I do not like his views on Ron Paul, and I have not read enough of his UPB to be able to say much (though it doesn't seem very solid from what I have read), but I do find some of his material quite useful. In fact, I reference him in an essay I have written that I will posts on here (in a few minutes).
Emma Goldman on Woman Suffrage in 1911: Religion, especially the Christian religion, has condemned woman to the life of an inferior, a slave. It has thwarted her nature and fettered her soul, yet the Christian religion has no greater supporter, none more devout, than woman. Indeed, it is safe to say that religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from woman. The most ardent churchworkers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body.
The insatiable monster, war, robs woman of all that is dear and precious to her. It exacts her brothers, lovers, sons, and in return gives her a life of loneliness and despair. Yet the greatest supporter and worshiper of war is woman. She it is who instills the love of conquest and power into her children; she it is who whispers the glories of war into the ears of her little ones, and who rocks her baby to sleep with the tunes of trumpets and the noise of guns. It is woman, too, who crowns the victor on his return from the battlefield. Yes, it is woman who pays the highest price to that insatiable monster, war.
Then there is the home. What a terrible fetich it is! How it saps the very life-energy of woman, – this modern prison with golden bars. Its shining aspect blinds woman to the price she would have to pay as wife, mother, and housekeeper. Yet woman clings tenaciously to the home, to the power that holds her in bondage.
It may be said that because woman recognizes the awful toll she is made to pay to the Church, State, and the home, she wants suffrage to set herself free. That may be true of the few; the majority of suffragists repudiate utterly such blasphemy. On the contrary, they insist always that it is woman suffrage which will make her a better Christian and home keeper, a staunch citizen of the State. Thus suffrage is only a means of strengthening the omnipotence of the very Gods that woman has served from time immemorial.
What wonder, then, that she should be just as devout, just as zealous, just as prostrate before the new idol, woman suffrage. As of old, she endures persecution, imprisonment, torture, and all forms of condemnation, with a smile on her face. As of old, the most enlightened, even, hope for a miracle from the twentieth-century deity, – suffrage. Life, happiness, joy, freedom, independence, – all that, and more, is to spring from suffrage. In her blind devotion woman does not see what people of intellect perceived fifty years ago: that suffrage is an evil, that it has only helped to enslave people, that it has but closed their eyes that they may not see how craftily they were made to submit.
Woman’s demand for equal suffrage is based largely on the contention that woman must have the equal right in all affairs of society. No one could, possibly, refute that, if suffrage were a right. Alas, for the ignorance of the human mind, which can see a right in an imposition. Or is it not the most brutal imposition for one set of people to make laws that another set is coerced by force to obey? Yet woman clamors for that “golden opportunity” that has wrought so much misery in the world, and robbed man of his integrity and self-reliance; an imposition which has thoroughly corrupted the people, and made them absolute prey in the hands of unscrupulous politicians.
The poor, stupid, free American citizen! Free to starve, free to tramp the highways of this great country, he enjoys universal suffrage, and, by that right, he has forged chains about his limbs. The reward that he receives is stringent labor laws prohibiting the right of boycott, of picketing, in fact, of everything, except the right to be robbed of the fruits of his labor. Yet all these disastrous results of the twentieth-century fetich have taught woman nothing. But, then, woman will purify politics, we are assured.
Needless to say, I am not opposed to woman suffrage on the conventional ground that she is not equal to it. I see neither physical, psychological, nor mental reasons why woman should not have the equal right to vote with man. But that can not possibly blind me to the absurd notion that woman will accomplish that wherein man has failed. If she would not make things worse, she certainly could not make them better. To assume, therefore, that she would succeed in purifying something which is not susceptible of purification, is to credit her with supernatural powers. Since woman’s greatest misfortune has been that she was looked upon as either angel or devil, her true salvation lies in being placed on earth; namely, in being considered human, and therefore subject to all human follies and mistakes. Are we, then, to believe that two errors will make a right? Are we to assume that the poison already inherent in politics will be decreased, if women were to enter the political arena? The most ardent suffragists would hardly maintain such a folly.
…
But, say our suffrage devotees, look at the countries and States where female suffrage exists. See what woman has accomplished – in Australia, New Zealand, Finland, the Scandinavian countries, and in our own four States, Idaho, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. Distance lends enchantment – or, to quote a Polish formula – “it is well where we are not.” Thus one would assume that those countries and States are unlike other countries or States, that they have greater freedom, greater social and economic equality, a finer appreciation of human life, deeper understanding of the great social struggle, with all the vital questions it involves for the human race.
