Recent comments

Ha! Very amusing, Will. And quite true, up to a point. Yes, humans have "wants" to a huge degree I for one have not yet fathomed, and yes, less work is always better because there is such a vast amount of beauty and knowledge to explore during one's time away from the work bench.   Yes, too, the universe is "meaningless" in the sense that it comes with none ready-packaged in some mythical enclosure; not, though, in the other important sense that we humans have an amazing and priceless opportunity (unique in all Nature, I think) to fashion our own meaning.   Yes, yet more, I think so highly of the libertarian understanding of which way is up that I am indeed jealous of preserving its "orthodoxy", for want of a better word. I have, however, no such "handbook" as you mention; just a grasp of the essential principle that every person rightly owns his own life, along with some ability to draw deductions from that axiom.   Thank you, yet further, for reference to the Zero Government Blog. I'm gratified indeed that you have been for "years watching it in action." Disappointed, though, that your prejudice in favor of the current manifestation of the Luddite Faith has prevented you embracing its reasoning. Some day, perhaps, you'll favor us with an explanation of how you can simultaneously deplore the alleged replacement of humans by robots, yet earn a living by helping design them.

Thanks Jim,   Your compliment means more to me than if I were published in the MSM.  And paid to do so. 

I'd posit it's only a curse if the average person doesn't have access to owning one of these machines. If all automation is centralized then yes that would leave very little opportunity to those that used to labor. However, most labor saving devices to date have found their way into the average household, garage, and even pocket. If that trend continues, it will be up to the average person to determine how their life is made better.

'...By "jointly envision the same demise of central political authority" you meant that you don't agree with me that the State can be abolished...' "The State" has been abolished. Or is in the process of being. I did not say or infer your apparent conception. "It" will not be abolished by me (well, it already has in terms of "jurisdiction") -- and I don't see it being abolished by you. But if you see differently, that's certainly your privilege. How 'bout let's call it your "right". These squabbles are merely playing with words -- fiddlin' while Rome burns. IMHO -- which ain't all that humble. Sam

On some level, all work is monotonous.  I've been in operating rooms and observed open heart surgeries to speak with surgeons and understand how they want a certain tool designed.  Speaking first-hand, one bypass surgery looks a lot like the next.  It's monotonous, just in the way that making nice furniture or preparing ingredients for a dinner with friends or any number of meaningful activities are monotonous.     Machines that make subtle decisions are here, and in that context, when they can do nearly every task that humans can do, only faster, better, and cheaper, what then?  It's possible that individually we thought that we were working to create machines that would make the world a better place, but in the aggregate, the system created through that action decreases the overall quality of life--and not just the material aspects.  Matt Crawford's Shop Class as Soulcraft discusses the value in terms of the feeling of self-worth that comes from working with your hands, and my experience resonates strongly with his views.   AI-driven technologies are of a fundamentally different kind from what has come before.  They are able to survey a complicated situation and then "decide" on the best way to approach it.  Not many people know that newswriting algos have been implemented for years now--see here. Push this forward several decades and ponder what creative endeavor this leaves humans to do.   Offhand dismissals of arguments made by the authors I mentioned isn't really a rebuttal when you aren't familiar with their arguments.  We're living in a world when pro-technology mantras are drummed into the heads of everyone from childhood, and most people haven't ever heard a compelling arguement against the march of technology.   Not all, or even a majority of the authors I listed are neo-Luddites (though Kaczynski would identify as such), but most embrace certain technologies while shunning others in an attempt to create a more meaningful and convival life.   If you zoom out far enough, it's not hard to see that humans today are serving the interests of the machines more than they are of their own well-being.  

Oh, I get it. I should have got it first time, the fault is mine. By "jointly envision the same demise of central political authority" you meant that you don't agree with me that the State can be abolished.   Okay, if none of us do anything, it can't. It may well spiral itself into a destructive black hole of some kind and produce appalling poverty and misery, but out of that will come some monstroius replacement. It will never abolish itself, on that we agree.   Further, a frontal attack on everyone supporting the state won't work either; at any one time, nearly everyone is caught up in the statist religion, yes. Government has been clever and systematic over many generations in educating people to suppose it is indispensable.   But one at a time, dealing just with the few who have become fed up with all of it... there is the opportunity. And it's all we need - along with a little patience. And if you disagree with that, we'll have to agree to disagree.

