Recent comments

  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 3 days ago
    The Name Game
    Page Paul Hein
    "Why? What’s the difference?" The difference, as others have noted, is that they can beat you up and get away with it. The reason they get away with it, is that their victims usually submit. But it seems lately, people are backed up against the wall and are starting to question automatic submission. Many have given up on it. The house of cards is about to fall. It should get pretty exciting...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 27 weeks 3 days ago Web link Sharon Secor
    This horror of majority rule is a hangover from the aristocrat Montesquieu. I'm not a fan of it myself, being an anarchist; but I don't imagine "representative government" is any better for liberty than majority rule is. Indeed, in my current state Oregon, between what we get via Initiative and what we get from the legislature, I'll take the former every time, as it consistently leans more toward liberty than the legislature does. What's more, there is a lot less of it; the legislature considers something like 3000 bills every session. Oh, and it is not the job of a free people to ride herd on corrupt "respresentatives".
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 3 days ago
    Defending the State?
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Paul: "...One manipulates people by manipulating the language they use to think..." A major reason I avoid the use of the term "right" or "rights" in these kinds of essays and conversations. Definition games, indeed. Like "...defining 'state'..." I am a sovereign state. Want me to define "state"? What part of "state" do you not understand? Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 27 weeks 3 days ago
    The Name Game
    Page Paul Hein
    Last sentence, first paragraph: Perhaps, if you’re sufficiently annoyed, you could send a copy to the authorities, asking that they put a halt to such a scam. I submit, Paul, that your essay would have been worthy of a "10" instead of an "8" by simply enclosing "the authorities" in quotation marks. There is only so much I can do about various levels of gangsters grouped into officious-sounding "revenue departments" in every area of the known world. In fact, the link I embedded in the last sentence equally outlines the problem: the writer(s) not only misspelled "Unempathic" in the title (excusable, even as a retired English teacher I often misspell third grade words without "spell-check") -- but also, and far worse, they used the term "...Our Rulers..." also in the title (not excusable). Which makes my point. But they have somehow gotten themselves elected to positions of “public service,” and Lo!! They have thereby acquired the power to control your person and property. It is an amazing, and sadly unappreciated, phenomenon. “Public servants,” it seems, are those privileged people who are to be served by the public. As I said, there is only so much I can do about this. I can abstain from beans, and gently encourage you and all my family, neighbors and friends to also abstain. And I can gingerly sidestep serving the "public servants", except when to do so is impossible or impractical. I have been an "illegal tax protestor" since 1978, but don't necessarily recommend you follow that path. There is a price to be paid flailing at the status-quo, and one needs to be prepared for that expenditure. But if s/he steadfastly stands his ground (and maintains a very low profile) they eventually give up to seek more vulnerable meat to chew. Their resources are limited -- and becoming more so as their economy collapses. I maintain you can be free. Right here, right now. I am a sovereign state. That does not mean that I am bulletproof. It simply means I am sui juris -- fully responsible for managing my own affairs. In the way I walk, in the way I talk, in the way I think. My President maintains the rotation of the earth on its axis. "Our rulers" are not "my rulers". I refrain from involvement in "movements" -- I see that as a fool's game (thanks, Per). I try to share my liberty and my freedom with family and friends -- when they ask. The example I set is far more effective than any group undertaking. Groups end up with leaders who themselves often become tyrannical, full of ego and vanity. I can be free in an unfree world. Sam
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 27 weeks 3 days ago
    The Name Game
    Page Paul Hein
    The power of words, Dr. Hein! The barrel of that gun is showing beneath all the perfumed verbiage of the IRS. You must sign the "voluntary" form that says you understand and agree with over 72,000 pages of tax law, at gunpoint, of course. Your signature or your brains on the contract, saith Don Corleone. Same thing. Bitcoins are soon to be used in the marketplace with Bitwasp. Think of the Invisible Man.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 27 weeks 6 days ago
    Defending the State?
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    This may have been part of the original intent, or not, depending upon your interpretation of history.  Regardless, bureaucrats long ago discovered that they could more effectively preserve and consolidate their power by pitching the "public safety" jargon as the weaponry became bigger and more powerful over time...and hence, more capable of competing with and deposing them.  Of course, as with all else Orwellian, up is down, in is out, and black is white.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 27 weeks 6 days ago
    Defending the State?
