Recent comments

  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 13 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 13 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    ...
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 13 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 13 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 13 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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 14 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.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "Those that say it can't be done should get out of the way of those doing it." ~ Chinese Proverb
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "Congratulations, you're everything we've come to expect from years of government training. Now, if you'll just follow me, we have one more test to administer, an eye exam."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    G'day Michael Kleen, What is it you are looking for, the "magic bullet", the perfectly painless way to leave the STATE? You are in way-y-y too deep for that to ever happen, my friend. We have wandered so far off the path that there is no easy way back. Sorry. 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? If so, let me know how that works out for you. And, where did, "get rid of all your cash", come from?! (Guess you didn't read the 4th comment to this thread.) Why on Earth would a free man do that?! Do you honestly believe that merely using Pesos to trade with while you are sojourning on that part of the Earth called MEXICO, somehow magically transforms you into a subject of the MEXICAN government? You don't think that I've not been "pulled over by the police without a driver's license"? You don't think that I've not flown to Hawaii and back without any government ID whatsoever? And, you don't think that if I really wanted to sojourn on the part of the Earth known as CANADA, that I couldn't do it without voluntarily enslaving myself? If you do, you'd better think again, brother. Let me explain something to everyone here. I don't expect anyone to do what I have done. I just get really tired of hearing that empty excuse, IT CAN'T BE DONE.
  • Steve L.'s picture
    Steve L. 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Another great article Mike. I love this part of the comments, "As a human being YOU have the right to, "Just Say No!"" I did not know citizenship was boiled down to an after school special. It may work if someone offers you crack in a boy's bathroom in 1985, but simply saying this does not make it so. I could also say I am an alligator and close my eyes, and wish REALLY hard, but I won't grow a bigger mouth or have green skin the next morning. Many illegal aliens from Mexico would probably wish this was true, but citizenship is not based on the judgment of an individual, it is based on the judgment of the state. If one could supposedly wish to be no citizen, could one wish to change citizenship? Hey, I just became a Russian! One can change and even have dual citizenship, but it is still based on the decision of the state. For example, if I was caught backpacking into Iran, and I was picked up by one of their roaming camel patrols, I would eventually be labeled an "American spy" even if I say I am from nowhere [even though in my mind I am still Russian]. I know I am just a brain washed rube to you enlightened anarchists, but just hear me out. If you claim to be a citizen of OZ (i.e. your imaginary state of mind) and decide to go off the grid, I hope you never plan to travel again (Canada does not recognize your state of mind, even if you make your own passport out of home-made paper), drive a car, get married, have kids, go to college, get a job, buy things with money, or a thousand other things that require ID, taxes paid, or use a paper form of currency. If you move to Alaska and live off of the land like Bear Grylls, I will give you props, but if you live off of your mom, live in her basement and walk to your other 'anarchist' friends house (who also lives with his mom) to smoke weed and play Call of Duty, you are just creating reasons to excuse your existence as a loser..."I am not unemployed man, I am an anarchist who doesn't want to be held down by the man." Sure. Whatever you need to tell yourself so you can fight the urge to suck-start a pistol. Look, I know it sounds "cool" to be an 'anarchist,' [if you are young and call yourself a Republican, people think you are a little a-hole in a suit like Alex P. Keaton, and if you call yourself a Democrat, you are one of those tools in the cafeteria wearing a Che t-shirt and trying to get laid by playing a guitar in front of a bunch of chicks] but we all know that it is too altruistic to work. It is kind of like Communism. It sounds good on paper, but what they don't add into the equation is human nature. Humans can mess up a free lunch. Even if you guys succeeded in starting your own 'non-state,' you would be taken over by your neighbor with a standing army who will rape and pillage their way across candy land where the trees are made of peppermint and the clouds are made of cotton candy. By the way, if anarchists are supposedly independent and hate the state, then why are they always protesting when the government decides to raise college tuition or get rid of welfare? Just look at the recent riots in London. The British government has to raise tuition rates for their government run schools, and "anarchists" were out by the thousands breaking other people's property and throwing rocks at the police. Hmmmm...they act more like Communists in my opinion. But, both ideologies are both too altruistic to work. Thanks for reading and I happily await your vacuous remarks.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Thanks for the explanation B.R. and for the link to the de Coster article.
