Recent comments

  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 42 weeks 3 days ago
    Corruption Abounds!
    Page Paul Hein
    Lovely Sam. Not much more than that can I say, but the sand paper of the world.
  • Glock27's picture
    Glock27 42 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    helpfuljosh, When has the government ever been helpful? Right now they are attempting to legislate a bill to increase the authority of the government to intervene on States which have legalized medical marijuana, so they can arrest the sellers and the users. Unlike most all members of this site, I am not totally against government, just big, big, greedy, self-aggrandizing, egoistical, all self important better than thou, intruding, coercive, secretive puss government to include just about every member in all three branches. Government has a limited function in society, and it is nothing closely or remotely resembling what is currently in play or has been in play. From my understanding Dr. Merecola is a fake. Can't prove it, but according to some sites I have visited his recommendations and suggestions are not sound or reasonably based. Thanks for the link. Didn't read it all as it tended to be old information that has circulated for decades.
  • helpfuljosh's picture
    helpfuljosh 42 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    I read this article on alcohol consumption and all the false health claims today and wanted to share it: http://reset.me/story/how-alcohol-changes-your-brain/ So we sell this in shops and pretend it is pretty harmless while forbidding weed and other drugs. We even allow alcohol brands to advertise. What sick world do we live in that we allow corporations to toxicate us on a daily basis and cannot count on a government to regulate this industry. I don't want to go back to prohibition, but isn't it at least crazy that we allow mass marketing for something that bad? More info on the effects of weed, here: http://ilovegrowingmarijuana.com
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 42 weeks 5 days ago
    Corruption Abounds!
    Page Paul Hein
    I definitely prefer the firing squad. :-)
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 42 weeks 6 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Right on the mark, Paul, as always. Initiated coercion, especially when centralized in a large government, is never libertarian in nature. You'd think all libertarians would understand THAT, at least, but . . .  One historical note: You're quite right that Britain was less violent and more sane in their approach to ending slavery (which they did well before the US and of course without a war), but there's a LOT more to the story. Anyone interested will enjoy Jim Powell's excellent Greatest Emancipations -- an engaging read supported by staggering levels of evident research and detail. Ending slavery in Britain and elsewhere was a vast, multi-generation chore that spanned the planet and was opposed by huge classes of very wealthy men. Greatest Emancipations has been my default waiting-room material at the dentist and whatnot for the last six months; nearly every page brings interesting details I'd not known before.        
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 42 weeks 6 days ago
    Corruption Abounds!
    Page Paul Hein
    As to my comment about taxation: there is no "good" (or "better") taxation. Sort of like the choice between execution by guillotine or by firing squad. "Income" taxation, however, was blatant control and nothing more. "Revenue" was merely a bonus. Title 26 (the white man's "internal revenue code"), once a paperback size publication, now requires a library to contain. Nobody knows how many "amendments" or divisions or subdivisions are in the thing. Nobody can submit a confession of voluntary taxation ("file-a-return") honestly. Because no matter how many "experts" and/or "professionals" (a huge industry in itself) to whom you take the same set of figures, you will always get different "tax due" lines. The exemptions and credits, deductions, brackets, deferrals are so numerous that nobody can calculate them all for any one set of figures. And, as stated earlier, there is no "legal" definition for "income" -- only "adjusted gross income" or "taxable income". A slice of Mom's apple pie could definitely be looked upon as "taxable income" by some standards (presuming the white man has standards, which he doesn't). So I won't argue against the idea that a "property" (whatever that's supposed to mean) tax is "better" or "worse" than an "income" tax. Taxation is robbery, plain and simple.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 42 weeks 6 days ago
    Corruption Abounds!
