Recent comments

I don't know about "dehumanizing" the government elites as they seem to dehumanize us. Many of them are just sadists and psychopaths, which are "human" characteristics, albeit very bad ones. But we do need to continue to expose them and their crimes against us, from our local neanderthal Nazi cops to our elite Supreme Court Justices such as Elena Caveman.

Just noticed this is from 'way back in December, but after a long week of trucking coast to coast I saw a comment and read your essay without checking the date of the post. I like your thrust on this, Paul. As I've stated previously, I have family I love dearly who are highly involved with the Ron Paul "movement", and it is a good lesson for me in just what you are saying here: I don't know it all, and it is important I support and respect those I love without necessarily jumping on their band wagon. You made one statement: I have read several times that people in America in the 1750s and 1760s considered themselves Englishmen and wanted desperately to be accepted by English society. How did this feeling morph into its complete opposite by so many people, in just 20 years, leading to successful armed rebellion? I think it was a shift in worldview. There can be huge, almost impossible-seeming changes to worldviews in a short period of time. I'm not sure the number or percentage of those disloyal to King George was all that great even when the "revolution" began. I suspect many "historians" wanted it to appear that way (that's how "history" comes about), but I think most were still loyal to England and weren't that het-up over getting into a brawl with the red coats. It seems Washington had to virtually enslave numbers of individuals and force them into his fighting forces at the outset of the violence. The analogy would be us today: you and I and our friends here on STR as compared to our peers "out there in radio land". In the eyes of many of them we belong in the "hate-America-first" camp. With the advent of the Ron Paul movement (many of whose members will be with us some day soon) that percentage may be changing. But we are definitely in the minority now. And you are correct: people like us need to find a balance in our interchange with them and not pull the "superior knowledge" gambit on them. Sam

Thanks for the link, Robert. I used to subscribe to Whiskey & Gunpowder, along with The Daily Reckoning, etc., and found I was wasting the whole day reading them. I'm often am tempted to get their daily emails back primarily because they post lots of good articles such as this one. I was once diagnosed "pathological nonconformist" by a judge (as he sentenced me to 30 days in jail, the rascal). He later became my close friend until he died some years ago. I've had to shed many of those psychopathic pathogens in my old age, but if "extremist" is the worst creeps of state can come up with in which to label me, I'll take it as a compliment. Sam

Take care, Paul, when next you visit England. Her Majesty might just spot you and say "off with his head!" Your remarks come at a good moment. This year is the 50th of her reign, and there are some good things one can find to say about that. She did not set out to become Queen; her uncle quit so as to marry an American divorcee, thrusting her very shy father on to the throne where he did a creditable job as a national figurehead and morale booster during WW-II (into which, of course, the UK should never have entered, but that's another story. Monarchs nowadays don't rule, they reign.) He died young, from stress and smoking, so Elizabeth took on the job. I reserve judgment on her grandsons, but otherwise she is the only member of her family for whom I have any respect. The Royal finances are not simple. There is huge wealth (land, palaces) attached to the monarchy, though not to the person. The population is taxed to provide stipends to members of the family, but those are, like the US President's, not way out of line. In return, they do a large amount of work as national ambassadors and, again, as figureheads. I have no doubt that the British economy comes out well ahead from tourism revenues minus those Royal expenses, and the palaces form the #1 staple in terms of tourist magnets - as Windsor did in your case. A case could also be made that the Queen has held together the Commonwealth, which approximates to a free trade area, by building relationships over a very long term. So it's not quite fair or true to say that the Royals are parasites. They earn their keep, in PR alone. Finally I'm gullible enough to believe that by her weekly interviews with the Prime Minister, she has exercised moderation on some of their wilder plans. That relationship is subtle, and on occasion the influence flows the other way; those interested should watch the movie "The Queen" that documents how she and Tony Blair interacted during the week following Diana's death. So much for the positive. The negative aspect of monarchy - and it is decisive, we fully agree - is that the figurehead serves to validate the government she nominally "owns", as in "my government" and "the Queen's Ministers." My blog at http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/10A076.htm explores the issue a little and concludes: "The monarchy all-but ensures that, however unpopular a particular administration may deservedly become, the institution of government itself will survive." So: guilty, as charged.

