Recent comments

A little nit to pick: "Kindness is yin to non-aggression's yang". No kindness is not an opposing force to non-aggression. Aggression is the yin (dark) to non-aggression's yang (bright/light), not kindness.

Perhaps everything we do can be reduced to some measure of costs and benefits from some perspective (the benefits might be relative, or negligible, or only anticipated, or intangible). Human behaviour includes generosity, kindness, cooperation, collaboration, competition and conflict. Obviously all behaviour is not mutually beneficial. Aggressive behaviour might always be a potential strategy, and perhaps there will always be some people who will sometimes behave aggressively if the aggressive behaviour seems to provide some benefits (possibly to obtain material and social resources for survival and reproduction, to gain and maintain wealth and power and status, etc.). Maybe people who behave aggressively can be persuaded (both emotionally and logically, and even “selfishly”) to change the way they act if the benefits (for themselves) of non-aggression outweigh the costs (to themselves) of aggression.

Hi Darkcrusade,   You make good points. The support for love in the Christian faith is important, and has indeed done much good in the world. That said, Christians (people who call themselves that, and who have in most cases had years of bible study and sermons, etc) are all over the map in their levels of empathy, kindness, and non-aggression -- which I'm sure I don't need to detail here. I'm not a Christian as most people understand the word, but I consider Jesus' core teachings to be these below and I believe that together, they are an amazing gift to mankind -- one that powerfully supports kindness, especially to children, the group from which every society grows. [King James translation from The Bible Gateway]:   Matthew: 
18:1 At the same time came the disciples unto Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 
 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them, 
 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. 
 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, 
the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 
 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me. 
 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.    Mark: 
10:13: And they brought young children to him, that he should touch them: and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 
 10:14: But when Jesus saw it, he was much displeased, and said unto them, Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God. 
 10:15: Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein.    Luke: 
17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.   John: 
13:34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. 
 13:35 By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.   

Hi Jim,   "Imperative" needn't imply compulsion, and of course I am not suggesting coercion of any type. I'm suggesting that widespread kindness is essential to civil society, and to healthy human life, for that matter. I am also stating that widespread kindness in society is a necessary foundation for the NAP; people with little empathy -- psychopaths for instance -- are not likely to follow the Non-Aggression Principle no matter how often we explain it to them.   As I said, the way to more kindness really involves love and freedom for the young (certainly something Jesus made clear, although one needn't be of any particular religious faith to agree; see Summerhill School for a real-world example). There is no push-button fix here; no executive order, no political plan, no logical argument that will bring more empathy to life. Logic and feeling are different realms.   From the dictionary supplied with MacOS: imperative |əmˈperədiv|   adjective 1 of vital importance; crucial: immediate action was imperative | [with clause] : it is imperative that standards be maintained. 2 giving an authoritative command; peremptory: the bell pealed again, a final imperative call. {This definition is the one causing confusion here, I imagine -- Glen}   noun 1 an essential or urgent thing: free movement of labor was an economic imperative. • a factor or influence making something necessary: the change came about through a financial imperative.

An excerpt from ‘Language and Genetic Self-Interest’: “those who advocate for free market capitalism do so because free market capitalism serves their genetic interests. They intuitively know that they will outperform most others in this system. They will then justify this intuition of genetic self-interest using language, decrying wealth transfers as ‘violations of the NAP’ or violations of religions tenets against theft, etc. Those who intuit that they will not be as competitive in a free market capitalist system will create arguments which defend wealth transfers or outright theft.” https://poseidonawoke.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/language-and-genetic-self-interest/

