Recent comments

  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 36 weeks 4 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Notice, misochu, how in order to rescue his position from the inevitable jaws of reason, Davies claims a "right" to life -- rather than simply accepting life as something that merely is, and no more.  He cannot conceive of life as just being.  No, it can only be defined within his terms, as something up for grabs, something requiring ownership:  You either assert forcefully your "right" to it...or someone will snatch it away from you at the nearest available opportunity.  That really says more about him personally than it does about the nature of reality.  Things must be within his control.  Otherwise, of course, none of it is "rational." And we just can't have that, can we?   Note also that even as he presumes to speak for an entire category of people -- "Anarchist libertarians hold the opposite view" -- he still openly admits that it is indeed just a view.  An opinion.  Nothing more.   His entire "argument," as it were, amounts to little more than a plea for everyone to agree with him.  A plea for recognition of an opinion.  And a pathetic one at that. One which can supply zero evidence.  In short, a ridiculous flexing of the ego.   And correspondingly, a waste of time.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 36 weeks 4 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Thank you. I still have some trouble understanding its relevance to Alex's blog. Whom do you have in mind, who might be engaging in non-thiestic religious activity? Are there Buddhists nearby?   So I'll go out on a limb, and take a guess - based on your two first words, "Great stuff", apparently referring to that blog. I'm guessing that you regard a belief in rights as a religious belief. Yes?   If so, you could hardly be more wrong - if we can agree that a religious belief is one based not on reason but on faith; a widely accepted definition. Alex' position is that rights don't exist because none can be "seen on the street" and because they are abstract "concepts", while mine is that every person does have the right to live and to own his or her own life, as an attribute as real as a wide variety of other concepts such as conscience, love, goodness, justice, right, wrong, mathematics, philosophy, economics, language musical and writing abilities, and imagination; all of which are mere concepts but all of which are entirely real and demonstrable by rational observation of their results and all of which were mentioned in the ZGBlog which Alex attempted to discredit. No naked faith at all is needed, to acknowledge the reality of any of them; and the same is true of rights.   True ones, as I noted, all derive from the basic self ownership right (and we're not discussing government "permission slips" which are alleged privileges, not rights at all even though government people use the same word) and that right is inherent in human nature. As I noted, it must logically be so because no alternative exists; if you do not have the right to your own life, who does and how did he get it?   We can extend that reasoning a little. If arguendo you do not have the right of self-ownership, you certainly have no right to hold or express an opinion; and yet you did so! You wrote "Great stuff". Right or (as in this case) wrong, that's an opinion, and if someone else has the right to control what you do and say, you've no business expressing it. You're a mere instrument, in the hands of some other party, like a keyboard. Can a keyboard express its own opinion? The notion is absurd.   The alternative is a world much like the one in which we presently exist; life is lived by premission of those with the biggest weapons. Justice is what the ruler says it is. Good and evil are what he says there are. He asserts a "right to rule", but on the stated premise he can have no such right; he does so purely on the basis of force. Absent rights, there are only "opinions", as Alex said. Thus, if an opinion is popular in some society, it prevails; if the culture holds that Jews are sub-humans like rodents or that blacks are mere three fifths of human beings, that's the way it is and there is no objective, rational standard to which to hold its rulers accountable.   Anarchist libertarians hold the opposite view; that individuals do have the inherent, inalienable, sovereign right to own and operate their own lives and that any who impede or deny that right are interlopers who must be overcome - as peacefully as possible. Are you a libertarian, mishochu?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 36 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    Given that "democracy" is that gambit utilized for ongoing belief and participation of the hoi polloi by the group of psychopaths hiding under the mantle of "the state", my answer would definitely have to be "no". Democracy was/is a stroke of genius. Sam
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 36 weeks 5 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    I'm using it in terms of "religious activity, dedication and belief". How it's defined.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 36 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    Private companies continue to make vaccines. They threatened to pull out of the market in the 80's, but were given exemption from liability in 1986. Government props up the vaccine program in many ways and has turned it into a great threat to mankind. I wrote extensively about that here: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2015/08/d-saul-weiner/oppose-the-vaccine-pro...
