Recent comments

  • Paul's picture
    Paul 13 years 31 weeks ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    Libertarians believe the only egalitarianism there should be, is in our legal relationship with the state. But that pre-supposes there should be a state! I don't need the state. I don't need equality, of any sort. I just need to be left alone.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 13 years 31 weeks ago Page tzo
    I did not say "you don't really own any property", I said "you don't really own any property that you cannot defend against theft." What I'm saying is that it's meaningless to talk about owning something if you cannot hold it. Theft of course just means taking something from someone who does not relinquish it willingly. If you can hold it, that is if any theft attempt is unsuccessful, you own it. If you can't hold it, if a theft attempt is successful, then you don't own it, not in any meaningful way. Might as well give up any ownership fantasies in that case. Guy steals your car and takes it to a chop shop? You no longer own it. Government steals your house through eminent domain? You no longer own it.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 13 years 31 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    I think it might be a bit misleading to blame everything on government. Certainly there are some areas where what we think of government is nonexistent, yet there are still gangs with strongmen and his soldiers running the show. I'd rather look at it from the other angle. That there have always been gangs of violent people preying on the producers and the less violent. Most places the largest gang is institutionalized and has a veneer of legitimacy as government, but they are still gangs. Now, the problem is that these gangs have power. They can force people to do things. The power is the problem, or at any rate, the disparity of power. Another problem is brainwashing, keeping the peons down by telling them they have to believe in the divine right of kings, or whatever its modern manifestation is. Get rid of the brainwashing and the disparity of power, and things start to look different. People are learning from the internet, not from controlled media and government schools. Homeschooling is flourishing. So the brainwashing is going away. Newspapers are failing everywhere. People now can have just as much power as government thugs do, too. Just go down to the gun store and buy a battle rifle along with a couple thousand rounds of ammo. The more people who do this, the worse it looks for the government gang, because we far outnumber them. Why did predators first appear on this earth? Because there were prey for them to exploit. How to get around this fact of life? Stop being prey.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 13 years 31 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Hi Steve, Let's start by defining aggression as unjustly imposing force, or violence, against someone. I agree with you that we will never be rid of the people who aggress against others, and none of my thoughts include a Utopian future where there is no violence and we all have ponies and lollipops and everyone is friends. Anarchy has nothing to do with Utopia. Anarchy has everything to do with organizing society without coercion. It does not mean there would be no law, no order, no force used against aggressors, and to leap to such a conclusion is to not understand the subject. Society is one concept, and government is another. Societies can perform all the functions that governments currently perform, and more efficiently at that, and they can accomplish all this without resorting to coercion. The Common Law and the Law Merchant were not created by government, they were created by society. No one had to pay a single penny in taxes in order for these structures to be built. We all want a peaceful society. We also know that there will always be some who are violent. Obviously, these people must be dealt with. To claim that anarchists imagine these people will not exist is a slightly bewildering claim. But why the automatic leap to a group that must be given a monopoly on the use of force that is funded through coercion (taxes)? We want peace, so we must use coercion to achieve it? And if people are so scummy so as not to be able to organize themselves peacefully, then you are going to award a small number of these vile creatures all the guns? Does that really make sense? Because if you want a sociopath's eyes to light up, just tell him he can earn a living taking other people's money and telling them what they have to do. Those jobs will quickly be filled with all the bottom of the barrel folks you wish to be protected from. As soon as you establish a government, you are on a one way path to totalitarianism. You will populate the offices with the worst sorts of people who will simply expand the grip they have on their power over society. It has never worked any other way in all of human history. No government will ever 'go on a diet.' The U.S. instituted the most hands-off type of minimalist government ever attempted, and here we are. The toothpaste ain't going back into the tube. So to me, the belief in some sort of minimum governmental structure that stays minimal is analogous to believing in Utopias and other such fantasy lands. All the bad stuff you have seen in your travels is due to governments being in charge. Every place you have ever been has been under the authority of a government. All the Colombian evil you may have witnessed is because of the Colombian government. They are in charge and are responsible. You say you have seen some places that have little or no government and the people suffer. It is the government itself, not the lack of it, that makes those people suffer. You mentioned Nazi Germany. What better case against government can possibly exist? The only reason there was a WW2 was because a bunch of States threw a bunch of soldiers at each other. Those German 'historically rational brains' fell into lockstep with what their government told them and many of them 'just did their jobs' to great effect. Who else but a government can organize such large scale mindless horror? Our gummint edukayshun makes it seem automatic that a government has to run a society and to think otherwise is just plain silly. Of course they teach this, otherwise there wouldn't be any gummint skools if we didn't really believe it. If you decide to do your own research into the subject, you may just discover that there are actual alternatives to coercion, and that you cannot achieve peace through aggression. Your objections to anarchy thus far have been based on the false assumptions that anarchy equals Utopia, and that a government-less society would have no way to deal with aggressors. You will have to come up with something more substantial, I believe, to make your case. Thanks, tzo
