Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Anti-Smoking Fascists
    Web link Michael Dunn
    The issue is not whether or not smoking tobacco causes lung cancer (I think excessive smoking probably contributes to the risk of lung cancer. I could be wrong about that). The issue is whether or not one accepts agents of state as serving a socially useful purpose (I don't). "No government anywhere, at any time, has ever brought net benefit to any society, and there is no desirable function that any government performs that could not be performed better, or less expensively, by free people operating on a voluntary basis for profit or for charity". ~Jim Davies http://www.takelifeback.com/tdaw/
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago
    My Son: Klan Reformer
    Page Stefan Molyneux
    That was a nice tribute to John Pugsley. From "The Alpha Strategy", Ch 3: The Early Embezzlers Tribal chiefs and kings discovered early in history that there were great advantages to controlling the issuance of money. They started by minting the money metals into coins, usually stamped with their own likenesses.* Ostensibly, this was the king's guarantee that there was a certain amount of gold or silver in the coin. In practice, the politicians soon found a way to turn a profit from the business. First, they profited from "seniorage," a price charged for minting the raw metals into coin form. This was a very small percentage, though, usually not much more than the actual costs involved in the minting operation. The real profits came from debasement or clipping. After years of use, individuals would begin to trust these government coins, accepting them as being of a certain weight and fineness without weighing them. Anytime the king could not raise enough taxes to finance his wars or his preferred standard of living, he would tamper with the coinage. As the coins came through the royal treasury, he would secretly file a bit of the metal off each coin and then pass the coins off again at full value, while taking the filings and minting a few new coins. The crafty monarch might also issue new coins in which the gold or silver was alloyed with cheaper metals. Some resorted to "clad" or "sandwich" coins, in which they plated cheaper metals with gold or silver to simulate the real thing. Or again, a kind might simply issue new coins of smaller size, while calling them by the same name as the older, larger coins. In all cases the supply of gold or silver in circulation remained the same but the supply of coins increased. The king, being the first user of the new coins, gained by the amount of real goods those new coins bought. The public, however, now had fewer goods but more coins. The result was an increase in the supply of coins that eventually led to a lower value for each coin. In other words, rising prices. The king was a thief. John had the capability to put the whole story of monetary skulduggery that has resulted in the economic "crises" from time immemorial until right here, right now. * Sam's Note: This was going on as early as 30AD as evidenced by a famous story among religious types in a Hebrew Book that has maintained all-time best seller status in religious "nations" ["render unto Caesar", Hebrew "Bible", Book of Luke, Ch 20, vs 22-25], and undoubtedly had its beginning many centuries prior to that. Sam
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    "Freedom producer"--wow! I have adopted it--from your link--and used it. Hah. I love it. Your responses in action--to posters here on this thread--are succinct application of self rule (not no rules)--anarchy-- and a good way for me to hold the ideas provided in Market For Liberty by Tannehill. And this can be further simplified--Occam's Razor--to An Alternate Form of "Social Contract" ...Galt’s Oath and the libertarian Non Aggression Principle (NAP/ZAP) are moral/ethical principles. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is a political statement of *interpersonal relationships* based on those moral principles. Unlike the U.S. Constitution--which was created by a committee of Lawyers to replace the (much better) Articles of Confederation, while both Jefferson and Adams were in Europe--the Covenant actually FULFILLS the promise of individual freedom in Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. The Covenant is simple, rational, personal, easy to understand and even short enough to memorize. The Covenant also satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner. Instead of being a document that describes how the government shall act, and a document YOU did not sign, the Covenant is a document that describes how YOU will act and is a document that YOU voluntarily sign, if you agree. Those who do not sign (the “dissenters” mentioned by Ayn Rand above) are not punished, they are simply and clearly warned what to expect if they violate the rights of Signatories. http://tinyurl.com/yjpmdsc
  • DanClore's picture
    DanClore 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Anti-Smoking Fascists
    Web link Michael Dunn
    This actually tries to tell us that smoking tobacco not only doesn't cause lung cancer, it protects against it.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 8 weeks ago
