Never fear, a satisfying, comprehensive solution is within reach: the Megamerge Dissolution Solution. Simply dissolve the border along with the failed Mexican government, and megamerge the two countries under U.S. law, with mass free 2-way migration eventually equalizing the development and opportunities permanently, with justice and without racism, and without threatening U.S. sovereignty or basic principles.

Click the url and read about the new paradigm for U.S.-Mexico relations.

If you’re interested in holding Wal-mart accountable for their disgusting business ethics please take the time to nominate them into Corporate Accountability International’s Hall of Corporate Shame: http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/2215/t/8981/signUp.jsp?key=4278

I feel a lot for them too, it gets to the point where I have to shut that stuff out or I would drown in depression.
There is too much pain in the world and humans are a vicious lot.
The saddest thing of all…we are not changing.

Peace!

All you have to do is pay your taxes and shut up!!!

it’s not about the prosperity of the nation, it’s about the prosperity of the ILLUMINATI, the rich european bankers who really run the world, and their ‘tag along’ U.S. counterparts.

I want to apologize to you. You have written some outstanding comments which I need to reply to if, for no other reason, than to return to you the honor and respect you have shown me with the quality of your comments. RL has been keeping me from things on line (and from off-line writing) which require much time and concentration. I am not ignoring you and will, hopefully soon, be replying back to you.

In the meantime, thank you for adding your thoughts and outstanding comments to my threads. They are appreaciated.

Sincerely,

Rhys M. Blavier

Have a nice day.

Rhys M. Blavier

…

We agree.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak

2. Although I agree that we should amend the constitution to abolish income taxation, I have to say that I do not see the balanced-budget amendment as being anti-libertarian.

3. Let us assume for sake of argument that the 14th amendment had been properly ratified. Even if this be the case, it does not grant to the federal government the authority to regulate abortion or murder in any way. In accordance with the 5th amendment, the U.S. government cannot itself perform or fund abortions. In accordance with the 14th amendment, no state can perform or fund abortions, either. Beyond this, abortion regulation is entirely a state issue, in accordance with the tenth amendment, and thus may not be regulated at all by the federal government unless the federal constitution is hereafter amended to allow the federal government this degree of power. Legally speaking, only states can ban abortion.

4. Considering that all statist power is illegitimate, the question of whether the 14th amendment in particular is “legitimate” seems to be a bit silly. But Mr. Capozzi is correct that it is “in effect,” for better or worse. The fact that taxation is theft and that theft is a natural crime does not, unfortunately, change the fact that the 16th amendment is “in effect,” and although I may (and do) argue that it is illegal on grounds of the supremacy of natural law, I have no illusions that a criminal gang like the federal government is going to listen to me and cease its criminal ways simply because due to my willingness to point out that the emperor is naked. The war on drugs is yet another example of a statist institution that is “in effect” while being both illegitimate and in violation of natural law. Yet I find nothing unlibertarian about pointing out that it is indeed “in effect.”

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak

I would not say free speech is a “socialist” concept. It’s an extremely liberal, not socialist, concept, and in fact was always properly understood to be an extention of one’s property rights. Perhaps, Mr. Seagraves, you wish to say that the liberal concept of free speech has been siezed by statists and twisted insofar as it has been separated from property rights? If this is indeed what you intended to imply, then I must agree with you.

Mr. Groves,

Who stepped forward to take responsibility for the newsletters? I had not heard of someone doing this, but would love to know for future reference.

I have to flatly disagree with you that there is anything “nutty” about changing one’s name to “Terbolizard.” Although I would not do so myself, I can see a variety of valid reasons why someone else may choose to do so, e.g. to be different, and to defy another’s preconceptions of what a “proper” name might be, or to help attract attention to one’s business, personality, or campaign.

