Francisco Ferrer

Taking the false drama out of your situation... he didn't refuse to pay his taxes, he tried to evade paying the taxes he owed. "According to the indictment, in 2004, in the District of Columbia, Thomas formed multiple entities whose names contained the acronym ECG, which stood for ESOP Capital Group. ECG purported to provide financial, business and other management services to companies that were interested in creating ESOPs, which are employee stock ownership plans. In or about 2005 and 2006, Thomas, through ECG, contracted to provide such services to two companies in Maine. The indictment further alleges that, despite earning income, Thomas did not file his 2005 through 2007 individual income tax returns. In addition, he allegedly evaded assessment of his individual income tax liabilities for those years by diverting cash from the two companies he contracted with in Maine, using nominee bank accounts, titling assets in his spouse’s name and withdrawing substantial amounts of cash." It obviously didn't work, because most criminals stupidly believe the fantasy that they are much more deceitfully clever than they actually are. No man "owes" taxes any more than the parents of a child "owe" his kidnapper ransom. Taxes are theft, pure and simple. The only reason the public has been bamboozled into paying them is because of state propaganda which preaches "civic duty," "social contract," "fair share" and all the other statist claptrap. "Consent of the victim," a famous woman once wrote. "Refuse" or "evade"? The example I gave was in fact one of evasion. But you can be certain our "feminized" liberal government, which "abhors all fighting," will come down just as hard on the refusers, will use all the aggressive force at its disposal (bullets, clubs, tazers, tear gas, prisons and torture) to make sure we all "contribute" what we "owe." If the government can take a man's money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may practice upon him; for, with his money, it can hire soldiers to stand over him, keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion, and kill him if he resists. And governments always will do this, as they everywhere and always have done it, except where the Common Law principle has been established. It is therefore a first principle, a very sine qua non of political freedom, that a man can be taxed only by his personal consent. And the establishment of this principle, with trial by jury, insures freedom of course; because: 1. No man would pay his money unless he had first contracted for such a government as he was willing to support; and, 2. Unless the government then kept itself within the terms of its contract, juries would not enforce the payment of the tax. Besides, the agreement to be taxed would probably be entered into but for a year at a time. If, in that year, the government proved itself either inefficient or tyrannical, to any serious degree, the contract would not be renewed. The dissatisfied parties, if sufficiently numerous for a new organization, would form themselves into a separate association for mutual protection. If not sufficiently numerous for that purpose, those who were conscientious would forego all governmental protection, rather than contribute to the support of a government which they deemed unjust. --Lysander Spooner

So, you don't know they are "essential for a popular movement," just for some if not most. --Brant I say "essential," because I cannot imagine how it would be done otherwise. In every successful business venture I've personally witnessed, there has always been a single man or woman (or sometimes two people) who burned with ambition and made the idea come to life. I've never seen a start-up initiated by nine people on a board of directors or 100 stockholders. Granted, political movements are not businesses, but there are certain common factors that determine success: product knowledge, market knowledge, persuading investors, and building a cadre (training employees). In the beginning of every new business I've been associated with, those skills were concentrated in one or two people. And that person always had unshakable self-confidence and the ability to inspire.

The most entertaining review of the book is here. Peikoff goes so far as to say of life in the Nazi concentration camps: "It was the universe that had been hinted at, elaborated, cherished, fought for, and made respectable by a long line of champions. It was the theory and the dream created by all the anti-Aristotelians of Western history." The reader who has gotten as far as this point in the book will have no doubt as to the identity of the chief anti-Aristotelian.

Actually, Greenspan is known as being very charming, persuasive and interesting. One doesn't have a career like his without being a master of persuasion. J For me, at least, he has never come across that way on a TV screen--and I'm not speaking of his appearances before Congress. How do you know these are "essential"? I'm including "leader" in my question. --Brant I suppose there may be an exception or two, but all great social movements of the past were spearheaded by a leader who was charismatic and resolute in purpose. Love them or hate them, they include Jesus, Martin Luther, Cromwell, Napoleon, Lenin, and M.L. King. The American Revolution is a perfect illustration of the key role that persuasive leaders play in changing the course of history.

You do understand, I hope, that the higher Greenspan rose in government, the more he distanced himself from the laissez-faire views he expressed in the 1960's? As for being " charming, persuasive and interesting"--those are not the words that leap to mind when I think of Greenspan. Even in his Objectivist days Rand referred to him as "the undertaker." However, I think your central point is sound. Ideas are important, but a leader with good looks, a way with words and the ability to connect with crowds is essential for a popular movement.