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 36 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    I'm not sure what you mean Saul. No private companies make vaccines any more due to lawsuits and other liability issues. Political democracy really doesn't have a bearing on vaccine production except economically. Banning lawsuits except for actual, provable, damages would improve things but I don't see that happening except by a referendum, and even that would be a stretch given the political and economic clout of the trial lawyer lobby.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 36 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    "In that case, advocating democracy for what it expresses would be perverse—akin to insisting we outlaw vaccines in order to express concern for human health.”  The latter would actually be an excellent idea, as long as vaccines continue to be made available through the government vaccine program.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 36 weeks 6 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    mischochu, might you expand that thought? - how are you using "religiosity"?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 37 weeks 6 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    No political authority will ever make anybody "great". Ever. There is no such thing as "limited government". Government is a malignancy that will always metastasize. Always. No constitution or bill (of "rights"?) or formal agreement signed by psychopaths can ever change that. If you read FEE's article (I think that might be on another post) you can read Sam's comment there. But I'll repeat it here: Why is it that conventional thinking in regard to "secession" always seems to default to the collectivist? "The Group", or "The Political Relationship" are generally what come to mind as the entities needed to secede. I am a sovereign state. I've seceded. I recognize one "jurisdiction", and one only: a loaded firearm. I have to believe the man with the loaded gun. Or woman -- l-rd have mercy! I treat all "authority" in the the same manner I treat rattlesnakes: with due caution. Where practical, I'll always keep my distance from threat, and will form my own action plans. Of course, knowing snakes as I do, I'm aware that they will try to evade me prior to confrontation. Not so with your revered authorities. So it is necessary for me to develop more in the way of circumnavigation skills when evading or dealing with them. I do not petition (beg) presumed authorities to allow me to be free. They won't. That's the nature of authority. The authority rests upon "voluntary compliance". I do not comply -- not voluntarily, I don't. Expatriation is not in my vocabulary. I want you to like me. Knowing that, you can be confident that I will treat you and those you love with respect and courtesy. But I would do that before I seceded. It just makes common sense. Freedom is using common sense. I'm sorta glad to see Trump "win" (a dubious "victory" indeed), if for no other reason than -- well, here, I'll use Simon Black's wordage: "It’s almost comical to suggest there was any semblance of objectivity throughout the entire cycle. "Hillary Clinton had the full and unabashed backing of the entire media establishment. "And the banking establishment. And the political establishment. And countless billionaires, Hollywood celebrities, rock stars, international press, foreign leaders, and even the President of the United States. "Yet all of those big guns proved to be ineffective against a citizenry that’s fed up with the status quo". But I have no hope that Trump will change your or my life for the better -- any more than would have Clinton. My hope is that those bickering and niggling over trifles here at STR cease and desist and come to see the challenge at hand. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 37 weeks 7 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    More Americans were killed by the US Gov under Reno's tenure than at any time since the Civil War, so fuck that bitch & I hope she's burning in hell.  
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 37 weeks 8 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    Love the Biafra reference (as a former Nigerian, but not an Igbo tribesman, that still resounds with me).
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 37 weeks 8 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    Love the Biafra reference (as a former Nigerian, but not an Igbo tribesman, that still resounds with me).
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 37 weeks 9 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    States, like abusive partners, tend to resort to physical violence to prevent any separations they don't approve of, (cf. U.S. Civil War 1861-5, Biafra 1967-70, Ireland, 1916, Chechnya,1995-6 & 1999-2000, Kurdistan, 1990-ongoing). And even if the over-state agrees to some sort of referendum on succession (c.f. , Quebec 1995, Scotland 2014, "Brexit" referendum, 2016), legal flim-flammery and other okey-dokey often belie the promises made. The only true independence comes either from an armed uprising, (Ireland, 1916), or if the over-state just bails (East Germany, 1989). Only exception I can think of is the Mormom migration away from Illinois to  the Salt Lake Valley, 1844-1850. Although SLV was claimed by the U.S. gov, the Republic of Mexico, and by native aboriginal people, none were willing or able to excercise state-level violence to oppose their migration, and so the Mormons were sucessfully able to have an independent community for a few decades. 
