Recent comments

  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 21 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Glock: The only reason that the Fox network appears slightly palatable today is that the Republicans are no longer in office. Don't forget that the liberal Air America was much more tolerable during the Bush administration. Once the Republicans win again, Fox network and its various friends will once again be totally unlistenable warmongers and big government advocates once again. As an example one afternoon talk show host on Air America in 2008 was featuring Ron Paul speeches for 3 hours straight. She was booted off of the air by Air America because she called Hillary Clinton a bitch and whore, which shows that it does not pay to tell the truth.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 21 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Lawarence: 1) I don't believe you are skeptical--I think history and current events have proven that The videos having a powerful, professional presentation, much like the commercials we have on the flat screen. Slickifying the media helps sell what most Americans are use to and nothing is lost from crude presentation. Besides the national media has been on the [o]bama side from the beginning. Free press is a joke. The U.S. Media is not in a straight jacketed. If you have debased yourself long enough you notice they leave out piles of information and press their own agenda's. I don't know if FOX is telling the truth but they seem to be doing something causing the Major Media Outlets and other Communist, psychopathic, socialist is trying to break them and get them off the air. I wait for Americans to hate the Federal Government for starving us, depleating our supplies, bowing to other nations. No Lawrence I think you are right on. Maybe you don't give yourself enough for your analytical ability
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 21 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Hi, Jim: Like you, I really hope it is a genuine bid for freedom, but I doubt it for several reasons. Maybe I'm just to skeptical, but here is my thinking:   1. That video is too polished, the girl too lovely, the timing too perfect (even though any good advertiser would do the same). I think it is an attempt at information dominance by the powers-that-be.   2. In the straightjacket of US media, there have been no broadcasts aired showing the anti-protester protests by the Russian population. There have been numerous anti-protester demonstrations in favor of the elected government, but they are carefully ignored in Europe and in the USSA. They, too, have a camp near the square.   3. The fact is that the Ukrainians rightfully despise the Russian regimes, if for no other reason than the very good one you just mentioned--the engineered Ukrainian famine that killed them by the millions. Meanwhile, many ethnic Russians "settled" there under various Soviet policy "incentives," and their descendants remain and cannot be blamed since they were not born yet -- primarily in eastern Ukraine. But this mutual conflict seems more tribal than a bid for freedom--my tribe vs. your tribe. Even worse, it may be my collectivist tribe vs. your collectivist tribe.   4. Let's not forget that agreements backed by the USSA and EU are in the nature of a bailout, and they come with long and fetid "strings" attached -- namely mandates to purchase weapons systems from US and EU manufacturers for the military-industrial-congressional complex. Mandated arms sales are part and parcel of these economic arrangements. This is an attempt to bring NATO to the doors of Moscow. It is a continuation of the Cold War under another set of cross-dressing apparel. Look what happened to Poland. After decades of coercion by both Nazis and Soviets (and despite their history as the most tolerant society in Europe for hundreds of years, allowing [comparatively] unmatched freedom and non-persecution of Jews, 80% of whose world population lived in Poland at some time or another), they knuckled under completely to a new dark master: the death-bringing USSA and the vampire Uncle Sam-Dracul. It should not surprise us that Poland is now the site of US kidnap-rendition-and-torture centers worthy of Egypt and Jordan. They have been suborned and corrupted by the promises of bullies. And you won't get a straight story from an immigrant living in the USSA. Most immigrants adopt a bizarre nationalism once they arrive here and want nothing but US warmaking aginst the people they left behind. Look at the native Chaldean population here -- nearly all of them neocons to a man and woman, or at least they were in San Diego. Once the USSA gets its claws into Ukraine, I foresee much of the same thing--a suborning of otherwise wonderful people to the new bully on the block. I wouldn't be surprised if their food becomes adulterated as well -- with GMO potato bread and kasha varnishkes that can be converted into a polyester shirt circa 1973.     I can only hope that a massive wave of indigestion hits the US government before it can gobble up yet another tortured people. As former UN weapons inspector and Marine, Scott Ritter, once said: "All empires die of the same thing: indigestion." I just don't want to be around for the flatulence. The air promises to be unbreatheable.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 21 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Update: there's a Daily Coin video out, at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkGYl4rPgaA which is well worth watching, even though less polished than the clip whose link I gave. Recorded last Friday. It's an interview with a libertarian Ukrainian American called Roman, now living in Lviv, who has recently been with the Maidan protesters. It's an on-the-ground report. He confirms that FedGov agents are rather blatantly trying to influence them, but that the core motivation is home-grown and genuine. At the end he calls it a struggle between the government and the population. He has a lot to say... great stories of prosecutor's offices being raided and all the files being burned on the street. One fact I'd quite forgotten is that Ukraine continued fighting the Soviets for ten years following WW-II. For good reason (nine million of them were starved to death by Stalin) there is a powerful anti-Russian sentiment.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 21 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Thanks, & I will watch the video afterwards. I can't during the day because I'm working. But yes I really do appreciate the idea that governments are finally imploding. It's about time. They have reached the natural elastic limit of their overreach and piggishness, haven't they?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 21 weeks 3 days ago
    Trade Unions
    Page Jim Davies
    Thanks T-Bolt, and thank you ReverendDraco for that moving confirmation of my point. The only puzzle is that despite being in holy orders, your collar is blue.   Always, I'd supposed that such are not only white, but fully encircling of the neck and hence very visibly white...
