Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Sharon Secor, It is my opinion that gold and silver do not have "tangible, real value". I believe that they are merely a "perceived value", which, in my opinion, can be easily demonstrated by this. I suspect that in a hardcore SHTF scenario there will be a real scarcity of safe food, potable water, and adequate shelter (includes clothing); at that point in time what kind of "tangible, real value" will gold and silver have to you and your family? I think chasing after gold and silver may be a fools errand, but I could be wrong; there may still be individuals who prefer "shiny stuff" over real, tangible value. We've probably all seen movies where greedy individuals have a cave collapse on top them because they can't escape while carrying arms full of gold, silver and/or jewels that are weighing them down.
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    In truth, on that matter, I agree with you completely. I always advocate the purchase of nonperishable goods one will need, as opposed to spending a whole lot on gold and silver. I have the conversation frequently, and my typical line is this -- rich people buy gold, but poor people like us, our best bet is food, seeds, tools, etc. Far better to buy clothing and shoes in sizes your kids will grow into than hold a bunch of inflation eaten dollars. Another aspect of buying gold is... well, great you can buy stuff, but who's gonna have change for that gold piece? Now, as I was discussing with a friend last night, the point about the silver is this. If we choose to do business among ourselves, then our mode of trade is our business. If I ask him to build me a wall and decide I'll give him a pig and fresh bread weekly for 6 months, fine. If I offer him housecleaning and clothing repair for my wall and he accepts, fine. If I offer him silver in an amount we agree upon that's fine, too. What we agree upon for my wall is nobody's business but our own, and we'll do as we please, regardless of what the State says. The State cannot stop our private arrangements not today, not tomorrow, not ever. As always, I am pleased that you have taken the time to comment and I always enjoy reading your thoughts. Have a wonderful day.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    And get a lawyer???????????????????
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 3 years 4 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    The best legal advice ever: STFU and get a lawyer. And yet people have to be reminded of it constantly.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    According to Joint Resolution 175 of the 103rd Congress, "the phrase in the Declaration of Independence 'All men are created equal' was suggested by the Italian patriot and immigrant Philip Mazzei." http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=103_cong_bills... (Source: Wikipedia) Tutti gli uomini sono per natura egualmente liberi e indipendenti. Quest'eguaglianza è necessaria per costituire un governo libero. Bisogna che ognuno sia uguale all'altro nel diritto naturale. All men are by nature equally free and independent. Such equality is necessary in order to create a free government. All men must be equal to each other in natural law. ~ Philip Mazzei, The Virginia Gazette, 1774. (Translated by a friend and neighbor, Thomas Jefferson.)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Since there is nowhere one can comment on the daily quotes here at STR, I decided that this was an appropriate place to do it. The quote on 3/19/2011 was attributed to the facist, Ezra Pound, "Liberty is not a right but a duty." Let us start with this, Ezra. Bullsh*t!! Liberty. Freedom from all restraints except such as are justly imposed by law. Freedom from restraint, under conditions essential to the equal enjoyment of this same RIGHT by others; freedom regulated by law. The absence of arbitrary restraint, not immunity from reasonable regulations and prohibitions imposed in the interests of community. Brazo v. Connecticut Real Estate Commission, 177 Conn. 515, 418 A.2d 883, 890. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, (c.1991), page 918 [Emphasis added] What "law" might that above modern definition be referring to? Well, that depends on what jurisdiction[1] one has consented to be under. If one does not consent to "submit himself to the dominion of a man-made government for the promotion of his general welfare and the protection of his individual rights" then he is a "man", (as opposed to a "person", i.e. a "juristic personality")[2], and is governed by the "law of nature", and he therefore has "natural liberty". Natural liberty. The power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless [except] by the LAW OF NATURE. The RIGHT which nature gives to all mankind of disposing of their persons and property after the manner they judge most consistent with their happiness, on condition of their acting within the limits of the LAW OF NATURE, and so as not to interfere with an equal exercise of the same RIGHTS by other men. Burlamaqui, c. 3, @ 15; 1 Bl. Comm. 125. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black's 1st c.1891), page 716 [Emphasis added] This is the same definition, word-for-word, found in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991) on page 918. Imagine that, NO CHANGE IN DEFINITION IN ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Because natural liberty is a natural right, a "just claim" that each of us has, each of us has the prerogative, individually, to exchange it for civil liberty, (which, of course, is a civil right, restrained and controlled by "human laws"), if we so choose. Civil liberty. The liberty of a member of a society, being a man's natural liberty, so far restrained by HUMAN LAWS (and no further) as is necessary and expedient for the general advantage of the public [the state]. 