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 31 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    "If anything called rights truly exists..." ~ B.R. Merrick RIGHT, n. ...5. Just claim; legal title; ownership; the legal power of exclusive possession and enjoyment. Every individual, unless he forfeits[1] it, has a natural right, i.e. a "just claim" to his own life, liberty and lawfully acquired property, (and no one else's). If you don't have a "just claim" to your life, liberty and lawfully acquired property then there can be no such thing as murder, slavery and theft, for you. How difficult can this be to understand? [1] FOR'FEIT, v.t. for'fit. [Low L. forisfacere, from L. foris, out or abroad, and facio, to make.] To lose or render confiscable, by some fault, offense or crime... ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language "Attack another’s rights and you destroy your own." ~ John Jay Chapman
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 31 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    trajanslovechild is correct, that the overthrow of a governmental system will lead to the creation of another. Humans made government and all other systems of coercion. They do this out of deep-seated hurt and fear, and also out of habit. I am not an anarchist because I believe it will happen; it won't. I am an anarchist because the revolution has been won. I've said it before and I'll say it again. There must be three criteria: 1. It must be peaceful. 2. It must be individual, with no mass movement to join. 3. It must lack a charismatic leader. I am an anarchist because it is logical and life-oriented. It matters little to me that I live in a world of death-oriented individuals. The revolution is won because my mind has been changed. trajanslovechild is correct that it is easy to think this way, living in relatively peaceful, prosperous, present-day America. But I do not believe this is because of our political system. It happens when humanity has greater access to knowledge and technology, free market principles (upon which America used to be based), and greater understanding of humanity, things severely lacking in the Third World.
  • rita's picture
    rita 13 years 31 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    We don't pay the police to protect themselves; we pay them to protect us. ALL of us, guilty, innocent, perpetrator and victim. Any officer who scares this easily should find a different line of work.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 31 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    I understand what you mean, but I would say loss of volition is death, as volition is inseparable from individuality, and since coercion leads directly to this loss, I equate it with death. (And I know that the words are not synonymous.)
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 31 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    "I know that you probably realized this after making the post." No, I did not. Thank you for correcting me. I feel like an ass, but it's a good feeling, trust me. :)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 31 weeks ago
    Bankers on Trial
    Page Jim Davies
    "...ladies and gentlemen, in your capacities as voters--and I know you are voters, for you wouldn't be here if you hadn't registered to vote--you elected representatives to determine how the government, which you have said you want, should be funded..." ~ Jim Davies And like the term "taxpayer", one is a "voter", whether he chooses to vote or not, if he has the members-only privilege of voting.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 31 weeks ago
    Bankers on Trial
    Page Jim Davies
    "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you've heard it alleged that my clients are like gangsters, engaged in a Mafia-like criminal conspiracy of almost unimaginable scope. Now, it is a fundamental principle of American fairness that an act is criminal only if it violates a law. It may be that my clients have acted unethically; but they are not charged with unethical conduct, they are charged with illegal conduct. Yet the prosecution has failed to identify one single law that they have broken!" Therein lies the difference between "legal" and "lawful". Thank you, Jim Davies.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 31 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Loss of natural rights is death.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 31 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Here are some of the quotes from Strike to Root concerning rights. "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments: rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws...." ~ John Adams "Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life; secondly, to liberty; thirdly to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can." ~ Samuel Adams "The use of 'religion' as an excuse to repress the freedom of expression and to deny human rights is not confined to any country or time." ~ Margaret Atwood "Liberty is the soul's right to breathe and, when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight." ~ Henry Ward Beecher "Freedom is not a gift bestowed upon us by other men, but a right that belongs to us by the laws of God and nature." ~ Benjamin Franklin “There is a sacred realm of privacy for every man and woman where he makes his choices and decisions-a realm of his own essential rights and liberties into which the law, generally speaking, must not intrude.” ~ Geoffrey Fisher "The spirit of liberty is not merely, as multitudes imagine, a jealousy of our own particular rights, but a respect for the rights of others, and an unwillingness that any man, whether high or low, should be wronged and trampled under foot." ~ William Ellery Channing "Attack another’s rights and you destroy your own." ~ John Jay Chapman "It is the common fate of the indolent to see their rights become prey to the active.  The conditions upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he break, servitude is at once the consequence of his crime...." ~ John Philpot Curran "Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one’s thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist.  That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants.  It is the right which they first of all strike down." ~ Frederick Douglass "It is easy to make light of insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties when invoked on behalf of the unworthy.  History bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the end." ~ Felix Frankfurter Reprint Rights from Strike the Root http://strike-the-root.com/republish.html It is precisely because we have a “right”, i.e. a “just claim”, to certain things, that makes it “wrong” to take them. ~ Suverans2
  • Puck's picture
    Puck 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Bankers on Trial
    Page Jim Davies
    I've read many of Jim Davies essays--there are so many good ones--but this is among his best. Scintillating, if such a word could apply to such a thing.