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    Good idea, except if Tzo or you want to drive anywhere and happen to get pulled over by the police without a driver's license, or try to leave or enter the country without a passport. Since you walked away from the state, you should probably get rid of all your cash too.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    And here's a far better defense of a woman who, in my opinion, needs very little defending, and this from another woman, no less: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/85952.html
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Okay, is there anyone alive out there who DOESN'T understand that the TSA is an army of professional perverts? They're not there to protect the public; they're there to threaten, intimidate and abuse you. If Americans had any backbone, this outrage would have ended long ago, the day the airlines had to shut down for want of passengers. Fly if you must, but for Christ's sake, at least have the common sense to leave your children home.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Read his other comments, GregL. At least he's consistent. My introduction to Ayn Rand was probably in 2001 or 2002, in a documentary aired on the Independent Film Channel. Riveting. But Wallace's other comments (also disparaging Murray Rothbard) clearly show a man who has contrary views of some sort with two intellectual giants. Maybe someday he'll enlighten us with a fact or two, or maybe even an anecdote, as to why he disagrees with Rand and Rothbard. Or perhaps he'll just go on being contradictory. If that's the case, I plan on ignoring him.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Robert, This is a pretty strong statement, and I'm surprised that no one else has challenged you on this. Your statements about Ayn Rand seem so much unlike a frequent contributor to STR, that I wonder if someone else is making these posts in your name. There are many of Rand's positions that I disagree with, such as her positions on anarchy and intellectual property, and there are some things about her personal life that were less than admirable. But to say that only the simple-minded think she makes any sense certainly seems to be going overboard. She was very influential in helping me to more clearly see the state as an instrument of legitimized violence, and she contributed greatly to my intellectual development. If that makes me simple-minded or uneducated, so be it. - Greg
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    G'day Geoffrey Transom, Sadly we are all (for the moment) obliged to retain the ear-tags of one or other of the 'demes' established by our overlords to better enable them to rob us blind to fund their palaces. I haven't had in my possession, or used, an “ear-tag”, (any government identification, of any kind), in well over ten years. I have investigated the means by which one can become ACTUALLY stateless; quite apart from making a declaration to that effect (which I have) and taking all steps to ensure that one pays little or no pelf to the Masters (did that too), there is NO mechanism by which one can abrogate 'citizenship' in a way that is recognised by our overlords. (Again, I stress - for the moment). Ah, I see, “ACTUALLY stateless” means, in your opinion, that unless your self-proclaimed ruler “legally recognises” it, it isn't ACTUAL? You may be interested to know that one of the definitions for “actual” is, “existing in fact whether with lawful [legal] authority or not”. If you don't think your overlords ACTUALLY “legally recognise” individual secession, i.e. withdrawal from membership in their political corporation, you should try getting one of their member-only benefits and privileges without your “ear-tag”, i.e. without your chattel number. The problem, you may be experiencing, is that you cannot make a “declaration” that you are not a member of any man-made STATE, and then turn around and use your “ear-tag” whenever you have an appetite for one of their benefits/privileges. Not saying this is true of you, but most men want to have their cake [member-only benefits/privileges], and eat it too [without paying for them]. When thou sittest to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before thee: and put a knife to thy throat, if thou be a man given to appetite. Be not desirous of his dainties [membership-only benefits/privileges]: for they are deceitful meat. ~ Proverbs 23:1-3 Like that truly great man Paine (and like Diogenes) I consider myself 'kosmopolites'; a 'citizen' of the world. As such I would never support the nation-state within whose self-claimed borders I live - not in peace, not in war, not in welfare transfers, not even in providing tax-funding for respite care for babies in chronic intense pain or for the detection and apprehension of child molesters. Any killing I do, and any transfer payments I make, will be at my own discretion, not that of one of the tax-parasites. As with all livestock, we are deemed the property of one or other of the various collections of tax-parasites that rule us (or kill us if we genuinely refuse to obey: there is no getting away from that dictum: you do what they tell you, or you die.) It's codified in their 'law': in Australia you can only renounce Australia citizenship (leave the herd) IF you have already obtained permission to JOIN ANOTHER HERD. You make three points here. The first is that “the various collections of tax-parasites that rule” “deem” that you are their “property”. That, Geoffrey Transom, is a “rebuttable presumption” in law. The second is, “you do what they tell you, or you die", to which I reply, have you ever tried it, as a non-citizen/non-member/nonperson, or is that merely an