Recent comments

  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 9 weeks 4 days ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Alex have you seen this? "The $100 Startup: Fire Your Boss, Do What You Love and Work Better to Live More" It's a kind of "how to" by Chris Guillebeau. I started reading it on Amazon and it has a lot of practical advice.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 9 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Some context here: Sanders & wife's yearly income was less than what Hillary got for one single speech, $234k vs. $250k, so I'm not too worried about that particular populist angle. Paying as much tax as possible isn't a virtue, in my opinion, either.
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 9 weeks 5 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    That's so kind of you, Jim! Thanks!
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 9 weeks 6 days ago
    A UK Decsion Point
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Speaking of Brits, today is Patriot's Day, when in 1775 that famous first shot was fired. To mark the occasion I'm announcing a new e-book: How Government Silenced Irwin Schiff; find it here. Any who dislike paying the alleged income tax will want to read it.   Irwin died half a year ago, as noted in the ZGBlog Schiff's Crusade.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 10 weeks 2 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    In the next edition of A Vision of Liberty, I'll link to this one.  Another super job, Retta.   Jim
  • Bob Sherman's picture
    Bob Sherman 10 weeks 3 days ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Things have less meaning than experiences -> Well put! We all invest too much of our time in working to buy stuff we don't need or won't even remember we've bought 2 years from now.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 10 weeks 5 days ago
    Staying North
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Thank you, Sam, very gracious.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 10 weeks 5 days ago
    Staying North
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    "...The blame lies squarely upon government, with unions close behind..." As usual, Jim, your essay is absolutely on target. The incestuous intertwining of those brainless abstractions we call "government", and "unions", and "churches" is incredible. All, in their own light, are superstitions pure and simple. And all work together to wreak havoc upon those who worship at their alters -- the state being the most egregious of them all, since all of what we like to call "jurisdiction" rests with the firearms and the firepower in the hands of their agents. The enormity of the truth is unbelievable. You do an excellent job of bringing it to the surface for exposure to all who will listen. Thanks for another good article. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 10 weeks 6 days ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Your article inspired today's Zero Government Blog, called Freedom, Now and Then - see my entry "Delights to Come" in http://strike-the-root.com/blogs
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 2 days ago Web link KenK
    This reeks of the classic dominant social theme syndrome embedded in most mainstream press. If you don't grasp "dominant social theme" I can no longer help you (unless I cut, paste and post the entire Daily Bell definition I have in my library -- possibly "illegal" according to copyright "law"), as Bell for some reason has seen fit to scuttle access to their definitions glossary. Of course the presence of the group of psychopaths hiding under the brainless abstraction called "state" eliminates common sense. So arguing whether gays or transsexuals or those in between "should" be allowed in your or my or anybody else's bathroom is moot. But it's funny how they use the sacred cow of sexuality in the genius of divide-and-conquer. 25 years ago I had never heard of "sexual orientation". I think, after they were successful in introducing the word "gay" as a euphemism for homosexual; it was first called "sexual preference". But then it turned out to be politically incorrect to imply that one had "preferences" in how s/he fooled around sexually. Either is you is or is you ain't homosexual -- you have no "choice" in the "matter". So some mastermind came up with the brilliant idea of inculcating "orientation" into it. That was a stroke of genius. It solidified the "condition". Oh, how terrible it must be to live in your own body and work through your own desires and "preferences"! Fortunate for me, I'm the richest man in town and like the body I'm in. And, as I've said before, grateful to have lived it in the body of a male (meaning no offense to you ladies, mind you). I wouldn't want to have faced some of the issues with which you gals have had to cope just to get by. And rest assured, I have no desire to come into your bathroom. Haven't made that egregious error since I quit drinking almost 35 years ago. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 4 days ago Web link Bri_Voluntaryist