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    You missed my point. You manage to get things that you want within the framework of a governmental political system, that you claim is "aggression." I find it hard to believe that you can achieve these material possessions without the support of a political system (that was created to stop irrational and violent behavior). I have lived in countries where there is little to no government, and when food, water, and other essentials are held by the strong, things are much less civilized, which lead to corruption and violence. I do not have to rely on philosophy from a comfortable chair, since I have seen this with my own eyes while I was in the army stationed in shit holes around the world where they did not have the education to wax philosophical about their plight. Let's leave the third World. Look at Germany in the 20th century. They are one of the most educated nations in the Western World with plenty of historical brain power. Look at the atrocities the "rational," educated Germans committed against people across Europe. Rationality is the norm when the lights are on, and the supermarkets are full of food. Rationality takes a vacation when things get desperate, and men become animals. I am not throwing up my hands; I am just using my own common sense and experiences (which is lacking in the academic world) to know what is real and what is academic. I know what you are talking about, and it is a fallacy that is made by people that have never lived without a safety net. Tell me; what is the alternative? Living in anarchy? Yes, there would be no aggression under a system of anarchy, right? I just don't feel like living in fantasy land. Thank you. -Steve.
  • J3rBear's picture
    J3rBear 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Aggression may be common but it is not all encompassing to human nature as you insist it is. I manage to get by day after day purely on voluntary interactions with my fellow humans. I did not use agression to get my girlfriend, my job, my friends, my home, my motorcycle, etc, etc. If we have the capacity to live generally peacefully with each other, then that is something worth striving for. Saying that humans are just naturally violent and then throwing up your hands in the air is a cop-out. What makes humans different is that we have the capacity for rationality, embrace that and you'll have a better understanding of what we're talking about here.
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Instead of "politics is aggression," how about we just say, "humans are aggression." It would boil the argument down to the marrow. In my mind, there will be aggression, and there always was aggression with or without government. There would be no politics without humans to fill the bureaucratic slots of governance. Even if there was anarchy, there would be aggression, since anarchy is a survival of the fittest mentality. Stronger people would take away food, water, or land away from those that are weak...as it has been since the beginning of time. It is not as if politics disappeared, we would go back to some mythical time of the 'noble savage' that never existed in the first place. Is government too large and obstructionist? Of course, and it increases in size by the day with every law that is shoveled through the court system. The great leviathan of government needs to be put on a starvation diet. But, without any form of politics, there would still be aggression, and it would no place to raise a child. Humans are social creatures, and we have a sense of need to belong to something. We call it politics, some call it a clan or a tribe. Either way, humans will be killing humans. Even if a Utopian society arose (which it never will...just look at the historical evidence), and humans were kind and traded without governance, there would be a strong group of governed people that would covet this Utopia and take it away easily because they are organized and governed through politics. There is no such thing as knowing life without aggression. There are different forms of severity of course. One of the soccer moms you mentioned, would be appalled at the level of violence I witnessed in Colombia as a soldier, but the same soccer mom would be willing to dish out violence to anyone that harmed her child (without the use of a machete). It is nice to dream of a world without violence, but politics is not the root of all evil. Aggression is a universally human disease. Thank you. -Steve
  • jd-in-georgia's picture
    jd-in-georgia 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Truman is not on the dime. FDR is on the dime. I know that you probably realized this after making the post. In either case, both did a good job on doing their part to both start and end the involvment of America in World War II. Of course by 'good job' I speak sarcastically. Was American involvment in this war inevitable? I think it's a safe bet to say yes but on the same token (or in this case dime) we metaphorically started the war by jumping out of a moving plane without a parachute and ended it by cutting off a head to cure a headache. Some people think this type of weapon could still be of use. It makes me sick to think that people are still having babies in this world on the brink of destruction. After our use of these WMDs, the US and the USSR got into a multi megaton pissing contest for nearly 45 years. People thought that after the Iron Curtain fell, we would not have to worry about that threat. Personally, I have a problem with that kind of laxity considering the amount of deadly technology combined with the numerous untrustworthy governments in the, uh, civilized world. I finally got around to reading Cormac McCarthy's 'The Road' and albeit a very hideous distopian vision, it is far from being a totally impossible vision of the future. Everybody hug your kids tonight! And peace be with you, Mr. Merrick. Only time will tell if people are willing to open their own eyes.
