Recent comments

  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 34 weeks 4 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Hope you're wrong, Alex, but that's perceptive and certainly possible.   Four decades ago Murray Rothbard was delighted to work with the "Left", but quite soon became disillusioned; he much admired their late-60s anti-war, anti-state activism but then noticed they changed, dropping most of that in favor of feminism and other causes he thought irrelevant and probably counter-productive (they point towards greater state power, not less.) He wasn't much enamored of the drug scene either, though I think he was mistaken on that. Heck, over the weekend even Unser Führer hisself allowed as how marijuana may not be worth the fuss of prohibition.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 34 weeks 4 days ago
    Downton Fever
    Page Jim Davies
    Thanks, T-bolt.  Like all other revolutions in history, the decline of the influence of the English aristocracy was, as I pointed out, merely a transfer of power, not the elimination of power. That was true even of the American Revolution. The new masters are not necessarily better than the old bunch - si monumentum requiris... Ours, which will eliminate it, will be the first ever.   bit4xdotcom looks very interesting; another first: trading financials privately!  Have you also found a way to trade them profitably? - that would be a find indeed.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 34 weeks 4 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    If I might interject my own more general observations here, I have noticed a distinct and growing tendency within C4SS, in their otherwise admirable efforts to woo the Left towards Market Anarchism, to actually advocate their target audience's positions.   It reminds me of the "Libertarian" Party's inevitable downward slide -- although by being a political party in the first place, the LP was doomed from the start.   C4SS might well learn from that example, however, and avoid a similar decline.  Principle not populism.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 34 weeks 4 days ago
    Downton Fever
    Page Jim Davies
    Superb writing, Jim, as always. It is a gift to be able to weave a tale and finish off with a relevant punch. I discovered today that there is a new bitcoin forex trading company that allows anonymous trading: bit4xdotcom. For those millions of people who cannot find work, this may be very useful, and may help deprive the costumed thugs of their paychecks, as well.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 34 weeks 4 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    If they are forced to bake that cake, I cringe to think what will be in it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 34 weeks 4 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    “I also think that, when it comes to harder drugs, the harm done to the user is profound and the social costs are profound." While the social cost, and harm done to the user by throwing them in cages and making them unemployable, are nothing to worry about. It's hard for me to listen to politicians' bullshit any more.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 34 weeks 5 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    This, Jim, is an excellent response to Mike's sincere concerns over your first response. Because, like you, when I read the article I sensed a foul, strong socialistic odor. But, unlike you, I lacked communication skills in putting clarifying substance to that odor. Which is the genius of socialist subtly: the appearance of attacking evil when, in fact, the author denigrates freedom and the marketplace. He lauds movements in the form of "labor unrest" -- that cohabitation between leaders of organized labor and psychopaths we know of as government -- ignoring the fact this incestuousness is what has given rise to the ongoing poverty in Appalachia, not freedom and liberty of exchange. Even the title and theme song have putrid reverberations. Your "canine analogy" is apt. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 34 weeks 5 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Sorry you didn't understand, Mike; I must not have been sufficiently clear.   Visiting a place always broadens the mind, I agree. But if we formed opinions only about places we've visited, not many would write much. There are other ways to gain understanding. Anyway, the abiding poverty of the WV area is quite well known, and is not questioned.   The C4SS article identifies primary causes as "class struggle... environmental degradation... corporatism... labor struggle..." and various disasters like sliding ash. Only later does it mention the FedGov's War on Poverty, and then to complain that its resources went to large-scale investment projects (surprise!) instead of "offering a new way forward [which?]" It even complains that "The mechanization of these industries, however, has reduced the labor force." Golly me, who'd a thunk it.   It winds up with a moan against the "corporate state", which I'd agree is nearly accurate, but even there the implication is that the "corporate" part is the villain, rather than the "state." This is a subtle error, and may best be clarified by canine anatomy. Is the corporate tail wagging the political dog, or is it the other way around? Consider what would happen if the tail were severed. The poor animal would have lost its ability to show pleasure and excitement, but it would still be a dog. Just as a tree, with branches trimmed, would still be a tree.   This is all classic socialist drivel. What it's doing on a libertarian site is, as I said, quite a mystery.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 34 weeks 6 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    Jim, I truly do not understand your comment: you seem to agree with the article, which is a complaint and explanation of the damaging intervention of government in the region. I have no idea why that would be strange. As far as: " What "ecological crisis"? I hear there is one in Socialist areas like China and Los Angeles, but hadn't noticed one elsewhere in these United States." Have you ever been to Appalachia? Have you read any news in the last week or so? 300,000 people w/o drinking water for a week because of a chemical spill qualifies as a "disaster " to me.... "I'm not familiar with the alleged "corporate monopoly" in the coal business but if there is one, or even a cartel, it has been and will be sustained only by government intervention. That is well established and has been for half a century at least; most notably by Professor Armentano. The fix, in that case, is obvious." That would be the thesis of the article in question: did you read it? The article cites "Great Society" programs as a well as a long history of corporatism; as the author writes, "...Appalachia is on the front lines of the war with the politically connected." I'm truly confused as to why you have an issue here. I also am perplexed as to what, exactly, you are defending and why.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 34 weeks 6 days ago
    Which Side Are You On?
