Recent comments

  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 1 hour 31 min ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Sam, I have indeed wished that Paul Bonneau be banned from writing anything on STR, and I repeat that desire here and now with all the emphasis at my command. I cannot prove that he is a government agent provocateur, but my opinion is that he is. Whether so or not, the effect is the same: as you have yourself observed, if I recall correctly, STR has become a mere shadow of its former self. The owner/editor's abject failure to expel him is a large part of the reason. By his own open admission he has declared that nobody has any rights, so by definition he is not an anarchist. He has also called for compromise with statism by means of panarchy, above as previously; he therefore has no proper place on a site that calls for the abolition of initiated force. It is a disgrace to STR's published mission statement that he is allowed to continue here in good standing.   Tolerance is a fine virtue, as of course is the libertarian principle of "live and let live". Now answer me this: suppose an open, explicit statist - a socialist or fascist, whatever - were to publish an article on STR. Would your tolerance extend to wanting his views to continue to appear? If not, why not? - where is your borderline? Or if so, then you are saying there is no limit, that STR is merely an open forum like all the others, and need strike no root of evil at all.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 hours 57 min ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, it’s genuinely nice to see you back. I’ve always surmised that you used “Panarchy” with a similar tongue-in-cheek brashness that I use “sovereign state”. It’s not that I’m not serious about personal sovereignty (MY personal sovereignty – here, now, where I’m “at” – which is my responsibility and nobody else’s); but I admit, truth-be-known, that I have interjected “state” to more-or-less bait the Jim’s and the Suverans2’s of the world. But the term “panarchy” is redundant as I see it. The way I think you’re using it could be interchanged with a term such as “individualist sovereignty” without introducing “archy”. “Archy” implies some sort of organized group, with leaders, vice-presidents, enforcers of laws and rules, etc etc. “Rulership”. I found myself experiencing some discomfort with your use of the word “allows” in your statement, “…Panarchy allows personal experience to happen…” Personal freedom and sovereignty do give rise to a number of personal experiences (as you so outlined) – sometimes for better, sometimes for worse. But that’s not due to someone’s “allowing”. I do not need any rulers to have personal experiences – I just need to get my head out of my arse. And learn from the negatives as well as the positives. ”… Stop fighting communism, or fascism, or whatever. Let those who want it, have it…” I find myself wanting to presume your meaning is much like Larken Rose in his “The Most Dangerous Superstition: “So, reader, if your beliefs and superstitions – many of which you did not choose for yourself, but merely inherited as unquestioned “hand-me-down” beliefs – matter to you more than truth and justice, then please stop reading now and give this book to someone else. If, on the other hand, you are willing to question some of your long-held, preconceived notions – if doing so might reduce the suffering of others – then read this book. And then give it to someone else”. It’s a writer’s gambit – what I call “good intellectual blackmail” (if any blackmail can be “good”). Mr. Rose would not have written the book if he was sincere in his wish for you to remain steeped in your “beliefs and superstitions” (by ceasing to read his book and handing it off). As Larken illustrates they have unquestionably been the most dangerous of superstitions. Communism and fascism are indeed dangerous superstitions. We fight them – daily. Up and down our streets. Within our families. But we fight without coercion that is concomitant with those “ism’s” and “archy’s” that imply rulership outside ourselves. There’s not a lot we can “do” other than set examples by writing and conversing and being willing to be the odd-man out – show them liberty and freedom by the way we live our lives. Personally and individually. “Panarchy” == intellectual blackmail(???) I’ll address Mr. Davies’ comment here, to you: I, too, have been concerned by your long absence from STR. But I knew the host of STR is not so immature as to listen to Jim’s diatribes against you – and even to “cast you into outer darkness”, as he (Jim) had apparently advocated. My mind is boggled by anybody calling himself or herself “libertarian” engaging in that style of forcible vitriol. I enjoy your essays and your interchange in “comments”. I believe most who contribute here agree. Those who are left out of those who have simply quit the forum to sidestep the venom and the vituperation. My introductory statement stands: I’m glad to see you back, and hope you stay and continue your contributions to STR. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 hours 59 min ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "...one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted..." OK, Fellahs, I'm a' comin' out: I'm a gay man. Actually, I have no need to "come out" -- I've been out forever. I'm gay -- except for those times that I'm morose, downcast or grumpy. Incidentally, I'm not "homosexual" in any sense of that agendum. That'd be a bit awkward, since I'm father of 7, grandpa of 26, great-grandpa of many and counting. I have no tolerance for the social engineers to usurp a perfectly adequate descriptor of emotion as "gay". But, somehow, they've made that euphemism for "...rude, disgusting or perverted..." behavior almost a mandate -- you can be charged by the white man with "hate crimes" by even implying that you do not believe that anybody, man or woman, is homosexual... that that is a behavior, nothing more. Oh, me. What a messed up world. Glad I live in a sovereign state. