Recent comments

"...government is soon put out of business it will at any rate be short-lived. I conclude there is no rational alternative to a free market, and the sooner the better..." In this you and I are in sound agreement, Jim. We might not jointly envision the same demise of central political authority, but we agree it must end. In time. Hoist by their own petards. A fun time to live! Sam

Correct, you did not state your own ideals. However, by referring to mine in the second person, you did imply that they are not yours; that you reject at least some of them.   Hence my question. What are they? Are you in fact a libertarian? If not, why are you here?

Not everyone who criticizes technology is a technophobe.  These articles that portray people who question the value of further automation as ignorant are likely ignorant themselves.  As someone who designs automation equipment and works with large manufacturing companies, I see first-hand the speed with which highly sophisticated algorithms are being integrated with robots and vision systems to do tasks that would have been the sole domain of human hands just a few years ago.  I don't believe many people who don't work in manufacturing recognize how quickly the costs of this technology are falling, nor how rapidly it is being adopted.    In earlier iterations of the industrial revolution, when the march of technology may have made some skills obsolete, there were entry-level jobs available in the growing economy created by industrialization.  There were huge numbers of tasks that couldn't be automated.   Today, when factory workers are replaced with robots, there is often no clear path to employment at that level of pay and benefits again.  Axiomatically, you can't fix stupid, and many factory workers are relatively low-IQ people who have no hope of developing serious technical skills in any area.  These people have no role to play in creating this increasingly automated world.   In retrospect, the short period of history when the peasantry earned enough to buy a house, buy new cars every few years, take family vacations, and demand 40-hour work weeks, pensions, and health benefits all the while doing menial work was the result of a perfect storm of technological and economic forces.  When labor competes against automation today, it has very little leverage.  Typical robotic projects recoup their costs in fewer than 2 years, and sometimes just a matter of months.   When the Mises Institute points out that new opportunities will arise, it's something of a straw-man.  Of course new opportunites will arise:  new conditions create new opportunities.  The unmentioned issue is that in the aggregate, those opportunites don't provide for the same level of material comfort that the old factory jobs did.   

mishochu, it's a disappointment to read your use of the second person, in "your ideals of liberty."   My understanding of liberty is documented in several hundred articles, 243 of them on STR and all indexed on or via this page, and in six full-length books, listed on my STR bio. That's in addition to the Freedom Academy, in whose preparation I played a leading part. Therefore, you have ample opportunity to know what my "ideals of liberty" are, and will know that they are very close to those of the great libertarian pioneers like Rothbard, Spooner, von Mises, Friedman, Rand and Alexander.   Since you say they are only "my" ideals and so not yours, which of them do you reject and why?   On the secondary (or tertiary) matter of knowing one's intellectual limitations, you may be able to construct a more charming and empathetic way of pointing out Samarami's to him than by complimenting him on being "wise" to discover them. If so I'll gladly endorse your choice of words.

Was all that murk in the footage at the end smoke? I'd expect that much of smoke from a blackpowder revolver but not a modern semi-auto pistol. Stick up boi was dead before he hit the floor. 

Trump may end up ruing the day he associated himself with that self-entitled nutbar. RFK Jr.'s anti-vaccine balderdash is easily and absolutely refuted by the overwhelming weight of the  evidence. People in America rarely get polio, for example, anymore because above 85 percent of us are vaxed, not because the polio virus isn't out there in the environment any longer. If and when the BIG COLLAPSE ever comes, we're gonna see viral and bacterial diseases run rampant thru the unvaxed population. Count on it.

Last night I watched a short documentary titled Black Power: America's Armed Resistance, which showed how some people are arming themselves and "patrolling the streets of their communities and calling for change" because they are "outraged at the treatment of Black people at the hands of the police." It had some interesting moments. And - perhaps somewhat surprisingly - it was being aired on TVO, which is the government-owned t.v. station in this part of the world called Ontario, Canada; but most people here are probably aware of the fatal shooting of a teenager by a cop in Toronto in 2013 (the cop was convicted of "attempted murder" and was sentenced to six years, which he is probably appealing), so maybe more people are starting to ask questions about police behaviour.