  • J3rBear's picture
    J3rBear 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    Great little column. Very succinct and clear. So where can I get my "politics is aggression" sticker?
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    In the original post, Rockwell said: "Some black-robed occupier in California may not overturn a popular vote against gay marriage..." I would ask, can some black-robed occupier in California overtun a popular vote against n*ggers if he finds it unconstitutional? Is there something sacrosanct about popular opinion to be found within libertarian ideology? He goes on to say: "Unfortunately, in the American system, there are only states rights. This was a mistake. There should also be town rights, county rights, etc. as Jefferson noted." If anything called rights truly exists, perhaps someone could educate me how states, towns, counties, etc. can have them? And at the top of LRC it still says "Anti-state." I wonder.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Robert Kaercher
    Not only does it make me ask, "Why is this man's visage on the goddamned dime?", but it also makes me ask, "Why did it not bother me for so many years that this man's visage is on the goddamned dime?"
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Bumper Stickers
    Page tzo
    "Politics is aggression." And coercion is death. Works for me. And spot on about soccer moms, whom I collectively refer to as HYSTERICAL soccer moms.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Bankers on Trial
    Page Jim Davies
    Your essay is a keen argument with a very fair perspective of both sides of the sword. Thank you for addressing the morality of fractional-reserve banking. As a drone sitting in a "Money & Banking" class some (ahem) decades ago in college, it never occurred to me that the tale of money creation, from goldsmiths up to our current "federal" system was not ethical. Like many others who were fed the "science" of Keynesian economics and fractional-reserve banking, I now understand that most of this "education" was complete bunk. The capital owner, be the capital gold or what have you, never consents to have his capital lent (at least not in way that isn't buried in fine print). There is at most a bailment agreement between the banker and the capital owner. When the banker diverts the owner's property without the consent of the owner, this is a crime of conversion. The capital owner should have the final say about how said capital is used and if they are taking the risk of indirectly lending it to someone in need of same capital, there should be consent among all three parties. The capital owner should be justly compensated in a way that is dictated by the market, not an oligarchy. If we had banks that operated on this type of agreement between customers (capital owners) and borrowers, they'd quickly outstrip "traditional" banking. The closest structure we've ever had to this type of voluntary financial system is a credit union. Like most competition that threatens oligarchy, it was quickly regulated and assimilated. In our age of instant communication, there is no reason why such VOLUNTARY forms of money and credit cannot exist other than the great force that can be brought to bear upon alternatives by the "federal" systems. Paypal was a recent "money" innovation that comes to mind and I truly do believe it WAS a great innovation because one only need consider how quickly it was assimilated by the bankers. In my opinion, those of us who are of like mind on this subject should promote alternative currencies as a partial solution, particularly as reserve banking seems unsustainable (understatement). Lew Rockwell says that such a move to alternatives will happen organically and I tend to agree. Presently we work on the "bigger fool" theory as we quickly trade Federal Reserve Notes for goods and services. The nominal (ha!) return on saving these notes is prima facie evidence of a complete lack of faith in these instruments. We can, I think, reclaim capital markets that exist for voluntary exchange by first having alternative currencies to the monetized (and non-collectable) debt we are now forced to use.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    According to this source (http://tinyurl.com/2b5n23c), the U.S. currently has over 5,000,000 so-called "laws" on the books, wonder if that would be considered "more numerous"? ;) As President Ronald Reagan said, “I have wondered at times about what the Ten Commandments would have looked like if Moses had run them through the U.S. Congress.”