    My Son: Klan Reformer
    Page Stefan Molyneux
    John Pugsley was a dear friend and mentor to me until he died about 6 months ago. Knowing him changed my life. "The Alpha Strategy" was one of the first things I ever read that started turning me onto the paradigm of liberty. He was a good teacher and a great man, I wrote this tribute to him the morning that he died: http://www.suscivinst.com/2011/07/22/parting-words-for-a-recently-deceas...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago
    My Son: Klan Reformer
    Page Stefan Molyneux
    I had watched and listened to Molyneux's video of this article some time ago, but was not aware of it in essay. Thanks to Stefan for this timely work. I have children and grandchildren beating the bush for Ron Paul, and this helps me to explain to them why I cannot join in their enthusiasm for his "campaign". I love them and do "grandpa duty" regularly while Mom, Dad and older grandkids (they have 9 children) are on the campaign trail for Dr Paul. And thanks, Vahram, for posting the link to John Pugsley's "Open Letter to Harry Browne". Pugsley also wrote The Alpha Strategy (pdf), available online for free -- a worthwhile read. I was a kid not long home from Korea when I was exposed to Harry Brown's "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World", written around 1971. I had traveled the roads and cow paths of Texas in ardent support of Barry Goldwater for "potus" in the summer of 1964 on summer break from teaching. Totally disillusioned with politics after his sound defeat to Lyndon Johnson, I never again registered or voted -- 48 years now (I'm 75). That was the last year for the poll tax in Texas. That experience also introduced me to the grave compromise in basic principles that must be met if one wants to fool with the evils of politics. As Stefan outlined, you have to accept a few lynchings to succeed in politics for "high office" (or any government "office"). So I try not to come down too hard on my sons and their families in their promotion of Dr Paul for "Grand Wizard" (I haven't used that epithet with family, but may soon give it a try -- gently). Analogies such as Molyneux's help to plant seeds. Sam .
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 8 weeks ago
    My Son: Klan Reformer
    Page Stefan Molyneux
    This is probably the clearest and most easily understandable argument against Ron Paul and minarchism I have ever read, perhaps besides John Puglsey's Open Letter to Harry Browne (http://www.tortoisepressinc.com/Pugsley%20_Harry%20Browne%20letter_.pdf). Well done, Stef.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Westernerd
    Robert: "...the heart and soul of order is anarchy and freedom. Liberty is the mother, not the daughter, of order..." Dead on, Robert! Good essay! Thanks! All too often I've seen on some of these sites well-meaning libertarians who lament "...we must work to bring about a libertarian society..." or similarly worded theses. But that very wording implies someone (or someones -- busybodies, perhaps) must "manage and control" society until "it" becomes free (or libertarian, or anarchic). That's not the way freedom works. If I practice freedom I'm free. I might inspire freedom by my example for you, but your freedom is your responsibility, not mine. My only responsibility is refraining from trying to manage your freedom. That can take skill and self-discipline -- especially for you young parents. I know -- I had 7, long grown up and producers of grandchildren and great grandchildren. Small children need loving, but sometimes firm, direction from Mom & Dad. Remember Hanoi. Resist the temptation to install traffic signals in life. Be free. Thanks again for the essay! Sam
  • Westernerd's picture
    Westernerd 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Robert Kaercher
    Great article, Robert, I enjoy hearing on the ground reports from people that are actually at a protest. I, too, have experienced similar teeth-gnashing at anti-war protests here in San Francisco, though like Chicago, there always seems to be plenty of Ron Paul supporters and End the Fed signs.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Robert Kaercher
    "One Leftist spoke of how he was one of nearly two dozen anti-war activists harassed by the FBI last year. He literally woke up early one morning to the ominous sounds of somebody pounding on his door. He opened it up and some 20 or so Federal agents marched in and rifled through all of his and his wife’s personal papers and effects, eventually carting off some 30 boxes of the couple’s private belongings." Hopefully someone told this "Leftist" that should their desire for collectivism come true, history tells us, in no uncertain terms, that (s)he could expect more of this, not less. And someone should have shown that "Lefty professor from the University of Illinois at Chicago" the "bloody history" of socialist/communist governments against their own citizens (members).
  • Jack Oldson's picture
    Jack Oldson 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Robert Kaercher
    Enjoy seeing people wake up... especially when they wake up all the way!
