Recent comments

  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Your article addresses a ridiculous law that obviously should not exist. Most people who read your article would agree with this sentiment, I would imagine. My response is directed at those citizens who are outraged by such invasive government action. My point is that every human being should be outraged, but no citizen should be. Once you call yourself a citizen, you kind of give up the right to complain about your government until you break the bond and recall to yourself your own innate authority. My premises and conclusion connect like so: Premise A: Government is an organization THAT HAS BEEN GRANTED BY VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATING MEMBERS a monopoly on land, force, legislation, enforcement of legislation, and adjudication. Premise B: Having the powers cited above, government has a de facto monopoly over every facet of every citizen's life. Conclusion: Self-ownership becomes government-ownership. The citizen becomes property of the State. Citizens complaining about unjust or unfair laws is an absurdity. Each individual has the authority to decide his own actions. Granting this authority to another simply means he allows an agent to act for him. He is saying that the agent is actually a proxy for himself and his actions. When the government disallows Citizen X from performing Action X, what is being said is that Citizen X is disallowing Citizen X from performing Action X. So who shall Citizen X complain to when he is being treated unfairly by Citizen X? Ah, but Citizen X does not have direct control over his proxy? The proxy has a superior claim to Citizen X as does Citizen X? Now what? Perhaps Citizen X can "work within the system" to change how proxy Citizen X treats Citizen X. Will proxy Citizen X give Citizen X permission to do what he wants? If he succeeds, he has been granted a permission. From himself. From the part of himself that he has no real control over. Follow? More importantly, if Citizen X fails in his quest for better treatment from his proxy, he cannot in any sane manner complain. I'm not letting myself do what I want! The part of me I can't control—because I voluntarily ceded that control—is making me do things I don't want to do! Somebody do something! The government is the proxy for the individual who voluntarily participates as a citizen. Whatever the government does, the citizen has VOLUNTARILY granted his own individual authority to those government actions. The citizen IS the government and the government IS the citizen. You wrote: "The issue, then, is ... whether it is appropriate for a state or city to make those decisions for you or your children." Of course it is, if you are a citizen. You have abdicated your personal authority to them. They are your proxy. While you keep the relationship intact, they are you, and so you are doing it to yourself.   "It is not for the State of California, the City of San Francisco, ... to make that decision for them." Premise, premise, conclusion: If you are a citizen then yes, it is. A citizen also does NOT get to pick and choose which details of government policy he voluntarily supports and which he does not. He gives his consent to ALL government action, in whatever form it presents itself. Premise, premise, conclusion. When the government outlaws Happy Meal toys, then the citizen has done it to himself. No complaints, please. When the government bombs innocent people, the citizen participates by proxy. Acknowledgment of responsibility, please. Yes, being a citizen certainly gives you some perks. But at what cost?
  • J3rBear's picture
    J3rBear 3 years 16 weeks ago
    APMEX Buying Silver
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I noticed this yesterday too. However, I decided to go ahead and sell my paper silver and take a nice profit. I think there will be additional dips over the next few months which will make good opportunities for buying more physical silver.
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Thank you for saying what you say so well! Fabulous comment, tzo. And, of course, you, too, Suverans2. Your addition was welcome and, in my opinion, quite correct.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    You make a good point here, Suverans2. I think that any law that attempted to erase a natural right would be illegitimate, no matter what its origin.
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 16 weeks ago
    Facebook and NSA, CIA
    Web link Michael Dunn
    I joined facebook a few years ago so I could sign a petition against police violence. Before I knew it, scattered family members and long-lost high school chums were contacting me. Cool. But I still use it to post and share political news and views. Do I know the pigs watching? Yes. Am I frightened? Certainly. But no more frightened than I was when they were tapping my phone; no more frightened than I was when they moved into the house next door and were monitering all my and my family's comings and goings; no more frightened than I was when they were gathering "information" about me from neighbors who didn't even know my last name. THEY DON'T NEED FACEBOOK TO GET A SEARCH WARRANT. They only need to write a bunch of crap on an affadafit, swear it's truth and show it to a judge. Oh, they want us to be afraid; they want us to be quiet. Well, screw them.
