Recent comments

http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2010/08/04/whoda-thunk-it/

"...US government debt (often but wrongly called the "national" debt)..." ~ Jim Davies Well, "legally" speaking, Jim, are they not one and the same? National. Pertaining to a nation as a whole. Commonly applied in American law to...affairs of the United States or its government, as opposed to those of the several states.... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1024 And, "national", as a noun, is "A person owing permanent[1] allegiance to a state". Hence, only individuals "who are in no way parties to [the] covenant 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 therefore". [1] Question: What "person" owes "permanent allegiance to a state", if both individual secession and expatriation are not "illegal" or "unlawful"?

Scarmig, I'm curious about this part, "If she chooses, she can be self-employed and never pay income tax.". What's your foundation for this statement? I'm unaware of any dependency between paying income tax and a SSN. Sure the tax forms have fields for it, but where do you see anything that says that if you don't have a SSN you are exempt from income tax?

Good Lord, I thought this was from "The Onion."

The author clearly states two of the three principles I believe are required for a successful freedom revolution. He mentioned: 1. It must be peaceful. 2. It must be individual, with no mass movement to join. He didn't mention the third element, the lack of charismatic leadership, but that point is implied in the first two, and in what he wrote. If this is truly what Taoism is about, then I am living Taoist principles, in that I do not seek to change others, but merely to change myself. The revolution is won, in so far that I strive to be life-oriented. Excellent article.

Main Entry: prop·er·ty Function: noun Etymology: Middle English proprete, from Anglo-French propreté, from Latin proprietat-, proprietas, from proprius own Date: 14th century 2 a : something owned or possessed If you don't "own it", you merely "possess it", which, (if I have my facts straight), is what the American Indians believed. It seems to me that if "you don't really own any property", then there can be no such thing as "theft". Correct me if I am mistaken.

Bob, I have a different reading on some of this. First, you imagine government doles out goodies to compensate for a misguided sense of guilt. Now, it's quite plausible that leftists generally feel guilt. But that is not why governments dole out goodies. They do so primarily to "divide and conquer". They *know* doling out goodies will cause strife; they *want* it to. Another reason to dole out goodies is to create a vast welfare bureacracy; a gigantic jobs program, in other words. Empire-building at work. Finally, the ruling class wants people dependent on government, so people imagine they cannot get on without it. The more people the better; that is why Socialist Security is a universal program. It's not actually necessary that benefits from the well-off generate resentment. The Carnegie Libraries are an excellent example. But direct gifts to people? It makes all the sense in the world that the beneficiaries would hate. Finally, leftism per se is not the problem. The Israeli kibbutzim did not have their own little holocausts. They harmed no one. As long as these sorts of things are not imposed on others, what is the problem? There is none.

The mosque "might cause victims more pain" -- is that actual victims talking, or people who presume to speak for the victims?

Of course you are correct, but that goes against what the DOI declares. If you consider the entire paragraph from which you pulled that quote, my point is that the DOI considers governments, not individuals, as the sovereign entities upon the Earth and to not belong to one is to violate natural law. There is no individual secession referred to in the DOI.

I found it really odd that Hall would make the following statements: "Classical liberalism recognizes limits on the power of science and it is completely incompatible with the "deep" libertarianism that rejects even informal social controls over individual behavior. It especially eschews the progressive fervor of some radical libertarians who believe science holds the key to human perfection". I thought to myself, "Gee, I am a radical libertarian and don't believe anything of the sort and don't recall other radical libertarians expressing that point of view". Then I saw that, as support for these assertions, Hall refers to a book by Reason's Ronald Bailey and thought, oh that explains it. If Hall doesn't want her position to be conflated with those of "radical libertarians", then I would ask of her the same courtesy; please do not conflate the views of intelligent and thoughtful libertarians with those of Ronald Bailey.

I have pondered this myself. It may be a good springboard for young minds to begin a debate. Based on personality and their behavioral tendancies, I conclude the following based on this article: YODA=LIBERTARIAN: A strict student of the ways of the 'force' as a philosophy and belief system, this Jedi Master seeks only to foster the most positive aspects of existence and co-existence among all sentient beings. A people in touch with the ability to coexist would not need a government. OBI WAN=SOCIALIST: He believes in that good ol' democratic republic that he has sworn to uphold as a Jedi. Never mind that the majority of people in the galaxy would just as soon be left alone. Nope. As long as the 'majority' of people are cool with whatever government does, then it must be okay. MACE WINDU=CENTRIST: The consumate rule follower and oath keeper. He may or may not totally agree with all that is going on around him, let alone who is in charge, but what is entirely black and white about the code of the Jedi is his forte. By the time he is able to see what violence is inherent in the system (with apologies to Monty Python), it is way too late. This may be over simplification, but the article was kind of cheesy. Not bad, but cheesy.

