Recent comments

  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 20 hours 51 min ago
    Funny Business
    Page Paul Hein
    Yet another fine piece, Paul. I don't know if you're familiar with TheAnarchistAlternative.info, but what you wrote here is very compatible with it.  I take part in the PBS News Hour forum online, whose whole unstated assumption is that the State rightfully exists; I have a lot of fun puncturing that absurd premise and often refer participants to it if they show signs of peeping over the edge of the statist box.   I'll watch for an opportunity to refer them to your "Funny Business." It introduces the absurdity of compulsion very well.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 1 day 7 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I didn't ask you that, Sam, I asked whether or not you'd approve, or think it appropriate, if some open statist were to be allowed to publish articles on STR. The site is (supposedly) not just for you or me or the choir; it is an outreach instrument to promote freedom from government.   So if Hillary Clinton were to become a contributor of articles here, for example, your only comment would be "I have nothing to fear"?   Of course you don't. But that is irrelevant and, I regret to say, pathetic. I have to wonder if you have any idea what STR is for.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 day 14 hours ago Page Paul Hein
    http://strike-the-root.com/government-force-of-nature Actually, the fugitive option is not all that bad. A lot of people don't pay any income taxes, and manage to get around or simply ignore many restrictions. One can be over-impressed with the reach of government. After all it is run by idiots who care for nothing but their pay and pensions. In the meantime, I just wait around for the economic collapse, and try to imagine how I and mine would live and survive then. For a little perspective, I advise reading this book. Humans got along for quite a while without the state, it turns out: https://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-History-Earliest-States/dp/0300182910
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 day 15 hours ago Page Douglas Herman
    Good one Doug. :-) I have to admit, I have found some uses for my smartphone, which I bought after the speaker on my dumb phone finally died. 1) When I am about to dismantle some suspension parts, I can take pictures during the process to help me get it back together without any parts left over. 2) I can look at google maps to see where the traffic jams are. Or not get lost. I can dispense with all those old paper maps, and the reading glasses to decipher the fine print. 3) I've loaded an application that shows how to tie knots. Once a year I need to tie something other than a granny knot, and that app helps a lot. 4) I can tell what time it is, without wearing a watch. Even what day it is! 5) I can tell whether I need my rain coat. 6) I can even make a phone call. 7) I can text people who I'd rather not speak to. 8) Most important of all, I can be surveilled by the state with convenience. Of course it wakes me up at night complaining the battery is low and wants me to plug it in, so I'm not sure it's a net plus for me. I may take it to the rifle range some day, and put it on the 200 yard line. One can become too connected to this world.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 day 15 hours ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "If Jack Phillips was not living under the delusion that the Christian Bible is the Word of God, the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission never would have come about." Not necessarily. Maybe an atheist version of Jack just wouldn't like being told who he has to associate with. At base, these are not disputes about religion, but about association. Forced association. A variety of property rights, as Mark noted. "Based on this, Phillips and all Bible-believing Christians and Jews have the religious right to not only refuse to do business with gay men, they have the religious right to kill gay men." Maybe so. But presumably, they figure refusing to do business, is good enough to keep them in God's good graces; otherwise there would be a lot more dead gays out there. And if they think they have the right to kill, it doesn't matter as long as it remains a thought. You can't reasonably punish anyone for having "bad" thoughts. Hell, there are some bastards out there I'd like to kill too. This old article of mine might be worth a look: http://strike-the-root.com/dehumanizing-people-is-fun
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 day 16 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Perhaps this may sound a bit flippant, but your question is like saying, "what is the difference between Catholicism and religious tolerance?" Anarchy is a political philosophy. Panarchy is just a notion or framework that (allegedly) makes it easier for diverse political philosophies to co-exist in the same general area. Even calling it a framework is probably overstating it. Even now a liberal and conservative can already live next door to each other without killing each other. Panarchy just makes that easier. If you want to think of Panarchy as just glorified anarchy, I don't mind. Maybe it really is. Hell, if you want to say that Panarchy just allows people to get along, without this being associated with anarchy somehow (a term that carries some baggage after all), or to say this is a sly way of getting ordinary liberals and conservatives to sign onto anarchy, I won't even mind that. Hey, I'm easy! :-) I just think it is a generally useful concept, not something that is of concern only to anarchists.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 1 day 16 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Panarchy" redundant? Possibly. But who's to say that redundancy has no utility? We are not talking about math axioms here, but human behavior. Cooper's 4 rules of gun handling are redundant too - which is exactly the point. "Allows" - probably a poor choice of words on my part, that's all. Maybe "facilitates" would be a better word, although I usually roll my eyes when I hear anyone else use it. "Communism and fascism are indeed dangerous superstitions. We fight them – daily." I don't know about that. I don't fight anyone who wants to live in a commune on their own. I fight imposition. I think people too easily slip into opposition mode without defining for themselves exactly what and why they are opposing (I'm referring here to the general public, mostly). As to me being gone from here, it's not any big thing. Just peaks and valleys in the need to communicate. Getting older means realizing you don't need to express an opinion on every little thing. I'll be moving soon too; that will distract me some. I'll probably post here as long as there is a here to post to.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 1 day 19 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    4 or five words, my friend: I have nothing to fear. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 days 50 min ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Serenity, like Samarami I hope you'll reconsider, and think you're mistaken. But may I take up one line in your post: you wrote of "a belief that there is only ONE way to achieve a goal. one belief. one method to anarchy."   By "anarchy" I presume you mean a society rid of the curse of government, and by "way" or "method" I presume you mean a plan to get there. Correct me if I presume wrongly.   I'm aware of only one such plan, documented here, which a few of us worked out back in 2006. Do you know of some other?  I've watched, but have seen none. There's plenty of activity, but nothing having the form of a plan - with clear objectives, methodology, contingencies etc. But if you've seen one, please name it before you go - if go you must.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 days 7 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Well said, Sam. Serenity can result, I suppose, from absence of all thought and controversy; but that's a poor way to achieve it.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 days 7 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    And a cheerful good morning to you too, Alex.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 days 7 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    The question, Sam, was pretty clear, surely? And pertinent? And you don't have to answer it if you don't want to; a simple "I don't wish to answer that" would have done.   But you wrote 114 words, yet offered no reply. That's a waste of everyone's time.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 days 22 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Your frustration is definitely understandable. I do hope you'll reconsider. You've been a very good anchor over a moribund period of STR's history. I, too, long for the days when good but often very controversial essays were posted regularly -- often with literally hundreds of comments thereto, sometimes tumultuous, sometimes in agreement. If libertarians are afraid of controversy, they're pretty ineffective voices for us. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 days 22 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "...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?..." As of now there are so few participants at STR I doubt if the "splash" would ripple much h2o. I would hope Rob would have the temerity and the maturity to let it go up on the board. Virtually any opinion here in the past has been met quite well by the tzo's, Per Bylunds, et al (including both thee and me). How else to envision a libertarian world unless one has a statist world to hold up as an example of why we continue to hammer away to destroy that most dangerous of superstitions. Rather dull preachin' to the choir, and as of now there isn't even much of a choir left. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 4 days 1 hour ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I think it's long since abundantly evident to most -- if not all -- others just whose absence from this site would be most welcome.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 4 days 2 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    i give up. you folks can have your bickering and infighting. no difference between you and liberals.  each one trying to one up the other and each one wanting to ram their beliefs down someone elses throat. little hitlers with a belief that there is only ONE way to achieve a goal. one belief. one method to anarchy. i can see why it is backsliding. i left politics behind a long time ago. i had the belief in anarchy but it is and has become yet another political party. no room in it for ideas. no room for beliefs other then the sanctioned one. each person in it seeks to be the ruler they claim to want to eliminate. enjoy your infighting. i have advised STR i will no longer attempt to be a guest editor. i won't do it even temporary. my time is valuable and i won't waste it on politics which is all this has become. it certainly isn't about striking the root. it isn't about liberty or freedom or live and let live. or even the anarchy of no rulers. no masters. it is simply attacking each other with all sorts of fallacies, personal attacks. unproven inuendos against each other. each one with a knife in hand waiting to carve up anyone who dares be different or disagree. what a waste of time and effort. you can keep it. i won't be back. 
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 days 19 hours 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 4 days 21 hours 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 4 days 22 hours 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 days 22 hours 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 days 22 hours 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 days 22 hours 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 days 22 hours 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
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 days 4 hours 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 5 days 7 hours 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 5 days 7 hours 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 1 week 7 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 1 week 23 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 1 week 1 day 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 1 week 1 day 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 1 week 2 days 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 1 week 3 days 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 6 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 6 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 2 weeks 4 hours 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 2 weeks 23 hours 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 2 weeks 1 day ago
    What We Can Do
    Web link Serenity
      http://everything-voluntary.com/voluntaryist-7-point-plan    
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 2 weeks 1 day 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 2 weeks 1 day 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 2 weeks 2 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 2 weeks 2 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 6 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 3 weeks 1 day ago Web link Serenity
    This is an excellent one.  Very nicely done and well worth sharing.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 weeks 1 day 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 3 weeks 2 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 4 weeks 4 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 5 weeks 4 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 6 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 6 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 6 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