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    In recent years, somebody came up with the idea of 'thinking outside the box' which all too soon ended up in the library of old cliches. However, Mr. Lazarowitz, you have re-introduced this concept and applied it to the History of America as a few of us know it. Of course, the perspective you present is not how history is taught in government schools. Bravo!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    G'day tzo, As much a I appreciate your thoughtful comment, and agree with the largest portion of it, I must take exception with one thing you wrote. "There are no rights. Whatever "rights" I think I may enjoy can be erased tomorrow with a legislative pen-stroke." That, in my opinion, is not a true statement, my friend. Firstly, there are "rights", and secondly, the only rights which can be "erased tomorrow with a legislative pen-stroke" are man-made rights. Though our natural rights can certainly be trespassed[1] upon, they can never be "erased...with a legislative pen-stroke"; we may only lose our natural rights by our own volition, i.e. with our consent, (express or implied and conditional), or by forfeiture[2], which of course, is just another form of consent. _______________________________________________________________________________ [1] Trespass. An unlawful interference with one's person, property, or rights. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1502 [2] FOR'FEITURE, n. 1. The act of forfeiting; the losing of some right...by an offense, crime, breach of condition or other act. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    We're hoping to see lots of you there!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "What, then, is legislation? It is an assumption by one man, or body of men, of absolute, irresponsible dominion over all other men whom they call subject to their power. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to subject all other men to their will and their service. It is the assumption by one man, or body of men, of a right to abolish outright all the natural rights, all the natural liberty of all other men; to make all other men their slaves; to arbitrarily dictate to all other men what they may, and may not, do; what they may, and may not, have; what they may, and may not, be. It is, in short, the assumption of a right to banish the principle of human rights, the principle of justice itself, from off the earth, and set up their own personal will, pleasure, and interest in its place. All this, and nothing less, is involved in the very idea that there can be any such thing as human legislation that is obligatory upon those upon whom it is imposed." ~ Lysander Spooner
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I think you make some conclusive leaps here that a) don't really respond to what I've written, and b) don't really follow from your premises
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Lemme guess,100% of Anarchists where first Minarchists.So it is really just a half-step away in waking up to the facts of the situation. The masonic roots should be adequate evidence for the most stalwart Minarchist. With the reverse robinhood,stealing from the poor and giving to the rich,bankster bailouts it would be a feeble shrug to deny the repeating history of the situation. http://www.loompanics.com/Articles/Shays.htm
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    Concise and logical -- nicely done, and simple and brief enough to get the message into minds that might otherwise wander off. I'd replace "morality" with "emotional health" or "love" or some other term; morality is the (often artificial) veneer of emotional health in the same way that etiquette is the veneer of manners. (That thought is from A. S. Neill; quote below): "To have good manners means to think of others, no -- to feel for others. One must be group-conscious, have the gift of putting oneself in the other man's shoes. Manners prohibit the wounding of anyone. To be mannerly is to have genuine good taste. Manners cannot be taught, for they belong to the unconscious. "Etiquette, on the other hand, can be taught, for it belongs to the conscious. It is the veneer of manners. . . . "Bad manners always spring from a disordered psyche. Slander and scandal and gossip and backbiting are all subjective faults; they show hatred of self. They prove that the scandal-monger is unhappy. If we can take children into a world where they will be happy, we shall automatically rid them of all desire to hate. In other words, these children will have good manners in the deepest sense; that is, they will show forth loving-kindness." ~ A.S. Neill, Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing (1960), page 192 (re: my point above, people can display excruciatingly correct etiquette while exhibiting bad manners -- being cold to someone for no reason for instance, even while going through the motions Emily Post might prescribe in a given situation). In any case, that change would require some other modification to your scheme -- perhaps an addition pointing out that a healthy and consistent morality requires (statistically) a free and loving childhood; badly-treated children do not (as a rule) become compassionate, healthy adults who understand and naturally respect the rights of others.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 16 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    I agree with the complaint the author rises, but I'm not comfortable with the term "tribalistic libertarians". Any free society will have to take into consideration the tribal characteristics of humans. Maybe call these guys "nationalist libertarians"? Or maybe just paleocons?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 16 weeks ago
    Don't Leave Me Alone
    Web link Don Stacy
    In the comments below, the author writes, "Yes, if coercion actually did improve the lives of poor folks, or if socialism really did bring us a world in which we were all better off and lived wonderful lives, I would support them." Some libertarian!
