Recent comments

  • Steve's picture
    Steve 5 weeks 13 hours ago Page Steve
    A few days ago (22 June 2015) Tom Woods of The Mises Institute interviewed Jonathan Haidt: http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-429-is-reason-enough-why-your-opponents-w... Again arose that common objection: But we libertarians are caring--it's our policies that will truly help the poor. Haidt addressed it fairly well.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    Way to go, Lawrence.  The Peace movement in the US has been all but dead for the past 30 years or so; one reason is because it was hijacked by "revolutionaries" that are only opposed to the use of violence against them.  A principled stand against violence requires one to live by those principles,  Of course advocating violence against one's enemies does not a peaceful person make.  How can anybody promoting peace not advocate for non-aggression?  What these revolutionaries seek is not peace, but power - especially political power.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Right again, Dr. Hein. Glenn Greenwald says he is quick to ask for all passwords to email accounts, to make the same point. The camera in the bathroom paints a vivid picture. Sam is correct that we are dealing with psychopaths, who appear eager to have a little nuclear war with Russia. That should be fun.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 5 weeks 2 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    Important issue, Lawrence. I note with some interest that we have Che alive and well in this country (USA). Fascists, Marxists, and Communists have ruled this country for many years. Millions of people have died in various countries. Our current ruler is distinguished by having whacked a few completely innocent Americans, presumably because of race or religion, or both. A sixteen year old kid from Denver comes to mind. He had the misfortune to have an unusual name. He was, of course, an evil skateboarder.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link TheMPP
    "...Your remark is lost on me..." If you read the (2007) linked article, it should come clear. "Mainstream" (media, "education", religion, et al.) have from time immemorial been motivated to discourage individualism. To embrace individualism is portrayed as akin to insane behavior. The individualist is the anathema of the state. Nobody has a "right" (whatever that's supposed to mean) to think for himself or herself. Therefore, every berserk killer must be labeled "loner". The association is an absolute necessity. We anarchists are mostly all "loners". It's the nature of anarchy. As such, we interchange more peacefully and constructively in a free marketplace by our very natures than do those steeped in statolatry. That very fact makes us dangerous to the superstition of statism. For if a plurality of individuals were ever to seriously question whether "the state" is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse. The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Hein
    One additional comment: You pay those would-be and professing "rulers" homage with use of the term "strangers". I see that as a bit mild. My tendency is to go along with the increasing number of individuals who are seeing them as psychopaths. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Samarami. Your remark is lost on me.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Unable to recall yesterdays reading, but did come from Jews for the Protection of gun rights. Author presented documentation that the greatest group of Mass Murders are individuals who are mentally ill or are loaded with dangerous drugs which the drug companies do not release all the side effects How does one legitimately correlate mass murder by mentally sick people to law abiding citizens. Currently I have been unable to discover rage shootings by law abiding citizens with mass murder or even inappropriate firearm use except for emotionally distraught LEO's.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Good approach to basic, critical thinking, Paul. Most who know me would be disappointed if I ever did a thing, or refrained from a thing, because it was a law, a rule, a regulation or a policy. I'll go along with things that make sense (to me). When they do not, and you can't explain (to me) why you're "mandating" the thing, I'll not follow it. On the other hand, as an entrepreneur I generally follow "...the customer is always right..." rule. As your contractor or your employee I see you as my customer. If I want to continue in your employ I will follow your dictates to the best of my ability. If too much of what you require seems senseless, I have the "right" (whatever that's supposed to mean) to quit and seek employment elsewhere (find a more satisfactory customer). That leaves me with the freedom to not whine and moan over the white man's machinations. I refuse to give him emotional power over me. If he wishes to install cameras on every street corner (and more than a few men's or ladies' rooms no doubt) I smile and move along. I am a sovereign state. Therefore, I am not in the white man's employ. He has no more "power" over me than any ordinary, free-market, gun-toting robber. There are many benefits of the free-market robber over the proclaimed state agent; but that's a topic for other threads at another time. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 5 weeks 3 days ago Web link TheMPP
