gdp's Comments

Center for a Stateless Society : If You Vote -- or Don't Vote -- Complain

Sat, 1 Nov 2014 22:15:22 +0000

Given a referendum issue that would by vote Y/N reduce government interference, I vole. None of the 3 refs on 2014 AZ ballot are of this type. I will NOT vote for a person to "represent" me in any manner in a coercion-based system. So I do not vote, again...

Center for a Stateless Society : Let the Market Contain Ebola

Fri, 24 Oct 2014 17:52:09 +0000

Because the FDA is not going to wither away anytime soon, we're left currently with after-the-fact measures. One not being used (or even mentioned except by me AFAIK) but which everyone could do is to make it clear that they will socially preference AGAINST anyone who does NOT immediately self-quarantine his/her self for the next 21 days after finding out that someone with whom s/he has had contact in the last 21 days is ebola positive OR has been in contact with someone who is ebola positive within the last 21 days. This is the only self-responsible action to take that will prevent further spread. If everyone understood that the "penalty" for not taking this measure will be the absence of all voluntary association by others, for however long it takes the offender to restitute those who become ill (or even have to self-quarantine themselves) as a result of the contact that should never have happened, very few individuals would fail to self-quarantine immediately. Being shunned by the vast majority of one's associates is a powerful incentive to conform, especially when the reason for the shunning is logically reasonable, such as with ebola transmission prevention. The above requires an open information society (like your suggestion, Tom, requires a truly free market) - a society in which individuals know that having an open life in regard to their interactions with others is necessary for an optimally functioning society. Being self-responsible, demanding that others be so and socially preferencing others accordingly, both negatively and positively, is a must for the much improved society that can be without the coercive State.

Center for a Stateless Society : The Problem Isn't "Patent Trolls." The Problem Is Patents.

Fri, 7 Feb 2014 20:52:16 +0000

Currently there is no widespread mechanism for returning value to the originator of "valuable" ideas - assessed by an individual as having value, unless such originator is directly related with the sales of a product or service - but even this method does not distinguish well between the originator of the idea and some duplicator of it. The actual concept of individuals returning value for value gained in the realm of information, as contrasted with products or services, is one that has yet to take hold in the general public. People need to realize that unless the producers of information (which includes novel ideas, music, literature, etc) are returned value *by those who find that information of value*, there will be less forthcoming from that producer and likely fewer producers overall in the future. Government's mechanism of patents is not the solution to getting value even to creators of products; they are a stifler of competition and innovation and also a tax (coerced payment) as Tom writes. But before mechanisms for returning value for value gained can hope to be successful, far more people need to come to the realization both that the value returning by those valuing is in their own best interest AND that government is NEVER a solution.

Center for a Stateless Society : Cops Get "Protected and Served," Don't Like It

Sun, 20 Oct 2013 19:57:14 +0000

"Protection and Serve" by Gov has long become Orwellian in content - previously towards the "underclasses", now for virtually all except the elites. You've made it very clear, Kevin, for those who haven't yet seen through the oxymoronic character of Gov with its very basis being removal of voluntary choice and distortion of all choices.

Center for a Stateless Society : This is What Regulatory Capture Looks Like

Tue, 8 Oct 2013 19:35:19 +0000

Very good, Kevin. Corruption is NOT the essence of the problem of & with government. The problem is with the system of providing for social order - what most people really want and have for centuries (millennia?) assumed can only be had via coercion, threats of and actual physical force. As you infer, it wouldn't matter if all the government officials, elected and appointed, were of the purest heart and intention for "public good"; the nature of the system in which a group decides what is and is not permissible for value-differing individuals to do is THE problem. Even when everyone is a "good guy", it won't be near optimal because everyone IS an individual. Whatever such "good guy" politicians/bureaucrats decide, it will be harmful to some/many because it is not what those individuals want.