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 21 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Lawrence, you could be right; and Ms Nuland's uncouth remarks certainly indicate that Hillary's Department is trying to pull the puppet strings.   Also, the heavy weight of Leftist opinion is just as you say.   You watched the referenced video clip I hope, and that strongly suggests that to the contrary, it's a home-grown grass-roots movement. Either way, perhaps you'll agree with my point about government vulnerability.   In any case, my paragraph beginning "Because of the lack..." acknowledges that the revolution may fail, or be diverted; and says why. Let's hope not.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 21 weeks 3 days ago Page Jim Davies
    Hi, Jim. I like your view on many of these things, but what do you think about McAdams and his take on the Ukraine: http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/february/06/... You probably know that Justin Raimondo believes that the Kiev episodes are just another case of a US-sponsored coup d'etat: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2014/02/23/coup-in-kiev/
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 21 weeks 3 days ago
    Trade Unions
    Page Jim Davies
    "It will also equip him with on-the-job experience, a.k.a. training; very soon he will no longer be unskilled, but skilled; able to negotiate a better pay rate, with his current employer or another." As a young man, I did the whole minimum wage, washing dishes/working in fast food gig. . . and frakking hated it. In the 8 years (ages 16-24) I spent working for MW, I was unemployed, broke, and homeless as often as not - because I hated it so much. I finally got out of the MW ratrace by. . . learning more marketable and valuable skills. I am now almost 50, and haven't worked for minimum wage in 25 years. . . It's kind of amazing, the number of pro-parasite/pro-MW zombies who have come down on me for telling my story - for trying to show people that it truly is possible to get a raise without using government guns. My wife earns nearly twice what I do (she's more akin to a white-collar worker, whereas I'm more blue-collar), and has never belonged to a union in her life.
