Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    "We're in the business of kicking candidates out of the race..." That is correct. "Likening media consolidation to that of the banking industry, [Dan] Rather claimed that “roughly 80 percent” of the media is controlled by no more than six, and possibly as few as four, corporations." ~ http://www.corporations.org/media/media-ownership.gif
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    The Fear of Loss is More Powerful Than The Hope For Gain!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    G'day Samarami, Has anyone you happen to know seen this clip? The first seven, or so, got it right, you are not supposed to even mention your opponent's name, thus making him non-existent, the last talking head from CNN, I believe, was merely an idiot. If all else fails, try . . . Subversion Definition: Preventing your opponent from getting a hearing. Catch-phrase: Head 'em off at the pass. ...Gaining control of the media and pretending your opponent doesn’t exist.... http://creationsafaris.com/images/BM-BD-Subversion.jpg
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 9 weeks ago
    Oroborus
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I've got a fricken' headache after listening to this...but the lyrics are REALLY meaningful. http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/g/gojira/oroborus.html ROFLMAO
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link strike
    From the article: 'McKinley describes himself "as a small government, free-market focused owner of a small business," but...' Don't you just love that "but"? It's always there. What he means is that he's for the free market, except when he's not. There are also state programs for the same thing. Wyoming, the most "conservative" state in the nation, arguably, has the same sort of program. It's just a scam, welfare for airport and airline people.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "School choice" is just another euphemism for government "education", funded by theft.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    While I am in general agreement with this article, I have some quibbles with it. First, the notion that if we only craft our message properly, more people will sign up. Nock's essay "Isaiah's Job" warns that maybe this is the wrong way of looking at it. But even if you don't break humans down into "Remnant" and "Masses", there are problems. People generally aren't influenced by argumentation, not outside their area of expertise. I don't agree that there are a few thinking people and many who don't; instead my view is that virtually everyone thinks in some area, that I call their "area of expertise", but outside of that they just depend on a worldview to give answers. For example a mechanic may know an amazing amount about how to get power with reliability out of an engine; but he just takes his worldview's default when the subject of war comes up. And arguing against a person's worldview is pretty hopeless. As Dale Carnegie put it, "You can't win an argument". I am pretty doubtful of this notion of "damaged people", although of course in extreme cases that is so. I think people are actually quite resilient. A good thing too, otherwise no one would survive their parents! I think we have a tendency to look at people who don't agree with us and say, looking down our noses, "He must have had a terrible childhood." Or we try to evangelize freedom, just like the leftists used to do back in the seventies - remember that old phrase, "consciousness-raising", as if the people they were targeting for their evangelism were unconscious? That always struck me as a bit presumptuous, yet here we are doing the same thing. I also don't think we have been underemphasizing compassion all that much. It's usually part of the discussion whenever freedom comes up. My view is that people are generally going to stick with their worldviews until some shock breaks them out of it. When the worldview fails them, only then are they going to be open to another paradigm. And that will happen soon. I don't think there is anything irrational about this behavior, because no one has unlimited time in his life; he must default some opinions to what his worldview tells him. I don't think people are stupid, or damaged or anything else of that nature. They are just being people, that's all. That's the sort of beast we are. Anyway if people could be so easily swayed by argument, they'd be swayed back the next time they ran into a statist with a plausible line. The wonder is not that what we have been doing has gotten so little result; but, given how humans work, that it has gotten so much. Let's not be impatient. Many more will come around when the empire crashes.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen, thank you for writing this piece. It's the perfect complement to your other writings on the need for both the sina qua non of the nonaggression axion/self-ownership concept and the equally valid perception about the value of empathy and love. PS: At the upcoming Libertopia festival in San Diego (http://libertopia.org/), there will be a presentation by the Summum Bonum Learning Center (a learner-driven learning center), which is now being organized around an educational process that recognizes this two-fold need in the education and raising of children. This educational venture will not be launched until September 2013, but those involved in its development are keeping these twin aspects of liberty at the heart of this learner-centered mode of education.