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 hours 59 min ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "...one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted..." OK, Fellahs, I'm a' comin' out: I'm a gay man. Actually, I have no need to "come out" -- I've been out forever. I'm gay -- except for those times that I'm morose, downcast or grumpy. Incidentally, I'm not "homosexual" in any sense of that agendum. That'd be a bit awkward, since I'm father of 7, grandpa of 26, great-grandpa of many and counting. I have no tolerance for the social engineers to usurp a perfectly adequate descriptor of emotion as "gay". But, somehow, they've made that euphemism for "...rude, disgusting or perverted..." behavior almost a mandate -- you can be charged by the white man with "hate crimes" by even implying that you do not believe that anybody, man or woman, is homosexual... that that is a behavior, nothing more. Oh, me. What a messed up world. Glad I live in a sovereign state. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 hours 59 min ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "...one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted..." OK, Fellahs, I'm a' comin' out: I'm a gay man. Actually, I have no need to "come out" -- I've been out forever. I'm gay -- except for those times that I'm morose, downcast or grumpy. Incidentally, I'm not "homosexual" in any sense of that agendum. That'd be a bit awkward, since I'm father of 7, grandpa of 26, great-grandpa of many and counting. I have no tolerance for the social engineers to usurp a perfectly adequate descriptor of emotion as "gay". But, somehow, they've made that euphemism for "...rude, disgusting or perverted..." behavior almost a mandate -- you can be charged by the white man with "hate crimes" by even implying that you do not believe that anybody, man or woman, is homosexual... that that is a behavior, nothing more. Oh, me. What a messed up world. Glad I live in a sovereign state. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 hours 59 min ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "...one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted..." OK, Fellahs, I'm a' comin' out: I'm a gay man. Actually, I have no need to "come out" -- I've been out forever. I'm gay -- except for those times that I'm morose, downcast or grumpy. Incidentally, I'm not "homosexual" in any sense of that agendum. That'd be a bit awkward, since I'm father of 7, grandpa of 26, great-grandpa of many and counting. I have no tolerance for the social engineers to usurp a perfectly adequate descriptor of emotion as "gay". But, somehow, they've made that euphemism for "...rude, disgusting or perverted..." behavior almost a mandate -- you can be charged by the white man with "hate crimes" by even implying that you do not believe that anybody, man or woman, is homosexual... that that is a behavior, nothing more. Oh, me. What a messed up world. Glad I live in a sovereign state. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 hours 12 min ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Absolutely agree. Thiswithout doubt (in my mind, at least), is one segment of ongoing "social engineering", of which all the sex agenda serve valuably. Sex is the unholy sacred cow of social engineering. Sam
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 9 hours 23 min ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Shows how technical I am that my comments didn't save. too old fashioned. Paul. I love this article. it is exactly what i feel needs to take place. It is what freedom is all about. Live what you believe and you may not be a believer any more. it is easy to say this or that idea is best without having actually lived it except in the mind.  if a person had to live their beliefs for real they may change their minds more readily.  or they may not. some people prefer to live as a child does and never grow up. let someone else make all their decisions and choices for them. others prefer an ideal of freedom. I say Ideal because few alive today have lived it.  I know of no one who has ever lived under a complete anarchy society. they are not allowed to. i know of no one who has lived free despite a 'bill of rights and constitution ' which is a whole other debate i know but truly. people didn't gain freedom. they lost it when they accepted a new ruler. Today, I would no one or so few as to be non existant have ''lived'' free. free of licenses, military, free of regulations, restrictions. ect. so again. what would a free society be? who knows. i would like to be ''free'' to try though. live and let live. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 10 hours 25 min ago Page Paul Bonneau
    No, John, my remarks were right on target. As often before, Paul's article set out to distract readers from anarchism, to promote which STR is supposed to exist. From your other post below I see that you may not be familiar with his trick. It's explained in my Panarchy is for Losers.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 13 hours 12 min ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thoughtful column, Paul.  Let me raise the question, what is the difference between anarchy and panarchy?  In an anarchic society, there would surely be huge numbers of voluntarily-formed groups, each with its own rules for membership and conduct.  Doesn't this come down to the same thing as panarchy?