    Page Paul Hein
    Of course everybody can have an opinion as to how "states" came into being -- like "evolution" (how "life" came to be) or "big bang" (how "the universe" came to be"). I personally believe (and you've read my posts on this) that "nations" and "countries" were the brainchilds of genie such as the likes of Attila the Hun and Genghis Khan, who developed the first empires. They came to see the waste of, once they breached the walls of peaceful cities, raping all the women, slaughtering all the men, women and children, and leaving their carcasses to rot on the desert floor. They saw that empires could come into being by "allowing" the captured to not only live, but to form governments that appeared to be "of-the-people". And to "contribute" large segments of their production to the king. Those are the emperors who came to understand capture bonding -- "Stockholm Syndrome". Which is represented today by each and every "vote" or voluntary submission ("filing" ha ha) of confessions ("tax returns" ho ho ho). The enormity of the truth is incredible. As to "ownership" you are absolutely correct. Naked I came, naked I shall return. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 43 weeks 10 hours ago
    Corruption Abounds!
    Page Paul Hein
    "You own nothing as long as you believe in government." Whether you believe or not, you still own nothing - except that which you are willing to kill in order to keep. However, at least the unbelievers are not mentally enslaved as the believers are. That's worth something. As to better or worse forms of taxation, there definitely are differences, basically boiling down to the ability to avoid the tax. While there are untaxed incomes to be made from the black market, there is no escaping property tax unless one IS government. If you don't pay it, over and over again, year after year, you are kicked off your property. I never did find Rothbard's idea where the state came from to be very plausible. I think the state originated in the wealthy people.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 43 weeks 1 day ago
    Corruption Abounds!
    Page Paul Hein
    "...If enough people—it need not be a majority--recognized the government as an illegitimate gang of thieves, it could not survive..." Correct. It requires "...enough people..." to come to understand. "Understand what?" you ask. That "...the government..." is a mindless, useless abstraction. That there are people. Some are producers, and some are predators. Predators over history have developed incredible and all-pervasive tactics to make themselves appear "necessary" to producers. Rothbard, in "Anatomy of the State", uses the example of mobs who hijacked caravans in times past. All of a sudden the mobs are now the "protectors". They are "necessary". If you love your safety and your freedom, thank a mobster. They are the ones who have given rise to "families of nations", "countries", "counties" et al. And there are no "good" (or "better") forms of theft (taxation). The "income" form of theft is probably more egregious than "property" forms of theft. At least with "property" you have something that is standing still and can be counted and valued. To the predators, "income" cannot be defined. Oxygen is "income" when you think about it. So they define "income" as "adjusted gross income" to come up with the scheme that serves to swindle you. You own nothing as long as you believe in government. Not "legally", you don't. You are granted the privilege of possessing it for a time. Whining, wailing, gnashing of teeth on the part of the proletariat is the bizarre, weird factor in the science of rulership. It's part of what keeps it all alive. It forms the basis of the "problem". Thank g-d we're here to "solve" your "problem". The enormity of the truth is incredible. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 43 weeks 2 days ago
    Corruption Abounds!
    Page Paul Hein
    I too hate the property tax and consider it the worst tax. Most of the proceeds are used in the evil government indoctrination centers, even if you homeschool your child, and the rest for those lazy louts in the fire departments - even if you install a sprinkler system in your home (I have done so) which is far better than any fire department. The property tax is even environmentally destructive, as it forces people to put into production marginal lands, better left fallow, in order to pay the tax. Again, there are no rights in this picture. There are only a favored group of parasites that we have to put up with, at least until the revolution comes.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 43 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for that link, it was a good one.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 43 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    I don't need an island. Probably wouldn't move there if I owned one. I'm a sovereign state. That means I am free where I am. My comment was in favor of what has been called "Sentinelese". People living on that island don't call themselves "Sentinelese". I suspect writers and would-be colonizers are the ones who have come up with the appellation "Sentinel", or "North Sentinel" and labeled them "Sentinelese". They and their ancestors over the years have apparently joined hands and resisted "nationalizers", "nationalization" and "nationalism". I also suspect some of the inhabitants are freer than others. Some may be sovereign within themselves and amongst their families, friends and neighbors (probably not well understood in the community, and thought to be odd-balls ("radicalized") -- perhaps even dangerous odd-balls). Others probably are dependent upon "tribal leaders", et al., to provide "central authority" and decide issues for them. Just like cross-sections of folks all over the world. Sam