The women of Australia and New Zealand can vote, and help make the laws. Are the labor conditions better there than they are in England, where the suffragettes are making such a heroic struggle? Does there exist a greater motherhood, happier and freer children than in England? Is woman there no longer considered a mere sex commodity? Has she emancipated herself from the Puritanical double standard of morality for men and women? Certainly none but the ordinary female stump politician will dare answer these questions in the affirmative. If that be so, it seems ridiculous to point to Australia and New Zealand as the Mecca of equal suffrage accomplishments.
On the other hand, it is a fact to those who know the real political conditions in Australia, that politics have gagged labor by enacting the most stringent labor laws, making strikes without the sanction of an arbitration committee a crime equal to treason.
Not for a moment do I mean to imply that woman suffrage is responsible for this state of affairs. I do mean, however, that there is no reason to point to Australia as a wonder-worker of woman’s accomplishment, since her influence has been unable to free labor from the thraldom of political bossism.
Emma Goldman on Patriotism: Patriotism assumes that our globe is divided into little spots, each one surrounded by an iron gate. Those who have had the fortune of being born on some particular spot, consider themselves better, nobler, grander, [and] more intelligent than the living beings inhabiting any other spot. It is, therefore, the duty of everyone living on that chosen spot to fight, kill, and die in the attempt to impose his superiority upon all the others. The inhabitants of the other spots reason in like manner, of course, with the result that, from early infancy, the mind of the child is poisoned with bloodcurdling stories about the Germans, the French, the Italians, Russians, etc. When the child has reached manhood, he is thoroughly saturated with the belief that he is chosen by the Lord himself to defend his country against the attack or invasion of any foreigner.
Body of Evidence: Osama bin Laden, Stratfor, WikiLeaks, and Journalism That Isn’t
Obama’s personal role in a journalist’s imprisonment
NPR and NYT on Americans v. Afghans
Obama’s Iran Policy Commits Him to War
Iran cut off from global financial system
http://scores.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=320760130
Go Ohio Bobcats!
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
I guess I can't escape it! I came to this site to avoid any news about the Ohio upset! LOL I'm an Akron fan and it's bothering the hell out of me knowing that it could have been my team as the cinderella if we beat the bobcats a week ago.
Go Akron zips!
(good luck against a very beatable Temple/USF team)
MaikU: Anyway, does someone know of any other (not dead) forums debating about freedom and anarchy? I know only few, including mises, freedomain radio (boring), and anti-state.org (practically dead forum)? There is ronpaul forum and some leftist forums, but is there any market anarchist forum out there with more than 5 people trolling each other?
Anyway, does someone know of any other (not dead) forums debating about freedom and anarchy?
I know only few, including mises, freedomain radio (boring), and anti-state.org (practically dead forum)?
There is ronpaul forum and some leftist forums, but is there any market anarchist forum out there with more than 5 people trolling each other?
Yeah most Ron Paul supporters haven't evolved that far yet (they haven't seen Graham's video ). Apparently there's some activity in the Wendy McElroy forums? (Don't ask me why).
Jargon:Is Molyneux pretty well disliked on here?
Here's my assessment of him utilizing a specific video as an example platform.
New RevolutionPAC ad:
[playlist of all official ads]
The poor bastard is so close...
Niall Ferguson: The 6 killer apps of prosperity
I know this is off topic but I have added support for this forum, so I thought it might be of use for you. I have created a greasemonkey script to enlarge embedded youtube videos.
Install greasemonkey and then install the userscript.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/ http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/126756
New documentary, I have not watched it all yet.
http://www.nature.com/srep/2012/120315/srep00312/full/srep00312.html
lol, I'm actually a Rocket - I just like rooting for MAC teams - the Zips were legit this year though.
Again Go Bobcats, sweet 16!!!
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/recap?gameId=320780058
Also kind of cool:
If Cinci can win that would be 4 Ohio teams in the sweet 16
A Fairness Quiz for the President
Many willing to cut Afghan shooting suspect slack
Porn makers dismiss Santorum attack as pandering
If you were king.
Thought these were pretty good:
Today is the Spring Equinox. We are half-way between the Winter and Summer solstices (the points at which the Sun "stands still" in the sky, that is, changes direction in the zodiacal belt). Today, the Sun is at the mid-point of the zodiacal belt and rises exactly due East.
Aries (my sign) marks the beginning of the Zodiacal calendar and begins tomorrow (March 21).
Clayton -
I've been running into this freeman crap more frequently lately. The State is a bully. Anyone who thinks you can stop a bully from beating you up and taking your lunch money by invoking some "forgotten common law rights" is ... a nerd. All the more reason you'll get beaten up and have your lunch money taken.