There is an old expression in Yiddish that essentially translates to, "You can't win." Nothing is worse than a thug who has gone "respectable" by going into public service. We have a litany of laws and very little justice.

Isabel Paterson named a chapter "The Humanitarian With the Guillotine" in her "The God of the Machine" book to describe how helping and killing somehow can reside in some people's heads without any apparent conflict.

I recently spent some time driving through Idaho, Montana and Wyoming last week. As we meandered down various highways into small towns, we found various signs that proclaimed, "WE SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!!" Certainly similar signs can be found throughout small-town America (and no doubt in places like NYC). The prospect of educating each other about economics is daunting, particularly given that the current system is built on Keynes models and the welfare state. I want to have more faith in my fellow Americans and wish that they could understand that they have infinitely better ideas about how to spend the fruits of their labor than do central "economic" planners. Despite my conviction that our axioms are irrefutable as well as consistent with morality, persuading others to our point of view remains extremely difficult. We are inclined toward peaceful, voluntary solutions and the other side is determined to maintain the status quo of coercion (or death, as I now correctly understand it from B.R. Merrick's argument), force and an increased dearth of free will. I don't want to be Don Quixote, I simply want to enjoy my property as I see fit in a manner that also makes me a good neighbor. At best, we can persuade one another. At worst, we can kill each other. The choice seems clear to me. Let us not get too glum on the subject and try to adopt some of Jim Davies' positive attitude. As my 6-year old points out so often, "YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME!" Well, despite all of the force that can be brought to bear upon the individual in this world of ours, THEY are not the "boss" of me! I like your "homicidal humanitarianism" phrase too. I'm totally using that with my self-proclaimed "secular humanist" (i.e. liberal) friends the next time we're gathered at the local watering hole!

One of the many problems I have with egalitarianism is that none of us is equal. I, too, have heard the arguments that talk about "equal rights," but how can we have "equal rights" when we are not equal? I do not consider myself superior or inferior to anyone else, nor is anyone else superior or inferior to me. This normally leads to the incorrect conclusion that I am therefore equal to everyone else. No, I am different from everyone else. We are all different (except for the guy sitting in front during that speech in "Life of Brian," who says, "I'm not."). The idea of "equal rights" comes, I think, from human empathy. We recognize our individuality, our volition, and we also recognize it in others. That's where empathy comes from. I think to myself, no one should murder me, steal from me, tell me lies, manipulate me, defraud me, beat me up, be rude to me, or harrass me in any way; therefore, I should not do any of these things to others who I believe to be individuals. When I see it being done to another individual, I can empathize, and say, that shouldn't happen. That's at the heart of what coercive egalitarians are doing, I think. They see people in situations, judge those situations, and say, that shouldn't happen, without thinking to understand all extenuating circumstances, or even what those individuals themselves are thinking and wanting. I like all the above ten points. I would add that if the coercive egalitarians ever get their way, and everyone has the exact same house, car, and amount of money in his bank account, there will still be tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions that target specific individuals and destroy their wealth. Nature will ensure that inequality remains. And if the free market ever develops scientists that render all natural catastrophes impotent to destroy wealth, we are still different shapes, sizes, colors, levels of intelligence, interests, capabilities, natural gifts, personalities, sexes, preferences, etc. What do egalitarians propose to do with all of these?

Game, set, match and championship :-)

I want to thank the posters for their kind words. This is a subject that has been eating at me for a long time. I don't understand it. What devil drives so many otherwise decent and intelligent human beings to embrace the homicidal humanitarianism of the American empire? I blame Good War mythology. After all, Hitler was the very incarnation of evil! And without the American war machine, Hitler would have prevailed--not only in Europe but in North America! We'd all be speaking German were it not for FDR's far-sighted vision to suck the U.S. into World War II! (Thank God we didn't listen to that crypto-fascist Lindbergh!) Never mind that Stalin was the one who took out 80 percent of the Wehrmacht. Never mind that "Uncle Joe's" Holodomor made Hitler's Holocaust look like a picnic! Never mind that Churchill and FDR directly targeted civilians for firebombing in Germany. Never mind Hiroshima and Nagasaki! All that, and World War II got the U.S. out of the Great Depression! What a deal! Let do it again and again and again! How many goodly Military Keynesians are there here! How beauteous Globocop humanity is! Oh brave new world, that hath such benevolent butchers in it!

