Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 12 hours ago Web link Eric Field
    Will post this once again as a study guide for this piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    As an octogenarian father, grandpa and great-grandpa I like to think that I would go to any length to intervene personally (when it is in my power to do so) to protect any child -- be it your child, my grandchild [all my kids are grown -- some getting older than I :-) ] or a complete stranger. One of the "social ills" is that there are different levels of parenting: some good, some not-so-good, some atrocious (subject to judgement -- what's "good" to you might seem "bad" to me, etc etc). Sex is a sacred cow. Who understands it??? I sure don't. But few will disagree that it's best that teenagers not drastically alter their lives with unwanted pregnancies, STD's, etc. So we "parent": we try to provide good reasons why prepubescent teens should refrain from behaviors that might result in those kinds of calamity. "Banning" almost anything usually creates a greater demand for whatever it is that is prohibited. Parents learn that lesson early in the game. The power elite have the tactic down to an "inverse science": example -- the "drug war". And sex. How better to wrest control from free market thinking than to "ban" porn, prostitution, etc etc etc. The abortion issue is another example of a divide-and-conquer tactic utilizing that sacred cow called sex as a fulcrum. It is a sociological fact that places where prostitution has always been legal and an honored business have more secure marriages -- fewer divorces, sex scandals, etc. The bible-belt prohibition of women's exposed breasts has given rise to meteoric hangups, I suspect -- and has no doubt caused the denial of many infants' enjoying the nutritional benefits of mothers' milk, and has prevented a special bonding the nursed child has with Mom. Kent responded to a comment on his blog a couple days ago with links to a couple videos where all traffic controls had been removed from busy intersections. Traffic immediately began to flow faster and more smoothly, and a 2 year study indicated higher traffic volume and almost total elimination of traffic accidents. It was an apt analogy to the principle of freedom. Freedom works. Sam
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 18 weeks 3 days ago
    Banned From YouTube
    Blog entry Don Stacy
    it really is
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 18 weeks 3 days ago
    Banned From YouTube
    Blog entry Don Stacy
    It's a scary reminder that government power is so pervasive as to pull the plug on any pro-freedom activity as soon as it becomes more effective than is considered tolerable.   The fix for that in TOLFA is that the web site is disposable. The course is passed from person to person (mentor to new student) primarily on CDs, or any other cheap portable-storage device.   Glad Stefan is back... for now.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul: Political tolerance can also work. Ye Gads! I am a sovereign state. We (that would be me) tolerate no politics therein. But you go ahead and have at 'er, if you think you can pull it off. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul: He makes it sound so easy. Keep in mind he is talking about getting rid of all national governments in the world, every state/provincial government, every county government, every municipal government, every school district and police district. Yes, a case can be made for that, but good luck actually getting there. I suppose that is what is meant when a person is referred to as an "academic". Hasnas is addressing anarchist theory. That's all he's doing. He neither proposes nor predicts how anarchy might come into being at any level of what we know as "government". He shows that central political authority is not necessary. And he shows that anarchy is everywhere -- right here, right now -- if we'll simply look around. You and I are generally aligned in our philosophy. I agree with your take on "rights". I never use the term. I have and I make choices. If there are indeed rights to which I am entitled, I have no expectations that anybody outside of myself will grant or protect them. And I understand my friend -- our friend, Suveran2's, "just cause" theory. If it's going to be, it's up to me. Sam (I had a lengthy, long-winded response all typed up, which took me two or three hours with interruptions. But then I did the unthinkable: clicked "Publish comment" without pasting it to my clipboard. So, I got "...you are not authorized to comment...." and discovered I had gotten myself logged out while I was composing. So, to your good fortune, you now have the highly truncated version).
