Please Be Patient With Us (and Our Server Squirrels)

|

Please stand by

It's no surprise to regular Reason readers that our site is sometimes slow to load, and that it can be difficult, at best, to post comments. Our "server squirrels" are not always as well behaved as we'd like. We are aware of the problems and actively trying to fix them. Our efforts so far have not resolved the issues (but you knew that).

Please bear with us as we grapple with the challenges—often happy ones—of a popular online publication with growing readership. We are working to make the experience of visiting this site easier and better, and we want you to keep coming back.

NEXT: U.S. Economy Didn't Shrink By 1 Percent After All; It Shrank by 3 Percent.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls, skwirls

    1. and that one went through 😉

  2. “Squirrel!” /doug

  3. A commitment to customer service excellence is and should be any business’ number one priority.

  4. For a website that constantly points out government/bureaucratic ineptitude and it’s utter lack of concern for solving problems, you sure aren’t setting a sterling example of how private entities do a much better job. Just sayin’.

    1. For a site called “Reason”…

      1. Ha!

    2. Drink?

      1. I’m going to watch USA vs. GER at my local bar at 9AM. I may as well start now. Fuck Reason. Fuck Michigan!

        1. Ann Arbor is a…

          1. Tree-hugger?

          2. a nice place to visit but I wouldn’t want to live there?

          3. den of wolves?

      2. Absolutely. It’s the only way to deal with the skwerl rampage.

        1. Not a shotgun?

    3. Of course the big difference is this is all voluntary, and if it goes on long enough people will disassociate themselves – voluntarily. With the government, they just dig the gun further into your ribs and take a few more $20’s out of your wallet. And there’s your lesson about the difference between the free market and socialism for the day.

    4. On a post titled “Please Be Patient With Us (and Our Server Squirrels)?” Yeah, you totally have a point. The I R”Fuck you that’s why” S would be doing a much better job. Douchebag.

  5. I say we all start commenting elsewhere!

    Now, where do we go?

      1. Great, I need to fix up the basement.

        1. I will not enter any commentator’s basement.

          1. I live in a split foyer, so the basement could technically be the first floor, depending on your perspective.

          2. You can safely visit CA commenters then. We so rarely have basements.

            *Finishes bolting bars on garage windows, strings up blackout curtains*

            1. Or, we could get this Jesse and Nicole divide over with and all of us start congregating at their places based on who chose us.

              1. I just found out about that.

              2. Sounds like I’m going to need to make a double batch of artichoke dip and a few loaves of french bread.

              1. I’ve been to 1, 6 and 9. Most of these aren’t in my normal range. All solid. Yuca is good and conveniently located if you’re doing Griffith Park and the Observatory.

                Taco Sinaloa #3 is my go-to authentic Mexican place because it’s where my Mexican coworkers go, their al pastor is delicious and it’s close to work.

          3. I have beer on tap in mine.

            1. Is that like having a puppy in your van?

      1. The lead singer was very restless…he should have gone to the bathroom *before* the concert.

  6. THERE ARE NO COMMENTS | LEAVE A COMMENT

    If only one of mine would get through….

    There was a problem posting your comment

    You have made too many comments. Please try again later.

    Squirrels don’t seem to like what I have to say. But it’s only snark!

    1. I’ve been trying that since about 10:10 or so. Just got through.

  7. We are aware of the problems and actively trying to fix them. Our efforts so far have not resolved the issues

    THAT’S WHAT CUSTER SAID.

  8. Tuccille’s been compromised. Isolate him!

  9. Testing…

    1. Wow, that only took about 20 minutes.

  10. I know who I’d like to grapple with…

  11. Also, if you need something to do today:

    http://bitemangame.com/

    Pacman Luis Suarez style.

  12. Sign me up for a subscription, and then cancel it immediately.

  13. That Indian is racist. WTF, 2Chili’s?

  14. JD-

    It was good that you took the time to remember Custer Massacre Day.

