Recent comments

Thanks, Sam! Tony

"one major player childishly picks up his bat and his ball and leaves the playing field..."   Just in case this refers to me, Sam, thanks for calling me a "major" player but no thanks at all for saying my departure from the ranks of current STR authors was "childish".   On the contrary, it was done with deliberate forethought and strenuous attempts to avoid a breach, on the grounds (with which Paul Bonneau fully agreed at the time) that STR does not have room for both of us. We made a joint approach to the Editor to pick which of us he preferred to keep,  but unfortunately he declined to do so. I therefore quit. I will not be identified with a writer who in my considered opinion is a government infiltrator and agent. That was principled, not childish.   To any who wish to know, however, I continue to write, but in a different place: the Zero Government Blog. It offers "Rational, Refreshing Reflections on What's Happening Now" and so far since August 2010 I've published some 434 essays, or a little over one a week. All of them are firmly based on the rational, accurate and orthodox libertarian understanding of the right of self ownership and anticipate a society from which government has been completely removed.   Its current issue can always be reached via TinyURL.com/ZGBlog, and its "RECENT" button reveals an indexed archive of the 434 issues. There is an RSS feed option offered, to remind regular readers that a new issue has been published. I also usually post a short notice in the "Blog" section of STR when one has appeared.  

I think you're right. But what if you're wrong??? Sam

"...99 people could cheerfully agree to violate all the property and personal rights of the 1 whom they dislike, without any basis for complaint..." Which is more-or-less the way the world shapes up today, looking at it (inversely perhaps) from the perspective of the non-sovereign -- the 99%. I think the "Occupiers of yore" may have been onto something, seeing the world from their points of view. And contentious me, of course (in my dotage): I could not resist the temptation to bike up and down streets and bike trails with a large yellow sign with black writing: "I AM THE 1%" affixed to my backpack and providing the base for my red flashing light for night riding. Purposeful contention is what we're dealing with here on the "rights" issue. And there's really no need for it at STR (as I see it). Because nothing changes: so, if I'm "right" (pun intended), so what??? Or if I'm "wrong", what's the big deal??? I'll still choose the term "choices" over "rights". To you it might appear a huge impediment to freedom. To me it's not whether "rights" is "right" -- it's the quarreling and the bickering that present the greater impediments -- on this particular forum, at least. Because -- with this and a couple other minor squabbles over "theory" -- one major player childishly picks up his bat and his ball and leaves the playing field, taking the majority of the participants with him. Well, not "taking them with him" -- he certainly hasn't gained any followers. But he has succeeded in creating an unfriendly climate. They cease participating and find other games -- the ones who truly want to continue "the movement". The rookies get lost in the shuffle. And the poor manager of the playing field is caught in the middle -- he has no dog in the fight. He just wants to present a habitable and hospitable environment for all participants of the very important activity for which the arena was designed and kept in place. He doesn't want newbies, potential heavy-hitters, thwarted. He'd just like to see everybody get the chance to play. Divide and conquer: the sustenance of the Hillaries and the Trumpsters. We libertarians are so good at fighting amongst ourselves -- and snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory! If there's one thing I've had to learn in gettin' old: I've got to constantly stave off the natural rage that seems to beset old men if we're not vigilant with ourselves. My kids -- and I'm truly proud of each and every one of them -- have strayed from "...everything I've tried to teach 'em...!". Some have chosen to be Demopublicans, others Republicrats. At least one is a Libertarian (capital "L"). And I won't get into the religion thing (which I don't see as "religion" at all, but a way of life that them kids otta be adhering to and teachin' to my grandkids!). All but one have left the Israelitishness of their youth. And that one's a royal pain in the arse -- chiding me over my lackadaisical slippin' and slidin'! And to top it all off, each of my children has the cheek to earn more money and acquire more "titles" than their Pa ever did! Well, I'll just ride my bike and stay young to age 120. It'll be the first time in the history of mankind that kids have gotten older than the old man. That'll teach 'em. Sam

Yes, Sam, I most certainly do. STR's "About" page states "The mission of STR is to advance the cause of liberty." It is not an open-to-all-views forum, it is an advocacy site, and long may it remain so. Therefore, articles that fail to conform to that mission should be excluded.   The one I referenced establishes that liberty is rooted in rights; hence, an attack on rights is an attack on liberty and hence on STR's stated mission. If you think I (and Rothbard, and many others) got that wrong, go ahead and try to rebut its reasoning.