  • TheMPP's picture
    TheMPP 43 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    I know, right?  How do we all get our own island?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 43 weeks 4 days ago Page pc
    Stefan Molyneux has some interesting observations about slavery here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA Apparently no matter how bad slavery was in the US, it was much worse in Muslim Africa and the Middle East, where male slaves were all castrated and the survival rate of slaves was essentially zero. It's why there are no black populations left there, unlike America. Everything is relative... I was looking through the minutes of the Montgomery Convention, where the Confederacy formed. The impression I get is that what distressed these ruling class Southerners the most was the fact that the part of the Constitution protecting slavery was increasingly ignored by the Northern states. Back then it seems the Constitution was not a figurehead, but actually adhered to. But the Southerners could see where things were going. If ignoring parts of the Constitution was permitted to proceed, then there was no Constitution. Thus the secessions...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 43 weeks 4 days ago Web link KenK
    Life is a game, and approximately half of the players are psychopaths. If one keeps that in mind, s/he can be free. And happy. And enjoy the game. The psychopathic half of the player lineup are backed by gentlemen (and gentle-women -- lord have mercy!) with guns. That is what is called "jurisdiction". It matters not how Black's or other statist publishers define "jurisdiction", that phenomenon is simply force of arms -- coercion. You can have jurisdiction also if you just get yourself a gun. I would advise against brandishing it about. The psychopathic half of the lineup try to make certain they have the greater number of armed players. That is part of how the game is set up. Those with the greatest firepower have the first claim on "jurisdiction". But they are inept, inefficient, pompous. And easily circumnavigated. The cheerleaders -- capture bonded all -- seem to be heavily weighted on the side of those with the most arms. You win the game by sneaking under the fence and out of the park. Liberty is on the outside of the playing field, not the inside. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 43 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Good for "the-Sentinelese"!
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 44 weeks 1 hour ago Web link KenK
    Wonderful essay and advice, Sam. I assure you that you are correct. When I was fighting he feds over taxes, I was consistently advised not to fight, since I could not win. One attorney said that he had not won a federal case in five years. I remember seeing that about 92% of cases are settled with a plea bargain, including many, many people who are innocent. I was told that I would never see my wife or children again, if I did not comply. I was high-profile. So, off to the clink I went. You can only guess the fantasies I have had. This idea is one of them. Being innocent or right will not protect you. Thoreau said that one should cultivate poverty like fine sage. The genius David B. King never allowed his income to exceed non-taxable levels. I am sending you the federal reserve notes. I am 70 now. I expect full payment when I am 130. If Ray Kurzweil is correct, you will be a spring chicken at age 140. Besides, I need the bike.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 44 weeks 5 hours ago Web link KenK
    You've struck upon an excellent idea. I suspect it's only viable, however, for individuals who wish to (and plan to) stay small and independent. The key word here is "small". If you buy and sell for a living -- as an individual -- and employ few if any helpers in your enterprise, you might pull it off. For a time. If you deal only with people you trust not to be "statist" in mentality. And if you do so quietly -- and tell nobody. Anonymity is the road to success for a free marketplace. But whatever you do, never, never, never expect the white man to "obey-the-law". Never, never, never expect "rights". The only thing granted, sustained and guaranteed by the group of psychopaths acting under the umbrella of "the state" is wrongs. Please be aware of that. Keep in mind that a huge percentage of all populations are infected with "capture bonding" (Stockholm Syndrome). Psychologists and psychiatrists who publish definitions of that term are themselves infected. Because either they do not see or they refuse to admit that they see that the overwhelming majority of the population are afflicted -- not merely a small number of bank employees in 1973 in an obscure robbery in Stockholm, Sweden. Or Patty Hearst. Every "vote" is a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome. Every submission of a confession ("filing" of a tax "return") is a symptom of Stockholm Syndrome. Well, of the latter, you might say it is a symptom of fear of an illusory beast that does not exist. Same difference. The hardest thing for libertarians to grasp is that "the law" is meaningless -- window dressing for coercion. No matter how you slice it, if you grow large and "go viral" as the current buzzword describes it, the white man is going to get you. He will force you into his "court". Once he gets you there, you will lose. In the event you enjoy a minor "victory" (like in the gambling business, the government business allows you to "win" now and again to keep them cards and letters comin' in -- sort of a "shill mentality"); you will still lose. Unless you have deep pockets for "legal" (another joke) counseling, in which case you've already spent large sums to "win", which is losing. Or unless you actively engage in the vast arena of mercantilism. Most of you have watched this video. The speaker talks in the first few minutes about the vast, incalculable myriad of laws on the books that can "getcha". I presume it's because the white man has constantly and consistently stuck his tentacles into the "holes" like the one you describe -- and come up with ways to prosecute you. Ask Bernard von NotHaus. Or Robert Kahre. Especially if you are "high profile". So don't "go viral". On the other hand -- and for exactly this reason -- I say you can be free. Here. Today. Where you're "at". The white man is too pompous and stupid to interfere with your liberty. Unless you allow it to happen. So go ahead and loan me 1,000 federal reserve notes. I'll pay you back in 60 years. I'm 80 now, so that should give me some time to gain liquidity. Meanwhile, I'll give you my old bike as collateral. What's your interest rate? Sam Sam
