Recent comments

Quote ''"Rights" do not exist. The power of choice does. Men are free to act with respect for the individual liberties of others, or to act without respect. There is no such force as a natural right that will reward virtuous action, or punish evil. There is only one force in human affairs. That is the force of individual will. Freedom is a choice, not a right.'' Perhaps you should watch this idiotic show call 1,000 ways to die. There is right and wrong. There is good and evil.There is poetic justice. Some might call it karma,others maybe the golden rule. I am sure you have some personal recollections of your own where you screwed someone over and than got screwed over at some latter time.Or you did a good work,and you obtained an unforseen reward.I think those who are aware of this truth are more keenly attuned to it, and observe and reinforced by the reaping of the just desserts.(you reap what you sow.) In 1000ways to die,this show graphically portrays many people of low morals,criminal,and grifters &c who come to an untimely demise. Sovereignty is a gift from the number one Sovereign,We are made in his image, A human being has enormous untapped powers; powers to make new things and to change old things into new forms. A human being may not only own property, but can actually create property. In the last analysis, a thing is not property unless it is owned; and without ownership, there is little incentive to improve anything. Let's take an extreme case. A robber breaks into your house and threatens you at knife point. You may elect to pass over your valuables without a struggle but you make the decision and you do the passing. If instead of a robber it were a kidnaper after you child there would be a different story but in either case your thoughts and actions are under your own control. Thousands of men and women have suffered torture and even death without speaking a word that their persecutors tried to make them speak. Your freedom of action may be forbidden, restricted, or prevented by force. The robber, kidnaper or jailer may bind your hands and feet and put a gag in your mouth. But the fact remains that no amount of force can make you act unless you agree----perhaps with hesitation and regret---to do so. This brings us to two important points. First individual freedom is the natural heritage of each living person, and second, freedom cannot be separated from responsibility. Your natural freedom---your control over your own life----was born in you along with life itself. It is a part of life itself. No one can give it to you, nor can you give it to someone else. Nor can you hold any other person responsible for your acts. Control simply can't be separated from responsibility; control is responsibility. Every human act is preceded by a decision to act, and that decision is based on faith. One cannot even think without a deep-seated faith that he exists and faith that there is a supreme standard of good in the universe. This is true of every living person---whether his god is the God of Abraham and Jesus, Allah or Budha, reason or fate, history or astrology, science or goes by any other name. The fact remains that every action of every human being springs from the desire to attain something which he considers to be good---or from the desire to avoid something which he thinks is evil or undesirable. Since the actions of individuals are determined by their beliefs, it follows that the underlying control of the energies of any group of persons is the philosophy and ethical code by which they live. No human being can be made to accept the political overseers; a subject or citizen must choose to do so, and generally does, because it feels secure to depend on these superhuman persons who have both the right and the power to control the lives of people assumed to be their natural inferiors.The state is called the government, but it cannot actually govern the individual acts of any person because of the nature of humans. Men in public office are only men and no man can control another's thoughts, speech, or creative actions. But remember, no possible use of physical force can compel anyone to think, speak, or act---it can only limit, hinder and prevent. A great book about this is here- http://www.bornagainclassics.com/letterstojessica/jessica.html