1 Bl.Comm.125. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 918 [Emphasis added] Allow me to take that out of context so that it may be seen more clearly, "The liberty of a member...restrained by HUMAN LAWS. ___________________________________________________________________________________ [1] "Jurisdiction, in its most general sense, is the power to make, declare or apply the law..." ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language The default jurisdiction, if one chooses not to consent to a man-made jurisdiction, is the "law of nature". This so because, "[The natural] law is the paramount law, and the same law, over all the world, at all times, and for all peoples; and will be the same paramount and only law, at all times, and for all peoples, so long as man shall live upon the earth." ~ Natural Law; or the Science of Justice by Lysander Spooner [2] Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis--Man is a term of nature; person of civil law. Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914), page 2136
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 4 weeks ago
    Genesis
    Page tzo
    I agree. This is a sweet, short, fun read with a bite.
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 4 weeks ago
    Genesis
    Page tzo
    :-)
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 3 years 4 weeks ago
    Genesis
    Page tzo
    Of course, everyone knows what's coming in parts 2 and 3, but tzo has a remarkable ability to make his point through simple well-told parables.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 4 weeks ago
    Authority: God vs. Man
    Page Guest
    Very good, Doug Carkuff.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 5 weeks ago
    Authority: God vs. Man
    Page Guest
    quote-- ''that we are living in our own “matrix” of illusion, a “through the looking glass” land of Drug Wars and real wars and homeland security where the way to peace is more war and where telling the truth is an act of treason." The whole article Well said(written). Some additions,that came to mind while reading this-in the USSA, Slavery is freedumb. The Gummint needs to invade Afganistan because 'they hate our freedoms.' Plus they need to build a central bank and vote in a king. Torture is 'blowing off steam.' Ten five pointed stars for you!
  • Guest's picture
    DWCarkuff (not verified) 3 years 5 weeks ago
    Authority: God vs. Man
    Page Guest
    Thanks for the comments, guys. My best, Doug
  • ard1984's picture
    ard1984 3 years 5 weeks ago
    Authority: God vs. Man
    Page Guest
    You said it, man! You said it all!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Paul, Here's, what I believe to be, some proof that the several STATES of the union have "officially subjected [themselves] to the dominion of the federal government". Federal agents raid medical marijuana businesses 6:28 AM, Mar. 15, 2011 "(Judge Lynch) authorized federal agents to come in and enforce federal law above state law[1]," Williams said. ...at least 10 businesses were raided across the state, including in Helena, Missoula, Belgrade, Columbia Falls, Bozeman and Billings. ___________________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Article VI, second paragraph, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis added]
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    What I'd like to know is exactly what the ACLU considers "evident justification" for torture. NO human being deserves to be treated the way Bradley Manning is being treated. The ACLU's letter, as is almost everything else they do, is too little too late.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Good questions, Neil D. What to do? Famous investor Jim Rogers sold his $15 million NY apartment and moved to Singapore recently. If I had his level of money, I'd probably do the same. Or head to Argentina, or some other carefully chosen place. But the collapse might be slower and longer than I expect -- I happen to think a sharper, more violent collapse is likely but then this is a new situation, where the entire planet is using a single fiat currency as a reserve currency for each individual nation's OWN fiat currency. Plenty of other things are unique to our high-tech, enviro-collapsing, over-populated modern world, also. Some things look really good (exponential growth of solar power, for instance -- if it keeps up, we'll be able to run the whole damm planet with solar in just a few years. Doublling over and over again doesn't take long for that "oh my god" moment to happen). Other things look -- well horrible, as you certainly know. To be on the safe side, I'd assume the worst, in a Mad Max kind of way, at least to the extent that preparations don't wreck your life if the crash turns out to be less extreme. How to ward off despair? Focus on what is real in your life, and important. Family, friends, and whatever else has meaning for you. Do something to oppose the evil in this world. Build something, rather than destroy. Foster love and freedom wherever and however you can. Tragedy and hardship and tyranny have been the most common of human environments since the dawn of our kind; we are, in a very real sense, made to deal with what's coming. I'm certainly not looking forward to it (but then I'm more of a pessimist than I wish) but I am trying to appreciate living through -- at least for a while -- one of the biggest, most important transitions in human history.
