Welcome to the Global Liberty Community
Welcome to the Global Liberty Community

Liberty.me is the global liberty community. We bring together freedom loving people from around the world. As a member, you'll get your own blog, hundreds of books, useful guides, live events, our iPhone & Android app, and tons more good stuff.

Maurice Jackson sits down with James Rickards to discuss his latest masterpiece entitled: ‘The New Case for Gold&#

Let’s face it, friends. You can ignore politics, but politics won’t ignore you. If somebody asks what you th

Love is Anarchy by A Peacock Named Walter

Woe is me, it is often hard being a libertarian. Never mind being hated by people of every political stripe, it is often

Tatiana and Josh interview Judd Weiss.  

We expect licensing laws to protect us from shoddy service providers whose mistakes could kill. However, studies show th

I have met Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions several times in person. He has been kind enough to grace us with his presence

WIRED contributor and faculty associate at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard argues: as Bitcoin g

Birthright by A Peacock Named Walter

By Chris Campbell “If, as Victor Hugo supposedly said, there’s nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has com

By Chris Campbell Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce,

Update Your Status

  • Mal Roarke replied to the topic The Lost Pyramids Of Caral in the forum General 2 minutes ago

    Perhaps this helps some people. The explanation of the Sphinx at the following link is every bit as enjoyable to me as my other examples, albeit on a smaller scale.

    I hope you enjoy the “discovery” of Anubus the jackal as much as I did.

    Sent from my 4G LTE Device

    Subject: What was the…[Read more]

  • Ken Jons-un posted an update in the group Liberty.Meme 30 minutes ago

    SJW sez what?

  • MAURICE JACKSON (a.k.a.) SOFEE` posted an update in the group Precious Metals Investing 1 hour, 39 minutes ago

    Edward, I have a similar thesis. I view silver, platinum, and palladium as my savings, and gold miners as speculation to use as currency to payoff existing debt should the currency collapse. Of the 4 the 3 I hold in bullion are at a better discount than gold. When the masses will awake they will purchase gold miners with the impression that they…[Read more]

    • Sorry for the time warp Maurice been really busy trading the currency markets the last year . As for junior miners Brazil Resources is my baby, and gold has put in a very bullish cup and handle pattern levels to watch are 1330, 1570 then to Infinity and beyond. People have lost touch with gold they think of Mr T when you mention it , yet the…[Read more]

  • Gary J. Hall‘s article Prince’s genius: shaped by technology, delivered by capitalism has a new comment 1 hour, 50 minutes ago

    PrinceAs a music lover and the producer of a funk and soul podcast, Prince was one of my favourite artists. Not all his music was to my taste, but I did adore a significant amount of it, and so his untimely death has [Read story]
  • Terrifying Reality USA1Let’s face it, friends. You can ignore politics, but politics won’t ignore you. If somebody asks what you think of politicians, what’s your gut response… Yum or Yuk? For most people it’s a yuk that ranks even [Read story]
    • Incredible work, David! This is your best piece yet on liberty.me, and there is no better example of the reason I send liberty.me my membership dues every month. It should be translated into every language and read by every person on the planet, but I doubt that very many Americans will even take the time to read it.

      >Americans are at serious risk despite their material comfort relative to
      >much of the rest of the world.

      I hope Americans’ material comforts, specifically, are also at risk. I believe that their loss is, quite possibly, the only thing that can wake-up a large number of people. Peoples’ awakenings will spawn their desires and commitments to ending the state, or at least turning the corner on this unprecedented horrible one!

      “Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” -Thomas Jefferson

      I believe that most people find great evils to be sufferable, as long as they have a high level of material comforts. I value liberty most highly, and thus welcome a significant reduction in material comforts!

    • Thanks so much for the kind words, Calin!

    • David this is EPIC! This is exactly why I subscribe to Liberty.me. I have forwarded this to tons of friends. You hit on so many things that I am thinking about lately on a daily basis.

    • agreed, echoes my own reaction. Thanks for taking the time to articulate, compile, and distribute so much valuable content. I will be coming back to this many times

    • Thanks, Peggy!

    • Darren, thank you so much, and thanks for sharing with your friends!

    • David! This is excellent! You have connected the dots so wonderfully, I appreciate your thorough research and I will spread this wide and far.

    • Thanks Marchella — and thanks a ton for sharing with your thundering horde of followers on Twitter! :)

    • Excellent article. However, you misspelled the Cayman Islands.

    • Thanks Stephen — fixed.

    • Powerful, expansive, full of great links and resources, I have saved it to my EverNote.

