Recent comments

"Panarchy" redundant? Possibly. But who's to say that redundancy has no utility? We are not talking about math axioms here, but human behavior. Cooper's 4 rules of gun handling are redundant too - which is exactly the point. "Allows" - probably a poor choice of words on my part, that's all. Maybe "facilitates" would be a better word, although I usually roll my eyes when I hear anyone else use it. "Communism and fascism are indeed dangerous superstitions. We fight them – daily." I don't know about that. I don't fight anyone who wants to live in a commune on their own. I fight imposition. I think people too easily slip into opposition mode without defining for themselves exactly what and why they are opposing (I'm referring here to the general public, mostly). As to me being gone from here, it's not any big thing. Just peaks and valleys in the need to communicate. Getting older means realizing you don't need to express an opinion on every little thing. I'll be moving soon too; that will distract me some. I'll probably post here as long as there is a here to post to.

Serenity, like Samarami I hope you'll reconsider, and think you're mistaken. But may I take up one line in your post: you wrote of "a belief that there is only ONE way to achieve a goal. one belief. one method to anarchy."   By "anarchy" I presume you mean a society rid of the curse of government, and by "way" or "method" I presume you mean a plan to get there. Correct me if I presume wrongly.   I'm aware of only one such plan, documented here, which a few of us worked out back in 2006. Do you know of some other?  I've watched, but have seen none. There's plenty of activity, but nothing having the form of a plan - with clear objectives, methodology, contingencies etc. But if you've seen one, please name it before you go - if go you must.

And a cheerful good morning to you too, Alex.

Your frustration is definitely understandable. I do hope you'll reconsider. You've been a very good anchor over a moribund period of STR's history. I, too, long for the days when good but often very controversial essays were posted regularly -- often with literally hundreds of comments thereto, sometimes tumultuous, sometimes in agreement. If libertarians are afraid of controversy, they're pretty ineffective voices for us. Sam

I think it's long since abundantly evident to most -- if not all -- others just whose absence from this site would be most welcome.

Sam, I have indeed wished that Paul Bonneau be banned from writing anything on STR, and I repeat that desire here and now with all the emphasis at my command. I cannot prove that he is a government agent provocateur, but my opinion is that he is. Whether so or not, the effect is the same: as you have yourself observed, if I recall correctly, STR has become a mere shadow of its former self. The owner/editor's abject failure to expel him is a large part of the reason. By his own open admission he has declared that nobody has any rights, so by definition he is not an anarchist. He has also called for compromise with statism by means of panarchy, above as previously; he therefore has no proper place on a site that calls for the abolition of initiated force. It is a disgrace to STR's published mission statement that he is allowed to continue here in good standing.   Tolerance is a fine virtue, as of course is the libertarian principle of "live and let live". Now answer me this: suppose an open, explicit statist - a socialist or fascist, whatever - were to publish an article on STR. Would your tolerance extend to wanting his views to continue to appear? If not, why not? - where is your borderline? Or if so, then you are saying there is no limit, that STR is merely an open forum like all the others, and need strike no root of evil at all.

"...one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted..." OK, Fellahs, I'm a' comin' out: I'm a gay man. Actually, I have no need to "come out" -- I've been out forever. I'm gay -- except for those times that I'm morose, downcast or grumpy. Incidentally, I'm not "homosexual" in any sense of that agendum. That'd be a bit awkward, since I'm father of 7, grandpa of 26, great-grandpa of many and counting. I have no tolerance for the social engineers to usurp a perfectly adequate descriptor of emotion as "gay". But, somehow, they've made that euphemism for "...rude, disgusting or perverted..." behavior almost a mandate -- you can be charged by the white man with "hate crimes" by even implying that you do not believe that anybody, man or woman, is homosexual... that that is a behavior, nothing more. Oh, me. What a messed up world. Glad I live in a sovereign state. Sam

No, John, my remarks were right on target. As often before, Paul's article set out to distract readers from anarchism, to promote which STR is supposed to exist. From your other post below I see that you may not be familiar with his trick. It's explained in my Panarchy is for Losers.

You seem to be replying to some other column.  Or perhaps you missed the sentence, "This is quite a bit different than stuffing an entire country into communism. What a lethal mess!"  Sorry, two sentences (I felt I had to add that to keep from provoking a rant about idiots who can't count sentences).