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    Unfookingbelievable!!
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    Hi Guys, Thank you for the response. I agree with you Tony, that I do not want to waste one red cent on protecting places like South Korea, Japan, Germany, or any other country that can support their own military. I think our nation finds itself in this position because of the Cold War. After WW II, England and other nations did not have the economy or material to compete with the Soviet Union once they started seizing territory in Eastern Europe. The Soviets, and other Communist/Marxist nations did not make it secret that their intentions were to rule the world and make the globe into a "workers paradise" (a.k.a. everyone is poor). The US stood up to the Soviets, and our military spending is one of the reasons why the Soviet economy and empire collapsed. We were left at the top of the mountain, and Europe was able to build up their non-producing welfare states because they relied on the US to protect them. Those in Europe that were not happy about the situation were actually the ones to blame. If it were not for Europe's tribal wars of the 20th century, I do not think we would be in the position we are in today. On a side note: I have been to Normandy, and those people did enjoy that we "liberated" them from a true totalitarian government. Since our nation decided to involve it's citizens in WW II, we were thrust to the top of the heap. If I had to choose between a US or Soviet empire winning, I would choose the US for of empire. I think history propelled our nation to where we are today. I guess totalitarianism was a poor word to choose describing the Roman Empire, since the word is a 20th century invention. My point was to say that the Roman period of history was too diverse to compare to the US. Thank you for the definitions, but you will have to admit that totalitarian governments usually have a "strong man" that rules over a group of false senators. The word was invented to describe men like Mussolini, Hitler, and Stalin. I am not sure that the military destroys the US economy. The military is expensive, but pork barrel spending, bail outs, and corruption makes military spending seem inconsequential. It takes many men and women with minimal education, gives them training and skills that they can use in civilian life, and pays for an education afterward. Many well disciplined, ward working, and educated people leave the military and enter civilian life. These people substantially contribute to the American economy. When you compare veterans to civilians, we are better educated, more productive, and have a much lower crime rate. If you read the last part of my original response, you will see that I am not that cynical. I do believe that there is a chance that our government can change, but I do not see any examples of this today. If there is an example of a truly "libertarian" country that exists today, I would like to know where it is. But, there is not one as far as I can see, and that is why I do think it is inevitable for governments to waste money. I am just looking at the evidence available today. Everyone promises great things, just look at our last election. But, once a certain party gets in power (no matter who), the promises are forgotten. I do not believe that any exchange of ideas is useless since it exercises our mental abilities, but our discussion is purely academic since we do not hold sway over policies as individuals. If there was a concealed-carry law in every state and city, you would not have to worry about someone (already on welfare) holding you up. Welfare makes slaves out of those that depend on the state, which is a bigger strain on the state than the military. I think the biggest problem in the US is our education system that does not really "teach" anything. Our high school graduates leave with a diploma at the age of 18, and do not have anything in the way of skills to compete in the workforce. Most students do not know their history or rights and not everyone was meant to go to college. So, our trades are being lost. I wonder how the education system would work under a truly "libertarian" government? I do not see a change, since those with the means will get the better education in the end. Talk to you later! -Steve
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    "The more corrupt the republic, the more numerous the laws." ~ Tacitus
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    Yes, fear is the *real* foundation of governments, but they deflect attention from that stark fact with propaganda. Thus, the average American believes his democratic State, whatever its imperfections, actually enjoys the consent of the governed. His Soviet, Nazi and monarchist counterparts believed the same about their States. The libertarian is able to cut through the mythology. Government is force.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Molyneux hits the nail on the head. He rightly shows how plain and simple the unworkability of the state is, by talking about how the sun is at the center of the solar system, not the Earth. Freedom is factual. Furthermore, he rightly points out at least one of the three criteria for a true freedom revolution. Not only must it be peaceful and have the distinct lack of a charismatic leader, but as Molyneux says here, it "is up to you." It must be an individual revolution. Once you fully realize this, the revolution is won if it is won inside of you. That is also plain and simple.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    "Fear is the foundation of most governments..." ~ John Adams
  • Mike Powers's picture
    Mike Powers 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    An excellent read!