A Randroid, Rothbardian, and Catholic monarchist walk into a bar: two rationalists and one Sky Wizard obscurantist. As Natural Rights theorists, all three agree Rights are objective, discoverable, and rational.   The Randroid and Rothbardian insist a woman has "a right to choose," much to the consternation of the Catholic monarchist. The Rothbardian and Catholic monarchist insist no nation--not even a "civilized" one like the U.S.--has the right to target "savage nation" noncombatants in wartime, much to the consternation of the Randroid. Nobody can come to any agreement on intellectual property, slant drilling, or the morality of the income tax.   The rancor generated by their conflicting versions of Natural Rights prevents them from enjoying a pint together. That "objective, discoverable, and rational" thing doesn't work for them. Stupid metaphysicists. 

This comment to the article (by Popular Science of all folks) augments a comment I just made to Ken on another thread. My ongoing mantra is that the human family is the only legitimate governing unit. Others are merely coercive interlopers, enforcing their "jurisdiction" with loaded firearms. I look forward to the day that genuine anarchy prevails, and those intruders are all cast into outer darkness. I have no idea how it happens that Moms are equipped with this immune-giving and highly nourishing milk when they give birth. All I know for certain is that they are -- most of them. I'm not a religious man, but I consider this function of human procreation a miracle. Watch this old 9 minute video, by a true scientist who appears to be more religious than I: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKyljukBE70 Sam

To repeat an oft-made comment by me, I sort of hope Trump "wins" next month. Not that I have a dog in the fight or believe my world (which revolves around MY belly-button :-] ) will be affected one way or the other. But, like the "Brexit" vote, it could give us some indication as to how many of the unwashed masses are moving in our direction. "Win" or "lose", we can still glean some signal from the vote -- and it will be fun to see how many of the hoi polloi have been able to skinny out from under the constant inundation of the press and, as you mention, the 12 year indoctrination. Each day or week or month I gain an insight or two that solidifies my desire to be and to remain a free, sovereign "state". And I also have an indwelling curiosity as to just what percentage of adults around me are also are absorbing some of the increasing "alternative media" phenomenon. Just when I feel most alone in this thing, someone up or down the street will say or write something that gives me hope. As I commented recently, last time I voted (1964 -- devastated by the trouncing of my hero, Barry Goldwater) there was no such thing as the internet. "Mainstream media" was for the most part all there was. I suspected my new-found friend, Karl Hess, was rather of a kook -- until he introduced me to Harry Browne. Lots of h2o under the bridge and hope for the future. Sam

Absolutely. "...as long as the law remains a state monopoly, there will always be a political struggle for its control..." (John Hasnas, Myth of the Rule of Law) "We" have a long, long hill to climb, Ken. I strongly recommend anybody meditating your above assessment read Hasnas' short essay as linked above. Especially the conclusion, where he states, "...The time has come for those committed to individual liberty to realize that the establishment of a truly free society requires the abandonment of the myth of the rule of law..." Of course Hasnas talks about "...the establishment of a truly free society..." But I do not foresee a critical mass of individuals abandoning the idea of "the-rule-of-law" in order to establish a-truly-free-society. Therefore, I've found it necessary to establish a truly free society. A society of 1. I am a sovereign state. Sam

"...why he continues to be allowed to publish on Strike the Root..." (emphasis decisively mine) And why not??? Would you prefer STR to be an exclusive "club" -- not to permit "...outside..." perspectives? Sam

I'll take the word of Carl Watner over that of Paul Bonneau any day of the week, and twice on Sundays.   As for rights being a "religious" concept (ie one grounded not in fact and reason but on faith) my STRticle Liberty: Rooted in Rights should dispose of that nonsense. It quotes Murray Rothbard on the subject, in part with "For the assertion of human rights is... because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe."   Bonneau is therefore setting his opinion against those of two of the most distinguished minds in the libertarian movement, and so once again raises the question of why he continues to be allowed to publish on Strike the Root.    