This is interesting and have heard about it other places. The idea of simulating the metabolic effects of IF (intermintent fasting) by calorie is interesting. Very interesting book: Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung as nephrologist explored the connection with diabeties and kidney issues. It uses fasting including extended fasting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Aw0P7GjHE

The real problem with this case is a lack of respect for property rights. Cases like this are purposely used by statists to impose and expand state power over private property and thus subjugating property owners resulting in defacto ownership of all property by the state. A business (property) owner should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason whether or not anybody else believes it to be rational or irrational.   I've been an atheist for a long time but I'm still sympathic to the beliefs of Deists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and other philosophical manifestations of the human mind seeking spiritual guidance and/or fulfillment. I believe that these religious philosophies each have positive and negative aspects with some being more positive overall (Deism, Buddhism, and Christianity) and others more negative overall (Islam and Satanism). The evolution of Christianity is inherently intertwined with the development of Western Civilization that gave us both the modern state and free-markets. I see the glorification of guilt as the biggest inspiration as well as the biggest problem with Christian philosophy as it both causes intense self-reflection and psychological self-mutilation. Anyway, this case is (as Jim points out above) about a political agenda that is targeting primarily property rights, but also the Christian religious beliefs that spawned them and continue to support them.   Also, one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted. When these feelings manifest in behavior that results in non-violent actions such as shunning, which is the basis of freedom of association, then there should be no problem (find somebody else to bake your cake); it is only when the reactions become violent and people seek out and punish those they have disdain for that a real problem arises (beating up gays).

Mike Rozeff et al make a strong case that privacy relates to property, but I wonder if anyone can think of exceptions? Consider three cameos, for example:   1. You take your girlfriend for a romantic sunset stroll on a deserted beach, and part way along you strip off and make love. But Tom, in the grass on the headland yonder, has been photographing birds with his Nikon and sees you; he peeps through his 1000 mm lens and clicks away to build an eye-popping portfolio of pics.   Next day he offers not to post them to the Net, if you make it worth his while. You suffered a privacy loss, but who is the rightful owner of those images?   2. Meanwhile behind you on the other headland, Doris was setting up her stargazing telescope to observe some heavenly bodies, when her eye too was caught by the scene on the sand. She had no camera, but redirected her instrument for a closer look. At breakfast next day she thanks you for the show, and asks whether next time, she might join you and make up a threesome.   So again, you both lost privacy - but what property was removed?   3. Lady Caroline, daughter of the Earl of Grinchester, got pregnant by a footman but decided to conceal the fact from everyone, including him. She took a long tour of Europe, ending up in Switzerland where she gave birth and handed over the baby for adoption. She then returned home fresh, virginal and ready for the most handsome and wealthy young Viscount to offer to endow her with all his worldly goods.   So she preserved her privacy; but how was property involved?

Serentiy, I agree that Eric Peter's article is an excellent statment of the problem. He's a very fine writer. But I don't agree that it qualifies as "brilliant" - because it completely fails to propose a solution.   "Until enough people’s minds are changed about coercion and collectivism, resistance is futile..." Yes, correct. So how, precisely, are people's minds going to be changed? What's his fix?   I have a solution, and it resides at http://tolfa.us/ - and Alex, whom you praise, has explicitly rejected that, while proposing no alternative except his "7-point plan" which, as I showed here, is no plan at all. So I'm unable to agree with your "well done."

Alex;   Well Done! Brilliant! i am going to use this next friday's edition. someone else may use it during the week as well but it needs repeating! day after day repeating...excellent..thank you for writing it. 