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    So very true -- as witness words like anarchy (chaos), capitalism (mercantilism), liberal (leftist), libertarian (constitutionalist conservative)...and other similar distortions.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 27 weeks 6 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    The saving grace in all of this is that some tiny percentage of the kids that see this already have enough of an innate lie detector that they can sense that official policies like the one that produced the "tripod panic" is not really protecting anyone's safety. But they still don't know what it *is* actually for. All they see is the adults surrounding them, the people controlling every minute of their young lives, completely losing their minds. For the kids who are not yet skeptical enough to doubt the adults, this is compliance training for future submission to authority. Once the populace is trained to instantly obey in any crisis, all that remains to exercise tyranny is to produce a permanent crisis, or a continual series of them. Realize that you are responsible for your own security, always. Come up with your own disaster plan. It may seem cliche, but imagine what you would do if a zombie horde came to town. It stands in for a variety of natural and man-made disasters, from tornado damage to disease outbreak to martial law, anything where you must not only survive, but do so in the face of a persistent and implacable environmental threat to your safety. And be aware that the stress might make people "turn zombie" on you. And in a world where calling the cops just might get *you* shot and killed, just for being a crime victim (LAPD recently shot two stabbing victims when they arrived at the crime scene) you should know that people arriving late to the party might not actually be there for your benefit.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 27 weeks 6 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    By government calculus, this story, combined with Blackstone's formulation, proves that 10 guilty persons must have been prevented from escaping each of the 25 years Fleming was unjustly imprisoned. That's 250 hardened criminals off the streets! How can you argue with that? And I eagerly await the news that the former prosecutor who intentionally suppressed exculpatory evidence will be required to compensate Fleming using his own personal time and accounts. Which we should be hearing about.... nnnnow. No? Should be soon. Like now. Huh. I was almost positive that the state would be practically falling over itself to right the wrongs of its employees and designated representatives in the course of their assigned duties. ~sarcasm~ The state steals little bits of our lives every day. Five minutes here. An hour there. Another 40 minutes filling out forms. Two hours on hold correcting transcription errors from entering said forms into a computer. Time that you spent working that was taken as taxes. The truth is that government probably steals 25 years or more away from *everyone's* lives. They just do it a little at a time rather than all at once. Are you as mad about that as you are about this blatant, callous injustice in the article? Did you realize that even after this, the state will continue to take things from this man against his will, with even less in the way of apology or admission of wrong?
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 27 weeks 6 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    I'm sure a lot of people are asking, "Why can the government 'misplace' more money than I will ever see in my entire lifetime, and just shrug it off, when I risk having my power cut off if I come up even $100 short this month?" People will always be more prudent with their own money than they are with someone else's, and they will be more careful with a known someone else's than with a pile of loose cash notionally owned by 300 million anonymous people. The really sad thing is that a lot of people are also telling themselves, "Wow. If only some of that had disappeared into *my* pockets..." And those are the people who will cause the next $12billion to "disappear", with no responsibility, accountability, or consequences.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 27 weeks 6 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    The article describes just one way in which business profits warp the course of scientific inquiry. 170 million (metric) tons of sugar are produced annually, worldwide. You probably eat 33 kg of that total yourself every year. The industry rakes in about $75billion per year. The world spends about 2% of what it makes from its routine business on science and research. The US spends a little less than 3%. That's for all science, across every discipline. From this, we might assume that research specific to promoting and improving sugar and the sugar industry could easily be funded by about $1billion to $2billion per year (wsro.org). Obviously, the sugar industry prefers to fund science that ultimately makes it more profitable, and has a vested interest in suppressing results unfavorable to that end. If sugar is found, in a scientifically verifiable way, to be unhealthy, then who profits? Well, you do, I suppose, since you will know that you should cut your consumption of it. But are you spending 3% of everything you earn on science? You might think that you are when you surrender taxes, but in the most shocking of revelations, much of the $150billion spent on publicly funded science goes to the military (50%). Sugar research might, between health care, general science, and agriculture, manage a fraction of 25% of the public science budget, or a maximum of $38billion. To match the potential of industry-funded science, sugar alone would need to get 2.5% of all remotely-relevant tax-fed research budgets, and more than 85% of that research would need to directly impact public health concerns. And that ignores the fact that the state also wants the science that it funds to make its businesses more profitable, and therefore more exploitable for its own ends. Scientists need to eat and pay rents, too. And being intelligent creatures, they tend to shy away from jobs that would guarantee their future poverty, and possibly risk having their careers destroyed by persistent, coordinated, and well-funded smear campaigns by businesses threatened by any potentially unprofitable truths that may be revealed. So when money and politics get involved, no one even bothers to investigate whether or not excessive fructose consumption is the greatest single factor for deaths from lifestyle-linked diseases. Anyone who would can expect to see colleagues--scientists who set a lower price on their own ethics--contradicting any inconvenient results from the driver's seats of their new luxury cars.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 28 weeks 1 day ago Web link A. Magnus
    So the government that pretends to represent my interests could be replaced by one that no longer pretends. It could also be replaced by one that actually does represent my interests. And, in the longest of all long shots, it could be replaced by nothing at all, like an out-of-control homeowners' association that paid just a bit too much attention to other people's grass. Or even their "grass". Anything could happen, so in my estimation, it is very likely that nothing will.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 28 weeks 1 day ago
    Defending the State?