    Web link mhstahl
    This is a strange article to appear on a Libertarian site. Here's an extract from near its close:   "One must question how so much wealth has been extracted from the Appalachian coalfields while the communities there remain so poor. One must question why the largest consumers of fossil fuels are great militarized nation-states. One must question why such an ecological crisis is occurring. One must question the pervasive influence of the corporate monopoly on the people’s democracy..."   Why must "one" do any of those things?   Each component of the coal mining industry (land, macinery, labor...) will in a free society carry its own competitive costs; if the supply of labor exceeds the demand, its price will be low. Perhaps that has happened, in the last century in Appalachia. Nobody was prevented, I hope, from leaving the area in search of better wages.   Consumption of fossil fuel is a function, again, of its price and demand; coal is still a highly competitive fuel and demand for it would be high whether the power it generates is used for military or peaceful purposes.   What "ecological crisis"? I hear there is one in Socialist areas like China and Los Angeles, but hadn't noticed one elsewhere in these United States.   I'm not familiar with the alleged "corporate monopoly" in the coal business but if there is one, or even a cartel, it has been and will be sustained only by government intervention. That is well established and has been for half a century at least; most notably by Professor Armentano. The fix, in that case, is obvious.   As for the "people's democracy", I thought we were here to advance a stateless society, not "the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried" (so, Churchill).   That, at least, is the "side" I am on.    
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 35 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, based on the successes Marc and his clients have had, I'd say that's pretty good prima facie that the bureau-rats are in a lot of cases loathe to try going down the path of defending that which cannot be defended.  Yes, in many cases a lawyer in a black gown will simply overrule objections, deny cross-examination, etc., but then they face having their wholesale corruption and bias exposed to the public - which more and more now contains NSP witnesses as Marc's show expands.  Further, when there's a jury involved, it gets even dicier.  All it takes is for one juror to see the judge fly into a rage simply because easy, relevant questions are being asked to blow the whole case for the DA.  And you just keep hammering the points home:    What facts and evidence do you rely upon that the constitution and code applies?   What, factually, is the "State?"   Do you have personal, first-hand knowledge that I was within the "State?"   You get the idea.  What answers they can give, if any, are entirely non-responsive.  And if the judge wants to get angry, deny motions, overrule objections, etc., the jury and spectators get to see that.    As I point out, it's not foolproof, of course.  Nothing is in a sacrosanctly corrupt government court.  But the dismissals of tickets and other government attacks serve as testimony that on many occasions, the bureau-rats are just too ill-prepared, taken off-guard, etc.  to challenge the unchallengeable.  Or a jury sees through their games -- if not in the first case, then on appeal.  There was recently an incredible traffic fine case in England where Helen not only got all the charges dropped, but was compensated to something like 900 pounds for her time and trouble.  All by simply asking repeatedly for evidence the law even applied.   My final advice is, of course, get and read the book.  :-)
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 35 weeks 1 day ago
    Vandals
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Update:  In today's mail, I did receive 4 Label 33s from the district postmaster.  If you'll look at the .pdf image of one from the link in my essay, this label is red with white letters and a black USPIS seal.  It was also from an update of Label 33 in May, 2009.  Perhaps this is the most recent version of PS Label 33, perhaps not.   Regardless, the ones I received are white with red letters only...and are the version from June, 1980.   Maybe I should just hang onto them at this point as collectibles?  :-)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Sorry to be so slow, Alex, but I still have a hard time grasping why this approach should present a judge or b-rat with a "Gotcha!"   'What, factually is or are "these United States"?' is a question whose point we on STR will well understand, for example from my own Where's the State? But that question would, if posed to a judge, surely draw little more than a rude sneer. If he deigns to reply at all (except with "Frivolous. $200 fine. Next case!") he might, in a really good mood, also refer one to those sacred documents in the National Archive.   I did once challenge the jurisdiction of a government court, by calling to the judge from the back row "I didn't give you jurisdiction, so you don't have it!" The prosecutor at once introduced the traffic ticket with the words "But your honor, Mr Davies has signed this form granting jurisdiction to the Court" but his words died on his lips when he saw that my John Hancock was missing - by deliberate omission. It was a very delicious moment. But to challenge it on the grounds that the USA does not exist as a fact... still seems dodgy. Shed more light for me?      