As for free speech, you are correct that it is a right, but like all other true rights, it is a negative rather than positive right. That is to say, in order to have free speech, you must secure it for yourself. One has no right to impose upon someone else or her property in order to disseminate his own views. Bandwidth costs money, and to impose upon another person via aggression a requirement to disseminate his own views constitutes theft, a violation of the very property right that makes free speech itself possible. Just as one has no “right” to be on another person’s property, one likewise has no “right” to post messages on another person’s property. Speech vis-a-vis another person’s property has always been a matter of privilege and not of right.

To all,

I find myself more-or-less in agreement with Bruce, zoe, and Mr. Mckay. If it is true that Mr. Terbolizard was speeding while drunk, then he ought to apologise for this. But this piece does not confirm that Mr. Terbolizard is actually guilty. “They are waiting for results of a blood-alcohol test,” the article says. Let us not crucify the man until we have all the facts.

Best regards to all,
Alex Peak

The issue of the racist comments in Ron Paul’s news letters was cleared up when the one who wrote the articles came forth and took responsibility. He was a drugged and bitter veteran in those days and he appologized for what he did. Ron Paul, when made aware, did the honorable thing that respectable military officers do, i.e. take responsibility for your mens’ actions even if you were unaware of the behavior, as was Dr. Paul. He admitted his mistake and took responsibility for it. A far better behavior than most others running for office. Show me an owner of a newspaper or large circulation newsletter who reads and approves every article written by staff every time before it is put out. Won’t be very many of them if any. Ron knew even though this was the reason it happened, it was not an excuse and did the right thing.

Site manager: Free speach is a right. Deletion is a privileged choice of the person who chooses to listen or not. If you didn’t want to hear free speach you would not have a response box and ask for comments. I think reminding people of your free choice on deleting inappropriate messages is great, but let’s avoid turning the first amendment right into a privilege. Also, how are we to determine what you think is good or bad?
I think your intent is good. Perhaps it’s the sentence structure on the note that needs reworking. Just a thought.

Best regards,
Alex Peak

Sorry for taking so long to respond. I’m still working on getting Spooner’s No Treason ready for publication, and I realised recently that something I was doing with formatting was unadvisable. In any event, here I am.

Mr. Sundwall,

Having now read your piece, I must say that this paragraph stood out to me:

I was recently interviewed on a local AM station before the election by a radio host who also claimed to be libertarian. He made a particular effort to distance the idea of libertarians from anarchists. I responded that there was in fact a group within the party who considered themselves anarchists and that they should in fact be differentiated from the bomb throwing nihilists of the late 19th Century. I concluded that they were more concerned about the moral justifications of government and that their overall goal wasn’t chaos next Tuesday. He of course went to the next shiny object in his bag of AM radio host tricks and the issue wasn’t pursued.

It sounds to me like you handled the topic perfectly.

I must dissent, however, about your post regarding Tucker’s post on the LP. I don’t interpret Tucker’s position as being that all LP activists are sell-outs or whatnot. This certainly would be a view some agorists hold, but I do not think Mr. Tucker is particularly agorist. It appears to me that Tucker was simply expressing his personal view that the LP is a hopeless wreck that tends more and more these days to shun intellectualism. I think this is a position that even many Reformers may agree with, even if they disagree with Tucker on the policy the LP should advocate.

Mr. Milsted,

Firstly, I believe you misinterpret Browne’s position. He does not mean to imply that the state is incapable of getting a piece of mail from point A to point B. It has certainly achieved this objective on many occassions. The point, rather, is to say that government is inefficent at everything it does. Even though Browne does not promote the abolition of the state, he admit that the state is inherently inefficient—something to which even most statists admit.

He would often couple his claim with the point that the government never keeps its promises. A certain policy is promoted under the promise that it will help the people, perhaps by lowering the cost of oil, for example. But, then, the government takes actions that invariably either (A) cause the exact opposite to happen or (B) achieve the stated goal only by causing some other, greater problem (i.e. unintended consequences).

Yes, you receive mail through the USPS. But would any of us who understand the functions of the market concur with the position that the USPS’s government-imposed monopoly on first-class mail actually benefits consumers, it allows the USPS to function more efficiently than it would otherwise? Would any of us conclude that a free market in mail delivery would not be an improvement?