Information Clearing House - News you won't find on CNN : Bradley Manning - ‘Sometimes You Have to Pay a Heavy Price to Live in a Free Society’

Thu, 22 Aug 2013 01:45:57 +0000

Bradley Manning did the right thing in revealing the GovEnforcer-produced horrors he saw and the manipulations the US government had been (and still is) engaged in. It is no surprise that the US government seeks to lock him away for more years than any among them who have ordered or actually done the harm that was made public by Bradley's revelations. In fact most of those who have issued the orders and/or committed heinous acts will only be judged by their fellows who choose to have no voluntary association with them - an action that is strongly recommended to all. In the meantime, those of us who admire Bradley for his sense of rightness and courage to follow through on his sense of horror need to make our voices heard AND not voluntarily associate with those who continue - despite our attempts at reasoned logic - to malign Bradley Manning for his rightful action. Laws do NOT necessarily = "the right thing".

Center for a Stateless Society : The "Fiscal Cliff": Jim and Buzz Redux

Fri, 30 Nov 2012 19:43:00 +0000

Well said, Tom! And the analogy is good too, though many today will be seeing that film clip for the first time... and don't keep in mind that it IS their "vehicles" that are taking the plunge. The point can't be repeated too often: "Like all parasites, the state is evolved toward one and only one means of survival: It is driven to suck your blood, growing itself at your expense, until it has drained you dry. The “fiscal cliff” drama is just the political class equivalent of a tick hiding in your hairy places, or a leech secreting a pain-killing chemical to keep you from noticing its presence and its effect." Hopefully more are getting the picture and will actually come to understand it... Then move to close the "water faucet", letting the State begin to whither away while building their personal relationships with others based on value exchange, not government's method of physical force threats and actual initiation.

WAVY.com : Man exonerated for assault, still imprisoned | WAVY.com | Richmond, Va.

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 06:03:36 +0000

Restitution from Elizabeth Coast is what Jonathan Montgomery deserves for the loss of liberty he has endured over these many years. The restitution should be whatever Jonathan determines will return him to the state of lifetime Happiness that he was at just before Coast made that false accusation. If the restitution that Jonathan, as the victim of a harm, calls for is determined by some to be too great - or by others to be too small - then negative Social Preferencing (withdrawal of voluntary association with him) is the appropriate action by others. And obviously negative Social Preferencing is the appropriate action towards Elizabeth Coast by others until she fulfils her restitution to Jonathan, in addition to being wary of other things she has claimed as being true.

Center for a Stateless Society : Critique of Contract Feudalism

Tue, 20 Nov 2012 00:30:29 +0000

Paul Marks aptly points out the errors of those who view employment by others as some sort of servitude/serfdom - which historically was instituted by governments. The current chains are imposed by governments on employers who very often cannot legally fire an employee or even fail to hire certain applicants, BUT the employee can fail to work as agreed (reason for specific employment contracts) and the employer cannot assume resignation if it's a "strike action". Government chains are also heavy via regulations on all sorts of "self-employment", where being part of a Government-favored group is necessary and only favors those in that group by keeping it small, monopolistic in fact. Those who target the employer-employee relationship itself as some sort of evil are actually helping to promote governments in their self-hallowed role of "protectors of the downtrodden".