Robbing the conquered is the prime axiom in the science of rulership. That is much more easily accomplished when the masses -- especially the ever-growing "libertarian" masses -- use language of serfdom. "The-Rulers" falls into that category. "Our Betters", or "our leaders" (even in jest) much more so. "Our Representatives" written by "libertarians" causes me nausea. "Taxpayer" is the first requiem in the composition of state. The masses must be propagandized to think of themselves as "taxpayers". By the psychopaths who hide under the obfuscation called "government", that is an absolutely essential ingredient. I was once labeled by those lunatics as "Illegal Tax Protestor". Due to classical "legal" folderol, they've changed that designation to "tax resistor". So, Mark -- call yourself what you like. I, for instance, am a "non-robber", a "non-murderer", etc etc. You could also call me a "state denier" if you like. It won't change what I am -- a free, sovereign state. And, for Mr. Davies' sake, it won't change the fact that my door could be broken down by crazy, dangerously armed bastards in state costumes at any moment. And, of course, that could also be done by private entrepreneurs engaging in the business of robbery. "Jurisdiction", for the practicing anarchist, exists only with force of arms. There is no other authority in existence, other than that of the loving parent for her child. Sam

"but a level of white privilege is unavoidably true." ??? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phPXTWJhnYM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC1gRZ6pEko

All very unnecessary when considering the genesis of NAP. Matthew 7:12 1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) 12 [a]Therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do to you: even so do ye to them: for this is the [b]Law and the Prophets. This, The Law and the Prophets. Notice the active imperative of the sentence structure in Christ Jesus's words? Not, Don't do to others? Matt.7:12 Encompasses Christian Charity. Christians have built more Hospitals ,more Orphanages ,more universities and charitable organizations than any. Yet some deviations from the teachings of Christ and the Bible(the fallen wolves in sheep clothing that are in all institutions.) are overwhelmingly countered by the Christians good works and novel institutions of care, compassion, and justice. Carlton Hayes wrote, “From the wellspring of Christian compassion, our Western civilization has drawn its inspiration, and its sense of duty, for feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, looking after the homeless, clothing the naked, tending the sick and visiting the prisoner.” The State even attempts to Replace Charity. Our Enemy the state> "We can get some kind of rough measure of this general atrophy by our own disposition when approached by a beggar. Two years ago we might have been moved to give him something; today we are moved to refer him to the State's relief-agency. The State has said to society, You are either not exercising enough power to meet the emergency, or are exercising it in what I think is an incompetent way, so I shall confiscate your power, and exercise it to suit myself. Hence when a beggar asks us for a quarter, our instinct is to say that the State has already confiscated our quarter for his benefit, and he should go to the State about it."

I wonder if one could get away with identifying as a non-taxpayer? If a man can legally identify himself as a woman based on his own cognition, then anyone should be able to use the same legal grounds to identify as a non-taxpayer.

Very nicely done, Paul.  Worthy of sharing widely.  :-)

Surely, the NAP is very simple to understand. Try explaining it to any 4-year-old bully, in terms such as "Don't hurt people, and don't take their stuff." He will get it, easy as pie. If he fails to act accordingly, the reason will not be a lack of intellectual power, but a lack of will powe

We may have to differ on that, Mark. If I understand Glen correctly, he's saying that the NAP is not enough; that it needs kindness to be added. I join all who very much hope it will be, but don't see it as a prerequisite to a free society; whereas the NAP certainly is.   Consider an analogy with medicine. Primary principle of treatment: "First, do no harm." That's been in place for centuries (though often inadvertently violated.) That's like the NAP. Start by not aggressing. That brings peace and freedom. Then by all means build on it with acts of kindness, random and otherwise, as in medicine treatment is added to harmlessness.   But the distinctive purpose of anarcho-libertarians, surely, is to stop the aggression. Today's society is full of it, starting with the major evil act known as voting. Stop hurting people and stealing their stuff, and there is a foundation on which positive good actions can be based; but as libertarians, I don't see that as part of what we're promoting.

"Kindness imperative", Glen?   Of course kindness is a vital element in a decent society, no argument. But "imperative" seems too strong. How does this differ from "compulsory compassion", which is the bedrock of collectivist welfare?   If somehow a NAP were implemented but then the human beings making up society failed to add compassion to the mix, the result would be rather sterile.  But the NAP is the enabler. Necessary, if not sufficient. Personally, it's fine to continue beyond a call for the NAP to be recognized as the foundation of an ideal society, but is it right to do so as a libertarian?