    This is a decent treatment of individualism vs collectivism, although I don't think the word "collectivism" or "collectivist" occurs in the piece. Many years ago when I first began to serf the web, and I became focused upon individualist thinking, I was moved by the inordinate amount of "anarchist theory". Seemed everybody and anybody had an idea as to how freedom would, or should, work out -- how to "arrange anarchy" (an oxymoron if there ever was one). I saw the contradictions, but was not able to catalog them in any sensible order. So I started to simply jot down each time I came across a "theory". The list grew -- unmanageable. So, I put them on the computer in an alphabetical program -- and, later, began to index each to a website. It's a work in progress. This will be long, but I'd like to list what I have so far: Various Anarchist and Libertarian Labels • Abolitionism http://www.strike-the-root.com/62/allport/allport4.html • Acclarism http://www.reddit.com/r/acclarism/ • Agorism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism • Anagorism (http://anagory.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/antilibertarian-antistatism/) • Anarcha-Feminism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/anarcha-feminism/ • Anarchy http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf • Anarcho-Capitalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism • Anarcho-communism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/wayne-price-what-is-anarchist-co... • Anarcho-Kritarchy http://dailyanarchist.com/2015/04/06/no-true-anarchist/comment-page-1/#c... (See Kritarchy) • Anarcho-pacifism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_schools_of_thought#Anarcho-pacifism • Anarcho-primitivism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-primitivism • Anarcho-syndicalism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/anarcho-syndicalism/ • Antilibertarian antistatism (see “Anagorism”) • Anti-Positivism • Apriorism • Autarchism (Le Fevre) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarchism • Black Anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_anarchism • Buddhist Anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_anarchism • Carsonian mutualism http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/2006/04/21/vulgar-libertarian-revisio... • Christian Anarchism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/christian-anarchism/ • Civil Libertarianism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_libertarianism • Classical Liberalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism • Collectivist anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivist_anarchism • Communism • Communitarian anarchism http://www.ic.org/wiki/communitarian-anarchism/ • Consequentialism • Dialectical Libertarianism http://c4ss.org/content/15318 • Eco-agorism • Eco-Libertarianism • Eco-Socialist-Libertarian • Egalitarian Anarchism http://uscundercurrent.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/what-an-egalitarian-anar... • Egoist anarchism (Max Stirner) • Establishment liberal left • Existentialism http://anarchiststandard.com/2015/11/subjective-meaning-objective-ethics... • Explicitly anarchism, pro-decentralist libertarians (Kinsella) • Extreme Minarchism http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=8167.0;wap2 • Free Market Anarchism • Free Market Capitalism http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard146.html • Geoanarchism • Geoism (see “Georgism”) • Geolibertarianism • Georgism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism • Green-Libertarianism • Individualism • Individualist anarchism • Individualist/collectivist anarchist Individualist/collectivist anarchism • Insurrectionary anarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurrectionary_anarchism • Kantianism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant) • Kratoclism http://www.marketmentat.com/i-think-i-maked-up-a-word-two-actually/ • Kritarchy http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/135.pdf P 8 • Las Portadas (“Seasteading”) http://wiki.seasteading.org/index.php/Las_Portadas • Leftarchism https://rudd-o.com/archives/leftarchism • Left Libertarianism • Left Market Anarchism http://c4ss.org/ • Left-Rothbardians • Legal Positivism • Liberal socialism • Liberalism • Libertarian • Libertarian Anarchism • Libertarian conservatism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_conservatism • Libertarian Populism (James Ostrowski) • Libertarian Relativism http://takimag.com/article/the_relativist_roots_of_libertarianism/#axzz2... • Libertarian Socialism • Libertarian Solipsism http://www.masson.us/blog/libertarian-solipsism/ • Libertarian Transhumanism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_transhumanism • Localism and decentralization • Logical Positivism • Market anarchism • Minarchism • Modal Libertarianism • Modern Liberalism • Modest Libertarianism http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/modest_libertarianism.html • Moral consequentialism • Moral Libertarianism http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2216836?sid=21105612397333&uid=70&... • • Muslim Anarchism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/muslim-anarchism/ • Mutualism http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2006/03/p2p-cooperatives-and-counter-econo... • Natural-rights libertarianism • Neo-liberalism • Neolibertarianism • Objectivism • Originalism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism • Panarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy • Patrio-psychotic anarcho-materialism http://www.subgenius.com/ • Philosophical Anarchism http://radgeek.com/gt/2015/12/05/the-self-confidence-argument/ • Platformism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platformism • Plumbline Libertarianism • Polycentrism • Post-Anarchism • Post-left anarchy • Post-modernism • Post-structuralism • Praxeology • Primitivism • Progressive Libertarianism • Propertarianism http://www.propertarianism.com/ • Punkish/syndicalist/queer radical social anarchism (above two from Rad Geek site) • Queer anarchism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/queer-anarchism/ • Radical Libertarianism http://www.informationphilosopher.com/freedom/radical_libertarianism.html • Radical minarchists • Right Libertarianism • Rothbardian