Recent comments

  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 8 weeks 2 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Hi Sam, thanks for commenting. I think your final para particularly is close to true truth; sadly, Walter seems to have fallen into the trap of supposing that politics can be eliminated by participating, to some degree, in politics. But maybe he's now had second thoughts about LFT; the idea has gone very quiet.   Nothing wrong with applauding someone when he gets something right, but there's no call to support any candidacy at all. As you often say, abstain from beans.   If I may say so, don't be too scared of isms. If two people agree on a belief, there's an ism :-)   Whether you want them or not, though, as a human being you certainly do have rights; integral to your very nature. Understanding them and acknowledging them is what makes a person a libertarian; without that there is no basis for morality or justice or peace or prosperity. The converse is also true; one who denies the reality of rights is not a libertarian. I explored this a couple of years ago in Liberty: Rooted in Rights and it quotes a magnificent paragraph by Murray Rothbard which, rationally, nails this matter down for all and for ever.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    It has occurred to me, Jim -- more than once -- that the press one receives as a libertarian can (and often will) become his or her downfall. Don't ask, and I'll not attempt to explain or expand on that observation. Except to say that libertarian-ism seems to be very closely related to individual-ism. As you know by now, I have little taste for "ism's". I have no "right" (lots of argumentation in the forums as to the meaning of that) to judge you, your liberty, or your concept of how others' freedom might manifest. Or Walter Block's. I will say this: "Defending The Undefendable" became my libertarian "bible" well before I ever darkened the door of STR. So, I've admired Dr. Block for a long time. Just as I have admired you and your numerous publications -- even tho' we've had minor disagreements (mostly, I think, having to do with definitions). But he seems to have an Achilles heel when he gets himself into the limelight. I began to see that when he so strongly not only endorsed Ron Paul, but implied that anybody NOT so endorsing was "...not truly libertarian..." I voiced the suspicion at the time that he might, deep down in that sub-conscious part of us that few admit exists, have hoped to be appointed vice-wizard-of-the-klan. I don't think I kept a link to the statement(s) he made back at that time; but I have kept the link to a video he made with Jeff Berwick pertaining to Rand Paul's "run" for this or that or some other government office. Walter seems to have been attracted to the "...if-you-can't-lick-'em-you'll-have-to-join-'em..." mentality. I'm relieved that you see around that fallacy, which appears to be one of the delusions that keep allegiance to state strong. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 8 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    Great piece. Really enjoyed your thought process in this. I understand your use of "Rights", given the Constitutional battle over the Bill of rights, but I must agree with Sam regarding "Choice" Choice seems to be, or appears to be the most appropriate selection of terms.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul's "thought experiment" illustrates the futility of definition games. I began using the term "choices" in lieu of "rights" mostly due to my exposure to the late Delmar England's work, the overall theme of which is based upon this premise: "...most anarchists fail to break free from the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth..." It is not unlikely that many (most?) of us will one day be faced with much the same type of scenario Paul illustrates. If (when) total economic collapse occurs, and there is no means by which we and/or most of our neighbors and friends can procure sustenance from any source whatsoever, will I 1) be willing to shoot dead intruders in order to protect and feed my family and myself (until ultimate starvation occurs -- one can only stash so much stuff); 2) share what I (we) have until we all ultimately starve (perhaps engaging in cannibalism toward the macabre end); 3) develop the means by which to teach the starving hordes how to survive in peace, showing them the Truth: that it is (was) that group of psychopaths -- who from antiquity have hid under the brainless and religious abstraction called "state" and/or "government"; and who have mostly made up that phenomenon we like to call "history" -- who have been to blame for our penury. That, without a state to "protect" us, we can and will survive and prosper in harmony with each other. That this pale blue dot in the incomprehensibly vast universe has Somehow been put into place to sustain and nurture us and our progeny.... There are, I'm sure, multiple other choices between 1 and 3, but you get my point. And Paul points up my observation: it is how I think that will determine how I will survive and be an instrument in bringing about peace and anarchy to my world -- the world that revolves around my belly-button. Sam