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 21 weeks 4 days ago
    Trade Unions
    Page Jim Davies
    I remember reading that more than fifty thousand manufacturing companies have moved offshore. Certainly the unions played a major role. The Hitler quote is striking.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 21 weeks 6 days ago
    Ukraine
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    So ends a fantastic week! - the protesters have got pretty well all they demanded. It now remains to be seen whether they will be sold down-river, and whether US/EU influence within their movement will twist the revolution into a shape they never wanted. It also remains to be seen whether Putin of Russia will intervene to protect his back yard.   I know of no in-depth libertarian education that has been done in preparation for this change, so it is wide open to those dangers. They have dispatched one tyrant, who slunk out of the capital, tail between legs (joke of the day: "Chicken Kiev") but the institutions of government still remain so another could take his place.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 21 weeks 6 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    A Classical Liberal of the finest kind. HK is the next best thing to a ZGS. Well found, Bradley.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 10 hours ago
    A Minor Office
    Page Paul Hein
    Celebraty is all he is at this time given the polls he is holding the wroset in history. Worse than Jimmy the bean Carter. I would wager that Carter is so elated that the black man has destroyed the honor of the Presendency of the united states. i still contend he intends to make the best of a worst situation that will given him another term as president and I believe it will come under his revised "possee Comitus atc he recently re-wrote giving the military LEO powers never had beforel
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 22 weeks 16 hours ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    ...or Vermont, better still.  Then buy your guns & ammo in NH to avoid sales tax.  :-)
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 21 hours ago
    A Minor Office
    Page Paul Hein
    AMEN. Paul. This was human growth, despite the majoriy of leaders at the signing were religious individuals they may have seen a way way to benefit from the document, then of course many of the famous farmers were elitist as well. I doubt that there were any common people invited to the convension. If they were could they have made a contribution. Those who wish for power will always devise a plan to obtain it and to gain more over time.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 1 day ago Web link A. Magnus
    A good find, A Magnus! Paul Craig Roberts has done some good work. I recall his outstanding portrait of govenment health care in the waning years of the USSR, for example.   In this piece however he competely fails to follow his own logic. Near the start he correctly writes "This [free-market] theory doesn’t work when the US government socializes cost and privatizes profits" but doesn't stop right there and observe that when government does that, no free market is operating. Any and all bad consequences result therefore not from a free market but from the absence of a free market.   The obvious answer is to dispense with government so that a free market can operate; but Roberts is a conservative, not an anarchist, so he won't let himself propose that.   Will a free society handle the problem of robots replacing human labor? - of course. The replacement or enhancement of labor by tools has been going on since our Race first evolved, and the result has been by far the most successful species on Earth.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 1 day ago
    Ukraine
    Blog entry Jim Davies
    This view that the protesters are not much interested in the EU but just opposed to the Ukraine government is supported by a string of posts made to the Guardian forum on January 23rd by one Iryna Riasnianska - you can read them here. One sample:   WE DO NOT FIGHT FOR EUROPE,WE FIGHT AGAINS YANUKOVICH.   She hasn't posted since. I hope she's still alive.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 22 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    It's weird to see Paul Craig Roberts sounding like a communist. It's also strange to see him describing what we have now as a free market.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 22 weeks 2 days ago
    A Minor Office
    Page Paul Hein
    The Constitution is just a fig leaf that covers up what really goes on. There may have been a time when the rulers considered it otherwise - perhaps as an actual restraint. But that period surely did not last long. The end of the Federalist Party after the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts might be the only example where the Constitution worked as advertised, but the rulers in question simply moved on to other parties or created new ones.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 22 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I have read various descriptions of non-state courts and arbitrations as well. Who knows what the things would actually look like. But even in arbitrations you are talking about making a case to others - the arbitrators. Again my perception is that the case is easier to make if the victim is not careless.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 22 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Sorry, in my example I did not explicitly say that the seller responded negatively to the question, "Do you know of any problem with it?" But that's what I had in mind. Your description of fraud boils down to a theft accomplished through lying, ignoring any contribution of gullibility. The bulk of my point remains, though. Even if the guy lied, that does not relieve one of the responsibility to take care. Particularly in such a case where the lie would be very hard to prove, and where lying about the condition of a vehicle is known to be rampant. Third party observers would have less sympathy for you than with a direct theft. "Walking down a dark alley in an area known for muggings is just plain stupid, but being reckless with your personal safety doesn't change the mugging into a non-criminal act." In Libertopia people will still be expected to take reasonable care. If they are careless they will surely recover less than if they were careful. I don't think there will be much sympathy for the notion that people deserve to be made whole no matter how much their own actions enabled the crime. Perhaps I am misreading people, but I believe that is the way it will go.
