Recent comments

  • pedalman's picture
    pedalman 7 years 45 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Thank you, Paul the cab driver, for taking the time to explain the spiritual application of Romans 13. I agree and would add that a believer is not one who ONLY believes in Jesus, but actually lives his teachings, as Jesus said, if you love me keep my commandments. Jn. 14:15. Also, in James 2:19,20, we read that the devils believe, and tremble in their belief, which is a lot more than most professing Christians do, yet we know the devils are not "saved". So there are many hypocrites who profess to be Christian, yet do not live it, and we might expect to find such in government positions, yet they are "ordained" of God to punish the evil doers in the world so that God's people might be able to live lives of peace and righteousness. (I Peter 2:13": Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; "14": Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. ) And of course, we can not serve two masters so when the ordinances of man conflict with God's Word we must choose God's way. After all, John 18:36 clearly says that a follower of Jesus is not to use force or violence against evil, as Jesus set the example of self-sacrifice, yet many in the military would claim belief while living lives contrary to God's Word and will. So basically the Christian expects the unbeliever (in gov't) to use force to punish evil so the world is a better place for all. At times believers also get wrongfully punished by gov't, but they are pilgrims and strangers here, and take no active part in physical warfare, even in self-defense--it is better to die and go to heaven, than kill an unbeliever and send their soul to eternal damnation, since the dead can not repent and be saved. Also, Mr. Roberts asserts correctly that this nation was founded by violence, and my ancestors who had settled in southeastern Pa. had to deal with George Washington--was he ordained of God or was the "king" of England the one to follow? Since my relatives were Anabaptists, they did not fight for either side, but gave aid such as horses and food and medical care to both sides as the opportunity presented itself. Many local churches back then held that First Peter 2 required allegiance to Britain: " Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king." Others believed as the cab driver above writes, that the King of England had forfeited his divine ordination or position, and therefore they rooted for Washington and the troops to win and establish a new, more Godly form of government, especially in areas of religious freedom, which happened. But today, Christians can not pay allegiance to this U.S. gov't which condones baby killing, sodomy, adultery (divorce and then subsequent remarriage with a previous partner still living), forced insurance programs which are a form of gambling, etc. So I and others live under the radar, waiting to see if a more Godly gov't will allow us to live in a land of which we can be proud.
  • Persona non grata's picture
    Persona non grata 7 years 45 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    Harrison Bergeron.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 7 years 45 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    Is to get Politics out of Money...?
  • mrlibertarian's picture
    mrlibertarian 7 years 45 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I'm not sure that the fact that Obama is black is the main reason why many on the left are reluctant to criticize him, it is one of many. I think it has more to do with the fact that he is from the Left, if there is a such thing as Left and Right today. I compare Obama to Bush. Bush was also a failure as president. He enjoyed his most fervent support from White self-proclaimed Evangelical Christians. Even today, many of them sitll will not criticize him directly. Bush was seen as the culmination of years and years of fighting to bring a "christian" to the oval office. Plus Bush represented that "aw-shucks" and idolator of American Exceptionalism that is also very popular among white evangelicals. I see Sarah Palin as the next embodient of that mentality. Black self-proclaimed evangelical christians are the most ardent supporters of Obama, they likely will be even if his presidency goes down in flames as Bush's did. Obama is a good father, represents american values and plays basketball. Since I am also black, I relate to alot of Obama's characteristics. As long as America is awash in statism and socialism the emperor will always be well liked, maybe not adored, but well liked, no matter what.
  • Truth-Bringer's picture
    Truth-Bringer 7 years 45 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I'm not going to bother reading this article. I've read others like it before. I'm just going to say that I've used homeopathy successfully for years and years. Each time I do an experiment. When I'm sick, I go to an allopathic physician, a licensed M.D. and get them to verify the infection or problem. Then I ignore their treatment advise and take homeopathy. Without fail, it works every time. I believe a lot of these anti-homeopathy experiments are flawed and there may be fraud involved. After all, homeopathy is dirt cheap compared to standard medical treatment. One other story to relate - a good friend of mine had serious heart problems and was diagnosed by a cardiologist as requiring a mandatory heart transplant. His surgery was scheduled, but he decided to see my holistic doctor in the meantime. After electro-dermal screening, my doctor found an infection in the heart. My friend was given some herbs to strengthen the heart and some homeopathic remedies to kill the infection. Two weeks later, his heart felt normal again. He went back to the cardiologist who ran some tests and found that his condition had completely reversed and his heart function was significantly improved - the surgery was no longer necessary. 8 years later, he's still doing fine and his heart is in great shape. So, I've seen quite a few experiments with homeopathy - and either human beings have the ability to heal themselves with the power of their minds via placebo effect (which should then obviously be the subject of an extensive study by the medical community - if they're intellectually honest) or homeopathy works. I think it's the latter.
