Recent comments

  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Lawrence, Re:Atlas: I wouldn't have changed a thing about Ms. Rand's fiction. That is certainly a different caveat than but for her "plenty of faults". Wonderful and refreshing. I look forward to that new caveat regarding Ayn Rand. Re:They were great accomplishments, and I have nothing to even come close to it. All of us make these tiny errors, and as we develop and learn as human beings, we realize the flaws in our earlier work. Well this is the nub of it. Understanding How ideas work and applying them. However, actually implementing them--as you know--standing on her shoulders and others can be an uphill battle. Re: The idea of going back in time is impossible and silly. It is a wake up call to what is taken for granted. And it begins to open up the problems of writing with a fountain pen and a full scap vs today's technology and the access to knowledge that IS IN our minds. The Intellectual property issue was something back then that she tripped over and it was because the technology and internet break thru had not happened yet. There is a time for everything. Re: Yes, her dialog was wooden at times (and it made it into the good but flawed film that was recently released), but I don't think it matters in comparison to the wonderful things it communicated. Undoing centuries of rust infested canned philosophies and writing of a world outside of the one we still live in--the rat race whilst--embracing a division of labor society is probably how should I say it more World Fulcrum flow forward inch at a time and probably appears wooden to some. Imagine that! Re: Many of Rand's flaws are entirely excusable as examples of this. The only serious concern I have about her and some of those who claim to follow in her footsteps is their rigid adherence to errors that should have been abandoned in here subsequent non-fiction essays. For example, the "open letter to Ayn Rand" written by Roy Childs many years ago was an opportunity for the Randians to evolve. Many of them did, but they had to leave her official graces to do so. That kind of "hardening of the categories" that they exhibited was a sad thing. Here's the link for Roy's essay: Thanks, I am familiar with it and I would add that whilst Ayn Rand was moving the world fulcrum flow forward inch at a time and appearing "wooden" to some of the best of us I would submit she was self inoculating herself too. But perhaps without the timing and division of labor pressures of technology or the internet to press the "big" problem of intellectrual property issue home and which she tripped over but started to front-load her book sales (the reality thingy was pressing home). I will put up a link to that when I find it. You are NOT--it appears--a "Randian" in the sense you use it on others. So they are apparently in the canned philosophy mode even when the times and division of labor would say that Child's points are worth considering and that the IP issue is indeed sensible. Apparently you are able to step to your own beat and so am I. That makes two of us. So what are we? In summary I would say that it would be "silly" and improbable for you to caveat your works with--I [you] have plenty of "faults" small and large and one of those is being having "wooden" issues. But have it your way, when the next time you do some heavy lifting such as concrete pounding a New Foundation on capitalism or secession or reason over force or...--try playing a violin afterwards or during or because someone is trying to convince you of such when you are in action when the time is NOT ripe! The mind is a fine tuned machine last time I looked. The hand to mouth to brain cells nicotine monkey on the back was another inherited problem that eventually killed her. I don't hold Rand responsible for uncritical zombies nor for helping the tobacco industry types nor those who will not help themselves and smoke because Rand smoked. They have been with us a long time. And they will even join up and perhaps assimilate the unwary with package deals. But they are not my drooling beasts and not because I say so...
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 23 weeks ago Page B.R. Merrick
    Thanks, Glen (and Paul). The movie really has a lot of other fine points to it. Usually, with these movies, the makers like to showcase all the gorgeousness of royal interiors, the opulence of their lifestyle; not so in this film. It's full of narrow, confining hallways and darkened parlors. Colin Firth meanders through an ornate prison for the duration of the film. When he gives a halted speech accepting his kingship, he looks at one portrait after another of previous monarchs, and you can just feel the superiority vs. inferiority battle raging in his head while he stutters his words. Marvelous.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Harry Goslin
    The experiment of providing unlimited funds for a school district has already been tried: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-298.html Strangely enough, it didn't work. Gee, I wonder why?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    This certainly isn't a complete answer, but in a truly free market the huge monopolistic behemoth corporations, creations of government, would not exist in their current form. A company in a free market would have to rely on its customers, period. If a company was even suspected (forget having to prove something beyond a reasonable doubt) of polluting or carrying on in some unacceptable manner (Unacceptable to whom? Their customers. Actual human beings who can choose to purchase a service or not from a variety of sources), then they would lose business and quickly go out of business if they did not remedy the situation. If human beings actually demanded electricity without the unwanted side effect of spewing mercury into the air, I guarantee that ingenious individuals would solve that problem in a free market. I would venture to say that the solution exists right now, but since there is no free market, we don't see it. Our scientific achievements have ground to a halt due to IP and government enforced monopolies. Schools, cars, roads, trains, postal service, utilities, all look pretty much the same over the last century because there are no competitive markets to drive them forward or evolve them into something else. If every home had a power generator that ran on water or a magnetic generator, there would be NO power companies spewing crap into the air. The problems we see in the world are CAUSED by government interference, and the only solutions, we are told, are more government regulations. This is false. Humans do not need government to stop greedy humans from crapping in the nest, they need the nest-crapping government to go away. Most of the self-destructive behavior we see in our species is because someone is waving a gun around to cause it, to their great profit. Stop enabling the sociopaths seems to be the best solution. Also interesting related reading: http://mises.org/daily/5266/The-Myth-of-Natural-Monopoly?sms_ss=facebook...