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I agree very strongly with you that the emotional component is ultimately important, as emotions will overpower logic for deeply-held beliefs. Throwing data at an unwilling freedom-convert results in an emotional wall of defense. Logic will almost NEVER break down that wall. The human part of humans is emotion. If you can connect with the emotions of an unwilling freedom-convert you will have a much better chance of working with him. How to do that? How to convey the data of your argument and at the same time appeal to emotion without triggering the automatic emotional defense? That's the tricky part, and I imagine it's different with every person. That's why it's important that sites like STR are around, pumping out a stream of arguments that come in from every angle, because there is no small set of arguments that will universally make an impression. And this is another great article, Glen, reminding everyone not to forget about the human connection that is necessary to spread the ideas of freedom and compassion. It is all too easy to get angry at people who won't listen, but I am coming to believe that many people can't listen, especially to overly-assertive arguments. Many are so emotionally damaged that demanding logic from them in certain areas of thought is like demanding that a person with a broken leg sprint across a field with you. It just won't work. You have to take the time that is necessary to fix the damage to the point where you stand a chance of moving forward. Nothing else will work. Of course the easiest route is to teach the next generations properly from an early age so they do not sustain such crippling damage, and then after all us old codgers die off they will be in a better position to shift the paradigm.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    Excellent, right on target. You have an engaging style as well. Hope your work finds an audience beyond the choir!
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    I changed the 60-Minutes link to a video link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbIX1CP9qr4
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part II of II
    Page tzo
    "Quit the club! Don’t participate! It is your prerogative! Your psyche, your Being, your Self, is at stake. If you believe in the soul, then that too, is on the line." ~ tzo "Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and attach not to the morally impure thing; and I will receive you, And will be a Father[1] unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the all ruling controller."[2] __________________________________________________________________________________________ "And I heard another voice from the sky, saying, "Come out of her, my people, that you be not co-participants of her offenses, and that you receive not of her strokes (punishments/calamities)."[3] ___________________________________________________________________________ [1] Father ...(2.) A name applied as a title of respect to a chief, ruler, or elder, etc. ~ Easton's Bible Dictionary [2] Literal translation of 2Corinthians 6:17-18 [3] Literal translation of Revelation 18:4
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    Your Albright quote is priceless. She really reveals how the lunatics are running the asylum. Another good example of the wisdom of Washington can be seen on this YouTube Video taken from a recent "Meet the Press" telecast. We get to see Alan Greenspan's true financial genius and that somehow printing more money will always keep our credit alive. Check the analyst sitting next to him. His face is asking, "excuse me, but what the hell?" The military-industrial complex has turned both Albright and Greenspan into complete morons. In this war, probably more than any war I have studied, does the playwrite Aeschylus enlighten us with the quote that; In war, truth is the first casualty.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    How to Identify Legal Plunder ~ Excerpted from The Law by Frédéric Bastiat But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "We are now all so used to the state robbing others on our behalf, and protecting our selfish interests with fiat regulation, that we have become incapable of doing the right thing." ~ Andy Duncan Well said, Andy, well said.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 10 weeks ago Page jd-in-georgia
    Nice column, jd-in-georgia, and very positive. Anyone in the freedom movement knows how rare it is to see a person open their mind to voluntaryism, and I appreciate your sharing a bit of your own path with us. You mention your faith, and I'll mention that while I am not a believer (of the supernatural elements), I very much do believe that Jesus' core, secular teachings are an amazing gift to mankind and -- because they describe the most important elements of human nature and the human condition -- are in harmony with many other religions and philosophies that have some version of the Golden Rule at their center. These teachings are completely in harmony with voluntaryism, with non-Statism, with genuine freedom: a person who loves others does NOT aggress against others. Few people seem to make that connection, at least where the State is concerned. Christians could be and should be (some are, but not nearly enough) a major force for non-coercive, non-State, civil society. I hope your journey to voluntaryism is representative of a similar enlightenment for increasing numbers of the faithful. One of my related columns might be of interest to you; it's "The Earthly Lesson of Jesus' Crucifixion, and Why His Secular Teachings Live On" [url removed because my comment was rejected by the STR's "spam filter", and I'm hoping this will fix the problem]