  • Plant Immigration Rights Supporter's picture
    Plant Immigrati... 7 years 45 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    I think one of the main problems is that many in creative fields (i.e. art, writing, programming etc.) are used to the current copyright and patent paradigm. This paradigm has created business models that would not exist without it. What is needed is a new business model. Many in the FLOSS community use a “software as service” model. In this model you would use your talent and would get paid during the actual act of writing or manipulating the software. You may want to look at what Canonical does for an example of my meaning. http://www.canonical.com/services
  • JoshuaPettigrew's picture
    JoshuaPettigrew 7 years 45 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    IP, patents and copyright should die. It's sad that a guy like Spooner did not realize that making ideas property make natural property rights shaky. I wonder what he would think of the RIAA?
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 7 years 45 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "The truth and justice of this proposition are too nearly self-evident to need much argument in their support." lol, that's a good one, Spooner.
  • strike's picture
    strike 7 years 45 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Hi Abolitionist, Thank you for your constructive feedback. Switching STR and its 8+ years of content to a new platform while continuing to publish a new edition every day was a massive and complex undertaking by a number of different people, only one of whom was paid (at not very much at that). I think it's a miracle that it turned out so well. We are still working out the bugs and trying to make improvements. Much of the progress depends on how much free time I have, and at this point in my life, I am extremely busy. STR would not be possible without the help of the guest editors, all of whom volunteer copious amounts of their time so that people like you can come to a site and read content that interests them. I do not necessarily agree with everything they link to; frankly, I don't have time to vet everything they link to, and I trust their judgement. Sometimes guest editors don't include a synopses of some or all of their links, probably because they are pressed for time. If that bothers you, you are welcome to volunteer your time as a guest editor and see just what is involved to bring content to you for free. We are going to change the links back to the way they originally were. Until now, I was not aware that Drupal could do it that way. Again, thank you for the feedback. You mention that this article http://amconmag.com/article/2010/feb/01/00045/ which a guest editor linked to attempted to exonerate John Yoo. Did you read the article? It does the opposite. And for years, STR has linked to numerous articles that were extremely critical of Yoo. But I am very sorry that you did not approve of this article. Should I send you the links each night so you can personally approve each one? I appreciate the feedback, but what have you done to help make STR better? All the best, strike
  • zrated's picture
    zrated 7 years 45 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    as a Christian, i've had trouble with this for a long time and wrote about the inherent contradictions of these types of verses, not only with the Christian ethic, but with the actions of biblical heroes and even Christ himself. state loving Christians hate the article - i'm proud of it. http://anarcholife.blogspot.com/2009/01/christianity-and-state.html
  • H.O. Charles's picture
    H.O. Charles 7 years 45 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    The way I take that passage is that if you disobey your governing authority -- good or bad, you take your life in your hands. As far as I can tell, this is true, regardless of whether or not the Bible says so. Have you decided to overthrow the government? If you are successful, then "the powers that be are ordained of God" now applies to you! This concept hinges upon how you see God. If you see him as an magnified human, then of course it won't work. But if you see him as a spirit (John 4:24), then you might see some possibilities...assuming you have a heartfelt grasp of what "spirit" means. And don't forget that the Bible also says that God "removes kings and raises up kings" (Daniel 2:20-23). This seems to be right in line with your observation about America's foundation. On another note... I am going through a divorce right now and I have learned something from it. My wife has made up her mind that I'm a horrible person. Therefore, when she asks me if I did something horrible, I can either say "yes" and justify her bias, or I can say "no", which will *prove* [to her] that I'm lying. It's a lousy situation for both of us, but there is nothing I can do about it because one cannot fight prejudice with facts. (This applies to my prejudices as well, whatever they might be.) But slightly deeper than that is the fact that sometimes my truthfulness seems to be conflicting. I will claim "A" and then later claim "Z". For instance: Sometimes my statements will be of fact and sometimes of desire. Sometimes they will be of a specific nature while other times they will be general. Sometimes they will be statements of past events and others statements of present or future. And so forth. My wife, having abandoned all real communication with me, will use any perceived differences as evidence of a blatant discrepancy (either between my two claims or between my claims and her point of view) and conclude that I'm lying. The problem here is not that I'm lying, it's 1) that she has made up her mind that I'm deceptive, and 2) she has no interest in really knowing about items "B" through "Y", which