Armed SA squads were indeed part of the Weimar political unrest the fledgling post-war government couldn't hope to control, and most of their futile efforts to do so were instigated by Allied pressure.   I do feel that any contractor or business that provides products to governments should be expected to know that whatever is supplied will be put to detrimental -- if not in fact nefarious -- ends.  Yes, I think we can safely hold them liable for seeking profits from such a customer base.  In the case of IBM, it's pretty clear that it was known what all the early vacuum-tube computers and punch cards sold to Hitler would be used for.  The tattoos on the arms of camp inmates were the numbers fed into IBM machines for tracking and informational purposes.  Today, there are RFID chips....

True that.

LOL - Thanks Paul.  Only saw the first Die Hard movie. Used to live not far from Nakatomi Plaza in Century City. Stalking in Los Angeles: Nakatomi Plaza from Die Hard    Memorable dialogue throughout that action movie, some of it from Hans Gruber. Think Hans was the guy that helped the Clinton Foundation create and fund ISIS.   Die Hard: Hans Meets McClane - YouTube    

Good job here, Alex. I had not realized that the gun controls were in place before the Nazis took over; I'd thought they were instigated by Hitler.   Did you find in the book any reference to what I thought was the widepread, open use of guns by the Nazi SA before he was elected? - they marched and bullied extensively, I thought with rifles on the shoulder. But if those were all verboten in the Weimar republic, how was that possible? - the SA was not then a State outfit.   By the way (I'm an ex-IBMer) do you feel that a government contractor or supplier should be held responsible for the use to which customers put their products? One can refuse to accept government orders (I did, later, in my small business) but if they are accepted, surely the whole responsibility for use lies with the purchaser? The question becomes the more acute when recalling the orders for unusual quantities of bug poison ordered from I G Farben.

I sometimes wonder at the crap people are willing to put up with, to remain in the government school indoctrination centers. And then they complain about the treatment they get!

Jonny, it's nice to see your comment. And you're so right. In my comment above I started out by claiming to propose the "answer" to Alex's query, "...What Defines Success in Alcoholics Anonymous?..." But my answer left the heavy side of the puzzle out. Old timers in AA insist one MUST go much further than to say, "I have not had a drink of alcohol today". The genuine answer is: "I have not found it NECESSARY to take a drink today". Because the Big Book never once admonishes the problem drinker to try not to drink. From stem to stern it provides ways of thinking and ways of living that make it UNNECESSARY to take a drink. But in addressing whether and how to stop drinking it insists one must first identify the problem: are you, or are you not (an alcoholic)??? Then, in the first part of Chapter 3 (end of p31 and start of p32 of the above referenced online publication): We do not like to pronounce any individual as alco- holic, but you can quickly diagnose yourself. Step over to the nearest barroom and try some controlled drinking. Try to drink and stop abruptly. Try it more than once. It will not take long for you to de- cide, if you are honest with yourself about it. It may be worth a bad case of jitters if you get a full knowl- edge of your condition. The "program" addresses how we should treat our neighbors, friends, coworkers, family members, etc. It's all about feeling OK about ourselves and our relationships with others. How to get along in a not-too-friendly world without finding it necessary to drink alcohol. So to the analogy with anarchy. Most who will ever read this understand that if everybody -- EVERYBODY -- would stop voting (and "stay stopped") our "problem" would soon be solved. That, along with ceasing to submit confessions to the white man ("file returns -- voluntarily" ha ha) outlining all resources and earnings. That, of course, is a greater hill to climb, because "we" have already given the beast his head in that regard. Reining him in brings forth the only "jurisdiction" in town (outside of family governance) -- loaded firearms in the hands of dangerous criminals. Our friend, Jim Davies, can illuminate a late mutual friend, Irwin Schiff's plight dealing with state gangsters -- and what happens when one attempts to publish and teach truth in an unfree world. But everybody won't. I remember early in my sobriety, I was in the midst of unbelievable lawsuits and parole violations, threats of further incarceration, etc., -- my AA sponsor (of soon to be 40 years) took me aside and admonished: "Sam -- don't TRY to make sense out of the world around you. IT-DOES-NOT-MAKE-SENSE. Just remember that, and you'll never need to drink again!" Sam

All true, but I'd still like to see Bharara indict Cuomo and Deblasio before he becomes a high priced defense attorney at some primo Manhattan law partnership.

