many of us, having issued that 11PM curfew, anxiously waited up, nervously listening for the car coming down the lane prior to the deadline -- that son or daughter "made it" through that first escapade without calamity. We knew the trip hazards they had yet to learn -- the hard way, for some. I'm grateful I chanced upon Barry Goldwater, Karl Hess, Harry Browne and Robert Ringer (for starters) before most of my 7 kids had cut their eye teeth. I was able, accidentally, I think in many cases, to teach them to think and act as individuals. Harry taught me (and, through me, them) that each of us can experience freedom in an unfree world. Nice to see you back aboard, Mark. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 10 weeks 4 days ago
    When to Flout Laws
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    sam Well, when you said: "The white man is rather stupid when you boil it all down." could lead to making that conclusion, tho. Ken
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 5 days ago
    When to Flout Laws
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    I did not say "white people are stupid". I'm not collectivist. Anybody who implies "white" or "black" or in-between races of individuals have lower intelligence or capabilities are themselves impudent collectivists (as I see it -- I can't be the judge of anyone but me). I use a term, the-white-man, in deference to an epithet used by the late Russell Means and his genre when referring to presumed "authority". I suppose that had to do with the fact that people of generally lighter skin reportedly arrived on this ("America") continent, had their butts rescued from starvation and privation by the friendly but generally darker skin inhabitants (who had already been residents here for many generations); then had the arrogance to declare that they had "discovered America". Since they didn't know where they had landed, they had the rudeness to refer to the inhabitants as "Indians" -- a badge of white man's ignorance that remains to this day. And, to show their appreciation, those "white" men and women collectively elected for themselves leaders who led their hordes to butcher themselves across those same people's homeland and claim it for themselves: "our-great-nation". A vestige of that carnage will be acted out once again in a bread-and-circus "election" this next fall (November, Gregorian) Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 10 weeks 6 days ago
    When to Flout Laws
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    White people are stupid? Care to expand on that?
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 10 weeks 6 days ago
    When to Flout Laws
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Well said, Sam. Balancing sound principles to live by with successful survival strategies to go on living typically lead one to "fly under the radar" whenever possible.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 1 day ago
    When to Flout Laws
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    I never think in terms of "obeying" or "disobeying" when it comes to the white man's (thanks, Russell Means) "laws". I only think of consequences. But I will not live in fear. The white man is rather stupid when you boil it all down. He is as afraid of me as I could be of him -- one-to-one. The problem Irwin Schiff had was his lust to flaunt his understanding under the white man's nose -- knowing full well the man would bring in all his associates to quash him. When you're talking about government, you're talking about gang warfare. Individually they're all cowards. Collectively they can overwhelm. There is a correct and right way for me to live my life. I want, for instance, for you to like me. Therefore, I will not be rude, unkind or disrespectful towards you or those with whom you're associated and for whom you care. I won't attempt to swindle you or take your belongings. Simple stuff. It's not fun to live in a world where I'm not liked or accepted or respected by those with whom I have interchange. But I always believe a man with a loaded gun. Or woman. And I fully understand that there is no such thing as "jurisdiction". Only loaded firearms, willing to do great bodily harm at the drop of a hat. So, the path to liberty is mainly learning to sidestep and circumnavigate being fired upon. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    wir sind alle Migranten Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    I personally steer clear of guilds and professional associations, but that does not mean they do not or can never "...serve a purpose..." However, the nature of organizations of psychopaths hiding under the abstraction called "government" is to infiltrate and co-opt virtually every free and voluntary activity. On that one can depend. First order of business is often to beseech agents of government to oversee the licensing of members. Licensing -- all licensing -- is restraint of trade -- shutting out new entrants into markets. There are cases where guilds and/or associations merely ask marketers to meet certain standards in order to carry their label. Good Housekeeping seal of approval could be an example, as can kosher labeling agencies. But even then, if those heading associations seek state aid in the form of trademarking or patenting, they embroil themselves in the insanity of state violence -- a never-ending treadmill. Read: http://www.thedailybell.com/news-analysis/new-dehli-strikes-down-copyrig... Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 11 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    Keine Sozialleistungen oder finanzielle Anreize weniger unerwünschte Migranten
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 11 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    Guilds and professional associations serve a purpose. The critical issue though is withholding state power from them so that they keep to that purpose, and not get involved in rent-sinking, establishing monopolies, and shutting out new entrants into markets. Comes down to state power. Without it these organizations are denied the temptations to get into that stuff.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    Grenzen sind aber fiktiven Linien in den Sand Sam