I think the largest fallacies that have to be overcome when dissuading Americans against war and empire are: 1. destruction of wealth through misallocation of capital is NOT paradoxical and 2. "supporting the troops" is NOT necessary to protect freedom. You've argued very well against both of these fallacies. How apt to your argument is the Georg Cantor quote at the top of the page today? Logic and clarity so easily confounds misconception (and I don't think Libertarian-minded folks like us are conceited to correctly identify fallacies where they exist) that the mind is naturally put into a defensive stance. Many times new ideas need time to permeate a thoughtful mind and although I'd be unlikely to get some of my friends to read Bastiat I am sure that I could very easily help them paint mental pictures of what they might use $3300 for if given the opportunity to decide rather than have it taken from them at the point of a gun for the MIC. Well done essay!

"Punishment is irrelevant." I haven't thought all this out completely, so here is a brain dump: In all the scenarios, the thief ends up with a broken nose for his profitless effort. Is this not punishment? Consider scenario 3a: After breaking his nose, you discover he has no money. Are you now the aggressor because he already spent your money? What if he told you he didn't have your money first, and you decided to break his nose anyway? You become the aggressor simply because he has already spent your cash? What if he hands you your cash when he sees you. Now you're all even? No harm no foul? Perhaps a better scenario involves physical aggression. Someone attacks you and you: a) successfully defend yourself by bludgeoning your attacker b) an MMA fighter happens by and thrashes the attacker for you c) you get beat up If c), then what happens later if you confront the attacker and demand restitution? What restitution? Money? Perhaps, but what if he is a rich bully who likes to beat up folks? Here's your money, I'll see you next week for another beating. What if you permanently lost sight in one eye? What is your restitution price in dollars for that loss? What if he can't pay? If you were to 'punish' him by 'seeking revenge' and getting an 'eye for an eye' by beating him up a week after he assaulted you, are you now the aggressor? If it was 'just' to beat him to a pulp while he was attacking you, and if it was 'just' for someone to jump in and beat him in order to save you, why is it 'unjust' to beat him up a week later, or hire someone else to do it, if you encounter him on the street? Time has passed, is all the difference. Is that a critical difference? It seems that whatever force you may reasonably have expected to employ to defend yourself and your property is a reasonable amount of force to employ as punishment against a person who has gotten away with your stuff or has beaten you up. It is also a reasonable 'interest payment' if he does reimburse you. If someone takes $100 from you, and you 'only' demand it back, how is that not 'an eye for an eye?' How is that not vengeance? If the worst that could happen if a person stole a car would be that he would had to give the car back, how would that work out? Quite honestly, I don't have any clear idea what is the correct formulation for all of this, but it's kinda fun to chew on.

Yes, Suverans2, I would say that however the punishment fits will be somewhat arbitrary. That's better than "entirely." And how we are presumed to give consent also appears to be somewhat arbitrary, but I'm not going to concern myself with what statists presume when I ignore some of their drivel, although your questions prompt many deep thoughts. For example, did the death-oriented census taker, who finally got me yesterday, presume that I wish to cooperate, or did he infer by my reluctance that I despise his prying into my private life? Stay tuned, for what will probably be my next article.

At some level, then, Punishment = Self Defense ~ tzo For what it's worth, I totally agree with that statement.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico will affect everybody around the area for years and years. Now another tow boat called the Pere Ana C was reported by the Associated Press to have created another oil spill in New Orleans. The boat is said to have struck a wellhead in Louisiana marshland. Now the Plaquemines Parish President Billy Nungesser told MSNBC that there is oil shooting into the air about 20 feet.

"If someone initiates coercion against me, I want the coercion to stop, and to be compensated if desired, and that's that. If I cannot be compensated, then I want to be left alone. The minute I want someone to be punished, I am, in essence, desirous of revenge, which is initiatorily coercive, and death-oriented." Scenario 1: Armed robber tries to take the $100 you have in your pocket. You knock the gun out of his hand, break his nose, and he runs away, howling. Scenario 2: Armed robber takes your $100, then as he tries to make his getaway you tackle him, knock the gun away, break his nose, and retrieve your $100 from him while he howls in pain. Scenario 3: Armed robber takes your $100 and escapes. One week later you recognize him as you pass him on the street. You break his nose and take $100 from him. In scenario 1 you retain your property by defending it. In scenario 2 you lose your property and then use force to take it back. In scenario 3 you lose your property and then use force to take it back after some time passes. It looks to me like a fitting punishment for taking, or trying to take $100 from someone, is a broken nose. Whether this punishment is administered during, immediately after, or long after the aggression, seems trivial. At some level, then, Punishment = Self Defense

People who insist on having government health care should read this. It is not necessarily an argument for or against but rather and insightful look at the responsibility of the individual doctor and patient. 'Government' and 'care' are two words I have trouble logically conjoining. Bioethics and medicine, however, should exist as a single term. Curiously, I wonder what Hippocrates might say regarding the life support technology we have available to us in the 21st century?