"...That you can (presumably) read it and recommend it and then write that more recent perceptions do "not change the law of gravity" fairly boggles the mind..." And you believe that perceptions DO "change the law of gravity"? OK, Jim. You win. I give up. Sam

"...the scientific method of reasoning does NOT produce "laws" fixed for ever, but rather theories that are open to be tested and modified..." I suppose we could get off track into argumentation over "science" and the scientific method as it affects reason. Laws are not produced by "scientists" (quotes intended) -- they are discovered and perceived. All the "science" of the acclaimed experts does not change the law of gravity. It might change perceptions and theories, but law is law. Of course I'm not referring to "white man's law". I'm thinking of a "law" that governs liberty and freedom. And I suspect the most simple of folks tend to discover that "law" more quickly and succinctly than do the acclaimed intellectuals espousing "the-freedom-movement". I'm not a fan of antagonistic adherence to "theory", as you may have discovered ("scientifically"???). It bores me. And it angers me. Because there's no point in you or Alex or Paul or anybody else lambasting each other over pointless, meaningless squabbles. And it drives sincere seekers of truth away. Sam

Very amusing, Sam, but unfortunately wrong. Seriously, it is vitally important to understand that the scientific method of reasoning does NOT produce "laws" fixed for ever, but rather theories that are open to be tested and modified.   Science News has an account here of how Einstein modified the Newtonian gravitational theories, and I came across a claim that his General Relativity theory has itself, in turn, been recently challenged.   Why is this important, especially in the context of a forum supposedly dedicated to striking the root of evil? - only to the extent that clarity of reasoning is critical in both contexts. From Bonneau, Knight, and here unfortunately your goodself, that has been in short supply.

"...The law of gravity is merely a theory; Newton proposed it, Einstein claimed to modify it..." However, should you stand in the middle of the room, place your right foot in your right hand, then (without removing right foot from right hand) attempt simultaneously to place your left foot into your left hand, you might discover that gravity is not merely a theory -- it's the law. However, you have the right to defy it, Jim. So I guess there are "rights" after all. Sam

This is a great article.  I was able to gain some long-awaited valuable insight into my dad's old USAF M4 .22 survival rifle, as well!  One of my next guns may well be an AR-7.  :-)

I remember another incident from some years ago, Sam, in Washington (not the District of Criminals one, the northwestern one) wherein a funeral was held for one of the boys in blue, and a sports stadium was needed for the services.  There was even a massive contingent of bright red out there -- RCMP from across the imaginary line in Canada.   As I believe you are wont to say (and please forgive my inexactitude in paraphrasing, if you will), the immensity of the truth is mind-boggling.

WTF is "fake news"? It's devolved meaning as of now is as a generic pejoritive for any news reporting that the reader doesnt agree with or like. Like the term "propaganda" applied to any article based on who wrote or published it, not on what's actually written or its logical coherence, or its use or citation of verifiable info or data. Some time ago, out of curiosity, I would click on links at the bottom of some websites that made sensational claims and just click through the various pages to see what it amounted to, and I quickly concluded that it was just clickbait using contrived or misleading statements to suck you in. That's one kind of fake news. Misleading nonsense for page views. The tabloid press like National Enquirer and grocery store check out gossip mags have perfected this form of "fake news". Another kind of fake news is the Daily Show & Colbert Report where the host riffs on current events as if was a straight news report but actually as satirical humor. If Jon Stewart ever got called out on it, he just shrugs and says that he's not a "real" journalist and of course it's fake news! He's a fake newsman! What was surprising though was large amount of viewers who believed and passed it on even knowing that it was written by comedy writers. Comedy writers with a sharp partisan edge although. Rush Limbaugh and Conservative talk radio hosts have their own style of deconstruction that can constitute fakery. Rush did a riff on mainstream media headlines and the disconect that they showed. "Prison Population Increasing Even as Crime Rates Fall" is one deconstruct i recall from memory. Without going in to the meat of the story's reporting, (from the NYT if I remember) Limbaugh pointed out that the crime rate was lower, likely because more violent criminals were being incarcerated and for longer amounts of time, and so that's why the jails were full up. So the reporters theme, as expressed in the headline, was "fake" as he saw it, but it still put the false notion out there as news and so Limbaugh was doing a call out. So there's that kind of "fake news". The worst current example of fake news is the "Russians Hacked the Election" theme where anonymous intelligence sources are quoted as saying this. Citing anonymous sources from unnamed agencies as proof for an unexpected election loss doesn't explain why one side outpolled the other side but it doesn't stop the partisan media echo chamber from discussing, repeting, and cementing in place events that likely never happened. That too, is fake news. Probably the most unsettling kind. The Obama State Department saying the Bengazhi embassy massacre was caused by a YouTube video is perhaps the most sinsister example of fake news to deflect incompetence and was totally effective at doing so, even after it was debunked, because few remember it, even a scant four years later. Come to think of it, about everything except sports scores is fake news anymore. That's the approach I take FWIW to you.

I'm continually amazed at how people who were against war become for it, and vice versa. It's as if they attach themselves to a ruler, or even just a label, rather than consider the carnage. Why? I guess I am just missing the loyalty gene myself, so don't understand the concept.

