Recent comments

  • Puck's picture
    Puck 8 years 13 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    You may be right, but if that referendum had been held on September 12th, 2001 we would probably have nuked Afghanistan. I'm not sure that level of democracy is a genie I'd want out of the bottle.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    I know how most STRers feel about voting, okay? But with that said I have long felt that if the American people could vote on this "world policeman role" as they do with referendums and ballot proposals on the local level, that America would very quickly return to the neutral, unentangled nation it started out as.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 8 years 14 weeks ago
    GDP Fetishism
    Web link Don Stacy
    This is probaably the simplest and clearest explanation of the shortcomings of GDP as a measurement that I have ever seen. Given the contant attention being paid to GDP by the MSM, it's well worth reading if you'd like to improve your understanding of GDP.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I never though i'd see the day when using (government issued!) cash would be a sign post to terrorists.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I admire Carson. I am surprised though to see him on STR.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    Chilling.
  • albergine's picture
    albergine 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    no matter how much (or little) their just using the paper that 'they' print in the first place, the peoples use is to launder it into some weak form of legitimacy, they get the land and mineral's to play with.
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Jakub Bozydar W...
    Like a box of 21 gourmet chocolates. Each delicious and satisfying. Even better all in the same box. Bravo Sir.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Funny.
  • miamizsun's picture
    miamizsun 8 years 14 weeks ago
    Mandatory Molyneux
    Web link Cheryl Cline
    excellent!
  • JoshuaPettigrew's picture
    JoshuaPettigrew 8 years 14 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    From the poll: 33. Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not? Feb. 12-15 2010 Yes, has weapons 71% No, does not 26% No opinion 3% This was based on about 500 interviews. I hope it does not reflect reality.
  • Guest's picture
    patpetrilloartist (not verified) 8 years 14 weeks ago
    Wheat and Chaff
    Page Bill Butler
    Thanks for the info, I'm doing research about this one. You helped me, thanks again. Mr. Petrillo MMA Pound for Pound
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 8 years 14 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    Nicely done column; gets to the root of things. The power elite are thrilled to have people on the "left" and "right" jockeying for a chance to add their own favored tyranny to the mix; when the voters tire of the current party in power and put the opposite wing in charge, the new "leaders" begin adding "their side's" desired tyrannies WITHOUT dismantling the tyranny added by the previous crowd, despite campaign promises. This ratchet effect ensures that government power grows reliably, year after year. Smoking bans, as Alex points out, are just one example of the process.
  • Guest's picture
    clore333 (not verified) 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    I would have appreciated this justified attack on eminent domain much more if the author hadn't engaged in shilling for corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. The latter is a particularly egregious example to cite, as a study has shown that this corporate welfare queen has received more than one billion dollars in state subsidies, often via abuse of eminent domain. News & Views for Anarchists & Activists: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 8 years 15 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I wonder if Congress will ever get around to passing a similar resolution regarding the Holodomor, the muder of more than 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 8 years 15 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    This highlights the inherent weakness of positive law that ignores individual human rights. No matter its original intent (and that can always be argued), its subsequent interpretation can only be detrimental to human freedom. Yeah, let's all get back to that Constitution, wherein it is stated that the government controls all the land and private property does not exist. That's a fine foundation for a free society.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Guest Editor
    Story strike
    Glad to see STR is back. . . the first time I hit the site after it went down, my Anti-Virus alerted me. . . so nice that all wasn't lost. STR is the first site I hit in the morning, it goes great with the first cup o'mud and a cig. You guys rock.
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Guest Editor
    Story strike
    Welcome back STR! I was checking 4-5 times a day waiting for the site to come back up. A good friend is back!
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Guest Editor
    Story strike
    Me too. STR was always the first site I looked at in the morning. Welcome back.
  • elee3's picture
    elee3 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Guest Editor
    Story strike
    Agreed, I'm very happy to see STR back online. I must have checked the site 20 times a day for the last week.
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 8 years 15 weeks ago
    Guest Editor
    Story strike
    I was very concerned when you were down due to the virus. I am glad to know that the world has not lost a great friend of human liberty. Welcome Back.