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    The first question was "Who do you like in the GOP race?" and Hank answered emphatically "Nobody." He later said Herman Cain makes more sense than the others "Right now." and was later prompted to comment about his previous support of Palin to which he said "Did I." So he clearly stated that he didn't support any of the "GOP field" and later gave non-committal off hand comments after prompts on two persons of which one is running. This will help his career more than hurt it. Country music fans like their singers to have some balls, at least those of the male variety. Hating Obama is a good start on the road to hating the state. When more people figure out that our problems are systemic and not due to personnel issues, support for the state will fade quickly. Anarchy is a Big Tent and Obama haters are welcome to come learn about the alternatives outside the mainstream organs. I'm just trying to help them.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Well fucking said. Especially the part about "If revolution comes by violence and advance of light the struggle will have to be begun again." I started Occupy Your Brain recently in response to this general paradigm of fighting for peace... liberty will only ever come through peaceful and productive means. http://www.occupyyourbrain.com/introduction/
  • Guest's picture
    donjuancho (not verified) 3 years 9 weeks ago
    The Spinnerians
    Page Leonidas
    I doubt bad cops (sorry for the redundancy) read this forum.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    I find it interesting that so many people, including Democrats, automatically assume that Obama would be the Hitler. Why is it that even his supporters automatically assume he has to be the Hitler in the analogy? I find it is very revealing that anyone that hears that analogy automatically assumes the Obama-Hitler connection. Why couldn't Obama be the Netanyahu?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Oh, please! The "drug threat"? If the Russians think that eradicating the crops of desperately poor third-world farmers would end the "drug threat," why didn't they do it? Obama is, indeed, the leader of the world's most dangerous criminal organization. More dangerous than any drug; more violent than any drug cartel. They CREATED the "drug threat;" the drug threat makes them strong. It defines them; it justifies their existence.
  • mikehauncho's picture
    mikehauncho 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    I don't know if Hank is that black and white but the hitler remark was blown way out of proportion compared to the current rhetoric used today and he certainly did not deserve to get canned for it.
  • Mitrik_Spanner's picture
    Mitrik_Spanner 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Wait a minute! Hank did say he likes Sara Palin. And that Herman Cain is the candidate he likes best in the current contest. He shot his career in the foot with the Hitler remark and proved he's a Obama hater and not much more. A tempest in a teapot.
  • Leonidas's picture
    Leonidas 3 years 9 weeks ago
    The Spinnerians
    Page Leonidas
    I know, but hope springs eternal. If they have any sense of self preservation, they will act to rein themselves in.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 9 weeks ago
    The Spinnerians
    Page Leonidas
    Leonidas your piece was great until this part: "Cops, end the childishness. Fix yourselves. Do it now. If we have to do it for you, you are going to wish we hadn’t." Reformist claptrap. State employed security agents are gonna be goons. Period. That is just the nature of that kind of beast. That's reality.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I found this very useful... The Market for Liberty Linda and Morris Tannehill http://mises.org/resources/6058/The-Market-for-Liberty The *whole* book deals with difference between govt and free market justice. it stands on the shoulders of Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises... In fact a would be tyrant's customers--in a free market--would be an obstacle to him. He could not extract taxes from them, as govt does, he could not even force them to buy his service at all. A market relationship is a free relationship. If a customer does not like a company's service--(including defensive), or mistrusts its goals, he is free to take his business elsewhere or to start his own competitive service or to do without the service altogether and provide his own. There is a difference between coercive monopolies (govt driven by initiating force and ratcheting fear and power) and free market monopolies (profit motive, supply demand, attracting customers) Natural laws are objective and compulsory. The tacit assumption that they do not apply to human relationships led men to believe men must have a central system of Statutory Laws to fill the gap and maintain social order. (The principle behind a Statutory Law written a priori cannot be made to fit all circumstances. Its application is unobjective and misses value structure objectivity of profit and loss calculations). The so called chaos of free market customers, arbiters with a final arbiter provision and insurance companies in competition and those who actually specialize in legal work by competition--instead of politicians and their lackeys--do and would determine this. No central authority coercive monopoly--and certainly no need for such institutionalized evil as govt. I was reading that insurance companies actually have decentralized asset arrangements and connections and yet greater than all govts put together. I thank Lewrockwell and Mises.org and Strike-The-Root.com for making it possible to see thru the political myths men have lived by since Neolithic times. And for making it possible to understand that liberty is the mother of order not its daughter and that If revolution comes by violence and advance of light the struggle will have to be begun again.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I'm not entirely sure why you are quoting Bastiat's religious views and giving me a grammar lesson right now.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    In reply to: 12-Year Olds in CA Can Be Vaccinated Without Knowledge or Consent of Parents, I asked the the question that no one likes the answer to, "And, who is subject to this law?" Here, in this lead-in, we find the answer. "Lawmakers in Louisiana have effectively banned its citizens from freely using..." Which is why I do not consent to be a "citizen", i.e. a member of any of their body politics.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    "Each of us has a natural right - from the Creator - to defend his person his liberty, and his property..." ~ Frederic Bastiat His, when used as an adjective, denotes possession, i.e. "the act of having and controlling property".
  • Guest's picture
    donjuancho (not verified) 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Sorry, double post.