strain of market anarchism • Schmodal Libertarianism • Scientific Anarchism Social Darwinian right-wing economics • Situationism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Situationist_International • Socialism • Socialist Anarchism • Socialist-Libertarianism • Sortocracy http://sortocracy.org/ • syndicalism • Syndicalist Anarchism • Thick Libertarianism http://c4ss.org/content/23175 • Thin Libertarianism http://c4ss.org/content/23175 • Transhumanist Anarchism http://c4ss.org/content/17838 • Utilitarianism (Friedman’s strain of Anarcho-capitalism) • Utopian socialism • Voluntarism http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.html#.VwXDCHoYM20 • Vulgar Libertarianism http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/2006/04/21/vulgar-libertarian-revisio... • Zenarchism Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 11 weeks 6 days ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Of course!  Thanks for confirming.   So I'm going to take all the joy you express in this great STRticle and square it, to describe the pleasure of having that knowledge - even in our presently heavily-governed environment.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 6 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Correct, M-Macks! And, anybody who knows me understands I am a strong advocate for homeschooling -- for the reasons you outline and infer. Sam
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 11 weeks 6 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Sam, I think we all agree on the underlying unreality of conceptual "objects" like counties and concepts like citizenship, but I do believe some valid points are made here. People, in large part because of their belief and participation in such fictions are allowing themselves and their children to be "dumbed down" (whether this is a flaw in the "educational" system or simply it functioning as intended... well, that's another question). I personally don't see this as a fixable or even valid system; compulsory "education" is just incarceration and indoctrination. If parents want to avoid this, I believe home schooling, or more specifically ~un-schooling~, is probably the best answer.
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 11 weeks 6 days ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Thanks, Jim!
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 11 weeks 6 days ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Hey Alex! Thanks so much for your comments. It is thrilling to know that I have inspired you! One thing I've learned is that what works well this month, doesn't work at all the next month. I have to keep experimenting and try not to project. Shoulder to plow! I am happy to be back at writing again. I'm just a bit rusty but I feel happy with myself. XO Retta
  • rettafontana's picture
    rettafontana 11 weeks 6 days ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Knowing that I own myself - of course!!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 11 weeks 6 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "America" has not become stupid. America does not exist. People exist. It might be true that many individuals in a place many have been calling "America" (which I assume would include a place called "Canada", as well as central and south "America") are stupid. That would be in the eyes of the beholder. And, as the late Delmar England has observed, if one can't escape "...the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth..." in one's writing, s/he will forevermore flounder around in half-assed "anarchy". And half-assed "anarchy" is probably stupider than full-assed statism. For example, the author laments over: "...Seventy-three percent couldn’t correctly say why we fought the Cold War. Forty-four percent were unable to define the Bill of Rights. And 6 percent couldn’t even circle Independence Day on a calendar..." First of all, "we" didn't fight in any "Cold War" that I know of. At least I didn't fight in a "Cold War". I can't speak for you. Secondly, I don't want to belabor my little brain concerning the white man's so-called Bill of Rights. I have no dog in his fight, and he couldn't grant me any "rights" if I did. And, third -- whose "independence day" would you want me to circle??? Every grand wizard of every political entity called "nation" everywhere on the face of the globe from the beginning of recorded history has come up with celebrations supposedly depicting "independence". I want no part of it. Who's stupid??? (or "stupider"???) Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 12 weeks 19 min ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    A friendly amendment: a "black market economy" might be better called white.   Also a question: from which do you derive more pleasure, (a) knowing that you own yourself, regardless of how you choose to earn bread, or (b) earning bread by serving several customers instead of just one?
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 12 weeks 15 hours ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Retta:  You may have already seen on Facebook, but I just also read this great e-book (for free!), and it compounds and expands on what you have to say here.  You may want to check it out:   http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0195CE37O/ref=pe_385040_188798810_TE_M1T1DP      
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 12 weeks 1 day ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    You hit another one for six! (That's the English, cricket equivalent of out-of-the-ballpark.)   Cash is indeed king, which no doubt explains the current rumors about de-throning it. Any practical experience yet of Bitcoin, or other forms of non-government money?