would help clarify a lot. I used to try to explain it all to her. I have to say that I did a pretty good job of it too -- these issues were not nearly as complex as she was making them. However, she had already made up her mind that I was unreliable and simply could not see the sense in what I said. So I eventually quit trying and have resorted to letting her work things out in her own time. She's leaving and there's nothing I can do to stop her. My point in sharing this is that we can't truly know a person based on facts alone, there is a spirit to that person that -- if you can relate to it -- tells their true story. I would extend that to the "person" of God (either real or fictitious) as well. It is clear to me that all I needed was a slight bias (or benefit of the doubt) toward the Bible to see a simple truth in the above passage. I would suggest that it is a slight (or more) bias *against* the Bible that can only see utter nonsense in the same passage. Of course, I won't deny that well-intentioned-but-evil-hearted people will manipulate a given truth to support their selfish indulgences, but that makes *them* unreliable -- it has no effect on the truth they exploit, whatever it might be. However, once we've been immersed in that perverted version, it is often very difficult to ever take it as it was originally intended and it's easy to dismiss it as "nonsense". Just food for thought. Have a great weekend! H.O.C.
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 7 years 45 weeks ago
    Siege Mentality
    Web link Little Alex
    "2008 and 2009, ... were the safest years to be a police officer in over 110 years." "...it’s never been safer to be a cop in America than it has been over the past 2 years. Yet boss cops, spokespeople for the government police, and articles written by cops and for cops, constantly repeat the demonstrably false claims that criminals are more violent than ever before, and that government cops somehow face more danger on their patrols now than they ever have before. That this is a complete lie would be obvious to anyone who had spent 15 minutes perusing the police’s own institutions and resources for honoring their "fallen comrades." "The interesting question, then, is what kind of purpose the constant refrain of this unfact from government police serves —..."
  • DennisLeeWilson's picture
    DennisLeeWilson 7 years 45 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    "The Declaration goes directly and strongly against the teachings of Romans 13:1-7 and rejects completely any idea that governments and rulers are sanctioned by God." This excellent article EXPLAINS WHY Christians have such a difficult time rejecting the notion of rule by governments and accepting the idea of self governing individuals.
  • Paul the cab Driver's picture
    Paul the cab Driver 7 years 45 weeks ago Page Robert L. Johnson
    Since the governor is going to rule by biblical principles, perhaps he can start with Romans 13:8, the very next verse after his favorite passage. That verse says "Owe no man any thing but love." Does this mean he is going to abolish Virginia's debt? And if so how is he going to do that without violating Romans 13:9 which says "thou shalt not steal"? Since taking any man's property without his permission is stealing, taxation is theft. (Well, theft plus paperwork.) Bob McDonnell is apparently making the same mistake of many Christians in reading this passage. Unfortunately, so is the author. The passage in Romans 13:1-7 legitimizes some governmental authority, but it never authorizes all governmental authority. In fact, when closely read, it provides an outline of what government is allowed to do in a Biblical model. Romans 13:1 says the powers that be are ordained by God. But ordination is not free reign. Ordination is the assignment of specific duties or functions. It comes from the same root word as "orders". A pastor is ordained. That does not give him the authority to order the church secretary to sleep with him. A marriage is ordained. That does not give Bonnie and Clyde the right to go rob banks. The next few verses outline exactly what the province of government should be. Rom 13:3 says "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil." Thus, when a government (which is simply a group of people, by the way) acts in a way which sanctions evil, or which punishes good, it is clearly out of bounds and exceeding its ordination. And what are Christians told to do in this case? Romans 13:7 says "Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute [is due]; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." It also says in Romans 13:8 we are to owe no man anything but love. We do not owe our government tribute, custom, fear, or honour when it oversteps its ordination by ceasing to be a terror for true evil doers, or when punishes good people, or when it commits evil itself. This principle was very clear to early Christians. St. Peter and St. John disobeyed a direct order from their government when ordered to stop preaching. In fact, they answered their governmental accusers by saying that we should listen to God rather than to mere mortals. (Acts 4) Throughout the Book of Acts, and later through early Church history, we find that the early Christians refused to obey their government when it violated God's commandments. This is why Christians were fed to the lions. There is a possibility that St. Paul was deliberately ambiguous when he penned Romans 13. After all, he was in prison, and it could probably be assumed the guards would read his letters. However, such ambiguity should always be clarified relevant to the rest of the Biblical context. And believe me, if Christians understood this passage better, and preached it so, we probably would not be in as bad a mess as we are now with our government.