    "Lone-Wolf" ur ignorant mainstream butts: http://www.nysun.com/new-york/loners-vs-loneliness/52703/ Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 6 weeks 6 days ago Web link KenK
    I am a re-loader and this new attempt by the House Boy leads me into the area of suicide (at most) or severe injury because I am restricted from accessing current information regarding reloading ammunition. Reloading is actually a simple process, yet there are technical aspects to re-loading that makes it extremely dangerous to the shooter. If I can only depend upon the old data I possess I cannot then advance my re-loading to achieve better ballistics and better accuracy with my loads. This is a Dictatorship. Whatever I call myself is mute. Mentally incompetent persons control our every actions. One can dream to be free of government, or even proclaim themselves free, but the fact is, no one is free from the dictatorship of mentally incompetent morons collected together on the east coast. Lysander may say the Constitution is of no authority. Well he is damned well right and the incompetent morons have clearly demonstrated that fact. Those who want the Constitution to disappear have received their wish for the Constitution has effectively disappeared. We are finally evolving into a slave society to the government of the government, for the government and by the government.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 7 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    As well he should. When Mao Zhedong set the Red Guard cadres loose on Chinese university campuses among their first victims were the faculty and administration. We should be so lucky.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 7 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    I wonder what the drug warriors seized her personal vibrator for? That's the reason the story made the national headlines in the first place wasn't it? Without that titillating detail added on, the cops' confiscating all that unrelated property and holding it for going on year is just business as usual and would barely make news outside of  the local radio or dead tree newsprint.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 7 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Wow. And people say that "miltary intelligence" is an oxymoron. :D
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 8 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Nice review, Alex, and thanks for highlighting a pro-freedom SciFi collection I'd not seen before. Just bought a copy at Amazon and look forward to the read.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 8 weeks 2 days ago Page Glen Allport
    Thanks, Lawrence. Of course it's not so much a review as it is a commentary. BTW, the "Jupiter Ascending" Blu-Ray just hit store shelves.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Volunteer--Or Else!
    Page Paul Hein
    All psychopaths grouped under the mantle of "government" depend totally upon 1) belief, and 2) voluntary compliance. Were it not for the superstition that is "rulership", the tabernacle that is government would soon tumble down. It is all kept in place by what can be described as religious belief -- superstition. How do you imagine the recent political holiday called "Memorial Day" came into being? Or why it is placed where it is on the Gregorian calendar? If veterans (or families of slaughtered veterans) ever came to comprehend the egregiousness of their actions in carrying out what they call "serving", it would soon spell doom for those claiming "jurisdiction". Thus political holidays: "Memorial", "Independence", "Labor", "Veterans" -- even "Chr-stmas" fits neatly into the science of rulership and control of the docile masses. Bread and circuses. Cease, my friends. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Volunteer--Or Else!
    Page Paul Hein
    Tax is "voluntary" in the sense that the gov doesn't send a tax collector and a squadron of armed dragoons to our homes and doorsteps to collect the money, that's all. In the stilted lanuage of 18th century English and American politicos and their scribes, that the gov "trusts" you to just come in and pay it, or mail a check, etc., constituted voluntarily payment to their mind. Throughout  most of modern European and English history the King came to you to get paid, His tax clerks accompanied by armed men to emphasis the point that there was no discretion about the matter. By 18th century standards that was mighty nice of the gov to let you pay at your convenience But "voluntary" it ain't, everybody knows it, and I'm always surprised that professional resisters take that bound-to-lose tack.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Volunteer--Or Else!
    Page Paul Hein
    Terrific column, Paul. Excellent job of making clear the coecion underlying every State, briefly and entertainingly. Short enough to make a good hand-out, detailed enough to get under people's skin, I think.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 9 weeks 2 days ago
    Volunteer--Or Else!