  • Thunderbolt's picture
    Thunderbolt 44 weeks 1 day ago Web link KenK
    I think the solution for Uber, Homejoy, etc., is to neither be an employee nor an independent contractor. By mutual consent (best in writing), the service provider and the client can agree that, instead of payment for services, the client will lend money to the provider for thirty years, automatically renewable, of course. Personal loans are neither reportable nor taxable. The provider should, of course, pay back the loan within 120 years or so. I can lend money to you for any reason I wish, for as long as I wish. Let us see someone fight that one in court. Let it go viral. Perhaps I sell chairs. Why could I not rather let you hold the chair as collateral for a loan of thirty years? No income; no taxes. P.S.: There is no reason that a provider cannot lend money to someone who arranged the meeting for Uber/Homejoy. Gotta love those crypto-currencies.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 44 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    I'll check my privilege, if you will check your ignorance." (no, Paul, not saying it to you- saying it to them)
  • floppytilleyhat's picture
    floppytilleyhat 44 weeks 2 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I loved this article. If anyone's interested, there's another article with a similar viewpoint written by a Brit over at Takimag.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 44 weeks 2 days ago Web link Westernerd
    "I'll check my privilege, if you will check your tyranny."
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 44 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Hell, even I am thinking of buying one, “just because”; and I’ve never owned a flag in my life." Same here - and I've never been a fan of the Confed flag. . . as the losers, the colors should have been struck and relegated to history books and museums. But. . . all of the brainless caterwauling over the flag has got me considering the purchase of one, "just because."
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 44 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good point, Paul.  Authoritarians never learn how burning books and banning symbols of resistance to their authority only fuels the popularity of those books and symbols.  Also, this is another example of how coercion is typically counterproductive to desired goals.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 44 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    It's one thing to pass a law (or regulation), another thing to enforce it. Some grumpy old bastards with nothing to lose are going to be disarmed? Not gonna happen.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 44 weeks 3 days ago Web link A. Magnus
    This article advocates fascism. The troika here is actually (from what I can tell from the article) pointing more in the direction of the free market, hard to believe though that is.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 44 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    "However, Feuerstein does not mention that Sweet Cakes owners Aaron and Melissa Klein did more than simply refuse service to the couple. They posted a copy of the couple’s legal complaint on the Sweet Cakes Facebook page with their home address visible, which led to a wave of harassment for the couple, which included hateful comments and threats on social media and news websites." Let's not gloss over who aggressed first. And the Kleins did nothing that was illegal or even wrong. The complaint was a public record, available to anyone. Would the author prefer the alternative, that accusations come from anonymous sources, as for example in the Spanish Inquisition? As to threats, for one thing, threats are a dime a dozen. Who cares about a threat? And, they were not made by the Kleins anyway, so are irrelevant. Conservatives are worked up about these cases, and they (and we all) should be - even if their statist preferences about gay marriage are wrong. http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2015/07/administrative-law-and-tyra...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 44 weeks 4 days ago
    Pilfering for Pluto
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    Good one, Alex. Even assuming one has an interest in such exploration, government is a package deal, particularly in an empire. You don't get the planet flybys without the war, dead babies, torture, theft and ruined economies. Would people be exploring space without government? Of course! It's an interesting thing, and lot of people would put their money and efforts there, to participate. No doubt those little American flags were passed out for the purposes of a photo-op. Some whores went along with waving them, but there must have been quite a few who thought the whole thing was silly. Maybe some were thinking, "If I wave this flag enough, I get to keep my job." One can only speculate.