Well, maybe a peak behind the curtain to reveal the humbug pulling the levers is in order......... "So you see, my dear Conningsby, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes" . . . "Governments do not govern, but merely control the machinery of government, being themselves controlled by the hidden hand" (Benjamin Disraeli). Contrary to popular belief, the world's finances are controlled by privately-owned 'central banks' masquerading as federal government banks in nearly every country in the world. . . Islamic banks have been eating into Rothschild profits in the Middle East because they don't charge interest (Shariah Law), they are growing very rapidly among the world's exploding Muslim populations, and (in these catastrophic economic times) they are more stable than western banks. . . These Rothschild revolutions (american inclusive)are done under the pretense of bringing democracy and deposing despots, but the real aim is to initially create chaos and a leadership vacuum, then quickly offer a solution: install a puppet that will do the economic bidding of the Rothschilds. The citizens gain freedom of speech and association, but become economic serfs. http://www.puppet99.com/?p=1 http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_wikileaks29.htm These revolutions are coordinated at the highest levels by the Rothschild's International Crisis Group. Mohamed ElBaradei . . . is a trustee of the International Crisis Group. Another board member of this group is Zbigniew Brzezinski. George Soros sits on the executive committee. The later two are ubiquitous front men for the Rothschilds. The revolutions are from the same playbook as the fairly nonviolent 'color revolutions'. . . Liberal billionaire George Soros funded training of activists in North Africa. Revolutions always take huge amounts of money.........so much so ,that gubbermints and billionaires are the only ones with enough purse to finance them. The masters of the world, the 'City of London' and its tavistoc institute which devised the mass civilian bombing raids carried out over Dresden by Roosevelt and Churchill as a clinical experiment in mass terror, under "controlled laboratory conditions" to break down the psychological strength of the individual and render him helpless to oppose the dictators of the World Order. Soros (i.e. Rothschild/Vatican/MI6/CIA/City of London) colour revolutions draw instant sympathy, generated for the protesters by our alien-controlled media. Next, Saudi Arabia and Iran, then UP goes the price of oil . . . as planned . . . according to Brother Lindsy Willams.(DVD-The only one to pridict oil to go below >$50 a barrel,when it was <$180 a barrel.) He explains the US cannot produce its own oil because they are under a contract negotiated by the City's Sir Henry Kissinger to purchase Saudi oil, and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is contracted to purchase US Treasury bills until the price of oil reaches US$200/barrel. This has enabled Rothschild's Federal Reserve to monetize and export debt/inflation with a lien over the wealth of individuals and the nation. A similar agreement was made with China which accepted US Treasury Bills in payment for her exports to the United States. This also benefited the large US corporations which shifted production to China and exported their product back to the US, creating unemployment and bankrupting corporations that continued to manufacture in the States. 'The City' plans to collapse the US$dollar$ by the end of 2012, double-crossing the Saudis by vaporizing the worth of US T-Bills held by OPEC countries. This will bankrupt the Arabs, Japanese and Chinese, because America's T-Bills are funding trillions of dollars of worthless derivatives. The MoneyPower has privatized hard assets and profits, both public and private, or moved them offshore, then socialized the loss, as in the ongoing "quantitative easing" scam. Do you see why they have encouraged nations to run budget deficits, introduced privatization and public-private partnerships in essential utilities and hard assets—roads, sea and airports, minerals, timber, water, etc., in exchange for keystroke fiat money? Preplanned hyperinflation will destroy the value of the US dollar, raising the price of crude oil.

Here's a “chick” for you, Scoobiedoo.

'A "right" is a "an interest or title in an object of property; a just and legal claim to hold, use or enjoy it, or to convey or donate it, as he may please[1]", plain and simple. All living beings have a "right" to their own life, liberty and property, which means they have a "just and legal claim" to these things.' No, I don't have a "just and legal claim" to anything. I merely will certain things. I live, and take steps to prevent my death (e.g. buy a gun and practice with it), so I continue living. Yeah, it helps that most people have no desire to deprive me of my life, and I act in a way that reinforces that tendency, but that's all there is to it. Now I have no objection per se to the notion that we may describe all this in a sort of shorthand, calling it a "right". But the reality is, this 18th century concept is no longer helpful for us. It helps the state instead. When people think such preposterous things such as that government's job is to protect "rights", the notion of rights is a prop for government. Suverans, don't you at least agree that it is bad when people think government protects rights?

As The Washington Post remarks on GMOs [genetically modified organisms], "You can't recall them the way you can a car or a plastic toy. They're out there for good. And no one knows what their full impact will be."