  • Guest's picture
    ex0du5 (not verified) 8 years 17 weeks ago Page David Graham
    How can you logically argue for animal rights in one breath, and in the same breath mock health care rights? Or, put differently, at what size of organism does the right to _defense_ end? We can build a defensive military and police to protect the right (to defend health) of humans against humans, and maybe against some wildlife, but when it gets microscopic, suddenly it's absurd? What about Steve McQueen's blob? If it came rolling down the street, but it was determined it was unicellular, does that mean everyone it's consuming would have to pay for their own defense? What about an alien invasion? I think the health care debate is one where libertarian thinkers have failed miserably to have any coherence, for precisely the same reasons presented here for animal rights. All enlightenment arguments for classical liberalism are ultimately health based...
  • wkmac's picture
    wkmac 8 years 17 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    As I read in the article about Valentine's Day being a christian holiday based on reverence to a so-called christian saint, I couldn't help but think of Plato and the Noble Lie observed in it's modern form in the Straussians and the various religionist movements that grip people in subjugation, mentally as well as physical and political. To make matters worse are how these religions so clearly and continuously violate real ethics and morals while uttering the noble lie that in all of heaven and earth, they are the sole source for all morality, ethics and worst of all, truth. On this day of myth and purpose of filthy lucer, I'm hard pressed to think of who is the more unwise, the Saudi's who follow our lead or our own western culture who continue to stick their heads in holes and refuse to stand like the free individuals they should be and were intended to be. Thanks Robert for posting the article.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Thumbs up.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Streetzen
    Web link Don Stacy
    lol
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Streetzen
    Web link Don Stacy
    WTF? Hollywood glam shots?
  • Libertas's picture
    Libertas 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    I see it everyday in Honolulu, just in their driving and parking. They can´t seem to understand that the lack of respect from the citizens is due to their lack of respect for the law. Instead they just want us to obey unquestioningly. They are more cowardly than regular bullies because they hide behind the uniform and the state. Walking through downtown Honolulu, I´m more likely to get robbed and insulted for jay walking than mugged or harassed by drug dealers. They at least leave me alone and don´t insult me with the idea that they are protecting me.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    Now THIS is why I enjoy this site so much. I learn something new every time I visit. I honestly did not realize that Marx was the originator of the word "capitalism." I had a very clear, simple understanding of the word capitalism (one of an accountant, really). But what we find as a core belief...it really isn't the true definition of capitalism, is it? Maybe laissez-faire IS the better term. I've invested some time reading various authors in the subject of economics (mainly because the Keynesian models that were crammed down my throat in business school began to be personally rejected a few years ago), but it seems that I really am at a point where I need to read Marx and understand the origin of some these terms better. I've been dismissive of Marx, always deferring to others on the subject of "Das Kapital." This is a good impetus to pick up a copy and try to work through Marx's text.
  • Little Alex's picture
    Little Alex 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    The question could also be: Why confuse an ethical free market with capitalism. It makes my dick itch when people fixate on semantics in politics, but I try to stick to original meanings as much as possible. The word that always comes to mind as the perfect example is 'liberal'. 'Libertarian' is rooted in egalitarian imperatives, but we work from the prefix, discuss ethics and there's nothing more libertarian that scrutinizing power at all times, so looser usages of 'libertarian' doesn't bother me because libertarians are scrutinizing the ownership of the term. But 'capitalism' has an extremely distinctive meanings from the roots of the word's creation by Karl Marx. I think it was a mistake for classical liberals to equate laissez-faire philosophy with the corporatism Marx was identifying as capitalism. The Misesean definition is the reactionary one -- isolating the definition of 'socialism' to be Bolshevism and 'capitalism' as the opposite of that -- not what Prof. Chartier is discussing.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    The premise of this speech is interesting and certainly a speech I'd like to hear. However, I finding parsing of language more than just a little annoying, especially in light of how much damage has been done by others redefining conventional definitions. Chartier's simplest definition of capitalism is succinct (if little understood by most) and essentially what makes trade, wealth and true egalitarian prosperity possible for a growing majority of the population. Why confuse capitalism with corporatism?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Little Alex
    An excellent critique.