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 2 days ago Page Don Stacy
    "the framers used, maybe, the best available term at the time." Yes, I believe that is so. It was not a bad concept at the time; but language evolves, and the state appropriates the words for its own use and benefit.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 35 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    How, then, can you maintain that any code applies?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 35 weeks 2 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Paul--I have to agree with you here. I guess when the Bill of Rights was being erected the framers used, maybe, the best available term at the time. I really like the value idea though. I value carrying a firearm for several reasons and the Bill of Rights is not one of the values. I value carrying a big knife as well (not a machete, or sword--too boastful). Currently where I live legislation passed to increase the blade length from 3 inches to a vague size. The size they look at is the "intent". If I carry a seven inch folding knife what is my intent? For me it is utility sake first and self-preservation next, for the state my intent could be to commit a crime; an inescapable dilemma to prove different. None of the knives I carry exceed four inches, but do not exceed four inches. I like your precise, neat, compact reply's.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 35 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    What, factually is or are "these United States"?  IOW, prove to me you actually have a valid plaintiff.  Then, further prove that you have a valid antagonistic assertion of "rights" -- prove there's been an injury.  Still further, prove that the place of my birth, my whereabouts at the time of the alleged violation, and my current whereabouts -- or my whereabouts at any given time -- have any bearing whatsoever on any of that.   You can't?  Well then, we're back to the first question:  How can you maintain the constitution and code applies?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I mean "facts" in the sense used in the legal system.   Take one of your examples: "what facts are there to support his argument that there is jurisdiction...?"   He might say "The fact is you chose to be born in these United States, for 24 years you chose not to leave these United States, and these United States have a Constitution that gives this Court the needed jurisdiction. Next question?"   Are those facts, as they use the term, and what others might relate?  
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 35 weeks 3 days ago Blog entry Don Stacy
    She was just recently on Alex Jones's show.  I'd love to see Larken Rose, whose idea I believe the whole Josie the Outlaw outreach concept was, get on.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Well, do you mean facts (or lack thereof) according to rational empirical observation, or "facts" according to the bureau-rat class?   When you put the question to some government parasite, what is his or her evidence that the precious "law," or statute, or code section, etc. in question applies, you only get circular arguments:  "Because you have taxable income."  "Because the code says so."  "Because Congress passed it."  "Because I've determined it does."  Blah, blah, blah.   But where are the facts and evidence?  Those are just opinions and platitudes at best.  If they wanted to give a real answer, they'd simply say, "Evidence?  Facts?  We (those calling themselves government collectively) have more manpower and weapons than you do.  That's why and how the law applies."   In short, Marc's book shows undeniably that the basis of all government -- perhaps even especially the "democratic" flavor -- is nothing more at day's end than Might Makes Right.  And this is why it cannot remain.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 3 days ago
    The Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Actually, you can't really exclude them either, as that is more "mala prohibita" law. I don't care who carries a gun. I just care if it is used in a way that harms me. (edit) Actually now that I think of it, I don't care about that either. The tool used to harm me is also irrelevant.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    "A professional politician is a professionally dishonorable man. In order to get anywhere near high office he has to make so many compromises and submit to so many humiliations that he becomes indistinguishable from a streetwalker." -- H. L. Mencken
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Not amazing at all, Ken. One might as well define the ruling class (along with their minions) as the people for whom the law does not apply.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    John, stop asking pesky questions. Some notions just don't bear up to a lot of scrutiny.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    John, you have a right to eat meat, just like any animal. ;-)
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Let me put it this way. I think the "right" to bear arms is nonsense. But just try to disarm me, see what it gets you. You don't need rights. What you need is will.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 35 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    It says in one of the links that det. Biumi was charged with pulling a gun on two high schoolers as well. Amazing that he got off so easy for three instances of armed assault ( that we know of).