      I have two points of constructive criticism:
      1) CrossFit. While you say the jury is still out on Gluten or Round-Up being the cause based on numerous studies, which of course you point out at least half could be bunk, Yet based on a Chiropractor and meeting Glassman you claim CrossFit to be highly injurious. You have statistics contrasting Terrorist with Heart Disease and Cancer, do you have the same comparing CrossFit to Soccer or Running? Your Chiropractor did mention Running and Yoga as well so perhaps there exists a deeper common factor, namely that people push themselves to hard. People ramp up the intensity too high too soon, before they have proper mechanics and consistent proper mechanics. That of course is CrossFit core doctrine; Mechanics, then Consistency, then Intensity. Do people follow it, no, do instructors hold their clients to it, no, Yet a read through the CF Level 1 manual you will find it again and again. It is not Yoga, CrossFit, or Running that injure people, it is naive instructors and people who place competition and points ahead of quality.
      http://library.crossfit.com/free/pdf/Virtuosity.pdf

      I have seen this both in my 16 years in the Army, and my 5 years as a CrossFit trainer, even in myself.

      And what exactly does Disabled from a gymnastics injury Greg Glassman have to do with the expected effects of CrossFit? That is not even a random sample of people who have done CrossFit. I think you have gotten lost in that Fallacy jungle you mentioned.

      Second point to come in a second comment.

      Thanks!
      -MS Exercise Science Performance Enhancement, Injury Prevention
      -MS Analytics (Statistics on Big Data)

    • Thanks for reading and your comments, Benjamin. My warning about Crossfit isn’t just based on the condition of its founder. It’s based on knowing several people who have been injured doing Crossfit, as well as trying it for myself.

      Most exercise protocols and most trainers of all stripes (including yogis) call for careful attention to form. But it’s very hard to ‘enforce’ perfect form in a group setting. And when the group is doing technical lifts under load, combined with a gung-ho culture, it’s not surprising to me that injuries happen often.

      My personal experiences conform to what is reported here:
      http://www.mensjournal.com/health-fitness/exercise/too-much-pain-for-crossfit-gains-20140326

      Of course people can train in whatever modality they’d like. My desire is to make people new to exercise who “just want to get in shape” realize that there are real risks involved, and that some modalities are riskier than others.

    • Yes, did you notice that the article makes my points:
      That soccer is more injurious that CrossFit, and that the injuries stem from people being stupid. You could perhaps warn people against being stupid weather they play soccer, do yoga, or train for marathon or triathlons. No surprise that the Title of the article from Men’s Journal exceeds whats actually written in the article.

      Including ridiculousness such as Glassman’s condition reduces the level of scholarship in your otherwise excellent article. Perhaps you could refer to something of substance, such as the injury rate of CrossFit is “3.1 injuries per 1,000 CrossFit sessions” compared to “older youth soccer players had an injury prevalence of 4 to 7.6 per 1,000 hours – higher than CrossFit’s.”

    • Thanks again for sharing your thoughts, Ben.

    • David, I thought I had already commented on your article, but maybe I hit the wrong button. I don’t have much to add to what has already been said, except to endorse the accolades of Calin, Darren, Peggy, Marchella, Stephen and Benjamin. I will certainly be sharing it with friends and family.

      Btw, I printed it out and have been reading it slowly, which is how I read. Have noticed and market a few inconsequential typos. If you want, I’d be happy to reported them to

    • Thanks so much, Ned. Sorry you had issues commenting. I’m guessing this book is pushing Wordpress to the limit. By all means, pm or email me any typos you spot. Much appreciated!

    • Hi Ned, I was one of the first to attempt to comment here and I kept getting an error message on each “Post Comment” click. I reported the problem to liberty.me tech support and they not only corrected it, but managed to recover my comment and post it. I think this is more likely to be the cause of your difficulty than accidentally hitting the wrong button.

    • Thanks, Calin. You have relieved my frustration.

    • I met two federal agents yesterday. They had some letters I had written to a bureaucrat, offering to connect outside of officialdom since contacts who work inside the US Postal Inspection Service would serve me well (I sell bitcoins for cash that gets mailed to me). They said the letters could look like offers of bribery. It made me realize two things. First, any attempt we make to align our interests with those of a man or woman in the employ of government can look like bribery. More importantly, serving the government damages us, making offers from other people to align our interest with theirs look like something criminal.

      I skimmed through your book with this in mind and I have three thoughts to share.

      1. “The smarter and more devious ones seek out positions of power, privilege, and legal exemption which largely shield themselves from punishment for predatory behavior.” Actually, if they are smart enough, they see the choice between that and helping others protect themselves from it. To someone like me, since I cannot escape the suffering I feel when I know that others suffer, the choice is obvious, but to them, since they don’t feel vicariously, it’s a choice, and I’d guess a random choice, though mostly influenced by the psychological, emotional, and intellectual strength of the people who raise them. Ultimately, the path you describe turns all good people against you, but hubris and high intelligence can blunt that effect enough to make it attractive anyway. I wanted to point this out because I believe a lot of sociopaths are helping the liberty movement. I also believe that those who aren’t may some day find the humility to better their lives by aligning their interests with ours.