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    No man can *rightfully* be required, under pain of death or great bodily injury, to do anything. But if someone holds a gun to my head, I'm probably doing what he tells me, and the righteousness of his holding a gun to my head becomes academic. This is the case whether the gunman is a freelance criminal or a criminal on the government's payroll. One does not endorse a gunman's code of ethics (such as it is) by yielding to his demands. I pay my taxes for the same reason I hand my wallet over to any armed bandit demanding it: to preserve my life and (other) property.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    Should be easy to beat. If this citizen offers "free rides" then he is not required to have a license, other than a driver license (and this, only because he chooses to be a citizen), because those riding with him are "guests" as opposed to "passengers". "The essential elements of “passenger” as opposed to “guest” under guest statute are that driver must receive some benefit sufficiently real, tangible, and substantial to serve as the inducing cause of the transportation so as to completely overshadow mere hospitality or friendship...A “guest,” under provisions of guest statute, is a recipient of the voluntary hospitality of the [driver] owner, that is, one who is invited or permitted by owner or possessor of automobile to ride with owner-possessor as a gratuity." Gratuity. Something acquired or otherwise received without bargain or inducement. Something given freely or without recompense; a gift.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    "...if someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to fund one or the other, I'm definitely funding the welfare state." ~ Tony Pivetta NL.1.3.3 Certainly no man can rightfully be required to join, or support, an association whose protection he does not desire. Nor can any man be reasonably or rightfully expected to join, or support, any association whose plans, or method of proceeding, he does not approve, as likely to accomplish its professed purpose of maintaining justice, and at the same time itself avoid doing injustice. To join, or support, one that would, in his opinion, be inefficient, would be absurd. To join or support one that, in his opinion, would itself do injustice, would be criminal. He must, therefore, be left at the same liberty to join, or not to join, an association for this purpose, as for any other, according as his own interest, discretion, or conscience shall dictate. ~ Lysander Spooner
  • Tony Pivetta's picture
    Tony Pivetta 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    Dear Steve, Thanks for the kind words and even-handed response to my column. As an American soldier, you have much to bring to the discussion I'm trying to advance. I'm glad you don't think the U.S. should be a world police force. As long as it is a world police force, I can accept the possibility the U.S. may actually do some good for portions of the host countries "inviting" U.S. intervention. I can believe, for example, most Kurds welcome the American military presence in Iraq. Of course, the Kurds aren't the ones bearing the brunt of the collateral damage inflicted on Iraq. Your experiences in Colombia notwithstanding, I still find it hard to believe the majority of the populace of the typical country on the receiving end of U.S. intervention feels that way. (Check out my article at LewRockwell.com--http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/pivetta3.html--for my Italian parents' view of their "liberation" in World War II, aka, The Good War.) At any rate, the upshot of my article is that the U.S. military empire is anti-American, inflicting great harm on the domestic economy, not that it is necessarily anti-foreigner. I agree with your assessment of the European welfare states: they are indeed going bankrupt on account of lavish social spending. As a libertarian, I object to both the welfare state and the warfare state, because both are funded via legalized extortion (read: taxation). I oppose all extortion, whether organized or freelance, whether legal or illegal. But if someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to fund one or the other, I'm definitely funding the welfare state. Better the country go bankrupt keeping my fellow Americans fat and psuedo-secure through lavish social spending than "protecting" ingrates halfway around the world through lavish military spending. In my opinion, the American welfare state is less anti-American than the American warfare state. More fundamentally, I must take issue with your view regarding the inevitability of government wasting our money on one or the other. Ideas matter. If ideas don't matter, then English noblemen were wasting their time presenting their grievances to King John at Runnysmede in 1215. If ideas don't matter, totalitarian states waste precious police and prison resources enacting controls on speech and press. If ideas don't matter, then I don't know why you're wasting your time, and mine, engaging in this impressive exchange of views here at Strike-the-Root. No, ideas matter. They matter very much.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Time for a Divorce
    Web link Derek Henson
    David Harsanyi misses the point of this "legal" battle, IMO, these persons want their god[1], the god called STATE, to be the all-powerful third party in their marriages, because they want all the benefits and privileges that their Omnipotent Benefactor can force others to give them, the rest of the rhetoric is just smoke and mirrors. [1] ″…in modern society, with its religious, ethnic, and cultural diversity, it would be much harder for any single group to demand allegiance — except for the state, which remains the one universally accepted god.″ ~ Roderick T. Long, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    First, "Oregon County" is not a living being, it is an artificial person, so "Oregon County" is incapable of apologizing. Second, Jeff Cogen, chairman of the Multnomah County Board of Commissions, reportedly said, “Our health department what they were trying to do, I understand…I just feel like we have to be able to distinguish between a 7 year old, who is selling lemonade and trying to learn about business and someone who actually has a business.” Jeff, I can't think of any better way to teach an entrepreneurial-spirited 7-year-old-girl who the Omnipotent Benefactor of her business is than to slap that $500 fine on her for selling lemonade without a license, posthaste. Can you?