    Page Paul Hein
    Nice one, Dr. Hein. While in prison for failure to voluntarily contribute financially to the Iraqi and Afghani wars, I reached a similar conclusion. It is, I think, the central issue for nearly all the evil of government. Every person who pays income tax is complicit in the crimes of war by Bush and most of the other rulers. Jim Davies correctly points out that not paying income tax is not sufficient to bring down government, but it is a good start. It is easy to see why they prefer a cashless society. Perhaps Bitcoin will gain sufficient traction to make a difference. I am currently enamored of the concept of structuring all one's affairs as loans, which are not taxable. I can sell a product or provide a service in exchange for a loan. It is worth a thought or two, since it is not legally reportable or taxable, and it is legal, as far as I can tell. It would be glorious to die at age 100 heavily in debt(but off the books), and never having paid money to the mafia.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 9 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Chomsky's probably right about that.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 9 weeks 4 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Interestingly, I eventually was able to google up a copy of the article by Jeff Berwick (in my opinion his best, written years before he became infected with statism) that had been posted in 2011 on a Yahoo Group message: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FPE/conversations/messages/61165 Jeff and Walter Block have gone whole-hog into political action, and justify themselves totally: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4n4eNTINmk8 "Like-Falling-Off-A-Log" Keep your hand over your wallet pocket, Mates! Sam
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 9 weeks 4 days ago
    Untitled
    Page Joseph S. Bommarito
    I "served" for almost 20 years before my body gave up the ghost on me and forced me to retire. Thanks to unusual circumstances, it's only taken me a little over five years to understand the disservice that we all did (to everyone, everywhere, not just in the places listed above; the world is continually a worse and worse place thanks to that kind of blind "service"). I don't know that I'll ever exactly "forgive" myself. I can think of a myriad better ways I could have spent those two decades. On the other hand, if I had done differently, I'd never have met the mother of the children who I love, nor the woman who became the love of my life after the children's mother abandoned us all to return to Germany. So all I can do is accept the past as it is and hopefully help contribute to a better world for my children and everyone else. Mike Jackson
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 9 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Sam submitted a comment to this article at "The Economic Collapse". I doubt that it will ever see the light of day. Here it is: From the article: "...The real problem, of course, is our out of control spending..." "...We simply cannot afford to keep spending money like this..." Whenever an author uses "we" and "our" I can know s/he will neither discover nor address the root of the "problem" (quotes intended). I was going to link Jeff Berwick's "The Most Dangerous Word" ("we"). However, now that Jeff apparently considers himself a libertarian potentate, has chosen to dabble in political action (he's started spelling "libertarian" with a capital "L"), seems he's had second thoughts and taken the article out of the archives. But his essay included a link to this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy19YmQHHJU which sez it all. My spending is not out of control. Is yours? I can afford to spend "money" (or what they're calling it nowadays) like I spend it -- unless or until my resources threaten to give out, at which point I'll need to make other arrangements, which I can do. Can you? I strongly believe you have two ways out of this mess: 1) exorcize your superstition (if you still cling to it) that you have "representation" over in a place they're calling District of Collectivism...er, Columbia. You don't. 2) Abstain from beans http://www.anarchism.net/anarchism_abstainfrombeans.htm Sam Seems many of these blogs will only entertain thoughts along party lines. Mine seldom meet that criteria. Sam
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 9 weeks 5 days ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen, thank you for this excellent detailed and incisive review!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 7 hours ago Page Douglas Young
    Astute of you to point that out, Mark. But as a retired educator, I can tell you that if you are going to teach "political science and history" under the auspices of Georgia Board of Regents you are not going to even save a niche in a corner of your brain for the possibility of anarchy. It ain't in the cards, even though anarchy is all about us. Larken Rose says it far more eloquently than I: few can even imagine not falling to some degree under the "authority" of a ruling class. Yet there can be no legitimate ruling class. Douglas does a good job lambasting the "lefties", stays relatively clear of denigrating the "righties", but never addresses the choice or the ramifications of 100% self ownership -- anarchy. I'm pro-life. I'm also pro-choice. The immediate reaction of most to the former self-proclamation is to group me with the "religious right". And to the latter I'll fall under the category of "progressive left" (whatever "progressive" is supposed to mean). I'm neither. I like the way our old and late friend, Harry Browne put it: Conservatives vs Liberals Conservatives say government cannot end poverty by force, but they believe government can use force and threats of violence to make people moral. Liberals say government cannot make people moral, but they believe government can use force and threats of violence to end poverty (redistribute wealth). Neither group attempts to explain why government is so clumsy and destructive in one area but a paragon of efficiency and benevolence in the other. ~Harry Browne Liberty A-Z p 35 I've said forever (almost) that the family is the only legitimate governing unit. All others are coercive interlopers. The human newborn -- unlike newborns in the "animal kingdom", who come into life with a factor we call "instinct" -- comes into life totally helpless, completely under the "jurisdiction" (again, whatever you think "jurisdiction" means) of adult caregivers; ideally a loving and dedicated Mom and Dad. Mom and/or Dad may one day in their dotage come under the "jurisdiction" of the now-grownup kids. I genuinely salute Douglas Young, however, for writing this nice essay. STR definitely needs more articles that can give rise to comment from all sides of the spectrum. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 7 hours ago Page Douglas Young