    In my view, you, and some of the posters, failed to appreciate the reason why it is a day to celebrate. Thomas DiLorenzo tells us why:

    “[R]aping, civilian-murdering, house-burning, property-stealing, city-bombing, Indian women-and-children killing General George Custer met his demise at the Battle of the Little Bighorn. What a shame that his pals, Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman were not with him that day”.

    Those blue bellied bullies got just what they deserved.

    1. If only Lincoln had known!

    2. Ethno-masochism is creepy. We get it, you’re weird.

  15. R]aping, civilian-murdering, house-burning, property-stealing, city-bombing, Indian women-and-children killing

    Indians did that, too. To each other.

    1. But the Indians didn’t have Privilege.

      1. Dude, they have a caste system = what, that’s not privilege?

        http://www.oldindianphotos.in/…..great.html

    2. Tu quoque.

    3. No, they did not engage in total war as practiced by the likes of Lincoln and his generals and all the way down the line to the lowliest private.

    4. I do believe that approximately EVERYBODY alive at that time did that to someone

      1. Your belief is without record support.

        1. There had been no example of a military operating like the Union army during the civil war and then in the plains pacification campaign. Put another way, the Chaldeans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Romans, the Russians, and the Sumerians did not systematically use the rape and murder of children along with destruction of entire villages of civilians a principal part of their military planning while simultaneously claiming to be a force for civilization and decency and liberty.

            1. You like Paul Revere and the Raiders, too?

              1. You like Paul Revere and the Raiders, too?

                I never said I liked anybody.

                But what is your point? Are you proposing some sort of action? The people who did those things lived 150 years ago. You were not involved. I was not involved. We do not use what happened then as precedence for similar actions today. So what is it you suggest be done?

                You don’t judge people based upon the times you currently live in, you must judge them on the times they lived in. Atrocities occurred on both sides and they were used to justify conquering a people and taking their shit. Not good. Not a proud moment in American history. But it happened.

                So are you saying the US is a shithole because of stuff that happened before any of our grandparents were alive?

          1. The US federal government is an iron gauntlet concealed by a silk glove. The revised history of the Civil War, Lincoln and the US federal government in general is pervasively believed. It really teaches us that the propaganda machines of the Nazis, Soviets or China really are not worth a damn in comparison to the US’s ability to turn lies into perceived reality.

          2. Uh, throw out the word liberty and yeah actually they did.

            That said your entire last clause reeks of no true scotsman fallacies in which you seek to define the behavior so narrowly that only 1 possible group could qualify.

            It does not matter what the armies were claiming, nor does it even matter if the actions were a “principal” part of the strategy. The point is virtually every army in virtually every war engaged in the very acts listed.

            1. Whether it’s a principal part of the strategy is entirely relevant if you believe in any principles concerning matters of ‘right and wrong’.

              And since virtually every war worth mentioning was a state-sponsored murderfest, you can easily tell whether or not statism itself is a moral thing to support.

    5. So did the Greeks.

    6. So what? And which Indians? The Indians who stopped doing that stuff got fucked over too.
      I have no illusion that Indians were all some sort of peaceful hippies who shared everything and were perfectly attuned to nature. But I still think that the shameful treatment by US governments is worth noting. There’s no going back and fixing it (whatever that would entail), but history is what it is.

      1. There’s no going back and fixing it (whatever that would entail)

        Casinoez!!!

      2. There is no going back and fixing it. The best we can do is recognize the immorality of such actions to prevent their use as precedent for future atrocities.

        We can’t unfirebomb Dresden, but going forward we can at least recognize that it’s a bad thing to burn innocent men, women and children alive under any reasonably conceivable circumstance.

  16. growing readership

    *Needs citation

  17. What a shame that his pals, Grant, Sheridan, and Sherman were not with him that day

    Sore losers. Cry some more, crybaby.

    1. What are you, an apologist for mass murderers? For losers who could not hack it in the private sector?

  18. Let me know when it’s fixed so I can renew my magazine subscription. I’m holding that $$ hostage.

  19. This is the first time in days I’ve been able to even sign in.

  20. Please bear with us as we grapple with the challenges

    Sure, the bears may keep the squirrels in line, but what happens when the bears turn on us hmmmmmm?