"...Never mind this, it's obvious that people today aren't happier than they were 50 or 100 years ago. If technology were connected to happiness, I don't think we'd have about 15% of the population on SSRIs..." What you're actually identifying is loss of freedom -- what STR is all about: liberty. And, I'll readily agree that much of the technology and the development of more highly automated and robotic production of physical products is itself having a debilitating effect upon those only educated, skilled and trained for factory work. The mass exodus for manufacturing has been to "third-world" places where starvation nips the lower 2/3 of the population in the arse every day. It's increasingly difficult for manufacturers to remain afloat here in the land-of-the-free. As the article reveals, technology is creating a huge tsunami in "service" industries as well. But the problem is "SSRIs". If there were no such thing as state there could be no such thing as "SSRI". If there were no parasites engaged in redistributing wealth, wealth would abound. Either that, or we're spinning our wheels here at STR. "The poor" are the true sufferers from loss of freedom. Yet it is "the poor" who are directed to interchange with the beast (who claims jurisdiction in robbing "the rich"). It has been largely "the poor" who have voted with and for political progressive-ism -- along with those who benefit by keeping them poor (most often "the rich"). Enter "SSRIs". The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam

You don't have to prolong anything if you don't wish to do so. If you're last statements on the subject are simple ad hominem you prove what I've said earlier. Some may read your articles, but frankly you limit your prospective audience by your demeanor. It's interesting to watch.

Yes, actions speak louder than words. This brings to mind the-man-with-the-plan, a man of many words. He loves to talk about vague and abstract concepts; and he likes to label and categorize people. It’s easier for him to say what he is than to actually show what he does.

You impute a lot on other people. Some would call that straw-manning. It's one of the reasons you appear to be disagreeable. You keep on harping on whether I want to identify with a label or not. I refuse. You've ignored the point which is that the way you act does not broaden your potential audience. Not my problem, just pointing it out...since you seem to think if just enough people read your articles and go through your training they (and you as a result) will become free. If such a thing is possible, and that's your goal, you are working against yourself.

Whether one is "pro-vaccine" or "anti-vaccine" has nothing to do with anything. The question: Do you want psychopaths grouped under the mindless abstraction called "government" forcing everybody -- under penalty of death (all white man's "law" comes under eventual death sentence until resisters "comply") -- to succumb to forced inoculations? When you can't help knowing that the medical establishment, which includes their incestuous relationship with pharmaceuticals, represent among the largest lobbying outfits in the business??? And they're the folks who want to write the "laws" involved in this discussion??? I and much of my family are counted among "...the-unvaxed-population..." who will have viral and bacterial diseases "...run rampant..." We are the wealthiest of families in our part of the country. Not because of resources defined by US federal reserve notes. But because we're homeschoolers, non-vaxers, and free. And, we're the healthiest individuals in town -- free from diabetes, free from doctors and hospitals, free from disease. We're the ones the lefties are taking aim at. Apparently it's "unfair", or "unequal", or "unsustainable" for us to maintain such good health without enforced vaccinations and other medical conjurations. That thinking, my friend, is the equivalent of the desire for madmen to be in charge of the asylum. Go figger. Sam

For the moment, let's boil it down to individual vs collective thinking. My emphasis is individual thinking. I have no control over the behaviors or the attitudes or the philosophies of anybody but myself. I don't have as much influence as I'd perhaps like even with adult members of my own family. Sometimes they listen. Often they don't. Same here on this forum. And I will be free whether or not you or Will or Alex or Paul are free. Or my children, or their children, or their children's children (my growing coterie of great-grandchildren) on down the line. Through exchange of ideas (at times heated -- hopefully not antagonistic) here at STR I might have some limited influence upon you and some of our mutual friends in the way each or any of us processes certain information. You certainly have, over the years, been influential with me. I wouldn't want to try to estimate how many times I've referenced various writings of yours at forums in addition to this one -- and even in communication with members of my own family. I, for instance, don't vote in political elections. Haven't done so since 1964. Neither do you. I might often end a comment with the jocular "abstain from beans", but I don't take personal offense at the millions who are still collaborating with the enemy (your recent term that I enjoy and have used) in that manner. Their time will come. Same with submitting confessions ("filing returns" ha ha) to the enemy. I take stern lessons from our late and old mutual friend, Irwin Schiff. Why engage in battle when you know you're out-gunned? Just understand: the enemy is like the rattlesnake -- he rattles and warns and, if cornered, will strike. But he will slither away safely when he can. The difference, of course, is that the rattlesnake serves a useful purpose (feeds on mosquitoes and rodents, helping to keep them in check). So, when I hear that rattle I give them the opportunity to slither away without incident. And I wear high boots and heavy gloves to the woods. But I recognize my powerlessness when it comes to expending time and emotional energy trying to straighten out others' thinking or behaviors. And I certainly don't intend to jeopardize this forum by belittling you or anybody else who might have a different slant on any specific issue from mine. I hope to continue to learn from Will, and Alex, and Paul, and you, and many, many others here at STR. The religious mystification of that phenomenon called "state" is coming to a close. I don't know how -- or when -- the finale will come, but I perceive the fat lady may be warming up to sing soon. Be free. Sam