  • John deLaubenfels's picture
    John deLaubenfels 22 weeks 2 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    That "Wipe You Off The Map" supposed quote is a mis-translation.  Of course, that hasn't prevented pro-Israel fanatics from trumpeting it endlessly.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 2 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    No problem, Mike, with a woman killing someone "in the heat of" raping her, if she can. Even though it's overkill (literally) it's justified self-defense because she can reasonably assume that after having had his way, he will kill her to silence her.   But "I have no issue, morally, with a woman killing her rapist... months or years later" goes well beyond self-defense. That's retaliatory murder; revenge, not justice. It seems very clear to me that it stands well outside the libertarian moral standard of non-aggression. Should the rapist's family file suit against her and I was part of the court, I would find her liable for damages - and if she should refuse to pay, that fact would be published. So few would then trust her as to make life intolerably difficult.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 2 days ago
    A Minor Office
    Page Paul Hein
    Super piece, Paul. Should be required reading in every civics class.   Is the FedGov "legitimate"? - no way! - but would it be legitimate even if all of it strictly observed all the limitations fixed by the charter that created it?  I don't think so.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 22 weeks 2 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    That is an interesting question, Jim. In 1998 I'd have likely answered much as you did (though likely without the non-aggression basis-I really did not know much about that back then.)   Today, I have a much different view. One that is a bit more complex, but to me more satisfying.   First, I would point out that retaliation is not aggression: it is not an initiation of force, it is, by definition, a response to force. So I don't think that there is a moral issue with retaliation: I have no issue, morally, with a woman killing her rapist-immediatly afterwords, or months or years later. Or her husband, or brother, or sister for that matter. That doesn't mean it would be always advisable. This is where the necessity of retaliation comes into play, and why it can be such a powerful means to reduce violence in a society. It does not rely on amorphous morality to moderate actions, it relies on something much more basic: self-preservation.   In the case of rape, why would'nt a woman kill her rapist now, in today's world? I submit that it is not out of moral scruples, but rather because of the dire consequences of such an act. The state, in effect, becomes the rapists "protector" and will exact a terrible vengence should she execute her rapist. She has no force to counter the state at all, its capacity for violence is overwhelming-when they come for her, it is simple suicide to fight back.   This is why the state's ban on retaliation is so insideous-it protects the violent and permits them to act with impunity with only predictable risk.   Now, if she truly were able to recover her faculties and shoot the man while still "in the heat of the moment" I daresay few juries would convict her-but even so, the case itself would no doubt ruin her. So the rapist lives another day, perhaps he is "punished" by the "system", and perhaps not. But he knows, and knew before the rape that the response to his aggression would be both predictable and survivable. He would not be castrated, he would not be himself violated(except perhaps in prison), he would not starve. At worst, he would spend a number of years in prison-only if caught and proven guilty....there is a good possibility that nothing will happen at all, but he knows what will not happen.    Now, let's imagine that overwhelming force of the state is removed. Suddenly there is no "system", there is no cushy predictability in the response to aggression. The rapist has no Earhly clue what will happen in the aftermath of the rape. Nothing might happen. Or he might be killed outright immediately afterword, or he might live minus a few interesting parts of his anatomy, which likely tasted odd...   Not only does he have to worry about the response, but he faces the problem of finding a woman vulnerable to rape in the first place. Without the false security of the state's overwhelming force, people would-as they once did not so very long ago-be preoccupied with generating true security for themselves. Families would be tighter, better armed, and larger with networks of friends that exist not simply to provide a social outlet, but to stand with the group in times of trouble and add to its ability to bring force as needed. So, the rapist would not simply be attacking an individual, but a large and powerful group. A group whose purpose is to protect its members from aggression-part of the way they do that is simply stength in numbers-providing a strong defense. But another part, a crucial part, is to respond to acts of aggression.   In this situation, an attack upon another group is a very serious matter for the attacker. Violence threatens the entire group, and an individual actor risks being cast from thier protective group. In the case of the rapist, he would be left at the hands of his victim, and her entire family who would face no consequences whatsoever for anything that they might do to him. Anything. At. All.   