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 18 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Hasnas writes, "I am arguing only that human beings can live together successfully and prosper in the absence of a centralised coercive authority. To make the case for anarchy, that is all that is required." If the federal government suddenly vanished, would there be an absence of centralized coercive authority? No. The state governments would take on that role. If a state government vanished, the county governments would take on that role. He makes it sound so easy. Keep in mind he is talking about getting rid of all national governments in the world, every state/provincial government, every county government, every municipal government, every school district and police district. Yes, a case can be made for that, but good luck actually getting there. I suppose that is what is meant when a person is referred to as an "academic". The idea of Panarchy is rooted in practicality: how do we get there from here. We don't need to get rid of governments. We just need to provide them a reliable incentive to leave us alone. That is hard enough, but with tools like generally available battle rifles and the Internet, it becomes at least possible. Taking this back to the religious analogy, imagine 300 years ago, someone making the argument that we don't need a God to live. How successful would that appeal be? Would it accomplish anything? How much more sensible is the notion that people should simply not kill each other over religious ideas? And keep in mind this notion also contains within it the possibility that we don't need God to live. The result today is that atheists do not get burned at the stake. Religious tolerance worked. Political tolerance can also work.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I'm not so sure you can tag a "handle" on anarchy so easily. Hasnas appears to define it succinctly (PDF file): http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/Obvious.pdf Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 18 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Anarchy means "no rulers". Panarchy means "lots of rulers, none of them dominant". Statism is "one ruler or groups of rulers (e.g. oligarchy), that is dominant." You can be a Panarchist and still be a liberal, conservative, communist, etc. (assuming you toss the portion of those beliefs having to do with attempting total dominance). On the other hand, you cannot be an anarchist and a liberal at the same time, because a liberal still believes in the initiation of force against others. The difference between a liberal who is a Panarchist and a liberal who isn't, is that the latter allows no exceptions to the dominance of left-liberalism, while the former does allow exceptions (I am talking about within a particular jurisdiction). I think the distinction is useful, since anarchy just sounds like another garden variety "my way or the highway" political philosophy when people advocate for it (even if that is internally inconsistent with anarchy). For example, any time an anarchist starts talking about "libertopia" or "libertarian paradise" he is making a mistake. What do non-anarchists think of when they hear such things? Dominance. Also, anarchists usually do not sell anarchy by saying liberals should be able to live as liberals. Only Panarchists make that point.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 18 weeks 5 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    You are right Ken, the term is not particularly well defined; there are still some conflicting ideas floating around about it. For example the early proponents assumed that people of different polities would be living mixed together, and if that was not the case it was not really panarchy. I don't buy that because if people can pick different polities then they certainly can pick where they want to live, and a lot of people prefer to live with their own kind. But the central point is almost always demonstrated by bringing up the parallel example religious tolerance, which started happening a couple of hundred years ago. If you understand religious tolerance (including tolerance of atheism) then you understand political tolerance AKA panarchy (including tolerance of anarchists). Of course the implication is that one polity cannot aggress against another. The liberal polity cannot tax anyone outside their polity. The conservative polity cannot regulate anyone outside their polity. Aggression is only possible within a polity. Now that I think of it, "political tolerance" may be a better term than "panarchy", or at least more easily understood.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 18 weeks 5 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Samarami: I quite agree, and will add a few points. Lawrence's arguments about this particular case are sound, though my question was a more general one. In this particular case, there was clearly no victim, and thus there cannot have been a crime. I was wondering about child porn in a general sort of way: in at least some cases, there clearly are victims. But I find myself thinking along the same lines as you: sad as it may be, they are not my children and I cannot be made to take responsibility for them, even if that responsibility only amounts to me paying taxes for law enforcement. I would add another thing here: perhaps one of the errors that the collectivists make is to think that there necessarily are solutions to any and all social ills in the first place (and that the best way to deal with them is via governments making and enforcing laws). It seems to me that with many of these problems, they have always been with us and always will be no matter what we or governments do. And as I pointed out in my previous post, government involvement almost invariably makes things worse. From what I read, porn consumption is typically higher in countries where it is banned or severely restricted. When it is legalized in