  • Paul the cab Driver's picture
    Paul the cab Driver 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    So the officer who beat the stuffing out of an unarmed teenager was the recipient of officer of the month? What do you have to do to get officer of the year? Run over a toddler in front of the local WalMart? The people who should be fired for this are the four officers involved in the beating, their immediate supervisor, and the chief of police. In addition, the four cops should face assault charges. I am willing to bet they won't. One city spokes-fool said that "we are going to have to pay for this". No, darling, neither you nor your beloved cops will have to pay a single red cent. Instead the long-suffering tax payers of Pittsburg will have to pay. This is one of the best arguments for the privatization of police forces. No private security firm could ever get away with an incident like this.
  • Guest's picture
    Abolitionist (not verified) 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Anyone else think that STR is going downhill? -I initially thought the Drupal interface was going to be an improvement, but after a month I find that I really don't capice the new structure at all. Just for one example, an article title is a link to comments on that article, but to link to the article itself you click on the word "Link" after the title? Huh? I have 35 years in IT and believe me I've seen some counter-intuitive UI stuff, but c'mon... -I saw an article linked to from here last week attempting to exonerate that infamous festering fuckstick John Yoo. It wasn't sarcasm or linked to to discredit it either, I tried to make it come into focus that way, but no joy. WTF was that despicable douchebaggery about? If I feel like vomiting, I can find plenty of articles by neocon apologists elsewhere, thankyouverymuch. -And now I see that we no longer get synopses of articles linked to on other domains? I can't be the only one who browses here via some secure channel that is somewhat, ah, s-l-o-w, and I really like to have some sense of what an article is about before I commit to watch paint dry, i mean a page load. I used to really value coming here, but lately, between the strangeness of the new facade, and the recent equally strange behavior by the editors, I just dunno...
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Baldwin is a kook.
  • Bill Ross's picture
    Bill Ross 7 years 46 weeks ago Page Bill Ross
    What this really means: When you strip the rhetoric and educational subversions away, all of history is REALLY about: We have been and are in an eternal war between the productive (those who produce more than they consume) and the greedy (those who consume more than they produce). Civilizations rise (honesty in control) and fall (predators in control). The reader should be able to determine the current state of affairs.
  • Mitrik_Spanner's picture
    Mitrik_Spanner 7 years 46 weeks ago
    Truckers vs. the State
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    I was a long haul trucker in the '80s and '90s. I lived during the tail end of the old era of the independent trucker. Now paramilitaries staff many of the roadside truck inspection stations, all drivers are on random drug testing programs, you need to pass an FBI background check to haul hazardous materials, and have a passport to enter port facilities. Today most trucks have satellite tracking and there are proposals for in-cab monitoring of drivers. Fines for minor infractions can run into the tens of thousands of dollars. So much for the freedom of the open road and the independent drivers.
  • Guest's picture
    SpykerSpeed (not verified) 7 years 46 weeks ago
    Hayek vs. Keynes Rap
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    This is fantastic. Forward this to every economics/history/government teacher you can. Kids would love this, and it's very educational. We need to spread the word!