The video is perhaps of some value in deterring the natural warring mentality that is extant in your innermost soul. But videos depicting "....the horrors of war..." are a dime a dozen. They never zero in upon the cause of war -- only the horrors. Some years ago I stumbled across this essay by the late Delmar England. England, within the first few paragraphs, began to show us why war exists and what we -- individuals -- can do about it. Sad to say, far too many "libertarians" (quotes needed and intended) will read those first few lines, throw it down in disgust, and then go on reading and writing essays that never interfere with the warring mentality that creates the evil about which they're writing. Mr. England has the knack of kicking your icons in the schnozzel. You're not going to like that. Particularly if you are prone to flashing dogmatic "libertarian theories" around. The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

"...I'm just not a collectivist. I don't naturally look at things as a collectivist would, as a government bureaucrat would, so this government solution does not appeal to me. I don't see why the IQ of averages of people with different backgrounds are anything that should concern me. It doesn't fit my worldview, which looks at people (mostly) as individuals..." Excellent observation on an old (presumably expired) but very important thread. "Collectivist vs individualist mentality" stands at the helm of the very most important of forum topics as I see it. The Gotto quotation is extremely pertinent. Long prior to my ever darkening the door of STR I recognized IQ measurements as defective at best, segregationist on down the scale. I was a government ("public" ha ha) teacher in white schools deep in Jim Crow country. Crow was alive and well at the time, Martin King still a small-town preacher with little to say. And, once he did become a factor, he added to rather than having made less oppressive, the problem of government "education". We needed John Taylor Gatto's, but he (they) would have been shouted down. I'm strongly convinced the whole "civil rights" phenomenon was a gigantic false flag operation. Sam

"There is an enormous amount of data clearly indicating that there are differences in IQ test results among the various races when considering averages of those groups." Certainly this is so - assuming one can get past the little problem of defining race - what race is Obama? One might also find, that if piles of taxpayer money was devoted to determining, via studies, the IQ differences of left-handed vs right-handed people, then differences would be found there too. Or of people with curly hair vs those with straight hair. Or Catholics vs Protestants vs Buddhists. No doubt then, having found such differences, self-interested bureaucrats in government agencies would start lobbying to reduce them, or whole new agencies would be built. And the living standard around Washington DC would go up another notch. But, I'm just not a collectivist. I don't naturally look at things as a collectivist would, as a government bureaucrat would, so this government solution does not appeal to me. I don't see why the IQ of averages of people with different backgrounds are anything that should concern me. It doesn't fit my worldview, which looks at people (mostly) as individuals. Whenever I do catch myself looking at things collectively (no doubt infected by the general collectivist milieu), I stop and slap myself around before I go overboard. Not that I'm entirely immune to the old chestnut of walking through a "bad" neighborhood and feeling nervous. Any time I am a minority (at least where looks are concerned - but I could also be for example, a cultural or religious minority) I am going to have heightened awareness; that's just human nature and has some good evolutionary reasons for it. But that's about as far as it goes. I don't turn it into self-serving studies. I don't put faith in tests that have the purpose of pigeonholing people for the bureaucracy to manipulate. I don't imagine because some people have lower IQs (whatever that measures), they can't have a decent life - or people with higher IQs must necessarily have a good one. Racial theorizing cannot explain the deaths of millions of Chinese in the "Great Leap Forward" and the Cultural Revolution. Most problems are cultural, or territorial, not racial (other than being a "divide and conquer" tool for the ruling class). "If you believe nothing can be done for the dumb but kindness, because it's biology (the bell-curve model); if you believe the capitalist oppressors have ruined the dumb because they are bad people (the neo-Marxist model); if you believe dumbness reflects depraved moral fiber (the Calvinist model); or that it's nature's way of providing someone to clean your toilet (the pragmatic elitist model)... if you believe any of the various explanations given for the position of the dumb in the social order we have, then you will be forced to concur that a vast bureaucracy is indeed necessary to address the dumb. Otherwise they would murder us in our beds. The shocking possibility that dumb people don't exist in sufficient numbers to warrant the careers devoted to tending to them will seem incredible to you. Yet that is my proposition: Mass dumbness first had to be imagined; it isn't real. Once the dumb are wished into existence, they serve valuable functions: as a danger to themselves and others they have to be watched, classified, disciplined, trained, medicated, sterilized, ghettoized, cajoled, coerced, jailed. To idealists they represent a challenge, reprobates to be made socially useful. Either way you want it, hundreds of millions of perpetual children require paid attention from millions of adult custodians. An ignorant horde to be schooled one way or another." -- John Taylor Gatto, "The Underground History of American Education"

Hi Jimbo,   THANKS-! Yessir! I wrote most, okay, some of Tasha's best lines. And of course, being a very good actress, she ad-libbed even BETTER lines. Of course the old blue-eyed miner added his Excellent Unscripted lines.   We shot the "gold panning" scene at Lake Pleasant, just north of Phoenix. I highly doubt much gold has ever come out of there. I took my camera out into the water, both there and at the Colorado River. Sorta cold as I remember. Tasha didn't really want to get into the water at the Colorado river there near Laughlin & Bullhead City. 