  • Guest's picture
    donjuancho (not verified) 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    I was a little disappointed in this. The interviewee obviously hasn't thought out his position. I don't see how this is productive.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I'm afraid you are misinterpreting most of what I wrote. Rules do not have to be enforced if the people they apply to want to follow them, just as one does not have to be forced to buy an airline ticket if it is what he wants to do. The paradox of the state mechanism is that it uses crime to end crime, plunder to end plunder, and force to end force. In a voluntary society, no one has to be a part of that society, no has to engage in commerce, etc. The rules in effect in any given proprietary societal venture will be those agreed to by all parties involved or they simply won't participate. Preventative measures will naturally be taken to defend against those tiny minority who don't want to play along from hijacking the system, just as measures are taken to keep bank robbers out of banks. Since this is all voluntary (no one forces the bank robber to threaten the banker and get shot by the security guard as a result), it is not considered "force" as I used the word. It is defense, and it is entirely voluntary. Also, as all definitions are arbitrary, you should probably reach some sort of semantic consensus with those you are conversing with before attempting to push your own predetermined values upon others, such as with Bastiat's definition of "property".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    G'day Vahram, First, life, liberty and justly acquired property are ALL property, (the first two being intangible property, and the last tangible property), which, of course, is what gives the individual the right to defend and protect them. “All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.” ~ Frederic Bastiat “...which paradoxically then makes them part of the crime and plunder they are designed to deter...” ~ Vahram G. Diehl The only paradox I see is what you wrote. And, if all the measures of the law protected property and punished plunder, that would make them “fundamentally very different than the legal systems we know today”. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. ~ Frederic Bastiat To think otherwise is to believe in Thomas More's "Utopia". And, what makes crime and plunder “more painful and more dangerous than labor”, Vahram? ”A natural civilization can have rules which protect individuals from plunder voluntarily and contractually...” ~ Vahram G. Diehl That, Vahram, is a paradox, because “rules” don't “protect”, it is the force behind those rules that protects; there will always be some individuals who won't “voluntarily and contractually” choose to obey the rules, i.e. the natural law (of man), which is what tzo was saying, I believe, and why I said he wasn't being "overly pessimistic"; he was being "realistic", in my opinion.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    This just doesn't seem healthy. If you kill animals for yourself you know it's fresh and can appraise the natural condition of the animal and not have to wonder what's happened to it while it was lying beside the road for a few hours, days, or whatever. There are easier ways to save money on food.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    An excellent perspective is explored when one exposes the ad-hoc nature of statism... a concept I expounded upon in this piece, "History's Most Elaborate Ad-Hoc Hypothesis": http://strike-the-root.com/historys-most-elaborate-ad-hoc-hypothesis
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I agree completely with all of Bastiat's principles. However, what he calls "the law" is merely a collection of protective rules for restitution of property to deter crime and plunder. Such rules can either be voluntarily agreed to by those they affect, or they can be forced upon the population from the time they are born (which paradoxically then makes them part of the crime and plunder they are designed to deter). A natural civilization can have rules which protect individuals from plunder voluntarily and contractually, and this kind of "law" will be fundamentally very different than the legal systems we know today.
  • AlephT's picture
    AlephT 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Michael Tennant
    Nice writing Michael and you're right, we don't need to kill anyone to save thousands lives but for me, there are times that we need to sacrifice in order to reach our goal, which is peace. I know that it'll be hard to attain but as long as there are people who believes that there will be peace on earth, I am not losing my grip. Saddam Hussein is just a man like us. We both live on the same planet, we breath, we eat, we need shelter and so on. The only difference is our view and principles. He's actually an icon for some and I don't wonder why there are people who even kidnapped his Egyptian look-a-like to earn from making a sex video.
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Keyword Search: "Official", Check. Keyword Search: "Informant", Check. Drink!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    G'day tzo and Vahram G. Diehl, I don't think you are being overly pessimistic, my friend. As Frederic Bastiat put it: “Man can live and satisfy his wants only by ceaseless labor, by the ceaseless application of his faculties to natural resources. This process is the origin of property. But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder. Now, since man is naturally inclined to avoid pain - and since labor is pain in itself - it follows that men will resort to plunder whenever plunder is easier than work. History shows this quite clearly. And under these conditions, neither religion nor morality can stop it. When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.” ~ Excerpted from The Law
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link strike
    And, who is subject to this law?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 9 weeks ago
    A Dangerous Precedent
    Web link Don Stacy
    More of the "if we just followed the Constitution" claptrap. No system of statism will have a good result. I'm surprised STR posted this at all.