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 7 years 46 weeks ago
    Hayek vs. Keynes Rap
    Web link Anthony Gregory
    Hayek is my homeboy.
  • elkingrey's picture
    elkingrey 7 years 46 weeks ago Page Jim Davies
    For starters, CD is important right now. There cannot ever be a mass movement of CD without first a legion of pioneers. I, for example, will be moving to NH in 6 months. If I have the courage, I fully intent to engage in CD. Part of my courage stems from the videos of others I have seen in NH engaging in CD. Had I never seen those videos I would probably be resigned to staying in California and preaching to deaf ears. Secondly, my conscience dictates to me RIGHT NOW to stop obeying. My conscience is telling me that doing the right thing is not contingent upon others doing the right thing, or if I will have enough power to change the world. I know that I do not have control of others. And I don't want it. I do, however, have control of myself. And I have the power to not perpetuate violence on others. Nothing else matters.
  • buzaman's picture
    buzaman 7 years 46 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    The author of a book, software or music has the choice to either release the material for free or charge for the good. It seems that if the author decides to charge for the good, and they want to restrict further distribution of the material, then it is the author's responsibility to produce or purchase a protection or distribution method that is sufficient with their goal to restrict their product's distribution.
  • Wilton D. Alston's picture
    Wilton D. Alston 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Mike Powers
    America is full of amazingly stupid people, and an alarming number of them wear uniforms and carry guns.
  • Wilton D. Alston's picture
    Wilton D. Alston 7 years 46 weeks ago
    Human Nature
    Page Jim Davies
    I'd go even one more step than does Davies in not worrying about how much violence is "created" by movies and such. I heard Paul Cantor say, in a long-format interview some time ago, "The expression of taboo behaviors [as seen in "The Simpsons"] provides a cathartic release that lessens the behavior versus increasing it!" I agree, and I think the data would support such an assertion. In other words, people get to release their urges to shoot--given that these urges actually exist--from these games. As such, this release does not increase those urges; it mitigates them. Further, I'd also assert that it matters very little if people are "good" or "evil" as long as we know that they are self-interested. If so, then all the conclusions Davies draws about the government are borne-out and it is only via the banishment of coercive rule that such expressions of evil as war can be eradicated.
  • Christopher Lempa's picture
    Christopher Lempa 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    @Ken I am familiar with both Chomsky and Zerzan. I was just wondering if you had read the articles or not. Many people attempt to tear Chomsky apart without actually reading or understanding his work.
  • Guest's picture
    Charles Chapman (not verified) 7 years 46 weeks ago
    Bush World Be Comin'
    Web link Robert Fredericks
    Fred Reed is my new hero! A man ready and willing to expose the Emperor's lack of clothes in a refreshingly direct and fearless fashion.
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    To be fair much of my sexual activity consists of quiet evenings at home by myself.
  • livemike's picture
    livemike 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    The article claims that they're trying to force people into buying government debt, but that doesn't seem to be happening (so far). What they're trying to do is get people to buy annuities. Annuities have two relevant characteristics, first they pay off a fixed monetary amount each year, quarter or month, second nobody wants to buy them. The latter is probably due to the near certainty of high inflation or hyperinflation that would reduce the value of these securities. Forcing people who don't want them to buy annuities changes the risks in financial markets, but it doesn't lessen them. Firms selling annuities take on the risk that the assets they buy won't deliver sufficient returns to make payments. This could lead to losses or even bankruptcy. Annuities are generally sold by insurance companies, who may not be as secure as they've lead the regulators to believe. AIG being a rather spectacular example. Of course if lots of companies providing annuities go bankrupt the Feds might step in to insist we buy T-bills, which people like even less. People who buy annuities, willingly or not, lose the incentive to manage their investments. They are divorced from the effect on their money of bad decisions, which is a big part of why the current crisis happened. It wasn't retail investors who drove us all into the ditch, it was professional money managers making lots of dough off of OPM.