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    The right to bear arms is a natural derivative of the right to own tools. (I define a tool as any item that magnifies one's capability to perform a specific task.) A weapon magnifies your ability to defend yourself in the same manner that a hammer and nails magnifies your ability to semi-permanently join bits of wood. While the right to bear arms is explicitly enumerated by several states and nations, because the task of defense is particularly important and somewhat difficult, in essence, the weapon is just a tool. It doesn't matter one little bit to what purpose it is intended to be used. People have as much right to own a gun for the purpose of robbing and killing people as they do to own it for the purpose of rescuing innocent children and cute puppies and kittens from harm. The *thing* is not the focus of the statement of rights, but the *person* or the *people*. You have the right to defend your life, liberty, and property--and anyone else's as well. Therefore, you have the right to possess and use any item that helps you to do so. You have the right to own a gun. You have the right to build fences and walls. You have the right to record and retransmit any activity occurring on your land. You have the right to make the notional castle of your home into a castle in fact. And you have the right to own any future technology that is useful for your own protection. Why linger upon wording that includes "state" when these declarations should be saying that people have the "right to defend lives, liberty, and property, by any means at their disposal," and include for the sake of clarity "including but not limited to routine ownership and possession of weaponry and armor." That would be as good as saying that anything the state allows its soldiers to do, it must also allow the public to do. Soldiers have scary-looking rifles? You have to let the people have them. Soldiers have grenades? People get them too. Soldiers drive tanks? The state has to be ok with giant privately owned SUVs on the roads, covered with armor plates, pusher bars, improved tires, and bullet-resistant windows. The very fact that they make reference to the state is a door that swings both ways. Not only are you allowed to defend yourself, but you are also allowed to do so with militarily relevant hardware. "But your honor, the state constitution recognizes my right to bear arms in defense of the state, and considering the magnitude of potential threats to this state, I feel that I am unable to do so effectively without this supersonic fighter jet at my disposal. If I am forced to transfer its ownership to the National Guard, I will no longer be able to exercise my right as effectively." Strike the root.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 28 weeks 1 day ago Web link A. Magnus
    The title of the article implies the government was mine to begin with.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 28 weeks 1 day ago
    Defending the State?
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state,” somehow sounds better than, “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the rulers.” Which is in turn better sounding than, “The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of the rulers,” which is all they care about. Where would government be without euphemism? Also, the rulers want the people to identify with the state, rather than opposing it, so government pronouncements are full of language that boils down to wrapping themselves in the flag. One manipulates people by manipulating the language they use to think.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 28 weeks 2 days ago Page Jim Davies
    An ingenious theory, Mike, but since the answer to your question is presented in detail in the article under which you are commenting, I'll not waste time repeating myself - even though I have more of it available now, readers of this exchange may not.   Thank you for your repeated wishes of good luck.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 28 weeks 2 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Oh my goodness, Jim!   First of all, I've followed your spat with Paul Bonneau since the beginning-and it is just that, a spat. You and he, and you and I for that matter(though for somewhat different reasons), have a fundamental difference of opinion on philosophy. Sadly, rather than debate the merits of opposing views, you have both engaged in petty name calling. Since you are apparently proud of what ought to be an embarrassment, I'll point out that you started the ad hominem attacks and ceaseless innuendo.   The idea that Paul is a government agent-and now also a communist-is patently absurd...frankly I laughed when I first read it two years ago. I wish Paul would have laughed as well. No doubt there are government agents viewing, or even commenting, here, but I very much doubt that they take the time to become as familiar with the various aspects of philosophy that Paul clearly has. And, bluntly, even if he writes from Fort Meade it does nothing to challenge the views he expresses. Views that you have yet to address. Denigration of a challenger does not prove your position. It weakens it, since it shows you have no intellectual response to the challenge.   That said, I have rarely seen much in the way of moderation on this site-which is something I approve of, frankly, which is why I don't expect any here. In the past several years I can think of only one or two people who have been banned from the site, and in those cases it was due to true trolling. Neither you or Paul are trolls, you have both contributed to the site multiple times.   There have been, to my knowledge, no actual physical threats that would require action, and in all honesty the name calling has been rather mild in my opinion. I have most certainly been called worse many times...sometimes in person. Controversy is good for a website, it draws viewers. If it was my website, I certainly would not get involved in such pettiness, if for no other reason than I'd have no idea where to stop in my censorship. In any event, Rob's decision seems rather apparent, so why the theatrics? If you are unsatisfied, just go!   