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 8 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    My definition of a "right" is that it is an opinion, nothing more, though it bears two distinct characteristics:  1.) It must be something that at least a significant percentage of society recognizes as such, and; 2.) it must be something which -- if abrogated, violated, or eliminated -- the victim(s) of such might reasonably expect to restore by either peaceful or violent means.   Think about it:  If you were alone in the world, would you have "rights?"  They become non-applicable and superfluous in such a scenario.    I think that pretty much does away pretty handily with the whole "natural rights" argument.  And of course government "rights" (a legal claim to something) is never more than a privilege at best, to begin with anyway.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    My argument (and Paul's) is not that neighbors shouldn't punish me for defending myself. My argument is that they will. Or they'll die trying. It really doesn't matter what they and/or others "should" or "should not" do. From the article: "...Understand reality. Deal with reality. Prepare for reality. Put the state-friendly memes, that deter and distract you from doing so, out of your head..." 'Nuff said. Sam
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    When I say I have a "right to life", I mean that I have the right to kill anybody who genuinely threatens to kill me, and that my neighbors should not punish me for doing so.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Rights" are what you make of them. I believe that I have an inherent "right" to self-defense and the defense of others if necessary, but it's my ~responsibility~ to be prepared and willing to take necessary action. In my mind, I have the "right" to do whatever the hell I please as long as it doesn't trample on someone else's similar "right". As a realist, I'm quite aware that " The Powers-That-Be™" see things a bit differently, so I do my level best to "fly under the radar" and avoid any Waco's or Ruby Ridges.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 8 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I ceased use of the term, "rights" some years ago. I make choices -- some better than others, but they're my choices. I have no rights (I may have "wrongs" :-[). My primary challenge is the development of skills necessary to circumnavigate the gleefully aligned psychopaths -- all of them quite eager to interfere with choices I make. That keeps me busy enough to not expend angst over their machinations. I like your bottom line on "reality": I can be free. Today. Where I'm "at". So can you, if you make that choice. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 9 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    It's always those who have encrypted phones (paid for & maintained by US gov IT people) who bitch the loudest about how us peasants don't "need" communications privacy cuz terrorism, human trafficking, etc.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 9 weeks 3 days ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Seems to me as if these guys were smelling more than a rat Have been reading about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson along with Taft, three very smelly presidents who completely ignored the constitution all together and did what they wanted any way; just as the House Boy has been doing.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 9 weeks 3 days ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Seems to me as if these guys were smelling more than a rat Have been reading about Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson along with Taft, three very smelly presidents who completely ignored the constitution all together and did what they wanted any way; just as the House Boy has been doing.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 9 weeks 4 days ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Crusade, glad to see you back here. Sorry you won't get a lot of "play". Seems to me that all the thinkers might have drifted off to sleep. I like this guy, who commented on Trump (a linked video), and ended with the observation: "Reason is never a satisfying explanation of what you see" "Our-Great-Constitution" satisfies that distraction. Get the hoi polloi whining and whimpering and pontificating about that, and questions never need arise that might challenge the validity of that group of psychopaths who act under the guise of "the state". Verbal jujitsu is the backbone in the science of rulership. Sam Sam
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 9 weeks 4 days ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    http://www.suijurisforum.com/wtf-t546-20.html#p7628 In the Preamble of their Corporate Charter, known affectionately as the Constitution for the United States of America, the Fleecing Fathers voiced their intent to Form a more perfect Union. At first glance, a literate student might suspect that the authors of the Articles of Incorporation were unschooled in English Grammar. After all, what educated person would add to a superlative, as in more perfect? First impressions, however, are often wrong. Were the Fleecing Fathers unskilled in the art and science of writing? HARDLY! In almost all cases, their expertise in English Grammar far exceeded that of most modern postgraduates. They were true symbol-aeographers; persons skilled in the art and cunning of making legal instruments. When subjected to the Fog Index, a scientific process for determining the complexity of written matter, the Constitution scores at Grade-Level 26. In other words, comprehension requires 26 years of formal academic experience! That’s a high school diploma plus 14 years of graduate and postgraduate education. The authors of the Constitution were indeed experts in the use of language. Where they said "..Form a more perfect Union," that’s exactly what they meant! The toughest riddles to crack and the most amazing magic tricks, are those which focus the "victim’s" attention away from the solution. In the case of the cunning Constitution, its authors pointed to one Union, while creating an entirely different Union; with word-magic [emphasis added]. They formulated a riddle