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Sustainability sounds like a call for recycling and clean drinking water. But its proponents are much more ambitious. For them, a sustainable society is one that replaces the market economy with top-down regulation." Actually, it depends on who is using the word. Ordinary people using it just wish others would extend their usually short-term time preferences. Ruling class folks use it the way the author states. So it's a sort of bait and switch tactic. There is nothing wrong with sustainability per se (and arguing directly against it is a mistake), but there certainly is with the aggression and violence inherent in the ruling class interpretation of what it means. Hell, the market is sustainable. Nothing wrong with that...
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    @ Ken -- Let me be the first to tell you -- You're wrong. The function of the "state entity" should be to protect the public from those who would PHYSICAL harm. Laws that demonize the users of certain drugs simply for their choice of drugs protect no one. (You do not have the right to be protected from having your sensibilities offended.) BTW, streets and parks are PUBLIC places. If you don't like the way the PUBLIC acts in PUBLIC, retreat to your PRIVATE place, where you have every right to control other people's behavior.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    This is a wonderful example of people getting exactly what they deserve. When you institute a government, you are giving power to a group of people, allowing them to make decisions and back those decisions with force. Ah, but the people need to keep the government "in check" when the government steps over the "common sense" boundary. Question: How are you going to do that? Typical answer: Well, if enough people get riled up, we can trow da bums out and put in new people who will scale back the monster and make it less intrusive. The system is here, so you gotta work with what you have. Be pragmatic. Let me know when this works in any substantial way. Once you give government the power to legislate, then you eventually will lose your Happy Meal toys. There is no common sense—no boundary between what should be legislated and what is legislated. If there is money to be made or power to be grabbed, then the legislator will use his "common sense" to grab it. That is his function, after all. Once you give the power to legislate, you must accept whatever legislation is passed. You acknowledge that someone has the RIGHT to take away Happy Meals, but sirs, most of us don't want you to, so please, please, stop. If he says "no" you have to live with it. No complaining, please. This is what you wanted. And what if most people want Happy Meal toys outlawed? What should the legislators do? What the people want? However you slice it—whether the decision is based on legislator whim or popular vote, or both or neither—you don't get to choose. Furthermore, you don't get to choose because you VOLUNTARILY chose to hand over the power to choose to someone else. There is no complaint to be made, no matter what the result. You wrote: "Now, the self-appointed protectors of consumer health are at it again." No, the citizens appointed and empowered them. If you are a citizen, blame yourself. Boy, my kid really likes Happy Meals, but I better check with [x] to see if we are allowed to buy them. Because that's the system we live in. Everything is a permission. There are no rights. Whatever "rights" I think I may enjoy can be erased tomorrow with a legislative pen-stroke. And I accept this and keep my fingers crossed in the hopes that I won't lose too many of my privileges. If you have a contract with someone—even an imaginary social contract—and the agent abuses the power you give him, then you terminate the contract. What else? Continue to do business with the thug, asking him to please do what you want (of course what you want may be against what others want, but if you can use the thug to your advantage...) and continue to give him your blessing? Fine. Just don't complain. Every single person who calls himself a citizen gives his blessing to the legislation that bans Happy Meal toys. And oh, yeah, their blessings are with other much more trivial matters such as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan Complaining about Happy Meals when one's voluntary monetary support is killing other human beings. I guess that's what's known as taking a pragmatic, measured approach to scaling back government.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 3 years 16 weeks ago
    Starship Amerika
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Well said, Rita.