such countries, there is an initial spike in consumption, but people soon get over the excitement and then life goes on. Apparently, mild forms of child porn was fairly freely available in many western countries until the 1970s. Since then, there has been something of a witch hunt going on, and predictably, not only did it not do much to protect the interests of children, but in fact made things worse: instead of mild erotica of the sort that Ancient Greeks painted on their vases (and that typified porn prior to the ban), the stuff that now floats around on the web is apparently genuinely sick. So we managed to move, in a single generation, from stuff that should perhaps be frowned upon, all the way to bestiality, snuff films and who knows what else. Apologies for once again freely making use of the word "we". :-)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I'm getting lots of double posts lately. Sorry.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    When I was new to the web and new to libertarian thinking I read everything I could google. A reality that became clear was that everybody seemed to have his or her own idea as to how an "anarchist society" should be "organized" and/or "conducted". I started a list that has grown to well over 100 entries (with, I'm sure, some overlaps and/or duplications). It's long, but for lack of a great deal of "comments" lately I'll reproduce it here: Various Libertarian and Anarchist Labels • Acclarism • Agorism • Anagorism (http://anagory.wordpress.com/2013/03/29/antilibertarian-antistatism/) • Anarcha-Feminism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/anarcha-feminism/ • Anarchy • Anarcho-Capitalism (Mises/Rothbard) • Anarcho-communism • 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) • Carsonian mutualism http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/2006/04/21/vulgar-libertarian-revisio... • Christian Anarchism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/christian-anarchism/ • Classical Liberalism • Collectivist anarchism • Communism • Consequentialism • Dialectical Libertarianism http://c4ss.org/content/15318 • Eco-agorism • Eco-Libertarianism • Eco-Socialist-Libertarian • Egoist anarchism (Max Stirner) • Establishment liberal left • Existentialism • Explicitly anarchism, pro-decentralist libertarians (Kinsella) • Free Market Anarchism • Free Market Capitalism http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard146.html • Geoanarchism • Geoism • Geolibertarianism • 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 • 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 • Muslim Anarchism http://dailyanarchist.com/category/muslim-anarchism/ • Mutualism • Natural-rights libertarianism • Neo-liberalism • Neolibertarianism • Objectivism • Panarchism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panarchy • Patrio-psychotic anarcho-materialism http://www.subgenius.com/ • 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 • Socialism • Socialist Anarchism • Socialist-Libertarianism • 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 • Vulgar Libertarianism http://www.socialmemorycomplex.net/2006/04/21/vulgar-libertarian-revisio... • Zenarchism Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Think I'll throw in with Ken on this one. Not that I'm "again'" panarchy. The term just seems redundant. Anarchy is the absence of central political authority. There is nothing in anarchy that can be imposed upon anybody else. What else? Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    ? Excuse the double post
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 18 weeks 6 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Eugenedw: How DO anarchists propose we protect the rights of children in an anarchist society? The first thing I would want to explore is the "we" of the question. Because where principles of self ownership are practiced parents are responsible for children until the children can safely fly their own kites. So who is the "we" of "..an anarchist society..."? Anarchism moves collectivism to the sidelines. I say this a lot, but bears repeating: human infants are unique among living newborns in that they require total adult care and supervision. This goes on until ultimately those same children provide the care and supervision for the elderly parents. This, in fact, is the picture of anarchy. The family unit is the primary and only legitimate governing agency. The problem is that none of us have experienced freedom. We have been incubated and inculcated in collectivism for so long that it is difficult to think in terms of "I" instead of "we". If it's going to be, it's up to me. Sam
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 18 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, I googled "panarchy" and the results were confusing. What does the term mean in the context that you've used it in your piece. I take it to mean people can and should pick their own preferred system of governance or living arrangements. So, if some want to live in Mormon settlements or Manson style "families" or whatever else they want they are free to try it out. And if you don't like it, you can leave and go try something else. Is that what you meant? I'm not especially scholarly about all this political theory stuff, so excuse me if it is a well known term that I don't know. I did do a cursory look but , as I said, the results were muddled. Ken.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 19 weeks 14 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    To answer this question, we must remember that in a libertarian society, we would be returning to a truly free-market society—with the emphasis on markets. This would mean that people would be paying the full cost for all of their individual decisions, and companies—which require a profit—would be doing likewise.   