  • hacksoncode's picture
    hacksoncode 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Sadly, the only conclusion that I can draw from that essay is that there's no possible way to hold people accountable for actions that damage others properties in a diffuse and indirect way, even if that damage is extensive, and the causal connection between the behavior and the class of damage can be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. According to Rothbard, if you can't prove a causal connection between one specific attacker and one specific victim, you can't hold them accountable, and you can't join attackers in a suit unless they acted in concert. The reasoning for this seems to be no more than "because I think it's wrong". This is one of the many reasons I find Rothbard's particular flavor of libertarian ethics both logically inconsistent and morally offensive. It's also incredibly ignorant of science. Air pollution eventually has a direct (if small) impact on every square inch of the planet, much of which was already homesteaded by the time the industrial revolution started. There can logically be no such thing as "homesteading a right to pollute" in the case of the air. In other situations, such as water or ground pollution, and certainly noise pollution, that argument might be possibly valid (though one would have to conclude similarly that some parts of the ocean have been homesteaded since antiquity, and there are very few areas on the Earth that are hydrographically completely isolated).
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Their real motto is as follows: "To protect each other and to serve ourselves."
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Atlas: I wouldn't have changed a thing about Ms. Rand's fiction. They were great accomplishments, and I have nothing to even come close to it. All of us make these tiny errors, and as we develop and learn as human beings, we realize the flaws in our earlier work. The idea of going back in time is impossible and silly. Yes, her dialog was wooden at times (and it made it into the good but flawed film that was recently released), but I don't think it matters in comparison to the wonderful things it communicated. Many of Rand's flaws are entirely excusable as examples of this. The only serious concern I have about her and some of those who claim to follow in her footsteps is their rigid adherence to errors that should have been abandoned in here subsequent non-fiction essays. For example, the "open letter to Ayn Rand" written by Roy Childs many years ago was an opportunity for the Randians to evolve. Many of them did, but they had to leave her official graces to do so. That kind of "hardening of the categories" that they exhibited was a sad thing. Here's the link for Roy's essay: http://www.isil.org/ayn-rand/childs-open-letter.html
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    And whenever someone dares to criticize the men who would be gods, some cop-lover invariably pipes up with some drivel about how cops don't get to "pick and choose" what laws to enforce. If that were true, I say, they'd be so busy arresting each other they wouldn't have time to rummage through our toilets and trash desperately seeking excuses to justify their own existences.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 23 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    The headline says it best, but Vox got it backwards -- the police are the enemy, and the state the servant of the police. Every public employee, elected or hired, from the lowliest paper-pusher to the president, serves the interest of the police. The police serve no one but themselves.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day AtlasAikido, We, (my natural law wife and I), too, "shrugged", over ten years ago, and as a result of that we are "in" the world, but not "of" it. “I would add some--including myself once upon a time--would sit and RELY on "rights"...” ~ AtlasAikido Point well taken. It is useless to “sit” on our natural rights, we must “act”, based upon our natural rights. We “rely” on natural rights only to determine if our acts are just (right) or unjust (wrong). Also, it is, most times, critical, when speaking of “rights”, that we specify the kind of “rights” we are referring to, since all rights are based on membership; the natural rights of man are based solely on membership in the human race, artificial rights are based on membership in artificial man-made groups. Natural rights, also called inalienable rights, are considered to be self-evident and universal. They are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government. Legal rights, also called statutory rights, are bestowed by a particular government to the governed people and are relative to specific cultures and governments. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_rights (Copy and paste.)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re: Mr Ludlow's, Good points. I wonder what Wallace's real beef is with Ms. Rand. She has plenty of faults, but I still love her for knocking me upside the head -- so to speak -- and waking me up. I don't think anyone else could have done it. She re-introduced the moral element into the picture in a powerful way by showing how socialists are first-rate victimizers and cannibals. A question. So what do you propose Ayn Rand could have done as a different writing style or plot theme or character development? You are an accomplished writer in your own right. I enjoyed what you wrote. And if she had written what you write, would you have gotten your dose of wake up (freedom)? After all you now know what you needed. After the fact? She was prescient on what is going on right now and even what may come... Could you or one imagine a bench mark of oneself, back in time without internet and lap top computer and without access to a division of labor society and all of the books on-line at one's finger tips? And could one tear out what one now knows because of her and others (which is the Intellectual Property "Copywrong" thicket currently being un-ravelled and which she inherited and tripped over most especially because the internet and technology has pressed this issue)? If one cannot do this, is this entirely different from what she had to contend with, with those around her and her peers and indeed with herself? What was she--Rand--to mitigate, to recover, to change? I have to say that this continual "fault" caveat reminds of bowing and scraping (I have noticed that here on this site amongst other things and I am still working this thru) but I would say her heroes are shorn of these "fault" NON-Essentials. Thank goodness. I am personally more interested in her Innovations, which were significant as was her worked out prototype of "Galt's Gulch" in "Atlas Shrugged", which was the pinnacle of her legacy. She was an Earthling and surrounded by govt, religion and people nursed on centuries of "canned" philosophies. She left a hint to the real problem of frozen abstractions--doing one thing and then replacing it with some equivalent. It has taken me a life time to lift the veil and to be free of it. She did the heavy innovative lifting as did such students as Harry Browne--in his own right and he was super benevolent and a model of much of what he wrote--and yet people still drop the solution.... She described Dagny as expecting others to have the same values and then she took that to its ultimate conclusion. She corrected that and showed how. When I read Lysander Spooner I don't have to wade thru this "but for his faults" Nor Harry Browne's "faults" nor Mr. Ludlow's or Mr. Merrick's as a preamble. I certainly don't come at things that way.