  21. I say we boycott until we get our ampersands back. WHO’S WITH ME?

        1. Still think that monopolizing the administration of justice is a good idea?

          Given that you consider yourself to be a rigorous thinker, why would you think that an entity that you know sucks at just about everything would somehow be good at administering justice?

          Why would you think, a priori, that there is something inherently divine about having just one police force in a given geographical area?

          Rothbard’s articulation of how protection of person and property would work, in a truly free society, as set forth in Chpater 12 of his seminal work, For a New Liberty, commencing on page 215, is an excellent account.

          1. Given that you consider yourself to be a rigorous thinker, why would you think that an entity that you know sucks at just about everything would somehow be good at administering justice?

            But without a monopoly justice system and statutory law, who build the roads systematically spread injustice far and wide?

            Why would you think, a priori, that there is something inherently divine about having just one police force in a given geographical area?

            Because the most qualified entity for protecting you, is obviously the one who forces you at gunpoint to accept their protection.

            Rothbard’s articulation of how protection of person and property would work, in a truly free society, as set forth in Chpater 12 of his seminal work, For a New Liberty, commencing on page 215, is an excellent account.

            Is that the part where Mad Max enters the Thunderdome?

          2. So you propose setting up a government to replace the government?

            Brilliant.

            My government is elected, therefor under SOME control of the people. Your government will be whomever has the most guns.

            1. Setting up market-based institutions to deliver services like the protection of property, law and dispute resolution.

              1. Yeah, I know the premise. I simply reject the notion that it will work because there are bad people in the world who won’t play by the rules.

                I’d love to have an anarchist actually debate me on this. I find the concept fascinating, but I see two downfalls with it.

                1. You cannot (readily) defend against a nation-state that has tanks, ships and aircraft.

                2. On a smaller scale, I see the concept devolving into warring tribal factions when one party decides it doesn’t care to respect the rights of others.

                1. 1. You cannot (readily) defend against a nation-state that has tanks, ships and aircraft.

                  Lichtenstein can’t readily defend itself virtually any country in the world, yet this in itself does not invalidate the existence of Lichtenstein in theory or reality.

                  2. On a smaller scale, I see the concept devolving into warring tribal factions when one party decides it doesn’t care to respect the rights of others.

                  I’m sure you don’t intend the irony but that sounds quite a bit like the statist system you advocate.

            2. Show me where I proposed setting up a government to replace the government.

              Your government has the most guns and continues to aggress, assault, brutalize, bully, confiscate, drone, murder, rape, rob, steal and tax.

              Brilliant.

              1. Show me where I proposed setting up a government to replace the government.

                So tell me, when I steal your car, what are you going to do about it?

                Your government has the most guns and continues to aggress, assault, brutalize, bully, confiscate, drone, murder, rape, rob, steal and tax.

                Of course it does. ALL government’s do. Your’s will too.

                The difference is, yours will do it sooner and more often. ANd I can vote my representatives out (at least until they decide to not play by the rules). You can’t.

                1. So tell me, when I steal your car, what are you going to do about it?

                  Depending on the sort of stateless society we’re talking; I’d call my protection agency, dispute resolution firm, insurance company or my local Common Law bailiff, or in some combination.

                  Of course it does. ALL government’s do. Your’s will too.

                  Apple didn’t force me to buy an iPad at gunpoint, as I recall. Violence raises costs beyond the point of profitability, unless you have some sort of mechanism of externalizing that cost onto others, like the statist mechanism you advocate for example.

                  The difference is, yours will do it sooner and more often. ANd I can vote my representatives out (at least until they decide to not play by the rules). You can’t.

                  51% of the population has no moral right or obligation to vote on the life, liberty and property of the other 49%. Your system is plenty violent and entirely predicated on injustice.

                  1. I’d call my protection agency, dispute resolution firm, insurance company or my local Common Law bailiff, or in some combination.

                    You mean your government? (and I’m not saying that to be facetious)

                    I’d call my protection agency, dispute resolution firm, insurance company or my local Common Law bailiff, or in some combination.