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 37 weeks 11 hours ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Atheism doesn't inoculate one from religiosity. Great stuff.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 37 weeks 1 day ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Indeed.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 37 weeks 1 day ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    In the ZGBlog to which you refer, Alex, I commended you for your powerful imagination when creating works of horror fiction.  I see above that that conceptual, abstract attribute is still at work.   Thanks though for its second sentence. I'm quite content that STReaders study both arguments, and pick the one for themselves that makes the better sense.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 37 weeks 1 day ago
    Keep Hillary Out
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Thanks to all who sent a copy of yesterday's ZGBlog to their zillions of voting friends. 80 of 90 big newspapers endorsed Hillary, but your action kept her out :-)
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 37 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for that link; I hadn't heard of that connection.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 37 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Why is it that the normies never seem to ask (e.g. "Who benefits?") from the drug war? WTF would all these drug warriors and their parasites do without a huge churning mass of humanity to spy on, bust, run through the courts, imprison, "treat" for addiction, etc.?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 37 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    The ruling classes HATE the idea of people owning their own homes, small or not, because as some fuckin' commie said during the early Bolshevik years, people that own their own land and grow their own food are hard to manage. And so a ''small house" (or any house really), is definitely a thing  to be discouraged. Property owners who also have their own wells, septic systems, orchards, gardens, or live stock are even more counter-progressive, and if they have a wind mill, solar panel array, or wood stove too, well that's even worse, but if they have lots of guns too, well then they're evil, food-hoarding kulaks! And we all know where having that designation can lead to. Uncle Beast would greatly prefer that we all be homeless urban squatters lining up at EBT and Obama Care kiosks for our daily rations. Destitute lumpen proles are easier, (way easier) for Beasty to manage.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 37 weeks 4 days ago Web link KenK
    Google or search "EBT cards not working" and watch people throwing fits and trashing stores. And that's just for a few hours of outage. Two months of that shit and they'll be eating each other. 
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 37 weeks 4 days ago Web link KenK
    America isn't this bad yet, but the welfare state subsidizing the blue state masses that the Left requires to stay in power can't be sustained forever, so it's getting there.  
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 38 weeks 14 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    Some, perhaps even most, people conflate "whistleblower" with "rat", "nark", or someone who rats out others upon their being caught for more lenient treatment for themselves. Gov and corp spox people often try to spin the narrative that way as a form of damage control. 
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 38 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    PS: I didn't mention it in the article, but there is a prudery here that H. L. Mencken would have identified with the alcohol prohibitionists and other "uplifters." These are the people who hate it when other people have a good belly laugh or can relax over a few drinks -- or even worse -- decorate their homes in bright colors or (God forbid) even wear them! It's the kind of behavior that wants to measure and regulate and dictate every act and emotional expression you may have.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 38 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    That's a hilarious comment! Thanks for the observation. Yes, Trump is tasteless, especially in unguarded moments, and I'm not voting for him even though he may crack open the "fixer establishment," but the over-the-top responses to his tastlessness -- the responses that want to punish him and his followers with more than a raised eyebrow and demonize and indict and shriek and obtain extreme retribution and ban him and his followers and compel agreement before you are considered part of the human fold -- seem way out of proportion. Frankly, it seems even unbalanced mentally if it isn't just a passion play of political theater acted out for the cameras. Or maybe it's just like those critters in the film "Invasion of the Body Snatchers." They KNOW you are not ONE OF THEM, and you must be pointed at and hunted down and killed (they hope). Way over the top, unless you're an unhinged alien from another planet. It is perfectly in line with the crazy interpretations applied to his remark about political resistence from the 2nd Amendment crowd. All that shrieking over tasteless remarks and not a word about policies that actually rain death upon civilian popluations in Asia and Africa and the Middle East. Somebody's got their priorities really messed up!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 38 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thanks, Jim. And yes, Butler's books -- espeically the Boundaries... title and the one on Chaos have connected our ideology to findings in chaos/complexity theory and to swarm theory. Over the years, I've tended to link these up the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (which seems like a kissing cousin to free choice) and to the concept of "free choice" (liberum arbitrium) in medieval Catholocism. Even the concept of the "singularity" or beginning of the universe seems possible to link to caprice or an either/or occurrence that seems eerily like free choice. All of this is highly speculative, of course, but what I find very positive about this is that the NAP and libertarian theory seems to coincide very closely with how the universe works -- an "as you like it" caprice or choice or honoring of individualy and lack of central direction in favor of spontaneous order.  