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    On sufferance? In 1848 the most commonly heard phrase was -"Free soil, free speech ,free labor, and free men." The good old days when men were men who had a cause. 'Tis taiseh to think one's penny silver of today? What happened to produce the timid men of today? Was it Ayn Rand? 'Tis funny to think these time bettering days. Why the clerisy of Ayn Rand?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Lawrence M. Ludlow, you did magnificently! I love the way you portrayed Andromeda. And in childhood it is near impossible to get away from the group trap (family, govt, indoctrination schools etc). Happily Harry Browne provides a way out using innovative peaceful solutions. I took your wonderful breathtaking description of Andromeda--and took it in a different direction--and tied it to an adult and romantic adventure rendering. In the movie Transporter 3, Natalya R (in actual Ukraine accent) asks if she is in heaven and he--Jason S (an actual practicing martial artist)--tells her the truth; they are in the shit after he rouses her from a car--a tricked out Audi--crashed into Jason Statham's living room in a desperate run for her life. A bit different from Dagny opening her eyes to Galt after crashing into the respite of the gulch...but both are at the beginning of the road to freedom with a little help from their new friends.... I thank you for rooting out Mr Wallace's assumption and bringing it to the light. To see the farm is to leave it.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    I do not doubt that. Good points Suverans2. I am focusing on the doing part...and the eye in the storm...for those who can see it and reach it....sometimes the one inch. It can be as easy as moving and changing a position. The power of the imagination is more powerful than knowledge. That is not just a saying and Einstein proved that and so did Rand (Atlas Shrugging is a apparently very counter intuitive thing to do)--it is a Peaceful UNwarlike "self" affirming ownership and personal secession requiring no govt, no permission, no waiting for others (Thoreau), no interest in what others think. And that is a "direct" personal thing that plays to one's strengths and Rand's principles (rational selfishness, purposeful action, peaceful productivity individual rights etc. A framework where one takes "direct" control and one lets gravity do its work--ahemm. Walking away may be a natural "right" that one relies on but it IS the walking amongst other things that makes it life giving and proper. How many take that option without fear of peer or family pressure or too many kids or marrying the wrong gal or debt or the wrong leaders or politic power? There is a way out. I would add some--including myself once upon a time--would sit and RELY on "rights" and OTHERS much like Dagny--instead of taking control of themselves and letting others live and let live. Again, Dagny and Rearden relied on what they perceived others would grant as just rights. They were wrong and suffered for it until they corrected that. This seems to be truly counter intuitive as it has taken years of intellectual action until the URGE--the emotion--is no longer there control others including when they trample one's rights. Why did one stay when when it was clear they were standing in front of a locomotive.... It is the reverse of what many do. When things go contrary to what one expects--including all the forms of disrespect to one's RIGHTS--what is it that has to be done to get the job (of living one's own individual life as an owner and not as an implicit or explicit slave or master or policeman or raising one's rights copy book). Well we are back to Atlas "Shrugging". I Shrug dear friend...and dear readers... PS *Happily there is a way to get away from governing others by controlling ones-self and making it possible to not throw ones found freedom in an unfree world away and ATTRACTING those few or many who are compatible (and the explicit root of what that is (a personal covenant of unanimous consent) as a "basic" that I actually signed as to how I will act.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Oh, damn I forgot my porridge and posted "the Lawrence M. Ludlow, you did magnificently post" twice. Oh well, I have moved it to its proper slot and leave this Love Letters: starring Jennifer Jones and Joseph Cotten in the hands of Ayn Rand. The second meeting with another "Andromeda". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jQBjqJPztuw&feature=related
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hello, H: It's possible that Murray Rothbard has the outlines of an approach in this piece, which I think can be adapted to the situation you explained. Even the transaction cost of it might be easy to resolve with current technologies. Sadly, I left this great link out of the original essay: http://mises.org/daily/2120
  • hacksoncode's picture
    hacksoncode 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    By way of exposing my biases: I will start by saying that I'm on the minarchist side of libertarianism, and feel that Pigovian taxes are an appropriate way to deal with this problem and funding the minarchist government voluntarily. Let us, for the sake of argument, stipulate that global warming is a real problem, is caused by humans emitting excess CO2 (i.e. releasing CO2 that which was until recently sequestered away from the atmosphere), and that it causes widespread damage to a double-digit fraction of the individuals around the Earth. Let us further stipulate that this can be proven scientifically beyond a reasonable doubt. Further assume that any one emitter of carbon contributes only slightly to the problem and thus would have small, but non-zero liability under strict libertarian property rules. Further assume that most victims of this damage are likely to suffer relatively small damages, but that there are so many of them that the total damage is huge. Further assume that the people suffering the damage are not all the same as those causing it. Finally, assume that while the existence of widespread damage and identification of general categories of damage is proven scientifically, tying any one *specific* instance of damage to a particular victim is difficult if not impossible (hurricanes do happen, and that one might have happened without global warming, for example). What would be an appropriate market force that would create a solution to this problem? I would argue that there's no one to sue, and that there's no conceivable justice system with global scope and that has low enough transaction costs that could resolve this problem. Hopefully the market comes to the rescue and justice is done for the victims of this crime, but how?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Good points. I wonder what Wallace's real beef is with Ms. Rand. She has plenty of faults, but I still love her for knocking me upside the head -- so to speak -- and waking me up. I don't think anyone else could have done it. She re-introduced the moral element into the picture in a powerful way by showing how socialists are first-rate victimizers and cannibals.