It may help to compare this scenario with the “market for war.” In a market-based society, nobody would be engaging in aggressive wars because there is no profit in it—unlike our current socialist society where the costs of war-making are redistributed through taxes and the “profits” are derived from bilking the public and siphoning their tax money into the pockets of the crony-capitalist companies. There would be no “chicken-hawk” constituency of voters who could have their bloodlust sated by forcing their hapless neighbors to pay taxes to support the spectacle of mass murder. Likewise, there would be no companies stepping up to make profits off of death because there wouldn’t be any profits with nobody willing to invest in such ventures, which would be unable to pass the smell test and simultaneously be unable to pay for themselves.   Now move to victimless crimes—which brings us closer to the situation here. There would be no “war on drugs” in a market society. What private individuals would want to pay the sky-high insurance company premium necessary to hire the “security guards” necessary to arrest a marijuana-smoking neighbor, pay the full incarceration cost of putting that neighbor in a cage, pay the full costs of hiring lawyers, court reporters, and of judges/arbitrators and prosecutors to actually identify a “harm” that would require payment of a penalty high enough to justify all of this drug-war activity? My guess is zero. People have better things to do with their money than to pay for all of these costs and pay for the risk-liability of cost of a counter-suit for false arrest. In a market society, harm would have to be proven. So you can see that there would be no prosecutions for drug-use. There’s simply no money in it. It would be a money pit. People would mind t heir own business. In our current society, the socialistic drug war—which redistributes the costs and benefits of drug taking to innocent bystanders—oodles of money and resources are wasted because nobody pays for their choices in prosecuting people for harms that exist only in their own minds. That’s why the armchair “drug-warriors” get away with it. They are not spending their own money as citizens or investing their own money—which can add up to huge losses—as companies that sell security, incarceration, and judicial services.   Now to the 17-year-old boy who is distributing electronic photos of his penis. What kind of parent would be willing to spend oodles of hard-earned money to purchase an insurance policy that would cover the high costs of investigating the electronic transmission of a penis photo? Of paying the secretaries to draw up the paperwork to prosecute such a crime? Of paying the costs for a team of police officers to safely arrest the boy without harming anyone else? Of incarcerating the boy until he goes to trial? Of paying the full costs of a lawyer to litigate against the boy or the boy’s parents for raising a child who makes such a silly decision? Of paying the full costs of hiring an arbitrator to judge the case? Of paying a repossession company to acquire any resources that may be seized in order to pay for damages? And that gets us to the bottom of this issue. What is the market-based cost—or “damage”—that can be assigned for mailing a penis picture? What is the cost of the “harm”? How would it be assessed? Can the “harm” be defined in a way that does not make us laugh or cry for stupidity? In other words, if I were the parent of the girl who was the target of this sex-ting, I would be questioning my own child-rearing skills. I would have a talk with my daughter to ask her why she was dating boys that were two years older than her. I may even visit the parents of the boy who sent the photo to ask them if they were aware of what their son were doing. All of these normal parental behaviors cost nothing. They are also sane and adult behaviors related to the reasonable upbringing of children. Childhood is about making good decisions and learning to make them—in other words, acquiring the skills needed to be a self-sustaining adult. In other words, childhood and childhood mistakes would not be criminalized as they are now. Insurance companies would not be stepping into this kind of situation hoping to make a profit out of them because there probably would be little or no profit to be made. After all, a true “harm” would have to be proven, a cost assigned, and all of the “acquisition costs” measured and taken into account. How many policies covering the litigation and incarceration required would be sold to a sane and thrifty parent? And since these costs could not be redistributed to non-parents, I suspect very few such policies would be purchased. In a market society, parents would actually be raising their own children—not sending them off to a school funded through taxes stolen from neighbors and into streets funded by other coercive means. They would actually know their children and be actively involved in their upbringing. They would be thrifty people who visit a neighbor whose boy does embarrassing things with camera photos. They would not be escalating the problems of adolescence into legal matters. Would they? They would have to prove harm? And what are the “harms” of childhood decision-making mistakes? And what are the costs?   So the answer to this question is this: in a libertarian market society, there probably would be no profit in litigating penis pictures. Would there be? It would not be a society in which “that which is not prohibited is mandatory.” It would be a society where people would pay the true costs of their behavior—including the real costs of social ostracism. Boys who become narcissistic exhibitionists would be seen for what they are—people in need of counseling.  