Taking back your rights as a human being (someone who is in direct, unmediated contact with the Universe) requires the use of guile and subtlety. "Standing up to the Man" will do you absolutely no good. You won't even make it to martyr status because they've already mastered the art of quashing non-compliants without sparking public sympathy.
I've begun to like "rights" less and less lately, and I find it hopeless for people such as us to put effort into finding them. I may hear such talk from those who actually fall back on some sort of governing structure, but if you remove the structure I feel so called rights fall away with it, the language changes (only right I find satisfactory is the right to be left alone, which interepreted broadly is all you need).
For example, this article on the "lies of American individualism." I've debated the writer before on FB, he's an "unapologetic socialist," and he'll create strawman like it's his job which can make things annoying, but to sum the article up:
"A real philosophy of individualism would include safeguards for the development of a person’s unique and latent potentialities, and would allow for the cultivation of human potential, unhindered by economic and political power. [...] A society that genuinely cared about fostering and protecting individuality would allow for its citizens to develop their talents, aptitudes, and inclinations in the freest ways possible, with supports ensuring that everyone had the proper housing, medical care, freedom of speech, and rights to education and economic security upon which the development of higher abilities can be predicated. [...] A society that insists there should be no education supports, unemployment insurance, housing rights, or rights to medical care, cannot ensure this."
It vaguely reminds me of a quote from I believe Bakunin on man's material needs to be safeguarded or provided for his full development (I cannot find the one I'm thinking of specifically). My response in a simpler form is essentially "Who's entitled to what at the expense of whom?"
His reponse was
Any claim about rights, or enforcing them, is a claim on someone else's labor. A right to freedom of speech entails a claim on the labor of people to protect and enforce those rights. A popular libertarian argument about health care is that it forces doctors to be slaves. Well, any right does that, in that sense, if there are to be people to enforce, prosecute, etc., on behalf of a defense of those rights. And what about Menken and Thoreau? They have their moments, but like most thinkers I've read, I never agree with 100% of what they write. Also, I was discussing really-existing US capitalism in this article, not fantasy-land, pipedream capitalism that does not exist, but where everything would somehow work out well.
So here it comes back to rights, and in sort rights his own err, that rights would have to be provided at the expense of someone. My response (which I guess stumped he as he didn't reply) was "I don't believe in rights, or rights based arguments," but can one really find me a "right"? If rights stem from some governing power over a territory, then they can be easily taken away as well, and the argument always rests on the same structure taking them away to provide them, so what's a right besides a privilege if you define the origin as such? "Common law" or "God-given rights" and other such intangible nonsense, it's only gotten as far as a Constitution, that should not be the end of progress.
It makes me think of this Stirner quote:
But let the individual man lay claim to ever so many rights because Man or the concept man ‘entitles’ him to them, because his being man does it: what do I care for his right and his claim? If he has his right only from Man and does not have it from me, then for me he has no right. His life, for example, counts to me only for what it is worth to me. I respect neither a so-called right of property (or his claim to tangible goods) nor yet his right to the ‘sanctuary of his inner nature’ (or his right to have the spiritual goods and divinities, his gods, remain un-aggrieved). His goods, the sensuous as well as the spiritual, are mine, and I dispose of them as proprietor, in the measure of my — might.
Haha, he still has the false idea that he is entitled to protection. Just tell him that no one "owes" you protection. That solves it.
That just makes things all to easy and simple, and then the insults of egoism, individualism, selfishness, petit bourgeoisie capitalism and whatever else pop up. It shows that rights are a double edged sword, anyone can lay claim they have a right to something or from something, and hence it (the "right" or the service) must be protected or provided, by someone or something, and it's probably for the "common good" that we have some institution to do so, so there's no corruption on behalf of greedy and selfish individuals.
In other news NASA is going to shoot rockets in the sky that will leave a trail of visible chemical clouds across the east coast.
@Bert: That Stirner quote crystallizes the essence of the problem of the adversarial relationship. When two people stand in an adversarial disposition, the only "rule" or "law" or "right" is might, who can do what to whom and get away with it. The Hobbesian exaggeration of human aggression is obviously false because, as Hoppe points out, we are here; humanity would have long ago self-extinguished if we were solely regulated by aggressive instincts. And neither are the majority of human interactions adversarial - almost all interactions are cooperative, only a few are (even indirectly) adversarial.