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 12 weeks 1 day ago
    Cash Is King
    Page Retta Fontana
    Retta, good to see you back here again lately, and that things are going well for you!  This is a great one, and crystallizes what I've felt for a long time now.  I've REALLY had it with employers and LONG to be rid of them once and for all.  No matter what it takes.   I've tried for years now to make it as a writer, but that always seems to be a "someday never" proposition.  I have been learning welding, however, and have been approached about the prospect of doing some private tutoring.   Maybe something will bear fruit.  Regardless, this essay gives me the motivation keep trying to break free.  :-)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 12 weeks 2 days ago Web link strike
    You really need to watch this WSJ video. "...Kookie (read: 'libertarian') -is-in-the-eye-of-the-beholder.." (giggle giggle giggle). Don't get me wrong: like Block's support of the clown "running" for U.S. grand wizard, the "free state project" phenomenon is crazy-making from its inception as far as I can tell. Not far removed from "...hair of the dog..." to the drunk. And I suppose I would be concerned if I depended upon "libertarian-ism" (as a movement) to make me free. I don't. I genuinely want you to find the freedom you seek. But, in case you don't, I will still be free. But mainstream media types are obviously terrified of the incessant move toward freedom -- and the internet reformation that is sweeping it along. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 12 weeks 4 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    I might reconsider Trump if today's news about a poll of Federal workers is proved correct and applicable nationwide. It revealed that "25% [of them] would consider quitting if Trump becomes President."   The one and only way government can be caused to vanish is to persuade all its employees to quit; hence the QuitGov site and hence TOLFA.  If a Trump victory took care of a quarter of that at the Federal level in one single sweep, it might be worth it!   But no. They'd only go back when his term ran out. There's no practical alternative to universal re-education.  
  • Autonomous's picture
    Autonomous 12 weeks 4 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Quoting Block.... "My thought, though, was that out of all the Republican candidates, he [Trump] was the most libertarian on foreign policy. He [Trump] was the least likely to get us into World War III." GASP! I view Trump as a whiny, fickle, petulant and unpredictable loose cannon whose arrogant narcissism gets in the way of reason. I envision a Trump presidency as something akin to the running of the bulls in Pamplona, Spain! "The Libertarian movement is surely in a very sick state." Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that will ever change.
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 12 weeks 5 days ago Web link KenK
    "Wayne County Judge Lawrence Talon" said today's Detroit News, "denied the Wayne County prosecutor’s motion to pull Smith’s plea deal off the table after Talon said he would not enforce the portion of it that would have the Detroit Democrat step down from the Legislature." How Sen. Smith is gonna vote on things and otherwise do WTF it is that Michigan state senators do from a jail cell not mentioned. Bottom line: Dems are daring the Republican majority to vote to expel Smith from the senate and rile up the usual crew of race hustling community organizers, public employee unions and street ministers that form the core of Smith's base in an election year. And so Smith keeps the paychecks coming unless & until they boot him. And so much for Smith's advocacy of harsh measures to curb gun violence in Michigan. What a shameless hypocrite.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 12 weeks 5 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    At this point in the Game of Thrones ("election" bread and circuses), it's a certainty that some puppet will be coronated President. I honestly don't think that "votes" from the plebes will change who "Ascends", but if the popular "vote" ends up favoring Darth Trumpious and Cruella de Clinton somehow miraculously gains the Throne instead, TPTB™ will have some 'splainin' to do. And though I have no intention of participating in the sham and help I'm lend it credence, that would put a big smile on my face
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 12 weeks 5 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    'I resist libertarian "theory".'  Hmm. Don't theory and practice complement each other?   You're in trucking, I recall. So you enjoyed the partial freedom of the open road, the practical pleasure of controlling a big rig as it crossed the Continent with all its beauty.   But I bet you knew something also about the theory of diesel engineering. Not perhaps enough to spell out the equations for the three-dimensional swirl of gases in the combustion chambers, but probably enough to know what to do when a mechanic charged you for changing the spark plugs.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 12 weeks 6 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    I'd hoped that the near-silence on LRC since Walter Block first launched LFT indicated a storm of protest that has made him go quiet. Alas, a new piece out today shows that the opposite is the case. The Libertarian movement is surely in a very sick state.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 12 weeks 6 days ago Page Hogeye Bill
    Defending our culture from the invaders: http://ncc-1776.org/tle2014/tle783-20140810-03.html
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 12 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Hein
    I think all the factors mentioned contribute to this drop. I know someone who did not have a license for a few years due to a dispute between two state bureaucracies. He had a lead foot too. Cops would pull him over and he'd just say he didn't have a license. They always let him go. I found this interesting. I've noticed that states are now going with permitless concealed carry, Idaho is the most recent one. I always worried about the notion that we should ask permission to carry, but it appears that gradualism worked for once. It must be becoming increasingly obvious that one does not need permission to defend one's life. Also the world did not come to an end because people carried guns, as the gun prohibitionists predicted it would. Anyway just another trend along the lines you mention.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 12 weeks 6 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    How did you pull that off in "upper northern Kalifornia", Paul? I grew up just outside of Salem, and even back in the '70's and 80's I can't imagine being able to slide that past TPTB™ (high five!).