    One additional reflection on Douglas Young's essay that I just noticed is in connection with the "quote for the day" on the STR main page: "It is strangely absurd to suppose that a million of human beings, collected together, are not under the same moral laws which bind each of them separately." ~ Thomas Jefferson I've ceased use of the term "moral laws", and generally refer to good or bad choices instead. I don't see myself as having jurisdiction to define "good" or "bad" for you or others, except as it might relate to my being personally aggressed upon. Not that I think it's "moral", or "good" to aggress upon others who are not related in any way to me. On the other hand, as I inferred in my comment above, loving parents will naturally work to instill into the behaviors of their children what we might think of as "morality". For openers, nobody wants a pregnant teenage daughter. The only thing that differentiated the Jeffersons and Washingtons from the Obamas, Bushes and Clintons was time, modern-day travel, and technology. Jefferson could not have conceived of the NSA, but slavery appeared to serve him well in his time. So Jefferson's utterance appears to those intuitively longing for central political authority (as long as it is tame and non-coercive [ha!]) -- as being wise, contributive to liberty and freedom. I tend to reflect on that whenever I see "libertarians" quote what appear to be wise and freedom-loving old tyrants. Because Jefferson's statement amounted to an eery prophesy for all central political authority everywhere at each period of history. Jefferson understood the futility of passing laws and enacting rules to govern bad behaviors (and bad thoughts) of the unnamed and unconscripted pioneers in the unexplored "west". Not a problem for the Obamas of the 21st century. I could go on, but this makes the point. Sam
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 10 weeks 1 day ago Page Douglas Young
    You lost me at "within the law" as a qualifier for freedom of choice in a free society.  Once you accept the dictates of politicians as "the law" to be obeyed, then quibling over the individual laws they dictate is nothing more than an academic exercise in futility.  That's closing the barn door after the horses have run out.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 10 weeks 3 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Subscription required, so I couldn't read this all the way through.  So whatever. I don't expect a paper/digital constitutional arrangement to work any better on Mars than the various arrangements we have in force now.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 11 weeks 8 min ago
    Jurisdiction
    Page Paul Hein
    Larken Rose video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 11 weeks 9 hours ago Web link KenK
    Heh.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 2 days ago
    Jurisdiction
    Page Paul Hein
    You're being facetious, I know. And no, I was not pointing out personalities, especially you. I forget the last time any of us argued over "might-makes-right". You and I are fairly well in agreement with the "right" of that phrase ("rights" controversy) that has caused so much angst amongst anarchist potentates. But my point (not worded the best) was that "jurisdiction" can only exist through submission and/or force of arms (might). Often there is a combination of the two -- or one follows the other -- as in Stockholm syndrome. I believe Stockholm syndrome, or capture bonding, is the condition among the masses at an extremely high percentage (90% to 95%???) that has given rise to and sustains each and every nation or country that has ever come into being and that now blankets the earth. The superstition that always keeps a "nation" in place is called "jurisdiction". Murry Rothbard in "Anatomy of the State" outlined it boldly. That the only legitimate governing unit is the family unit. Parents, in anarchist setting, have jurisdiction over newborns (might, if you will) until adulthood, or "age of consent" (variable -- can only be legitimately determined by joint resolution between parent and child or, in some situations "either/or" -- for instance if the kid gets big enough either to run away or to whip the old man's butt :-[ and take over the farm, throwing her parents out into the cold). Later, the child might assume "jurisdiction" over aging and feeble parents. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 11 weeks 3 days ago
    Jurisdiction
    Page Paul Hein
    "Some of us will argue over "might-makes-right", but the very act of bickering about it implies to me that they have already in their mind submitted..." You mean me, Sam? :-) We can make two statements: 1) Might should not make right. 2) Might actually does make right (where "right" is used in the sense of ability, not legitimacy). Both of these could be true at the same time. The first is "ought", the second "is". The stronger is always able to make the weaker conform to his wishes, and usually does so. I guess the point is to not be weak.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 12 weeks 6 hours ago
    Jurisdiction
    Page Paul Hein
    Good essay and good topic, Paul. Probably the very best 1 minute treatise on "jurisdiction" is encapsulated in this video that everyone has seen at least once: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE There are two ways one might acquire "jurisdiction" over another: submission, and might. Some of us will argue over "might-makes-right", but the very act of bickering about it implies to me that they have already in their mind submitted to "jurisdiction" by psychopaths acting under the guise of "authority" -- no force of arms necessary. I often present the only legitimate jurisdiction: the human family. All other jurisdiction emanates from coercive interlopers. Jurisdiction of violence or threats thereof. Newborn infants are totally under control ("jurisdiction") of Mom and Dad. They would not survive without it. Aging parents often accept jurisdiction from adult sons and daughters in those sunset years. Jurisdiction of love. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 12 weeks 3 days ago
    No More Turf Wars?