The term is -- at least was in the 1940's and early 50's -- "technological unemployment". I'm an old railroad telegrapher. Keep in mind, that's considered "service industries" -- not actually involved in the production of a product. But, of course, railroading was highly necessary to anybody producing a product at the time, and to an increasing extent still is. That's an interesting technological study in itself. At the time (age 16) I was still attending high school. I remember a government ("public" ha ha) teacher who was libertarian-minded when it was not cool. His name was Bob Lawson. He lived to be 101, and only died a few years ago now. He and I argued about "technological unemployment" at the time -- he taking the Mises side, I insisting that the railroad telegrapher would soon become obsolete. Telephones, teletypes and 2-way radios were the upcoming technology. This would have been close to 10 years prior to publication of Leonard E.Read's "I, Pencil". And, even at age 16, I could see the handwriting on the wall. Or so I thought. Long before I ever espoused ideas of the libertarian and the anarchist. Turns out I'm probably one of the last of the old telegraphers. Any who exist today learned and play it as a hobby -- like cow-boying (I'm also probably the last of the old cowboys who actually grew up as a kid riding horseback to round up calves). But all those old occupations did die out. And here we are -- mostly quite prosperous. But I won't say you're not, partially at least, correct, Will. The insight you purvey is indeed real. But, I submit, the issue, as are most issues we might haggle about here at STR, highly involves collectivist thinking as opposed to individualist thinking. Because, as a telegrapher I was forced to join a union: "Order of Railway Telegraphers". "Closed shop" was the term. In that time part of the ORT emphasis was the operation of telegraph schools to bring telegraphers up to 30-35 wpm (faster telegraphy). Those who headed up unions generally started out with the realization that, in order to be effective they needed to whet the skills of workers to make them more valuable to those who wished to employ them. Basic free-market economics. "Collective bargaining" quickly became the mainstay of unions -- and politics. Significantly, in those days it was "illegal" for government employees at any level to form, solicit or join labor unions. Nowadays labor unions are in place primarily with government employment -- almost all government employment. And they're disappearing "in-the-private-sector". I was once a member of NEA (National Education Association) and TSEA (Texas State Education Association -- now TSTA and TCTA). They were originally and supposedly in place to increase the value of the educator for the welfare of the student. They are now strictly labor unions -- like the policeman's union. Economically (and individualistically) thinking, Brittany Hunter of MISES is correct. But collectivists are, indeed, going to suffer in the long run. Be thankful you're abstaining. Sam

Very interesting comment, Will - and a most interesting Mises article, together with a string of thoughtful comments following it.   Not sure though about your final para. You agree that new opportunities will arise, but think they will not pay very well. A contrary view is that automation will make everything so cheap that even the worst paid in society some decades from now will be better off than most of us are today.   Automation is the story of the human race, would you agree? Man is a tool-maker. It's worked well so far. Why, then, should it not continue? - I can think of only one reason, namely that the incentives are being very badly skewed. Unskilled labor is being replaced by robots, hence is in surplus, which would in a free labor market cause its price to fall and so at least "cushion" the problem; but in the teeth of this, government is forcing the price of unskilled labor UP, with new reams of costly regulations for employers and even a doubling of the minimum wage!   That exacerbation will be nasty, but if government is soon put out of business it will at any rate be short-lived. I conclude there is no rational alternative to a free market, and the sooner the better.

"Since you say they are only 'my' ideals and so not yours" Wrong, I did not say what my ideals are. I am merely commenting that messengers like you are "shot" (or rather ignored) not for being bearers of bad news (as the case for liberty is always good news, in my opinion) but for being so disagreeable that the intended audience never gets to parse the message. You have every opportunity to not come off disagreeably, you are free to choose (which I predict will have a little correlation with how many other people you are capable of reaching).

NY Post: "We’re relieved that Team Trump has denied Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s claim that the president-elect is naming him to chair a commission on 'vaccination safety and scientific integrity.' That would’ve been putting a madman in charge of the asylum."

Haha, here I am with more "privilege" (if such a thing exists) than most poor Caucasian folk. I hate identity politics. If it comes to that, I'll be on the side of my neighbors (who are of mostly German descent).

Jim, It is a wonder that more people aren't attracted to your ideals of liberty what with your empathetic and charming manner : )

Fuck that motherfucker! Want my cash? Molon labe.

Very wise, Sam. You're out of your depth.