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 12 weeks 6 days ago Page Retta Fontana
    Actually, a fair percentage of homeschoolers have been motivated to remove their learning-disabled children from the government schools because those schools were serving their needs so poorly. As to evading state control, a lot can be chalked up to bureaucratic incompetence. Also, even if they are competent, the last thing they need is to deal with irate parents; they want an easy life. Oregon has a long tradition of noncompliant homeschooling. We never bothered to register my son. My family is none of their business.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 12 weeks 6 days ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    "Live and let live" is a basic anarchist concept, as Larken Rose explains to a young couple in a park conversation (video -- somewhat distracting due to the background activity and noise). The way you and/or I see things is the way things are -- for you, and for me. We won't always see the same things in the same way. We haven't both had identical exposure to the millions (billions?) of tiny experiences and studies and observations that make up who we are as individuals. But we obviously do agree upon the principles. I lean toward the practical. I resist libertarian "theory". None of us has ever actually lived in a world where there was no such thing as monopoly "government" (which does not actually exist -- it is an illusion and a superstition -- because only people exist). I proceed from the premise that others are not going to believe and behave the way I think they "otta" believe and behave. It matters not whether "we should" abide by the non-agression principle. Many folks ain't a gonna. I have to deal with that, and yet be free here. Now. Where I'm "at". You might say I have "faith" in liberty and freedom. My kids (soon all over fifty) and grandkids mostly think I'm "far too trusting" of free people. I'm not totally certain exactly how such things as "justice" will play out when people do indeed perpetrate crimes against others of our acquaintance once all government everywhere is scuttled and becomes history. I can only speculate. I'm still gradually pulling myself away from and out of, as Delmar England has described it, "the government-centered way of thinking with which we are indoctrinated from birth". We won't always agree on the definitions and the nuances within the concept of freedom and liberty. That's one of the values of these forums and blogs. I'm not the same person (philosophically -- or physically for that matter, since most of the cells that made me up 20 or 25 years ago have been pooped and pee'd out by now) as I was when we first met in cyber space. I'm still swayed by your easy, jocular style of convincing folks that it would be a good idea to abstain from beans if we ever want to live a life of freedom. Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 13 weeks 1 hour ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Okay, Sam, if THAT's how you see rights, we certainly agree. They do NOT come from government in any way, nor from the Constitution which set ours up.   On the contrary, rights are natural, an integral element in human nature. That was the whole point of that superb paragraph by Rothbard, which I quoted in Liberty: Rooted in Rights.   Incidentally the best part of what Trump is saying (one of the very few good bits) is his understanding of Amendment 2. He says it did not grant a right, rather it guaranteed (ha!) that an existing, natural right would be left undisturbed.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 13 weeks 1 day ago
    The Limits of Support
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    Thanks for the response. Any difference you and I have is mostly definition, or contextual, by nature. My resistance to the term "rights" has to do with my observation that many, if not most, using the term were tying it to the sense of "constitutional rights". My take on use of the term was that, in order to have "rights", there had to be (or was implied to be) a "granter" or "sustainer" of those rights. But that is not necessarily, or always, the context under which it is used. Thus, you might (correctly) retort, I was "...throwing the baby out with the bath h2o..." True. So, having power over nobody other than myself, I can't issue a moratorium toward its use. I will probably continue to use "choice" in its stead -- not that you "should". Sam
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 13 weeks 1 day 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 13 weeks 1 day 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 13 weeks 1 day 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 13 weeks 1 day 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 13 weeks 2 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 13 weeks 2 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 13 weeks 3 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 13 weeks 4 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 13 weeks 4 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 14 weeks 1 day 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 14 weeks 2 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 14 weeks 2 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 14 weeks 2 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 14 weeks 3 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