Not only will most economists agree with this position, but moreover I’m sure you agree as well. The matter is so clear that even most statists would have to admit that the USPS’s monopoly on first-class mail does not serve the consumer.

To your comment on Somalia, a legitimate challange can be offered.

Writes Walter Block, “[I]f we define anarchy as places without governments, and we define governments as the agencies with a legal right to impose violence on their subjects, then whatever else occurred in Haiti, Sudan, and Somalia, it wasn’t anarchy. For there were well-organized gangs (e.g., governments) in each of these places, demanding tribute, and fighting others who made similar impositions. Absence of government means absence of government, whether well established ones, or fly-by-nights” (The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 2, no. 3 (Fall 1999): 67).

I generally hold to this view. With that said, Benjamin Powell did write a fascinating article three years ago title “Somali Anarchy Is More Orderly than Somali Government.” While I do not agree with the claim that Somalia is anarchist, the changes to their society is certainly interesting to witness.

I think you are incorrect when you say that the lack of a state “entails” the initiation of force. However, if you tweak the statement, I believe we could come to some common accord.

I would say that whenever a man commits a crime against another, he is effectively creating a coercive hierarchy with himself on top and his victim below. Another word for this coercive hierarchy, in my vocabulary, is “state.” In other words, when a man places a gun to the head of another man in the state of nature, what he is doing is establishing a government with himself as ruler. He is, in other words, de-establishing anarchy.

Only when the victim regains those things stolen from him by the aggressor can we say that anarchy has been re-established.

But, of course, there is never a guarantee—no matter what system of government one chooses (whether it be democratic, fascist, state-communist, or anarchist)—there is never a guarantee that the criminal will be captured, that justice will be served. Thus, every system of government—anarchy included—requires what Jefferson termed “eternal vigilance” and what the French classical liberals called a revolution in permanence.

In a state of nature, there will continually be small “states” created whenever and wherever aggressions occur. The objective of the alternative institutions that anarchists wish to create is to eliminate this miniature “states,” to ensure justice for the victims of crime in other words. But since no system is perfect, since utopia is impossible, there will always be criminals who get away with their crimes—no matter what system of government one chooses. (I advocate a stateless system because I believe it will be most effective at eliminating injustice and establishig order, but I have no illusions—it will not be utopian.)

If you say that anarchy “entails” aggression (i.e. the inituation of force), I will have to disagree. But if you tweak the statement to say that the adoption of anarchism will not succeed in fully eliminating aggression, then I will agree. The adoption of anarchism cannot eliminate the potential for aggression (hence the need for a revolution in permanence), but I do believe it will go far more toward limiting aggression than the alternatives. And this, my good sir, is why I advocate it.

(SIDE-NOTE: This is not to imply that I do not also advocate it because of my view that the state is unethical. Although I would have no problem with Auberon Herbert’s “voluntaryist state,” and consider it to be a fully ethical organisation of government, I do not believe that that organisation of government can honestly or accurately be called a “state,” since I define the state by its willingness to use aggression to achieve its ends. A government that in all ways eschews aggression does not merit so dishonourable a label as “state” in my view. But that I oppose the state of ethical grounds should not go to imply that I believe there is a bright line between natural law and those ideals one considers to be utilitarian. Perhaps its by shear coincidence, but it seems to me that those things that are required by natural law also happen to universally be the most utilitarian options available. I refer the reader to pages 4–5 of Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism (2007).)

Finally, Mr. Milstead, you bring up Dr. Rothbard. I have to agree with you that Rothbard unfortunately had a tendency to burn bridges, a tendency that, when reading over his work from various periods, can only lead to disappointment. As much as he helped and grew the libertarian movement, and as important as he was to libertarian intellectualism, his nasty habit of burning bridges obviously was not a boost to the movement in any way. I find it a real shame that he had this habit.

With that said, your post still assumes that rudeness is an explicitely anarchist problem. Not only do I still reject this, but I fail to see exactly how Dr. Rothbard’s personality defects would in any way rub off on anarchist libertarians collectively.