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    Terrific column, as always Tzo. Clear enough that I can imagine it actually getting through to some people, and certainly it will help strengthen the understanding of those who are already in, or near, the non-Statist camp. Interesting tidbit: my first column for STR was "Government is Not Compassion" (part 1) http://strike-the-root.com/columns/allport/allport1.html -- and IT, too, opened with the same quote from Nietzsche, but from a translation by Walter Kauffmann: "Indeed, a hellish artifice was invented there, a horse of death, clattering in the finery of divine honors. Indeed, a dying for many was invented there, which praises itself as life: verily, a great service to all preachers of death!" ~ Friedrich Nietzsche, on the state1 A Kindle edition of Kauffmann's "The Portable Nietzsche", which includes Zarathustra and quite a lot of other material, is available ( http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Nietzsche-Library-ebook/dp/B001R9DI3Y/ref... ), along with a few other of his translations of FN's work, plus Kauffmann's study of FN "Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist". I find Kauffmann consistently excellent and very readable, very artful, in his translations, but everyone has their own favorites.
  • Guest's picture
    Temujin (not verified) 3 years 10 weeks ago Page jd-in-georgia
    Great read \o
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    And, "criminal activity" is whatever your chosen master says it is.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Page jd-in-georgia
    Well said, jd-in-georgia, at least you know, (and have the courage to admit), that you were putting yourself on the pedestal of "intellectual". Some of us, even as adults, are not aware that that is what we are doing, and if we are cognizant of it, are not courageous enough to admit it openly. With respect, a tip of the hat to you, sir.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Inferno, Part I of II
    Page tzo
    "It is very difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it." ~ Upton Sinclair
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Yeah, that'll fix the problem. Let's not forget who militarized local police - that same federal govt.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    The writer lacks writing skills, but I believe has a message to broadcast. He appears to recognize the fallacy in the reification of "the government" or "the state", but his writing needs a host of grammer and punctuation correction to become clear. I have for a long time preached against the "we" word -- and other uses such as "our" leaders or "our" forfathers. I have no "policymakers" (except those who meet from time to time between my ears :-|). This author appears to substantiate that approach. Governments, states, countries, nations do not exist. Only human beings (tyrants dressed in sheeps' clothing often as not) exist. All lines (boundaries, borders)are fictitious and their defence is an act of war. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Well said, Per! Today I "do grandkids" so my son and daughter-in-law can campaign for Ron Paul -- the big "straw poll" in Ames, IA is Saturday and today is first day of IA State Fair. They (pg with their ninth [9th!!] child) would like me to come to Ames and vote for Dr Paul in the straw poll. I have told them no. I will lend every support to them and the family, all of whom I love. But no, I will NOT "vote". To me "voting" is "feeding the beast", and I love my family too much to feed that monster, in spite of their sincere belief that it can be tamed if "we" just elect the best set of shysters to "office". They don't understand. Naturally. Anarchy is a tough bean to chew when you've been reared on governmentalism. But it takes a slight message here and a slight message there. "You can be free -- but not by supporting political authority..." And firmness. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago
    Yes We Can
    Web link Mike Powers
    You cannot buy votes and cut spending at the same time. A look into the face of the "The Enemy"
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 3 years 10 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    "Create alternative societies within our own neighborhoods and bring people bit by bit." Talk about "Striking the Root!" Very well said Per.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 10 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    G'day tzo, Yes, I noticed that, too; not sure why that author wrote that line, that particular way, because his/her very next sentence corrects this error, "That is, that under anarchy no one is permitted to openly rule over another person, though people will still create rules for the use of their property by others." And, "their property", of course, includes life and liberty; two things this author, unfortunately, never elaborated on, which is why I only gave this article eight stars. I really liked the intro, e.g. "There are only people--individuals--acting everywhere, thus the government or the state is simply made up by the yielding subjects--and the people acting as officers. What gave them this right of deciding what other people can and cannot do?" The author's question, in my opinion, was answered in the sentence preceding it, "the yielding subjects". CONSENT, n. ...We give consent, when we yield that which we have a right to withhold... Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "We may say, that anarchy means 'no ruler' or 'no rules.' There is a big difference between 'no ruler' and 'no rules,' and so putting an 'or' between them as if they were equivalent is not correct. Watch http://www.isil.org/resources/philosophy-of-liberty-english.swf in order to help clear up your confusion about what is aggression and coercion and what is self-defense. Equating anarchy with the assumption that no one will do anything wrong, or than there will be no rules that will be enforced, is to misunderstand the subject.