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Per Bylund
    Hi there kenlefeb, Sorry to have taken an age to respond. The action that resulted in the large-scale truancy of Egyptian police on January 28/29th has been mentioned around the interchoobs in various places, but you will find it nowhere in the mainswamp media (there is no main 'stream' anymore; it is all swamp). It is mot something that TPTB like to advertise, lest it give folks ideas. I could furnish a list of the names of the few dozen Muhkabarat and undercover police who were the targets of the action - such a list would add nothing except perhaps a demonstration of my ability to generate plausible-sounding lists of working class Egyptians. The deniability of everything is a critical asset: a windbag bloviates on the interchoobs, and in doing so passes an encryption key to someone who needs it. The mechanism I outlined in the comment to which you replied, is chapter and verse of what went down: I contributed to conveying the practical aspects of implementing the theory (which owes a great deal to Jim Bell's "Assassination Politics" from 1996) to the people on the ground who wanted to know how to put sand in the gears of the State's apparatus. It is a 'known known' (in Rumsfeld-speak) that government security agencies infiltrate all anti-government movements and either foment discord or attempt to entrap participants: at the very least they help ensure that key participants are rounded up before major operations can be organised. We see this with the fact that almost every major 'sleeper cell' bust undertaken to provide TV news with something to entertain the Mass Idiot, is actually a cell run by the FBI or some other such agency. Anyhow... infiltration by government agents happens everywhere, and folks like me help participants to identify possible infiltrators and deal with them as appropriate (you might be aware of several dozen UK undercover cops in the environmental movement who were outed recently - not my work, but a lot like it). As I have said elsewhere in the past, the OstEuropaische 'colour revolutions' that everyone was babbling about four years ago, required the same type of (ahem) interaction with the State machinery of oppression: back then it was harder to get the lists - the 'back-end' has improved substantially as the mechanisms have evolved. This project (and it is a project) has its roots way back in the late 1980s when a group of people took SEVERE umbrage at the French government's terror attack on the Rainbow Warrior. If you want to analyse 'final causes', read 'Underground' by Suelette Dreyfus (assisted by a younger Julian Assange). Cheerio GT PS imagine if someone had lists of the clandestine assets - covert operatives,. front companies, informants... foreign and domestic - of every major government from the US to Israel, Germany, France, etc. Such a someone (or group of someones) would have the ability to engage in a 'Plame War' (HA!) and rip the eyes out of any government that decided to try and 'crack down' on it. Let's just say that Anonymous (and darker Anon-related groups like Gnosis, Metanoia and Sofia) have more assembled talent than even the HBGary hack shows.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Thanks very much for the information, NoMNoM. I knew that as government "incorporated" UL's (and other such firm's) standards, Ringo's Law would manifest itself, but I wasn't aware of the problems you described. Nor was I aware of the NFPA; I'll look into them and the subject generally before any new column that covers regulation, either directly or as an aside.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Some more recommended reading, regarding nuclear power being "..a proven source of energy...", for you, ProtoGoth. "Precisely because the stakes are so high and there’s so much room for unforseen things to go wrong, nuclear power is uninsurable on the private market."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    This is what can happen to slaves, voluntary or involuntary, it matters not.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Paul, First of all, that would not be "secession", by virtually anyone's definition[1]: "the act of withdrawing from membership in a group". (Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page1351) What, precisely, do you mean by, "simply stop paying attention to the federal government"? And, what about the STATE OF WYOMING, which has officially subjected itself to the dominion of the federal government[2]; are you going to "simply stop paying attention" to it, too? And, again, in precisely what way will you "simply stop paying attention" to it? ___________________________________________________________________________________ [1] http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/secede http://www.yourdictionary.com/secede http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/secede http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secede http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secede?show=0&t=1300443910 http://www.wordnik.com/words/secede [2] Article VI, second paragraph, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." [Emphasis added]