This is a good essay, Mark. It covers well the economic interrelationship between production and consumption. You give good links to further enhance the reader's understanding, and you expose "fractional reserve" for what it is. You quote Claude Frédéric Bastiat and his vision of plunder -- all debt is plunder except (as you point out) that which individuals incur with the full intent and capability to repay as agreed. All government debt is plunder pure and simple. Sam

HA! When HELL is full the dead shall walk!!! Here is the real story of Marco Polo and the zombie. I was traveling to Xanadu to meet with the Great Khan with my faithful guide. We had just passed through the city of Kan-Chau and night was descending upon us. We decided to set up our tents and rest the night, for we could not make it to the next town, Etzina. We built a small fire to keep warm and went to sleep. A few hours later, we were awakened by a rustling and moaning in the bushes. I sent my guide to see what sort of animal was in distress. It was a man! He had been injured and was bleeding from wounds on his arms that looked as if he had been mauled by an animal. His clothes were torn and stained red with his blood. The man fell unconscious when my guide helped him over to our fire. We cleaned and bound his wounds while he slept. We waited until morning to see if he would awaken, but he did not. He had expired over night. We said a prayer for him. Then we commenced to dig a shallow grave to save the unfortunate man from eternal damnation. Midway through our digging, we heard a moan. Had we mistaken this man for a corpse? I would have sworn to the Great Khan himself that the man had been dead. My guide bent over the man to check on him. Suddenly, the man took the guide by the shoulders and tore out his neck with his teeth. As I stood horrified, the man continued to devour my guide as the lifeblood poured over his face. In a panic, I looked around for a weapon. I took my sword from my pack and stabbed the man in the chest. He barely looked up from the guide, exhibiting not even discomfort from the mortal wound. I stared in disbelief, not knowing what to do. I freed my blade from the monster and decapitated it with one swift stroke. His body stopped moving, but the head still bit and snarled at me. I buried the corpses and hurriedly left, wanting to get as far away from the horrific scene as possible. I took the monster’s head with me as a gift for the great Khan as a sign of my loyalty. I wrapped it up in many layers of cloth. When I arrived at Etzina, I purchased a glass jar to carry the monster’s still animated head in. After a long and arduous journey, I presented this to the great Khan. He was very pleased with it and left it on display for all to see. http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Survival-Guide-Complete-Protection/dp/14000...

I knew that it wouldn't be a problem for brother. Thanks for weighing in.

We'd all be zombie food while the political system debated the civil rights of zombies.

I particularly liked Michaelangelo's take on the Zombie Apocalypse. Haha! That was more amusing than I thought it'd be.

G'day Dabooda, If you take the time to carefully analyze and intelligently answer Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's very logical questions, i.e. "...how is this aggression if we do not have a concept such as “property rights”? What, exactly, am I aggressing against?", it will take you a giant step in the "right" direction. [Pun intended] It's really all about "property rights", that is to say, "a just claim" to one's property, (and no one else's without his consent), and a man's life and liberty are just as much his "property" as all his tangible (touchable) possessions are. What we have all seemingly forgotten is that, because they are our "property", we have the prerogative to "convey or donate [our life and/or liberty], as [we] may please." In other words, you have the right to "subject yourself to the dominion of a government".

Yeah, Dabooda, and while your there be sure to read all the comments as well.

I second the "Yeps", tzo.