  • Guest's picture
    MassOutrage (not verified) 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I did not like this article, as it does not account for the unstated rules most anarchists don't admit to having as their basic presuppositions, nor does it account for the reality of basic human nature. It reduces complex human interactions to a level of mechanical functioning that does not reflect how real life is lived by anyone. Its premise is stated simply: "We may say, that anarchy means 'no ruler' or 'no rules.' That is, that under anarchy no one is permitted to openly rule over another person, though people will still create rules for the use of their property by others." Well, that is a bunch of rules to start. We must respect the property of others, and the person of others, which is two rules. in fact, those two principles are the foundation of all western law. Of course, the tyrants have added all sorts of legal positivism to those basic premises, but they remain the theoretical foundation of our legal system. The article implies that a number of other unstated laws are required to operate a system of anarchy. For example, the respect of other persons for those two major rules is a third major rule. What do we do with those who stubbornly refuse to show respect for persons or property. The anarchist will have to hire someone to violently coerce the outlaw to conform to the rules. Now, we don't have anarchy anymore. Frankly, this whole system is constructed on a mechanistic view of humanity which is unrealistic. Its author must not live near any chaotic city areas where conscienceless sociopaths abound, and untold numbers of others have major mental disorders which dispose them to do violence to the person and property of others. It just won't work. In my city, the police can barely respond to the murders and lesser personal and property crimes fast enough. After nearly twenty years observing the real world in the legal system, I adhere to the Ron Paul position of small government. Oh, the illogic, says the writer. Who decides the rules? How can we have government if it inevitably expands into tyranny? Fair questions. Well, someone has to have some rules, and the anarchist actually believes in them, while not admitting it. The Paul position is more honest, because it acknowledges the human tendency to tyranny, but doesn't try to pretend that people are mechanical beings. Doing all this is a messy, illogical, unsatisfying business, but no alternative is yet available until humans become perfect at loving their neighbor.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    This, too, in my opinion, is worthy of contemplating, "...equality means equal rights, and rights can be equal only if there is no ruler, which means anarchy." All-in-all, a 'very good' treatise.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Now let us see how a distribution of rights can be deduced from free will. If a value from a bit of the physical world is not claimed by anyone and a first valuer changes or preserves it to serve his value, he makes a claim of ownership or right to that value. In the absence of any later valuers making contrary claims, the claims of first valuers would automatically and naturally result in an assignment of ownership..." ~ Three Arguments for Anarchism by Richard D. Fuerle How refreshing! The author of this article seems to actually understand that having a "right" to something, means having a "just claim" to that thing; and this holds true whether it be one's life, liberty or physical property. If we could only get this one message through to the human inhabitants of planet Earth, imagine the positive impact it could have toward the goal of peaceful coexistence, the world over.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    That was actually pretty good. Makes you want to punch those smug apparatchiks in the face.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Stop sacrificing innocent Afghans.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Enough already. Bring 'em back, discharge them and set them toward gainful private employment.