  • rita's picture
    rita 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    The number of illegal immigrants in Arizona's prisons, like the disproportionate number of minorities in prisons everywhere, is the result of racist laws and racist policies. In no way does it justify locking them up in the first place; only a politician would be arrogant enough to pretend it does. It's a well-documented fact that dark-skinned people in the US are more likely than whites to be arrested, and having been arrested, more likely to receive a longer prison sentence. Poverty is also a factor -- people who can't bond out are forced to appear in court in jail uniforms and shackles, which prejudices judges, and to rely on court-appointed defense attorneys whose only interest is getting you to sign a plea. Factor in the language barrier, and it seems to me that the number of illegals in prison more likely proves that most of them, besides the initial crime of being here, are peaceful and law-abiding.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    Here's a couple of fun ones we've used for years now. nonperson: http://public.onelook.com/?w=nonperson&ls=a unperson: http://public.onelook.com/?w=unperson&ls=a According to Wiktionary a nonperson (plural nonpersons or nonpeople) [can mean] Not a legal entity. unperson ▸ noun: a person regarded as nonexistent and having no [civil] rights; a person whose existence is systematically ignored (especially for ideological or political reasons) ("George Orwell predicted that political dissidents would be treated as unpersons") [syn: nonperson, unperson] ~ http://www.freedictionary.org/?Query=nonperson
  • rita's picture
    rita 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    I wonder how many people Kent sent to this hell-hole during his career. I wonder if he believes that all the inmates should be released, or if he believes that he's somehow entitled to special treatment. I wonder if he would have done any different had he been aware of how inmates are treated and I wonder why ALL judges and ALL prosecutors aren't required to spend time in the places that they so casually send others. And I wonder why judges are called "honorable;" I've certainly never met one who was.
  • Guest's picture
    Martin Lindfors (not verified) 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    "Called, for example, bancor in honor of Keynes [...]" Oh, the horror.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    Hello Steve, A very thoughtful, polite and articulate reply. However, you may want to look up the word "totalitarian", since it really has nothing to do with a single "leader", nor whether or not there appear to be elections. Here is a great reference site: http://public.onelook.com/?w=totalitarian&ls=a "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed." ~ American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language "of or being a political system in which those in power have complete control and do not allow people freely to oppose them" ~ Merriam-Webster 2010 Online Dictionary
  • thebigho111's picture
    thebigho111 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Ortega and the State
    Page Michael Kleen
    Have you read "Revolt of the Elites"? It was a response to Gasset but it fell real short from what I remember. Enjoyed the column. I viewed him as having contempt for the mass, as I do. I understand that democracy is rule by the majority but what he was advocating was ultra-small minority rule which I find just as wrong, unless a philosopher king existed. I find his "faith" that the elite would necessarily do better childish but that was a long time ago. Take care.