John Hasnas: “I intend to show that a stable, successful society without government can exist by showing that it has, and to a large extent, still does.” Max T. O'Connor put forth the suggestion that “We already live in an anarchy. There is no “State.” There are only individuals acting in a statist manner, often because they believe it to be right, to be necessary, and because they see no alternative.” [from Deep Anarchy - An Eliminativist View of “The State”]   Maybe today it’s enough for me to think about my actions and not worry about abstractions; to do no harm and stay out of harm’s way.

Terry, nice to see you back! Need more individuals like you to think through essays to post here. "...This ought to be a time of revolutionary excitement, even adventure, where we stand on the barricades of a world unlike any that has come before. But it’s not..." I say this often: this is an exciting time to be alive! Never a dull moment. But I speak as an individual -- "individual=ist" to you intellectuals. But to me, merely an individual -- immune from "the left" as well as "the right". Funny (speaking of heresy) virtually all on the "right" look at individuals like me as "left-wingers"; and those on the "left"??? Guess. Oh, yes -- I be a red-neck "right winger" fer sure fer sure. "Heresy" is normally applied to religion -- with churches, rituals, litany, etc. But only a few firmly grasp "the left" and "the right" (and all in-between when gaming with the idea of central political authority -- or even if limiting the gaming to "local" political authority) as religions. Wendy McElroy saw through the mirage. In a sense, so did the late Harry Browne, who observed: Conservatives vs Liberals Conservatives say government cannot end poverty by force, but they believe government can use force and threats of violence to make people moral. Liberals say government cannot make people moral, but they believe government can use force and threats of violence to end poverty (redistribute wealth). Neither group attempts to explain why government is so clumsy and destructive in one area but a paragon of efficiency and benevolence in the other..." ~Harry Browne Liberty A-Z p 35

James, I see you as having accurately underpinned anarchy. I've stated repeatedly that the human family is the only legitimate jurisdiction -- all other claims are no more than threats by psychopaths, backed by loaded firearms. The human newborn comes into being fully and totally subject to adult caregivers -- hopefully a loving Mom and Dad. S/he didn't "consent", but would not survive if Mom did not feed, clothe and shelter her, restrain her from falling from the bath table or bassinet or down an unblocked flight of stairs; later prevent her from ingesting dangerous stuff (everything goes into their mouths! :-[ ), etc etc. Later still, Mom and Dad set rules for driving the car, dating, etc etc. And on down the avenue of time, the now-adult child will likely assume supervision of aging Moms and/or Dads, often suffering from dementia, etc. The complete circle in the authority of love. We "libertarians" can get ourselves into mindless and silly squabbles over "...do parents 'own' their children?...", "...rights...", etc etc; while overlooking the obvious: that the family is a viable -- the only viable -- governing unit, and this pale blue dot upon which we all reside is filled with brainless abstractions called "nations", "countries", etc. Sam

Paul, I agree with you that it may be impossible to eradicate government, since (as other people have pointed out) "government" is perhaps just an abstraction. Ideas are probably more difficult to eradicate. Maybe "our Rulers" want everyone to continue to think-speak about the faceless and nameless "government", a collective term that is not very clearly defined. It might even be prudent to question the assumption that there is something called "government", and to shift focus to the actual individuals and their actions. Perhaps "government" is just "aggression" - but, obviously, not all aggression is government. And it seems highly unlikely that aggression (broadly defined) will ever be eradicated, since aggressive behaviour will probably always be a potential strategy. There will probably always be some people who will sometimes choose to behave aggressively in an attempt to acquire some wealth and/or power, and they won't care about my consent or "rights" and "freedom".  Every person can presumably choose to behave aggressively or not, and to respond to aggressive behaviour. Perhaps there will always be some people who will try to dominate and maybe there will always be some people who will submit. Maybe it all boils down to some measure of perceived costs and benefits. James

Extraordinary.   Quote: The very fact that no sabotage has taken place to date is a disturbing and confirming indication that such action will be taken. — General John L. DeWitt, head of the U.S. Army’s Western Defense Command.   Such is government logic. Strike back, you're a saboteur. Do nothing, you will be one.