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Yes. In this we see the mind of a liberal. Parents are victimized by their own children, and McDonald's is giving aid and comfort to the enemies of parents, threatening us all!!!! Because we all know that parents should not be in the least bit responsible for making the choices they do for their children, the parents are just weak minded fools easily manipulated by a whiny 5 year old. Lets make this easy. As a lower middle class to lower class person most of my life, I lived off of fast food for years. I am NOT morbidly obese and even though heart disease and diabetes runs in both sides of my family for 3 generations, I suffer from no ill effects. How, dear readers, have I achieved this miracle? I play outdoor sports, I walk instead of drive to nearby locations, I play with my kids, and I visit the gym when I get the chance. It is miraculous how one can change the "inevitable" by getting up off their butts and doing something more then complaining. Good post sir.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    In case you'd like to make your own "NATURAL FLAVORS", here is the COMPLETE HOW TO GUIDE for removing the castor glands, complete with photos.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "There are far greater dangers in my local cafe than face veils. Many of them are on the menu." Virtually all of them are on the menu, and in your local supermarket. “Beaver-butt juice” anyone? "Beaver Butt Juice is officially called Castoreum. Look for it under "Natural Flavor" in your favorite food that the FDA (21 CFR 182.50) places "No Restrictions" on since it is GRAS [GENERALLY RECOGNIZED AS SAFE]." "BBJ won't be on the label. Look for NATURAL FLAVORS." ~ Granny Good Food
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 16 weeks ago Page R. K. Blacksher
    Humans are tribalistic. Only the West discovered politcal and economic liberty. The rest of the world doesn't seem to want much to do with it. Are we supposed to impose our views on them by force?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    If all these drunks are so concerned with their dignity and all they should stop panhandling me for money, quit loitering on the street outside my business, stop sleeping in the park, and vomiting and pissing all over the place. If all they did was fend for themselves during the day and then booze in the own homes at night who would care? The private market has no "cure" for the boozers and dopers so we have to have a state entity. Tell me why I'm wrong?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Many, many of us see, RIGHT NOW, that mandatory treatment programs for ANY drug users are an unconscionable violation not only of basic of civil rights but of the basic human right to be left alone. Having succeeded, however, in convincing the public that drug addiction can and should be diagnosed and punished by the nanny state, those same public parasites, aka "servants," are now starting to crack down on dangerously high in fat foods -- and until people begin to see that their right to eat what they want is the same as your right to drink what you want and my right to smoke what I want, the parasites, I'm afraid, will keep gnawing away until we're all in prison and there's no one left to pay their salaries.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 16 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Michael Kleen, You "give props to this man for trying: (remove spaces) http:// www. nola.com/news/ index.ssf/2008/05/ feds_sink_teeth_into_dentist.html" So why don't you give "props", whatever they are, to me and my wife for "trying", I suspect, even harder than this man? What's the difference? Is it because he went to prison for not paying his federal income taxes? Is that what impresses you so much? You know, Michael Kleen, had the roles in this little mini-drama been reversed. I would have apologized to you for EVIDENTLY having been mistaken about you, because it would be the integritous thing to do. Speaking of which, you apparently missed these three questions, since you failed to answer any of them. (1) What is it you are looking for, the "magic bullet", the perfectly painless way to leave the STATE? (2) What is your strategy, brother, change enough people's minds with your rhetoric, and "alternative news", that they will "alter or...abolish" the STATE for you? (3) Do you even know me, Michael Kleen? [This last one I have asked twice.] Thank you, in advance, for your time and attention.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Only in Duh Gubmint's Double-Speak, is refraining from stealing a trillion dollars from those who worked to earn it called "spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts." Duh Gubmint doesn't have a trillion dollars (or even 1 dollar) to "spend" that it hasn't extorted from someone else. And the Sheeple eat it up. . . *sigh*
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 16 weeks ago
    Starship Amerika
    Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I'd like to dedicate this article to all those people who keep telling me that Obama has no power; that Obama is just a pawn; that Obama is a puppet in the hands of some unnamed evil masters -- hogwash. Obama took an oath to uphold the Constitution. Obama has the power to honor that oath. Obama CHOOSES, instead, to dishonor it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    They don't give a rat's ass about "society". They only care about power and control. Atlas Shrugged, you bastards.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 16 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Hello Liberal in Lakeview, Was it not you who asked and answered this question? "...did Americans act lawfully when seceeding from the UK? Or when replacing the UK's laws with their own law? Well, no." [Emphasis added] The correct answer is, "yes". Equivocation? Quite the opposite, since that which is "illegal" is not necessarily "unlawful", and that which is "unlawful" is not necessarily "illegal". How about this then, "...secession was not, and is not, unlawful or illegal, especially when the government exhibits "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism". Secession was not, and is not, illegal. If you disagree with this statement, please, show me your government's colorable law which makes secession illegal. I did bother to "read on before succumbing to reflex action". And, according to that reading, this part of number three, "Apparently you must console yourself with the implied assertion that right and wrong are a function of their popularity. Then you must submit", was asserting that everyone "must simply grin-and-bear-it". I was only trying to verify if that was truly your position.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 16 weeks ago