      2. The word “criminal” has two meanings as you have used it, I think. One reflects violation of legislation. The other reflects harm to human beings. Increasingly, these two definitions are opposite. I can’t think of a good word to replace the second, and I really like the existing connotation of “criminal” as being a drain on society and someone without whom we’d all be better off. So I choose from among a few different terms for the first one which is most literally “lawbreaker,” depending on the context: agorist, anarchist, voluntaryist, or scofflaw. We choose to follow our conscience, regardless of whether or not it agrees with the law.

      3. You describe a lot of tax law without understanding it, and then later explain that understanding the law is virtually impossible. Admit that you don’t understand it, and point out that among those who claim that they do understand it, there is heavy disagreement (of which you may not be aware). It is apparent that you haven’t heard of Peter Hendrickson or his work, or his book, or his disentanglement of the mystery between Title 26 and the Constitutional prohibition against direct taxes. It’s pretty simple, but the government employees who benefit from our misunderstanding of it do everything they can to prevent the simplicity from becoming well known. It’s simply this: If you earn money without utilizing any kind of privilege granted to you by the federal government, then you are not engaging in taxable activity and don’t owe any income tax.

      So your whole section on taxation basically just needs to point out that you are writing about the IRS’ implementation of the tax laws, rather than the tax laws themselves, which, the evidence presented by Hendrickson shows, are mostly voluntaryist. Like I said, to obey the tax laws but not owe any tax, just don’t use any “federal privilege”. After that, you have to be patient with the brainwashed employees at the IRS and write lots of letters to get them to understand and obey their own damn laws.

    • “If you earn money without utilizing any kind of privilege granted to you by the federal government, then you are not engaging in taxable activity and don’t owe any income tax.”

      Dave, so what? It really doesn’t matter whether or not you owe income tax pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code. If IRS agents say you owe it–you owe it. I haven’t read everything David Montgomery wrote in this tome yet, but it is clear from many of his statements that he sees the whole picture of what is involved in “our system of taxation,” and it has little or nothing to do with correctly “interpreting” the tax code.

      As those scoundrels over at http://www.quatloos.com (an organization of tax attorneys, accountants, tax preparers, IRS agents and others with a beneficial interest in the IR Code and thereby committed to defending it at any cost to their integrity) are quick to point out, Peter Hendrickson’s “imaginative theories” (viz. his understanding of the IRCode, which are probably correct) have been thoroughly rebuked, rejected and discredited by US district and appellate courts and SCOTUS has refused to hear challenges to those lower courts’ decisions.

      Dave, you say, “you have to be patient with the brainwashed employees at the IRS and write lots of letters to get them to understand and obey their own damn laws.” But what if, as is often the case, the folks at the IRS your dealing with refuse to understand and/or obey their own damn laws. I think David’s point is: The law doesn’t matter when it gets in the way of our rulers’ intent to keep us in line. Having “the law on your side” when in federal court in a case involving the government’s procedures and ability to collect taxes doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. What matters is the fact that all of the folks a “tax protester” is up against are utterly dependent on those taxes for their welfare, and they will do whatever they perceive is necessary to protect their welfare, laws and judicial ethics to the contrary not withstanding. (Judicial ethics is an oxymoron.)

      Btw, tax laws, even if correctly understood to mean payment is voluntary, cannot possibly make them “mostly voluntaryist,” for their intent is to produce revenue for the violent state. Voluntary taxation is a meaningless oxymoron.

    • (David Montgomery) “sees the whole picture of what is involved in ‘our system of taxation,’ and it has little or nothing to do with correctly ‘interpreting” the tax code.'”

      Yes, Ned! Tax “code” (law) is just ink on paper (IOP) and also a ridiculous excuse and justification for pointing guns at people and caging them. The IOP has no power; it is the states guns that wield power!

      Whatever any IOP says (Bill of Rights, U.S. Constitution, law, court rulings, etc.), IOP always means what our rulers and masters say it means. Their interpretations of the IOP are not bound by conventions of logic or semantics whatsoever and, furthermore, our rulers and masters live under the benefit of the double standards encompassed by other IOP (a “second set of books”). There almost always exists a second set of books that contradicts and trumps the IOP myths that most people hold as the truth. Only through these myths (“The Most Dangerous Superstition,” as Larken Rose calls it), will people accept the state’s guns and its cage!

      Our rulers and masters are Humpty Dumpty:

      “‘When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

      ‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

      ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.’?

      https://veryserioso.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/humpty_dumpty.png

      All that matters, is “which is to be master”– who controls the gun!