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Michael Kleen
    On further reflection, I should say there is a huge problem with the pragmatic approach that we haven't considered here. Michael writes, "He or she is willing to accept any advance, however small, toward his or her larger goals." The problem is with focusing entirely on the single issue. My example above was permitted CC leading eventually to permitless CC. All well and good, if that is all one is concerned about. Sure looks like an advance, eh? The problem is, while you are spending a lot of effort getting forward progress on this one issue, you are taking a beating everywhere else. So on net, you are not getting an advance. You have just invested a lot of time in a setback. Indeed, my monitoring of the situation, with the Wyoming Liberty Index, noted year after year 3 or 4 times as many liberty-harming bills as liberty enhancing bills. After a while, it doesn't matter that Wyoming passed permitless CC just recently. We are still worse off. What's the solution to this dilemma? I think revolution will be the end result, whether we try to be pragmatic or ideological.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I think it would be a little provocative, heh. A better strategy would be to not formally secede, but simply stop paying attention to the federal government (along with other measures such as arresting federal agents who are assaulting the people, such as happened in Montana lately with the drug busts). De facto secession, rather than de jure. This also does not have the problem that Suvarans noted, about those individuals not wanting to secede.
  • Andrew_M_Garland's picture
    Andrew_M_Garland 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    People paid payroll taxes for thirty years to support those who had retired. They paid in more than was needed for those retirees. The government did not invest the extra cash; it spent it on government salaries and projects. Now, those people want to retire. To support them, younger people will be asked to pay FICA taxes at about double the previous rate, 24% instead of the current 12.4%. (You may think that the employer is paying 6.2%, but it all comes out of the production of the worker.) Those younger people will be wise to the scheme, and will wonder about who is going to pay for them. They may not like the idea that their savings will be vanishing, leaving them with only the option of extracting support from the next younger cohort of people. They may resist. Ponzy Schemes Like Social Security There is nothing real in the "trust fund". There is only a political promise to find the money somewhere that was paid in and already spent. The shortfall is about $15 trillion in today's dollars, about equal to the entire yearly income of everyone in the US. That promise is much more than what is recorded in the trust fund, which is itself only an unfunded promise. Medicare and Medicaid are much larger and equally unfunded, except by much higher taxes in the future, and not just on the rich. ObamaCare Bails Out Medicare
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "Police prevarication" -- what an interesting way to describe the routine perjury committed with impunity by those sworn, trusted and PAID to uphold the law. Jesus, they get away with murder; and you expect them to be honest -- why?
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    As long as Big Brother was just beating up on inner city junkies, cocaine-crazed Negroes, long-haired Hippie war protestors, Spanish-speaking day laborers and Muslim fanatics, John Q. Public was perfectly content to turn his back, close his eyes and cover his ears. Now Big Briother is beating up on John Q. Public. I wonder if now Mr. & Ms. Public will get around to getting pissed off enough to speak up. Somehow I dolubt it.
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Well, a third party tester would only be used by those seeking an impartial result, I guess. Follow the money on this subject, it will lead you to interesting places/people.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Well deserved. Notice that one of their spokespersons, Paul Eckerstrom, said this, "We actually want to stay in the union." Of course you do; after all, who would support your socialist programs if you didn't, Paul, you? Have a great day, Sharon Secor.
  • JoshuaPettigrew's picture
    JoshuaPettigrew 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Another thing that bothers me about this is that apparently Rapiscan (the makers of many of the scanners) were the ones doing the tests. Why wouldn't you get a third party to test these things? This whole thing smells to me. Prediction: rosy stats will be released, but the truth will leak out when some big event is occupying the public mind.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Your point is well made. Have a great day!
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Thanks for the generous praise and the well made point regarding collectivists. Best Regards...
