Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    I don't believe the words agorist/agorism have been co-opted either. OneLook Dictionary Search has 19,317,398 words in 1063 dictionaries indexed and it only has one, single, solitary source, (Wikipedia), for a definition for these two words. Sorry, couldn't post this with the link to OneLook Dictionary Search embedded. Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Greetings AtlasAikido, Thanks, but I can't say that I ever thought that this Paul was Paul Bonneau. I believe there are at least three Paul's here at STR, so it can, perhaps, be a bit confusing. This Paul was referencing the word anarchy being used in a negative fashion in Herbert Spencer's, The Right to Ignore the State, where Herbert wrote: "In a thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive of anarchy." Regarding the word "agorist", I particularly like this from Wikipedia, "Agorists...consider property rights to be natural rights deriving from the primary right of self-ownership." To be more precise, all of our natural rights are derived from the primary right of self-ownership. Sorry, couldn't edit this with the link to The Right to Ignore the State embedded. Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Suverans2, Paul is NOT Paul Bonneau according to the user profiles. (Could NOT post the links as it triggered spam editor). The article uses the term anarchist in a positive fashion, even if it is taken to be negative by some. This is an anarchist site (last time I looked). But then Paul could clarify this, which is what you and I requested in the first place. I prefer Agorist to abolitionist or anarchist. Living Free in an Unfree World: Stefan Molyneux at Libertopia 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OLSkhR-ve8s#at=195
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 4 years 4 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    At right angles to? Or something like that? In terms of concepts, it means irrelevant or beside the point.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    From the article: "Camping, sadly, also survives and is free to cause the world more grief." So, Camping should be killed? Or jailed? It's not Camping causing the problem. It's idiots who pay attention to him. There is no way to "fix" this problem, certainly not via state action nor assassination or other such violence. The thing to do is stop worrying about it. Let idiots suffer the consequences of their poor choices. If innocents also get caught up in that, oh well. Life is filled with hazards, even parents can be hazards.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    The Right To Be a Jerk
    Web link Don Stacy
    Quick, anyone, without looking it up, what's the word "orthogonal" mean?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    Beautiful sounding words, jd-in-georgia, and once we've overcome the years and years and years of government indoctrination center "brainwashing" and tv "programming" and "his" eyes are finally opened, and we've convinced "him" that we all have free will, and that there's more to life than a six pack and satellite tv, and we've taught "him" to swim in the deep end of the pool, where reason and logic reign supreme (good luck on those last two), Joe Lunchbucket will do WHAT for us?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Heroes? Not a one by Jim Davidson jim@vertoro.com http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2011/tle622-20110605-04.html L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 622, June 5, 2011 "The cops have gone crazy. There's lots of this going around, these days."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Hi, Suverans2, agree, the word anarchy certainly has been co-opted. May I propose a better word and it is "Abolitionist". This was pointed out to me and I believe Lysander Spooner used it. The Abolitionist Argument in 35 Seconds http://strike-the-root.com/abolitionist-argument-in-35-seconds Call Me an Abolitionist, Please http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html Yet in conversation I point out that I am a Trader and do not even go to the level of the Abolitionist issue although it is there and can be pulled up--at least the principles--to counter the word anarchy being used in the negative. And I use the ideas of Stephan Kinsella to speak to how copyright cartel monopolies are actually destructive and unproductive to division of labor societies as is was the train of usurpations of "The Real Lincoln" (authored by Thomas DiLorenzo). This leads to fun conversations about freedom in the fashion industry--and others--and how embracing and using the ratification of ideas that emulation (copying), innovation and its diffusion, adoption and improvement are life giving and move one's own world incrementally forward, individual by individual and are certainly more profitable than policing one's customers and calling them pirates as Disney does (whilst making block busters such as "The Pirates of the Caribbean"). "How a world without copyright would exist”? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zL2FOrx41N0 "The Real Lincoln" conversation leads to the works of Hamilton and Mercantilism--the British are already here--and how that led to the Fed Reserve and the Economic hitmen/jackal police state ties; and William Grigg's name soon comes up and perhaps his article on the Quantum of Suffering (On the real military-welfare-oil complex connections of James Bond's Quantum of Solace movie). And then it is UNusual that one is NOT requested to write down the names of this site (Strike the Root) and The Daily Bell, Lewrockwell.com and Mises.org And it is redundant to re-state but these are Anarchist or Anarco-Capitalist or Anarco-Libertarian sites. LOL
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Doug Casey on Phyles
    Web link Jad Davis
    Sounds a bit like panarchy...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    "...the moral issue is unaltered by the fact that you, as opposed to them, are issuing the bogus notes." I don't know if I can agree with that, primarily because the ruling class has outlawed competing (and more honest) currencies. It's similar to the issue of roads and other government "services". Yeah, one can be a welfare queen, and that is morally objectionable. But just driving on the road? There comes a point where a person has to use what is available, and if the government has usurped and monopolized some part of what would be a free market economy, we are forced to use that. I don't see the moral problem (in other words, I don't think morality requires us to live in a cave). Morals usually concern choices, and if there are no choices...