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    'But the likelihood of an inflationary spiral in a sluggish economy with a high rate of unemployment appears to be very low." This is true to a degree, but it also means the only thing keeping the U.S. economy from entering an inflationary spiral is continued stagnation. The mountains of cash on the books with the banks, plus any additional money created by further rounds of quantitative easing, make such a spiral an inevitability.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Good article, despite getting a tad fluffy at the end: "But ours is a revolution that... should require no violence." Even if you think so, it would be prudent to arm yourself, and learn the art of war as much as you can. Just in case your prediction was off.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    A dumb, collectivist argument.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Articles like this make me yawn. They are just so much bullshit.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 11 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I agree, but we shouldn't discount too much what happened. The ruling class still had to adjust to the new power shown by protesters. The people learned they do have at least some leverage. And there are certain to be more developments.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    "One cannot remain an anarchist and take part in...government." ~ Carl Watner "Governments are imaginary organizations populated by voluntary participants." "Government is an organization that consists not only of those who are "given the mandate" to assume authority, but also of all the "citizens" who support the imaginary enterprise. The citizen is just as integral a part of the definition of government as is the King, President, Parliament, or whatever other fancy label some of the participating humans choose to affix to themselves. All governments must have citizens in order to exist." "Since an idea must occupy the bottommost level of the natural hierarchical structure, all imaginary hierarchies—which necessarily need human participation in order to function—must be strictly voluntary. We can choose to participate in these imaginary structures if we like, but we can also choose to ignore or abandon them." ~ Excerpted from A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government by tzo
  • Guest's picture
    Temujin (not verified) 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    I wondered the same thing ^^^ And this: "It's a big loss" for the SEALs, one of the officials said. "The numbers are high." The official didn't have anything to say about the tens of thousands of Afghans killed over the past decade. Guess those numbers aren't high enough.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    It is always good to remember what Seneca the Younger said, ″Religion is considered by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.″
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    "The majority of the Navy SEALs who died belonged to the same covert unit that conducted the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in May, though they were not the same men, the military official said." ~ CNN World Hmmmm, should we believe this "military official"?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Duh.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 3 years 11 weeks ago
    Shutter Sisters
    Web link Michael Kleen
    I thought that four of the five pix on the front page were utterly boring. Maybe I'll start a photo blog for men only; I'm guessing it would garner higher quality shots.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I have read a few articles relating to this subject, and I have noticed that the majority of comments come down on the side of the government. Public safety, contaminated lemonade, no exceptions, etc. All they need to do is hype one case—real or fabricated—of people getting salmonella from a lemonade stand and you'll see just about all the rest of the sheep swing over to the side of government. So considering the publicity this issue is currently receiving, I would not be surprised to see a lemonade-stand salmonella hoo-ha before the end of the summer. The "government knows best" meme shall not be challenged.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Her Dad should have posted a caveat emptor sign on her lemonade stand, you know, to warn would-be-buyers; "This LEMONADE STAND has not been inspected by the HEALTH DEPARTMENT, and this four-year-old girl did not, and WILL NOT, apply for a PERMIT. FREEDOM-LOVING INDIVIDUALS, LINE UP HERE".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    The title of this article, alone, should serve to clarify, in most people's minds, the difference between "civil" and "natural" rights, unless, of course, one believes that simply because they are a member of the human race they have a just claim to a "free cell phone". Disclaimer: This, of course, does not apply to individuals who believe they have no "just claim", i.e. "right" to anything.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    I wonder how much of this is fueled by Big Brother's desire to keep an eye on people? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way. Some petty bureaucrat must have realized that millions of poor people were walking about without personal tracking devices.)
  • Emmett Harris's picture
    Emmett Harris 3 years 11 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Protecting the public from non-approved thirst quenching.