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 38 weeks 2 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Better yet, make it an invasive species, which overtakes the species of bureaucrat which is hell-bent on interfering with peaceful people.
  • Kevin M. Patten's picture
    Kevin M. Patten 38 weeks 2 days ago
    Clintonism, Unplugged
    Page Kevin M. Patten
    The quote is from a profile that Vidal wrote of Ronald Reagan, and its inference is nuclear war, which is why, like Jim said, Hillary must lose next week. I wasn't intending for this piece to be this long, but I kept adding and adding, and with the reasoning that I didn't want someone to come back and ask "What's your evidence?" If the Libertarian Gods ever bless me with a print publisher, I'd be happy to put some of this stuff into paper form. Alas, you cannot BEG publishers to tell you to fuck off. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 2 days ago
    Clintonism, Unplugged
    Page Kevin M. Patten
    I must agree it's a bit too long for my taste (confession: I skipped some) but it's vital that Hillary loses next week, and this cannot hurt, and anyway the cartoons were great. The one of a smiling Bill captioned "It's not rape / if you're a Democrat" was on its own worth the price of admission.   The first one, too, was germane especially in view of Comey's latest move. Last week's ZGBlog listed 24 suspicious deaths close to the Clntons, and it's quite understandable that he doesn't wish his to be the next. We have here a woman in the Caligula class.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 38 weeks 2 days ago
    Clintonism, Unplugged
    Page Kevin M. Patten
    This column begins with an incomprehensible quote and goes on to spend a huge number of words talking about ... something Hillary-related.  Perhaps if I drank enough cups of coffee I'd have the energy to wade through all of it.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 2 days ago
    Consent and Secession
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Alex, your rejection above of the concept of rights moved me to write the current edition of the Zero Government Blog, to compare it with some other familiar concepts that are entirely real.              You are not the villain here, but you have been badly misled, and that makes me sad. I hope the Blog will help restore your understanding of the rational foundations of liberty.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 38 weeks 2 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Hey Sharon. What we need to do here is come up with a GMO bureaucrat species. One that goes to work and stares at the wall in a semi-comatose condition until quitting time and then goes home, thereby avoiding inflicting any further damage on the environment and aggravation or expense to us. Here in MI most of our vast forests are either privately owned or occuppied by the "state" of MI rather than the feds. You guys out west are uniquely cursed with absentee federal occupiers and I do feel for you.