                    Okay. I’m a bad man. I don’t recognize the authority of your protection agency. Fuck off. Now what?

                    Apple didn’t force me to buy an iPad at gunpoint

                    Apple operates under a justice system. In your system it doesn’t and if it decides to, it doesn’t need to make anything to be “profitable”. It simply take your shit.

                    And this is what I mean. There are ALWAYS badmen out there who don’t give a fuck about your rights. It appears to me that anarchism requires there not be such men in order to work.

                    51% of the population has no moral right or obligation to vote on the life, liberty and property of the other 49%

                    I completely agree. That’s why you tightly constrain your Republic, making the ONLY legitimate function of government to protect individual rights. And NOTHING more. Negative rights are boundless. Positive rights only that which are provided in the Constitution.

                    Your system is plenty violent and entirely predicated on injustice.

                    I don’t claim otherwise. But I contend less so than yours would.

                    1. You mean your government? (and I’m not saying that to be facetious)

                      If that has a higher semantic value to you then, sure. I’m talking about an institution of governance predicated on voluntary exchange instead of taxation.

                      I’m a bad man. I don’t recognize the authority of your protection agency. Fuck off. Now what?

                      My protection agency will move to arrest you if your crime warrants it. If your own protection agency disagrees, it goes to arbitration or courts of contractual authority.

                      Apple operates under a justice system. In your system it doesn’t and if it decides to, it doesn’t need to make anything to be “profitable”. It simply take your shit.

                      You’re making an assumption that without a government monopoly on law, there can be no law. Like I said, there are several theoretical models. But suppose then Apple want to take people’s shit, who would oppose them?
                      Insurance companies wouldn’t want to be exposed to Apple’s violent liabilities.
                      Other companies would hesitate to do business with them.
                      Consumers wouldn’t voluntarily do business with them either. And presumably the victims and potential victims would have the full weight of their protection agencies and/or private court system fully arrayed against Apple. Like I said, it would exponentially raise Apple’s costs beyond profitability. Without a state, there are no means to monopolize with force.

                    2. My protection agency will move to arrest you if your crime warrants it. If your own protection agency disagrees, it goes to arbitration or courts of contractual authority.

                      This is my main point of this discussion, so I want to focus here. Why would a badman arbitrate. If I’m a badman, and good at what I do, I’ll put together my own group of like-minded individuals and arm them with more guns and men than your protection agency and tell your protection agency to fuck off.

                      What you will have, effectively, is an arms race with each side arming its thugs with guns. Eventually you have rival “agencies” defending the turf they claim. IOW, you have a bunch of small countries with dictatorial governments (the warlords of Afghanistan).

                      As I see it, you wind up with government either way. Better to realize this from the beginning and constrain it to the best of your ability.

                      I agree that all government is evil. The question is how evil and how rapidly it regresses. A Republic slows down the regression. I see no mechanism in place in an anarchy that will/can prevent what I describe from happening.

                    3. If I’m a badman, and good at what I do, I’ll put together my own group of like-minded individuals and arm them with more guns and men than your protection agency and tell your protection agency to fuck off.

                      We’re only limited by our imagination in potential scenarios that can happen, in stateless society or a statist one, and it alone doesn’t serve to invalidate your statism. This merry band of outlaws would earn the ire of protection agencies, insurance companies , not to mention the producers of all sorts of goods they need to live. Who would sell you these guns? Who would feed you? Shelter you? Protect you with law? The voluntary economy would tell them to fuck off.

                      What you will have, effectively, is an arms race with each side arming its thugs with guns. ).

                      Well you’ve expressed your certainty. Sounds like your saying that worst that could happen is the world that we live in now. The worst that can happen with statism so far is enough concentrated power to murder 260 million people last century.

                      As I see it, you wind up with government either way. Better to realize this from the beginning and constrain it to the best of your ability.

                      Governance is inherently desirable. Politically monopolized government is not. It comes down to whether you think monopolies are better at delivering a product better than a free market.

                    4. Well you’ve expressed your certainty. Sounds like your saying that worst that could happen is the world that we live in now.