I’m far more inclined to believe that those anarchist libertarians who do act rudely (as well as the non-anarchist libertarians who act rudely) do so for the same reason so many non-libertarians in general act rudely: our current culture, coupled with the newness of the Internet to communication.

People act more rudely in general on the Internet than they do in real life because, if for no other reason, the lack of faces. They never have to worry about actual confrontation. Worse yet, because of our inability to pick up on communication cues from text alone, we’re more likely to see hostility in the words of others than is intended, which then leads many to fly off the handle. This is a problem that is experienced across the political spectrum—it is not unique to libertarians and especially not unique to any sub-group within the libertarian movement.

Mr. Blavier,

1. I did not mean to imply that either minarchists or anarchists would have to “eradicate” the other group once we reach minarchy. I merely meant that once we reach that point, our alliance will have served its purpose, and no longer be necessary or useful. At that point, we’ll have to start debating with one another about the merits of statelessness and whether or not it is feasible. But I do not propose a war between the two camps or the “eradication” of either. I’m sorry if you misinterpreted my position.

2. You write, “I am also disturbed by what I see as a a value of yours which is inconsistent with a libertarian philosophy… actively trying to ‘convert’ anyone rather than offering them information, answering questions and demonstrating the value and common sense of your personal beliefs by how you live your own life.”

I don’t believe there is anything un-libertarian about converting people, and in fact would argue that the method you describe is the best method of conversion.

I am agnostic. However, in a free society, people would have every right to try to convert me to, say, Islam or Hinduism or whatever. Ultimately, it’s my individual choice whether to take up their views or not. But it certainly would be un-libertarian to prohibit them from preaching, to prohibit them from attempting to convert others.

Perhaps its the word “convert” you do not like. I do not wish to imply that I would convert people by force. Instead, all I mean to imply by the term is that I hope they will be swayed to my point of view by the soundness of my logic. Force, of course, should be solely reserved for defensive purposes. If a statist walks past me, I will certainly not pull a gun on her and kill her; if, conversely, a statist pulls a gun on me, I will not hesitate to defend myself in whatever manner appears to be (A) most ethical and (B) most successful at that time.

Again, I apologise if I was at all unclear.

3. You write, “What I do NOT see is that an end point cannot allow BOTH philosophies to co-exist and respect each other.”

Coexistence and mutual respect are not things about which I am arguing against. Quite the contrary.

It’s notable that there are a bunch of different anarchist philosophies, ranging from anarcho-communism to anarcho-capitalism. I believe those those from all the various anarchist camps who adhere to complete voluntaryism should be able to co-exist peacefully. I would not want my anarcho-communist brothers to force me to give up private property just as I know they would not want my to force them to give up communal life. In a truly free society, everyone should be free to live within the social structures they believe best enhance human Liberty, so long as they do not aggress against anyone else.

There are some “anarcho”-communists who do believe in using aggression, just as there are some “anarcho”-capitalists who also believe in using aggression. It is my contention that these are pseudo-anarchists. (See the bottom paragraph of this, for example.)

But ignoring thr pseudo-anarchists for now, those who truly believe in voluntaryism should have no problem with minarchists voluntarily living in city-states or whatnot—so long as the minarchist “state” in question does not actively force citizens to remain within its borders. If you wish to mutually form an organisation similar in appearance to the structure of the American republics (with extremely-strict constitutional limits) in which every member of society consents to being a part of the system, it would be unethical for me to step in and force you out of that system.

Moreover, I honestly don’t believe I’d have to force anyone to give up the minarchist government. I believe that they would see the anarchist society functioning better, and will readily leave that system voluntarily.

So I would have no need to initiate force against you. If your minarchist state, however, decides to expand itself into the anarchist region, and tries to steal my land, I will have no qualms hiring a defence agency to arrest the criminals. But presumably the minarchists would not allow this expansion to happen since it would violate their own libertarian credo.