    Don't Leave Me Alone
    Web link Westernerd
    Like this (thumb up): "We need to let example, and our own happiness, be our salesman." Agree with this: "You cannot impose liberty on others..." As the old saying goes, "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 17 weeks ago
    The Joys Of Diversity
    Web link Westernerd
    Wow, that's a rather elitist attitude. Shades of "white man's burden"! The obvious moral of the story is that people should be prepared to defend themselves, not that diversity is bad or that dark skinned people are evil.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 17 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Sometimes "libertarians" sound pretty conservative. Making fun of green products is one manifestation of this. If people want green products, that is their concern, not yours.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 17 weeks ago
    Don't Leave Me Alone
    Web link Westernerd
    The author is wrong. I responded this way: ----------- “The problem with government welfare programs is not that the presumed intention to help people in need is a bad thing; it’s that the means is inappropriate to the end.” So… if the means chosen actually accomplished that end, you would be OK with it? No problem with coercion, violence and theft? I have news for you. What defines libertarianism is opposition to state violence, not utilitarian quibbles over efficiency. This article (and even more so, Peron’s) gets it exactly wrong. What we should do is back off on the hard sell. Instead we should tell people we think they should get the government they want, and in return they should let us get the government we want. For libertarians and anarchists, this means “leave us alone”. It is not our job to save the world, because the world does not want to be saved. But we may be able to convince people to leave us alone at least, provided we make it clear we have no interest in imposing our view of freedom on them. It is a more modest, less threatening goal. This means we should be advancing the idea of subsidiarity. There is no need for “one size fits all” government, that fits no one. The very worst thing we can do is say “We’re from the Libertarian Party, and we’re here to help you!” That’s so, even if we dress it up in terms of concern for them. They’ve heard that line before. You cannot impose liberty on others, and the hard sell doesn’t work either. Frontal attacks don’t work. We need to let example, and our own happiness, be our salesman. People will learn it is good to be left alone, in their own good time.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 17 weeks ago
    Don't Leave Me Alone
    Web link Westernerd
    The comment section of this essay is perhaps more informative than the article itself. Sam
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 17 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The "awful" marketing plan: "The producers stand by their marketing campaign, which relied heavily on the Internet to drum up support among members of the Tea Party, libertarians and other Rand enthusiasts." LOL. Once again we find evidence that the smart set is self-absorbed and clueless.
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 17 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    The person who made this video should be congratulated for capturing in so short a period of time the childishness, smugness, and perversity that is the foundation of statism, esp. welfare statism. In fact, the two people he recorded end up coming across as living caricatures. Here are a few of the obvious problem areas in their thinking that one encounters just by selecting segments of the video at random: (1) Dissent Is Criminal (0:38): “That's treason.” The referrent of "that" is the disdain for the political process and ignoring the federal government. (2) Hypocrisy (0:45): “Act lawfully. Act lawfully.” The guy (Chris?) who said this invokes the Constitution as holy writ, but did Americans act lawfully when seceeding from the UK? Or when replacing the UK's laws with their own law? Well, no. (3) Might Makes Right (0:45): “Act lawfully. Act lawfully. Don't like the law, change the law.” But what does one do if outnumbered? Apparently you must console yourself with the implied assertion that right and wrong are a function of their popularity. Then you must submit. (4) Self-Defense Is Criminal: See Might Makes Right. (5) Ad Hominem Abuse (2:05): “When did we become so selfish?” Perhaps she should use only the first person singular, as she suggests by her following remarks. (6) Guilt Trip (2:08): “I have a twenty-six year old son with Down's Syndrome.” (7) Obligation To Serve (2:20): “Where is the sense of community?” Obviously, the female thinks herself entitled to the benefits of association with others and, if those benefits are not provided voluntarily to her on terms that approves, to use coercion and violence to get them. (8) Innuendo (2:22): “Do you just not care about the commuity you live in?” (9) Failure To Distinguish Negative Obligations From Positive Ones (2:22) : “Do you just not care about the commuity you live in?” The female thinks that either one cares about others, in which case one provides for their needs, or one does not care at all. (10) Guilt Trip (2:24): “Do you not care about people with disabilities, people with mental disabilities, the sick.” (11) Appeal to Irrelevant Personal Circumstances (2:29): “So what would happen if you had a child with a disability...” (12) Guilt Trip (2:37): “I have my own small business. I'm struggling.” The poisonous do-gooder demonstrates her motives for demanding that others bear the burdens imposed on her by the viscissitudes of life. (13) Deceitfulness (2:45): “If budgets are cut, what am I going to do? He [26 y.o. son with Down's] lives on his own independently. He pays taxes. He's paying rent. He frequents downtown establishments." Perhaps