A 15-year-old girl is probably at the same level of emotional maturity as a 17-year-old boy, but in a market society, this kind of “playing doctor” behavior would probably have taken place at the age of eight instead of being postponed—by the action of helicopter parenting—to the age of 15 or 17. Children would not become the infantilized adults that they are in our society—one in which people never really grow up to be responsible but are forever wards of the paternalistic/maternalistic nanny state. Children would be acquiring behavioral skills earlier in life—just as they would become literate earlier in life without government schools. I doubt if these “playing doctor” issues would be occurring in the same way as they do now. They would be occurring at the age of seven or eight, and people would be responding to them as childhood foibles—without police involvement. Growing up behaviors and mistakes would not be criminalized, would they? And people who were still exhibiting these behaviors at age 17 would be already be in counseling or would have grown out of this stage. There would be no legal remedies for vices without victims. Being offended by the sight of human flesh would not be considered a crime. It would be laughed out of court and seen as a developmental problem. And even then, would a developmentally retarded boy be a criminal or just a nuisance? Parents would not be able to pay for the police to bring up their children for them because a private policing company would not step into such a situation without good reason to think there was money to be made. And would there be? I doubt it.   To help inform one's thinking about these and similar issues, I cannot recommend too highly the wonderful book written by Morris and Linda Tannehill: Market for Liberty. It is one of my favorites. Here's a link: http://mises.org/document/6058/The-Market-for-Liberty  
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 19 weeks 20 hours ago Web link Westernerd
    It is perhaps a debate worthy of discussion: How DO anarchists propose we protect the rights of children in an anarchist society? The draconian laws we have at the moment clearly fail in their task - by driving things like kiddie porn underground, they are probably making it worse rather than better (in the same way that draconian anti-drug laws made the drug problem much worse). But what is the alternative? I'd be interested in hearing thoughts from other readers here.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 19 weeks 1 day ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Glock, I just published a follow-up essay at fff.org--i.e., more on Dante and the Seven Deadly Sins. Here's the link:   It is entitled “Libertarian Themes in the Seven Deadly Sins of Dante’s Divine Comedy” and published at fff.org.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 19 weeks 1 day ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    FOLLOW-UP TO THIS ESSAY NOW ONLINE As some readers are aware, I often try to identify historical events and documents that show a libertarian streak in them. In May 2013, I wrote an essay for STR entitled Dante’s Divine Comedy and the Divine Origins of the Free Market. In the blog comments that followed, I suggested that Dante’s ranking of the seven deadly sins—in particular, the sequence by which he distinguished less serious from more serious sins—reflected insights that we share as libertarians, regardless of our status as atheists, agnostics, or Christians. In an essay entitled “Libertarian Themes in the Seven Deadly Sins of Dante’s Divine Comedy” and published at fff.org, I fleshed out that suggestion; I showed how Dante and aspects of medieval Catholic theology had more in common with libertarian beliefs than the beliefs of many modern-day Christians, who have been infused with a puritanical—and even Manichaean—attitude about the natural world and its bounty and beauty. Indeed, the perceptions about the natural world shared by the theologian Thomas Aquinas and some of today’s libertarians may help explain why libertarianism resonates so deeply with Catholics, Jews, and other minorities—including Native Americans and members of the gay community.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 19 weeks 1 day ago Web link A. Magnus
    Yes, yes, of course, it's just common sense; the concept of a "just claim[1]" to a thing is just so old fashioned. Have you missed me, Paul? ;-) Hope all is well with you. _______________________________________________ [1] RIGHT, noun 5. Just claim... 6. Just claim... 7. Just claim... 8. That which justly belongs to one. 9. Property; interest. 10. Just claim... (Source: Webster's 1828 Dictionary) Right. ...In a narrower signification JUST and legal CLAIM to hold hold, use, or enjoy [an object of property] (Source: Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1324) [Emphasis added]
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 19 weeks 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    A fool and his money soon go separate ways, as the old bromide says. Here is an example although he does fess up to it.
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 19 weeks 3 days ago Web link Westernerd
    Hey, that's just the law defending the rights of innocent children. Pity the poor girl, only 15, and SHE's apparently not going to be, er, protected....
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 19 weeks 4 days ago
    Small Things
    Page Paul Hein
    To me it seems power is just as important as money. If it were only about money, these people with all their connections would simply be banksters and other sorts of speculators and traders of favors. But if you want to exercise power, love having people hanging on your pompous utterances, love sticking it to somebody, you need to be in government. Think of what they have to do to get into government, as opposed to getting into banking. They must become whores just to get a chance at it. No, it's not just the money. Of course for the cronies, it may well be. Someone selling Hummers or $500 toilet seats to government probably is not in it for the power, just the easy money.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 19 weeks 4 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    The time to look for it, if it happens, is when the other governments finally start dumping the dollar en masse. Just a guess...