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 13 hours 15 min ago Page Paul Bonneau
    You seem to be replying to some other column.  Or perhaps you missed the sentence, "This is quite a bit different than stuffing an entire country into communism. What a lethal mess!"  Sorry, two sentences (I felt I had to add that to keep from provoking a rant about idiots who can't count sentences).
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 days 13 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    'Just remind them you are not interested in being dragooned into their preferred scheme. This is the ultimate “live and let live.”'   The absurdity of that sentence fairly boggles the mind. Perhaps you'd care to name one fascist or communist country in which dissidents' preferences carried any weight whatever.   Your long and welcome absence from this site had encouraged me to suppose that, the owner having declined to eject you, you had quit on your own. Sorry to see you back.   Any tempted to give "panarchy" a second look should read my Panarchy is for Losers.
  • primalanarchy's picture
    primalanarchy 3 days 5 hours ago
    A Cure For Diabetes
    Web link strike
    This is interesting and have heard about it other places. The idea of simulating the metabolic effects of IF (intermintent fasting) by calorie is interesting. Very interesting book: Obesity Code by Dr. Jason Fung as nephrologist explored the connection with diabeties and kidney issues. It uses fasting including extended fasting. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Aw0P7GjHE
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 3 days 7 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    A good one, Paul.  Glad I was never quite old enough back in the hippie-era to catch the communalism wave.  :-)  Closest thing was just a lot of friends -- usually only one at a time -- staying in the guest room for long stretches and partying it up.  Lot of pot and beer and great music across the upstairs landing from my room.  :-)
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 days 9 hours ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    The real problem with this case is a lack of respect for property rights. Cases like this are purposely used by statists to impose and expand state power over private property and thus subjugating property owners resulting in defacto ownership of all property by the state. A business (property) owner should be able to refuse service to anybody for any reason whether or not anybody else believes it to be rational or irrational.   I've been an atheist for a long time but I'm still sympathic to the beliefs of Deists, Buddhists, Christians, Jews, and other philosophical manifestations of the human mind seeking spiritual guidance and/or fulfillment. I believe that these religious philosophies each have positive and negative aspects with some being more positive overall (Deism, Buddhism, and Christianity) and others more negative overall (Islam and Satanism). The evolution of Christianity is inherently intertwined with the development of Western Civilization that gave us both the modern state and free-markets. I see the glorification of guilt as the biggest inspiration as well as the biggest problem with Christian philosophy as it both causes intense self-reflection and psychological self-mutilation. Anyway, this case is (as Jim points out above) about a political agenda that is targeting primarily property rights, but also the Christian religious beliefs that spawned them and continue to support them.   Also, one does not have to be religious in order to have a limited tolerance for behavior that one finds rude, disgusting or perverted. When these feelings manifest in behavior that results in non-violent actions such as shunning, which is the basis of freedom of association, then there should be no problem (find somebody else to bake your cake); it is only when the reactions become violent and people seek out and punish those they have disdain for that a real problem arises (beating up gays).
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 days 2 hours ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "The root of the problem that has caused this case to arise is not politics or government, but religion."   Silly though his beliefs may be, doesn't Mr Phillips have the right to believe what he wants, and to serve whomever he wants?   There are plenty of bakers. Mullins and Craig could have picked any. I suspect they chose Phillips' so as to pursue a political agenda.   Due respect, but I don't agree this was about religion. It was about whether you and I and Mr Phillips are owned by ourselves respectively, or by the State. Market anarchists acknowledge the self-ownership axiom. SCOTUS disagrees, and so does Mike Pence. Surprise, surprise.    