                      The difference being, in a Republic the population get’s a say (by voting). In an anarchy, the guy with the biggest army (your government) is the only say there is and isn’t answerable to the people.

                    5. The difference being, in a Republic the population get’s a say (by voting). In an anarchy, the guy with the biggest army (your government) is the only say there is and isn’t answerable to the people.

                      For someone so sure of the contents of anarcho-capitalism you’ve managed to do nothing but attack strawmen. I’m not advocating a system based on military power, that’s you. The producers of goods and services are answerable to the market. Since law protection and dispute resolution are services, those who don’t deliver don’t stay in business. Arguing that the state is answerable to voters is laughable, it’s an argument straight out of the progressive handbook, right next to civic duty and social contracts.

                    6. You’re making an assumption that without a government monopoly on law, there can be no law.

                      Actually, I think what I’m saying is, without a last word in force, there can be no enforceable law. Government is simply the last word in force. Your protection agency IS government.

                      All of your arguments presuppose people want to do business.

                      -Insurance companies wouldn’t want to be exposed to Apple’s violent liabilities.

                      What liabilities?

                      -Other companies would hesitate to do business with them.

                      a. Who cares, I take what I want.
                      b. Mafia families don’t do business with each other?

                      -Consumers wouldn’t voluntarily do business with them either.

                      Why do I need to do business when I can steal what I want?

                    7. Actually, I think what I’m saying is, without a last word in force, there can be no enforceable law. Government is simply the last word in force. Your protection agency IS government.

                      With the last word in how you spend your money, how does Apple sell you a phone? By making it a mutually beneficial proposition. A protection agency

                      All of your arguments presuppose people want to do business.

                      Everyone wants to improve their material existence in the most easy and efficient way possible. If you think that aggression is the most easy an efficient means of procuring wealth, then you need to read up on economics.

                      -Insurance companies wouldn’t want to be exposed to Apple’s violent liabilities.

                      Generally when someone breaks your leg or murders you, they are in some way liable for those actions.

                      a. Who cares, I take what I want.
                      b. Mafia families don’t do business with each other?

                      Do people only do business together when there’s a gun in their ribs? It’s fairly well demonstrated assertion that consumers react negatively to companies receiving bad press. Consumers aren’t deciding on which mafia family to do business with, otherwise they wouldn’t be the mafia.

                    8. With the last word in how you spend your money

                      Yes, but ONLY for those things that fall under the legitimate function of government (protecting individual rights).

                      Do people only do business together when there’s a gun in their ribs?

                      No. But you seem to deny that there are people who would rather steal than barter.

                    9. Yes, but ONLY for those things that fall under the legitimate function of government (protecting individual rights).

                      So the government is it’s own gatekeeper. I see a slight conflict of interest.

                      No. But you seem to deny that there are people who would rather steal than barter.

                      You keep telling me that I’m making all these claims that I’m not making. This conversation seems to be me fully understanding the arguments you make while you fail to reciprocate. Tell me where I deny the existence of criminality. Cite it.

                      I propose a system that actually mitigates crime, that gives greater disincentive to violate the rights of others and greater protection of the law for consumers.

                    10. Tell me where I deny the existence of criminality. Cite it.

                      Deny it? No. You just refuse to adequately address it.

                      Unless you can apply overwhelming force against those who would violate your rights, criminals will exceed your force and take your shit. Foreseeable consequences are foreseeable.

                      Tell me how the system will thwart the evolution I describe? What you’ve claimed, so far, is that peer pressure (the market) will stop criminals from building armies bigger than your protection agencies? How would that work?

                      And we haven’t even discussed what to do about a nation-state deciding it wants your shit. God knows that’s never happened before.

                      You are only free if you have the ability to keep your shit.

                    11. Deny it? No. You just refuse to adequately address it.

                      Unless you can apply overwhelming force against those who would violate your rights, criminals will exceed your force and take your shit. Foreseeable consequences are foreseeable.

                      I already told you. The protection agencies, dispute resolution firms and courts would have plenty of force to deal with criminals. It’s you who have failed to demonstrate how a monopoly justice system would be better. And since virtually every producible good or service in existence is better produced in a free market, that puts the burden of proof on you to show why a monopolized justice system is an exception to that rule.