Center for a Stateless Society : Modern Commerce

Tue, 9 Oct 2012 00:50:15 +0000

"Away with the parent of monopoly — government — and all other monopolies will vanish like fog before the morning sun". Very true. The government IS the "parent" - creator - of all the mechanisms that remove voluntary choice by individuals, distort all choices and prevent unknown numbers and types of other choices from coming into existence. Thanks, James, for bringing this essay to greater light. It is interesting for its farsightedness, though the author Henry Addis does not (here at least) refer to what would be a "sane and rational basis" upon which the "re-organization of industries" could take place in order that "gaunt destitution be known no more in all the land". I suggest that a sane and rational basis for society is how to characterize, "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction" : http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.h... This is not a breezy read. This treatise with the twin-framework implementations of the Social Meta-Needs theory - The Natural Social Contract (a new conception with no relation to Rousseau's or anyone else's) & Social Preferencing - are envisioned as replacements for existing governments, all of which are described & regulated (in the US alone) via thousands of volumes & many millions (?billions?) of words enabling tens of thousands of lawyers (far more than in Addis' day) to charge handsomely to serve as "gatekeepers" for the common folk. Therefore all of this is not a breezy skim-through read - a warning for those looking for & used to soundbites on which to walk away with, thinking that such bromides are really foundational and meaningful as a solution to serious social problems. Intellectual chewing is urged and public reasoned critiques, using quotes. Lastly I'll add the point, that "(doing) away with .... government" needs to take place by withering it, rather than violent means or attempts to "vote it out". The first alternative would only replace the present administration or even governmental form with a version at least equally as determined to prevent voluntary individual choices. The second is an acquiescence to the concept of rulers/ruled as necessary for stable orderly society. While the claims by some online that "withering away" government is "just too 19th Century", I suspect that those individuals have not adequately studied non-violent methods for social change. They appear to prefer a violent change, being "all for bludgeoning that bitch in a ditch with a piece of lead pipe" as one wrote while disparaging the idea of withering away government. Such comments reflect a low level of personal responsibility from a wide view and long range perspective. As for some ideas on withering away of the State, I've included them in general in, "Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of Self-Responsibility and Social Order": http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html A paradigm shift in thinking about human interactions is necessary for the "sane and rational basis..,.. enabling gaunt destitution be known no more in all the land" to come into being. The first link above introduces a new paradigm for that needed - and often sought - basis.

Antiwar.com Blog : Our Relationship With Amazon

Wed, 9 Mar 2011 23:45:31 +0000

Edit attempts to correct the 1st 2 and 4th links above have not succeeded...??! Therefore here are those 2 short paragraphs with good links: "I and husband Paul Wakfer have canceled PP (as well as Amazon) and reduced MC & Visa to emergencies or w/ debit card only - see "WikiLeaks: What can one person do to help?" http://selfsip.org/focus/helpwikileaks.html Our philosophical justification for boycotting is in the works! [Completed the next day - "Libertarians Need less Strategy -- and more Principle!" http://selfsip.org/focus/libertariansneedmoreprin... ]. At the time of the 1/18 email I was in the middle of writing "Are Principles Unaffordable" - http://selfsip.org/focus/areprinciplesunaffordabl... - which addressed the claim by websites, "We can't afford to do that", when approached with the recommendation to use alternatives to PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, because of their harmful actions towards WikiLeaks, which took place without those corporations being legally compelled to act as they did,