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 44 weeks 5 days ago
    Pilfering for Pluto
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    PyschoticNut:       http://www.iflscience.com/space/real-cost-nasas-new-horizons-mission-pluto          
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 44 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Awesome, Glen!  Thanks! I hope you enjoy it!  :-)
  • Alex R. Knight III's picture
    Alex R. Knight III 44 weeks 5 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Yeah, I expected no response from her and got none, even though I e-mailed this essay to both of her known e-ddresses.  I also ground-mailed a copy of The Voluntaryist quarterly newsletter.  
  • PSYCHOTICNUT's picture
    PSYCHOTICNUT 44 weeks 5 days ago
    Pilfering for Pluto
    Page Alex R. Knight III
    The figure I've read is upward of $900,000 in total. In addition to that you have costs of infrastructure, test equipment, etc. I doubt were taken into account but I get what you're saying.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 45 weeks 1 day ago Page Tim Hartnett
    Corporations are "fictitious persons" created on paper by the state.  As for freedom of speech for corporations: The state giveth and the state taketh away.  Natural law does not apply to "fictitious persons".
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 45 weeks 1 day ago Page Tim Hartnett
    Anarchists and libertarians are prone to follow Thomas Pynchon's observation: "If they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers." ( ~Thomas Pynchon http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/235.Thomas_Pynchon) Each time I read or hear a debate over "the-constitution" I'm tempted to advise the participants to go back to basics and read this: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/AnatomyState.html It's easy to get caught up flailing away about the "police state" (yes, indeed, all states are police states -- they may appear in the beginning to not start out as such, but each and every monopoly upon violence will most certainly become one). Few want to simply go back to basics -- as the late Murray Rothbard did -- and understand that the state is an agency of coercion made up of psychopaths with a penchant to "rule". As long as "we" play along with their game and squabble over the details of their "rule", they win. Sam
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 45 weeks 3 days ago Page Glen Allport
    Eh, I'm not quite as depressed about it. People really are figuring it out. We have millions now in the liberty constituency, all we really need at the moment. It does help to be armed; very calming. BTW I don't agree about the effect of trolls. Yes, sure, if the trolls pile on and the opposite side makes no good arguments, the trolls can win. But one calm, honest, decent responder can take the wind out of the trolls' sails and make them look silly. Argumentum ad hominem does not survive well in an environment where the person attacked can respond instantly; it's more effective in old media. Yeah, it's a "study", but we all know what studies of human behavior are worth, don't we?
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 45 weeks 3 days ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "...we might well assert that, to the extent that gun violence is a problem in society, what we have is a violent persons problem." Not the least because, worrying about "gun deaths" apparently excuses murder by knife or baseball bat. Thinking instead of violent persons eliminates this absurd result. Good luck engaging a politician in logical dialog though. These people don't give a rat's ass who gets killed.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 45 weeks 3 days ago Page Paul Hein
    Good job, Paul. With some luck, Virgil might think himself through this conundrum. 1) Complaining: I can see both points - either we should complain long and loud about surveillance (such as this article), or we can ignore it as Sam says. 2) Evading: I believe we should make life as difficult as possible for the snoops, within the bounds of our tolerance. Turn it into a form of entertainment. 3) Fatalism: We can never be sure we can beat the snoops at their game. 4) Arms: Being armed means we don't care that #3 is true.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 45 weeks 3 days ago Page Lawrence Samuels
    It's a waste of time, expecting consistency from human beings. Their entire education and daily continuing indoctrination amounts to training in cognitive dissonance.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 45 weeks 3 days ago
    Sooner Or Later
    Page Paul Hein
    "awarded him damages of C$30,000" Don't forget, from the taxpayers, people who didn't commit the crime of uttering the word "God" in that meeting. We are certainly in Heinlein's "Crazy Years". Only question is what to do. I tend toward Mencken's preference: "Here (in America) the daily panorama of human existence, of private and communal folly, the unending procession of governmental extortions and chicaneries, of commercial brigandages and throat slittings, of theological buffoneeries, of aesthetic ribaldries, of legal swindles and harlotries, of miscellaneous rogueries, villanies, imbecilities, grotesqueries, and extravagances is so inordinately gross and preposterous, so perfectly brought up to the highest conceivable amperage, so steadily enriched with an almost fabulous daring and originality, that only a person born with a petrified diaphram can fail to laugh himself to sleep every night and wake up with all the eager, unflagging expectation of a Sunday-School superintendent touring the Paris peep-shows."