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 days 12 hours ago Web link Serenity
    Mike Rozeff et al make a strong case that privacy relates to property, but I wonder if anyone can think of exceptions? Consider three cameos, for example:   1. You take your girlfriend for a romantic sunset stroll on a deserted beach, and part way along you strip off and make love. But Tom, in the grass on the headland yonder, has been photographing birds with his Nikon and sees you; he peeps through his 1000 mm lens and clicks away to build an eye-popping portfolio of pics.   Next day he offers not to post them to the Net, if you make it worth his while. You suffered a privacy loss, but who is the rightful owner of those images?   2. Meanwhile behind you on the other headland, Doris was setting up her stargazing telescope to observe some heavenly bodies, when her eye too was caught by the scene on the sand. She had no camera, but redirected her instrument for a closer look. At breakfast next day she thanks you for the show, and asks whether next time, she might join you and make up a threesome.   So again, you both lost privacy - but what property was removed?   3. Lady Caroline, daughter of the Earl of Grinchester, got pregnant by a footman but decided to conceal the fact from everyone, including him. She took a long tour of Europe, ending up in Switzerland where she gave birth and handed over the baby for adoption. She then returned home fresh, virginal and ready for the most handsome and wealthy young Viscount to offer to endow her with all his worldly goods.   So she preserved her privacy; but how was property involved?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 2 days ago Web link Serenity
    Serenity, I truly appreciate your willingness to "open up" regarding this topic. It's a sad deal that any of us need to find reason to become "antagonists" on such a great discussion forum as STR. I do wonder what has happened to the other "heavy hitters" (many of whom do not always agree with me or each other on the "fine print" of anarchy). Like you, I'veheld Jim up as rather of an Icon for a number of years, and keep and quote from many of his articles tucked away in my archives (now numbering into the thousands of various and sundry articles, mostly pro-libertarian, but some "on-the-other-side-of-the-isle" -- to quote a rather hateful slogan used by those aggrandizing politics and statism). Jim and I (along with many other contributors, many of whom appear to have left STR forever) have experienced a few disagreements on nits -- things that don't amount to a hill of beans. "Rights", my tongue-in-cheek "sovereign state" declaration, my insistence that I can be free -- here, now, where I'm "at" -- come to mind. There should never be a reason, however, for anybody truly seeking freedom and liberty and sovereignty to pick up his or her bat & ball and leave the playing field over nits. The stakes are just too high. My comment having to do with the submitting of essays and speeches have to do with my egregious ego and vanity. That's a part of my now 35 year "recovery" from addiction. But where would I be if Jim and all the others suddenly ceased submitting essays??? Because the libertarian concept has definitely been a part of my recovery. Gotta quit before the library closes. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 1 week 2 days ago
    What We Can Do
    Web link Serenity
    Serentiy, I agree that Eric Peter's article is an excellent statment of the problem. He's a very fine writer. But I don't agree that it qualifies as "brilliant" - because it completely fails to propose a solution.   "Until enough people’s minds are changed about coercion and collectivism, resistance is futile..." Yes, correct. So how, precisely, are people's minds going to be changed? What's his fix?   I have a solution, and it resides at http://tolfa.us/ - and Alex, whom you praise, has explicitly rejected that, while proposing no alternative except his "7-point plan" which, as I showed here, is no plan at all. So I'm unable to agree with your "well done."
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 1 week 2 days ago
    What We Can Do
    Web link Serenity
    Well thank you for liking it and choosing to run it in the feed!  I appreciate it!  :-)
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 1 week 3 days ago
    What We Can Do
    Web link Serenity
    Alex;   Well Done! Brilliant! i am going to use this next friday's edition. someone else may use it during the week as well but it needs repeating! day after day repeating...excellent..thank you for writing it. 