Succinct, profound and spot on. Well done, Glen.

She is, actually, still evidently awaiting trial.  Probably just getting a slap on the wrist though.  We'll see:   http://www.snopes.com/furay-drug-charges-father/    

Pence wasn't V-P elect until November 8th. Re-phrase line 1?

It's clever and cheap, and probably effective as claimed - to deter theft for personal gain.   Trouble is, while most TSA examiners may be honest in the sense of not being personal thieves, all of them are dishonest in the sense of working for government by poking through baggage. If they detect something (like a flask of gin!) that some government rule forbids, they will steal it anyway.   So, "100% foolproof"? Not quite.

The saddest discovery for me is not the conscious deceit of national factions, collectives, but the deceit within family, people you are suppose to trust--brother against brother, father against son and etc.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/health-care-cost-coverage-might-change-ev...

Thanks, Carrie, for this blockbuster!  The archists have penetrated most other traditional fields of study such as history and economics in order to ruin young minds and their grasp of what's up; it's enormously sad to see them distorting even science as well.   It appalls me that a phrase like "correspondence theory of truth" even has to be used. A mere single lifetime ago, science had only to do with observing, theorizing and testing and then repeating the cycle; nobody questioned the necessity of relating to fact and reality in every part of that.   A couple of questions, if you have time:   (a) The "peer review" system appears to have merit. How do you see it relating to the "consensus theory of truth"?   (b) You mention that "HIV affects 1.2 million Americans, [and] has a known cause and simple prevention." Does it then actually exist, Dr Duesburg's findings notwithstanding?   Oh, and for good measure, why not put "Progressive" inside quote signs? - all that your article tells about the Marchers is large-scale regression.  

In the U.S., progressives have long used their conception of science as a weapon against their enemies. They brand people who are less than 100% persuaded by the theory of evolution by natural selection as neanderthals who would take us back to the dark ages if they had the opportunity to do so. They use support for the environmentalists' agenda as a litmus test for whether or not one is scientific-minded. In their hands, science is a powerful device for creating and maintaining monopolies that determine which research gets funded, how medicine is to be practiced, and which viewpoints are to be taught. But perhaps most of all science is a tool to create a political monopoly for progressive politicians and their supporters.

More people are waking up as the "fake news" accusations getting thrown around alerts people to be more skeptical of what they read, see and hear; you are certainly not alone. The glaring consistant feature of hypocrisy in the actions of liberals/post-modernists/Marxists/progressive (alt-left), in spite of their apparent need to point out anything that resembles irony, is totally ignored as if they are completely blind to it. When grown people resort to violent temper tantrums in lieu of using reason and discussion to formulate an agreeable resolution to perceived differences in the matter, it reveals that 1) they realize that they do not have a valid argument and must resort to an emotional appeal to in a desparate effort to win the argument or 2) they do not realize that they do not have a valid argument and have only considered the matter in an emotional manner. The zealots that shun logic as irrelavent, or even a way for the male patriarchy to oppress women, are of the latter group and much more difficult to reason with because they are on a Mission From God.

Glad I'm not the only one that see these events unfold and can't help but think they are wholly fabricated by big money political operatives who have influence in the highest levels of the academic bureaucracy. A worrisome condition when the traditional liberal establishment abandons its values and behaves like the counter group they allege they are so against.

Thanks, Jim. I've long been a proponent of the "remnant" that must survive every cycle of social upheaval to start a rebirth of liberty in our culture. The large number of people acting irrationally these days makes the percentage of people acting this way appear universal, but the amount of publicity they get distorts the perception of their true numbers. I agree that we must shine a light on this barbaric/animal-like behavior in order to show it up for what it is.