  • Bill Ross's picture
    Bill Ross 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Robert Fredericks
    They just don't want the sheeple to know how to THINK (and therefore, SURVIVE): http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/ross/ross2.html
  • Truth-Bringer's picture
    Truth-Bringer 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I think they're right. The system is doomed because medicare, medicaid, and now the prescription drug benefit will never be repealed without some type of revolution or major economic disaster. And of course the mainstream media will never interview anyone who claims that government is the problem. So the pressure will always be on Congress to "do a little more" and "fix" the health care problem with more government.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Yep. Many of them. Chomsky is statist hack IMHO. Have you read up on him? I'm not trying to start a flamewar but it sure doesn't seem like it to me. Just sayin'... This link will send you to a far better and more articulate critique of Chomsky than I could write and while I don't stand by the author's (John Zerzan) politics I think his take down of Chomsky is both accurate and fair.
  • Truth-Bringer's picture
    Truth-Bringer 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    A great video that will show you how to take control away from the government when they demand information of you is here: http://oneheartbooks.com/resources/videos/think_free_gov_deception.htm This is a MUST SEE video. Maybe Rob will link to it on a future STR because everyone needs to watch this. His method for dealing with traffic tickets towards the end is brilliant.
  • Truth-Bringer's picture
    Truth-Bringer 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I disagree. Things are going to get worse because other countries don't want the dollar any more. This latest downturn might not be the next Depression - but that is inevitably coming at some point in the near future. The author loses credibility when he admits: "I feel your pain. The market value of my financial portfolio has been halved over the last year or so" So you lost money, eh? Well I know several folks who not only didn't lose, but they made money in 2008 and 2009. Richard Maybury chief among them. You can check out his website at http://www.chaostan.com if you want to start betting against the government and making money. The Austrian economic model is the correct model to follow. It explains precisely why all the government intervention we have can ultimately only make things worse.
  • Christopher Lempa's picture
    Christopher Lempa 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    @Ken Out of curiosity, do you read the Chomsky articles? If so, do you have specific disagreements?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 7 years 46 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    More lame b.s. from America's so-called "best known anarchist".
  • Semmes's picture
    Semmes 7 years 46 weeks ago
    TSA Shenanigans
    Web link Guest
    If an average person had taken a few teaspoons of Stevia sweetener from a large container and put it in a small plastic bag to travel with you can imagine what would happen to this person. This screener who would be the one to declare DEFCON 4 on a Stevia carrier may have lost his job but was most likely promoted.
  • Dr. Q's picture
    Dr. Q 7 years 47 weeks ago Page John deLaubenfels
    The distinction you try to create between the types of works covered by patents and copyrights is completely arbitrary and you provided no explanation for why this distinction justifies copyrights.
  • Dr. Q's picture
    Dr. Q 7 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    "Let's dispose of the notion, popular with Stephan Kinsella and his hangers-on, that goes like this: Copies of an electronic work are almost effortless to make; therefore they're worth nothing, and nobody need feel bad for taking one and flipping off the original author." If Kinsella has argued this, it's news to me (and I've read most of his writing on "IP"). Kinsella's argument has nothing to do with the fact that it's easy to copy an electronic work; his argument is that property rights are a consequence of scarcity and ideas are not scarce. "To advocate a world without copyright is to advocate taking bread off my table, bread I have honestly earned, so that thieves can steal my program or anything else that has been created by another, and profit from selling it with zero creative effort on their part. It is a world which rewards parasites and fleeces the productive." If I "pirate" a program you wrote, what have I stolen from you? You've still got any copies of the program that you possessed before the act of "piracy". You can still run the program or sell copies of it. You haven't been deprived of anything. Trying to conflate copyright infringement with theft = fail. It sounds to me like you think you're entitled to an income. That's a peculiar idea to be expressing on a libertarian website.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 7 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    In response to your second point, I think that calling it property in the same sense as tangible objects seems to me to be a stretch. What you seem to be describing is simply a kind of contractual secrecy, and would have little effect once the cat was out of the bag, so to speak. Say someone broke the contract and made a copy, he might be required to pay the penalty, (if he was caught,) but none of the people he gave it to would. Recipients of second-generation copies could not possibly be bound by any such contract, for the same reason we are not bound by the constitution or the "social contract," we didn't sign it.