assumption? And, thirdly, I believe, if you were to show us your “codified Australian law”, you would find that what you describe as "renouncing Australian citizenship" pertains to “expatriation”, and that you will not find the least mention of "secession", particularly “individual secession”, i.e. individual withdrawal from membership, "renouncing Australian citizenship". The rationale is simple: the tax-parasites generally contain their livestock within 'borders' (the invisible lines on maps that cause periodic conflagrations in which the livestock are sent to kill each other). One of the sops to 'liberty' that the masters deploy, is to permit some of their livestock to cross these 'borders' subject to an increasingly-stringent set of criteria (including, now, being either irradiated, or cock-fondled by some obese retard who failed the entrance exam for being a mall-cop). You must be a member of their “livestock”, i.e. human resource, or they cannot lawfully send you anywhere. Question for you, Geoffrey Transom, what would you do if a private airline chose to irradiate you or cock-fondle you in order to fly on one of their planes? So IF the masters permit their livestock to mingle (to a truly MINUSCULE extent), how are they supposed to figure out who belongs to which master? For now, they can't mandate electronic tags like we use in pets and cattle; so we have 'passports' that show who our masters are. That also helps the masters know who owns the offspring if the livestock from two different farms breed (hint: it's NOT the livestock themselves). The key here, again, is “their livestock”. They “figure out who belongs to which master” by simply watching to see whose “ear-tag” you voluntarily choose to use to get member-only benefits/privileges. “...they can't [lawfully] mandate electronic tags like we use in pets and cattle....” Stef Molyneux did a superb video-podcast (vodcast?) about nations as tax-farms. I keep saying "for the moment" because I genuinely believe that the time is coming when we Mundanes will decide that we have had enough of 'homo cheneyensis' (as I call the parasitic subspecies that enriches itself at our expense). I have already decided that I have “had enough", which is why I have voluntarily chosen to withdraw from membership in their gang. What is “cheneyensis”, some kind of reference to Dick Cheney, as though he is somehow a worse "human flesh trafficker" than the rest of them? Perhaps it will be when the man in the street realises that if he adds the present value of current and future deficits to his present tax bill, it implies that government is taking more than half of his lifetime remuneration (taking in all forms of tax, plus the future tax required to repay deficit-driven government debt). Sadly, that would require that the man in the street understands present value calculations; in other words, it is unlikely to eventuate before the development of AI and human-AI interfaces. My friend, why are you talking about the “man in the street”, as though he were someone else; you and I ARE that “man in the street”. You must be the change you wish to see in the world. ~ Mahatma Gandhi
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Music, and (when it is good) Hollywood." This land mass has a slew of fine symphony orchestras (that must also include our neighbors to the north, with the Montreal Symphony). The Cleveland Orchestra is considered by many music reviewers and professional musicians to be the greatest orchestra in America, and perhaps the greatest (or certainly one of the greatest) in the world. But even the ones you haven't heard can be amazingly good. I've had the pleasure of hearing the Syracuse Symphony (Upstate New York) and the Utah Symphony. Each of those orchestras, far lesser known, can knock it out with the best of them. Thanks for cheering us all up, Paul. ...with the first part of your article, anyway. :)
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I gave this link ten stars for your take on it, Sharon. I fear what the tipping point will be for present society, since this apparently isn't it. I haven't flown since 2000. I hated it then. I don't ever want to fly again.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Very nice. Its a critical point that the more money government has, the worse off the people are. Whatever needs doing can and WILL be done by civil society without coercive funding. When coercive funding is used (taxation or theft-via-fiat-currency and legal tender laws) then more and more of what the government does is evil, and whatever good is being done by government is innefficient or worse without true market guidance, which includes especially the right of customers to say "no" with impunity.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Terrific column! Very smooth and absolutely spot-on. I appreciated the reminder of the good that America still retains; as the bad grows ever-worse, its easy to forget that not everything is horrible.