Antiwar.com Blog : Our Relationship With Amazon

Wed, 9 Mar 2011 22:52:27 +0000

Why does this cessation of AntiWar.com's boycott of Amazon not surprise me? That's because I saw no consistency by AntiWar.com continuing to use PayPal, VISA and MasterCard for donations back in mid-December. I made this point of inconsistency in an email to Angela Keaton (her email address is on the website Donation page) on December 16 2010 while expressing pleasure at the boycott of Amazon. I added: "I and husband Paul Wakfer have canceled PP (as well as Amazon) and reduced MC & Visa to emergencies or w/ debit card only - see "WikiLeaks: What can one person do to help?" (http://selfsip.org/focus/helpwikileaks.html) Our philosophical justification for boycotting is in the works! [Completed the next day - "Libertarians Need less Strategy -- and more Principle!" (http://selfsip.org/focus/libertariansneedmoreprinciple.html)]. "XipWire.com may be a good alternate transmission method for you from those within US. They have Wikileaks directly as a donation recipient and a cell phone is no longer a necessity for donations (I used my PC & home phone on 12/10, alerting them to "hole" in their system which they then expanded) - they're working feverishly on expanding for all transmittals to "friends/families". Hope this method can be made to work for you. Also how about e-checks too?" --------end of 12/16/10 email excerpt------- No response was received. On January 18, I emailed Angela Keaton again, this time expressing disappointment at AntiWar.com's continued use of "PayPal, Visa and MasterCard for donations when all of these corporations refuse to transmit their customers' own money to WikiLeaks – all because the US government wants WikiLeaks stopped from releasing embarrassing information. Since AntiWar.com is "devoted to the cause of non-interventionism" and WikiLeaks has made a major contribution to worldwide government (and corporation) harm-causing information availability to individuals, I have been expecting that the website would replace its usage of these 3 money transfer corporations because of their blatant anti-WikiLeaks actions." In this same email I also expressed confusion: "by seeing on XIPWIRE.com's non-profit page this evening, a campaign listing for AntiWar.com - https://xipwire.com/give/antiwar "Is this something very new that has not yet been completed for inclusion at the AntiWar.com website itself? If so, I am pleased to see it and hope that you will complete this very soon along with a written statement to AntiWar.com readers of a move away from the anti-WikiLeaks pro-government corporations of PayPal, Visa and MasterCard (Bank of America too as a bank that won't transmit any of it's customer's own money if directed to WikiLeaks). It is just this kind of supportive action beyond words that is sorely needed by major liberty-promoting websites to keep the tidal pressure moving towards true liberty. Many individuals have already canceled Amazon, PayPal and even the Visa and MasterCard credit account (our credit cards are on an emergency use only basis - haven't had a need yet - and the debit MasterCard is for pay-at-the-pump gas only) as demonstrations of negative Social Preferencing towards those corporations and positive Social Preferencing towards WikiLeaks. "I do most sincerely hope that you will confirm AntiWar.com's move away from pro-government anti-WikiLeaks PayPal, Visa and MasterCard and towards XIPWIRE and other companies that are at least not anti-WikiLeaks." -----------end of 1/18/11 email to akeaton--------------- Again no response was received. At the time of the 1/18 email I was in the middle of writing "Are Principles Unaffordable" (http://selfsip.org/focus/areprinciplesunaffordable.html) which addressed the claim by websites, "We can't afford to do that", when approached with the recommendation to use alternatives to PayPal, Visa and MasterCard, because of their harmful actions towards WikiLeaks, which took place without those corporations being legally compelled to act as they did, So the fact that AntiWar.com has failed - again - to be consistent in its stated principles does not surprise, though it still disappoints, me. To the extent that AntiWar.com is supportive of the actions of the State, which includes patronizing those voluntary organizations that are eager to cooperate with government, then AntiWar.com is not truly serious about the stopping and preventing of war, the State's major physical force "product". Writing about being against war is easy - "talk the talk". However, doing things that are effective in truly doing away with, or at least greatly reducing, the war creators - "walk the walk" - is something that many websites and writers are not willing to do. It seems that the inconvenience of doing that kind of "walking" is just too much for AntiWar.com and that "talking" is all that will be done "to lead the non-interventionist cause and the peace movements" (from the AntiWar.com Mission statement). This leaves the AntiWar.com website with the true subtitle "in words only".

Center for a Stateless Society : Government Shutdown Theater

Sat, 5 Mar 2011 19:00:33 +0000

The question to be asked and answered first is "non-essential " to whom? "Essential/non-essential" is really a personal evaluation - one that will expectedly change with time and location, a fact that is completely disregarded in this age when a large portion of the population is willing and even anxious to turn over to government self-responsibility over major areas of their lives. Having government or even some voluntary group decide what is "essential" or "non-essential" for its citizens or members, respectively, is a denial of the fact of individuality, which includes a myriad of circumstances for each. At least an individual can remove hirself from membership of voluntary groups but governments in the area of hir residence continue to exercise their self-decreed authority - town (unless outside boundary), county, state, federal - using agents of physical force, those humans willing to initiate it.