In response to the author's point >>"What are we to put in place of belief in rights? The ethics of non-aggression, peaceful voluntarism, and free trade." Tzo wrote >"The ethics of non-aggression, peaceful voluntarism, and free trade are Santa Claus." I think the point that the author was trying to make is that notions of 'rights' (which I happen to believe in) are taken as an underlying rationale for voluntaryism, but should not be; that is, that it's mistaken to view the proscription against doing unmerited harm to another's property as something that stems from the existence of his/her/its rights. In contrast, the author offers "non-aggression, peaceful voluntarism, and free trade" as a set of behaviours which, when observed widely, will result in a society in which unmerited harm to others will be minimised. It's a 'stocks vs flows' idea; we may or may not have a stock of 'rights' - and whether we have them or not, they may be meaningless if we are not able to prevent them from being infringed. However we can - with probability 1 - participate in ongoing activities that embody values which will result in a reduction in unmerited harm to third parties. I'm one of the 'rights exist ex nihilo' types, but life shows clearly that vermin like Cheney, Obama, Blair and all those who live in palaces at our expense, have no qualms about using the machinery of oppression to take whatever they can whenever they feel like. Likewise, they have no trouble finding corrupt vermin like Yoo, Bybee, Scalia and so forth to give a pseudo-intellectual fig-leaf to their rapine... and of course they have their sturmabteilung at the bottom - scum like Lon Horiuchi who will kill women and children for their masters. So as the author opined - the existence or otherwise of my 'right' to not be interfered with is not even an interesting philosophical discussion in a world where Obama can decide I'm on his 'extrajudicial assassination' list, and send some tard like Horiuchi to mess up my life with a .50cal and a warrant signed by the likes of Gonzales, Roberts or Alito... or disappear me into the American Gulag wherein I can be tortured to death and some subhuman scumbag like Yoo will write an essay about how that's just jim-dandy and Constitutional and all legal-like. As to the idea that defence of one's rights is tantamount to 'defending a fantasy' (as Mark Davis opined); History shows us that people defend delusions and fantasies all the time - from the most idiotic blather about some jealous, stupid, genocidal Sky Wizard, all the way through to primitive stupidity about 'nation' and 'volk'. In fact one of the precursors (arguably a necessary condition) for atrocity is a group who can be made to believe something absurd. We have gotten past the stage where we behave ourselves because of a fear of Hell, and where we think that the beauty of a sunset is down to God (at least that's the case in the developed world - not in the US where 68% of people think that angels exist in real life). The next big idea that people need to internalise is the old idea of 'gains from trade' - that voluntary trade results in two winners; that obtaining one's desires through contract is efficient (as is truth: that's the only reason to value it above alternatives). To me, the author seemed to be making a perfectly sensible point about the pointlessness of being surprised that there is a subset of humanity who choose - quite deliberately - to attempt to live by parasitic means, and that they routinely do unmerited harm to us in the process. To re-frame Diderot for the 21st century: "Man will be free when the last politician is bludgeoned to death with the severed arm of the last police sniper."

So if a group of people organize a society and agree that everyone is entitled to live without being aggressed against, what do you call that concept? Right is a commonly accepted term, but you can call them "natural constraints" or whatever you want. The point is that we must have a term for this concept to even discuss it. Defining what rights are can be problematic, but mostly a matter of semantics. Freedom, liberty, love and hate are abstract concepts that are even more difficult to define. Do you consider the abstract concepts that these terms represent to be fantasies too? Of course the way some people may interpret these terms (falsely) can be considered fantasy. Does that make them useless terms? Or perhaps misunderstood and misused? Where are you Suverans2?

Word. It will be interesting to see how the Chinese handle their first recession when their current real estate boom crashes. I'm guessing they will blame it on the USA, with good reason. They may want to foreclose on us (stop buying T-bills).

I totally agree, Tzo, I couldn't have said it better myself! Although I will say that I thought this column was well written and a good inaugural contribution.

"What are we to put in place of belief in rights? The ethics of non-aggression, peaceful voluntarism, and free trade." The ethics of non-aggression, peaceful voluntarism, and free trade are Santa Claus. So it's turtles, all the way down. How about just considering rights as what the ethics of non-aggression, peaceful voluntarism, and free trade logically define? This set of empirical norms is how the human race continues to exist. They have been discovered, and are not analogous to Santa Claus. Yes, they are abstract. You can't touch or see them. But then, so is the number 7. But these types of abstract concepts map onto existence in a useful manner, and are eminently practical. They can be used to make useful models to explain the world around us. The numbers do not exist in reality, but only through the ability of the human mind to create abstractions. Same with rights. Same with Santa. The difference comes in their usefulness in describing reality.