Clearly you now view this site as a nest of communism, with its owner actively promoting communism. If so, why even try to stick around? Why would you make such silly accusations? It is beneath you. Since you now have more time, I hope you'll consider the following, and respond rationally:   Mudslinging aside, I think your real problem is that you are caught in a catch-22. You are a militant atheist( by that I mean that you are strident in your atheism...it's not a cut), yet your belief system requires that there be an overarching, universal morality that simply must-in order to be universal-contain an element that is greater than the simple product of human minds. "Rights" to you cannot simply be concepts developed by humans in order to organize a society. They cannot simply be, what they are according to history, products of Judeo-Christian Western Civilization; concepts that were developed by theologians in keeping with religious dogma and designed to secure authority for the same. They cannot be arbitrary and open to debate, they must have been "discovered" and as such "universal."   That view is in direct contradiction to your atheism. That is why you can never address challenges to your viewpoint with anything other than logical fallacies-such as appeals to authority-and ad hominem. You don't have any other answer! You can't have. The inconsistency is at the core of your philosophy, it is why you believe everyone must come to agree, through "re-education", with what is your secular religion.   I've challenged you on this point many times over the years, well before Paul started writing about "rights" I believe, and have never gotten a satisfactory defense of your position. I honestly cannot think of one that allows both atheism and universal morality. As close as I've been able to come is a utilitarian argument that it would be better if everyone believed the same. That argument fails, however, since morality transcends utilitarian arguments; you claim to know a universal "right and wrong," not a universal "better." "Better" is of course, always a matter of debate, it is not the absolute that you claim. Which means that such a utilitarian argument itself undermines your viewpoint.   Do you have an answer for this? Anything other than because Aristotle said so, or that I'm a communist?   I have nothing against you, Jim. I think you are totally sincere, and I think that your writing has merit, but I also think your philosophy has a glaring inconsistency. That is not a bad thing, it presents the opportunity for intellectual growth. It is why philosophers debate. You can either address the inconsistency and better understand your own philosophy in the process, you can modify your views to to make them consistent, or you can ignore the challenge and continue to lash out at challengers as though they were attackers. I hope you take the high road. Even if you don't, I hope you, at least privately, take the time to evaluate your position and come to terms with the inconsistency.   In any event, Good Luck!   Mike    
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 28 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Mike, I've found already that one of the benefits of not having to wonder where the next STRticle is going to come from is that I can give more time and attention to your comments. I still haven't got far into this one, but your very first sentence has yielded valuable information.   First, you refer to Paul v Jim as a "squabble." That word usually refers to a minor spat, a clash of personality, a storm in a teacup, yes?  Then Mike, it also reveals that you have very little idea about what's going on. Had you written something like "a fundamental disagreement about the nature of humanity, government and freedom" your keyboarding fingers would have been more weary but you'd have been a heap closer to the facts.   Second (well, first actually), you express surprise that I would "expect" Rob, our Editor, to "jump in to the middle" of this conflict. It's your surprise that surprises me.   See, Rob owns STR. It's his site, his property. So why would he not wish to jump in and resolve a conflict between two of his most prolific writers? To take care of one's property is rather basic, and certainly normal behavior. It's mud season here in New Hampshire, and shortly I shall scrub the car and give her a waxing. Perhaps you'll do the same. We take care of things we own, that's normal. If it were a rental car, I'd probably not bother. So the question is, why would anyone not expect Rob to take care of his property in this way? - the ABnormal response would be for him to ignore it.   Here is what I suspect. I suspect you have already succumbed to the poison Paul Bonneau wrote on March 26th, when he denied that he (or anyone else) has rights. An important member of the infinite set of rights that Paul said nobody has, is the right to property. Thus, I suspect that already in your mind, Rob doesn't actually hold any property rights in STR - because nobody has rights. And that, I'm guessing, is why you phrased your question the way you did.   Property requires owners; air and ocean have no owners because they aren't property, and vice versa. (Hence pollution, incidentally.) Marx tried to solve that logical problem by proposing that all property is properly owned in common, and so embraced Communism. Same word-root, same meaning. Thus, by asserting that we have no rights, which must include property rights, Paul is literally declaring himself a Communist.   So Rob, by continuing to allow him to be published on Strike the Root, is promoting Communism. The irony here is quite rich. He owns the site, yet is using it (inadvertently, no doubt) to advance the view that nobody owns any sites or any other property. Statists everywhere must be chortling with glee. Possibly you begin to see why I said, back in 2012, that Paul is an agent of government, here to spread disinformation. I cannot prove that he is being paid for his work; but if he is not, government is getting one helluva valuable freebie.   Rob's choice has two components. First, I think he was wondering "can I keep both Paul and Jim?" - that's what he set out to do in February 2013. I have answered that bit for him: I've quit, so the answer is no, he cannot. That's off the table. So to the second: "Which of them do I prefer?" - for right now he has Paul the Communist but not me, yet he can reverse that if he wishes, by firing Paul and asking me nicely. Whether he will do so, I have no idea. STR is not my property. It's his.      
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 28 weeks 3 days ago
    The Home Team
    Page Mark Davis
    Super observations, Mark. Ahhhh. To be able to opt out of school, wars, taxes!