                      Tell me how the system will thwart the evolution I describe? What you’ve claimed, so far, is that peer pressure (the market) will stop criminals from building armies bigger than your protection agencies? How would that work?

                      As I said, we’re playing cops and robbers here, arguing about imaginary happenings. what will stop criminals from building armies bigger than your state? How does that work? You act like these objections don’t apply to statism. What if the Legion of Doom comes into being?

                      But I’ll play your game. There is a demand in society for the dispensation of justice and the protection of law. Market actors who provide it, will be rewarded, those who don’t will not long persist in a world where the provision of that service is not funded by taxation.

                    12. And we haven’t even discussed what to do about a nation-state deciding it wants your shit. God knows that’s never happened before.

                      We discussed that very early on. Lichtenstein, San Marino or Tuvalu can’t defend themselves against virtually any other state in the world, yet this in itself does not invalidate the existence of Lichtenstein in theory or reality.

                      You are only free if you have the ability to keep your shit.

                      You keep your shit at the leisure of the state monopoly that protects it. You’re drifting a little too close to the ‘slavery is freedom’ argument here.

                    13. Why do I need to do business when I can steal what I want?

                      You want me to debate some hypothetical scenario where you have superpowers that exempt you from economic costs or immediate consequences?

                      Your argument is essentially “Nuh uhhh, they couldn’t force laws me because I say so.” Like playing cops and robbers and arguing about whose imaginary bullet hit the other first. Offer some real theoretical challenges instead equating it to Mad Max and Thunderdome for every single one of your objections.

                    14. There are ALWAYS badmen out there who don’t give a fuck about your rights. It appears to me that anarchism requires there not be such men in order to work.

                      Anarchism recognizes that there are bad MEN and such men are attracted to the irreproachable power of the state like a moth to a flame. In your statism the people who don’t give a fuck about your rights are the same ones who claim a monopoly right to be the sole guarantor of your rights.

                      That’s why you tightly constrain your Republic, making the ONLY legitimate function of government to protect individual rights.

                      If it was the sole legitimate form of government it wouldn’t need to impose a monopoly of the services it claims to provide, at the point of a gun. Whatever the mechanism of distributing power within a state, if it’s predicated on violence it’s inherently inefficient and immoral. You can’t tightly constrain a state with a itself. It’s a fox guarding the hen house.

                      That’s why you tightly constrain your Republic, making the ONLY legitimate function of government to protect individual rights.

                      What positive rights would you say exist? I can’t think of any situation where I as an ostensibly free person have a right to be provided with anything at the forceful expense of someone else. Positive liberty isn’t a species of liberty since one must infringe upon the negative liberties of others in order to attain them.

                    15. Whatever the mechanism of distributing power within a state, if it’s predicated on violence it’s inherently inefficient and immoral.

                      It absolutely MUST be predicated on violence. Violence exists. You cannot repel violence with harsh language, for as much as we’d like to.

                      What positive rights would you say exist?

                      Those things that protect my negative rights.

                      A justice system.
                      Cops.
                      A defensive military.
                      Very little else.

                    16. It absolutely MUST be predicated on violence. Violence exists. You cannot repel violence with harsh language, for as much as we’d like to.

                      There’s no need to equate me to a pacifist. Admittedly violence isn’t the word I should be using, the better term is ‘aggression’. Self-defense is perfectly valid but aggression is what is illegitimate. Taxation is aggression and a violation of property rights.

                      Those things that protect my negative rights.

                      A justice system.
                      Cops.
                      A defensive military.
                      Very little else.

                      So you have a fundamental right to the products produced by others?

                    17. So you have a fundamental right to the products produced by others?

                      No.

                      And I see where you are going with this. It is the dark corner of my philosophy. You cannot have a justice system funded by taxes and not claim the right to another’s labor. Got it. I have yet to resolve how to fund government without violating the NAP.

                      But anarchism isn’t the solution, as it will lead to despotism as well, only faster.