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 1 week 3 days ago
    What We Can Do
    Web link Serenity
      http://everything-voluntary.com/voluntaryist-7-point-plan    
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 1 week 3 days ago Web link Serenity
    Hi Jim;   I am grateful for your kind words and input. The name i picked came from the movie of the same name.  I also thank you for your many years of battling for the minds and hearts of people. I always say, nothing will change until the mind does. the thoughts. the perceptions. the beliefs. the very heart of mankind. Sadly, It seems that the essence hasn't changed a bit. it has gotten darker and darker and darker. sinking deeper and deeper into bondage. People's bodys are enslaved for fact but they had to voluntarily give their master their minds and hearts as well. They handed off their spirit. their soul if you will for a few alms. bits of wood pulp and the latest walmart widget. I have a picture of Black Friday and the sea of faces in anger, hate and despair. that is what we battle. and it is a what has been lost.  You can't make people think. you can only guide them to their own knowledge. you can't educate a single person. they must do it themselves and be willing to. In a world of slaves that refuse to be free all you can do is free yourself and hopefully live by example. Free the mind and nothing the rulers do to the body matters though it would be better to be free completely. if you still refuse to hand off your mind and your thoughts to those who wield the whip your spirit will remain free and you can shout in a loud voice ''NO! '' i will not comply! it is a willingness to not beg for freedom that will be the biggest way to regain it. no matter the consequences. It saddens me that so many spend all their energy and efforts to attack what they do not agree with. That is an attempt to shame and silence. Strip a person of the very essence of what they claim to believe in. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Yet when disagreements arise people will attack. As you have been. As many other writers have been. Silenced. How much energy was put into the attack that could have been put into their own writing. it is amazing how much effort is put into destroying and so little put into creation of thoughts and ideas.  As a temporary guest editor i thank you for all you have written. All you have attempted to do Jim. I learned a great deal from your early writings. Those of yours and many others. Point of fact, that is where i got my own start. Ayn Rand, Larken Rose, Jim Davies and countless others who used to write and who are now silent. I learned and taught myself from their belief. i took what i wanted. what worked for me. and left the rest behind. I pieced together my own knowledge from countless others and formed my own life and what i value from those very writings. Instead of attacking another persons views or articles. It is a wonder people can't just accept what they agree with and leave the rest alone. That is one way people are still free. free to not read something. turn the page so to speak. I truly do not understand the need to be ''right''. the need to destroy or discredit. the need to pick things apart like vultures picking apart a bone. I do see that happening. Here and many other places. It isn't all ''trolls''. it is people who who profess to believe as we do that do the most damage to each other. Instead of lifting each other up we tear each other down.  If an article strikes a cord the first thing one does is try to tear apart the author and style of writing. Ignore the message being stated. wether or not it is good or bad. so much energy and effort spent to discredit instead of dispute. how would it be if they took what they liked and left the rest. expanded on it and someone else expanded on that again. and again. leaving the ego and emotion out of it as much as possible. take what works and leave the rest. no need to cannabalize the author by putting him/her in a pot of boiling water for the great crime of sharing their thoughts with others. yet that boiling pot is why the battle is lost. The people fighting that battle were burned at the stake so to speak. now one looks around and finds no one is left to fight for the minds and hearts. liberty becomes a myth. a thing one tells ones children to frighten them. (in the homes of those who worship the state it is fearful to be free and not taken care of)  there is my rant...as i said. let the whippings begin. have at it. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 1 week 3 days ago Web link Serenity
    Serenity (what a nice pseudonym!), what you wrote provokes a deal of thought. You're sad to find few solid root-striking articles these days, and suggest it may be that authors of such are tired of being "bloodied and beat about the head and ears" when they do. You have a point.   It happens that I've written more STRticles than any other author (243, of which none appeared in the last three years) so I can relate to that. Some of them are better than others (so, some are worse) but they are all there, in the archive - and I've indexed them and others by subject, here. Some bear re-reading.   You mention being an "editor" so you'll know well that if an essay strikes at prejudices widely held, it's likely to provoke hostility. Some measure of that is to be expected.  I did get tired, though, of being viciously attacked by other STR authors very much on an ad-hominem basis; not so much disputing points my pieces had raised, as directly savaging my integrity. That sort of thing may be expected from statists, but should (IMO) have been stopped cold by STR's Editor. It wasn't, so I stopped writing here. I'll not waste my time casting pearls before swine. Some of the story can be read in and beneath my final contribution, Liberty, Rooted in Rights.   Where else can one find good material these days? - like you, I've not encountered a site that's consistently anarchist (aside from my own Zero Government Blogs, of which there are now several hundred) but some excellent ones can be found on Lew Rockwell, mises.org, FEE, the Molinari Institute and elsewhere. Discrimination is needed, of course.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 1 week 4 days ago Web link Serenity
    Samarami and Alex. i agree with both your comments completely. however, Sam. on not wanting to write articles i feel there are lots just like you, and, me. countless others. not wanting to write or speak out because of the in fighting and endless attacks from those who claim to want to advance the ''cause'' of anarchy. Only one size fits all or should as some believe. That being said. i find as an editor it is becoming extremely difficult to find ''root striker'' articles that fit the bill so to speak. So Few are hacking at the roots these days. The few that are, don't stay long. Or give up due to being bloodied and beat about the head and ears. As Anarchists they give up the idea of education. or writing their opinions. Having no home or few places left to post their ''beliefs''. The original writings. passionately done are hard to find. a dying breed that soon will cease to exist in the era of digital darkness where censorship is cheered instead of denounced.  The interent of things, the fake news from those who originated that concept now being the excuse needed to institute an OFF BUTTON for anything outside the ''official'' parrots who call themselves reporters. Articles are being erased almost as fast as they are posted. What to do?  that is the million dollar question isn't it? The love of liberty and desire for it is quickly being extinquished. But then again. I doubt anyone alive today has ever experienced true liberty. For all the flag waving and cheerfully proclamations for freedom form the people's of the country and other countries that think they have it. Point of fact is. they have never had it. never known it. and likely never will. not even at the beginning after the revolution. the people swapped one tyrant for another. no liberty was gained. a slight of hand as to who holds the leash and wields the whip.  there..that is my two cents for what it is worth. let the whipping begin!! ha! 