Center for a Stateless Society : Government Shutdown Theater

Wed, 2 Mar 2011 03:15:58 +0000

> Don't hit people. How about gassing, radiating, sound blasting, insulting, cursing, etc? How about if they are on your property? If they are hitting you? If they are building an a-bomb in their next door basement? > Don't take their stuff. How is "their stuff" differentiated from my stuff? Is their image part of their stuff? (as many primitive peoples think)? Their thoughts; their emitted words/sounds; their public writings? Is the volume of space that they occupy always their stuff? Is any volume of space their stuff? If you are lost in the woods, certain (in your estimation) to starve/freeze before reaching civilization and you find a well stocked cabin, do you break and use what is clearly some else's stuff or do you remain outside and die? And how is "take" determined? Does photographing someone or recording their sounds equate to "taking"? How about trespass on the land of another? How does that relate to "taking stuff" or to "hitting". What is done for those most often occurrences when someone is hit or their stuff is taken/damaged, purely accidentally? The same when done "carelessly"? How do you define the difference between carelessly, irresponsibly and accidentally? How about when it is done intentionally with benefit in mind, but the recipient regards it as a harm? .. .. The above is not even the tip of the iceberg of what is not covered by such a reply as yours and/or "The Non-Aggression Principle". This kind of reply and that "Principle" unfortunately are why libertarians are not taken seriously by so very many in society as a whole.

Center for a Stateless Society : Government Shutdown Theater

Sun, 27 Feb 2011 00:15:12 +0000

Your point is part of what I had in mind when I wrote, "But in order to do so with any hope of convincing large numbers, a sound basis for a self-ordered society must be provided." It is inherent within the text of "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction" and this very principled basis is what is missing in much of libertarian writings.

Center for a Stateless Society : Government Shutdown Theater

Sat, 26 Feb 2011 20:03:10 +0000

Government representatives everywhere, and most definitely in the US too, spend considerable effort in spreading a message of government necessity - that without it all would be chaos. Oh yes, even anarchy! This last is a word that dredges up fear of terrorists, carnage, rape, pillage or at least disease and filth when all it truly means is "without government", but the response of fear is what is desired by those in and supportive of governments Rulers/governments constantly promote and foster dependency of individuals *on* government and fear of a society without it. Consider all those who are currently direct recipients of monies from government, either by way of wages, direct handouts or services - all of which come from taxpayers, most often some from the recipients themselves. The dependency of many and demonstrated anxiety at the possibility of loss is truly sad to witness. The fact that so many have lost or never developed self-responsibility approaches pathetic. This idea of government necessity goes back in the US to at least the Federalist Papers#2, October 31 1787, authored by John Jay under the pseudonym when he wrote " Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government". (source: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa02.htm) I (once again) urge that this assumption that has carried on in the US for at least 223 years be repeatedly brought out into the open and challenged. But in order to do so with any hope of convincing large numbers, a sound basis for a self-ordered society must be provided. I think that only currently exists in "Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction" http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.h...

Rational Review News Digest : Federal marshals threaten, censor Libertarian Enterprise

Sat, 19 Feb 2011 00:00:49 +0000

[Following comment posted at libertas.ws article but still "awaiting moderation" after 4.5hrs] What response did you receive when you requested the legal basis for this article removal requirement by the US Marshals – the *legal basis*, not just a reason? If you did not make this request, why not? Since you did not get a response from GoDaddy.com as to what “Terms of Service we were in violation of — instead simply repeating the order to remove the material” (or your service would be terminated, I presume), are you now in search of a new web hosting service? Either your own or one not so easily cowed? Why not the formation of a libertarian web hosting service that will at least always require a legal basis for any similar such demand by a US government agency since such non-legal requirements are on the increase?

Rational Review News Digest : Chalk one up for the good guys!