  • Wilton D. Alston's picture
    Wilton D. Alston 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Importing Freedom
    Page Stefan Molyneux
    This is an essay that was actually co-authored by Stef and me, Wilt Alston. For reasons having to do with the hosting platform, it does not (and cannot, apparently) show me as a co-author. Simply because I'm proud of the work that Stef and I did together, I will spell that fact out here in the comments.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    Very informative. Where is the line to be drawn between running down a libeler in order to bring them to court and the persecution of a troll? Hard to say.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Okay what about throat and lung cancer then? It's safer to ingest it with food.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Only Cowards Vote
    Page Per Bylund
    I believe tyranny WAS slowed by the vote on Prop 13. Pro-gov groups of all stripes pissed and moaned about it for decades, programs were cut, various proposed increases in spending had to be scrapped, and so on. I don't disagree with you that in the end, the beast just kept on growing. Look at California today! What a mess! But Prop 13 was passed in 1978. It capped property taxes and made it more difficult to raise taxes in other ways (here's the full text of the measure as adopted: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_13A ). Yes, it's been largely overwhelmed, but for a long time it kept the CA tyranny at bay -- slowed it down, at any rate. Don't knock that; real people benefited from more freedom and lower taxes. Just because the CA legislature and various special interests managed to overwhelm the restrictions of Prop 13 and continue wrecking California doesn't mean it didn't benefit millions of people -- and for that matter, it STILL benefits the people of California. Prop 13 is proof -- no question -- that anything which leaves a coercive Power in place is insufficient. So what? Does that mean that an entire generation had to be taxed out of their homes? Prop 13 voters COULD have abstained, because the measure didn't completely end tyranny, but that would have been foolish. Do you really think people should NOT do what they can to fight tyranny? To cut the level of money taken from them by the State, and (inevitably) used to make things worse? It would have been nice if the movement that brought Prop 13 to fruition continued on in a manner that continued cutting down the State in California. But even without that, Prop 13 was a major win for liberty, in the lifetime of those who voted for it. It was, to a large extent, a temporary win, but then life itself is temporary. [Added comment]: That last statement is important: life is temporary. Heck: life is SHORT. You and your family will not be here on this Earth forever. Does it make sense for you, and those you care about, to suffer more tyranny than necessary just because TOTAL FREEDOM is not yet available? Would you stay in a filthy cell in the Gulag forever just because getting OUT of the Gulag wouldn't give you TOTAL freedom? Or does it make sense to oppose tyranny in the ways, and to the extent, that you CAN, in the time you have available on this Earth? I don't oppose anyone who takes the position that only full abolition is acceptable: that's a personal choice. But neither do I oppose those who want to oppose tyranny in the less-than-complete ways available to them that might actually result in an increase in liberty for themselves and those they care about.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Only Cowards Vote
    Page Per Bylund
    One might imagine that the property tax increase that was voted down resulted in some other tax increases to make up for the lost expected income. If this was the case, then those who were able to keep their houses did so at the expense of other taxpayers. I don't blame anyone for voting in order to save their home, but this self-defense ballot probably just shifts the burden to others. In such situations, it is no doubt best to take your own interests into account first, but it is still manipulating the system for your benefit, to the detriment of others. If a chunk of the government had to shut down due to lack of funding brought about by the vote, then that is another matter. But I don't believe that happens very often, if at all. Whether through tax increases, new taxes, or inflation, the government seems to always be able to fund its expansion. So I guess that I'm not convinced that tyranny is slowed by any vote, and it will inevitably follow the path it always has—taking until it takes too much and crashes.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Only Cowards Vote
    Page Per Bylund
    People have the right to act in ways that might potentially reduce the tyranny they suffer from -- voting for lower taxes, for instance. The Prop 13 example (used in my comment above) is a good one: millions of people were spared dramatic property tax increases; in turn, many got to keep their homes instead of being taxed out of them. The argument that voting for Prop 13 somehow "harmed" liberty in the long run is worth considering, and I do consider it -- but mostly I think it's silly. I do not blame anyone for doing something to IMPROVE the situation for themselves and their families, in a way that does not agress against anyone, IN THEIR OWN LIFETIMES. I'll say it again: if people wait for perfection before acting, if they insist on supporting nothing but an immediate leap to full abolition of all government, then they will live their entire lives under tyranny, and will have thrown away many chances to improve the situation for themselves and for others. Full abolition is the goal; refusing to do anything to reduce tyranny in the meantime does not move us toward the goal and is counter-productive in the short-term for certain, and probably in the long term as well. On slavery, btw -- Britain (among other nations) ended slavery without a civil war, and while it was done by a vote in Parliament instead of by direct vote of the people, voting for anti-slave candidates certainly played a role -- and if the matter HAD been put to a direct vote, and the slaves were freed that way, they'd still have been just as free as after our civil war. Again, I don't see any problems with that. And c'mon: VOTING versus a war with 650,000 dead, millions maimed or wounded, civil liberties ended for the duration, entire cities wrecked, and the Southern states crushed under an added layer of de facto tyranny for decades. Which is the real threat to liberty: a non-aggressive vote to end slavery, or war?