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 week 5 days ago Web link Serenity
    This is a good read, Alex. I tend to take issue with the term "movement" as it applies to the libertarian/anarchist "rising", but I suppose that's because I see it as unlike any other "movement" that we're all exposed to. "...Many Anarchists scorn Statists that distract themselves arguing over politics, presidents, parties, etc. Yet, likely out of unconscious habit, follow in their footsteps in that they argue over what I want to call anarchist politics. And I don’t mean friendly arguments that seek new conclusions. I’m talking the strangely aggressive “Oh you don’t agree with me, you’re not a real anarchist” arguments; the infighting that does plague this movement and represents people living out their own suppressed memories with authority and not actually trying to work towards solutions..." You and I have been exposed to what I think of as the only anarchist group in town. And we've experienced prodigious squabbling and bickering over gnits and gnats that crop up there: One member, sober for a hundred years (or less!), seems to feel that since s/he's been around for ages and spoken at AA conventions, etc etc., (chief potentate) -- only s/he has the answers to "true sobriety". So we have an advantage most posting here may not have. It's for that reason I've refrained from "speaking" at AA "speaker meetings" (not that you should so refrain); and also have abstained from the temptation to post multiple essays and lessons outlining "...true freedom and liberty..." (I hope you don't stop because of what I've said). My major task is in keeping my ego and my vanity at bay to avoid thinking of myself as having all the answers to liberty. I truly miss the the days of tzo and the many others who may have departed STR due to "anarchist politics". Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 2 weeks 2 days ago Web link Serenity
    Scare tactics.  As the article says, it's only going to cover companies that do over $100,000 business in VT per annum, and then only customers who spend more than $500 per annum with those vendors.  Good luck with all the rest, not to mention cash business next door in New Hampshire.  And unless I receive a registered letter someone forces me to sign for, I never received it.   They're going to end up spending more than they get from this.  Let them.  We'll just keep busy finding ways to continue to avoid their taxes, choke off their supply of revenue, and diminish public support for them altogether.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 2 weeks 3 days ago Web link Serenity
    This is an excellent one.  Very nicely done and well worth sharing.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 weeks 3 days ago
    A New Rothbard Book
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Good point, Sam. Sometimes they can get very close, though, and stay around for a while.  Not long, for the reasons you give. At its peak, IBM had about 70% of the mainframe market. How much of the on-line retail market is now held by Amazon? - and of the operatiing system market, by Microsoft?   Contrast the first-class mail market, the road market, the national "defense" market, the "education" market... every one, a monopoly and every one, operated by government or under its close protection.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 weeks 5 days ago
    A New Rothbard Book
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    "...monopolies can not long survive without government support..." I suggest that monopolies cannot even come into existence in a free market -- free of all government interference or "regulation" Too many enterprising individuals in the wings ready to come up with better and less costly alternatives. You need to be good to be free. But anybody can be free. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 weeks 6 days ago Web link The Humble Libe...
    This "Australian" outfit is an example of the dead and dying mainstream "press" -- in order to comment one must first subscribe -- at a cost calculated in federal reserve notes. So, the "comment" section is primarily pablum. This article is a classic example of Thomas Pynchon's illustrious "...if you can keep 'em asking the wrong questions you'll never need concern yourself about answers..." Social engineering in spades (IMHO -- which ain't that humble). Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 weeks 6 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Excellent coverage, and by the UK Daily Mail, based over 4,000 miles away; better than any I've seen by our MSM.   It says the shooter was (a) an atheist and (b) a Bible teacher; presumably, not at the same time. I don't believe he was typical of atheists. I'm one, but have no wish to kill Baptists, they are fine people.   It also says he was shot and pursued by two neighbors who intervened. That kind of action can be expected in the coming zero government society. Sadly, they were too late to save his victims. Too bad none inside were carrying.  