that has begged a solution for over 200 years. Illusionists (liars), however carefully they try to conceal evidence, invariably leave clues by which their delusions can be dissipated. The Fleecing Fathers were no exception to the Rule of Riddles. They referred to three different forms of "Union." In their Preamble they mentioned "a (more perfect) Union," which referred to "this Union," mentioned in Article 1-3, and Article 4-3,4. In addition, they spoke of "the Union" which, where used at Article 1-8-15, refers to the pre-existing Union of Independent States; and where used at Article 2-3: to the new states which would be admitted into the more perfect Union. For over 200 years, since the ambitious Constitution was proposed (in 1787), the appointed experts and "leaders" -- teachers, preachers and politicians -- have trained the less-literate human herd in the false precept that the present "Union" is a continuation of the one which declared Independence from England in 1776. A literal reading of the Constitution proves that IT IS NOT a "continuing government." The present Union, is a fabrication; whose materials are fraud and deceit. [emphasis added] The Preamble of the Constitution acknowledges the Union of States which existed prior to its execution, and implies that the pre-existing Union was perfect. And a "Union," which means one and unique (like "I," "Ego" and "Self") is by definition perfect. An absolute unique thing cannot logically be made more perfect, any more than it can be made more unique. Not one word of the Fleecing Fathers’ Constitution acts directly on that pre-established Union. No word repeals or abolishes that Union, nor expands nor limits its jurisdiction. The Constitution merely plagiarizes its name as a cunning means of exploiting and confiscating the resources of the Several Lawful States; and converting their citizens and inhabitants into human resources for the profit of the Authors and their Posterity. As revealed in their Preamble, they arranged their Union in Order, after and above the sequence of the Union which they usurped. "When is THIS Union not the Union?" Solution: When the Union is the original, lawful Union. http://www.buildfreedom.com/condel1.htm
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 9 weeks 4 days ago
    Conceived in Tyranny
    Web link Westernerd
    Constitutional historian Forrest McDonald makes this observation: "Neither Sam Adams nor John Hancock of Massachusetts nor Richard Henry Lee and Patrick Henry of Virginia chose to come (Henry did not because, he said, "I smell a rat"; the others offered no excuses)." I smell a rat? Henry complained of the illegality of the Convention in ignoring the explicit instructions of Congress not to scrap the Articles of Confederation. "The Federal Convention ought to have amended the old system," he protested, "for this purpose they were solely delegated: the object of their mission extended to no other consideration." For 23 days in the Virginia ratifying convention, Patrick Henry led the opposition against ratification of the Constitution. According to Long, "In the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, Patrick Henry protested with vehemence against the proposed new Constitution's lack of sufficient safeguards against governmental abuses due to human weakness among its officials, saying: "Show me that age and country where the rights and liberties of the people were placed on the sole chance of their rulers being good men, without a consequent loss of liberty! I say that the loss of that dearest privilege has ever followed, with absolute certainty, every such mad attempt.” He recognized the danger of establishing power even ostensibly limited power in the hands of men apart from the possibility of recourse to God and Divine Law. This is the essence, indeed the very definition of elitism and tyranny: ruling apart from any reference to the Law of God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWPRtb_DS0E
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 9 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Sam: If only everyone would believe this, but the pathocracy which thrives in this nation since 1902 is so entrenched it will never permit us, except in secrecy to thrive in this manner.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 9 weeks 6 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Sam: I enjoyed your response. It seems as if I never stop learning when I read your posts. I did find it interesting in terms that the Michigan Legislature has introduced a bill requiring gun owners to carry liability insurance on themselves for their firearm. There are no ends to justification.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 9 weeks 6 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thanks mjackso. I was just curious and wondered about how she was escaping the social/progressive government guidelines.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 9 weeks 6 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    RettaThank you for your reply. I too am a resident of Michigan, but it required both my wife and I to work to survive as a family. I going to college to get a teaching certificate to teach in Special Education. Not many good options to home school a child with special needs, however, the students I worked with were violent students and the State Institutions were their last ditch effort; now they have none because they closed all these schools leaving them in the hands of public school (totally ill equipped to handle these kids). Again, thank you for the information, as I was merely curious. Gock27