1 = 2 3 = 4 Therefore, 1 + 3 = 6 A false example. That's not a moral issue. I don't eat meat either, but not for any moral or religious issue. Just for my own good health. So naturally I don't have any problem with what others choose to eat. Every speaker on this forum has the right to declare what his words mean. A woman is what a female should grow to become. Women marry vegetarians. Females marry hamburger eaters. You're perfectly free to do so. And I even might not disagree with you. It only further highlights the feminized nature of liberalism which abhors all fighting including good people fighting against evil people. Is our "feminized" liberal government no longer sending mean old cops with big bad guns and clubs to arrest those who refuse to pay their taxes? If the answer is "yes," then hooray for the feminized liberal government's opposition to fighting. If the answer is "no," then the claim of a non-fighting feminized liberal government is worthless.

Poor example. There is only one party in China. This is why I use America as an example. The number of parties is irrelevant. As Rothbard has put it, states depend if not on the direct support of the masses, at least on their acquiescence. The one-party state of Communist Poland, for example, lasted only as long as the majority of people were willing to put up with it. Then, when their own government was widely perceived by Poles as the greatest enemy, it toppled. The Communist Party of China reigns only by virtue of the fact that the majority of the Chinese people do not hate it enough to completely withdraw their consent from it. And there are far more Chinese men complicit in the party's rule than women. As for the supposed two-party "choice" of America, that is a ruse to conceal the utter lack of real options on the ballot. The Democrats and the Republicans work with the mass media at both the national and state level to make it extremely difficult for alternative views to be considered. As the dominant force in politics, men, far more than women, are responsible for this outrage. To be more specific, I distinguish women as moral, and females as either immoral or amoral because they failed to become women. Another poor example. I never said "must act". Morality is always a free choice. Collectivism within the family is beautiful... in government, it's ugly. Never said you said "must act." The point is that definitions, if they have any usefulness, take the conventions of usage into considerations. Anyone--Marxists, Catholics, vegetarians, or nudists--can on a whim can jot down a preferred set of criteria by which a female human becomes a "woman." I don't eat meat, but I am not so stupid as to declare that a meat-eating female human is a non-woman. Not at all. They exist because of a Congressional majority of liberal males. Those programs are the natural consequence of a female nature residing within males who failed to become men. With similar arbitrariness I can declare that any institution which uses physical aggression to stay in power is suffering from an excess of maleness. On the other hand, libertartian males who, eschew such typical government vices as theft, kidnapping, murder and threatening people with guns and clubs and noxious gas, are getting in touch with their feminine side. Of course, the above sentence is complete rubbish but no more so than your claim about "feminine" statists.

China is a larger country than the U.S. With 80 million members (mostly men), the Communist Party of China, enjoys far more support than any party on the right. Ergo, men are leftists by nature. To be more specific, I distinguish women as moral, and females as either immoral or amoral because they failed to become women. This distinction is purely arbitrary. With just as much proof a person could claim that a moral woman must act in accordance with her nature, and it is a woman's nature to support collectivism. Here is my proof: Government welfare for single females, government funded food stamps, government funded section 8 housing, government funded child day care, government funded abortions, government funded school food programs... all of these female issues belong to the left, because they all cast liberal government in the role of husband and father to husbandless females and their fatherless spawn. And should we suppose that these programs exist because Congress, which approved them, is majority female? Now, you may argue that on average more women vote Democratic than Republican, and more men vote Republican than Democratic. But the margin is typically less than ten percent. You can't very well develop a conclusion about the "nature" of women that requires excluding 40 percent or more of the population group. It would be equivalent to saying that men are the breadwinners in society, while ignoring the fact that in 40 percent of households women are the primary provider. Your theory runs into too many exceptions to make it valid.

If a "woman" is morally responsible, presumably she is behaving in accordance with her nature--if you believe that rules of morality are derived from nature. ("The right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life."--Ayn Rand) Yet you have made it clear that the nature of the female (the "feminine") is to lean towards leftism. ("leftism is a feminine ideology . . . it's natural for females to belong to the left.") Thus, your argument boils down to this: the moral woman must rid herself of what is feminine in her nature. To behave in accordance with her nature, she must act against her nature.