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    I did stuff like that for ten years. Proved nothing and accomplished nothing sorry to say, other than giving myself a "criminal record", spending a few thousand bucks on fines and lawyers as well spending a few days locked up. I also got hit, punched, gassed and sprayed too. Accomplished nada. Like the theme of this site says strike the root, not the leaves or branches, eh?
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    You are correct, Suverans. But (we) the choir must sing loud enough to make Joe Lunchbucket's eyes open. We must convince Joe that we all have freewill. The more we exercise freewill, the more we realize that there is more to life than a six pack and satellite tv. Not that there is anything wrong with beer and television, but these things do not define life. We need to teach people to swim in the deep end of the pool, where reason and logic reign supreme. Joe may find that the beer will begin to taste better and that he may scream at the television less often. "Every new government's more expensive than the last, watch the fresh ways they have to waste our taxes fast." ~ from IN LOVE WITH THE SYSTEM by the Forgotten Rebels.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Pay? How?
    Page Paul Hein
    Fun article, Paul Hein, but you are preaching to the choir, friend. Joe Lunchbucket, (Average American Citizen[1]), only has one question for you, and please, answer it with a simple "yes" or "no", because anything more will, more than likely, bore or confuse him, "Can I still trade, this whatever-you-wanna-call-it, for a six pack of beer and satellite TV?" ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Embedding the link triggered the spam filter upon trying to post this comment, so you'll have to remove the space after http and www, (one space wasn't enough) and copy and paste it, if you would like to read, (or re-read), this article. http ://www .strike-the-root.com/92/tzo/tzo3.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day AtlasAikido, Though I have not been authorized to speak for Paul, I don't believe he was objecting to the use of the word anarchist, he was, like you, (I believe), against its use in a negative connotation. He, like you, apparently believes that it should only be used in a positive way. And, my point was that the word anarchist will "mean", to the 6.79 billion people (2009 estimate) of the earth, what the majority of those 6.79 billion people "believe" it means, and that is "one who favors "chaos" and violence". AN'ARCH, n. [See Anarchy.] The author of confusion [chaos]; one who excites revolt [violence]. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Bracketed information added] (Go look at the rest of these http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,anarch when you have a free moment.) Now, we can disagree with that all we want to, but that will not change, in the minds of most people, the "negative perception" of the word. In order to change the deeply entrenched "negative perception" of that word to a "positive perception", we would have to somehow convince the majority of those 6.79 billion people to think the exact opposite of what they now do. Honestly, my friend, what do you believe the odds are of actually accomplishing that superhuman feat? And, even if we could, through some monumental effort, change the general perception of that word to a positive, would it have been energy well spent? I, for one, think not.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    You are very welcome, Paul. As I am sure you will concur, we seldom will agree with every word usage by any author. Regarding Herbert's use of the word “anarchy”, we must remember that this was written c.1851, so to get a feel for the meaning of that word, in that time frame, we must use a dictionary of that era. With that in mind, here are the 5 words Noah had with anarch as the base in his 1828 dictionary. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,anarch The words in these definitions that will grab people's attention are: confusion, revolt, and disorder. This is to be expected because the word “anarchist” got its boost into modernity from the French Revolution. Meanwhile, we will hate Anarchy as Death, which it is; and the things worse than Anarchy shall be hated more! Surely Peace alone is fruitful. Anarchy is destruction: a burning up, say, of Shams and Insupportabilities; but which leaves Vacancy behind. Know this also, that out of a world of Unwise nothing but an Unwisdom can be made. Arrange it, Constitution-build it, sift it through Ballot-Boxes as thou wilt, it is and remains an Unwisdom,-- the new prey of new quacks and unclean things, the latter end of it slightly better than the beginning. Who can bring a wise thing out of men unwise? Not one. And so Vacancy and general Abolition having come for this France, what can Anarchy do more? Let there be Order, were it under the Soldier's Sword; let there be Peace, that the bounty of the Heavens be not spilt; that what of Wisdom they do send us bring fruit in its season!-- It remains to be seen how the quellers of Sansculottism were themselves quelled, and sacred right of Insurrection was blown away by gunpowder: wherewith this singular eventful History called French Revolution ends. ~ The French Revolution, by Thomas Carlyle It will be an uphill battle, every step of the way, trying to supplant, in the minds of the world's population, this negative perception of that word, (probably planted there by rulers and wannabe rulers), with a positive one.