In short, I do believe there is an ability to coexeist peacefully.

4. You write, “I could never be an anarchist because I do believe in government. I might want a government which protects all of our rights to be free and make all decisions about ourselves without government control, but I want that same government to be there to protect all of us from others who would try to impose their own will upon others.”

Some within the anarchist movement would say that there is a difference between a government and a state. I tend to share this view. Anarchism is not opposed to “government” per se, assuming that you define a government to be any institution for the public welfare. Market anarchism is a form of government under this definition, just as is anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, &c. Each would allow for institutions for mutual protection.

The state, on the other hand, is any government that employs aggression as its means. If it steals money so as to fund itself, it is a state. If it bans some non-violent activity, it is a state. If it enforces a monopoly on, e.g., the provision of goods or services, it is a state.

Auberon Herbert famously claimed to not be an anarchist because “anarchists do not understand themselves.” He said that they misunderstand themselves because they believe themselves to be opposed to government even though a “government” would continue to exist even in an anarchy. Thus, Auberon Herbert, the founder of voluntaryism, advocated what he called the “Voluntaryist State,” a government that would not tax, would not regulate non-violent activity, would not maintain any monopoly in the provision of goods or services. I personally have no problem at all with the voluntaryist “state” except that I don’t believe it actually constitutes a “state.”

Whether you mean to say you believe we need a state or merely a government, I cannot say for sure. And I am not inclined to hate you either way, for even if it is a state that you believe is necessary, and not merely a government, I can still relate to you as I had advocated the existence of a state for so many years. I can hardly hate you for advocating the exact same thing I advocated three years ago.

But if you do mean to say you advocate the existence of a state, I hope that, over time, I may convince you otherwise; and if you merely intended to say that you believe government is necessary, then I would have to say there is nothing in your position that prevents you from being an anarchist.

5. You write, “And I see a search for truth in the desire to perfect government rather than in trying to get rid of it.”

As my prior statements have made clear, I don’t believe any government, not even anarchy, can be “perfect.” But I do believe anarchy to be a more perfect form of government than the state.

6. You write, “The anarchism I feel that you are advocating is as cruel and impersonal as any Randian Objectivist philosophy.”

I see aggression as cruel everywhere and anywhere it arises. As the state institutionalises aggression, I see it as an inherently cruel institution. A stateless society, on the other hand, can embrace many voluntary institutions to resolve the problems society faces and meet the needs of the needy.

My own form of market anarchism falls somewhere between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-syndicalism, since I have neither a problem with firms owned by worker collectives nor firms owned by a single person. Moreover, I believe that in a fully free market, that business structure that is most beneficial for society is the one that will come out on top. I do hope it turns out to be the worker-owned firms, but ultimately I am unwilling to bet either way.

With that said, although I do not personally embrace anarcho-socialism or anarcho-communism, I do believe that those systems will co-exist with the other forms of anarchism. Anarcho-communists would be free to form communies in which they collectively choose how to delegate responsibilities or resources, while anarcho-socialists will undoubtedly form similar social organisations to meet the needs of the less fortunate. (Many religious groups will share this goal, undoubtedly.)

I see nothing cruel or impersonal about any of this. Will it be a perfect system? No. Crime will still take place (although less frequently than in statist society), some people might not have as much wealth as others (although the anarcho-socialists will always be looking for new and innovative, albeit voluntary, methods for improving the situation), disease will not likely be fully eradicated, &c—in other words, this will not be a utopia, but it will be a more perfect system.

With deep and sincere respect,
Alex Peak

Mr. Blavier, I’m sorry for misinterpreting your position. I interpreted you to mean that the preamble established powers for the central government, not that it established objectives that we should strive for within the context of the limited powers the Constitution elsewhere affords to the central government. This latter approach seems far more reasonable.

Nevertheless, I still find objection to your position. Specifically, you write, “Likewise, whenever the Supreme Court, or any court or judge, for that matter, rules on the Constitutionality of any case before them they should be guided by what result or interpretation best accomplishes the objectives given to the government within The Preamble.”