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    Sadly we are all (for the moment) obliged to retain the ear-tags of one or other of the 'demes' established by our overlords to better enable them to rob us blind to fund their palaces. I have investigated the means by which one can become ACTUALLY stateless; quite apart from making a declaration to that effect (which I have) and taking all steps to ensure that one pays little or no pelf to the Masters (did that too), there is NO mechanism by which one can abrogate 'citizenship' in a way that is recognised by our overlords. (Again, I stress - for the moment). Like that truly great man Paine (and like Diogenes) I consider myself 'kosmopolites'; a 'citizen' of the world. As such I would never support the nation-state within whose self-claimed borders I live - not in peace, not in war, not in welfare transfers, not even in providing tax-funding for respite care for babies in chronic intense pain or for the detection and apprehension of child molesters. Any killing I do, and any transfer payments I make, will be at my own discretion, not that of one of the tax-parasites. As with all livestock, we are deemed the property of one or other of the various collections of tax-parasites that rule us (or kill us if we genuinely refuse to obey: there is no getting away from that dictum: you do what they tell you, or you die.) It's codified in their 'law': in Australia you can only renounce Australia citizenship (leave the herd) IF you have already obtained permission to JOIN ANOTHER HERD. The rationale is simple: the tax-parasites generally contain their livestock within 'borders' (the invisible lines on maps that cause periodic conflagrations in which the livestock are sent to kill each other). One of the sops to 'liberty' that the masters deploy, is to permit some of their livestock to cross these 'borders' subject to an increasingly-stringent set of criteria (including, now, being either irradiated, or cock-fondled by some obese retard who failed the entrance exam for being a mall-cop). So IF the masters permit their livestock to mingle (to a truly MINUSCULE extent), how are they supposed to figure out who belongs to which master? For now, they can't mandate electronic tags like we use in pets and cattle; so we have 'passports' that show who our masters are. That also helps the masters know who owns the offspring if the livestock from two different farms breed (hint: it's NOT the livestock themselves). Stef Molyneux did a superb video-podcast (vodcast?) about nations as tax-farms. I keep saying "for the moment" because I genuinely believe that the time is coming when we Mundanes will decide that we have had enough of 'homo cheneyensis' (as I call the parasitic subspecies that enriches itself at our expense). Perhaps it will be when the man in the street realises that if he adds the present value of current and future deficits to his present tax bill, it implies that government is taking more than half of his lifetime remuneration (taking in all forms of tax, plus the future tax required to repay deficit-driven government debt). Sadly, that would require that the man in the street understands present value calculations; in other words, it is unlikely to eventuate before the development of AI and human-AI interfaces.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 3 years 14 weeks ago
    On Thoreau
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Although there is much to admire about Thoreau (and my audiobook of "Civil Disobedience" is, along with Bakunin's "God, Man and the State" and Paine's "The Rights of Man", a constant fave), his technophobia and mild misanthropism is what makes a good deal of his broader philosophy unpalatable for me. (I'm a technophile, and while I am thoroughly misanthropic at times, it's on a case-by-case basis). A good deal of Thoreau's material comes across as what we today would refer to as 'passive aggressive'; mild hectoring and a 'holier than thou' attitude. 'Simplify simplify'... yeah yeah; what about just letting folks get on with their lives, wherever AND HOWEVER they want to live them so long as we're all living consistent with the ZAP? Thoreau seemed to suffer from the idea that his set of preferences (for being solitary and living without even the technology of the day) was the only 'valid' set of preferences, and that others' were inferior. While we all think our preference maps are the 'best' in some subjective sense, the idea that they are a universal 'best' set is the same sort of nonsense to which Statists subscribe (albeit with more alacrity). The long-run consequences of living by Thoreaus dicta: high infant mortality, short lifespans and less material well-being... supposedly compensated for by the smug sense of feeling enlightened. In short, the same sense of internal-self-righteous-gratification-by-mortification that leads hipster-douches to join the iCult and buy overpriced underperforming gadgets (yes, it's voluntary, but dear God make it stop!). (I didn't use my new $149 3G-wifi-bluetooth-GPS 7" ZTE 9 tab to write this... but I could have. And my tab does not track my every move and save the results in a hidden file, like iPhones and other iDreck do).
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Only the simple-minded and uneducated think Ayn Rand makes any sense.
  • jwalk's picture
    jwalk 3 years 14 weeks ago
    NASA waste
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Come have a look around Detroit - there's plenty of that going around. Welfare recipients driving Escalades, not space exploration.
  • hypermike14's picture
    hypermike14 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Weebies
    I'm an anarcho-Capitalist and atheist, and also agree entirely with this article. From my view, I have all the more reason to be against abortion, because I believe that this life is the only shot that we have. To take that only life from someone else is very horrible. There are multiple secular/scientific reasons to oppose abortion. Embryology is a key factor in how I look at this, and I think you would be surprised to look up Christopher Hitchens' (a famous atheist) position on the issue. He stated in no uncertain terms that he does not believe that "unborn child" is an invalid term, and that he disagrees with his fellow materialists on the issue. I am saddened to be alienated by Christians who have a problem with atheists, and the majority of atheists who support abortion. There are a few of us out there, but we are very isolated.