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Well I tried! My attempt was to show what happens when the quotidian world -- which includes those of us who aren't always focused and kinda fallible and with a lazy streak -- collides with the clear-cut world of the Randian characters in a tract-home situation that includes kids and laundry and dirty floors and "neighbors" and stuff like that.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 23 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    With firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right- Abraham Lincoln. In law, an enforceable claim or title to any subject matter whatever. A power, prerogative, or privilege, as when the word is applied to a corporation. Hence, at all rights. Is america ready for the writ of right? A right can only be that which the law secures to the possessor by requiring others to respect it, and to abstain from its violation. This is not to be confused with righteousness.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "In THIS PAPER I shall review the etymological evidence for the thesis that the lawful (what answers to law or justice) and the legal (what answers to the enacted laws) are not just distinct concepts, but belong to categorically different perspectives on the social aspect of human existence. As we disentangle the concepts of the lawful and the legal, that are nowadays usually assimilated, or even considered identical, we discover a recognisably "liberal" picture of society as the peaceful order of relations among separate but (in a definite sense of the word) equal human beings, each of them a naturally, i.e. physically, finite person with his or her own equally finite, physically delimited sphere of being and work, i.e. property. In other words, we 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")." ~ Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law. [Emphasis added]
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Thanks for the pleasant reply, AtlasAikido. I won't beat a dead horse, as regards this statement, "She spoke of individual rights but I don't rely on rights...". [Emphasis added] I would ask you to fairly consider this, fundamentally "a right is nothing more than a just claim", we each have a just claim (a natural right) to our natural property, e.g. our life and liberty, and a natural right (a just claim) to our justly acquired property, and it is this "right", this "just claim", that makes it wrong (unjust) for someone to take them, (without our consent), and what makes it right (just) for us to protect them. "By nature's law, every man has a right to seize and retake by force his own property [just claim] taken from him by another by force or fraud." ~ Thomas Jefferson My friend, we all "rely on rights", whether we know it or not, and whether we admit it or not; it is not an option. 'Nuff said.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    I concur Re: I [Lawrence M. Ludlow] have to agree with Mr. Merrick in so far as Mr. Wallace has intentionally misrepresented the situation in Atlas Shrugged by writing the following sentence in his Tzo-cited artice: "She projects all hate, rage and envy onto them, scapegoats them, and then engages in a sadistic Hitlerian orgy of hate and destruction and kills off nearly everyone outside of Galt's Gulch." Re: Fortunately Nathanial Brandon and his wife have written extensively and informatively about precisely where she [Rand] went awry. I personally found Mr. Nathanial Branden's work as non-productive except his one article edited by Ayn Rand on infinite regress and reversing existence with causality regarding the question of the existence of God. Harry Browne In How I Found Freedom in an UNFree World provides actual solutions as it regards a division of labor between one's identity, other's identities, trade, and one's intellect and emotions. Re: Andromeda Nice until the part where Alex wakes up, that was a let down http://www.strike-the-root.com/atlases-at-home-children Well I picture "Andromeda" in this way...orange hair, legs flashing eyes in an audi in Transporter 3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q5sIAGocuzI&feature=related I am laughing, almost crying....Natalya R asks if she is in heaven and he--Jason S--tells her the truth; they are in the shit…(A bit different from Dagny opening her eyes to Galt after crashing into the gulch)... The interactions of Jason Statham and Natalya Rudakova are refreshingly clear cut and breathe real. Understanding brings meaning--and the meaning of his and her disobedience and more--saves their lives--and sets her--Natalya--off.... Using what is, turning it around--all the while moving within incremental pockets of freedom…in an unfree world. The protagonists stay with the Audi or die...but not the others....they push it away.... An action plot theme...where the man and woman and machinery interact thru out the whole movie... Cheers...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re: How did she end up prototyping a gulch without the need nor the interest nor the inclination of govt that some are hung up on still." Re: That's part of what I got out of the book. I confess to only having read it once, but it was fairly recent. And Re: The one part of the narrative where I felt that I disagreed strongly was the shrugging judge at the end, changing The Constitution as if doing so was the final requirement for a freedom revolution. I posted a solution to your cogent identification (and put you with Lysander Spooner as he had come to a similar conclusion regarding the constitution (allowing what has happened or unable to stop what has come to be). Happily there is a way to get away from governing others by controlling ones-self and attracting those who are compatible (and the explicit root of what that is (a personal covenant of unanimous consent). I have enjoyed your articles. This is one: The Fake TV Challenge by B.R. Merrick, http://www.strike-the-root.com/fake-tv-challenge I had already prototyped and adopted this and you described it perfectly for me: Get dvds, wifi, cut the cable chord (Direct Actions)--sever the rat race with its self-serving cancerous insinuations and "Get A Life"--as in my own--(Direct Results) without permission, vulnerability, need nor urge to change others...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Nice! Yes, Suverans2, I was thinking of Rand's: The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities. She spoke of individual rights but I don't rely on rights, but on myself, peaceful innovation, rational self-interest, trade with compatibles/ erring on the side of freedom and my feet... I seem to have answered your question in your thumbs up post. Yes, you are right! I too was unable to add an edit. I think your logical arrangement of definitions (genus / differrentia; essentials/fundamentals via common denominators/measurement omission) was highly illuminating. Wonderful when someone understands what one has said and adds to it and improves it (grin). A note to myself: In Atlas Shrugged Rand used MANY "twinnings" of SALIENT similarities and significant differences between characters (Rearden and Boyle and Rearden and Stadler and so on) and this followed from her theory of concept formation (Objectivist Epistemology). One of the many multi-tiered ways she used to tie her characters and root her book in reality. She presciently foresaw what is happening today...