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 28 weeks 4 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Jim,   Why on Earth would either of you expect Rob to jump in the middle of such a squabble? I have seen nothing that would require action on his part, and frankly I'm glad to see that he has not taken the bait....sticks and stones, after all.   Character assassination (of which your hands are decidedly not clean) serves no purpose in advancing understanding, but the fact remains that the issue in question is an interesting one. I think it is unfortunate that a productive conversation about such core issues seems impossible with you. Any variation from the plum-line philosophy that you have laid out as the "one true way" is not only unacceptable, but dangerous and even inhuman to your mind. I would hope you re-read some of your writing and see how inflammatory it becomes in the face of even the most innocuous criticism.   I'm sorry for you that "freedom" in your mind requires such rigidity of thought. Case in point, the above article: you really didn't defend "rights", instead you made several appeals to authority, and denigrated any differing opinion as "irrational" by equating concrete physical "reality" with conceptual reality-the product of human minds. "Rights" are concepts, nothing more, and as such it is hardly irrational to challenge the basis of such concepts. The very idea that differing opinion ought to be banished rather than debated is, to me, inexplicable. A disagreement is not an attack.   At any rate, while I disagree profoundly with the very essence of your belief system, I do enjoy your writing and see no reason for you to cease publishing here simply because you have a few critics. Of course, if you wish to write elsewhere, or post your articles on a site you control, I wish you well. But, I would encourage Rob to take no action on this issue.   Good luck,   Mike
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 28 weeks 4 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Alex, zygodactyl and Less, thanks for your comments but you are all wishing for something that is not available. As I said in my reply to Thunderbolt's comment, "I will not return to STR until and unless Bonneau gets the boot." That decision is mine, and it is final.   Although the trigger was Paul's vindictive post of April 1st above, which shattered the promise he had given on 2/27/2013 in response to Rob's comprimise idea, my reasons for making it go back years; but may I remind you that on that point I am in harmony with Paul Bonneau. It was he, not myself, who wrote in Comment 7892 in December 2012 to invite me to make a case to Rob for his eviction; and in a PM to me dated 12/23/2012 he said "there is no way we can both continue here."   I fully agree. Rob has now to choose which of us he wants. If you have an opinion on that choice - the only one available - I expect he'd be glad to hear it. But my decision is made.  
  • zygodactyl's picture
    zygodactyl 28 weeks 4 days ago Page Jim Davies
    I, for one, would like for both Jim and Paul to continue writing here. I enjoy reading both of their articles and comments even though I disagree with each of them from time to time. I have read all of the linked articles and this is what I have seen in summary: Paul's first article was in direct response to one that Jim wrote. Jim's article back then was advising people to grab all of the government funds that they can in the hopes of depriving the government of funds to do more evil. Paul's first article pointed out some of the moral problems with doing that, among other things. Both of the authors failed to see the elephant that was in the room. That elephant was deficit spending! If I have the power to create money out of thin air, then you are not going to make me run out of money by accepting the dribble of money that I have given you permission to take, and it is incorrect to treat the recipients of that dribble of money as if they are directly taking the money out of the taxpayers pocket. A portion of that dribble also comes from digits being typed into the Federal Reserves' ledger. Since we are presently forced to accept FRNs for nearly all of our transactions, the government really doesn't need to tax our income anyway. They could use sales tax, increase the inflation rate, and do any number of other things instead. The income tax is there to force us to jump through hoops like circus animals every year, and to create strife amongst us like what we are now seeing between Jim and Paul. Debates of this sort are forever circular due to the fact that the numbers are so mobile and liquid. Both Jim and Paul avoided each other for about a year. Paul posted an article about rights on March 26th to which Jim posted an article with a different point of view 5 days later, to which Paul appeared to have taken as an attack on his article, and Paul responded. Jim, you may not have had any intention of baiting Paul to respond the way he did, but it certainly looks like that is what happened. Let's end the pecker contest. You both have only one. At Lew Rockwell's web-site not long ago, Gary North wrote a poorly researched article about bit coin , which lead to a counterpoint article here, and more here . Ben Stone, the bad Quaker , also did a pod-cast about it. Gary North continues to write prolifically ,so it is my hope that both Jim and Paul will likewise continue writing here. Brian
  • Less Antman's picture
    Less Antman 28 weeks 4 days ago Page Jim Davies