  • Sharon Secor's picture
    Sharon Secor 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    I do, of course, agree with you at the most basic level. However, I also believe that for many, the progression towards the sort of liberty found in a State-free society is a gradual one. It is difficult for many to conceive of a life or society without government of the sort we see today. Thus, State secession can be seen a step in the right direction, and hopefully, the movement away from formal/mandatory government would continue (i.e., first the rejection of the federal government, then state, etc. and so on, until we finally arrive at individual secession or the concept of individual liberty as a workable, practical means of social organization.) Thank you for taking the time to comment, your thoughtful words and precise perspective are always appreciated. Best Regards...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    G'day Sharon Secor, I give your intro to this TEN BIG STARS! However, we need to keep in mind that only a "collectivist", (as opposed to an "individualist"), would wish to force their fellow citizens, who are against secession, to secede with them.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Logically, if one professes to believe in individual liberty, then to be consistent one must be against State secession, because State secession is, after all, nothing more than another variation of the majority forcing its will upon the minority. The only logical position for true lovers of liberty is that of individual secession.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    "Furthermore, as is usually, or always, true of Drew’s ilk, he argues from 1st amendment, for free speech rights, blah, blah, blah. The real issue, however, is property rights. Who owns the AV recording equipment? In fact, who owns the photons reflected from the arresting cop’s body once those photons strike your body or your video recorder?" ~ Liberal in Lakeview To answer those questions, if one is a Fourteenth Amendment citizen, i.e. if he has "submitted [himself] to the dominion of [the] government", as, with little doubt, this person has, the following evidence is given. March 9, 1933 – Senate Document No. 43, 73rd  Congress, 1st Session:  “The ownership of all property is in the state; individual so-called “ownership” is only by virtue of government, i.e., law amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law and subordinate to the necessities of the State.”  (Repeated in: Hearing before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations, February 17, 1950 page 494; Constitution for the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, Treaty Document 97-19, and the Communist Manifesto).
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    If we look past the mirrors and through the smoke, the only option truly protected, for those who have "submitted themselves to the dominion of [the] government" (citizens), is "the right...to petition the government for a redress of grievances", the right to beg their master[1]. _______________________________________________________________________________ [1] PETI'TION, v.t. To make a request to; to ask from; to solicit; particularly, to make supplication to a superior for some favor or right ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The first thing that strikes me is the that it seems that virtually no one knows, in this day and age, that the true purpose and intent of First Amendment of the United States Constitution was solely to protect dissidents, individuals who spoke or wrote words "critical" of the government. The constitutional basis for freedom of speech...can be traced directly to the 1735 trial of John Peter Zenger, a German immigrant who worked as a Colonial newspaper publisher. Zenger’s newspaper, the Weekly Journal, became the center of attention when he published articles critical of the governor of New York, William Cosby. When Cosby was unsuccessful in silencing Zenger, first through threats of libel and then by more violent threats of burning his press, Cosby leveled sedition charges against him. Zenger was arrested and tried on July 29, 1735. Zenger was acquitted and the value of free speech in America was firmly entrenched. All this phoney-baloney "first amendment interpretation" bullsh*t was, and is, just the "smoke and mirrors" used to cloud the true meaning and intent of the First Amendment. As a result of these phoney-baloney "first amendment interpretations" the only thing the First Amendment doesn't protect is "criticism of the government". "Criticism of the government" is now labeled, by those in power, sedition, i.e. "attempts made by meetings or speeches, or by publications, to disturb the tranquility of the state." See those three forms of "sedition"? Now read the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech [speeches], or of the press [publications]; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble [meetings], and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." [Emphasis and bracketed information added] The purpose and intent of the "freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the right of the people to peaceably assemble" clause of the First Amendment, was to protect individuals from being charged with "sedition", or "treason", when they criticized their servants in government.
  • Guest's picture
    lysander6 (not verified) 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Excellent...
  • rita's picture
    rita 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    I've never been in prison, but I did spend 6 months in the Yavapai County (Arizona) jail. Four cells with 5 beds each held a minmum of 30, at times up to 50, women, which meant at any given time there were at least 10 sleeping on the floor. On average, about half of county inmates are in jail for victimless drug law violations, and what passes for a medical staff refuses to touch or otherwise help people who use drugs. Unless, of course, the drugs are the ones THEY hand out like candy at Halloween -- in 6 months, in one dorm in one jail in one county in one state, 3 inmates were taken to the hospital after being overdosed with psych meds by the so-called "medical staff." Two never came back.