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 2 hours ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    From the article: "...Not a single one of those people was ever afforded the right to defend themselves, to defend their life and liberty, against charges that they were “extremists” who posed “an imminent threat” to the United States or its citizens..." Perhaps I've just become old and cynical. If one lives long enough, that can happen, you know. But all of these articles that consist of whimpering and complaining about murderers murdering people leave me cold. Because the whining and wringing of hands makes no progress in ending the slaughter. It will go on, and on, and on. The first order of business to end war is for individual anarchists to have the courage to climb up onto the pulpit of anarchy and to preach the gospel that there is no such thing as "...the United States..." Thus, no "citizens". "Its" citizens simply do not exist. Murderers exist. Psychopathic killers have no qualm about dispatching cowardly drones to murder individuals. The lingua franca is always something about "national-security". That sells the idea to the petulant serfs, who are robbed of their production in order to pay the costs of "war". If you think of yourself as a "citizen" you have already lost the battle. Language matters. What you tell yourself matters dearly. It makes the difference as to whether you are effective as an instrument of peace, or an instrument of war. I believe that to be anarchist requires that one change her entire language and thought process. Once that happens she is in a position to understand that articles such as this -- accurate in fact as they might be -- approach the issue from the point of view that government (a brainless abstraction) might not be such a bad idea after all. If "we" can just see to it (by voting in political elections, "voluntary compliance", etc etc etc) that "good" people are in charge of "us", why, a better life for all will ensue. Slave thinking. Sam
  • mishochu's picture
    mishochu 10 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    I wonder what the statute of limitations is for admitting that I drove (in the 90's) without a license or insurance for 2.5 yrs (I learned how to operate a vehicle when I was about 9, on farmland near Canterbury before moving to the US). I eventually turned 18 and (at the time) the barriers to licensing dropped. Since I was definitely drinking from the kool-aid of statism at the time I don't think I saw the chinks in the armor of the state. I doubt the young today are eschewing the state. Fast forward to today and my most "rebellious" actions are keeping un-permitted chickens (no one actually inspects your coops, etc. You just pay the fee per chicken per year...why exactly?). I am finally beginning not to care if the rest of the world doesn't change along with me (thanks Sam), I am concerned for my wife and one year old son. I contemplate home schooling in his future and am working on her to get her on board.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Sorry to butt in again, but there is one correction I have to make: parents, or adult caregivers (hopefully loving Mom's and Dad's) have obvious "jurisdiction" over newborn human beings, like it or not. And that "jurisdiction" continues indefinitely -- forever and forever, if all goes well (which, all too often, it does not). My kids (all but 2 of 7 now over 50) have increasing "jurisdiction" over me. The family is the only legitimate governing unit. Love is genuine jurisdiction. Family love. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    I've often observed that there is no such thing as "jurisdiction" -- only force of arms. All the appearing before "benches" (a bench in real life is furniture on which to sit your butt), rising, use of sacred utterance ("your-honor"), serve to baptize the unwary into the superstition of jurisdiction. The primary danger is the widespread acceptance on the part of your and my family, friends and neighbors of that superstition. To even imply that one questions "authority" is beyond the pale in the eyes of most. Thus, psychopathic jurisdiction receives validation. However, as Mr. Hein has illustrated, chinks in the armor are appearing. Sam
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 10 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    The saddest aspect of the armed sheep dogs is that most of them (not all) are just sheep themselves who think that they're "just protecting the flock", often thinking that the largest threat is from within the " flock", rather than recognizing the corrupt, evil-minded "ranchers" (tax farmers) for what they are. A lifetime of programming instills this kind of thinking in both the "sheep" and the "sheep dogs", and these days, the " farmers" have been slanting the hiring criteria to highly favor the "pitbulls" over the gentler "Sheppard" types. And, of course, even the well meaning types are still completely misguided. It took me several years of "detox" and exposure to the liberty movement to shrug off 19 years as a military policeman in the Army, but it can be done.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 10 weeks 4 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Glock27, Take a look on the search engine of your choice under "unschooling". There are some pretty good articles out there that explain the basic concept and the legalities involved. Mike Jackson
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Hein