the guy, who may or may not be able to pull his own weight, is receiving benefits from the government, in which case he's not independent. If receiving benefits, the cost of living is driven up for almost everyone in two ways. First the compulsory redistribution bids up housing, food, etc. Given the borrow and spend mentality of government, the redistribution is likely to be financed with monetary inflation, which puts more upward pressure on prices. Second, the people who pay the taxes have their cost of living increased by those taxes. Nevertheless, the guy gets to enjoy the benefits that others are coerced to provide, again under the rubric of caring. The mother gets to shirk most or all of the burdens of her own alleged caring attitude and to feel good about herself. And she gets to posture before others as a caring person. What a rat. (14) Smear and Ridiculous Hyperbole (2:45): “So you want to take all of that [independence from his mother, paying taxes and rent, going downtown] away and have him isolated in his room.” As noted, he's possibly dependent, so what the mother really means is "I'd have to bear more of the costs of my own caring attitude. How dare you?!" (15) Extotion is Fair (3:52): “When are we going to wake up in this state? And the only fair tax is an income tax.” This video should be studied carefully by all those who wish to confront the despots, whose rhetorical tricks play like a scratched record. Given the obviousness of their bleeding heartedness, I can not now keep myself from wondering how Glen Allport's construal of love as a noncognitive, sentimental attitude toward others would not tend to reinforce the bad attitudes of people like the two caricatures. It should go without saying that sentimentality, touch-feelyness, etc. are not good for the use of reason, but it seems that some just don't want to think things through well enough to arrive at this conclusion.
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 17 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    ...
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 17 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    "secession was not, and is not, unlawful, especially when..." Equivocation, Suverans2. Whether or not secession is lawful, in the sense of morally right, to disdain the proclamations called law by a government, and by those loyal to it, is not relevant to the determination that Chris is a hypocrite who uses a double standard to his own advantage. "Or, is it your opinion, that according to the natural law they must simply grin-and-bear-it?" (3) and (4) would have answered your question related to (2) had you bothered to read on before succumbing to reflex action.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    G'day Michael Kleen, Again, you seem to be falsely accusing me, this time of being, "one...who...vicariously claims to be able to just ignore the state...through promoting tzo's argument". And, again, I must ask you the same previously unanswered question, "Do you even know me, Michael Kleen?" For the record, I don't "just ignore the state", I am not a member of the state. BIG DIFFERENCE! And unlike tzo's recent suggestion to you, I do not merely say this to myself. I "walk the walk", at least according to my own well thought out standards. I have not used any kind of government ID or Taxpayer Identification Number of any kind, I have had no driver's license, nor have any of my automobiles [an SUV, a truck, a few cars, a motorcycle and a motor scooter] been registered with any STATE, in well over ten years. I have never had a passport, I have no physical address and no mailing address, as a consequence of this, I have not received, again, in over ten years, even one piece of "junk mail" [smile]. I have not been "employed" in well over ten years, though I do work about five or six days a week, generally, (sometimes substantially less in the winter months, occasionally more in spring and summer), nor have I applied for, or accepted, any kind of government benefits/privileges that one must be a member of any political corporation in order to procure, since withdrawing from membership in the STATE. I do not, as another false accuser here evidently accused me of, who, obviously, also doesn't even f**king know me either, I might add, "live off of [my] mom, live in her basement and walk to [my] other 'anarchist' friends house (who also lives with his mom) to smoke weed and play Call of Duty", nor have I ever claimed to be an "anarchist", as this government trained troll seems to be suggesting. My nativity was in the winter of '48, (according to heresay evidence, since I can't remember it), so I am not "young" or a "tool", and I pay my own way for everything my wife and I have, or do. And, finally, I do not have to, "fight the urge to suck-start a pistol", as this childish moron also falsely accuses me of; I have no suicidal tendencies whatsoever. So, you see, my friend, due to your lack of knowledge about me, you have gotten it completely 'bass ackwards'; it is because we, (my very brave natural law wife and I), have done it, to a degree unimaginable to most voluntary members of the STATE, (like yourself, evidently,) that we agree with many of, (but certainly not all, to which he can attest), tzo's messages. I thought I might find camaraderie in this online community, but I was wrong, oh my, how I was wrong! My wife asks me often, "Why do you waste your time and energy at HTB? It seems like no one there ever really 'listens' to anything you have to 'say'." [There are, perhaps, one, maybe even two, exceptions to what she is saying, but I dare not name them.] To which I have, up until now, at least, answered, "Well, you never know, maybe some day I will find a kindred spirit here." "So, how's that workin' out for ya?", she amusingly asks. "I have all but given up hope, my dear."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 17 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    "...did Americans act lawfully when seceeding from the UK? Or when replacing the UK's laws with their own law? Well, no." Well, yes, because as far as I have been able to determine, secession was not, and is not, unlawful, especially when the government exhibits "a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism". Or, is it your opinion, that according to the natural law they must simply grin-and-bear-it?