Your essay has a few interesting ideas. However, many leaders do, in fact, use force. Effective leadership in many real world political situations requires maintaining the rule of law, which in turn inevitably requires force. And it seems an odd use of language to refer to the prosecution of criminals as intimidation.

And how will they know how much pot you have, unless they kick in your door and take it? This bill solves nothing.

Caesar has nothing which wasn't first stolen from the person who produced it. So, by all means, render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. . . and keep rendering it until Caesar is living in a tent along a creek somewhere - just like a quarter of US Veterans are. . .

Inspiring words!

The breach in our defenses, said Frank Chodorov[1], is in Article VI of the Constitution, which provides that "...all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. So much for the Tenth Amendment. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles stated that "The treaty power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse," and warned that "Treaties can take powers away from the Congress and give them to the President. They can take powers from the states and give them to the federal government or to some international body and they can cut across the rights given to the people by their Constitutional Bill of Rights." This is precisely why "the Eisenhower Administration, and particularly the U.S. State Department, went all out to defeat the Bricker Amendment, which sought to greatly limit that power. "Introduced into the Senate in February, 1952, as Senate Joint Resolution 130, the "Bricker Amendment" to the Constitution read as follows: Section 1. A provision of a treaty which conflicts with this Constitution shall not be of any force or effect. Section 2. A treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United States only through legislation which would be valid in the absence of treaty. Section 3. Congress shall have power to regulate all executive and other agreements with any foreign power or international organization. All such agreements shall be subject to the limitations imposed on treaties by this article. Section 4. The congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." No one listened then, and my guess is that no one will listen now. _______________________________________________________________________________ [1] Frank Chodorov was an American member of the Old Right, a group of libertarian thinkers who were non-interventionist in foreign policy and opposed both the American entry into World War II and the New Deal.

Driveway safety is comprised of two categories. Preventing your child from being run over as a car is backing out of the driveway. The other is preventing your child from running out into the street while playing in the yard with a driveway safety net. We will now cover each topic individually. Thanks. Regards, cell phone directory

Suverans2, while I would love to claim that bit of wisdom as my own invention, ancient Roman historian Sallust must get the credit. I'm sure he would be no more bothered by your use of it than he is when I do it.

Once you have arrived at the point of declaring yourself sovereign, you might consider TACTICS by which you conduct yourself when you realize that you are surrounded by a very large, thuggish organization. To avoid being kidnapped and thrown in jail--or worse--consider some of the points I made in my own article on Individual Sovereignty at this link...: http://tinyurl.com/Individual-Sovereignty Dennis

G'day JGVibes, "...both sides have completely different ideas of what the word “government” actually means, making it very difficult to find common ground." ~ JGVibes As with so many words, JGVibes. Let me give you an example. You wrote: "If someone has the right to initiate the use of force on you if you disobey them, you are essentially their property." ~ JGVibes That is correct, but in your above statement there is another word, the key word, which too many people have "completely different ideas" of the meaning of; that word is "right[1]", i.e. "just claim". What is the only lawful, (as opposed to legal[1]), source from whence a government can get a "just claim" to "initiate the use of force on you if you disobey them"? There is only one, my friend, and when we discover it, we can truly "strike" at the "root" of the problem, though most of us will likely choose not to. ______________________________________________________ [1] right NOUN: ...7. A just or legal claim or title. ~ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language Notwithstanding that this dictionary shows eight definitions for the word "right" when used as a noun, number seven is the correct one when we are discussing "having a right" to a thing, tangible or intangible. [2] "...discover not just that there is a difference between the lawful and the legal, but also the distinctive characteristic or principle of law ("freedom among equals") and of justice ("to treat others as one's likes")." ~ Excerpted from The Lawful and the legal by Frank Van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law

G'day David Calderwood, Interesting; I was just, yesterday and today, revisiting The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Étienne de la Boétie. Man, did you hit the nail square on the head with this, "most men don't desire liberty, most only wish for a just master." May I quote you?