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Marc is a light-year or two ahead of most of us!   Having read his latest work, can you explain to us what is the meaning of "fact" in Legal Land? And why is it that "no bureaucrat can answer these questions [about facts]"?  
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Paul: I appreciate your position here. Do I have a right to carry a firearm or do I have a value that I need/should carry a firearm? I am wondering if a rose called by any other name would smell the same? It seems to me that "Values" requires more precise consideration than what "rights" do. I shall endeavor to keep this in mind.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 35 weeks 3 days ago
    How Big is Space?
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Space is about as big as someone wants it to be and about as old as they believe. I don't believe there are any rules of reason on beliefs. If I believe it to be true there is no persuasion which will change my mind until I see that I am wrong. I am curious about "infinity", and is there really anything constant?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    No, I'm suggesting that at the end of the long and gradual process that resulted in the first human being, that first human was equipped with the right to life as well as a sense of morality and the abililty to reason. I don't know exactly when that was (about 100K years ago, I think) nor what his or her name was, but if he had the other human attributes he also had that basic right built in.   I'm also suggesting that if, arguendo, humans do not have the right to life then all manner of atrocities against us are pretty hard to oppose; might would be right, just as governments evidently believe.   What's very intriguing to me about Don's article and those with which he promised to follow it, is the extent to which animals may also have rights.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 35 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Gibbons "Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire"
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 35 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Yep! There are gray areas. High chase persuit or restricted, life's gonna happen and someone will pay the cost. For the lack of a better phrase we could call it the "Human Condition".
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Can't see that you've addressed my objection.  Are you saying that, during the gradual evolution of the human species, one day someone woke up and realized all these things (moral sense and reasoning ability), and that on that day, special rights for that species came into existence?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Can't see the large hole, John. If the argument is correct that the right to life (from which all other rights to life are derived, as I suggested in Rights) derives from the human attributes of moral sense and reasoning ability, then the rights appeared at the same time as the species did.   It may help to regard human rights not as "I'm a righteous dude, therefore have the right to life" but in terms of whether or not the other guy has a right to live.   Our sense of morality says that he does. So when the Nazis moved to marginalize then exterminate Jews, they took the time to portray them as an inferior race - as rats in a sewer, in one movie. And the US Supreme Court said something to the effect that Negroes have no rights that the White Man need respect.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    I wonder if these speciesists ever confronted the question as to exactly when, during the evolution of humans today from our cousins, this unique set of rights came into existence?  As the missing links are apparently long gone, the question is in some sense an academic one, but as a thought experiment I think it blows a large hole in the speciesist position.   Of course, many of them might dodge the question by saying, "What do you mean, evolution?  God created Man intact."  There's not much use in trying to engage in rational discussion with such people.   We share a huge, even overwhelming fraction of our DNA with other animals.  To assert that we have special rights because of the allegedly fantastic brain we possess doesn't impress me much.  On the other hand, I eat meat.  I'm afraid I don't have an overarching rationale for this seeming contradiction, but neither do I find the hand-waving of the "special rightists" very impressive.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 3 days ago
    How Big is Space?
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    I thought "c" was chosen to denote the speed of light expressly because it is "c"onstant, in English; but now you have fingered yet another profound question: time, and what might be meant by time "beginning" and/or "ending." And are you saying that the basic laws of physics were set some finite time after the Big Bang began? But that would make it illegal! Arrest that man!   I noticed last year that even the good book seemed to get its knickers twisted about time; possibly, Reverend, you can unscramble the knot. Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 (for example) state that there was a "beginning," whereas Psalm 90:2 reveals that there was not; "from everlasting to everlasting..."   Dagnabbit, indeed.
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 35 weeks 3 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    True.  But such as it was, it wasn't as bad as what it later became.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 3 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Congrats, Don, on taking on this formidable subject. I look forward to your subsequent articles.   It's striking that the argument that mankind has rights because of his moral and reasoning capacities is endorsed by such a wide range of thinkers - from Rothbard to Augustine to Hegel et al.  
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 35 weeks 4 days ago
    How Big is Space?