                      The closest I can come to a voluntary system is to require equal payments (from each individual) for the government provided services. It may not be voluntary, but it’s equally portioned and you thereby don’t live by the labor of another.

                    18. You cannot have a justice system funded by taxes and not claim the right to another’s labor. Got it. I have yet to resolve how to fund government without violating the NAP.

                      Sounds like you logic about freedom and justice is pretty consistent, right up until we get to the subject of the state. I’m telling you, there is no logically possible reconciliation of the NAP with the state.

                      But anarchism isn’t the solution, as it will lead to despotism as well, only faster.

                      Well that’s the statist school of thought on the matter. That is, if the statist in question is even defining anarchy properly. There is an order to anarcho-capitalism, just as there is naturally order in markets right up until the boundaries of state intervention. Anarchism is not advocacy of chaos.

                      The closest I can come to a voluntary system is to require equal payments (from each individual) for the government provided services. It may not be voluntary, but it’s equally portioned and you thereby don’t live by the labor of another.

                      But that’s simply not possible. The existence of one single coma patient, or one single free rider of any kind invalidates the entire premise of total equality of the distribution of costs. Politics is entirely about externalizing costs onto others. A constant struggle between factions trying to make others pay for their goods and services.

                    19. The asseveration that anarchy will inevitably lead to despotism, only faster, is fatal to the statist’s argument because it relies upon rank speculation whereas anarchists can point to the several hundred million murdered by the state in the last 150 years.

                    20. The fact that states have murdered several hundred million in the last 150 years, lends ZERO support to the efficacy of anarchism.

                    21. The fact that states have murdered several hundred million in the last 150 years, lends ZERO support to the efficacy of anarchism.

                      Don’t strawman me. If you need me to I’ll quote my sentence that you’re responding to here, so that you can see that 260 million murder victims was counted as a strike against the validity of statism to protect life, liberty and property. I didn’t say it proves anarchism, I think logic and the success of free market institutions do that nicely enough.

                    22. I see now that you may have been responding to Libertymike, sorry. But to that end, anarchists can point to sum total of people murdered by capitalism, or at point to the number of people who are alive today whom could not be here with out freeish markets. With a bit of basic math I think the body count differential between human freedom and statist coercion is pretty stark.

    1. Me & my comments don’t miss the ampersands & I don’t think they’re a big issue.

  22. No worse than facebook. BTW, Katherine Mangu-ward is my least favorite contributor. Her lauding not voting hurts the chances of libertarians like Justin Amash and Thomas Massie and is a dis-incentive to others who might see education through running for office. Ron Paul running for office is very much to do with why Reason magazine is so popular and why you are on The Independents. I look forward to the day she moves onto a magazine like Slate or Huffington Post where urging folks to not vote will actually be helpful. Can you make this happen soon?

    1. You think your vote really matters? Are you high?

    2. Do you not vote because she tells you it’s OK not to? I assume the answer is no. What makes you think that she has much effect on anyone else’s attitude toward voting? I’m perfectly capable of concluding for myself that voting is pointless (but I still do it anyway).

  23. Just get rid of Flash. It kills Firefox every few minutes.
    And don’t allow active ads.

  24. BTW: The site has NEVER been slow to load. Ever. Not once.

    This is why I felt it was a back end issue.

    Site loads quickly and reliably, then you post a comment and you either get nothing or you get outright server errors.

  25. Hold on a second.

    I accept the squirrels as a fact of life. To some degree.

    The Nick post last night suggesting the ‘special’ Indepedents episode? HARDCORE TROLLING BY REASON.

    Has there been any explanation for that?

    1. You will be trolled by Nick and like it. No explanation necessary or given.

      1. That’s easy for you to say, you know the Safe Word

        1. With The Jacket there is no safe word.

          1. The trolling will continue until the comment system improves.

  26. This is a test of the Hit & Run commenting system. Do not adjust your computer, this is only a test.

    Beeeeeeeeeeeeeep!

    This has been a test of the Hit & Run commenting system. In the event of an actual comment, topical and factual information would have been presented.

  27. maybe ditch amazon ec2? eww

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.