  • albergine's picture
    albergine 7 years 47 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    Quote : 'We had to give him the benefit of the doubt for the obligatory although arbitrary 100 days'. fine, though after reading i felt that even Gregory may have had an element of faith in the then new Puppet Prince, or is it that the only way i'd waste my breath near him or any of those of him is when i'd just eaten some extremely potent cheese.
  • javieranton's picture
    javieranton 7 years 47 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    While there is some sympathy to be felt for them, "Our Soldiers" implies that they are ours. They are not, they are Babylon's. We will do well in not associating ourselves with any agent of oppression.
  • Chills's picture
    Chills 7 years 47 weeks ago
    Kids Teaching Kids
    Page Bob Wallace
    Great idea for teaching the younger ones, but teaching a class of older kids Trigonometry, Calculus or Chemistry would be quite difficult with little ones running about. Also, by that point, expecting the students to understand how to take notes, and prepare wouldn't be instilled if the education system was as drastically changed as you describe. I agree that having older students interact with younger would help the younger ones significantly, but the assumption that there will be continued advanced students to help out (without the necessary preparation especially in those previously mentioned subjects) would be unlikely in time. Student directed education has been tried in many situations (Celebration, Fl was where I saw a student directed system in action years back) and the problem with that situation is in essence the same problem with the current system (which I fully admit is flawed) and the problem is MOTIVATION. No Child Left Behind (stupid name for a governmental program...btw) addressed teacher preparedness (better in some states than others) and standards (again better in states where they took the process more seriously than other states). What was not considered is that its the STUDENTS who have to actually learn the material. The current view of education from government is comparable to telling law enforcement that speeding needs to stop, but drivers are not to be inconvenienced, stopped, fined or threatened with anything in accomplishing this goal. I can predict the successfullness of such a program (and so should anyone with a brain). Education is being treated in the same way. 1. No more social promotion (at any grade level). Waiting until high school to stop automatically promoting a student means that high schools will face more students who can barely add(etc), read or write a sentence. Without such skills no student should even be in high school. 2. You can't read at the 9th grade level and can't do math at a similar level, then society does not need you travelling 70 mph pushing a ton+ of metal down a street/highway and unable to comprehend the signs or the numbers flying by (especially distracted by hormones and cellular devices) 3. If you're a little snit who gets in trouble at least weekly in a school environment and are distracting from the educational potential of others, you need to be removed from the system and placed into another one (the military won't thank me, but they have the best chance of fixing such problem kids). If the kid learns the value of education later in life, maybe they'll do a better job of instilling the value of education in their own children than their parents did in them. 4. Parents...if you made the student then you need to show enough interest to try and solve the problems of your offspring. Failure to do so will result in something. (mandatory councelling, tutoring, parenting classes) For the chronically poor, don't let government solve this problem. Demand parental assistance or face loss of earned income credit to pay for the necessary councelling, tutoring or whatever. 5. Encourage more vocational education. Lets get America back to making things again. 6. Stop fearing hurting a kid's self-esteem. Self-esteem comes from accomplishing something worthwhile. If a student's self-esteem can really be damaged by all the red marks on their paper (a real complaint from a parent), then having the teacher switch to purple ink (a suggestion made by the parent and enforced by administration) is not a real solution (and when the parent wanted the purple changed to green, I feigned an allergy to something in green ink) How's that for striking the root of the education problem? ~Chills
  • Gwardion's picture
    Gwardion 7 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    1) Choosing to throw the baby out with the bathwater because of a single difference in opinion is ridiculous. It puts you in the same totalitarian column as Stalin, Lenin, and Mao. They too did not tolerate dissent from their viewpoints and would never support anyone not in lockstep with their ideals. Balkinization of the movement for freedom dooms the movement to failure and is the antithesis to the anarcho-capitalist or libertarian ideal. 