    The overview, Paul, of this nice article is that government (a brainless abstraction when you think about it) is nothing more than a dangerous superstition. And, as fewer and fewer ordinary folks subscribe to the superstition with voluntary compliance, the quicker the final collapse. I'm 81, and banking upon staying alive to witness the collapse. I have no idea how it will unfold. I suspect it will not be painless. Divorcing from any superstition is not a laughing matter, and I never gainsay religionists (although I chide "libertarians" who continue to use reification, such as "the state wants your money", which borders upon religion and superstition toward "the-powers-that-be" [to use their vernacular]). They mostly shrug and ignore me. That does not mean that I recommend going around flipping the bird to dangerously armed psychopaths. Our late friend, Irwin Schiff, learned that lesson the hard way. I'm not certain Irwin actually learned it -- I fear he went to his grave with deep resentments, which in itself is a form of "internal slavery". I always believe a man (or woman -- L-rd have mercy!) with a loaded gun. Sam
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 10 weeks 5 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thank you for commenting. Those are good questions. Some U.S. states have much more lenient rules for home education than others. You can find them all at a website called: "Homeschool Legal Defense Fund." Just click on the map for any state you like. California would be among the worst, Michigan would be among the best. At the time, I happened to live in a state with almost no oversight (Michigan.) When I took my children out of public school, they went to a private school for a couple of years. When I took them out of private school, I answered to no one. In fact, when we homeschooled, my daughter wanted to "opt-in" to non-core classes at the public school, which she had the right to do in Michigan. After all, they were still soaking us for the taxes to pay for all of it. She took art and gym classes for a short while, until the oppression she felt was outweighed by the fun. I have heard that in Alaska, the state pays remote homeschoolers to learn at home! Any way you can get a refund of your money from the state has some merit. Having said this, I have to say that no one has any business testing my child to see if she meets their standards, even if they were not morally corrupt, self-serving thieves, which they are. When my child was young, she was my business. I gave birth to her. I put food in her belly and shoes on her feet. I stayed up all night when she was ill. Now she is her own business. They can go fly a kite!
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 10 weeks 5 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thanks, Jim! It's great to be back.
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 10 weeks 5 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Thank you so much! Congrats on the grandbabies! I hope to have some one day.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 10 weeks 5 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    West Virginia not the only state to offer permitless carry. I don't keep track of them anymore, but there are more. However, with the Slave House boy in the White House having signed the "U.N. small trades arm" agreement it will open up tin pot dictators of foreign nations to say what we will or will not have. "Fundamentally Changing of America"
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 10 weeks 5 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    West Virginia not the only state to offer permitless carry. I don't keep track of them anymore, but there are more. However, with the Slave House boy in the White House having signed the "U.N. small trades arm" agreement it will open up tin pot dictators of foreign nations to say what we will or will not have. "Fundamentally Changing of America"
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 10 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Hein
    There are an enormous amount of unpleasant facts even adults don't know. I am currently trying to deal with banks and money that has come down to fiat money, or worthless paper. I see banks as corrupt as government only because government moved in and made them corrupt for their own purposes.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 10 weeks 5 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    I am curious. You don't mention anything regarding a curriculum and all states I am aware of the government intrudes with guidelines and periodic testing to see the child is up to par. I am confused and curious about many things regarding the article of which I co not understand. Also the schools have record of your child and after so many misses they would have sent someone out to check up. I am curious on how you evaded this intrusion of the government. I am one who believes that State Department of Education needs to be removed, it is useless and filled with morally corrupt people. They make up their own rules, laws, regulations and guidelines that have to be followed, so you can, I hope, see my curiosity. You have two admirers here plus one very curious one. Please don't think I am attempting to be disrespectful here, I am just curious in how you managed to evade the government all that time. Respectfuly Glock27a
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 10 weeks 5 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Chafftez is more than correct, but he leaves out all the other acronyms like IRS, DEA, NSA, FDA,CIA, Secrete Service, US Marshals, TSA and more. All these agencies came into being by the hand of Congress and left with no parameters, no oversight, no guidance, no rules, no regulations on how they are to operate. The are responsible to no one but themselves. They make up their own laws, rules, regulations and guidelines. ".[M]en are so simple, and so subject to present necessities that he who seeks to decieve will always find someone who will allow themselves to be deceived" (Machivelli)
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 11 weeks 6 hours ago Page Retta Fontana