  • factotum's picture
    factotum 19 weeks 4 days ago Page Douglas Herman
    "A bigger Operation Gladio? Don’t bet against it.": Well, you have been wrong so far. So, I will bet against it. Please give me some specifics. To wit: A time frame, and a magnitude --- how many years how many deaths. Please be specific. Soon, and a lot do not count as specific. Before 2020, and at least 5000. Do count. I will put up 1 oz of gold. And you will put up ??? What is that? --- you are puting up excuses and verbiage and drivel as to who you can not / will not bet? I am shocked!!!! Shocked I tell you :-) dpaladin at ix dot netcom dot com.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 19 weeks 5 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Fluff up--double post. Sorry!
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 19 weeks 5 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    Maybe Chicago and Emmanuel should try Facebook relations:)
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 19 weeks 5 days ago Web link Emmett Harris
    The DOD conducted a psy/op on FB, at AF's permission, on 600,000 FB subscribers. Wonder if this was one of the psy/op campaigns?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 19 weeks 5 days ago
    Small Things
    Page Paul Hein
    Beautiful piece with a delightful bouquet of analogies. Damned pleasurable read—not to mention the obviousness of the precise relationship to government, like the leggy orchestrated influx of disease riddled kids from below the boarder. Interesting how they were loosely prepared for the influx pre-arrival. Reminds me of when the U.S. provided small pox riddled blankets to the American Indians. Loved the piece Mr. Hein.
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 20 weeks 21 hours ago Page Douglas Herman
    Thanks Glen,    I saw that slogan all over Rio. Not until I returned did I research it. Yeah, the Smedley Butler shirt at Monticello got a lot of stares. Hard to argue with it though.    
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 20 weeks 23 hours ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    Jim:  This is (most expectedly) very well done!  I must ask:  Have you recontacted Meyers with a link to your essay?  And if so, has he this time responded?
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 20 weeks 2 days ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Kevin,    Damn fine writing skills you polished in the pen. Start submitting your stuff to book agents/ publishers and think up a good title.    I only spent 35 days in medium security but you are like STR's Shawshank correspondent. "Get busy living or get busy dying," said Red.   Write more about your stretch, about the details. Maybe, just MAYBE, you can sell the screen rights if/when you get out.   Good Luck. Doug
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 20 weeks 4 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Irresponsible motherfucker.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 20 weeks 4 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    Because I am passionate about my freedom, I can see that my passion will become nothing more than piss on once the LEA's begin to increase their assault on families by a tip that is not verified and getting a no-knock warrant to attack a home and abuse the people in the home before determining whether there is actually any involvement in a crime. You might be free, but are you at peace; you might be free, but are you receiving justice?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 20 weeks 4 days ago Blog entry Jim Davies
    In fact, I wonder if there might be a bus-opp here. B-stickers could be fashioned in a style that has the "look" of an authentic state license plate, so COPSLIE could be stuck on the bumper or some other part of the car's rear end and convey its accurate message - but the location would not be the one prescribed for the issued license plate (in the center, usually.)   Each state has a different style and color plan, so the production runs would be small and so the prices would be higher than usual. But nothing close to that $40, and the money would go somewhere worthwhile, instead of to the State Treasury.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 20 weeks 4 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    "Obama Pledges $500 Million For Syrian Rebels...Meanwhile In Detroit..." I don't think it is a good idea to make such connections (similar to "millions for prisons, meanwhile our schools go begging"). Tax money for Syrian rebels is bad, period. City governments are bad, period. And the notion that access to water is a right? That's why I think "rights" are no longer a useful concept.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 20 weeks 4 days ago
    Logical Fallacies?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    It's not surprising my point was not particularly obvious in this article, since I too have trouble seeing it! I'm just hoping people understand the concept of logical fallacies along with some necessary skepticism, rather with just faith. It's similar to my concern about "rights". There is no tool or meme, that cannot be turned around by the ruling class and used against us.