Hi Jim;   I am grateful for your kind words and input. The name i picked came from the movie of the same name.  I also thank you for your many years of battling for the minds and hearts of people. I always say, nothing will change until the mind does. the thoughts. the perceptions. the beliefs. the very heart of mankind. Sadly, It seems that the essence hasn't changed a bit. it has gotten darker and darker and darker. sinking deeper and deeper into bondage. People's bodys are enslaved for fact but they had to voluntarily give their master their minds and hearts as well. They handed off their spirit. their soul if you will for a few alms. bits of wood pulp and the latest walmart widget. I have a picture of Black Friday and the sea of faces in anger, hate and despair. that is what we battle. and it is a what has been lost.  You can't make people think. you can only guide them to their own knowledge. you can't educate a single person. they must do it themselves and be willing to. In a world of slaves that refuse to be free all you can do is free yourself and hopefully live by example. Free the mind and nothing the rulers do to the body matters though it would be better to be free completely. if you still refuse to hand off your mind and your thoughts to those who wield the whip your spirit will remain free and you can shout in a loud voice ''NO! '' i will not comply! it is a willingness to not beg for freedom that will be the biggest way to regain it. no matter the consequences. It saddens me that so many spend all their energy and efforts to attack what they do not agree with. That is an attempt to shame and silence. Strip a person of the very essence of what they claim to believe in. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Yet when disagreements arise people will attack. As you have been. As many other writers have been. Silenced. How much energy was put into the attack that could have been put into their own writing. it is amazing how much effort is put into destroying and so little put into creation of thoughts and ideas.  As a temporary guest editor i thank you for all you have written. All you have attempted to do Jim. I learned a great deal from your early writings. Those of yours and many others. Point of fact, that is where i got my own start. Ayn Rand, Larken Rose, Jim Davies and countless others who used to write and who are now silent. I learned and taught myself from their belief. i took what i wanted. what worked for me. and left the rest behind. I pieced together my own knowledge from countless others and formed my own life and what i value from those very writings. Instead of attacking another persons views or articles. It is a wonder people can't just accept what they agree with and leave the rest alone. That is one way people are still free. free to not read something. turn the page so to speak. I truly do not understand the need to be ''right''. the need to destroy or discredit. the need to pick things apart like vultures picking apart a bone. I do see that happening. Here and many other places. It isn't all ''trolls''. it is people who who profess to believe as we do that do the most damage to each other. Instead of lifting each other up we tear each other down.  If an article strikes a cord the first thing one does is try to tear apart the author and style of writing. Ignore the message being stated. wether or not it is good or bad. so much energy and effort spent to discredit instead of dispute. how would it be if they took what they liked and left the rest. expanded on it and someone else expanded on that again. and again. leaving the ego and emotion out of it as much as possible. take what works and leave the rest. no need to cannabalize the author by putting him/her in a pot of boiling water for the great crime of sharing their thoughts with others. yet that boiling pot is why the battle is lost. The people fighting that battle were burned at the stake so to speak. now one looks around and finds no one is left to fight for the minds and hearts. liberty becomes a myth. a thing one tells ones children to frighten them. (in the homes of those who worship the state it is fearful to be free and not taken care of)  there is my rant...as i said. let the whippings begin. have at it. 

Samarami and Alex. i agree with both your comments completely. however, Sam. on not wanting to write articles i feel there are lots just like you, and, me. countless others. not wanting to write or speak out because of the in fighting and endless attacks from those who claim to want to advance the ''cause'' of anarchy. Only one size fits all or should as some believe. That being said. i find as an editor it is becoming extremely difficult to find ''root striker'' articles that fit the bill so to speak. So Few are hacking at the roots these days. The few that are, don't stay long. Or give up due to being bloodied and beat about the head and ears. As Anarchists they give up the idea of education. or writing their opinions. Having no home or few places left to post their ''beliefs''. The original writings. passionately done are hard to find. a dying breed that soon will cease to exist in the era of digital darkness where censorship is cheered instead of denounced.  The interent of things, the fake news from those who originated that concept now being the excuse needed to institute an OFF BUTTON for anything outside the ''official'' parrots who call themselves reporters. Articles are being erased almost as fast as they are posted. What to do?  that is the million dollar question isn't it? The love of liberty and desire for it is quickly being extinquished. But then again. I doubt anyone alive today has ever experienced true liberty. For all the flag waving and cheerfully proclamations for freedom form the people's of the country and other countries that think they have it. Point of fact is. they have never had it. never known it. and likely never will. not even at the beginning after the revolution. the people swapped one tyrant for another. no liberty was gained. a slight of hand as to who holds the leash and wields the whip.  there..that is my two cents for what it is worth. let the whipping begin!! ha! 

Scare tactics.  As the article says, it's only going to cover companies that do over $100,000 business in VT per annum, and then only customers who spend more than $500 per annum with those vendors.  Good luck with all the rest, not to mention cash business next door in New Hampshire.  And unless I receive a registered letter someone forces me to sign for, I never received it.   They're going to end up spending more than they get from this.  Let them.  We'll just keep busy finding ways to continue to avoid their taxes, choke off their supply of revenue, and diminish public support for them altogether.

Good point, Sam. Sometimes they can get very close, though, and stay around for a while.  Not long, for the reasons you give. At its peak, IBM had about 70% of the mainframe market. How much of the on-line retail market is now held by Amazon? - and of the operatiing system market, by Microsoft?   Contrast the first-class mail market, the road market, the national "defense" market, the "education" market... every one, a monopoly and every one, operated by government or under its close protection.