    Retta, welcome back! It's been a long wait, but this fantastic article made it worth while.   "With her budding curiosity, her schooling ended and her education began." Superb.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 23 hours ago Page Retta Fontana
    This is a good article, Retta. Taking the time, the effort, and the emotional risk to homeschool is truly admirable. I'm due for my 26th grandchild (yeah, that's Twenty-Six, with a capital "T") in September (doubt any of y'all even knew I was expecting :-]). All homeschooled. That is, the ones still in their youth. I've some great-grandchildren (expecting my 6th in June) I don't talk much about. They make me look old :-[. Here are a couple good articles from my homeschool archives: https://mises.org/library/real-education https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/05/gary-north/jail-and-school/ Keep up the good work. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 11 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Hein
    I tried going without gov issued ID for a year once as an experiment. I lasted about two months. Unless you are gonna be a panhandler who lives in the park, or a mountain man hermit living  in the wilderness, you just have to have something to do business, and a DL is about the only thing that fits the bill. It's hard, tho not impossible, to do without it, and as kids get out there in the world they discover that unpleasant fact just as I did.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 11 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Hein
    I wish I were as confident in the unlicensed driver hypothesis, but I know what.the deal was for my oldest daughter, and I suspect it generalizes out to the majority of young folks these days. State-acredited driver's "education" classes, which the robbery-tax funded public Incarceration system ~doesn't~ pay for (it's about $300-$400 out of mom and dad's pocket) are now mandatory to even.get a learner's permit. Lots of folks can't.afford this, and so a lot of kids end up putting this off or skipping it altogether, sometimes going straight to a license later in life (my daughter was 20 before she got hers), making do with rides from mom and dad or friends until they absolutely ~have~ to drive.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 11 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Hi Sam:  Thanks for your concern.  As for ceasing the authorship of future STRicles here, and voluntaryist pieces on other sites and venues, absolutely not.  As for abandoning Voluntarism as a personal philosophy, HELL no.  And I may even have some limited conversation about the topic with select people from time to time, here and there, when and if the mood strikes me.  But everything else I wrote stands.  
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 11 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Sam: Free at last, free at last thank Sam for all that.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 11 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Sam: Thanks for that.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 11 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Alex: Brilliant summary. At 71, I have not gotten tired, just more pissed off, but you are prophetic in that Americans do want government to come into their lives and make them better off of mine and your back. I can recall a man years ago, working as a janitor at a school, when he said he was tendering his resignation and going on welfare. Why? Because according to his calculations he can make more out of welfare than he can ever achieve as a janitor. This is a growing mold on the minds of so many Americans today. If I bleed over it, they don't give a s--t, they have no concern about me or anyone else What you have expressed here is something I have observed for a lot of years. Most Americans have lost hope and have grown into a sense of helplessness. Note: this is from anecdotal observation as I have no documentation to validate what I say, only my personal experience and exposure over the years that involve conversations on a one to one basis. However, during this course of campaigning I notice a true anger from the American people as they are beginning to wake up to the pathocracy of the federal government and ??representatives??
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 11 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Sam: I note that you are moving to a finer sandpaper getting closer to the polishing finish. From your posts and some PM that have crossed between us you have been the chisel for me by removing some of the rough, old crud built up out of time past. My philosophy now seems to be that of a survivalist along with the ear marks of the -ologies I have read from here and other places. I still cannot manage to make my world revolve around my belly button though. Before it becomes too late I wish to thank you deeply for your words of wisdom, your kind and gentle responses you have provided to me over the passing years. Thanks Sam.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 12 weeks 1 day ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Short response (gotta get to "work"): This could amount to a definition issue as to the meaning of "movement". I tend to cling to our old and late friend Harry Browne's admonition regarding what he deemed as "The Group Trap". My basic rant is that each and every one of us can be free. Here. Now. Where we're "at". Today. Not that it is not nice to interchange with other like-minded folks for support and encouragement. But where the rubber meets the road is individualism. We could get into all kinds of dickering as to the difference between "rulers", "leaders", "supervisors" et al. And that, too, amounts to individual choice -- not mandated definition. I've even witnessed fights among "libertarians" over whether or not parents "own" their children (one of my rants is that the human family -- totally apart, separate and indistinguishable from "the-animal-kingdom" -- is the only legitimate governing unit). Those, too, can be a topics of dispute between "libertarians". Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 12 weeks 2 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Sam, good post. But why does a "movement imply leadership (rulers, if you will)"?   Granted, that's the norm; but that may be because collectivism runs so deep. It's drilled in to kiddies all through school. Also perhaps because it's easy to confuse a leader (a person whom others choose to follow, recognizing his qualities) and a ruler (one who issues edicts, imposing punishment for disobedience.)   But I don't see any reason why it must be the norm. There can, as you say, be movements of one - millions of them, cooperating for mutual advantage since value is subjective. That is exactly what an an anarchist society is: a marketplace.   In that zero government society, some will no doubt be distinguished by the excellence of their skills in particular fields. Music, business, crafts, professions, and so on. Those will attract more rewards than others; there will be very rich and less rich. But there will be no rulers at all, and I'm not sure that even those folk will be seen as "leaders", except in the sense that Bethoven's Ninth would suffer badly if the orchestra and choir did not follow the conductor's baton.   Slowly, the enormous implications of L K Samuels' In Defense of Chaos are sinking in to my own mind. Belatedly, I added it last week to the set of books recommended for readers of the Zero Government Blog - click on "ZG Book Store" at top-right. Voluntary interactions between millions of sovereign individuals are just what human beings are fitted to have, just as the rest of the natural world operates without imposed order.   Our "movement" is merely a way to get there, and the way I favor doesn't have leaders and would fail if it did; for leaders make it dead easy for the state to decapitate the movement.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 12 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Alex, I hope you haven't taken your bat, your ball, and left the playing field. That's my concern for you. Whether you have or not is your decision. As I see it, your fallacy is in thinking of liberty as a "movement". Movements imply leadership (rulers, if you will). Read a little of AA history and you'll see that there was lots of internal strife until we finally agreed that, in order for us to be effective in sobering up drunks, AA had to be the most libertarian organization in town. There are no dues or fees. Nobody can declare you in, nobody can keep you out. If you cause a ruckus and become combative, a couple big bruisers might sandwich you between them and ease you out the door until you cool off a bit. But that's not AA, that's mutual defense against violence. AA has no "discipline". Unbelievable -- and at the core of a number of squabbles of and by itself -- particularly around the "AA Club" atmosphere of the early days. AA has no involvement with "alcoholism treatment", has no opinion regarding enforced insurance for the treatment of drunks and junkies. A few of us might volunteer to help conduct AA meetings at treatment facility locations and jails. But we have no affiliation with them or their programs. That's merely extending the hand of AA to those who will soon be "on the outs" -- with no place to go and nobody upon whom to lean for support. I do not see personal freedom as a "movement". Well, perhaps it is -- but if so, it is a movement of one: me. Your freedom is your movement, my freedom is mine. I can't change you and you can't change me. Unless either you and/or I wish to be changed. I like that: a movement of one, with me in charge. :-( Each of us can influence the other -- both you and Jim Davies -- and Mark Davis and Paul Bonneau and tons of others -- have greatly influenced me. In fact, I have to say that I am not the same individual as I was before meeting all y'all in cyber space. I've moved from rank collectivism to stark anarchy in a few short years due to the influence of those of you on the web (and through books written by Harry Browne and Robert Ringer and many others). I said "a few short years", but those few short years have morphed into well over fifty years since I fell under the influence of an old and late renegade named Karl Hess during the political campaign of Barry Goldwater in 1964 -- the last time I participated in a political bread-and-circus event, called "election". I can be free. Here. Today. Where I'm "at". "...precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little..." Thanks, Isaiah. Sam
  • kimsandiego's picture
    kimsandiego 12 weeks 4 days ago Page Scarmig
    This is a very interesting post. I agree that the SS system is problematic, and the more people who scale back, the better. That said, I'm confused about your belief that she'll be able to get along alright without one. First, laws require us to pay taxes on earnings, whether self employed or otherwise. So I'm wondering how she can cross that hurdle. Isn't she breaking federal law if she refuses to file a return? Second, anti-terrorism laws now require positive identification for most financial transactions, and if she can't provide a social, she won't be able to have accounts. This would ultimately be to her detriment because she loses investment opportunities. I understand that you are saying it will be her choice whether to jump into those opportunities, but do you also think she can thrive financially without the SSN? I'm curious to hear your thoughts now that a few years have gone by and many other people have chimed in.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 12 weeks 6 days ago Page Hogeye Bill