  • Melinda L. Secor's picture
    Melinda L. Secor 38 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Indeed. There is some evidence that previoustly released altered mosquitoes may have contributed to the outbreaks they're aiming to resolve in the first place. These plans to "improve" the environment always seem to come with unintended consequences. In my area, for instance, the environmentalists decided that the local salt cedar trees were an invasive species, choking out more "desireable" trees. Meanwhile, there are very few trees here to begin with, desirable to the environmentalists or not...we are in the high desert. Anyway, they released a "specialized" beetle to eradicate the salt cedars. It did some damage as intended the first year, then multiplied and spread to wipe out a hefty percentage of the trees they'd done all this to "save." Yet, after many such follies over many years, there are still arrogant fools who believe they can and should "manage" our environment.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 38 weeks 3 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    What an insanely bad idea it is to introduce GMO into the environment like this. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 4 days ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thanks Lawrence for a good suggestion.   Amazon is out of stock of Chaos (it should be possible to make a joke out of that) but I've downloaded Restraint for 3 bucks and the other two are e-freebies from Mises.org.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 38 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Crime ebbs & flows for a whole host of reasons. Legalizing abortion & birth control in 1973 was big factor too. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Perhaps you're right, in saying there are two types of criminals.   Or perhaps there is a kind of Jekyll/Hyde thing going on. Government people are kriminals in all they do, in their "official" capacity. But back at home, they may be as nice a set of neighbors as one could desire. They may even exercise a normal conscience. Milgram may have fingered the difference.   If that's the case, some of them at least are open to the presentation at TinyURL.com/QuitGov.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    So democracy is about to die. What matters is what follows.   Alexander Tytler: 'A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until a majority of voters discover that they can vote themselves largess out of the public treasury.' In that part of California, that moment has arrived.   It will be followed either by a dictatorship, or by a free society. STReaders have the responsibility of determining which. The means for achieving the latter is available here.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 38 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Scientists cannot do a controlled experiment to determine the degree to which, say, consumption of junk food, will increase propensity to commit (real) crimes. Probably the closest thing to a study here is Weston Price's research, laid out in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. He was primarily interested in studying physical degeneration, but also found that mental and moral degeneration went along with it. As far as government-style kriminals go, that is a good question. It could be that there are 2 (or more) types of criminals. Perhaps the first kind is lacking in self-control, which may be a result (at least in part) of problems with their nutrition or toxic exposure. The government kriminal may have adequate self-control but no conscience to speak of. Not sure, though, just speculating here.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very interesting. I noticed that Blayock made a good case that people already presumed anti-social (prisoners, though we know that half of them committed no krime) responded well to improvements in diet etc. But I didn't notice him consider the correlation the other way round; that is, for example, what proportion of habitual consumers of junk food turn to krime, compared to consumers of well balanced diets?  The proportion of all US adults in prison is 1%; far, far too high for justice but for this kind of measurement it's far too low to have much significance, wouldn't you agree?   That question is a tough one, because I'd not be surprised to learn that habitual junk-food eaters are also in the lower socio-economic classes and therefore face a whole range of other pressures to lead a life of krime. I wonder how one can separate these factors so as to get a clean measure.   One other question occurs: we also know that the primary anti-social kriminals in society are government people; their entire business is to violate rights. Yet I'd be very surprised to learn that any of them are deprived of a healthy diet; rather, the opposite - and fine wines to wash it down. Doesn't that cast doubt on Blaylock's case?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 38 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    The reporter who wrote this piece for the Oregonian seems to think the dust up with informants was the reason for their acquittals, but I don't. People, especially in the western states, are becoming increasing angered at the tactics the feds are using to run people off the land. FYI, while the trial itself was held in lefty Portland,  the jury was selected from the outlying areas, (near where the incident played out) where many people make their living working the land, as well as in mining, ranching, timber, and such. 