The conception of rights as magical incantations that freeze your adversary from following through on aggressive threats is silly and childish. Nevertheless, rights definitely do exist. The problem is that rights are a posteriori, not a priori. This is why natural rights theory fails. We know what our rights are as a result of the settlement of disputes (the operation of law).
Natural rights proponents argue that reason is a higher standard even than the common law because the common law can cognize as lawful behaviors which clearly ought to be unlawful and vice-versa. However, this misses the point that the common law is based on actual human behavior; unlike statutes, common law is not a body of thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots... it's simply a body of legal decisions, some better, some worse but all of which inform our idea of what the law really is on the basis of the one thing that a priori argumentation cannot give us: actual experience.
Most of the really stupid common laws you can identify were cloistered to a very tiny community, or the result of some tradition that arose under political influence, or imitation of some brain-dead statute in another place, and so on. For the most part, wherever there has been common law, there is little distinction between what is in fact lawful/unlawful and what common sense and reason say should be lawful/unlawful.
Rights emerge in a "game-theoretic" sense... from the unboundedly complex and intricate game of uncertainty surrounding credible threats in the context of what the law is understood to be. If you dent my car and I threaten to kill you on the spot, that is not a very credible threat in most cases. Most of the threats which people involved in a legal dispute are likely to make to one another (such as, refusing to participate in a legal case at all or taking retribution into one's own hands) are empty threats and will not actually be carried out because of the high degree of uncertainty about the long-run consequences of extra-legal behavior.
For the individual and his might is what he wills for himself, but that of might would not have to be aggression or violence in that sense. I think it enters the realm of praxeology if anything, and looking at it through a utilitarian lense. The government collectivised both will and might, and it's a challenge to the individual. It would be experience that violence does not bring the best outcome, and certain level of knowledge and understanding of more intricate matters (economics, for example) helps usher in a more smooth and peaceful working of individuals in union with one another.
In the sense of law itself I can understand rights as being so, that there is a legal dispute the concept of "rights" comes into play (violation of contracts, property, etc.)
The problem would be people claiming rights and entitlements that are more of just abstract notions of what ought to be, they don't really exist, and if they cannot make a physical claim then neither is what they believe they are entitled to.
Muslims to re-establish gold and silver currencies (sound money)
Why I Am Leaving Goldman Sachs
Fraud Case Seen as a Red Flag for Psychology Research
Discussing the motives of the Afghan shooter
Private vs. Public Barbershop
NY Times Cuts Number Of Free Online Articles
Employers ask job seekers for Facebook passwords
Afghanistan suspect had shaky business dealings
Forgot to post this when it was published. They're pulling out bigger indoctrination guns:
WASHINGTON – As college courses go, the name — "Reflections on the Federal Reserve and Its Place in Today's Economy" — sounds perfectly ordinary. Then there's the name of the lecturer. Not exactly ordinary: Ben Bernanke, the sitting chairman of the Federal Reserve.
Amazing chart!
Also, I am amazed by how much Ron Paul actually walks the walk:
http://news.yahoo.com/ron-paul-calls-secret-protection-form-welfare-133107447.html
Damn:
Republican presidential candidate and staunch libertarian Ron Paul says he has rejected protection from the Secret Service because he believes charging taxpayers for his personal security is a “form of welfare.” “You know, you’re having the taxpayers pay to take care of somebody,” Paul told late night talk show host Jay Leno on Tuesday. “And I’m an ordinary citizen and I would think I should pay for my own protection, and it costs, I think, more than $50,000 a day to protect those individuals.”
Republican presidential candidate and staunch libertarian Ron Paul says he has rejected protection from the Secret Service because he believes charging taxpayers for his personal security is a “form of welfare.”
“You know, you’re having the taxpayers pay to take care of somebody,” Paul told late night talk show host Jay Leno on Tuesday. “And I’m an ordinary citizen and I would think I should pay for my own protection, and it costs, I think, more than $50,000 a day to protect those individuals.”
That alone should grab whoever was watching the show's interest. A presidential candidate willing to pay for his own expenses. He indirectly smacked every president in the face who's used the SS.
Bert:He indirectly smacked every president in the face who's used the SS.
Um. No. Once you're President you're no longer an "ordinary citizen". I guarantee you President Ron Paul would not pay for his own protection.
...used the SS, lol.
http://www.caseyresearch.com/articles/ascendence-sociopaths-us-governance
I see what you did there... I think...
Zach Weiner from SMBC nails it on the head once again:
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556#comic
Are you suggesting that he would not prefer it differently?
Obama ‘Road’ Film Takes Some Detours
Soldier's lawyer known for 'humanizing' clients
Obamacare, Two Years Later
Cool