  • trajanslovechild's picture
    trajanslovechild 13 years 32 weeks ago Page Tony Pivetta
    Dear Tony, A very thought provoking and interesting article. I served in the Army as an airborne infantryman (paratrooper) for 8 years and I served in countries all over the globe. I do agree with your premise that we should not be the world police force. I did not enjoy spending a year on the DMZ in South Korea, having a staring contest with North Korea's drooling automatons. While in the military, I did not care if people "supported the troops" back home or not. The military is a segregated society, and we were our own family, who do not need the compassion or sympathies of others...especially from civilians. Today, the military is a volunteer force, and we knew what we were getting into. Although, it was nice to get cookies from my mother once in a while. I do differ in that I believe some of the missions I supported were very beneficial to the host countries, and actually helped them get back on their feet. I was in Colombia (the country is spelled with an 'O') for several years, while working for the School of the America's (now called WHINSEC), and we did some great things there. I know, I know, the SOA does not have a great reputation because of a lot of false propaganda that was spread by the Cubans. No, we did not teach other countries soldiers how to assassinate their foes. Others say, "Dictators like Noriega went to the SOA." Well, I went to Northern Illinois University for my B.A., does that mean I am going to go on a shooting rampage, like the guy did three years ago...of course not. There are crazy people everywhere. We taught American fighting techniques, like the Army Infantry Manual (FM 7-8), and we taught them to employ the Geneva Convention on captured guerrillas and not throw them out of helicopters as they did in the past. Through, 'Plan Colombia,' we were able to stabilize the Colombian government, and they have free elections, with fewer assassinations and kidnappings as in the past. Is the Colombian government the best in the world, no, but the Marxist guerrillas (FARC), are much worse. Believe me, I saw their handy-work with my own eyes. We did not 'invade' Colombia, it was a mutual cooperation. I was alone with a platoon of Colombian Rangers (Lanceros) in the middle of the jungle as an adviser, and I felt safe since I had helped train those men. Is military spending high? Yes, but remember that European countries that have minuscule military forces, like Iceland and Norway, have astronomical taxes and spending for social programs. In fact, Iceland's economy collapsed under such financial forces. So, it does not matter if it is military spending or not, governments will find a way to waste our money. For example, the total US military budget for 2010 is $663.8 Billion, but the total US government budget is $2.381 Trillion. So, the military budget is much less than a quarter of the total federal budget. Only 18% of the federal budget actually goes to the military. A majority of the budget goes to health and human services. Also, I am a military historian, and the opening quote about the Roman Empire is quite a bit misleading. The Romans went through many different stages of governance through their hundreds of years of existence, as it was once a Republic. Also, the Romans did produce many goods to export, especially ideals. I do not believe that we technically are in the "Empire" stage yet, since we do not have a totalitarian leader that is unelected, but we are not far from something major happening, I do admit that. I am an optimist, and I do believe that we are still in the republican phase of governance, and there is a good chance that things can change for the better. But, Julius Caesar can cross the Rubicon again, and we will become a true empire. Thank you for the article. -Steve
  • Michael Kleen's picture
    Michael Kleen 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    I probably should have specified in the link that this was from GB...
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Michael Kleen
    Behold the irony of a death-oriented system of coercion being used to run a supposedly life-oriented science. The end result is death. It will result in death here when it is implemented. The irony will continue, until everyone is dead, or converted to life. And what the hell is a "Minister for Women"? Why didn't they interview the Minister for Silly Walks?
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    1. Go to Google 2. Filter via Images 3. Search "Afghanistan deaths" 4. Choose random new image. 5. Insert new title "What Happens If We Stay in Afghanistan."
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 13 years 32 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    That was a pretty interesting story. A plutocrat's jail experience. At least he seems to have learned something from it.
  • winston smith's picture
    winston smith 13 years 32 weeks ago
    Who'da Thunk It?
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/08/04/whoda-thunk-it/
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 13 years 32 weeks ago
    $3,328.64
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    Not every American[1], not every individual "born in America", Anthony Gregory, only those who "are members of the political community who...have...submitted themselves to the dominion of [the] government for the promotion of their general welfare and the protection of their individual...rights", i.e. just 14th Amendment United States citizens. As I have written elsewhere, individuals "who are in no way parties to [the] covenant [the Constitution] or transaction, nor bound by it", are "strangers" to the "national" debt. A "stranger", (legally speaking), is, "one who, in no event resulting from the existing state of affairs, can become liable for the debt, and whose property is not charged with the payment thereof and cannot be sold therefor". "A friend once astutely suggested that a sign of maturity in these matters lies in the question of whether you define yourself by what you're against or what you're for. Do you just rage against Leviathan, or do you really seek freedom in the life you have now? Really contemplating that question, and acting on the answers you find, can have a startling effect on many aspects of your life. In terms of physical and emotional comfort, it's not necessarily a positive effect. So it's important to choose carefully. Leviathan doesn't care what you think or what you say, as long as as you don't say it too loud. But when you start doing freedom, you can get yourself into trouble. And by doing freedom, I don't mean [just] obsessing about guns. I mean actively disregarding the Beast in favor of getting on with your life, understanding (this part's really important) that that sort of disrespect can get you eaten, and bloody doing it anyway." ~ Joel http://theultimateanswertokings.blogspot.com/2010_03_01_archive.html [1] AMER'ICAN, n. A native of America; originally applied to the aboriginals, or copper-colored races, found here by the Europeans; but now applied to the descendants of Europeans born in America. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language