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 38 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    Some SF Bay area tech investors are keeping this whole SmartGun™ product development thing going despite the nearly non-existent demand for them. Here’s an idea: mandate that the Secret Service details that tend to POTUS and the rest of the fed gov’s V.I.P. security entourages use it exclusively as their primary side arm. That ought to be enough to kill it outright methinks.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 38 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    I screwed up. The intro for this link should be, "Russia Trolls America with Offers to Send Election Monitors". Hope the irony (and humor) isn't lost on anyone because of my mistake.  Ken.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 38 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Jim, that's a very good question. If you are a committed Szaszian, then you will deny the possibility that there are factors beyond individual choice that have a bearing on the morality of our behavior. But I believe that Szasz overstated his case in this regard. There is strong evidence that factors such as poor nutrition and environmental toxins can have marked effects on our mental health and, in some cases this leads to criminal behavior. Here is a good talk about nutrition and criminal behavior by neurosurgeon and researcher Dr. Russel Blaylock. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SLVCXZbcIk&index=13&list=FL6RmTGiJ4XYVK... I also think that it is possible that, with the heavy metals used in vaccines, that the government is seeding the NEXT crime wave with the recent out-of-control CDC vaccine schedule. I read recently that there was an uptick in crime recently. Time will tell if that is what is happening. But even if that does turn out to be the case, we can be quite sure that such a connection will be vehemently denied and probably not even mentioned as a possibility.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 38 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Tetraethyl lead... who'd ha thunk it?  Thanks Saul for the link.  It's a well written piece, despite its home in Mother Jones and its inevitable push for environmental action.   Correlation is not causation, but the author deals with that quite well by addressing the effects of lead poisoning on the brain. He did not, though, spend time on the moral issue.   Crime (or rather what I call Krime, the sort that has victims) hurts people, damages their rights in some way, and hence is morally reprehensible. But if a big part of its cause is actually a chemical, present in the air we breathe as a result of simple accident, a coincidence that added it to car fuel, what happens to moral accountabiltiy? How does the will fit in, the choice of bad over good, the culpability? "Not guilty, your Honor, because Exxon diminshed my responsibility..."   The author mentions Roe v Wade, and that makes a lot of sense to me. It led to fewer unwanted kids, and so to fewer maladjusted teens a decade or two later.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 38 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well put.  I remember what a revelation it was, many years ago, when I read some Indian philosopher (I forget who now) who pointed out that judges require criminals to avoid unemployment, as do police, jailers, etc. etc.  Much like "If God didn't exist, people would have to invent Him", if crime didn't exist, then would-be statist thugs who weren't successful in creating "crimes" would have to find honest work, an apparently very unappealing prospect for that kind of person.  So, they invent crimes everywhere you look, to grow their pyrimids of power.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 39 weeks 1 hour ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very good article. However, I believe that the most compelling explanation for the decline in violent crime is discussed here: http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2016/02/lead-exposure-gasoline-cr...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 39 weeks 14 hours ago
    Backing Bunk
    Page Paul Hein
    We saved S&H green stamps and pasted them in little books because it was fun to do so. ;-) Something for the kids to do... I don't remember if we actually got anything from them.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 39 weeks 15 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Very nicely done, Paul.  Addresses numerous things succinctly, and connects them all.  Sharing widely.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 39 weeks 15 hours ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Yes, I believe much of what appears to be support for Trump, is actually support for the damage he is doing to the Government Religion. That's so when he is running for office; if he actually gets in I doubt he will change much. A few weeks ago I made the case for voting Trump, on the sole issue of likelihood of nuclear war (if Hillary wins). After all, nothing else matters if the whole Earth is being obliterated. But in the end I decided not to vote for him, because the connection between my vote and nuclear war was pretty remote! Anyway I figured the Deep State would just assassinate him. Strangely, when I made this case, I got a negative reaction from some Voluntarists that can only be described as religious. I'm not a religious person. BTW, I can give two examples of incrementalism that have worked. 1) The concealed carry movement. I opposed the half-measure of government-regulated carry, thinking it would short-circuit any drive to what's been called "constitutional carry", but now I think it actually advanced that cause. How many states now have "constitutional carry" these days, 9 or 10? It seems to be coming along nicely. 2) Same thing with government-regulated homeschooling. Sure, the state got into it to try to co-opt it, and to re-capture homeschoolers, but there are an awful lot of "noncompliant" homeschoolers these days, and many of them ended up that way via the government "legitimization" of homeschooling. I think noncompliant homeschooling is much farther along than it would have been without the partial government surrender. I'm still not a big fan of incrementalism, but I no longer think it is necessarily a fatal mistake as I once believed.