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Hein
    "...Thus, a contradiction exists. So which is it; have humans evolved in ways suited to slavery, or to liberty? Or if you prefer to say there's a creator, has that Creator made humans for servitude, or freedom? I'm optimistic, Jim. Perhaps it's due to my "station in life" (in my dotage???). But I see inroads being made -- perhaps not as fast as either of us would like. The "Brexit" and "Trump" phenomenon might serve as examples. Neither meant a lot to me (you wrote at least one essay hoping "Trump" to be victorious over "Clinton" to become grand Wizard of the Klan) -- except that more and more are beginning to question "conventional wisdom". Ron Paul was another. To what extent the questioning will be sustained and enhanced, I have some hope. As I've said so many times, Jim: I fully intend to live to see "state" as we've always lambasted "it" ("it" only exists as a brainless, evil abstraction) buried in its own swill. The question: will a critical mass rid themselves of the superstition that is "authority". "...I believe that, much as Orwell suggested, it is the public's ability to engage in this type of doublethink, to be aware that the law is inherently political in character and yet believe it to be an objective embodiment of justice, that accounts for the amazing degree to which the federal government is able to exert its control over a supposedly free people. I would argue that this ability to maintain the belief that the law is a body of consistent, politically neutral rules that can be objectively applied by judges in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, goes a long way toward explaining citizens' acquiescence in the steady erosion of their fundamental freedoms. To show that this is, in fact, the case, I would like to direct your attention to the fiction which resides at the heart of this incongruity and allows the public to engage in the requisite doublethink without cognitive discomfort: the myth of the rule of law..." A quote from Hasnas' "Myth of Rule of Law" Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Today's STR on-page quote rather relates my mantra (in better words than mine): "What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it…." ~ Learned Hand Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    Many thanks! Been working from government ("public" ha ha) library, and having to try to paste stuff onto and paste from flash drive. Sam
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 8 weeks 2 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    The quote is from THE ANATOMY OF SLAVESPEAK @ http://www.mind-trek.com/reports/tl07a.htm
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 3 days ago Web link Mike Powers
    http://fair-use.org/randolph-bourne/the-state/ No writer keeps my attention who uses the dangerous collectivist pronoun "we". How does this individual perceive that I ever "learned" such a thing? We've never met, far as I know. Words Now, please stretch your imagination and envisage a world in which nobody takes the words of terrocrats seriously. Terrocrats might say, “We are the government”. Everyone laughs at them and asks, "Government? -- what's that?" And, whatever they reply, they are greeted with more laughter. Then they say, "Our word is law; and you must obey." Everyone just laughs at the terrocrats and asks, "Law? -- what's that?" Again, whatever they reply, they are greeted with more laughter. How much power would terrocrats have in such a world? I don't care how much thought you have to put into this, but it's absolutely vital that you understand that the primary means terrocrats use to subjugate, control, and dominate their victims is words. (the link is dead from whence I copied this quotation) Sam
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 8 weeks 3 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Well said, Jim. And thanks for your kudois. BTW, I prefer to think of myself as a "Paleo Snowflake" rather than precious snowflake. I do know that here, in Phoenix area, I fear the texting snowflakes far more than oldsters still at the wheel.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 4 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    You've had my "attention" for years, Jim. And my admiration. I'll not enter into disputes with anyone over nit-picking. The price of freedom is too great. As mentioned earlier (might have been on a different thread -- I'm old, absent-minded, and can't always remember what thread I'm on), I've been going over many old essays (including many of yours, but also many of others here on STR -- folks I would like to see come back with more contributions). I often glean concepts today that I had overlooked previously from those same essays. Perhaps because now I'm not distracted by the internet, and can concentrate to the bottom of the topic or subject -- not put it off for a later date. Today I spent time here: http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/MythWeb.htm I had thought I had pretty much absorbed Hasnas' "Myth of the Rule of Law". But after the intro exercises he gets into some real deep anarchist principal. I suppose I had read (perused) the entire thing, but think I might have overlooked the real meat of the topic. I'd urge anyone still looking over essays and comments on STR to give this old essay a second read. Was also looking over a more recent ( https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/09/lew-rockwell/trial-by-police-state/ couldn't get the link to "fire" for some reason) regarding how (if I choose to refuse to be free) I'm certainly a "victim of the police state", according to Rockwell: "...Today, every single citizen, no matter how free he or she may feel in daily life, is in reality a sitting duck. You can be made to disappear. There is essentially no way you can escape once the feds sweep you into their net. There is no justice. The total states of the past used to pretend to have trial-based convictions. The total state of the present doesn't even bother. It just puts a sack over your head and takes you away..." I'm sure Lew would gleefully agree that I am NOT a sovereign state! Thankfully, I don't need his "agreement". And he can still enjoy my admiration. For most things. The world revolves around my belly-button -- not yours, or Lew's. My world. What makes this thesis so powerful for my sovereignty is the knowledge that your (and Lew's) world(s) revolve around your belly buttons, whether you admit it or not. Therefore, I can admire (and, for the most part agree with) both you and Lew. That ability to admire (even in the heat of dissension at times) enhances my sovereignty. "...it's the only game in town..." Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Well, alas, I must decline. I said the phrase "deserved" copyright, but copyright implies a threat to call down the monstrous power of government on anyone who uses material without permission. Better just to expose the word thief as such, and wait for resulting boycotts.   Not very young, except in heart; but dinosaur, definitely. Keep up the good work.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 5 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Relax! I don't want your money. Just your attention.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 5 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    "...you're a nice guy and I wish you well, but..." I must truly be delusional. 'Cause every time I hear or read this intro, I tend to place my hand firmly over my wallet pocket. Sam
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thanks Jim,    I really appreciate that coming from an old snowflake like you! I mean young dinosaur.    Please do copyright "Entire alphabet of sexes." I would need a snowflake to help me thru the copyright process. Yer fan,   Doug
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Hein
    There's a huge difference, Sam, between dogma and a reasoned presentation or argument. STR has published plenty of the latter, but offhand I can't think of any of the former. Care to name one example?   We do, of course "have the truth" because we anarchists, alone, acknowledge that self-ownership is an axiom. Those who deny it do not have the truth. That's a fact, and stating it as such is not to be dogmatic or arrogant at all.   To be dogmatic would be to state as a fact some conclusion reached without reason or evidence. One example is Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Another example is the unsupported assertion above by Alex Knight that I have a "god complex." I do state many things with due emphasis, but can support them all with reason and evidence.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    Brilliant!   Doug, you keep on getting better. "The self-driving car was invented for snowflakes" explains the otherwise inexplicable. And "the entire alphabet of sexes" is a phrase deserving of a copyright.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 5 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Sam, you're a nice guy and I wish you well; but you are heavily delusional.  Except in one important but very limited sense, you are NOT a "free and sovereign state". None of us are. We are, to one degree or another as Paul Hein recently pointed out, all "prisoners, fugitives, or slaves." That's the reality; and it will stay that way until government disappears. What matters above all is therefore to make it disappear.   The On Line Freedom Academy, with its integral, exponential growth method, is the only feasible way that I've seen so far. (In contrast for example, Alex's "7-point Plan" does not, as above, even come close.) It may well be that someone, some time soon, will produce a better alternative. Bring it on! The more, the merrier!   But until then, it's the only show in town. Use it, or remain in slavery.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 5 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    [Re-posted as a Reply. Sorry.]
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 6 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    I am, thankfully, a free and sovereign state. It's a good state in which to be. I could, conversely, be in a state of anger, egomania, and belligerence (over the comments and behaviors of those upon whom I have absolutely no control). That's a sad, sad state. Because here we have the opportunity to "..come out from under.." Not that many sites left on the web, I submit. Many (most that I'm aware) have bit-the-dust over anger and angst -- too often generated by one or more "gurus" who won't accept and believe in the tripe of the other guru(s). Seems "Daily Anarchist" followed that dogmatic path to perdition. No place for shemexperts. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Hein
    The only thing I see as having been "proven" is that anarchists and libertarians are normal, emotional, egotistical human beings -- just like everyone else. One thing I've learned (hopefully and with some pain), however, is to try always to refrain from "acting out". Not quite as easily done as said, I'm 'feard. Somehow I get the feeling that, with all this new and about-face knowledge, I've become your classic "shmexpert". I have the truth. Nobody else does. And that is that. It's the attitude that drives away the very people I need to augment and sustain my newfound liberty. I'd like to see STR once again become the active, vibrant site for liberty and freedom it once was -- with many dozens of participants, all with their own non-dogmatic (well, some dogmatists, I suspect) essays regarding liberty. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 8 weeks 6 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    I can only ask the rest of you:  Can any of you even believe this?  I mean, really.  Get a life.  :-D