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    This article could have been shorter if you just wrote "Nowhere where people are routinely raped with impunity is 'cushy' ".
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    Please give a summary of the problems with Rothbard's thinking.
  • A Liberal in Lakeview's picture
    A Liberal in La... 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Wow. The section, "The Goldilocks of Risk", was eyepopping. Too bad the gladhanders and grandstanders, i.e. politicians and their hangers-on, are visionary planners of society with little interest in slowing down long enough to understand the research. Also illuminating was the influence of BIS and the Basel Accords on American banks. A few observations about Maymin's essay: (1) Maymin wrote that the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision publishes "suggested bank guidelines", but later he added that under the Basel Accord's guidelines, "the bank that wishes to own $100 million of IBM stock may not unilaterally decide how much or how little risk capital to allocate for that ownership; it must conform to the regulatory requirements." So are they guidelines that obligate no one or are they requirements to which bankers must conform? Perhaps the trick to understanding the guildlines of the BIS and BCBS is that that they are analogous to recommendations published by the NCCUSL. If so, the BIS and BCBS would rely upon its members' several legislatures, e.g. Congress, to implement proposals, just as the NCCUSL doesn't publish laws but recommendations that may be codified by the legislatures of the provinces that Americans call states. (2) At the end Maymin claims that "[w]e have over 150,000 pages of federal regulations for various industries". I can't help wondering how he came up with that number. That would be 300 volumes with 500 pages per volume. So, is he counting both Statutes at Large and the United States Code? If so, then he must be double counting regulations. Another complication when trying to cite a neat and tidy number for the quantity of regulations is the set of many rules issued by various federal agencies. To paint a more precise picture, Maymin should cite one compilation or the other or both separately. Of course, if leftist bloggers and journalists investigate his claim and find it misleading, then Maymin will have discredited his own cause in proportion to the error, and it would hardly matter if the total number of pages turned out to be more than 150k. The goo-goos would probably trivialize that fact or neglect it altogether. In the meantime, some libertarian or conservative parrot will repeat the number 150k without doing the least bit of research to check it out. The claim could take on a life of its own, like some feminists' perennial shrill cry that women are paid just n% of what men earn, where n is always a good deal less than 100. (3) Maymin asked rhetorically, "[h]ow do banks work today?". His answer: "Basically, they hold leveraged portfolios of assets and decide how much risk capital to allocate to be able to keep holding those positions during times of distress." (Emphasis added.) If that's "basically" what he's teaching his students about banking, his students ought to plug their ears during class, for Maymin has a very superficial understanding. Keep in mind that "risk capital" is not a synonym for reserves. I suspect that his students' interests would be better served by not taking his class(es) at all, thereby saving several thousand dollars of tuition. Instead, they ought to burrow their way through Rothbard's A History of Money and Banking in the United States, which they can download for free. They could supplement their study with Modern Money Mechanics, first published by the FRB of Chicago in the 1960s and revised numerous times since then. It explains, among other things, the basics of deposit expansion and contraction under the system of fractional reserve banking established by Congress. This work, too, they can get for free. And of course, Mayim would have more time for statistics-driven research, which he seems to be good at. (4) If there were a free market in banking, then there'd be no banking cartels set up by government, no central banking, no sheltering of bankers from the vice of fractional reserve warehouse banking, and so on. Undoubtedly the bankers won't like this definition. Neither would the leftists. (5) Maymin wrote that "...no algorithm for calculating the required risk capital for given portfolios results in lower systemic risk"? C'mon, now, that doesn't even come close to passing the smell test. A cluster of warehouse banks each operating at or near 100% reserves would surely have low systemic risk. Of course, their dependency upon each other would be low, each bank would have few investments, and the regulators would have abandoned their old preoccupation, namely, meddling in banking in order to stimulate loans and investments by bankers. (6) The usual suspects will clamor for Mayim's "hypothetical regulatory agency", even though all experience shows that it's going to be a gigantic failure. The superagency toward which the world is heading will provide job opportunities for many law school grads and econ professors. And can you imagine the anxiety attacks of partners in big law firms if all those regulations were swept off the books without delay? What would they tell associates who've been racking up 2,000 to 3,000 billable hours per year in order to become partner and to enjoy the perks of crime that's organized under the color of law and protected by $45k/yr cops with degrees in criminal justice? Yes, regulation is like central planning; it amounts to politicians and bureaucrats exercising dominion over matter, physical stuff, that is nominally the property of others, i.e. business owners. Of course, even b-school books inform their readers that one of the purposes of regulation is to thwart competition. So business owners may not have the justification for complaint that at first appears to be the case. Anyhowm, why don't we claim that regulation is a little like Fascism, supposedly the merger of the corporation and the state? Regulation, you see, is the merger of corporate management with the state.