I like your highlighting of the obvious Truth, that those who volunteer to man the levers of coercive state power are no better (and actually, arguably worse) than the rest of us, so it is irrational to think an agency of coercion will produce salutary outcomes (salutary, that is, for anyone other than those wielding the whips). Your column is thus a restatement of the irrational premises that underlay politics. We cannot, in my opinion, restate this often enough. It is one of the pillars of anti-political anarchism, I think. Given the obviousness of this, is it not necessary to seek an answer to why people throughout most of history have preferred existence within a political system of one sort or another, especially in light of Boetie's "Discourses on Voluntary Servitude?" I think this area, suffused with discussions of biology, neurology, and human social behavior is a line of inquiry that merits considerable debate. Sadly, the path that debate takes tends to lead to the valley of cynicism and revulsion at the intellect and insight of the common man, and a nod toward Sallust's observation that most men don't desire liberty, most only wish for a just master.

G'day Chris Dates, That the "natural law [of the human world]" is universal is not a new concept. 4. By the term civil law is also understood the particular law of each people, opposed to natural law, or the law of nations, which are common to all. Just. Inst. l. 1, t. 1, Sec. 1, 2; Ersk. Pr. L. Scot. B. 1, t. 1, s. 4. ~ Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary Taken out of context, strictly for the purpose of clarity, "...natural law...[is] common to all".

Some food 4 thought. Hi David Calderwood, Thanks for your clarification of the word Utopia. "...if I were king (or fit the definition of a god)." You may find this interesting, one of Noah Webster's (c.1828) definitions for the word GOD is, "3. A prince; a ruler; a magistrate or judge...", which, perhaps, explains why Roderick wrote the following. ″…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god.″ ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill I used it in the sense that while I may think I know HOW all people should live, that knowledge is meaningful only in determining my actions, not those of others. Exactly! "We must be the change we wish to see in the world." ~ Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi I am non-religious, or so I think, but it is my understanding that during the Temptation of Christ it was Satan who offered Christ all the kingdoms of Earth, as they were all his to offer. From this I find it rather ironic (love that word today) that any self-described Christians are politically active. Good point. I have pointed out here, at STR, that JESUS' response to his adversary (satan) did NOT indicate that they weren't his to give, but rather a refusal to bow down to him for all that power and wealth. Most of us bow down for a helluva lot less than that, and claim we have no choice. Most Christians claim that JESUS is their KING, and that Barrack Hussein Obama is their PRESIDENT, when their BIBLE tells them unequivocally that no man can serve two masters. (Mat. 6:24) MAG'ISTRATE, n. [L. magistratus, from magister, master; magis, major, and ster, Teutonic steora, a director; steoran, to steer; the principal director.] A public civil officer, invested with the executive government of some branch of it. In this sense, a king is the highest or first magistrate, as is the President of the United States. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language This informs me that the real, main religion of most humans is politics, AKA the worship of concentrations of power. Paradoxically then, all politics is of Satan...a view I believe comports with reality in all ways I observe. Politics (as I define it) equals evil. The Ibriy [Hebrew] word satan equals adversary; opponent; accuser, so, yes, you are correct, it is the men and women who choose the "political means" (forcible appropriation of the labor of others) over the "economic means" (one’s own labor) who are mankind's greatest adversaries, opponents, and accusers. As you know, it is not what people SAY that informs us of their real thoughts. It is what they DO that reveals what really animates them. I find it endlessly entertaining to watch people DO what directly opposes what they SAY. Agreed! "What you do speaks so loud I cannot hear what you say". ~ Ralph Waldo Emerson It is my studied opinion that we give our consent to be governed by what we do; notwithstanding (in spite of) what we say. As a person, of course, it is also a lifelong task to try to minimize this pervasive hypocrisy to the best of my limited ability. Just doing the best I can.... First, did you know, Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 736 Second, that is all that any of us can do...the best of our limited ability. Best wishes. Best wishes to you and yours as well, and welcome.