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The funniest thing I encounter is text blindness and the isogloss. 'Tis just a caprice of the feminine mind. In the end, both are consimilar. A feigned issue. One can only interwish nicery. The law burrows deeply? or The -law burrows- deeply? Big difference to strike the root. What would Thoreau do?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago
    Civil War
    Web link Don Stacy
    Timothy Sandefur, ATTORNEY AT LAW, asserts that "secession was and remains totally illegal", in particular "unilateral secession". Some of us might want to see the particular Amendment to the Constitution, or the so-called law, "made in Pursuance thereof", which makes "secession...totally illegal". “It cannot seriously be argued today that international law prohibits secession. It cannot seriously be denied that international law permits secession. There is a privilege of secession recognized in international law and the law imposes no duty on any people not to secede.” ~ Thomas Franck, (one of the five international law experts), as quoted in Suzanne Lalonde, Determining Boundaries in a Conflicted World: The Role of UIT POSSIDETIS 209 (2002) [Emphasis added] And, if it was NOT, and is NOT, "totally illegal", would it not be an overt act of aggression for a foreign nation to place armed troops on another country's soil [Ft. Sumter] without its express permission? Would this ATTORNEY AT LAW also say that the secession of the original thirteen united States of America from England "was and remains totally illegal"? Timothy Sandefur, ATTORNEY AT LAW, also needs to understand the fundamental difference between a Declaration and a Constitution; a Declaration 'creates' nothing, it is simply a lawful and/or legal notice, and in the case The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, specifically, it was a notice of secession.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    And, one of the funniest things I encounter, Bob, is someone who has trouble understanding simple sentence structure. The correct tense is "understand", Bob, not "understood". And, attacking the messenger with name-calling really shows the paper tiger behind your arguments.
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "Guess again, Bob." One of the funniest things I encounter is someone who quotes dictionary defintions because they cannot understood the advanced technical definitions. One of the greatest State-worshipping collectivists among psuedo-libertarians was Ayn Rand.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago
    Civil War
    Web link Don Stacy
    Timothy Sandefur, an ATTORNEY AT LAW, (not a lawyer), wrote: "In all their writings, we witness the pathetic spectacle of professed defenders of liberty arguing in favor of the illegal “right” of a racist despotism to perpetuate its institutions without criticism; of the “right,” that is, to enslave." That statement is, in the words of Timothy Sandefur himself, "just shockingly ignorant, ...distorted, illogical, and ahistorical", in that I have yet to see any true "defenders of liberty" saying any such thing, let alone "all" of them. Off to a bad start, Timothy Sandefur, lying like that, but what can we expect from an ATTORNEY AT LAW.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Your submission has triggered the spam filter and will not be accepted, because I added this, on, I think, the third editing. (I'm a perfectionist.) [2]"Basic" is defined by Macmillan Dictionary as, "forming the main or most important part of something, without which it cannot really exist"; therefore the only "basic political unit" is the individual man and woman.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day AtlasAikido, A well thought out reply! Thumb up! You wrote, "The book leads one to come to the counter intuitive of peaceful secession." Why would you classify "peaceful secession" as "counter intuitive"? Or, am I reading that wrong? And, it is important to note that this was individual secession; these freedom-loving individuals did not seek to force non-voters and dissenting voters to secede with them by putting it to a vote. PRIMACY OF THE RIGHT TO SECEDE The primary political right[1] of the individual...must be to secede from any larger political entity, whether they were born into it, were forced to join it, or voluntarily joined it. http://www.secession.net/ [1] Individual secession is a natural right, not a political right. Many think in terms of "state's rights" secession, especially in the United States, with such states opposed to secession by smaller political units. However, Secession.Net promotes "community-based secession," assuming that smaller entities like communities, towns, small cities, neighborhoods within larger cities will and must become the basic political unit, after the individual. (Ibid.) [Emphasis added] The only natural entity in the above paragraph is the individual man or woman, individual men and women therefore have natural rights. States, communities, towns, small cities, neighborhoods within larger cities, and "citizens", on the other hand, are created by artifice, they are, therefore, "artificial persons[1]", and as such they can only have artificial rights, i.e. legal rights, such as political and civil rights, and by civil rights is meant, "right or rights belonging to a person by reason of citizenship". [1]Artificial persons. Persons created by human laws for the purposes of society and government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Re:Column by Bob Wall[a]ce. Exclusive to STR Re:What a philosophy claims and what it delivers are often two different things. Marxism was supposed to create a heaven on earth but instead created a hell. I think Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, would also create a hell on earth. Huh. You don't have to know what's in it--a philosophy--or how it's cooked, no effort is required of you, just swallow it—and if it poisons you, it was your own fault, the cooks will tell you, you didn't have enough "faith."’ Paraphrased from The Journals of Ayn Rand, Notes 1955-1977. Well happily Rand broke that centuries long religionist faith based strangle hold. Back when there was no Mises institute nor internet, and her ideas were more than the one inch to pull oneself out of the conformance servitude idolatry of state and church. Re: Rand divided people into two groups: her perfect John Galtian heroes, and everyone else – whom she described as “sub-humans” living in “a hell.” She projected all “evil” onto her “looters” and “parasites” and reserved all goodness for her heroes. Such a division does not exist in real life. The Principle of Comparative Advantage and the Pyramid of Ability principle is how the division of labor society progressed (in spite of the State). The Steel Industrialist Hank Rearden was an Atlas but flawed as was Dagny Taggart the Operativing VP of a railroad in their acceptance of contradictions--accepting the wrong philosophy--and are resolved in Part III "A is A" of Atlas Shrugged. Re: In fact, this division into human/sub-human is one of the foundations of all wars. This all-good/all-bad split is also the basis of all propaganda, which is why Atlas Shrugged is in many ways a vast propaganda tract. (A good current example of propaganda was when the terminally addled George Bush claimed “the Evil Ones” attacked the United States “for our goodness.”) Actually Atlas Shrugged differentiates subsidy seeking businessmen and the heroes of the book Including Eddie Willers--who was not a business magnate and not an Atlas--and they are UNinterested in being subsidized by the state. And they come to understand that by Rand's principles played out, that they should leave the men-that-hold-a-whip over them to their own devices--peacefully (understanding the sanction of the victim and more below). Re: Rand apparently truly believed when the world collapsed after her two dozen or so heroes withdrew into Galt’s Gulch, they would emerge to rule over the ruins. Would they rule benevolently and establish a permanent free market? More truly is self-rule which is what the heroes embodied and practiced and continued to practice by walking away--unfortunately Étienne de La Boétie was not on my reading list thirty years ago but resolve to serve no more follows from Galt's Oath. Re The answer: no. The answer is NOT "no" in Atlas Shrugged's 1000 pages. The book leads one to come to the counter intuitive of peaceful secession. Re: The only true, eternal social division that exists is between the “elites” (I use that term neutrally) and the “masses.” I believe it is far more fundamental than “left” and “right.” And Re: I’ve heard this split defined as “ranchers” and “cattle.” For thousands of years, way back to Jesus and Aesop, it’s been called “wolves” and “sheep.” Vilfredo Pareto referred to the elites as “wolves” and “foxes.” And Re: The purpose of the elites is to maintain their economic and political power – to maintain what James Burnham in his book The Machiavellians called their “power and privilege.” This means using the power of the State to exploit the masses, which are mostly inert until pushed too far by the elites’ lust for blood, power and money. Then many times there is violent payback. This is what Rand warned against as the attila and witch doctors and she gave a peaceful Thoreau like solution to that in Atlas Shrugged... Re: All politics is based on force and fraud. As such, the elites will always use those two weapons against the people to maintain their position – force is violence and fraud is lies and propaganda. All States are founded on, and run on, lies and violence. That word "politics" has been co-opted--self governance is possible for even us simple folk. How hard is that? Re: Could Rand’s “perfect” elites be trusted to rule? No. They would use their political power to exploit everyone else to enrich themselves. Her perfect heroes are purely fictional – they don’t exist in real life. Tell that to Steve Winn in Macau and the C.J. Rodgers CEO Cypress Semi Conductor and ...They do not rule. They create jobs...They are Atlases.... Re: This exploitation of the masses by the elites using the power of the States has been the history of the world. Even if Rand’s heroes established the free market, their descendents would overturn it. More of Wallace's malevolent metaphysics and there is an antidote to that mind set in Rand and Mises and so on...But if there is a proto fascist "The Real Lincoln" would make more sense. http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo44.html I do not see Libertarians speaking of Lincoln as the route to their Libertarianism but of Rand. Re: I am reminded of Lord Acton’s saying: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” I prefer the saying, “Power intoxicates, and immunity corrupts.” And Re: Dostoevsky put it in The House of the Dead, "Tyranny . . . finally develops into a disease. The habit can . . . coarsen the very best man to the level of a beast. Blood and power intoxicate . . . the return to human dignity, to repentance, to regeneration, becomes almost impossible." The Swiss understand that by having a 4% referendum of signatures they can rescind a law and can serve as a "check" on political power and their cantons (states) do not like each other... Rand differentiates Political power--the power of the gun--from Economic power. And what to do when a society has reach the point when too many businessmen use the power of the state as a club. Thoreaux was more interested in the business of life than the civil disobedience thingy so apparently was Rand. Re: Political science (perhaps political economy is a better term) should start with how things are, not how scholars and writers want things to be. By starting with how things are, political economy becomes a science, and being a science, cures or prescriptions can be formulated. And Re: In physics and chemistry, scientists start with how things are. Yet, in economics and political science, thinkers/tinkerers often start with how they want things to be, or how things will be if their prescriptions are followed. It’s why there exists that old saying, if you took every economist in the world and laid them end to end, they’d all point in different directions. Re: Rand did not start with how things are. She started with how she wanted things to be. Like all leftists (and she was in many ways a leftist, in addition to being a narcissist), she did not understand human nature, which is why she thought a vanishingly small minority could rule over humanity, permanently establish political and economic liberty, and not become corrupted by unlimited power. If you have problem with this argument it should be taken up with the Mises institute. They just went thru this mindset from congress critters who accused the Austrian Economists of the same whilst speaking for Ron Paul. Look up DiLorenzo... Rand understood enough: Such as The Laws of Identity, Causality and the principles of Freedom and Rationality. The Trader Principle and the Division of Labor. The Principles of Rational Selfishness and Justice. Not the least the The study of Capitalism the study of the production of wealth in a division of labor society (remnant). Paraphrased there is Rand's Galts Oath "I swear by my life and love it that I will not live for another man nor ask another to live for me" which leads to "resolve to serve no more", Étienne de La Boétie: Ending Tyranny Without Violence and The Zero Aggression principle and Thoreau's Get on with the business of your life. Here, the