  • RealPat's picture
    RealPat 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Doug Newman
    You are nothing but a republican bigot. You would not know freedom if it bit you on the ass. Real freedom is about doing away with the police and military power that is at the heart of all our problems with the government. You probably work or sell to a military contractor or the government and find it is good for business. Business be damned it is about the freedom of the people. You want a gun so you can tell other people what to do. Might makes right. That is what are country was trying to get away from. Church's and Military Rule. They never mention the free ENTERPRISE system and repeatedly warn against the damn church stupid. They also did not hate government only when black presidents were in office. When a repubican started a war they did not flock behind him. Suddenly thinking it was alright and calling themselves patriot. Patriot my ass.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I like Narveson's ideas, although I balk at what he calls a social contract. Ain't no such thing. In fact "social contract" is an oxymoron.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    This author wrote: "Canada will be wiped from the face of the Earth." A minor correction. CANADA is not a tangible entity, it is only a "graven image", i.e. a mere thought committed to paper, therefore only the "graven image" of CANADA can be wiped from the face of the Earth. The land upon which that "fictitious overlay" supposedly lies, will remain until the day the Earth itself fades into oblivion.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Michael Dunn
    G'day Michael Dunn, We presume that you wrote this, "I owe no allegiance to any nation." You are not, then, a "citizen" of any man-made nation or STATE? Have we actually found a kindred spirit? ″Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world [Earth], and my religion is to do good.″ ~ Thomas Paine
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "There is only one fundamental right [just claim] (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right [just claim] to his own life." ~ Ayn Rand
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    I was unable to edit, because it triggered the spam filter, so I will attempt to post my edit separately. Those who desire to rule over all of the Earth's inhabitants are determined to extirpate the defenders of "the natural rights of all mankind"; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THIS AUTHOR.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "The cause of America is, in a great measure, the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise, which are not local, but universal, and through which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the event of which, their affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of all mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling; of which class, regardless of party censure, is THE AUTHOR." ~ Excerpted from Common Sense by Thomas Paine [Emphasis added] Those who desire to rule over all of the Earth's inhabitants are determined to extirpate[1] the defenders of "the natural rights of all mankind". ____________________________________________ [1] EX'TIRPATE, v.t. [L. extirpo; ex and stirps, root.] 1. To pull or pluck up by the roots; to root out; to eradicate; to destroy totally; as, to extirpate weeds or noxious plants from a field. 2. To eradicate; to root out; to destroy wholly; as, to extirpate error or heresy; to extirpate a sect.
  • Guest's picture
    tonny2213 (not verified) 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Good post. I’m been looking for topics as interesting as this.Very informative and information presented very well,i really liked reading your post which has delivered a great information about the study on the thorny moral dilemma.Thanks for sharing this valuable information which will really helpful. mobile website
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Anthony Gregory
    It starts young. usually in the 'Kindred Garden' a bunch of 4-5year olds stand up every mourning and pledge an allegiance to a rag. http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/pages/book.htm People 'trained'-not educated-by such educational techniques will be fearful of taking principled, sometimes controversial, stands when called for because these people will have been programmed to speak up only if a positive reward or response is forthcoming. The price of freedom has often been paid with pain and loneliness. John Dewey wanted to control the masses, eliminating the authority of God through government education, thereby creating a malleable, manipulateable people, which can be blown about by every new breeze, perfectly willing to follow any trend, mindless, obedient, his idea of equality. The book Animal Farm illustrates the danger of Godless, government-delegated equality very well when the animals in charge say, "We are all equal, but some are more equal than others." http://www.noogenesis.com/game_theory/Gatto/Gatto.html
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    PERHAPS the sentiments contained in the [preceding post], are not yet sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favor; a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defence of custom. But tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than reason. ~ Excerpted from Common Sense by Thomas Paine
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please." It's shamefully narrow-minded of Washington to confer the blessings of humanitarian mass murder on distant Bedouins while ignoring our Mestizo neighbors to the South. McCaul, a former federal prosecutor who now chairs the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Oversight, is eager to help rectify that inequity by designating six Mexican drug syndicates -- including Los Zetas, which is led by U.S.-trained military personnel -- as "foreign terrorist organizations." Welllllllll Not any more........... Last Wednesday, U.S. Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Texas, picture at left), introduced legislation that would designate six Mexican drug cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.” According to the Deseret News for March 30, McCaul spokesman Mike Rosen said that “It was the first time ... a member of Congress had proposed the designation for the powerful Mexican drug gangs that have waged war against Mexican security forces over the last five years. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2011/04/heads-up-mexico-you-may-be-...