  • antiox's picture
    antiox 45 weeks 4 days ago Page Tim Hartnett
    I'm saying that impeding corporate bodies from using mass communication violates the first amendment. Which it does.
  • mjackso6's picture
    mjackso6 45 weeks 4 days ago Page Tim Hartnett
    "SECTION 1. We the people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend the rights protected by this Constitution to be the rights of natural persons. SECTION 2. The words people, person, or citizen as used in this Constitution do not include corporations, limited liability companies or other corporate entities established by the laws of any State, the United States, or any foreign state, and such corporate entities are subject to such regulation as the people, through their elected State and Federal representatives, deem reasonable and are otherwise consistent with the powers of Congress and the States under this Constitution. SECTION 3. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to limit the people’s rights of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of association and all such other rights of the people, which rights are unalienable." Above is the text of the proposed amendment, taken directly from the web site linked in your article. Perhaps I'm missing something, or just being naive, but are you saying that corporations ~should~ be treated as actual persons? I fully agree that anyone should be able to throw away as much of his/her ~own~ money as they want, even on activities as pointless as politics. And certainly a corporation (a group of supposedly like-minded ~individuals~) shouldn't be barred from spending as much of it's assets as it's board of directors agrees to on any agreed-to endeavor, but that doesn't make the corporation a "person" or bestow upon it the status of "person-hood". Again, I might be missing something, but section three of the proposed amendment certainly seems to limit it's reach, leaving private individuals no worse off than they are now (which is to say, pretty bad). To this, I might add that I think it makes little difference. If I believed that the intent of the Constitution was to actually offer any real protections for 'citizens', or that citizens' votes actually had any real effect on the outcome of elections, I'd be a little more concerned. As it stands, I doubt that this, ~if~ it passes, will make any serious difference in the woeful state of affairs that we 'enjoy' today. If I've missed something, or my logic is just shot full of holes, please correct me; this isn't meant as snark, just my observations. Thank you for your article, sir. Mike Jackson
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 46 weeks 20 hours ago Blog entry Alex R. Knight III
    Best of luck with it, Alex. Seeing it on Facebook, the DHS will have moved you up several levels on their Enemies List :-)   I love that A-symbol photo by Bryan Baucom.
  • ReverendDraco's picture
    ReverendDraco 46 weeks 1 day ago
    Sooner Or Later
    Page Paul Hein
    "“Look, sir, you are a man. You were born a man, and you will die a man." Funny - every time I see or hear the nausea-inducing phrase, "Caitlyn is a beautiful woman," I have much the same thought. . . "Bruce, we need to talk." "Call me Caitlyn." "Sorry, Bruce - not gonna happen. You're a man - horrifically mutilated, but a man nonetheless. Rocky Dennis? The Elephant Man? Ever hear of them? They're - both of them - saner than you. They were born, lived, and died as what they were. . . you should have taken a tip from them before you got yourself maimed." Along with transgender and transracial - now there's also "transchrono" - a person self-identifying as being of a different age than they actually are - and "transabled" - an otherwise healthy individual self-identifying as disabled. . . even going so far as to mutilate their bodies in order to make their "mind and body match." So, now a straight, white, female, 37 year old Jr. High teacher could have sex with multiple male students, and be celebrated for doing so - instead of, you know, being locked up - by claiming to be transgender transracial transchrono transabled. . . because they self-identify as a 14 year old gay paraplegic Asian male. According to the Jenner/Dolezal Principle - that what I claim trumps objective reality - this must be accepted - after all, who are judges and juries to tell them otherwise?