Welcome David, very nice job. I like especially "At its heart, the current system rests on the normalization of theft throughout Western Civilization." Can't quite make out the pic beneath your sig, though. Is it by Rodin?

This book is available as a free pdf download from the FreeKeene.com website here if you want to read it.

I agree with your comment, of course. We are clearly a society in decline, and only the "finger-in-the-dyke" of some innovators plus the illusion of vast debt assumption disguises this fact from the perception of most people. A theme I'm likely to visit in columns I submit here will be speculation on the path the future may take as people conditioned to obedience, steeped in the mythology of American Exceptionalism, slam face-first in the reality that underlies our current illusion of debt-based prosperity. I think the zombie genre of literature is so apt that I'm working on a second novel that uses a somewhat different take on the genre as a central plot device.

Must my child have a Social Security number? No. Getting a Social Security number for your newborn is voluntary. http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10023.html

"...everyone earning money has to surrender some of it to the IRS..." ~ Jim Davies Not "everyone", Jim, only those individuals who voluntarily use a chattel number. (Look at item number three on this "chattel number" search: https://duckduckgo.com/?q=chattel+number ) chattel NOUN: 1. Law An article of movable personal property. 2. A slave. ~ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

G'day David Calderwood, Thanks for the kind reply. Having been individual secessionists for about twelve years now, we know, better than most, the high cost of personal responsibility, i.e. life without parens patriae. And, as I have written here twice, "We ask no one to join us...". Generally speaking the word Utopia is associated with "perfect"; if that is the sense in which you used it, there's no such place, or condition, as Utopia. The only thing I am trying to do here is to let people know that it is their voluntary "membership in a group" known as STATE OF ___________________, and as a consequence of that membership, membership in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, that is the "root" cause of the problems, which they most generally describe here. If that is the case, then if we wish to STRIKE THE ROOT of the problem we must withdraw, individually, from membership in those groups (secession). But, as you wrote above, this brings with it a different set of problems, mainly because we have strayed so far from the path of self-reliance. The supreme task of the AGENTS of these states is to create total dependence upon the god called STATE...and I'd have to say, they've done quite a good job of that. It is not the "gun to the head" that most of us fear, as you pointed out, it is the "gun to our wallet", (the loss of wealth), that deters most of us, it would seem. "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God," because the fear of loss is greater than the love of gain. And, lest you think the "kingdom of God" is off in Never-Never-Land, I give you this, from the Gospel of Thomas. (113) His disciples said to him, “When will the Kingdom come?” Jesus said, “It will not come by waiting for it. It will not be a matter of saying ‘Here it is’ or ‘There it is.’ Rather, the Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.” That is because all they can truly 'see' are the artificial kingdoms of (created by) men.

Haha! Thanks for the thoughtful response, but I am not convinced that I know nothing about about "basic economics". What I am convinced of, however, is that this piece is nothing more than demagoguery wrapped in a nationalist flag. Wages have indeed been stagnant since the '70's, but this has nothing to do with the "Federal Reserve" (oh boy). Wages have been stagnant because the market is telling us that, since the seventies, the purchasing power parity of the average American citizen has increased so significantly that a rise in wages in unnecessary. In plain English: what this means is that the average American can buy more with less. This phenomena is largely due to the increase in world trade. China makes goods cheaper than we can, and these cheaper goods in turn make us richer. Here is my favorite whopper of yours, though: "American companies wouldn't be hemorrhaging jobs to foreign companies if it wasn't for this huge disparity in wages." Huh? Since you know much more about basic economics than I, could please explain this sentence to me (and others who may be reading this beneficial exchange)? Also, an explanation for my inability to "understand basic economics" in regards to how individuals living in China are not benefiting from world trade would also be useful... For anybody that wants a more in-depth but readable explanation in regards to how free trade works here is a concise article written by an expert, I would recommend this piece: The De-Industrialization of the U.S.: A String of Enlightening Fallacies