    I believe that STR is a better site with both writers. I support Rob's decision not to decide which, as Canadian philosopher Neal Peart stated in his essay on "Free Will" (spoken word version available with narration by Geddy Lee), is still a choice, and a good one. If I thought one of these writers was making a useful contribution to STR and the other was not, it would be an easy choice, but in my experience different people are persuaded by different arguments and it is in the best interest of liberty and STR for it to welcome writers who argue that natural rights is the foundation of liberty and others who argue that natural rights is a pile of horse manure. All I care about is increasing the number of people who wish to move toward a society based on mutual respect.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 28 weeks 4 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Relax, T-bolt; the fault was altogether Paul Bonneau's, not yours at all. All you did was usefully to draw out the fact that his recently expressed and utterly reprobate opinion that humans have no rights was meant deadly seriously, that he was not being facetious. Rest easy, friend.   I will not return to STR until and unless Bonneau gets the boot. So that's up to Rob. Any who want to advise him can use the link in my Comment 10336.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 28 weeks 4 days ago Page Jim Davies
    I would like to echo Thunderbolt's sentiment.  Both Jim and Paul have made tremendous contributions to this site and libertarianism in general.  There must be a better, more constructive way to resolve this.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 28 weeks 4 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Message to Jim and Rob and Paul: It was I who mentioned Paul, not Jim, who was very careful to make broad statements, rather than name any individual in his article. It is absurd for Jim to leave this space because I pushed two armed combatants into a room together. He has written hundreds of thoughtful articles exclusively for STR. No person comes closer to being the backbone of the site than Jim. It will be a massive loss for all of us were Jim to leave. I implore Jim to stay and for Rob to insist. That Jim and Paul are enemies has no relevance to this issue. It is the internet, not Dodge City. There is no reason for a shootout, literally or figuratively. Jim and Paul should resume ignoring each other, as they initially agreed. We are all here because we can think for ourselves and decide where reason leads. STR is one of the best libertarian sites ever created. The loss of Jim would be absolutely unnecessary and absolutely unacceptable.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 28 weeks 5 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Unwilling to sit still while Paul Bonneau pours sewage like that over my head, last Tuesday I wrote Rob, our Editor, to ask that he be expelled from STR. So far Rob has not done that, so I am myself now departing this web site.   A quick backgrounder: relations between Paul and me had become so bad by the end of 2012 we agreed that STR does not have room for both of us, and he suggested, at the end of his comment 7982, that we each make a case to Rob for the eviction of the other, and accept his choice.   I agreed immediately. Rob did not, however; instead he proposed that we both continue on STR but promise not to refer to the other in what we write. We each agreed to that compromise, on 2/27/2013.   From that day to this, Paul's name has not appeared in anything I've written here, and the converse was true of Paul - until the above venomous, personal attack appeared on April 1st last week, so shattering his promise into small pieces and providing an open-and-shut case for being fired.   Possibly you feel the wrong guy is leaving. If so, you could write Rob to say so. For those interested, I've posted some farewell remarks here.                
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 29 weeks 3 hours ago
    Der Uber-Americans
    Page Tim Hartnett
    Delicious, Tim. Thank you!
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 29 weeks 1 day ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    North's plan for giving away a billion bucks is shown here, and it is definitely creative. I'd missed the international dimension, but will stick with my original choices.   How did you do?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 29 weeks 1 day ago
    A Remarkable Document
    Page Paul Hein
    Log, you're  accurate in saying that government is inherently flawed and therefore susceptible to no perfection. That's very well stated. I'm sorry, though, to read that you see no possible fix.   I think there is. Educate everyone to understand what you just wrote about its vast inherent flaw, then encourage them never to work for it. When nobody will work for it, it will cease to exist.   Start here.    
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 29 weeks 1 day ago
    A Remarkable Document
    Page Paul Hein
    Alexander Haig once famously said that the people could protest all they want, as long as they pay their taxes. As one component of striking the root I would include bitcoin or another crypto-currency-- perhaps Darkcoin or Anoncoin-- as a necessary, but not sufficient, element. Cody Wilson of 3-D maker-bot gun fame, is working feverishly toward making it simple for users to cloak their identity when trading bitcoins. To prove that a moron with an I.Q of about 70 can actually come up with a solid truth, I give you Jr.'s "The constitution is nothing but a goddamn piece of paper."