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    As I understand it, c was only a variable until the basic laws of physics were set. . . until such a time as there *was* time. Dagnabbit. . . I recently watched a documentary about it - which was why I sort of had an answer ready, even though my non-typing fingers made a few mistakes in the explanation. . . I'll try to find it again.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    The "republic" was always a fantasy; it never lived in the first place. It was built on the notion of representative government, a complete sham and falsehood.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Some people haven't yet figured out there is no important difference between "conservatives" and "liberals".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Most pursuits have nothing to do even with property "rights" offenses. Traffic infractions, most of them; something that should not be illegal at all.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    It appears we can be enslaved by our own language. Although, to be more precise, I don't believe we are actually in a condition of perfect slavery, or of perfect freedom, but have some precarious existence between those two states. "Complete the forms regularly required of an employer, withholding pay from workers, and forwarding it to the rulers, and you have assumed the status of employer. And when completing the forms sent to “Dear taxpayer” containing data required from all taxpayers, your denial of taxpayer status rings hollow." Well, I don't think so. Consent is not really consent unless it is *informed* consent. Was anyone ever warned that withholding pay from workers was equivalent to agreeing with and submitting to the government's status as an employer? I doubt it. Was anyone ever given any other choice? I don't think so. So it doesn't "ring hollow" after all.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 35 weeks 4 days ago Page Don Stacy
    Don, it is amusing that the only way out of the dilemma of "marginal humans" is to treat people as a collective, rather than treating them individually. How statist! One would expect something like that would have you questioning your premises... In fact this is not a rare occurrence. People who use the language of rights often paint themselves into corners. No wonder there are so many arguments over it. Your real null hypothesis is that humans have rights AND animals don't. The contrapositive is either that animals do have rights, OR that humans don't. If you ask me, the latter is the more reasonable view. Nobody has rights. Animals don't have rights not because of some deficiency, but because rights are a fantasy. They don't exist at all, other than as a very inconsistently-held meme among most people, similar to the older meme that the earth is flat. Rothbard was wrong too (not that that happens very often). The capacity for choice, adopting goals and values, and all the rest, do not depend on the existence of rights. I don't believe in the fantasy of rights, yet I still choose and have values. http://strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 35 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Dr. Hein: You have defined the core problem. Bravo! Taxation is indeed the root of all evil. (F.Chodorov) It is nothing but a glorified mugging at gunpoint.
  • tesla921's picture
    tesla921 35 weeks 4 days ago
    The Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    I agree. Laws of nature are out there to be discovered and lived with. Man made laws are opinions of men backed by force. Man made laws should be called coercive rules.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 4 days ago
    How Big is Space?
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Thanks, ReverendDraco! So I wasn't the first to notice the anomaly, and the Big Bangers have explained it by positing an exception to the general rule that "c" is a constant, to apply just in the earliest moments of the Bang.   It still smells fishy, to me. However could that theory be tested? And I had thought that Einstein's theory did propose that light - certainly a form of energy - could not exceed the speed limit of c.  But I'm several decades out of date, and in physics that's a very long time. String theories get me really strung out.   I wonder further: if c is actually variable (by "many times") then c squared would be capable of huge enlargement; and so the energy produced in a nuclear explosion could perhaps become ten or a hundred times greater than anything yet seen. Great! Just what the world needs - a super super government bomb.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 35 weeks 4 days ago
    The Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    A very good point, emartin; "law" is a word with two very different meanings, and that leads to much confusion. Since those of nature seem to be immutable, I wonder whether the Parasite Class chose the word deliberately, to convey the impression that their rules too were immutable.   We could flip the argument, however; allow that their laws are merely political opinions backed by force, but re-visit the name we give to natural principles. I actually prefer it that way round, for the "law" of gravity, for example, is not immutable or unquestionable at all. On the contrary, it is the very heart of the scientific method to question what appears to be fixed; to observe and test, to theorize, then to test again. Once a principle is found which seems to stand up, the proper name for it is an hypothesis or a theory; hence, the theory of gravity holds that two bodies attract one another with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely to the square of the distance between them.   That is not a law! It's a theory, waiting to be questioned and improved. Einstein claimed to have modified it, and maybe he did; but it's vitally important to grasp that one day, someone might.
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 35 weeks 5 days ago
    The Law
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Inertia, gravity, thermodynamics, etc. have laws. They weren't created by humans and can't be repealed by humans. Humans who pretend that a human can create laws are frauds. It would probably be a good idea for those of us that know better to absolutely refuse to use the word "laws" in place of the proper word, which is "rules". Maybe we can establish a new meme that will get the masses to realize that rules are made by rulers.