Sam, the link you provided to info on the scientific method is not bad.   That you can (presumably) read it and recommend it and then write that more recent perceptions do "not change the law of gravity" fairly boggles the mind. Please, get yours in gear. Contradictions exist only in the minds of those who fail to think clearly.   The relativity theory doesn't alter your homely illustration about feet and hands. But (if further verified) it certainly does change the whole theory of gravitation. In science, "law" is NOT law. That's what makes it so dynamically exciting. 

Congratulations, Alex! According to wordcounter.net, you managed to type 543 words there, without once addressing the comments I had made about your article.   If the "attention" you say I crave (I don't) can be measured just by the length of the reply rather than its relevance or quality, you have therefore done me proud.   One further remark if I may: the bulk of those 543 words were my own, and they quoted you. So for example on November 20th the phrase "be damned with you" was originally what you wrote against me, not the other way about; I'll cheerfully pour vitriol on your anti-liberty views, but I try to avoid calling down ad-hominem curses on people as individuals.   It is therefore you who declared that you were finished with me, not the other way round; and these 543 words today illustrate vividly how much that declaration is worth.

Without dignifying Jim Davies's missives above by responding to them, or even reading them -- thereby giving him the attention he so desperately craves, though in no way deserves -- I would simply reproduce here for anyone interested two prior postings made by him which, together, constitute the very epitome of the hypocrisy he is so enamored of projecting onto others:   Comment by Jim Davies, posted on November 20, 2016 "And correspondingly, a waste of time.   "And I'm quite done with it.   "Just parting food for thought.   "Be damned with you.   "Rest assured I'll be ignoring the promised 'great deal more to come' ... 'And with that, I'm done.'"   These five are not very consequential when compared to the big lie, but all of them are solemn resolves of Alexander Knight III as recorded in this very thread above, and all the first four have been reversed. He has continued to "waste" his time, is not at all "done with it", has by no means "parted" with the matter, and evidently mistrusts whatever deity to whom he uttered his imprecation to damn me.   He will not have to wait long for the first instalment of the "more to come", and we shall all see clearly whether or not is "assurance" to "ignore it" and be "done" is, or is not, worth a red cent.     Comment by Jim Davies, posted on December 01, 2016 For the good reasons stated in this ZGBlog, I asked Rob, STR's Editor, to cancel the membership of Bonneau and Knight. He has declined. There's quite an irony here. Rob owns the STR site, so is entitled to do with it as he pleases, including driving it off a cliff and contradicting his own Mission Statement. I deplore his decision, for STR has been a major asset to freedom, but support fully his right to control its future. As Hope said to Miss Daisy, "It's yaw chicken!" Paul and Alex, on the other hand, are no doubt celebrating his decision even as they maintain he has no rights, and therefore no right to make it. Those interested in authentic libertarian commentary - "Rational, Refreshing Reflections on What's Happening Now" - are welcome over at the Zero Government Blog. The current issue can always be reached via http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/ or via http://TinyURL.com/ZGBlog for short; you could place it among your bookmarks. Its "Recent" button leads to a full dated list of earlier offerings. Its "About" button has a reminder that all genuine market anarchists are welcome to submit articles for publication. It would be neat if a few regular contributors were to join me, and so provide more frequent reader refreshment. With that encouragement, and other resources like QuitGov, The Anarchist Alternative and above all TOLFA, we can contribute to human freedom. To the rest - choristers, clergy, ex-libertarians and psycho-babblers - farewell.       I'd ask all to consider at this point just whose "assurances" are worth a red cent and whose are not, since Davies's most recent bid to inflate his ego seems an awfully strange way to say "farewell" -- as he seemingly "assured" us above on December 1st.   This having been duly pointed out, I simply intend to ignore him unilaterally for good.  As it seems most of you have already been doing heretofore.

Glad, Alex, that although you abandoned your commitment to market anarchism you have retained your hostility to the fuzz.   Certainly, if cops were held to the standards of the law the job would be much less attractive, hence fewer of them, hence more liberty. But why would the judiciary do that? - cops constitute the teeth of government, one of the key means by which it keeps its subjects in fear and submission. Seems to me you are asking them to behave out of character, to change their nature.   I see also a few other problems. First, if (as you have said) nobody has any rights, there is no logical basis to complain when cops intimidate and push us around. Might would be right.   Second, if (as you have said) nobody has any conscience - that the concept is, in your word, "asenine" - I'm wondering what hook you might use, to persuade cops and their law-writing masters to mend their ways.   And third - a very minor point - it's not accurate to say that "laws" belong in science. The reverse is the case; laws belong in government (and not for long, all being well.) Scientists form theories, which are always open to revision in the light of new discovery. It's true that when a theory has been around for a long time, some get complacent and call it a "law", but they really should not. The law of gravity is merely a theory; Newton proposed it, Einstein claimed to modify it.