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Re: Paul's "Outside of a use of the term "anarchy" I disagree with? I see Suverans2 noticed this as well. And I have to concur that the above did stand out as an odd comment. This is an anarchy site (last time I looked, but then maybe I need to look again, perhaps I am assuming?). Hmmm What part of the following is Paul in disagreement with? Is the term "political atheist" ok? Is there a concept for an "on target and excellent resource" BUT disagree on the term? Inquiring minds would like to know? But more importantly if one enjoys being here and living here and reading our works then what's with the disagreement? And why no clarification? And oh yes...and I do not think I have disagreed with ANY of your articles--if you are Paul Bonneau? So damn it, Paul. Please post a supporting link next time, or change your id so one knows one is dealing with the same? And can refer to your articles? Something like: http://www.strike-the-root.com/there%E2%80%99s-no-such-thing-as-statist by yours truly (PB) would have helped someone understand where you are coming from. Perhaps you have a favorite that comes to mind? I am thinking of the article you wrote about statist on one side of town and us on the other... and to let them be. Please supply that link. So feel free to add yourself as a 4 point to the 3 I set below as another way of coming at this. 1. Carrie Burdzinski identifies good reason why SOME Objectivists do not apply the following principles. “Objectivist Resistance to Anarchy: A Problem of Concept Formation?” Column by new Root Striker Carrie Burdzinski. http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/burdzinski/burdzinski1.html 2. It is at times like this useful to imagine how a truly laissez-faire--hands off--society, one entirely emancipated from the shackles of state coercion, might exist and operate. Morris and Linda Tannehill examine this very idea in The Market for Liberty: Is Government Really Necessary? The Statist will ask but how will you do this and that and this and so forth? * How, the statist is heard to question, might common disputes find resolution without the currently preferred monopoly of the state's courts? * What about private monopolies that would ruthlessly jack up prices and bleed us working-class proletarians to death? * By what means might a laissez-faire society offer protection from foreign aggressors? * How might the personal liberties underpinning the whole system be protected if it were not for the tireless work of the state's police and its myriad other law-enforcement agencies? In response: "Freedom is not only as moral as governmental slavery is immoral," the authors write, "it is as practical as government is impractical." The Tannehills argue persuasively, the free market provides solutions that governments would never dream of. "The big advantage of any action of the free market," contend the Tannehills is....see link Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally The part I particularly liked was this: Whenever there arises in conversation the mere suggestion of a totally free, laissez-faire market — the possibility that human beings might even be able to survive (much less thrive) without the safety net of state control — apologists for "benevolent government" invariably step atop their soapboxes and ask, "Yes, but who will provide education for the masses, if not the public schools?" or "Who will care for the sick and weak, if not the public hospitals?" Indeed, these are questions that deserve thoughtful, honest answers. But these questions assume realities that are not in evidence. They suppose that "the public" (i.e., the state) actually has money to "provide" these services, rather than, as is actually the case, first having to expropriate (steal) it from private, productive individuals. Furthermore, the fallacy of benign governmental control relies on the idea that governments can provide essential services more reliably and cost-effectively than the private sector. In other words, the government's obligation to provide essential services is more reliable and effective than the private sector's opportunity to provide essential services. Admittedly, this debate does not lend itself to easy, black-and-white conclusions. But as the Tannehills argue persuasively, the free market provides solutions that governments would never dream of. "The big advantage of any action of the free market," contend the Tannehills, is that errors and injustices are self-correcting. Because competition creates a need for excellence on the part of each business, a free-market institution must correct its errors in order to survive. Government, on the other hand, survives not by excellence, but by coercion; so an error or flaw in a governmental institution can (and usually will) perpetuate itself almost indefinitely, with its errors being "corrected" by further errors. Private enterprise must, therefore, always be superior to government in any field. (It is worth mentioning here that corporations acting in collusion with the state are not private enterprises as the Tannehills define them. They are simply entities that have co-opted the government's "gun-for-hire" to do their dirty work for them. Think Wall Street "bailout" recipients and their army of DC lobbyists. Indeed, think any institution at all that seeks unfair protection or promotion from the state.) Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally 3. Furthermore: Pro-government teachers, preachers, beneficiaries, lawyers, journalists and employees all insist that the word "anarchist" means one who favors "chaos" and violence. That is a LIE. It is not just a lie, it is the opposite of the truth; for it is government that causes chaos and violence. So to help clear the confusion, let's define these terms. Government, as used on this web site, means an organization that governs those within its power. If you're within reach of a government, it is taking some of the decisions that affect your destiny. There are possibly better ways to define government; but that will do for now. Anarchism, in contrast, means "absence of a ruler". It's one of a series of words derived from Greek: "monarchy" is government by one person, "oligarchy" by a few persons, "plutarchy" by some rich persons, and so on. The prefix "an-" means a negation or opposite, and the suffix "-archy" means "rule", hence "anarchy" means rule by no persons. An "anarchist" is one who believes society runs best when nobody rules or governs it; when each of its members makes 100% of the choices that affect his or her life and therefore none at all of those affecting anyone else's. Naturally, pro-government people hate that idea, because they would not be able to strut around ruling other people or live off their labor. So they do all they can to discredit anarchism. As above, they lie; they try to redefine the word, to scare people into supposing that it means "chaos". On this web site, we'll examine the true source of chaos and violence. To compound the confusion, some people call themselves "anarchists" but openly destroy the property of, and call for controls over, the peaceful behavior of those they hate - so proving that they really favor government. So we have to recall the definition: a genuine anarchist doesn't want to rule anyone, except himself. We love freedom - and not just for ourselves. We're happy for everyone else to enjoy it too. Welcome, therefore, to this site and the following ; it introduces Anarchism and hopefully removes all confusion. We hope that after reading what it's really all about, you'll re-think what's on target and what is not. 11A119 The War on Liberty by Jim Davies, 5/31/2011 Zero Government Blog http://theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/index.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Why are our natural rights sometimes referred to as our "inalienable rights", or "unalienable rights"? "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments’ rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws..." ~ John Adams Because a man cannot be "alienated" from his natural rights "by human laws", but rather only by his own individual authority, either by express or tacit consent or by forfeiture (a form of implied consent).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    "Haege got more bad news in the mail Wednesday afternoon. He received a $275 fine from the City of Minneapolis." Don't even open it, scrawl across the envelope, diagonally, REFUSED FOR CAUSE WITHOUT DISHONOUR WITHOUT PREJUDICE WITHOUT RECOURSE.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Thanks for the link, Suverans. Outside of a use of the term "anarchy" I disagree with, it looks on target, and an excellent resource.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Few people will read this story, and then come to the obvious conclusion of questioning occupational licensing itself. Sad. At least this idiocy hasn't yet reached Wyoming, that I am aware of. Licensing and other legal requirements help destroy a civil society.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day tzo, Civil death, in law, is that which cuts off a man from civil society, or its rights and benefits, as banishment, outlawry, excommunication, entering into a monastery, &c., as distinguished from natural death. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added] We see from the above definition that "outlawry" is a form of civil death. There is, therefore, at least one other man who is in agreement with me that civil death can be a "voluntarily entered into, status". 1. Voluntary Outlawry As a corollary [consequence] to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law of equal freedom, we cannot choose but admit the right of the citizen to adopt a condition of voluntary outlawry. If every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, then he is free to drop connection with the state — to relinquish its protection, and to refuse paying towards its support. It is self-evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty of others; for his position is a passive one; and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. It is equally self-evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one of a political corporation, without a breach of the moral law... ~ The Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Did you see this comment from MKAllen, jd-in-georgia? Mr. Isenberg did a great job simplifying the very complicated subject of finance and debt. I couldn't stop thinking about what the conversation would look like if I had the same talk with my three teenage children. I imagine after explaining to them how their mother and I had pawned them to the loan shark for money and probably were going to have to default they would reply "so are we getting pizza or not?" I would then stress that because of my fiscal irresponsibility they soon might be running numbers for the local pawn shark. They would reply with something along the lines of "sooo... are you saying we can't order extra toppings?" Yes indeed...all three could have a great future in congress! Unfortunately, this reaction would not be restricted to teenage children only; most adults would respond similarly. "So-o-o-o, are we going to get 'free' health-care benefits or not?" "Does this mean I can't get another extension on my unemployment benefits?"