  • negator's picture
    negator 29 weeks 1 day ago Page Log from Blammo
    thank you. i'm glad i found these essays.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 29 weeks 1 day ago
    A Remarkable Document
    Page Paul Hein
    The only problem to this, I think, is that those in power don't give a poop what we think. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelose, as examples. The other problem is that American's don't seem to really give a crap either. Yes, some get upset about what the government does, but they refuse to make any collaborative effort to demonstrate that the people have the power and not the government. I can't disagree with what you present here, I just feel it is an endless black hole.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 29 weeks 1 day ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Agreed. Beautiful point. I believe the Constitution had some emotionally sound ideas to it. I think life just got in the way along with a huge number of greedy people. Honestly I think we as people get in the way. Note: this is just random thinking. Not trying to be technical in train of thought.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 29 weeks 1 day ago Web link Emmett Harris
    ReverendD, I've no idea what your profession is now, but what you have just described sounds like a lot of young people of yesteryear and in this generation. Much of the independence you speak of is exactly the starting point of many of us. I got out of the military (a time of conscription. I did not run like a rabbit as many did, but I don't blame them, I just tried to choose the branch that would keep me out of Viet Nam and succeeded.), married and no real profession, but did engage in alternatives. I too, swept floors, stocked shelves, ran a rod for civil engineers, and etc until I graduated. I got loans for school and got them cleared off my back. I wonder how many young people are doing the very same today as you and I. Your point is well taken, no disagreement.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 29 weeks 1 day ago
    A Remarkable Document
    Page Paul Hein
    The Constitution may be just a fig leaf, but in that same metaphor, there are many people currently covered by it whom I would not enjoy seeing politically naked. I believe that government is a thing that when given an inch, will take a mile. The Constitution itself does not provide a penalty for very minor, almost forgivable infringements upon its boundaries. So people encroach, inch by inch, upon the forbidden, until the last inch in the mile remains. And then what is left but to take just one more inch? I offer no solution. Fixing government is not a problem I wish to attempt. It is clear to me that inventing solutions by a state to address the problems caused by states is a black hole from which there is no escape. It is high time for people to realize that perfecting government is impossible, because it is inherently flawed. The use of coercive force can never be legitimized, only rationalized.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 29 weeks 1 day ago
    A Remarkable Document
    Page Paul Hein
    The large value of the Constitution is that it provides a great stick with which to beat Pols, and you, Paul Hein, administered here a splendid whacking. This is what they say they follow; hold them to their own standards, and demonstrate how miserably they fail.   You might even give your MO Pol an extra caning, because although that State's charter may not forbid other forms of currency (Liberty Dollars, maybe?) the US Constitution does clearly say that "no state shall... make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" (Art 1 Sn 10) and so, provided he acknowledges that the Federal one trumps the State Constitution, his reported response is proven to be flat false.   To prove that government ignores its own charter is a useful first step; the next one is to reason that in its nature, no government can ever be subject to any external constraint. Then it's a short one to point out who, alone, does have the right to run a person's life.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 29 weeks 1 day ago
    A Remarkable Document
    Page Paul Hein
    "What impresses me about these pious references to the Constitution is that they are so selective." Yes, that is amusing. It seems everyone, including "restorationists", use the Constitution dishonestly. Remember years ago when "conservatives" thundered that privacy is not in the Constitution? And "liberals" supposedly supported privacy? There seems to be two theories about what to do with the Constitution: either restore it (we really mean it this time) or get rid of it. The latter is what appeals to me, since it is nothing but a gigantic fig leaf hiding what the rulers really end up doing. Hell even the Founders pissed on it. But this is like my opinion about rights. It all boils down to obfuscation and distraction and euphemism. Lies. Government cannot exist without lies, and (it seems) people aren't happy without some pleasant lies to believe in.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    I've said it before. . . and I'll quite likely say it again - and again. I used to work for MW, at jobs that I absolutely *hated* (burger-flipper, dishwasher, car washer). Granted, I was barely able to afford a studio apartment and a cheap motorcycle for transportation (no insurance, though - out of my budget). I needed a raise, and needed it bad. Rather than whine and demand that other people use their guns to get me that raise, I learned a more valuable set of skills - used those skills to give myself a raise. Haven't worked in fast food, haven't washed cars for a living - haven't worked for MW in over 25 years. And I did it without resorting to violence.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 29 weeks 2 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Wow! Sorry I missed this one, not that I care for soap opera. Still, Paul , I believe, has a point here people!
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    It is worth noting that when people call 9-1-1 in an emergency, they usually want *help* and not *hostile cops*. This new law in one state notwithstanding, if you use drugs recreationally, every person in your party group should have the local emergency medical response and ambulance service phone number programmed into their phones, and that number should be called instead of 9-1-1 for any medical emergency. (And with an equal measure of precaution, everyone should also have the number for a previously-retained criminal defense attorney or a bail bondsman written in permanent marker on their forearms, because if it comes to that, you probably won't be able to use your own phone. The same applies for public protests.) If you trust in this law, expect to be disappointed. The cops will arrest callers for their drugs regardless. They might have some specific charges dismissed, but they can always get you for something else. Better to not risk police involvement at all. As well-intentioned as this mother-on-a-mission may be, she is somewhat naive when it comes to the nature of law enforcement.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    The government would use this in the same way they use polygraphs. It is useless for retrieving information not already known to the questioner, but perfect for making the subject believe that they have no other options. In other words, it will be a really, really expensive way to trick ignorant people.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 29 weeks 2 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Oh yes, I was serious. I don't believe in rights, as anything other than a meme that has lost its utility for the peons, and gained in utility for the ruling class. Yes, life actually is possible even if you don't believe in rights, just as life is possible even if you don't believe in government. I am perfectly happy to discuss this with anyone who respectfully disagrees with me; see the initial comment after my last article, for example. I don't claim to have all the answers. As to the rest of it, this was just Davies' attempt to take a whack at my article, complete with his usual innuendoes, ad hominems and libels. I'm always gratified when my debating opponent resorts to such devices. I'm also amused that someone who not only is on the dole but also encourages others to join him there (perhaps to assuage his own conscience - misery loves company), would point at others as paid government employees, and would presume to act as a gatekeeper of libertarianism. "He who takes the king's coin becomes the king's man." http://strike-the-root.com/92/davies/davies7.html We had agreed about a year ago, with the editor observing, not to comment on each other's writing after the last blow-up we had; but then Davies took the legalistic dodge (why am I surprised?) of commenting on someone else's comments on my articles, which was really just commenting on my writing. And now his entire article here is clearly a retort to my previous article. So I guess the agreement, such as it was, is now gone. A man is as good as his word... Normally I don't even bother to look at his stuff. Silly me, to make an exception here. Too bad Davies does not live nearby. I'd like to see him repeat his Keyboard Kommando comments to my face, but (no surprise) that would never happen in any case, because he admitted in a private message that he's not up to it.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    In the interests of protecting the global environment and preserving quality of life [for the people making the important decisions], 18 countries have already signed on to the Argos Protocol for Reducing Industrial Livestock Farm Outputs and Overflows Linearly. Signatories will be required to feed their populations reduced proportions of meat, and an increasing amount of the actual environmental pollutants generated by the livestock. Critics of the policy have noted, "What kind of lives will we be living when we are fed only bullshit for every meal?"