  • Serenity's picture
    Serenity 20 weeks 5 days ago Web link Serenity
    well said...brilliant!
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 20 weeks 5 days ago
    Logical Fallacies?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    In thinking about your essay and rereading it this morning, I see my comment of yesterday rather missed your main thrust: that truths that are intrinsic but contradictory to particular interests are often turned around to appear fallacious. And this can be done through various "lists of fallacies" such as Downes' and other similar web publishers. Memes abound by showing basic truths to appear as examples of fallacies. Along the same line of thought John Hasnas (<== pdf) has this to say about "Anarchy": Anarchy refers to a society without a central political authority. But it is also used to refer to disorder or chaos. This constitutes a textbook example of Orwellian newspeak in which assigning the same name to two different concepts effectively narrows the range of thought. For if lack of government is identified with the lack of order, no one will ask whether lack of government actually results in a lack of order. And this uninquisitive mental attitude is absolutely essential to the case for the state. For if people were ever to seriously question whether government is really productive of order, popular support for government would almost instantly collapse. Using the "fallacy" tactic it is not that difficult to identify anarchy as fallacious by those with an appetite for monopoly rulership -- and sycophants thereto, including virtually all media and probably 95% of the unwashed masses. Those of us in what is commonly called "the liberty movement" ('though I avoid "movements") should probably stay mindful of this gambit -- show it for what it is, but refrain from engaging in it ourselves. It's dishonest, phony to the core, and the subtle means by which liberty seekers are dissuaded from becoming truly free. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 20 weeks 5 days ago
    Logical Fallacies?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    "...people act in their own interest (self-interest!). I think this is a biological, evolutionary, primitive fact that has attached itself to human beings from the very beginning, and to escape the idea that we all operate out of self-interest I believe would leave us with a freak fallacy of its own. Self-interest, from my perspective, pertains fundamentally to self-survival, the self protecting its "self" from embarrassment; to covering up wrong deeds and etc. I do not see how any human being could possibly escape the act of protecting their "self", other than socio-psychopathic individuals, yet these individuals also act out of self interest. I look a Harry Reid, democrat. The man is a walking, talking, breathing fallacy and he does it all out of his personal self-interest. Interesting points Sam.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 20 weeks 5 days ago Web link Serenity
    This is the beautiful argument I have refer'ed to several times here wherein "Man is not necessarily a rational animal, but an imaginative one, he believes that man as a rational animal is a mistake, and that an imaginative one is a more powerful force. I believe getting tied down to logic, and rationality becomes a millstone about ones neck and can drag one into depth of undesired consequences. I believe a broad minded person would embrace the imaginative aspect more wholly. In my time on STR I have noted several writers and comments made are from people who have imagined as well as having applied a bit of logic and rational consideration to their statements. I also have noted some to appear to have the millstone draped about their ideas. This and many other articles was recently published in a collection of essays a few years back. Since having moved and not completely unpacked I cannot provide the publication date of the book. When I procured it, the book was well worth the small investment made. I felt Hasnas was quiet thorough--but then who am I to speak since my debate skills and knowledge regarding these issues are primitive. I am fondly bound to the "KISS" concept.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 20 weeks 6 days ago
    Logical Fallacies?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Good food for thought, Paul. "...Eighty percent of the human world is self-serving bullshit..." Fortunately, you and I are firmly ensconced in the other twenty percent -- right? (ha ha ha) Altruistic, humanitarian, philanthropic, etc etc. Most of us who write and/or comment do so out of an element of self-interest. I have to feel that there is some pay-off for me by creating in your mind certain impressions you have about me through your reading of things that I write -- else I would spend my time away from STR and the stirring of minds in which we engage through libertarian discussion. One of the most important facts in the human world is that people act in their own interest. This overpowers almost everything else. How true. And it's important to keep foremost in our minds the fact that those psychopaths -- often referred to with the acronym TPTB ("the powers that be") -- who claim to have "jurisdiction", understand that quite clearly. Which is why general, overriding fallacies are so pervasive all around us. They have been engendered and accelerated and inculcated into the minds of the hoi polloi since the rising of the rulers and the khans -- the progenitors of the empire to which we are hoping to see an end. Delmar England phrased it thus: The prevailing (global) philosophy is saturated with popular fallacies so large in scope, so varied in surface type, so nearly universally accepted, they emotionally appear as unquestionable truth, as absolutes without alternative and not to be questioned. This is the atmosphere into which you were born and now live. An example of "logical fallacy" is pointed up in your assessment of Downe's "Slippery Slope": the issue isn't the legitimacy of automatic weapons at all -- the issue is the legitimacy of "law". Mark Davis posted a good article a couple days ago pertaining to the "lifeboat" argument/fallacy. Mark summed up: Enlightenment is thus forsaken in the quest to avoid an admission that quaint emotional attachments overrule their reasoning capabilities. I admire both of you for urging us to see through the detritus to get to the meat. Sam
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 20 weeks 6 days ago
    Logical Fallacies?