Cities do not pay for them. Taxpayers do. Taxpayer dollars are the easiest dollars to spend.

Mark, while I generally agree with your article, I must at least question parts of it. First, every parent is an amateur. By the time they (think they) have parenting figured out, they are done being parents. Second, every child is an individual. They react differently to different forms of correction. Just to give an example, Stefan Molyneux takes a similar approach. He has even gone to the extent of telling on his forum, how he handles his girl, and showing videos of it. His method of avoiding spanking and other physical methods, while still stopping his girl from anti-social actions, is to hover constantly over her and to distract her from her actions when she goes wrong. In what way is this supposed to train her in independence from the state, which seeks to do the same thing to all of us? Some kids can take a whack now and then without turning into basket cases, and may even prefer it to long periods of verbal "discussion" (which is hardly a case of two equals coming to terms). So many who preach against spanking think that the alternative of psychological manipulation is without any drawbacks, for some reason. I say, the default should be the methods you discuss. An alternative, if that doesn't work, is just letting the child experience the consequences of poor choices. When that isn't practical either, try something else. Timeouts aren't such a bad idea, while they work. Personally, I think a multiple methods work, and which ones do that, depend on the mental state of the child more than anything, and also on the demeanor of the parent when delivering the correction. What I see happening that disturbs me, is *too much* correction, no matter what method is used. Let 'em know what things are wrong, but then let 'em experience the consequences (within reason). One other thing that I find less convincing from the anti-spanking contingent, are the words they indulge in to describe their opponents in this debate (not you, just generally). It leaves me the distinct impression they are more concerned with delivering a good whack than they are with the welfare of children. OK, one other thing. It's a rare parent who does more damage to their children through inadequate parenting, than the state does to children in government schools.

"the only possible motivation for Dodes’s position is to carve out a name for himself in academia by positioning himself as a “pioneer” in “exposing” AA and 12-step alcohol recovery, all the while selling books, collecting royalties, and getting paid for speaking engagements." Maybe not the *only* possible motivation, but perhaps the most likely. So much for academia... When people are free to speak their minds, inevitably some will be assholes about it. This reminds me a bit of the whacking one sees libertarians administer over recycling, because it is not "economic", etc. Guess what, even in a completely free society, some people will recycle anyway, economic or not. If their own calculations suggest recycling is a good thing, then why is it anybody else's business? Yes, government injects coercion into recycling, but don't they do that with everything? That's not a hit against recycling. I have noted the disutility of criticizing religion before: http://strike-the-root.com/dehumanizing-people-is-fun

"but I fear liberty ain't gaining any ground with it either tho." Missouri is now the what, 10th or 11th state to recognize "constitutional carry"? Progress is being made somehow... Of course these are again, actions of the legislature. Better than nothing for them to decriminalize something innocent, but not as good as everybody just carrying despite what the law says about it.

Nichta: "...Getting power out of Washington and into the hands of the people and local governments will move 'us' toward re-establishing what the Framers of the Constitution sought to create: a nation of liberty. Repealing the 17th Amendment is a step in that direction..." Once one allows the term "power" into his or her vocabulary, s/he's no longer thinking in terms of liberty and freedom. Her mindset is locked in serfdom. I mean, where is "Washington"??? And where are "...the hands of the people..."??? How local is local??? Just what, exactly, are you talking about when you say "...re-establishing-what-the-Framers-of-'the'-Constitution..."??? And who is the "us" that are going to do the re-establishing??? If "it" was once established, what happened, and why is "it" so egregious that "it" needs to be "re-established"??? Anarchy is simple, and it's free. Sam

"Legal money" in the sense that it isn't counterfeit or an attempt to defraud.