State Is Nowhere to Be Seen: Mises Daily: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 by Wendy McElroy 'As the crazed election season approaches and straw hats are dusted off, it is prudent to remember what the 19th-century American anarchist Henry David Thoreau called "the business of living."' http://mises.org/daily/5250/Here-the-State-Is-Nowhere-to- Be-Seen The Case for Frugality Mises Daily: Friday, April 08, 2011 by Wendy McElroy http://mises.org/daily/5183/The-Case-for-Frugality VS The "inevitability of Marx" and his implicit and explicit adherents "From each according to his ability to each according to his need". Does Rand deserve to be to defended? I think so... The post by Mr Wallace seems to be more tied to the resurgence in the Atlas Shrugged book sales second most read book in the world...and his having a problem with the way things have turned out in his homeland not to metnion his other problems (see above). Some anarcho libertarians--more than Mr Wallace has clue--have used Rand's works to set themselves free of an Unfree world. I refer to the following post for the things possible (instead of the Marxian inevitability despair and utopia traps that Mr Wall[a]ce continues to posit here and other threads) Even though her description of Galt's Gulch is a functional anarchy (no rulers), Rand abhorred what she thought of as "anarchy" and she explicitly embraced the idea of minimal government. HOWEVER, as George H Smith points out "...Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds". “IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM” http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=34.0 And Carrie Burdzinski identifies good reason why SOME Objectivists do not apply these 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 And Dennis Wilson ties it all together from what Ayn Rand says about the gulch in her letters; Judge Narragansett’s activities in the closing pages of Atlas Shrugged; Galts Oath NAP/ZAP and the L. Neil Smith’s Covenant of Unanimous Consent. The Covenant also satisfies the objections noted by Lysander Spooner and B.R. Merrick. Look for the first five asterisks ***** In: “A personal journey from Objectivist morality to political “anarchy**” http://dennisleewilson.com/simplemachinesforum/index.php?topic=10.0 http://tinyurl.com/2dm6kgj ________________________________________ http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle379-20060806-03.html
  • Guest's picture
    Al (not verified) 3 years 24 weeks ago
    Zenigma
    Page tzo
    Yes, tzo and Glen, 20 years is about right. I wasted about that much time doing politics before I finally acknowledged the futility. What can I say, sometimes I'm a bit slow. Since I've gotten off the futile path, I travel down one more promising. It will take me more than a year - as I said, I can be a bit slow - but I'm no longer in a hurry.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 24 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    I was taught that law meant -that which is laid or fixed, to lie-. 'Tis established OR enforced by a sovereign authority. Where lies the law in conformity to the constitution? Over the hill? Care to mutilate the feet? The -law burrows- deeply?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Since the previous one was so well received by all you "sovereign men and women", here's another one for you. It too is by Frank van Dun. It is his treatise on the difference between Lawful and legal. Hope you enjoy it as much as I did. Abstract. This paper presents an etymological approach to the confusing language of law and rights. It attempts to uncover the archetypical situations and relationships that appear to have been the original referents of words such as 'law' and 'rights', 'legal' and 'just', as well as other words that are indispensable in discourses about law and justice: 'freedom', 'equality', 'peace', 'authority', 'society' and others. The concepts of the lawful and the legal can be clearly distinguished. The distinction between them sheds an interesting light, not only on the lawyer's conception of law, but also on the old controversy over natural law. From the analysis there emerges a distinctly liberal conception of social order as well as a naturalistic, non-normative conception of natural law, with no metaphysical or theological connotations of a "higher law". The elements uncovered by the analysis provide a coherent scheme of law that can serve as the basis for a non-deontic, rights-based logic of law. ~ The Lawful and the legal by Frank van Dun, Ph.D., Dr.Jur. - Senior lecturer Philosophy of Law [Emphasis added] _____________________________________________________________________________
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Self may be a remnant to be left. 'Tis just an element of compound words. As in -self originating-. Or would it be -self culture-? Either way, remain -self willed-. One should always look at life as being dreadless. One must have the ability -to hold forth-. There are those in this world that fail -to put in mind-.
  • Carrie Burdzinski's picture
    Carrie Burdzinski 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Carrie Burdzinski
    Thanks to everyone who commented! :-) I think you are touching on the even deeper root of the problem: parents who are neither independent nor courageous. They do not trust themselves to comprehend reality, to evaluate facts, to judge their observations, and to make the best decisions for their family. Because they are afraid of the responsibility of relying on their own judgment, they elect politicians who appeal to their feelings of fear and inadequacy. "We are the government experts. We will keep you safe. We will tell you what to think. All you have to do is blindly obey." Parents then shirk their responsibilities and accept government dogma. It becomes a vicious cycle, because most children who are raised with this mentality will continue to accept the idea that government is needed to take care of them. The solution is brave, heroic individualists who are not afraid to discover and speak the truth, thereby inspiring others to do the same.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Congratulations, ElasahBazlith, you went 'trolling' and caught a sucker...me. LOL
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Guess again, Bob. self noun▸who you are and what you think and feel, especially the conscious feeling of being separate and different from other people ~ Macmillan Dictionary Too bad "collectivists" waste their time on libertarian websites.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    @ ElasahBazlith, That was in response to this, "The psychiatric definition of narcissism is..." Bob Wallace did not say, "The witch doctor definition of narcissism is..."