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "We are a happy family" Fallacy of Composition. One out of a million.
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    I outgrew Rothbard's foolishness many years ago.
  • Robert Wallace's picture
    Robert Wallace 3 years 5 weeks ago Page Bob Wallace
    "Trying not to be rude, but when reading your column I have to assume that this whole libertarian thing is very new to you." If you don't know who I am, you haven't been one for very long.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Did anyone bother to go read HB569? They aren't "getting rid" of marriage, fercrisesake, they are simply renaming it, "domestic union", (A domestic union contracted under this chapter shall be the legal equivalent to marriage....), to side-step "the argument about gay marriage", nothing more. Well, whoopdeefrikindo! That means that the STATE will still be the 3rd and controlling party (god) in your "domestic union".
  • Jad Davis's picture
    Jad Davis 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Let's see if I'm clear on your position. You're requesting that we not "fret" for a man who's facing 4-15 years in prison for recording a policeman because you don't like his political positions? I'm curious, if this is the case, do you support the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants"? Surely you don't agree with the political positions of the Guantanamo bay detainees.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    "Many people seem to think that anarchists are proponents of violence, chaos, and destruction, that they are against all forms of order and organization, or that they are crazed nihilists who just want to blow everything up." Quick definitions from WordNet (nihilist) ▸ noun: someone who rejects all theories of morality or religious belief ▸ noun: an advocate of anarchism anarchist NOUN (1) 1. an advocate of anarchism; [syn:nihilist, syndicalist] ~ Wordnet 3.0 nihilist Specifically An adherent of nihilism; a member of a Russian secret society which aims at the overthrow of the existing order of things, social, political, and religious; a Russian anarchist or revolutionary reformer. See nihilism, 4. ~ Wordnik Moby Thesaurus II by Grady Ward, 1.0: 71 Moby Thesaurus words for "nihilist": ...anarchist... Related Words for : nihilist anarchist, syndicalist ~ Dictionary.com Gee, I wonder why people would associate anarchists with nihilists? Hey, I know, maybe it's because so many dictionaries do! Are You An Anarchist? Definition of ANARCHIST ...2 : a person who believes in, advocates, or promotes anarchism or anarchy; especially : one who uses violent means to overthrow the established order ~ Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition Yes, I know that there are some definitions that are more positive than that, and I know that it is probably a complete waste of my time telling some of you this, AGAIN, because you've already made up your mind, and you will choose to ignore this post. That's certainly your prerogative. This is directed at the individual who has not yet labeled himself, he needs to know that this is typically what he will be up against if he uses the word "anarchist " to describe himself.
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    This is a very good article, a technical topic explained in layman's terms. It is unfortunate, though not surprising, that this type of analysis was not considered when Congress deliberated for the latest round of so-called financial regulation legislation. This analysis reinforces for me that regulation is really a form of central planning, so we should not be surprised when it fails to produce the stated objectives, or in fact works counter to them.
  • Bootstrapper's picture
    Bootstrapper 3 years 5 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    "Money flows toward power like water flows downhill." I think Kevin has it backwards. Political power gravitates to to those who have wealth. "Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws." - Mayer Amschel Rothschild. The role money plays in civilised society is so fundamental that if you change the way it works, society and the economy will change to accommodate it. [url]http://p2pfoundation.net/Brakteaten_Money[/url]