How did people deal with this issue before they thought they had rights? It's pretty easy, actually. You don't have to have a PhD to figure it out. Dabooda has the correct fix on reality: "There is only one force in human affairs. That is the force of individual will. Freedom is a choice, not a right." Excellent first article, by the way! See also my article, "Life Without Rights": http://www.strike-the-root.com/life-without-rights

Actually, most people are simultaneously statists and anarchists. They both advocate the state, and advocate against it. It's been noted over and over again that the average Joe, in his daily life, acts as an anarchist. This problem exists not only for terms like "anarchist" and "statist", but also "conservative", "liberal", "libertarian", etc. All almost meaningless. A pencil is a pencil, a car is a car, a rifle is a rifle. But a "conservative"? Good luck!

People should be aware that children sentenced to adult prisons spend almost all their time in solitary confinement. By the time they turn 18, they're not fit for anything BUT life in prison. In some civilized nations, solitary confinement, even for adults, is considered torture. In fact, if you or I treated a dog the way these monsters treat our children, WE'D be in prison.

"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." ~ Harry S. Truman Well, it's raining here, so you are stuck with me. Before saying "there is no such thing as a statist", or before we start accusing others of being "statists", mini-, midi-, maxi-, or anywhere in between, perhaps we should heed Voltaire's warning. "Define your terms, you will permit me again to say, or we shall never understand one another..." Definition of STATIST : an advocate of statism ~ Merriam-Webster's 2011 Online Dictionary, 11th Edition Definition of ADVOCATE 1 : one that pleads the cause of [statism]; specifically : one that pleads the cause of [statism] before [strike-the-rooters] 2 : one that defends or maintains [statism] 3 : one that supports or promotes the interests of [statism] ~ Ibid. [Definition adapted for this particular topic.] Definition of STATISM : concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry ~ Ibid. Now that we know there is such a thing a "statist", let's look around to see if there are any of these dad-blamed "statists" here at Strike-the-Root, and proceed from there. Show of hands, please, are there any here who "advocate...concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government". Now, we just have to sit back and wait for the hands to go up. [Whistling "Dixie"[1] whilst I wait for the hands to start flyin' up and wavin'.] [1] "Whistling 'Dixie'" is a slang expression meaning "[engaging] in unrealistically rosy fantasizing".

G'day Michael Kleen, If, as you claim, "...99.9% of us live in a "state"", where do the remaining .1% of us, who are not consenting members (citizens/subjects) of the fictional "state", live? All taxes are voluntary. If one voluntary chooses to be, or remain, a member (citizen/subject) of the “state”, one is a “taxpayer”, i.e. “one is subject to a tax on income”. If one voluntarily chooses to buy something at the store, which must pay a “sales tax”, because it and its owner(s) is/are voluntarily in bed (incorporated) with the “state”, then the store owner generally passes that cost on to the voluntary purchaser of his goods. Most of our friends and relatives are members (citizens/subjects) of the “state”, which is why “most of us probably got an education[sic] thanks to the state[sic]”. (Actually, any thanks for our INDOCTRINATION should go to the MEN and WOMEN who are who are members (citizens/subjects) of “the state” who pay “property taxes”, if I understand your system correctly.) But, what does that have to do with being a “statist” or “mini-statist”? Why, for goodness sakes, do you believe that an “anarchist”, which I define as, one who does not consent to be ruled by “the state”, has to “live in the woods somewhere” or he/she is a “statist”, which, according to Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition, is “an advocate of statism”? That is one heck of a stretch, in my opinion, Michael Kleen! Your point in all of this, if I am not mistaken, is to satisfy, in your mind, that you just don't have any choice but to be a member (citizen/subject) of a “state”. That's all well and good for you, Michael Kleen, but, hopefully, you won't mind if those of us who DO NOT CONSENT to be members (citizens/subjects) of “the state”, strongly disagree with that premise.

so well written. this should definitely take first prize