    Page Paul Bonneau
    Read Tarabay's diatribe regarding guns. Though not relevant to fallacies, oops, just maybe the whole article was a fallacy. The author in the article jabbers about assault weapons, I have not figured out exactly what an "assault weapon" is. My understanding is that such and animal does not exist, but is a term confabulated by someone. The issue all rests on appearance. O-o-o-o-o. scary black gun. One point was true however, generally you only get one shot at an animal. If you are lucky you get a second because sometimes the animal has just not registered what has happened. Me. I want to have and shoot whatever I desire. Another thing which was entirely missed in the article is that many hunters purchase a long rifle for more than just hunting, especially today. It seems to me that Paul has made an perceptive association regarding fallacies, which makes me ask the question, could not freedom also be a fallacy? Thanks for the article Paul. It helps neophytes like myself in this realm.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 21 weeks 9 hours ago Page Mark Davis
    Good observations, Mark. Our entire lives have seemingly been consumed in pointing to the necessity for monopoly "care" (read: violence) inculcated into our brains since we were babies. I can understand many not liking David Icke, but in this instance he is dead on with his animation of The Hegelian Dialectic. The political holiday coming up this week serves as a classic example: keep the dumb serfs barbecuing and drinking beer and hooting and hollering and setting off firecrackers! Few of them will spend much time analyzing what the psychopaths making the speeches claim it's supposed to all mean, but that's not important. Just keep 'em in tune with the idea that monopoly state serves a socially useful purpose, and that wars are necessary to keep everybody "safe". Support them troops, fer sure fer sure -- but be thankful you live in a free country. ("Free country", incidentally, is about as oxymoronish as it gets). Sam
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 21 weeks 23 hours ago Page Douglas Herman
    Great column, Douglas!  Also, I loved the Ten Years After lyric -- "I'd Love to Change the World" is the only track they ever did that I really liked, despite the Marxist portion of the song's lyrics, and it's been a favorite since I first heard it. The song evokes a lot of feeling; it also has some of the best guitar work out there. But the SLOGAN you highlight -- Kindness Generates Kindness -- and the attitude behind that slogan, is the important thing. Makes sense that there would be a Brazillian saying like that, given the warmth of their culture relative to ours. It is especially critical that kindness characterize our early lives; children born into an infancy and childhood of kindness, love, and compassion don't NEED slogans to remind them (much less to teach them, as a new idea) that kindness is important. Children hurt badly enough early on can't really hear the slogan, no matter how many times they encounter it. I would love to see more focus and stronger emphasis on the "love" aspect of love and freedom. Love is the yin to freedom's yang, and you're among the minority of those who write in support of freedom who consistently shows that truth in your work.    PS -- I just clicked your photo and saw the full-size image for the first time, with the quote from Smedley Butler. Awesome! u
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 21 weeks 1 day ago Web link strike
    With current laws, all over the western world, it is madness to employ anyone, and those who have no choice have my sympathy. In this particular case, hopefully the family has learned something about the value of raising your kids by yourself...
  • eugenedw's picture
    eugenedw 21 weeks 1 day ago
    Elena Shumilova
    Web link strike
    Lovely photos!
  • Douglas Herman's picture
    Douglas Herman 21 weeks 2 days ago Page Mark Davis
        I skipped this summer, Mark. But next summer I intend to buy a rad detector and test fish we catch there in Alaska. I'm also the cook on the boat.   I wrote this for a fishing mag last year. Good skipper, bad skipper