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Pass this on to your kids (or your neighbor's kids if you don't have any of your own.) I could not have explained their collective financial futures in America better than Mr. Isenberg.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Oh, stop pretending that our so-called "leaders" give a rat's a** (can I say "ass"?) about our children. These are people who don't even take a crap without studies and surveys and projected trends in public opinion. Do you really expect us to believe that they didn't KNOW how destructive zero-tolerance is? And it took them TWENTY years to figure it out? And what about those whose lives have been destroyed, not recklessly, or unknowingly, but deliberately destroyed in 20 years? Who will save them?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day tzo, Yes, that is true, in fact, most sources will define these terms as an "imposed...status", however, as we can readily see from Noah Webster's last example (directly below), civil death can be a "voluntarily entered into status"; and his &c. [etc.], means there are other ways. Civil death, in law, is that which cuts off a man from civil society, or its rights and benefits, as banishment, outlawry, excommunication, entering into a monastery, &c., as distinguished from natural death. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language [Emphasis added] Technically, the only way the word nonperson is used "legally", I believe, is in reference to "nonperson crime" (or "nonperson felony"). "[d]esignation of a crime as person or nonperson depends upon the nature of the offense. Crimes which inflict, or could inflict, physical or emotional harm to another are generally designated as person crimes. Crimes which inflict, or could inflict, damage to property are generally designated as nonperson crimes" However, on another level it can also mean something entirely different. Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus. A person is a man considered with reference to a certain status. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1143 non·per·son (nän′pʉr′sən) noun a person [a man or woman] who is completely ignored, as if he or she does not exist, specif., such a person [a man or woman] lacking any legal...status ~ Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition (c.2010) [Emphasis and bracketed information added]
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 4 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Paramilitary police are a relatively recent state invention. They’ve metastasized into a domestic occupation force, enhancing government, institutionalizing injustice, plundering with permission, Tasing with perversion, cloaked in full immunity, and not protecting people. Whatever you do, don’t call 911. As a mundane, your home is no longer your castle. 204. Police Epidemic On June 1, 2011, In Podcast, By admin http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/06/01/204-police-epidemic/ Lew Rockwell interviews William Norman Grigg. * A Note on Burke’s Vindication of the Natural Society by Murray N. Rothbard * William Norman Grigg: LRC Archives * William Norman Grigg: Pro Libertate blog * William Norman Grigg: Pro Libertate radio program And 18 Signs That Life In U.S. Public Schools Is Now Essentially Equivalent to Life In U.S. Prisons End of the American Dream http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/public-schools-like-prisons.html
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Oh, please! How many UNARMED civilians do these a**holes kill every year? Do they even count? Worried about their precious selves -- that's not a "new worry." It's what they've done all along.
  • Guest's picture
    chrisD (not verified) 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The president used the autopen to signed the Patriot Act. It's understandable since Obama is in France and the bill is in the USA. The president's signature is creating controversy, as he authorized an autopen signature, which is a mechanical device that produces an exact copy of a persons' signature. I found this here: President renews Patriot Act from Europe by using a robotic autopen, newstype.com.