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Shameless. Multinational corporations have stopped even pretending to have a moral center nowadays. My wife's cousin's husband's half-brother worked as a "pinker" for Levi's in the late '80s. He said they used to hang them up from the ceiling on these big aluminum hooks, and do the first cut right there on the floor, just so that the fit was "relaxed" by the time they got dunked in the acid wash. Poor guy won't even wear regular pants, to this day.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    The fundamental problem with health care in the US is that price information, necessary to the efficient operation of even unfree markets, is systematically obfuscated. Not one hospital in the entire country will give you their charge masters on request. You almost have to raid the place and hold a gun to the hospital administrator's head to get hold of even a portion of it. And in it, you find that people without group-negotiated rates can pay literally hundreds of times the actual cost to the hospital for certain things, such as for "FLR INT POLY LT 2ND" or thousands of variations on such nonsense. Those prices are *never* shown to patients to get fully informed consent before being added to the bill. And that's why costs are sky high. People are simply denied the information they need to make good economic decisions.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    You forgot, a lot of lies from the Ministry of Propaganda. I guess those folks I know who lost their private coverage don't count, and those forced from private coverage to a government plan should be satisfied.
  • Log from Blammo's picture
    Log from Blammo 29 weeks 2 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    So keeping the minimum wage static has effectively given those workers a 20% pay cut? Let's look at that. FICA: 6.2% shown on the paycheck FICA: 6.2% not shown on the paycheck Medicare: 1.45% on the paycheck Medicare: 1.45% not on the paycheck FUTA: 6.0% not on the paycheck, capped at $420 The current minimum wage is $8.25, I believe. Eliminating the payroll tax trickery, that means the employer pays the employee $7.62 and the government $1.26 for every hour the employee works, and up to an additional $0.50 an hour for the first 850 hours a year. Raising the wage to $10.10 makes that $9.33 to the worker and $1.54 to the federals per hour (total $10.87), with up to another $0.61 for the first 690 hours. Here's an idea. Stop squeezing blood from stones. Eliminating payroll taxes on minimum wage jobs and putting the employer portion into the check ($9.05) would put more money into workers' pockets, and wouldn't cost employers anything more than they already pay. Raising the wage alone simply destroys the most marginally profitable jobs. Fewer workers are asked to do more at the same pay rate. Productivity rises, and real buying power stagnates. In other words, more of the same, since 1970. The story you don't hear is that the US taxes the absolute lowest class of workers, those who cannot legally be paid less than they currently do and still have jobs at all, at a rate exceeding 15%. If a hobo found 13 cans of soup in the trash, the federals would demand two of them, then generously give one back as "welfare".
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 29 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Thanks, ReverendDraco, the premise is indeed correct: every person has the right to own and operate his or her own life. From that (via labor, exchange, or gift) comes the right to property. So Able had the right to his bike, and Baker had the right to his life.   And Able's defense to the free-market court would be "But I warned him!"?   Not my idea of justice. And even in the Old Testament, the punishment for an eye is still only an eye. In any case justice, as my article tried to point out, consists not in punishment but in restoring lost or damaged rights. If anyone denies that there are inherent rights, there is no possibility of justice.      
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 29 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, Log, for suggesting I'm smart enough to invent or found a new faction; but it's not so. In "Liberty: Rooted in Rights" I tried only to present plain-vanilla Libertarianism, the only one there is; built upon the irrefutable premise that each human being has the right to own and operate his or her own life. As I also showed, that's the way Rothbard presented it, and he is recognized by friend and foe alike as the Century's prime expositor of the Libertarian understanding of reality. I hope that having applied your mind to it you too will embrace that understanding; but until you do, please call yourself by some other name. That one is taken.