    Page James Clayton
    Sounds like Panarchy to me. :-)
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 12 weeks 3 days ago
    The Pros and the Con
    Page Paul Hein
    "Why should a person obey the pros’ laws? Because his life will be made a living hell if he disobeys." I believe this is the main point that our insolent questions should lead to. If everyone understood this fact of life, legitimacy would crumble and people would start ignoring the bastards. But definitely, question everything. Question authority, like the old bumpersticker said.
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 12 weeks 4 days ago Page Steve
    This libertarian reaction of "It's libertarians who are truly compassionate, because our policies actually help the poor, unlike those of well-meaning progressives" is real common, and addressed by Haidt in a talk at Reason: It's Hard to Gross Out a Libertarian: Jonathan Haidt on Sex, Politics, and Disgust: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmz10uQsTYE&t=22m0s
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 12 weeks 4 days ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    So government forbids unlicensed foreigners to live here unless they do, in fact, live here. And when they live here, if they drive, they are handed a license to drive lest they should drive without a license. Not being true citizens they are of course not allowed to vote (assuming any of them wish to) but now, in California, those who can drive are to be compelled to be able to vote. Is that about it?   Just another day in La-La Government Land.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 13 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Boo hiss!
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 13 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    I love desert landscapes.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 13 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    For regular banking stuff a locally based, member owned credit union is a much better bet.  Without wealthy corporate types running them (unlike Chase, CitiCorp, BoA, et alia) the pols in DC have much less clout for putting  agendas (e.g. "Operation Chokepoint") on their business practices. There is still some fed and state imposed crap to contend with, but it's a lot less, and there are more "work arounds" available.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 14 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Corporations are the legal inventions of states. Without states they wouldn't exist.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 14 weeks 5 days ago Web link Government Deni...
    This is excellent.  Spread far and wide.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 15 weeks 1 hour ago
    Dear OSPIRG Gal...
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Good points, Paul. Shades of Butler Shaffer a few years ago over at Lew Rockwell: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/06/butler-shaffer/green-statists-at-the... Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 15 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    Oleg is an amazing photographer; by all means look through his work.
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 15 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    And they remain 'Slave Catching Patrols'.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 15 weeks 2 days ago Page GainesvilleCoins
    It's sure looking to get exciting pretty soon.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 15 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Uh, is this article accurate? Saying that government water treatment is better and cheaper than private treatment? Oh-oh...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 15 weeks 5 days ago
    Where Rights Come From
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Your comment, Alex, is insightful if not overly polite. Because this childish crazy-making has gone on for considerably longer than "one year". And, yes, it has indeed rendered STR invalid. Most of these folks, like me, will simply not endure juvenile name-calling. I submit that most have ceased contributing to STR and moved on to other venues out of disgust. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 16 weeks 6 hours ago
    Where Rights Come From
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Jim: While I have no particular disagreement with your conclusions as to the origin and nature of "rights" (other than mere semantics, i.e., how can one own, per se, what one already is), your own conciliation that "rights" can be -- and as we well know, so often are -- violated, places such assertions in a kind of a priori status.  This is to say that, while the logic may be airtight, its application is not, necessarily. e.g., The Jews of the Warsaw Ghetto had a "right" to live.  Fine.  But how much good did that "right," in practice, do them?  If "rights" can be said to exist concretely, irrespective of human action, then how?  And of what tangible value is that knowledge, or assertion thereof?  Such contentions are reduced to mere abstractions. I have come to think of "rights" as far more easily and accurately defined thusly: "Rights" (for lack of a better word) are, in practice, opinions.  And they require 2 prerequisites:   1.) They must be rooted in an idea that at least a sizeable number of others are willing to recognize as such (e.g., I have a "right" to free speech, but not to beat up anyone who angers me). 2.) They must further be such that, if they are abrogated or violated, one has a reasonable chance of defending or restoring them, whether by peaceable or violent means (if my free speech is violated, many will come to my support if not aid; the violators will be in a minority, and quickly defeated.  If I beat my neighbor because I don't like his views, I will receive very little support, my detractors will be many, I will be defeated).   Otherwise, it's all well and fine to assert one's "rights" -- and one can even be right, from a standpoint of rationalism.  Unfortunately, you can't always take that to the bank.   You almost invariably present a fine rebuttal.  :-)  I await yours in the sincere hopes of learning something.