  • Guest's picture
    williamblake (not verified) 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    A 26 year old former Marine, Jose Guerena, was slaughtered in front of his spouse and kid by SWAT officers, who later found absolutely nothing illegal in his home. It has been determined that Guerena, an Iraq war veteran that went on 2 tours, didn't shoot at police officers who went into his home with a search warrant. Many people are up in arms over the event. The validity of the search and the shooting are being questioned. I read this here: Jose Guerena did not shoot at SWAT team that killed him, newstype.com
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    The title should read: Enabling an American Dictator: Here and Now
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Interestingly, but not too surprisingly I suppose, Wikipedia defines these terms you mentioned mostly as an imposed, not voluntarily entered into, status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_death http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonperson
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Though they are very unlikely to ever admit it, the "wise" among us know that if they secede, i.e. withdraw from membership...[in the political]...group, they will have to give up all their "civil privileges", which include, (but are not limited to), "voting, holding public office, obtaining many jobs, and occupational licenses, entering judicially-enforceable agreements, maintaining family relationships, and obtaining insurance and pension benefits", and this is why they will never seriously consider it. They would rather say, "Oh, it can't be done", and quickly look the other way. ″Most people, sometime in their lives, stumble across truth. Most jump up, brush themselves off, and hurry on about their business as if nothing had happened.″ ~ Winston Churchill When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest. ~ Author Unknown It is important to understand, we are not asking anyone else to join us in our walk, we are only asking that our right ("just claim") to do so be respected, and nothing more.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    After reading that, these may make more sense. non·per·son n. UNPERSON; specif., ones who is officially ignored by the government ~ Webster's New World Dictionary of American English, Third College Edition,, page 923 [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Greetings and salutations Sharon Secor, As always your reply is friendly, polite and thoughtful, (not to mention complimentary), and is, therefore, a pleasure to read. Regarding my question. Although I can appreciate your answer, here is what I was fishing for. Did you know that a man (or woman) who has withdrawn from membership in the political association, (i.e. seceded), is considered to be "civilly dead"? civil death. Law. The change of status of a person equivalent in its legal consequences to natural death. ~ Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, copyright 1916-1960, pg. 151 Civil death. The state of a person who, though possessing natural life, has lost [or given up by choice] all civil rights [but not his or her natural rights] and as to them is considered civilly dead. …persons…declared civilly dead…means that certain civil rights and privileges…including the right to vote and contract and to sue and be sued are forfeited. ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 245 [Emphasis and bracketed information added] Specifically, judicially-enforceable agreements [contracts][1] are forfeited, because he or she cannot sue or be sued. And, as Bill Engvall would say, "Here's your sign". Sandra Renfro could not have "sued" Dave Winfield if he had been "civilly dead"; their union would not have been a judicially-enforceable agreement [contract]. "Serial monogamy", what an interesting, and no doubt appropriate, label, especially since, as far as I know, there is no word for this multiple-marriage type of behavior. Most people are not aware of it, but there are two distinctly different definitions for the word "monogamy". 1. the practice or state of being married to only one person at a time 2. RARE the practice of marrying only once during life (Source: Webster's 2010 New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition) RARE ain't the word for it, how about ALMOST UNHEARD OF these days. __________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Civil disabilities. …these disabilities…include denial of such privileges as voting, holding public office, obtaining many jobs, and occupational licenses, entering judicially-enforceable agreements, maintaining family relationships, and obtaining insurance and pension benefits. ~ Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 245
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Good Morning. I, of course, thank you for your always thought-provoking comments. You always add so much to a discussion. As I understand it, the reason the State got involved in that particular divorce is because it was requested of them by one of the parties in the marriage. While I, for example, would NEVER go running to the State to ask that they interfere or otherwise get involved in my personal relationship, other people have no qualms, it seems, about utilizing the force of the State to resolve their differences. Often a desire to punish or hurt the other person is the driving force behind many divorce court fights over property, etc. Now, some see the role of a limited government as dealing with contract disputes. Marriage can be a tricky issue, in terms of property disputes. For me personally, I think it best not to involve oneself in a situation in which such disputes can occur. That may, for some people, mean that private contracts regarding property, etc., are made before entering into a marriage. That may mean not marrying someone you are not sure of. For example, my husband is not the sort of person that would, in the event of a parting of the ways, try to wrest my real estate from me, as that