I am familiar with the Oathkeepers' stand and admire it. Of course, resisting the disarming of the populace, martial law, detention of American citizens, etc. is really not about rolling back the government in its present form, but just saying "no" when the hobnail boots are already on our necks.

It is essentially no different than the moral distinction between human and animal. Surely you don't also regard that as invalid? A distinction between human and animal is valid as long as it is not based on hasty generalization. It would be incorrect, for example, to define man as the only creature with language. Your task, if you are up to it, is to demonstrate with real world evidence that "leftism is a feminine ideology . . . it's natural for females to belong to the left." Oh, a clever convoluted deceitful intellect can be more than capable of justifying all manner of evil. But I am not doing that. Instead, I'm distinguishing good and evil. If your purpose is to distinguish between good and evil females (i.e. women), have at it. What you've not done is offer any proof that the distinctive characteristics of the female (i.e. the feminine) are aligned with leftism.

Unless you can make the case for the existence of non-female women, your statement is an unsubstantiated smear of approximately half of humanity. It's moral values which uniquely distinguish a woman from the sea of females. Same as for a man and males. This is not an issue of mere gender or genetics, but of character and personal responsibility. I would never smear the dignity of women by lumping them in with females just because of a shared gender. Presumably, then, the "sea of females" would be forbidden from entering the "Women's Room." You are simply redefining the word "woman" to suit your needs. This is a fallacy. By comparison, if I rob a bank I can argue that I did not "steal" for I define that word to mean "taking something from Francisco, not from someone else."

Unless you can make the case for the existence of non-female women, your statement is an unsubstantiated smear of approximately half of humanity.

The danger of leftism is not in any tendency towards the feminine. The allegation is a grotesque smear of womanhood.

Finally got a chance to watch the video all the way through. Agree with PDS that the fight was over after Smith's first punch.

Perhaps you are thinking of “The Ethics of Emergencies," in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 47. I myself have had similar debates with utilitarians and natural rights skeptics for decades now. Invariably, they quote Friedman's photon invasion argument or a mutation thereof. Rothbard shows us one way to answer it in his discussion of the principle of "coming to the nuisance" in "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution." The quickest response is, if the lifeboat were typical of the conditions of human life on earth, then, no, the "Objectivist Ethics" would not work. But then neither would utilitarianism or any other system that acknowledges moral universalism.

Your response to the questions I raised about the difficulty of the amendment process in Posts 154 and 161 is 1. You have a thin skin 2. You are a social metaphysician 3. You are self-serving I guess you think that proves there are no weaknesses in Levin's proposal.

If you or MSK have a logical rebuttal put it forth. Name-calling is not an answer. According to Wiki, the Tea Party movement has "sponsored protests and supported political candidates since 2009." Yet, as Obama has grabbed more and more power from the states and the people, there has been not one major Tea Party protest in the past three and a half years. As for political candidates, 49 members of the House (all Republicans) and five members of the Senate have been associated with the Tea Party. Yet the Tea Party Caucus is now dead. And no legislation has been passed or even pushed by the Republican leadership that can even faintly be categorized as a rollback of federal power.

And what is the second step and the third? The political establishment is dominated by well entrenched forces who are quite good at grabbing power and holding onto it. (The reason for this lamentable state of affairs is simple: people who enjoy telling others what to do seize the reins of power; those who like minding their own business don't.) Simply declaring that we don't need the establishment or the major parties for change because the common man will do it, doesn't express anything other than a wish. Is the ad hominem all that a grassroots expert has in his bag of tricks?