This runs grave risks. Currently, the SCOTUS avoids basing its decision on whether a given law is a “good” or “bad” law, considering such questions to be “political questions” and thus the rightful jurisdiction of the other two branches, particularly the legislative branch. What it rules on is how the law is interpreted and whether the given law of probvision thereof conforms to the limitations placed upon governmnet policy by the Constitution. This is not to say that the SCOTUS is perfect, of course. It (1) does let its constituent political views influence its decisions and (2) interprets the powers of the central state far too broadly (while interpreting the rights of the people often too narrowly). But I still find the prohibition on deciding political questions an important self-limitation that it sometimes uses, since it would be clearly violating the separation of powers to consider them.

So how does this play into the preamble? If the SCOTUS is to now start deciding whether a given policy “establishes Justice,” e.g., it will inevitably have to decide political questions. I far prefer this to be decided by the Congress, which is at least slightly-responsible to the people. The SCOTUS, notably, is fully insolated from the people.

If Ms. Sotomayor is rejected and Mr. Obama surprises the world by nominating me to the SCOTUS, I honestly have to say that I would maintain the precedent in not citing the Preamble. I believe abandoning this precedent would be dangerous, although I do now understand your perspective on the matter better, I believe, and I do have to say I have much more respect for it than I had when I previously misinterpreted you.

Conversely, however, if I were in Congress, I might go ahead and cite aspects of the Preamble (in addition to the more important citations from Art. I, Sec. 8) in my findings clauses.

Yours truly,
Alex Peak

The kick takes place at exactly 0:39. We first see officer Schene walking through to the door at 0:43. He does not charge until exactly 0:44. Ergo, he waited exactly five second before charging.

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak

Good day,
Alex Peak

Here is an article I wrote and which was posted here on Last Free Voice.

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/the-laboratory-of-democracy-alternative-voting-methods-approval-voting-re-edited/

As for the rest, I will get to the party system and it not being provided for in The Constitution. Have you read the other articles in this series?

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/20/how-i-think-the-constitution-can-be-fixed-part-i-the-problem/

http://lastfreevoice.wordpress.com/2009/05/26/how-i-think-the-constitution-can-be-fixed-part-ii-the-preamble/

At the rate I am going through The Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it might take me 10 – 12 parts to get through this series of articles.

Sincerely,
Rhys M. Blavier

Where are your credentials that makes you an expert to diagnose Ed as bipolar, delusional and a narcissist?

Who the hell are you anyway, just another lying government disinformation agent?

Rhys

Thank you for clarrifying that. I also think that you are emphasizing a very important point which many people miss, advocating for ANY government but drawing lines as to how far it goes is no different than drawing a line in a principle and saying below this line a principle is too unimportant to fight for. That is what I admire about the philosophy of Anarchy, it doesn’t draw any lines like that, it simply says that there is no level of external government which is acceptible or can be trusted. It requires an amazing amount of faith… in yourself AND in other people, to be able to want actually see Anarchy as an achievable goal. I see it more as a shining light in the sky, a star, to give us something to steer towards but, like a star, our skip can never actually reach it, we can do more than use it for guiding us.

Those things that I do believe in… like a woman’s right to choose, are absolute and unwaivering because I believe that once you do start putting limiting qualifiers in those rights, you make it easy to move that line closer and closer to telling a woman what she must do with her body, or not do with it. As I said, I DO believe in government, limited though I want it to be, but I believe that it must be carefully designed to clearly and absolutely deliniate the lines of power and authority which it has. Those lines cannot be arbitrary or flexible for that allows them to move out farther and farther to the benefit of the government and at the expense of the people.

About ALL things, however, *I* may be wrong so I hope that you will never hear THIS minarchist make insulting remarks about the people as a whole who advocate other views of an idea government… I might insult individuals or mindsets, but ultimately most of us have a vision of a government (or lack thereof) which will benefit the most people… how can it be bad if any of us are proven wrong by someone else getting it right. Does that make sense?

Rhys