This "Australian" outfit is an example of the dead and dying mainstream "press" -- in order to comment one must first subscribe -- at a cost calculated in federal reserve notes. So, the "comment" section is primarily pablum. This article is a classic example of Thomas Pynchon's illustrious "...if you can keep 'em asking the wrong questions you'll never need concern yourself about answers..." Social engineering in spades (IMHO -- which ain't that humble). Sam

"...Thus, a contradiction exists. So which is it; have humans evolved in ways suited to slavery, or to liberty? Or if you prefer to say there's a creator, has that Creator made humans for servitude, or freedom? I'm optimistic, Jim. Perhaps it's due to my "station in life" (in my dotage???). But I see inroads being made -- perhaps not as fast as either of us would like. The "Brexit" and "Trump" phenomenon might serve as examples. Neither meant a lot to me (you wrote at least one essay hoping "Trump" to be victorious over "Clinton" to become grand Wizard of the Klan) -- except that more and more are beginning to question "conventional wisdom". Ron Paul was another. To what extent the questioning will be sustained and enhanced, I have some hope. As I've said so many times, Jim: I fully intend to live to see "state" as we've always lambasted "it" ("it" only exists as a brainless, evil abstraction) buried in its own swill. The question: will a critical mass rid themselves of the superstition that is "authority". "...I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public's ability to engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people. I would argue that this ability to maintain the belief that the law is a body of consistent, politically neutral rules that can be objectively applied by judges in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, goes a long way toward explaining citizens' acquiescence in the steady erosion of their fundamental freedoms. To show that this is, in fact, the case, I would like to direct your attention to the fiction which resides at the heart of this incongruity and allows the public to engage in the requisite doublethink without cognitive discomfort: the myth of the rule of law..." A quote from Hasnas' "Myth of Rule of Law" Sam

Many thanks! Been working from government ("public" ha ha) library, and having to try to paste stuff onto and paste from flash drive. Sam

http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/ No writer keeps my attention who uses the dangerous collectivist pronoun "we". How does this individual perceive that I ever "learned" such a thing? We've never met, far as I know. Words Now, please stretch your imagination and envisage a world in which nobody takes the words of terrocrats seriously. Terrocrats might say, “We are the government”. Everyone laughs at them and asks, "Government? -- what's that?" And, whatever they reply, they are greeted with more laughter. Then they say, "Our word is law; and you must obey." Everyone just laughs at the terrocrats and asks, "Law? -- what's that?" Again, whatever they reply, they are greeted with more laughter. How much power would terrocrats have in such a world? I don't care how much thought you have to put into this, but it's absolutely vital that you understand that the primary means terrocrats use to subjugate, control, and dominate their victims is words. (the link is dead from whence I copied this quotation) Sam

You've had my "attention" for years, Jim. And my admiration. I'll not enter into disputes with anyone over nit-picking. The price of freedom is too great. As mentioned earlier (might have been on a different thread -- I'm old, absent-minded, and can't always remember what thread I'm on), I've been going over many old essays (including many of yours, but also many of others here on STR -- folks I would like to see come back with more contributions). I often glean concepts today that I had overlooked previously from those same essays. Perhaps because now I'm not distracted by the internet, and can concentrate to the bottom of the topic or subject -- not put it off for a later date. Today I spent time here: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm I had thought I had pretty much absorbed Hasnas' "Myth of the Rule of Law". But after the intro exercises he gets into some real deep anarchist principal. I suppose I had read (perused) the entire thing, but think I might have overlooked the real meat of the topic. I'd urge anyone still looking over essays and comments on STR to give this old essay a second read. Was also looking over a more recent ( https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/09/lew-rockwell/trial-by-police-state/ couldn't get the link to "fire" for some reason) regarding how (if I choose to refuse to be free) I'm certainly a "victim of the police state", according to Rockwell: "...Today, every single citizen, no matter how free he or she may feel in daily life, is in reality a sitting duck. You can be made to disappear. There is essentially no way you can escape once the feds sweep you into their net. There is no justice. The total states of the past used to pretend to have trial-based convictions. The total state of the present doesn't even bother. It just puts a sack over your head and takes you away..." I'm sure Lew would gleefully agree that I am NOT a sovereign state! Thankfully, I don't need his "agreement". And he can still enjoy my admiration. For most things. The world revolves around my belly-button -- not yours, or Lew's. My world. What makes this thesis so powerful for my sovereignty is the knowledge that your (and Lew's) world(s) revolve around your belly buttons, whether you admit it or not. Therefore, I can admire (and, for the most part agree with) both you and Lew. That ability to admire (even in the heat of dissension at times) enhances my sovereignty. "...it's the only game in town..." Sam

Relax! I don't want your money. Just your attention.