    I like the way Larken Rose puts it: I introduce people to the idea that there cannot be a ruling class at all. Most people are so stuck in the paradigm of "...who should 'we' elect to office, what form should 'our' government take, what should 'it' do, and what should 'it' control and what should 'it' fund..." The whole discussion rests on the paradigm that there is such a thing as a legitimate ruling class, and then they dicker over the details. Rose declares there isn't such a thing as legitimate ruling class. "It" shouldn't be doing anything -- "it" shouldn't even be there. That's a shock to most people's way of thinking, and it would have been to most of ours for large portions of our lives. To even begin to imagine a world in which there isn't a "ruling class" -- a government -- is unthinkable for most. Are we the remnant??? Or are we the messengers TO the remnant??? Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 12 weeks 6 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Word games fly in the face of liberty. One of the things for which I'll salute Alex is once again bringing up the alcohol quagmire. Had I not been forced by my own behavior to seek a warden ("AA sponsor") I would no doubt have died from my self-inflicted morass some fifty years ago. As it turned out I was forced to understand concepts that would serve me well when the message(s) of personal liberty began to sink in -- starting with my last bread-and-circus event ("U.S. political election") in 1964. As I stated in an earlier comment, it became absolutely necessary for me to come to see clearly that the actions and/or behaviors of others could not dampen my freedom or my liberty. Timely to this little foray in connection with Alex's essay, a new STR friend sent me a link to Delmar England's "Mind and Matters" -- the full presentation. He had painstakingly edited and published it in "Liberty Me" from a copy in "Way Back Machine". Was glad for the link, as I had copied part of it from another site some years back, but only a chapter or so. Per Bylund had told me two or more years ago that England's family was going to try to have it completed, edited and published, but I had rather given up searching for it. I'm now anxious to read it; but have started working to keep my brain and body active (14 mile round-trip bike ride through ice and snow and bitter cold), so will have to do a page or two at a time for now. I'm convinced there are two and two only thought processes: collectivist and individualist. Unless you were born with an anarchist spoon in your mouth you began collectivist. Slowly through time you (and I) assimilated individualist thought patterns. Anarchy. But the world around us inculcates collectivism. Insanity is the social norm. My kids and grandkids and great grandkids and kids-in-law have come to various levels of "anarchy" (and/or lack thereof). My pound of gold through all this is knowing that your governing cannot ruin my freedom. Your guns might -- temporarily. I always believe a man (or woman -- L-ord have mercy!) with a loaded gun. Whether my family, my friends, the world at large, ever accept my philosophy and/or teaching and/or preaching and/or presentations regarding liberty and freedom -- will not incite the natural rage that seems to permeate us old men when frustrated over the acceptance of our life-long tirades. Recovery from alcoholism induces immunity. :-) Sam
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 13 weeks 1 hour ago Page Hogeye Bill
    This really is a can of worms full of self-righteous indignation, all around (e.g. Cantwell). Trying to be the arbiter of who is and isn't a libertarian based on this very cloudy issue is counterproductive, at best. I just can't see a "pure" anarchist/libertarian position in the matter; we are simply arguing about problems created by the state and trying to determine which statist policy is closest to our anarchist principles. Supporting forced immigration is not the same as supporting open borders and opposing forced immigration is not the same as opposing open borders. Open borders is not an available option in a state controlled world. Trying to set the libertarian standard on this issue based on personal value judgements put forth as theoretical suppositions, is problematic in itself. Such as, wanting to maintain one's own culture is not xenophobic, just the natural tendency of people everywhere wanting to keep traditions and be around others who talk, think and act the same way they do. As long as the maintenance of one's culture doesn't involve violence or coercion, then what's the problem? People the world over congregate with others like themselves to cooperate, trade and generally socialize; this general tendency is not a bad thing, indeed, it obviously promotes social harmony. This schism between libertarians should be a non-issue because we all agree in theory that no state = no borders; but we do have states, everywhere. So, suggesting that some libertarians are heretics to the cause of liberty because they oppose a state policy being imposed upon them which they find destructive to their way of life and you think that some other state policy comes "closer" to what you perceive to be the theoretically perfect libertarian position, is getting awful close to the proverbial debate over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. IMHO, it’s better to focus on coming together to abolish the state (or survive the collapse of the state) and forego the divisive witch trials.