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The opposite of indivualism is not collectivism. That's a straw man. True opposites are freedom versus the State, the Political Means versus the Economic Means. No one is "an individual." Our "self" is created by our relationships with other people. You can't be a father without a child, a spouse without a husband of wife, etc. No one is "independent," because we are involved in an infinite web of relationships with other people, the environmetnt, etc. Are of us are part of a "collective." Rand is a complete fraud, a third-rate philosoper, a philodoxer. Too bad "libertarians" waste their time with nonsense. I've yet to meet one who understood even the basics of Object Relations Theory, which inn one form or other, runs backs thousands of years.
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    The aspector , jawn, that is right, change subject. Throw a cat in the meal? Nah I would rather wait to see which way the cat jumps. And you? FUNNY Enough to make a cat laugh? STOP STOP To early for the forfex. Forhend the forinsecal .
  • ElasahBazlith's picture
    ElasahBazlith 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder See modern mainstream media operations manual. When it comes to a choice between a PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION GANG MEMBER or a witch doctor, I would choose the witch doctor. At least you could get the chicken back for YOUR dinner. Why grant plenipotentiary license? To make prize of?
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Carrie Burdzinski
    Rita's right about the alienation. But the question remains: why do parents take the government's word about anything? Hasn't the State's well-documented legacy of lies, enslavement, conscription, extortion, confiscation, counterfeiting, kidnapping, mayhem, mass murder and assorted villainies taught them anything? I am reminded of a clip of dialogue from the movie *Kafka*: Gabriela: And you believe everything the authorities tell you? Franz Kafka: Well, I have no reason to doubt. Gabriela: They’re authorities! That’s reason enough. My parents grew up in Belgium and Italy, coming to North America as young adults. As working-class ethnics, they looked to the government to create jobs and protect them from exploitation from "the rich," so I can't say I had a libertarian upbringing. But food is central to social and family life among Italians. They certainly wouldn't have put any stock in diktats issuing from their presumed betters concerning what they should or should not put on the dinner table. They trusted their own judgment too much for that. Despite their socialist leanings, moreover, they maintained a healthy skepticism about "the authorities." It's a wonder otherwise intelligent human beings don't. My compliments to Prof. Burdzinski on a concise, persuasive and finely-crafted column.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day rita, As you no doubt noticed, those were not my words, I was quoting Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary. Of course, you are correct, things have evidently changed since that writing and several states now bar "citizen felons" from voting, even after they have completed any custodial sentence; this is because political rights can be taken by "due process of law", and "due process of law" is whatever the corporation you voluntarily choose to be a member of says it is. But the reason you are "still...subject (voluntarily) to the laws made by those elected" is because you voluntarily choose to retain your "membership" in a STATE and/or in the UNITED STATES, which you made manifest when you unequivocally stated, "...something like 12% of the "citizens" do NOT have the right to vote. I'm one of them...". "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude...shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." ~ XIII Amendment to the U.S. Constitution Most individuals "voluntarily choose to retain [their] membership in a STATE and/or in the UNITED STATES, because they believe that life outside of the system would not be "easy", or as "lucrative" ["for filthy lucre’s sake"], as inside the system. They are probably right on both counts. "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom..."; well, you know the rest.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 24 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    G'day Bob Wallace, You apparently didn't see my question. Individualism & Ender = Endervidualism Does this author have a problem with, and wish to end, individualism? The opposite of individualism is collectivism. And, if you are a collectivist, i.e. "a supporter of collectivism", it would certainly explain your apparent hatred of Ayn Rand and/or her writings. "Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)." ~ Ayn Rand Strange, I do not see anything even vaguely resembling, “splitting things into airtight compartments of all-good and all-bad, pure good and pure evil,” in the diagnostic criteria for “narcissistic personality disorder” listed below. Diagnostic criteria for 301.81 Narcissistic Personality Disorder A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: (1) has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) (2) is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love (3) believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) (4) requires excessive admiration (5) has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations (6) is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends (7) lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others (8) is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her (9) shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes Reprinted with permission from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth Edition. Copyright 1994 American Psychiatric Association http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/narcissisticpd.htm
  • RoyceChristian's picture
    RoyceChristian 3 years 24 weeks ago
    On To Tripoli!
    Web link Westernerd
    "Endless war" is unlikely. Gaddaffi's forces are finite and his people hate him. He has lost control of Misurata and the border regions close to Tripoli. Every time his forces leave cover to travel to head towards a target or get supplies, they are being attacked from the air or from the opposition on the ground. His allies have abandoned him, his ministers and diplomats have defect and many in the military are defecting every day. Not to mention that the US hasn't played a huge role in this conflict and has largely left Leadership to NATO and the European countries.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I don't know where you live, Suverans, but in my neck of the woods, something like 12% of the "citizens" do NOT have the right to vote. I'm one of them, but still I'm subject (involuntarily) to the laws made by those elected. One of my ancestors came to America as an indentured servant (voluntary servitude). When the debt was paid, she was free. I, on trhe other hand, will never be.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 24 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The drug war will never end because people will always want drugs, and as long as there's a demand there will be a supply. But don't fool yourself that's it's not "winnable." Every time you have to stand in line to buy cold medicine, the masters win. Every time you or your children are random drug-tested, at work or at school, the masters win. As Mexico melts down and over 2 million Americans languish in cages, the masters win. Because prohibition is, and always has been, a tool of oppression. And its spin-off war has never been anything but an excuse to ramp up the fear and the violence, increasing the oppression and furthering the careers of lawmakers and law enforcers. At the small price of human life. They win.