The woman, though, is in much the same boat. Since any sort of confrontation and violence puts the group at risk, there would be a poweful impetus for individuals to not allow themselves to be vulnerable to attack, AND to be very careful in thier response to such an attack. In the case of rape with no witnesses or other evidence, a woman would have to be very careful in her response-she would want to know that her protectors were behind her first, and convinced that the rape took place. Otherwise she faces the same unpredictability as the rapist. Will she shoot her rapist? Maybe, but it is a very risky proposition. A calculating woman might even commit true murder in this way, by falsly claiming rape....and perhaps get away with it. She better not try it twice. Indeed, even self-defense is risky, therefore it is far better to avoid situations where it might be needed.   In the end, what results is a society that, without any centralized authority or overwhelming force, maintains stability and internal peace in part because of the very real threat of retaliation. People have a very serious responsibility to protect themselves, and any sort of violence is incredibly dangerous....not just for the aggressor, but for everyone.   Anthropolgists have a term for this sort of society, "Peace in the Feud", and it is a system that tends to develop anywhere government is not present, or ineffectual. Large parts of rural Africa (not just Somalia) live this way today-and it is remarkably similar to quasi-anarchic and anarchic historical societies in Europe and elsewhere. This is despite wild variation in other customs and morality.   It winds up superficially very similar to many libertarian models-Rothbard's especially-but for very different reasons. To me it is what freedom looks like. There is no need for a program to get from here to there, it will happen on its own when the current power structure falls apart and is not replaced by another-as it will, eventually.   So, that's how I would answer: morally, blow his brains out, but, practically, be reserved.   Anyway, there be my thoughts. As I wrote, an interesting topic.   Mike
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 2 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    T-bolt, I think LeFevre's point about violence being wrong even in defense comes into play after sufficient force has been used to deter the attack. Anything more is surplus; the defender becomes the aggressor. Granted, in a "hot" situation the defender cannot quickly tell how much force is needed so will be fully justified in overdoing it a bit for safety, but from what you say this is not a hot spot, but a coolly-calculated plan. So I do see a moral problem.   Add to that the question of whether the "dark web" is safe. Apparently so; but that's what Ross Ulbricht of the Silk Road thought. If the enemy hires enough hackers, they may be able to bust it.   And to top it off, does our friend Sanjuro maintain that his plan will actually reduce the State to zero? - or merely make it smaller and more respectful? Unless he does, I favor the TOLFA way. Nobody gets killed, nobody even breaks a sweat, and government vanishes 100%.    
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 2 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    A bit more on retaliation: I've heard it's something practised by small children and great states.   This is hornbook stuff, Mike. On the first page of his magnificent "I Must Speak Out", for example, Carl Watner writes of the roots of libertarian thought as including "personal integrity, honesty, productive work, fulfilment of one's promises and the practice of non-retaliation."   In 1998 I somehow got caught up in a e-discussion among Conservative Republicans, and wrote up this account of it for the local paper. Had you been involved, what view might you have expressed, and why?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 22 weeks 3 days ago Page Scarmig
    Glock27, the 'rancher' [government] isn't obligated to feed 'cattle' [citizens] that he doesn't own, that don't have his chattel 'number' stapled in their ear. ;-)
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 22 weeks 3 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    Lysander Spooner argued that one should treat the armed tax collector as he would any other armed bandit. Jim Bell thought to take advantage of the new internet's anonymity to promote elimination of state actors via a for-profit system he called Assassination Politics. His idea was to make it too dangerous to be an employee of any government, presuming that the plaintiff had been molested immorally by taxation, and by extension, that each employee is, by definition, directly a member of the armed bandit gang. Someone called Sanjuro in the dark web has implemented his idea recently, using a crowd-funding strategy. Assuming that this strategy might be effective in making people afraid to join this gang of marauders, is it immoral? Opinions, please. Nice article, Jim.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 3 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    mhsthl: I think your point is well taken, but people will be people. As human beings they are subject to many things and this I see as a problem, man is equivocates, even under the most well intention'ed reason man can flip on a dime--there are always two sides to a coin and who can truely say which side is the right side. When a man flips on a time did he do so for the correct reasons or were they the wrong reasons, only the cause and effect will determine this, while in come cases one side of the coin is always determined to be the right reason and the government seems to be controlling the coin