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 46 weeks 1 day ago
    Sooner Or Later
    Page Paul Hein
    I keep wondering when enough will be enough; people can only take so much.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 46 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    I agree, Saul, that "the coercive vaccine program is one of the most important libertarian issues of our time".  This imposing vaccines on everybody falls in line with the complete takeover by the state of the healthcare industry and eventually all individual medical decisions.  The "science is settled" meme reveals a profound naivete similar to the global warming cult, but infinitely more dangerous and pervasive.  The childish trust many people have of men in white coats to make decisions for them has become all too common; now they back men with guns to force that trust on others.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 47 weeks 2 days ago Blog entry Don Stacy
    Molyneux produces some good videos. This was one of his not-so-good ones. He spent much of his 6 minutes hu-rah-ing California teachers' union (not that I support teachers' unions in any manner). But his points were well taken. I ceased use of the term "rights" years ago. I make choices. There are many in this unfree world who would interfere with choices I make. Some of those obstructions may themselves be well taken. For instance, if I infringe upon your person or your property or breach contracts or agreements, you may rightly react negatively. So, (particularly now that I'm old and feeble :-[) to avoid getting my butt whipped I'll treat you with respect. You have that right -- do you not??? :-] Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 47 weeks 3 days ago Web link TheMPP
    I find myself falling into the same "mistaken affiliation" syndrome from time to time. I might post a controversial essay or article or video here and/or on other forums, and a few will always interpret that to mean that I endorse the gist of the piece; when in fact I was pointing out what "the competition" were saying in contrast to what "we" believe. And you've placed your finger on the pulse of why STR has gone backward recently. That sort of childish bickering and accusation resulted in at least one "guru" leaving the playing field to start his own "forum", which itself failed. We don't have lobbyists or large financial means with which to "tell our story". We're against collectivist thinking from the very start. Therefore, (as though I have any authority to speak for "us") it behooves us to abstain from squabbling in the same manner that we abstain from beans. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 47 weeks 3 days ago Web link TheMPP
    "...The science that supports the message is what gets funded and reported, the rest is portrayed as "junk."..." You got that right. I began to look at "science" with skepticism many years ago -- long before I entered the canyon of anarchy. I often refer to my 5 year-old great granddaughter as one of the few remaining "genuine" scientists. If she proclaims, "Grandpa! Your breath stinks!" (within hearing of the entire scientific community), I can be certain mouthwash is indicated. Sam
  • D. Saul Weiner's picture
    D. Saul Weiner 47 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Money is extremely important here, as elsewhere, but there is another dimension to it that also ought to be of keen interest to libertarians. I have not seen anyone else write about this. The vaccine program is extremely valuable to the government itself. It conditions people to submit to the demands of the State, from birth. It conditions people to the necessity of forced collectivism, much like a major war does. In effect, it sends the message at a deep level that you need to sacrifice yourself and your children for the sake of the collective, in order to survive. This type of conditioning pays off greatly, as once one accepts it in principle, one is willing to sacrifice in many different ways for the sake of the State (e.g. one's income, one's dignity at the airport, one's liberty in general). Also of great importance is that when people have been brainwashed into thinking that the State has protected them from debilitating and deadly diseases, naturally they feel a great sense of gratitude for this and will be much more loyal to it. After all, the State has "given you" life and health ... it has God-like powers and so naturally we will tend to be in awe of it. In my view, the coercive vaccine program is one of the most important libertarian issues of our time, for all of the reasons mentioned. It is really unfortunate that relatively few libertarians seem to recognize what is at stake here. Most, it seems, have not really grappled at all with these issues.
  • TheMPP's picture
    TheMPP 47 weeks 4 days ago Web link TheMPP
    Great essay (February was also when we did our episode on this topic).  All of those what-if questions should be part of the public discourse.  Sadly, they are not, for many of the reasons you mentioned.  Science likes to believe it has cornered the market on objectivity, but the reality is, when money is involved, it trumps everything else.  The science that supports the message is what gets funded and reported, the rest is portrayed as "junk." But there are still two sides to this debate, no matter how "fringe-y" they both end up looking to the other.  Curiously, the same is true for climate change.