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    " Political language. . . is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. " ~1984 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQfoFzJUsb0
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Just wait until the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11th attacks arrives. All the recruiters will be making their numbers.
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 14 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Oh, the echos of Madeleine Albright's notorious rationalization. So, the people who preach Hell are usually long on scare tactics but short on precise details. Of course, this is no surprise. Still, if they were to work out their hypothesis in detail, would they discover that the most hellish Hell possible would be one in which the inmates don't realize that they are in Hell? I would think so, just as suffering persons on Earth are in the dark about why they are suffering. In fact, how many times have you heard some suffering person whine "why is this happening?!"? I, too, don't believe in the Abrahamists' abode of eternal punishment. It's obviously gibberish that doesn't cohere with their claims that their gods are benevolent. If the gods were benevolent, they would not put so many souls at risk of eternal punishment. This is especially true of the Christian god and the Islamic god. (Judaism is much more obscurantist about Hell, which is odd given the verbosity of its god and the god's prophets.) Indeed, if these gods were benevolent, why would they put any souls at risk of eternal suffering through no fault of those souls? Well, those gods would not do so, thus their cults can be rejected as unworthy. So also any other cult that espouses a similar doctrine, and since no one ever has produced any evidence or a single cogent argument to warrant belief in a god, I think it best to set aside all god hypotheses. So this leaves us with a few other options. For example, there is physicalism, but I've never once encountered a secularist who could give an intelligent explanation of why it's a good idea to be a secularist, esp. without anxiety upon being asked to give justification for belief in secularism. Often what they do instead is to make a fetish of criticisms of Abrahamic theology, malice and violence; then they betray that they are skeptics, relativists, subjectivists, nihilists, or socialists. We know the places to which those roads lead, but the secularist is rarely satisfied with the living caricature that it has already made of itself. For example, there's the secularist's anger management problem, which makes it irksome for the secularist to avoid foolish errors like supposing that either physicalism is true or there is a god. It's like they paid scant attention in mathematics, which is ironic given that so many of them fancy theirselves as apostles and apologists for science. Other secularists take refuge in capitalism, and the worst of the bunch are like John Galt, Hank Rearden, Donald Trump, etc.: They are never satisfied with what they have no matter how much they have or how varied their holdings happen to be. Speaking of John Galt: Who wants to put the power companies out of business so that he can buy their distribution networks dirt cheap from creditors or at a bankruptcy auction? but without the added financial burden of generation equipment that he doesn't need? Who is busy recruiting his financier, his in house counsel and chief lobbyist, his engineering team, and other people needed to run the giant power company that he is so obviously planning to set up if his strike is successful? Who is stalking not only the power companies but also the love of his life?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 14 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    "The problem of being both opposed to the modern state and being forced to live within the context of it is a vexing one, and one that has plagued libertarians, anarchists, and other like-minded individuals for quite some time." "How does it become a man to behave towards the American government today? I answer, that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it." ~ Henry David Thoreau Therein lies the solution to "the problem". One may find himself "in" the modern state, i.e. "among" those who are a part of a state, but (s)he can choose not to be "associated with it", just as he may find himself "in" a riot, but may choose not to "participate" in it. If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in [to be in association with] the government organization. If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. There is no paperwork to fill out. One can just walk away, and fix the thought within his mind that he is no longer participating in the imaginary hierarchical organization that is called government, and just like that, he is out. ~ "A Theory of Natural Hierarchy and Government" by tzo [Bracketed information added] The powerful message of the first sentence of that paragraph bowled me over! If one calls himself a citizen, then he is actively choosing to participate in [to be in association with] the government organization. The solution is not to "oppose it", the solution is not to be "associated with it". Again, tzo gives us a simple, power-filled message. ″All governments must have citizens in order to exist.″ And a simple, though perhaps not easy, solution, (one that, unfortunately, most of us, evidently, do not want to hear). If one does not wish to participate, he can simply stop calling himself a citizen. As a member of the human race, YOU are entitled to freedom of association, whether those who wish to have dominion over you say you are, or not. As a human being YOU have the right to, "Just Say No!" Every time you are asked, and every place you are asked, "Are you a citizen?", simply say, "No, I am not a citizen of the STATE OF ____________________, nor am I a citizen of the UNITED STATES!"