  • suzeikew's picture
    suzeikew 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Isn't that what "Occupy Wall Street" is all about?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Well Mike that's just what states do. Feds busting people's chops for alcohol taxes goes all the way back to the Whiskey Rebellion in the 1790s.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    As Paul said: "...The real difficulty, post-crash, will not be martial law, but keeping economic life going. The way to do that is form associations with the more worthy of your neighbors, business associates and relatives." For those interested in HOW such associations MIGHT be created, I recommend the Covenant of Unanimous Consent. tinyurl.com/Galts-Oath-and-the-Covenant For more detail regarding the Covenant, see articles at tinyurl.com/Covenant-of-Unanimous-Consent Dennis
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Attention all you Lone Wolfs: Those who present the greatest threat to you and those you love are now targeting anyone with the cajones to disagree with establishment thinking. If you are an individualist you might be -- might well be -- a "terrorist". I like the way Justin illustrates the ignorant buffoons: "...the lunk-headed cluelessness which dominates the FBI’s corporate culture..."
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Revolt slaves, revolt!
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Bummer. She should look into solar panels, a windmill or a generator. Just to tide her over. The utility bureaucracy has no real incentive to move fast on clearing this up sadly.
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Yeah this sort of insanity has been around since Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. Thank you Roosevelt.
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Fuck the government!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Rita, you got that right. Sam
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Duh.
  • livefreeretiree's picture
    livefreeretiree 3 years 10 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Man's nature to avoid unpleasant things gives him a natural incentive to not associate with anyone who harms him. This gives everyone a natural disincentive to harm others (if they wish to be a functional member of society- if not then let them run to the forest for all I care). If a natural social structure wherein no one is compelled to associate with anyone else, only those who treat each other ethically will gain access to all the benefits that society has to offer. If an offender wishes to regain his good standing in society, he will have a natural incentive to make restitution for his crimes. Otherwise, he faces social ostracism and a significantly lower quality of life or possible starvation. No enforcement is necessary, this is natural to man's tendency to only contract and associate with individuals he trusts.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Marc: Constantine was the first Christian Roman Emperor. .... He imposed a head tax throughout the empire payable (every four years) in gold and silver coin only. Constantine also crowned the first pope who was crowned (previous popes were not crowned). He crowned Sylvester, which was prelude to and eventually became known as "The Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation", The First Reich. The German word for Empire is "Reich". Most of us know of and have studied to one degree or another The Third Reich under Adolf Hitler. But few of us have studied or given any thought to The Second Reich. Or The First Reich. Or what conditions would need to be in place for The Fourth Reich to come into fruition. An observer today can look at the American Reich and understand that in our lifetimes (I'm 75) we've seen this nation deteriorate into the most egregious police state on earth -- more prisoners behind bars per 100m population than any other nation on earth, or in the history OF the earth. Leaving undeclared wars for another topic, we see a U.S. "president" who deems it prudent to assassinate U.S. citizens on his say-so -- no due process of law. And it is not going to get any better under more religious "presidents" and/or congress critters. Hang onto your hats, mates. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Tony: Is God an anarchist? Your typical Christian-Zionist (sic) neocon will balk at the suggestion. But if God is love, how can He not be an anarchist? It's important to remember that most of us had to come out from under a host of fallacious ideology before we ever landed on this web site. Anarchy does not come easily. With that, my answer (for what it's worth) is "yes". From everything I can see objectively -- not colored by preconceived religious and/or political emotional ideology -- there is nothing in Hebrew scripture to indicate otherwise. Of course that's assuming "Hebrew scripture" is the final word on Deity, which ignores all Islam, Buddha -- and how many other religious movements larger than those subscribing to Hebrew scripture. The Book is a Testimonial to anarchy as we generally understand it (although the word is never used or implied). From stem to stern it is an admonishment to eschew political entanglement. That's why it's such a hoot for me to stand back and watch political types -- right, left, across and hold -- getting themselves stirred up in promotion of or opposition against war or abortion or same-sex "marriage" or other state machinations. Sam
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 10 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I guess I read it as you were positing a social structure that would not require enforcement of the natural law in response to those who violate it. Because someone is always going to violate it. Perhaps you meant that it is a social structure that does not force anyone to do anything in order to be in compliance with the natural law, since that is man's nature. I keep rereading it, and I'm not sure exactly how to interpret it. To enforce is to compel. Society must compel law breakers to make retribution for damages done and that threat is also necessary to compel compliance. Another part of man's nature is that he responds to incentives, which includes disincentives. A society that cannot enforce the natural law will lose it, IMO. Even if every single member of society understand and respects the natural law, that society better have disincentives to breaking it. Perhaps I am overly pessimistic?