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 07:12:31 +0000

Very well done! This is the first I heard about this incident and commend all those involved for being able to handle this round - and I agree that there is more to come - with the reality-distorting husband and father-in-law of Shaun Lee. She definitely used her brains by quickly making use of her computer line to the outside world to reach those with whom she had a mutually respectful relationship. And William you put it all down so well that it read like an adventure story, which it really was, though one I'm sure you'd all not want to repeat.

Center for a Stateless Society : About Jared Lee Loughner . . .

Sun, 9 Jan 2011 20:03:49 +0000

Many of the comments I've been reading on website column comments are as reality-distorting as is demonstrated in the speech and text clips from various pundits and politicians those same commenters are condemning. I've made that and related points at 2 online locations in the past day. http://bit.ly/fWpXgV http://bit.ly/gTySpx and the last one before Paul dragged me off to bed :) http://www.opednews.com/articles/Rotten-Rhetoric-... I think that many people do not want to address the subject of personal responsibility because that would apply to them too. Such people want to place the blame elsewhere for their own choices and actions. Others are lazy thinkers and *let themselves be swayed* - but I think most of these will come round to using their brains, instead of their glands, *if* they are approached with reasoned thinking. For the first and the rest.... I strongly recommend public negative Social Preferencing (referred to in my online comments above) and I am working to outlive the bastards.

Rational Review News Digest : Army's "spiritual fitness"' test

Fri, 7 Jan 2011 06:12:09 +0000

Posting at Truth-out.org is not a simple procedure if one is not going through facebook and has more than a few lines to throw out... My comment both as one longish item and then with just the 1st 3 paragraphs received this message: "Your posting was blocked by our spam filter. Your post appears to be a duplicate. Please allow up to 15 minutes for posts to go live." I had waited 15 minutes before trying the long version a 2nd time without a link and then again when going with just the first 3 paragraphs.... So I enter the entire thing here and maybe I'll try there again another day... -------- Comment text --------- "[T]eaching its service members how to be psychologically resilient and resist "catastrophizing" traumatic events." - you mean like experiencing guilt feelings for killing and otherwise physically harming individuals who are not actually *initiating* physical harm towards that soldier?! I hope the readers of this article stop and ask themselves who are the actual harm-doers in war - declared or not. The soldiers/sailors/marines - the government enforcers in geographical areas outside the USA - are the key to stopping wars, just as they are the essential key to starting them. I write it this way because, the hundreds of thousands of ordinary soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen are the ones doing the actual harm - most of it per order of their non-coms, officers and high command including the President. Do you think that the high command generals, admirals and the President are going to go out in the field and enforce their own orders to fire the guns, tanks, missiles, to set the traps/bombs, deploy the drones or even do the maintenance and repair on the various equipment used? No way! Protesting in writing and person against the current administration's continued warfare in Iraq, escalation of it in Afghanistan and talk (and plans?) of it in Iran (and who knows where else) is good. BUT it is not enough! The actual enforcers of the government's plans are the key!! ========= split point for 2 posts.... If large numbers of the troops become convinced to cease being the fingers on the triggers, then the current wars (and those on the drawing board or just possibilities) will burn out from lack of fuel. I recommend families and friends to use logical persuasion of the above type to urge their military enforcer to cease being so and to resign, refuse re-enlistment and instead to get truly productive employment. And do not hesitate to urge potential enlistees to take a non-military route for employment. Also, if family/friend military members have the courage to refuse deployment (while attempting to resign) and the possible ensuing military court repercussions, support them openly and heavily. An additional method of persuasion for those who will not be convinced of the logic above is to refuse to voluntarily associate with them - those individuals who continue in or join the military and those persons who "support" the troops as they continue to inflict harm. This negative Social Preferencing (contrasted with the positive form to favor those approved) has been referred to as ostracism in many parts of the world for centuries and has been an effective method of nonviolent political action. (Writings of Gene Sharp recommended.)