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for your kindly reply mhstahl. I deeply appreciate that. Your response tells me I am getting a little better at explaining myself, or at least I think I am. I recognize there is and will be no clean solution, but there is a solution and I believe that solution is involvement in more than words. I keep thinking that now has to be the messiest time in history, but I seriously doubt that it is. I am trying to get my truck back so I can build a sign regarding government fraud, corruption, coercion, violence against its people, but the hell of it is, is that I believe most everyone really knows this, they just don't know how to make the change. Action is more powerful than words and I am trying to convert my words into an action of some type. Again. Thanks for your kindness.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 3 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    Actually, Mike, I'd put it the other way round - for myself. I'm in warm and extensive agreement with both Rothbard and LeFevre. Without the brilliant insights of the former especially, I can't imagine how I could have got my head reasonably straight.   Occasionally they fell short as I perceive it, so I say so. That's all.   On retaliation etc, I have no hope of justice until government evaporates. After then, see my Justice.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 22 weeks 3 days ago
    Rothbard vs. LeFevre
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim,   Interesting article. It seems we are both in disagreement with both Rothbard and LeFevre, for different reasons. Perhaps a deeper conversation would be productive?   Just curious, without retaliation-or the threat of or risk of retaliation-what exists to compel restitution?   And, who's going to stop retaliation?   Seems to me that retaliation a virtual necessity, both pratically and morally-it exists in every non-religious non-governmental society that I'm aware of, which means that to envision a society without it one needs to not only expect people to live other than they do now, but also other than they ever have. The only exception I can think of would be very limited religious societies of pacifists such as the Amish...but they are not libertarian, and I'm, at least, not a pacifist. The Amish even retaliate at times, after a fashion.   I really do not think there is a compelling reason to re-invent the wheel here, and good grounds to let society organize with a balance of power as it generally does once we remove government from the equasion. Particularly when one asks, "who shall decide?"   For instance, while you can try to rely upon "shunning"-who really has the authority to decree such a thing? And even then, why should everyone else be caught up in a dispute between two people? Would it be my responsibility to determine just who is "shunned" before I do business with them? How would I, and, honestly, why would I care? Am I to be shunned as well, then? For what, defiance? Of whom? Why must I forgo potential profit because of someone elses' dispute to which I'm not a party? Sounds like none of my business, frankly. Or do I "owe" something to society? Perhaps I misunderstand your "punishment" article?   Nevermind that shunning is itself a "punishment" that by its very nature precludes the possibility of restitution.   Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that one of the more insidious acts the state does is punish retaliation.   Best,   Mike
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 22 weeks 4 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Glock,   I don't think that you will find the clarity that you want, or the "clean solution."   Instead of thinking of catchphrases like "non-aggression" as true exact definitions, perhaps it would help to look at them as general classifications, with mutiple, and varied, sub-catagories-some of which might be strongly opposed to one another...but you likely won't find a discussion about, say, "dog breeding." It's the specific arguements that have meaning, not the general catagory. As in a library: first, non-fiction, then philosophy, then non-aggression, and finally something substantive and specific to be considered and discussed.   As far as a "clean" solution, it seems to me that freedom is messy, and that it has to be messy in order to be freedom-so there is no one clean solution.   I hope that helps.   Best,   Mike
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    You know they are gearing up for mass civil unrest. Look around you and see all the gradual bits of destruction ocuring now. Talking about this sh-t will do nothing. Personal, independent actions need to be ocuring and I am revering to a non-violent, non-aggressive means which are available.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 5 days ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Where do these fuqing brain bombs come from? Why is it that no one, regarding issues of this nature and similar, never look to the future to see what its actual impact may really be? Or do they even care?
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 5 days ago Web link mhstahl
    This is only a beginning in a long string of experimental legalized murder of American citizens. The more LEO's get away with this kind of behavior they are priming up to becoming the tyrannical power to keep the community under control