  • Wilton D. Alston's picture
    Wilton D. Alston 8 years 18 weeks ago
    Only Cowards Vote
    Page Per Bylund
    The argument that voting to end slavery justifies voting seems flawed to me for several reasons. The best of which is quite simple: That the outcome preferred by the voters is ostensibly moral does not justify for the methodology itself. It seems you're using the ends to justify the means. Stated differently, if one believes that slavery is wrong, then simply because voting *could* have conceivably ended slavery doesn't make voting good. In fact, the same benefit could be offered for other approaches, e.g., killing all slave owners. Yet few, if any, would suggest that this represents "a rare case where murder is justified." (Then again...) Anyway, the approach I might have used to end slavery, arguably a lifeboat situation for my ancestors, provides little information or useful premise for that multitude of situations outside the lifeboat.
  • winston smith's picture
    winston smith 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    the real link is here --------------> http://www.wcfcourier.com/news/local/article_69966300-1402-11df-b1e3-001...
  • winston smith's picture
    winston smith 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Derek Henson
    i real link for the page is ---> http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/02/06/when-70-support-marijuana-legalizat...
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 8 years 18 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2010m2d2-Arizona... This is the actual link. . . the one labeled "original article" doesn't work.
  • Guest's picture
    Mitchell Callahan (not verified) 8 years 19 weeks ago
    Drunk on Our Money
    Web link Don Stacy
    Thanks for the analogy. It certainly does look as if he is drunk. Cutting back, if it is to really do any good, means really cutting back or stopping completely. American families are tightening our belts and so should the government. casino online
  • kborer's picture
    kborer 8 years 19 weeks ago
    E-Prime and Freedom
    Page Craig Russell
    I imagine that using the principles of E-Prime would improve most people's writing. The following criticism of E-Prime from its Wikipedia article seems to be a good reason to not adhere to E-Prime religiously: A civilization advances when it can move from the idea of individual trees to that of forest. E-Prime tends to make the expression of higher orders of abstraction more difficult, e.g. a student is more likely to be described in E-Prime as "She attends classes at the university".
  • kborer's picture
    kborer 8 years 19 weeks ago Page Craig Russell
    I enjoyed reading this article.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 19 weeks ago
    Foreword
    Web link Don Stacy
    Ah yes STR's weekly Chomsky. For a look at the real, actual Chomsky of today and not from four decades ago, take a look here: "On the contrary, maintaining such immoral discretion with such perseverance and allowing himself to be photographed besides the Castros and the Chavezes he becomes an accomplice of the clownishness and the authoritarian, dictatorial deviations of these modern day oligarchs, no matter how convenient or discreet his praises might be." From the article Chomsky As Chavez's Clown @ The Anarchist Library
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 8 years 19 weeks ago Page strike
    Dims.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 8 years 19 weeks ago Page strike
    Proselytizing atheists are just as overbearing and domineering as the theists are. Their religious belief is that there is no god. Okay fine, but they cannot prove this belief beyond a fair doubt anymore than the theists can theirs. And good on you for calling them out on that fact too, strike.
  • Guest's picture
    ws (not verified) 8 years 19 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    superb insight ! Surprisingly accurate . WS
  • Guest's picture
    MutualistAdam (not verified) 8 years 19 weeks ago Page strike
    These* not "there"
  • Guest's picture
    MutualistAdam (not verified) 8 years 19 weeks ago Page strike
    I think Max Stirner would have had fun mocking there guys.