2) Just because there is not government enforced IP, does not mean there is no IP, that is an obvious fallacy. If you sign a contract with someone that if their copy of the software you gave them gets out, that they agree to pay a penalty of (for example) $50,000. I think that's pretty powerful incentive not to distribute your IP, and it doesn't need a state to do it. 3) I program. I know a lot of programmers. I know a lot of programmers that know a lot of programming languages. To state that a program you put together could not be done in a different way, or is not likely to be done in a similar way is horse crapola. If you give a class full of programmers an assignment to make a program to do anything, complex or simple, you find that the similarities in the different programs outnumber the differences by a huge factor. That is ego and exceptionalism talking, not in the least bit empirical or logical. Several of the programmers I know are considered world class hackers and have been on winning teams at Defcon, and they agree heartily with my assessment. 4) You are showing how out of date in the computer business you are. Check the gaming area of the internet and you may come across something called "Steam" or "Games for Windows Live". they provide pretty darn good IP protection for their software and it doesn't require a leviathan government to do so. There are a lot of alternative ways to protect your IP, just because you aren't creative enough to come up with an answer does not necessitate government. If government is needed to cover a lack of competence in all areas that a person may have, I am not sure how you could possibly have this website or believe anything published by it. The example I like to give to show how absolutely ridiculous IP is, is pretty darn simple. If we had state enforced IP form the beginning of mans society, you can bet our technology would be about 6000 years behind at this time. Could you even image the argument over who patented fire? Or the spear? Or the wheel? How about patenting the "Process by which fur is removed from animals". FFS, we would be still living in caves while some guy Krog Ugh Nock was collecting shiny shells form everyone for having knives as tools. Government enforce IP is an excuse for lazy barely productive individuals to ride the coattails of one good idea that they had one day, that might not have been an original idea at all, and repress the rest of the market doing so.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 7 years 47 weeks ago Web link Anthony Gregory
    This is an excellent and well-documented summary of Obama's first year in office.
  • Guest's picture
    theodorelogan (not verified) 7 years 47 weeks ago
    Sorry, Wendy and Lew
    Page John deLaubenfels
    The main fallacy that permeates this essay is the claim that creating a new idea gives one the "right" to profit by that idea. That if I sell something based on an idea that you came up with, that I've somehow taken money that you have a "right" to. This is simply a variation of the labor theory of value. You don't have a right to anything not given to you on a voluntary basis. This is the basis of property rights. If I am able to provide a good or service based on an idea you had, and people decide to patronize my product rather than yours, in no way can the money paid to me be considered "rightfully" yours. The owner of that money chose to give it to me. That makes it my money. Copying something does not deprive the original owner of the use of his property...thus it is not stealing.
  • GregL's picture
    GregL 7 years 47 weeks ago Web link Christopher Lempa
    I've become inured to the abuses of the Federal Reserve and how much they get away witth, but I took the time to watch the 5 minute video of the Inspector General for the Federal Reserve responding to questions from a House subcommittee, and it reminds me of something you'd see on the Daily Show. Its eye-opening.
  • ChrisMallory's picture
    ChrisMallory 7 years 47 weeks ago Web link Christopher Lempa
    Those aren't secret codes. They are what any educated person, even a nonbeliever in times past, would recognize as the way verses are referenced in the Bible.
  • Guest's picture
    pcdls.ronin (not verified) 7 years 47 weeks ago Web link Christopher Lempa
    You never know about the intentions of others. Freedom dictates two paths: trust and distrust. Do you trust the intentions of Mr. Hantz or do you not? Do your research and determine, by his past actions, whether to trust him. This trust, ultimately, falls to you. I truly hope that your trust is well placed. Good Luck.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 7 years 47 weeks ago
    How to End the State
    Web link Mike Powers
    Some years back, Alex, I seceded from the union. Now of course I recognize I live in occupied territory. But I would live in occupied territory if I lived in, say Costa Rica or France or Iran. That's because I have no control over others, thus I have to side-step their fear (your assessment, which is very astute and accurate) which gives rise to their need for state. So I protect myself from two types of criminal behavior: government and non-government. The later is by far the easiest -- generally locking the door and the bike and avoiding certain areas at unsafe times will do the trick. Government criminals are more pernicious. They bank on me being among the "majority" (dwindling, I think, but not fast enough) who believe "we" should all pledge allegiance to flags and chant slogans and sing national anthems. And vote. Last time I voted was 1964. For Barry Goldwater. It took several years after that before I seceded and became a sovereign state. I still have to obey laws. The laws that govern me, however, can be inscribed upon two tablets of stone. No law libraries or state dignitaries dressed in long black robes making decisions "for my own good". My President is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis. I'll vote for The Incumbent. Samarami