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 22 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I would like to say this is "Much ado about nothing" but the tragedy of this play is that it is clearly a serious issue. Clearly, concise defined terms are deadly serious. Everyone here can define terms on their own grounds, but do the actually apply to anyone else in the program. I cannot see how clean solutions can ever arrive out of messy terms. Who shall be responsible in clarifying the essential terms, or who's set of terms will be used?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 22 weeks 6 days ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    Makes me proud of my Welsh ancestry.   But, wow! Get fingerprinted, or don't eat! - that's the next step.   Melody got her principles from Mom. Good for Mom. Had Mom been just a little more aware of the situation, she might have home-schooled her daughter. Or is that verboten in the UK?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 23 weeks 18 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Much relieved, Mike, that my status in your eyes is higher than I feared.   Each to his own when presenting our view, of course. I generally like to start with the SOA from which the NAP, ZAP, GR etc are in any case derived. The SOA is undeniable, and it places people where I'd like them to be: acknowledging that nobody else has any business running their lives.   Then if we get on to property it's a simple step, as above, labor being inextricably bound up with the person.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 23 weeks 20 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul,   Who is "they", and why would "they" care?   I don't know about you, but I'm not a fan of "they"'s deciding what "I" get to do...   Non-governmental courts have, can, and do exist, BUT their function is radically different than that of state run courts. The power structure is turned on its head-the "judge" has no power to compel or bring force to bear, force rests with the parties....otherwise, "they" are a "government." From what I've read of these sorts of courts historically and anthropologically they wind up analogous to arbitration, or diplomacy between nations. Both sides must agree to both the court AND the decision or it goes away. It's a negotiation entered into in order to forstall violence not to find "justice." If the negotiation fails, there will be blood-which nobody in these sorts of societies wants-because there is no protection from escalation. This actually brings up another point-retaliation. Is retaliation justified? I think it is, and is also crucial..I know Walter Block at least agrees with retaliation. I don't know if you do?   Of course, before there can be a negotiation or retaliation, there is the practical problem of figuring out who took your shit? Thieves are difficult for the state to catch with an army of occupation and virtually unlimited resources, they would doubtless be often impossible to identify for an individual (unless caught in the act)...which makes the issue moot from a practical standpoint. It also reinforces the essential duty to protect your shit (and your ass) if you wish to keep it.   Your "property" article is one of your best, along with this one.  I've read it several times.   Best,   Mike
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 23 weeks 21 hours ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Now, Jim, I never called you a scoundrel....at least not in this thread...;) My point was about how this appears to someone unfamiliar to the philosophy. In the case of NAP, I think that it is an oversimplification, NOT a true attempt to mislead. Simplifications are fine, so long as everyone is on the same page, but the fact is most people have less than a clue what "Nap" means at all, and if you explain your philosophy starting simply with, " I believe in 'non-aggression'" invariably any deeper discussion will require intense qualification and explanation that ultimately results in "I believe in strict property rights and no government." Why not just say that in the first place? Especially, since that is only one of several interpretations of "non-aggression?"   Even if the argument flows logically, that's a hell of a step to take. And it requires an acceptance of far more assumptions than does simple "non-aggression." Why put people's radar up? That's the only point I was making, and it's a practical one rather than a philosophical.   As an example; Noam Chomsky also believes in "non-aggression" yet his views are are diametrically opposed to yours on matters like "property"...doesn't that present needless confusion to the newcomer? Especially when he and others of his ilk consider the "an-cap" definition of "non-aggression" as "property rights" as  truly a "bait and switch" and are both earnest and noisy about it? Why play into their hands? Isn't it a cleaner arguement to point out the inherent violence of the state and it's pointlessness?   So, while you may indeed be a scoundrel...it's not because of this. :)   Best,   Mike
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 23 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I'll add that your A and B examples not being cases of fraud (and thus relevant why?) reminds me of a common anti-market strategy that I recently saw called out in a brilliant way (I don't remember by who). Frequently when anti-market (i.e., pro-state) people attack the market, the historical examples they provide, or the hypothetical scare-scenarios they imagine are actually descriptions of non-market actions, usually by states. This brilliant person's rebuttal in one of these cases was "so you're telling me the problem with the market, is not the market?"