  • Steve L.'s picture
    Steve L. 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Leave it to Suvey to throw in odd quotes without stating a reasonable argument. I thought anarchists were good at thinking for themselves? I guess not.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I am indeed an ideological purist. There is some perfect form that needs to be identified as an ideal and striven for, even while it is acknowledged that it can never be reached. This is not unreasonable. No one has ever constructed a perfect geometric form or calculated pi to its infinite end but still, the concepts are useful. Perfect forms are models we have in our heads to guide us in the right direction. This does not mean that one must automatically walk the walk of that ideology at all times, regardless of consequences. That would be suicidal, and if I have one ideology that overrides all the others, it is that I wish to keep on living—and even more—I wish to keep on living a quality life. See Aristotle. You see, I am as pragmatic as you in my actions. I am old enough to know how the world works, and am not going to walk around with my rose-colored anarchy glasses on, selflessly trying to make the world a better place for my fellow man. For me and my family, yes. For anyone who cares to listen, sure. For Joe on the street who actively believes that my beliefs are a danger to him and his government and his way of life, hells no. The best analogy I can come up with is that I live in a territory that is held by hostile forces. The captive population doesn't really care one way or another, it just wants to get its Starbucks in the morning. How shall I best survive? That is one question, and it is eminently practical. How should things be? That is another. There is no reason in the world to lose sight of what should be, and there is no reason in the world to not remind people who have lost sight of reality as to what should be. Criticizing a person who merely states what is the ideal and what is the direction we should move is a bit odd. Well, this is nothing new, and there will be those on one side and those on the other, and every individual has to answer to himself at the end of the day. But what is so hard to understand? When someone points a gun at you, that immediate threat must be factored in with any ideals one might have before action is taken. Do you believe in private property or not, Michael? If not, we don't have much more to talk about. If so, what would you do if someone were to point a gun at you in an alley and demand your money? Are you going to walk the walk and refuse to surrender your private property? Or are you going to use the brains God or nature gave you and reason your way through the situation in order to survive? If you surrender your money, shall I taunt you for not believing in private property? You are boiling my position down to a very simplistic, very inaccurate one. The previous paragraph is a Cliff's Notes version of how I reconcile belief and action. I don't believe I can make it any simpler. What I claimed to be easy is to renounce your consent, and hence membership, in a violent organization. You do not wish to do so. Why? Because in reality, you will still have to pay your taxes, etc.? It is a naive and meaningless symbolic action? If I grant you this, I would still ask if the renunciation action is a right action, or a wrong one. Again, if you believe it is wrong to be able to voluntarily choose your associations, then we have nothing more to talk about. If you agree, then you agree that renouncing your membership, however little it changes anything, is the right thing to do. If you actually do wish to voluntarily associate yourself with the violent organization known as government, then for the third time, we don't have too much to talk about. If you can't even say the words "I hereby renounce any voluntary association with the organization known as the United States government (and you only have to say the words to yourself—no one else has to know)," then Houston, you have the problem and only you can fix it. If you don't actually hold the belief in freedom yourself, it is not possible for you to spread that belief. In fact, it is a hypocritical action. Preaching by the nonbeliever. Diet advice from the morbidly obese. Brotherly love seminars by the neo-Nazi. Freedom through Ron Paul. Not just doublethink and doublespeak, but doubleaction. You believe voluntaryist society is a pipe-dream. I get it. But you have implicitly agreed that it would be a good idea. You just don't believe the ignorant masses will ever catch up, and so baby steps within the current paradigm are required. But people are not as stupid as you may think. Ron Paul ain't going to babystep the people to more freedom, because he is operating from within the cesspool. Political action is one way trip away from freedom. Working within the system to promote freedom is an inconsistency that people understand at some level. Ron Paul wants to use force against us to make us freer. What? The paradigm must shift. The starting point of all conversation cannot be government. Once people begin to understand that there are options beyond government solutions to problems, then they will figure the rest out rather quickly. People are not stupid, just miseducated. Also, if they are comfortable, they are not going to worry about details. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But the comfort is draining out rather quickly as of late, I think. Before too long we'll see if we get revolution or evolution. Evolve or revolve.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Actually, I'm using your standards. You're the only one here who claims to be able to just ignore the state (or at least vicariously claims, through promoting Tzo's argument)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "You talk the talk about just ignoring the state, but you don't walk the walk." ~ Michael Kleen That, sir, is a lie However, it could have been the truth had you said, "you don't walk the walk, according to my [Michael Kleen's] standards", or some such thing. But, I would ask you to fairly consider this; unconsciously, many people try to create, in their mind, the image of impossibility, perhaps to assuage their feelings of guilt for not giving up membership in the STATE. Or, they use the ploy, if you can't do it "perfectly", you can't do it at all. Another way they sometimes try to ease their shame is by denying that anyone else could possibly give up membership in it. My natural law wife and I saw a movie last night, The Way Back, [highly recommended], which exemplifies this very nature in some people. Those who were "serious...really serious", or at least some of them, made it. Janusz: "It can be done." Mr. Smith: "What can be done?" Janusz: "He knows a way through the wire. He has a plan." Mr. Smith: "Shh. Who has a plan?" Janusz: "His name is Khabarov." Mr. Smith: "The actor." Janusz: "Do you know him?" Mr. Smith: "He has no intention of escaping." Janusz: "What do you mean?" Mr. Smith: "He is a liar. He's been here for years. Seeks out new arrivals. Me...when I first came here. He just likes to talk about escape. I've known others like him." Janusz: "Why should I believe you?" Mr. Smith: "Nothing is for nothing in the camps. From you he gets your energy, your spirit. You feed his dream of escape. You help keep him alive. He's nothing but a leech." Janusz: "You are a cold bastard, Mister." Mr. Smith: "I'm still alive, that's all I know. ... But if you're serious--really serious about making a run for it--I'm with you." Skip to scene with Khabarov, the actor. Janusz: "And we bring my friends." Khabarov: "Your friends? You trust them?" Janusz: "Of course." Khabarov: "They won't all survive." Janusz: "But they will die free men." _________________________________________________________________________________ And, those who chose not to go? Well, I suppose most of them died as slaves in the gulags of Siberia.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I give props to this man for trying: (remove spaces) http:// www.nola.com/news/ index.ssf/2008/05/ feds_sink_teeth_into_dentist.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    That, sir, is hogwash. The only thing that using dollars validates, for me, is that people are willing to trade stuff for it, and the value of that fiat currency is determined strictly by what people are willing to trade for it, just like anything else. Proof of that assertion is very simple; if everyone refused to accept it in trade for their goods tomorrow, it would, that very day, be utterly worthless.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "I'm not saying it can't be done..." So you are saying it can be done. Very good; that's a starting point, my friend.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    It is well and good that you, "suspect neither you nor Tzo have done it", that is most certainly your prerogative, but it is quite another thing to emphatically state "you don't walk the walk". Do you even know me, Michael Kleen?
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    My point about the cash is that by using dollars printed by the state, you are agreeing that the state is a valid entity. The value of money, after all, is largely determined by the faith people have in the government that backs it.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 17 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that I suspect neither you nor Tzo have done it. Tzo talks about how easy it is, but I suspect that he, like the rest of us, is stuck in the same Statist paradigm. You talk the talk about just ignoring the state, but you don't walk the walk. I never made any such claims, hence all my reflections on how difficult it is for the average person to even consider such a thing. That's my point.