"Soft proto-fascism" is correct, although Ayn Rand was not afraid to call it outright fascism a half-century ago. Let me make it clear that the political goals of the late Herbert Marcuse are the antithesis of mine. However, in his otherwise execrable "Repressive Tolerance," Marcuse makes an important observation about how contemporary Western democracies create a false sense of openness and tolerance while at the same time marginalizing real dissent: Under the rule of monopolistic media--themselves the mere instruments of economic and political power--a mentality is created for which right and wrong, true and false are predefined wherever they affect the vital interests of the society. This is, prior to all expression and communication, a matter of semantics: the blocking of effective dissent, of the recognition of that which is not of the Establishment which begins in the. language that is publicized and administered. The meaning of words is rigidly stabilized. Rational persuasion, persuasion to the opposite is all but precluded. The avenues of entrance are closed to the meaning of words and ideas other than the established one--established by the publicity of the powers that be, and verified in their practices. Other words can be spoken and heard, other ideas can be expressed, but, at the massive scale of the conservative majority (outside such enclaves as the intelligentsia), they are immediately 'evaluated' (i.e. automatically understood) in terms of the public language--a language which determines 'a priori' the direction in which the thought process moves. Thus the process of reflection ends where it started: in the given conditions and relations. Self-validating, the argument. of the discussion repels the contradiction because the antithesis is redefined in terms of the thesis. For example, thesis: we work for peace; antithesis: we prepare for war (or even: we wage war); unification of opposites; preparing for war is working for peace. Peace is redefined as necessarily, in the prevailing situation, including preparation for war (or even war) and in this Orwellian form, the meaning of the word 'peace' is stabilized. Thus, the basic vocabulary of the Orwellian language operates as a priori categories of understanding: preforming all content. These conditions invalidate the logic of tolerance which involves the rational development of meaning and precludes the 'closing of meaning. Consequently, persuasion through discussion and the equal presentation of opposites (even where it is really, equal) easily lose their liberating force as factors of understanding and learning; they are far more likely to strengthen the established thesis and to repel the alternatives. The greatest problem we face is that no one dares call it fascism in polite society. Americans are in chains and shake their manacled fists at anyone who suggests we live in some condition other than freedom.

You claim that the "Liberty" Amendments will be accomplished through the grassroots, not through the major parties. 1. How, then, will this effort avoid the pitfalls of the Tea Party movement, now moribund and fatally co-opted by the Republican Party, which wrapped itself in the name and promptly buried the principles? 2. How do the grassroots call a convention for amendments? Only two-thirds of the states can do this, and state legislatures are run by the same two parties that have turned Washington into a seat of despotism. Moreover, rather than wanting to pull away from the federal octopus, the states since World War II have grown hopelessly addicted to the money the feds pump back to them in return for a surrender of autonomy. 3. What is the track record of the grassroots in rolling back the federal government? When was the last time we saw anything like that? And why, after the public has twice sent Obama to rule us, should we suppose majorities in two-thirds of the states are likely to want anything like the original Republic? I am sure that a person like yourself, a man on the ground in close touch with the grassroots, can provide specific responses to these questions.

And, presumably, you know this is likely to be true because a) you've studied political developments and demographics over the past ten or more years and can point to a definite trend in this direction, or b) you feel it in your heart and that is a feeling that just can't be denied

The Republicans are the party of false hopes. Once upon a time, the GOP, at least that portion of it outside the east coast elites, represented the country's possible salvation from the leviathan of FDR's New Deal. After Ike's nomination-election in 1952, however, that hope vanished. Not only was there was no rollback, but the nation experienced an expansion of federal power, particularly in the realm of education. In 1964 Goldwater was the real deal, but his chances sank quickly after the mass media joined in unison to smear him. Though honest to the core, Goldwater's voting record on his return to the Senate was hardly laissez-faire and indicated the sort of compromise we might have witnessed had he won the White House. Nixon,1969-74, marked an uninterrupted continuation of LBJ's Keynesian nanny state with secret police tactics thrown in for good measure. Reagan, despite the smiles and libertarian rhetoric, increased federal spending and kept tax collections in line with the 40 year average. His successor, Bush I, was simply a kinder, gentler Nixon. The Revolution of '94 or Gingrich Revolution was bloated with empty promises, including the quickly ignored Contract with America. Bush II was a full blown foreign and domestic disaster. And, today, the Tea Party apparently doesn't even have the willpower to cut funding to Obamacare. Apparently every generation is condemned to relearn the hard lessons of its parents. Which party is it, again, that's supposed to deliver the "Liberty Amendments"?

I've already covered this. My use of the term "Constitutional convention" has always been within the context of and clearly linked to the amendment process of Article V. Thus with regard to Levin's proposal there were never any misstatements on my part. To characterize my writing as such is itself a misstatement. But I must remember the allegation comes from someone who assumes that a passing knowledge of the work of Andrew Galambos indicates a fascination with the Nazi Party.

You don't get it. In the comparative history of political movements, 20 years is quick. It took nearly 70 years for The Communist Manifesto to blossom into the Bolshevik Revolution. It took 56 years for Atlas Shrugged to get us from the dark days of the Eisenhower administration to . . . well, to where we are today under Obama. Not that I think we're going to have even one of the good Levin amendments by 2033.