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 1 day ago Web link Bradley Keyes
    This effort in the field of economics is like trying to re-establish that the world is flat. Or that apocryphal story where the Texas (or some other) legislature mandated that pi be equal to 3. One has to laugh...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    This is actually going farther than I did in the article; I wrote fraud out of aggression, but you are writing all theft out of it. Interesting points, but possibly "a bridge too far". :-) One needn't have government to be able to deal with theft. Informal non-state court cases will handle it. My guess is that they will come down somewhere in the middle: if they think you took reasonable measures to protect your stuff, and that it really was legitimately yours (e.g. you earned it) they may take action against the thief; if they don't think that, they may say to you, "Tough shit!" or "If you want it back, go get it yourself." "How is it that one can make a claim to something that everyone else must abide with no more effort than a proclamation?" This is one example where most people will not have so much sympathy for the supposed property-holder. Rothbard noted that many large estates in colonial New York were simply given to the king's cronies, and he obviously had more sympathy for the squatters on that property. It takes government to maintain large disparities in wealth. My somewhat schizophrenic views on "property" are found here: http://strike-the-root.com/private-property-vs-your-stuff
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 23 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Neither A or B (as written) describe fraud. Nor does the value of something going "to zero" have anything to do with anything. As I described, and you did not address, fraud is when you misrepresent what you're exchanging and thus acquire the property of others without their consent. I assumed nothing. If there is not an agreement that covers the point at issue (i.e., no false information provided), then it's not fraud. I was addressing a case of fraud. There's a fundamental difference between not providing information and providing false information. If I say "car for sale" and you never ask me anything about its condition, nor do I volunteer any information other than "it's a car", and you buy it and then the engine seizes, that's not fraud. It was a car, I didn't misrepresent it. If I say "the engine just passed an inspection" when that's not true, and you buy the car, that's fraud because I misrepresented the car as being inspected when it wasn't. Caveat emptor comes into play when dealing with tight-lipped people offering exchange. If I don't offer any information and/or refuse to answer your questions, then yes, that'd be stupid to buy from me and if you suffer the consequences of a seized up car because you assumed I'd mention a faulty engine, or neglected to ask, that's too bad for you. It's a non-sequitur to go from "fraud is theft" to "you have no responsibility to look after your own interests". To start, in a free society, no one is forced to pay for recovery of your property so in paying for any of your own protection/arbitration/property recovery needs, you ARE looking after your own interests. Nor does correctly identifying fraud as theft have anything to do with creating moral hazard anymore than identifying any other form of crime. Walking down a dark alley in an area known for muggings is just plain stupid, but being reckless with your personal safety doesn't change the mugging into a non-criminal act. Likewise, being defrauded may be the result of being stupid in who you trust, but being stupid doesn't entitle others to defraud you. What does being honest have to do with ability to be defrauded? What about being too trusting because you're honest? You could just take someone's word for it (e.g., "no need to call the inspection agency, he said the car was inspected, that's good enough for me") and get taken by a crook. The only context I've ever heard that saying in was in fictional entertainment describing con-men and how they rely on the greed and willingness to come by gains dishonestly of the mark in order to cheat them. That's not what we're talking about. Buying a car and being lied to by the seller doesn't require you to be greedy or looking to bend the rules.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    We're on the same wavelength, Sam. Some people seem to imagine a free society will have even more lawyers than we have now, but I think it's the reverse.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 1 day ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "If Z is provided instead of Y through deception, then the other party did not fulfill their side of the agreement..." This assumes there IS an agreement which covers the point at issue; usually agreements are much less formal than that. I like to use examples. Here's two: A) You are buying a car from an individual. He knows something is wrong but you are eager and buy it anyway. The instant you drive off the lot the engine seizes, sending the car's value to zero. B) Someone steals your car and goes on a joy ride. It is recovered but so damaged that the value has gone to zero. In both cases the car's value is zero, but do you honestly see no difference between them? Don't you have an incentive, in case A, to get the car checked out first before buying? Or at least to get some kind of warranty? When you buy, it is well known that the seller can range anywhere between perfectly honest to thoroughly dishonest. Have you no responsibility to look after your own interests? In a free society, you will get little to no recompense - unlike case B. People, judging your case, will say, "He just learned a lesson; leave it at that." They won't be inclined to make up for your shortcomings or your carelessness. What's that old saying, "You can't swindle an honest man?"
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 23 weeks 1 day ago Page Kevin M. Patten
    Eh, I'm not impressed. The entire parental child relationship can be construed as violence of some sort. I had to laugh at Molyneux, who goes on and on about the "disparity of power" and all that, how he supposedly avoided a "violent" relationship with his daughter. All nonsense; he wasn't avoiding it at all. If you have some online references of Rothbard's thoughts on children, I'd like to see them.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 23 weeks 1 day ago Blog entry Don Stacy
    Lutheran Pastor Larry Beane has written the (Jesuit) Loyola President a remarkable letter (here) which begins "I write to you as a fellow cleric, one of your “separated brethren” in New Orleans. I’m a Lutheran pastor who had the blessings of a Jesuit high school education."   A somewhat different approach from that of his presumed mentor, Martin Luther - who roundly referred to the Church of Rome as "the whore of Babylon." The President's treatment of Professor Block suggests that not much has changed in 400 years.   Beane must have been reading Dale Carnegie.