belongs to the children. That's just not a part of his personality. It was mine before we met, procured specifically with the children in mind. The ability to be fair, even under undesirable circumstances is an important quality... People make poor marital choices, or choose people on more superficial levels, or simply do not invest much thought in long-term outcomes. It amazes me how lightly people enter into serious, serious things such as child rearing or marriage, investing little deep thought. (I've done it... when I was first married, many years ago, I didn't have a full understanding of how serious a thing it was. Today, I do. Childrearing, however... years and years of thought and research. Decades worth.) Of course, culturally we view marriage differently than we have in times past, more open-ended, more along the serial monogamy lines than a life long commitment. It may be best for serial monogamists to stick with living together, as it is easier to dissolve. Of course, how people arrange their personal lives is none of my business. I, however, do make the distinction between the two types of relationships... marriage is a different thing for me. And, I choose not to involve the State, not now and not in the future. My husband isn't inclined to such things either. And, he also knows that, even if he did lose his mind and decide to run to the State to solve a dispute involving me, it would do him no good, because I would refuse to participate or comply anyway. And, the likelihood of our local law enforcement dragging me into divorce court in chains and at gunpoint (the only way I'd ever make it there) is very, very, slim. They have far better things to do with their time and resources, HA HA HA. Enjoy the day. Always a pleasure to hear from you. And, I was also well aware of the origin of marriage licenses in the US. Fascinating, isn't it? Thanks for pointing that out to people who didn't yet know that. Best Regards...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Sharon Secor, "Earle Lilly, a noted divorce lawyer from Houston, ...represented a woman [in "divorce court"] who claimed Dave Winfield as her common-law husband and won a $1.6 million judgment." How did this happen if they were married in a way that did not involve the State?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    An aside. Ever see the modern-day legal definition of "marriage license"? Well, actually, it is the very same definition found in Henry Black's first edition, A Dictionary of Law (1891), a hundred years earlier, on page 757; no change, not one word[1]. Marriage license. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 973 [Emphasis added] And what, according to this same source, is "intermarry"? Intermarriage. See Miscegenation. Okay, we will. Miscegenation. Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Ibid., page 999 [Emphasis added] Formerly? Miscegenation. Mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races; as between a white person and a negro. A Dictionary of Law (c.1891) page 778 Yep, "formerly" it did; that's right. Should make one wonder what the term "miscegenation" applies to now, "legally" speaking, should it not? Well, now it only applies to "mixture of races", and not the "marriage between persons of different races". That being the case, why has the legal definition of "marriage license" never been changed to reflect this, e.g. A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to marry? _____________________________________________________________________________________ [1] However, by 1910, Henry Black's second legal dictionary, A Law Dictionary, page 762, added this, "By statute in some jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage," and remains attached to the legal definition of "marriage license" to this day, word for word.
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Economics knows the price of everything and the value of nothing, to parapharse Oscar Wilde. The value of peace cannot be counted in dollars, pounds or renminbi but in liberty gained.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 4 years 5 weeks ago
    Remember
    Web link strike
    Wow! Absolutely fantastic, Roger.
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 5 weeks ago
    Untitled
    Web link strike
    Awesome.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago
    The 'Rule of Law'
    Page Bill Ross
    G'day Bill Ross, Bruce wrote, in the comment you posted, (which is otherwise an excellent dissertation), "The word lawful implies what history has found to be moral and just, and pertains to what we perceive as the common law." According to Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1332 the definition of "rule of law" is this: "The rule of law, sometimes called "the supremacy of law", provides that decisions should be made by the application of known principles or laws without the intervention of discretion in their application." And what is the "supreme law" of man? It is not the "common law", which is dependent upon "custom" and/or "judicial decisions", it is the "law of nature", the "natural law" of man. The law of nature is superior in obligation to any other. It is binding in all countries and at all times. No human laws are valid if opposed to this, and all which are binding derive their authority either directly or indirectly from it. ~ Institutes of American Law by John Bouvier, 1851, Part I, Title II, No. 9 [The natural] law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth. ~ Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner This law of nature, being coeval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original. ~ 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries at 41 ...“natural law,” or jus naturale...system of rules and principles for the guidance of human conduct which, independent of enacted law or of the systems peculiar to any one people, might be discovered by the rational intelligence of man, and would be found to grow out of and conform to his nature, meaning by that word his whole mental, moral, and physical constitution. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 2ND c. 1910), pg. 804 Law of nature, is a rule of conduct arising out of the natural relations of human beings established by the Creator, and existing prior to any positive precept. Thus it is a law of nature, that one man should not injure another, and murder and fraud would be crimes, independent of any prohibition from a supreme power. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago
    The 'Rule of Law'
    Page Bill Ross
    Could not post this with the below link imbedded, it triggered the spam filter on first attempt at posting it. http ://users.ugent.be/~frvandun/Texts/Logica/NaturalLaw.htm (Space added after http so I could post it here.)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 5 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    If people begin to understand that the entire Western world HAS LOST ITS MOST IMPORTANT WAR TO A BUNCH OF GOAT-HERDERS AND POPPY GROWERS ... what then? Turning Points of Empire's End? Saturday, May 28, 2011 – by Anthony Wile http://www.thedailybell.com/2414/Turning-Points-of-Empires-End.html
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 5 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    US, Losing the War, Seeks Further Talks With Taliban? Wednesday, May 18, 2011 – by Staff Report Armies that are winning wars don't negotiate, do they? .... http://www.thedailybell.com/2328/US-Losing-the-War-Seeks-Further-Talks-W...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 5 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    The part I particularly liked was this: Whenever there arises in conversation the mere suggestion of a totally free, laissez-faire market — the possibility that human beings might even be able to survive (much less thrive) without the safety net of state control — apologists for "benevolent government" invariably step atop their soapboxes and ask, "Yes, but who will provide education for the masses, if not the public schools?" or "Who will care for the sick and weak, if not the public hospitals?" Indeed, these are questions that deserve thoughtful, honest answers. But these questions assume realities that are not in evidence. They suppose that "the public" (i.e., the state) actually has money to "provide" these services, rather than, as is actually the case, first having to expropriate (steal) it from private, productive individuals. Furthermore, the fallacy of benign governmental control relies on the idea that governments can provide essential services more reliably and cost-effectively than the private sector. In other words, the government's obligation to provide essential services is more reliable and effective than the private sector's opportunity to provide essential services. Admittedly, this debate does not lend itself to easy, black-and-white conclusions. But as the Tannehills argue persuasively, the free market provides solutions that governments would never dream of. "The big advantage of any action of the free market," contend the Tannehills, is that errors and injustices are self-correcting. Because competition creates a need for excellence on the part of each business, a free-market institution must correct its errors in order to survive. Government, on the other hand, survives not by excellence, but by coercion; so an error or flaw in a governmental institution can (and usually will) perpetuate itself almost indefinitely, with its errors being "corrected" by further errors. Private enterprise must, therefore, always be superior to government in any field. (It is worth mentioning here that corporations acting in collusion with the state are not private enterprises as the Tannehills define them. They are simply entities that have co-opted the government's "gun-for-hire" to do their dirty work for them. Think Wall Street "bailout" recipients and their army of DC lobbyists. Indeed, think any institution at all that seeks unfair protection or promotion from the state.) Freedom, Naturally Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally
  • rita's picture
    rita 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Nine years ago friend of mine was murdered, in his own home, in the presence of his 3-year-old son, while his 90-year-old grandmother, a former Army nurse, a "If-you-love-your-freedom-thank-a" WWII veteran, watched in handcuffs from the living room floor. The murderer was never brought to justice, never even put on leave while his buddies conducted a travesty of an investigation. The murderer, is, in fact, still on the force, license to kill still firmly pinned to his chest. Whenever I dare to publicly criticize the men and women who would be gods, someone invariably accuses me of having "issues" with police. Yeah, I say, I've got issues.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Well, gee, if individuals who call themselves United States' citizens had any backbone, they "might actually put liberty and justice and individual freedom before personal convenience" and withdraw from membership in any STATE that perpetrates these sorts of things. But don't hold your breath, because those who will actually withdraw their consent to be members of the STATE will be told by the other crabs in the basket, "It can't be done." In other words, those "crabs" who choose to remain in the basket will "pretend", along with their masters, not to "recognize" that one has actually gotten out of the basket.
  • DanClore's picture
    DanClore 4 years 5 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    But was this a scientific poll?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 5 weeks ago Page Jim Moore
    Re: AND then there is the Fed Reserve and Lord Keyenes the British Fascist prof who taught every Prez since Wilson and FDR debt is wealth, slavery is freedom, war is progress... Let's not forget Hamilton.... A Note on the Machiavellian Origins of Central Banking in America, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo http://blog.mises.org/17122/quarterly-journal-of-austrian-economics-vol-...