    • “If IRS agents say you owe it–you owe it.”

      This is not the position of an independent mind, nor of a mind that understands what law is. It is the position of someone who has given up under the (admittedly nearly irresistible) force of what David called the “Authority Principle”. As he writes (but in which you’ll see my emphasis), “People will repeatedly violate their own moral standards of right and wrong **if they believe** they’re being directed by a legitimate authority.”

      I comfortably blame that same principle for your acceptance of the **false** claim by folks you (rightfully) call “scoundrels” that Hendrickson’s “‘imaginative theories’ … have been thoroughly rebuked, rejected and discredited” by courts. Certain words make the claim absolutely false, specifically “thoroughly” and “discredited.” His “imaginative theories” are and have been for over a decade living in a book which the IRS twice submitted for banning, which requests were both denied by the justice department. Whatever the opposite of “thoroughly” and “discredited” are, they would be more appropriate here, at least according to the justice department of the same parasitic criminal organization whose lifeblood is threatened by that book. Why is this so? Because governments require an aura of moral legitimacy and they cannot survive without the support of the public they therefore must increasingly deceive. But that particular deception was judged as too difficult to maintain. They rely on quatloos and Daniel Evans instead, among others.

      “Voluntary taxation” certainly is an oxymoron, but so is “jumbo shrimp.” The apparent contradiction may cease to confuse if you study the problem. Too many people accept the rationale of prohibitions against the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms to reject the federal government’s rendering of those activities impossible without some privilege from them, which makes your root claim true: taxes are not voluntary because everyone who engages in the manufacture of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms (or any of the several other things the public has allowed the feds to monopolize) is required **by the law** to pay them. But the vast majority of those who believe (as Mr. Montgomery appears to also believe) that they must pay the income tax are not required **by the law** to pay it because they don’t do any of those things which require federal privilege. They are deceived. Attempts to show them the light are met with resistance.

      Law is contract, and applies when you agree to abide by it (implicitly or explicitly), but your agreement is to abide by the written law, not to the enforcer’s interpretation of it, because then you are not agreeing to obey a law, but to be a slave. In this light, law can be good and useful, and often is. But to obey a law you agreed to obey is different than being a slave to someone who claims to understand it better than you do. This is the distinction I wanted to make, and which I want to help others make. I will keep writing until I have found a way to make it simpler.

    • “If IRS agents say you owe it–you owe it.”

      I’m, sorry, Dave. I should have stated it with greater clarity, and said, “If the IRS says you owe it, and if what they say you owe is enough to be worth their effort, the threshold being much lower if you are, like Hendrickson, publicly challenging their law, and if they suspect you have assets sufficient to entice them to pursue your case, regardless of whether you “owe” it, they will collect it by stealing your property–if they can reach your assets.” And if they say you have broken the law, even though you haven’t, and if they think prosecuting you and sending you to the pokey will help keep others from knowing so much about their law that like Hendrickson they might just quit paying, they will very likely cage you for a spell as a lesson to others. Almost all IRS prosecutions of individuals who resist is for the purpose of keeping the rest of the taxpayers behaving as good little taxpayers.

      Dave, just as I was careless in explaining my position, you were certainly careless in reading the rest of what I said, attributing what I made perfectly clear was the position of Quatloos to me. That’s not nice!

      Long before Hendrickson figured it out, I knew that the IRS was not “legally” collecting taxes, and so I quit filing and paying. The last time I paid any federal, state or local income or employment tax was with the 1040 I filed for 1971 , and a subsequent $250 I was assessed after an audit, by which the examining revenue agent denied a legitimate (in my opinion) business deduction I had taken that year. I spent perhaps 20 to 25 years dueling with the IRS, playing cat and mouse in and out of fedeal court on my own behalf and assisting other “illegal tax protesters” (as they called us), after which time the IRS–not me!!!–evidently gave up, or at least they haven’t tried to contact me since about 2003. I never conceded one iota nor paid one penny to them, although they did manage to steal on two occasions from bank accounts I foolishly had back in the 1980s, a combinded total of less than $600, which I suppose was applied against the $90k or so they said I owed. However, I almost evened that score when one of the banks the IRS took my money from agreed to settle a law suit I filed against it for $500.

      I did do a little jail time (34 days) for “civil contempt of court.” A judge had (unlawfully, of course) ordered me to produce my “books and records” and give testimony to the IRS agents after I refused to cooperate with an IRS “collection summons.” I was rather enjoying my stay in jail but I agreed to obey the judge’s order so I could get out and spend Memorial Day with my family. Since I had quit keeping books and records long before, producing them was easy, but being forced to testify was an excruciating ordeal even though I could honestly tell them nothing that would lead them to discover the hidden assets they were sure I had. (Why else would he go to jail rather than cooperate?) The looks on the two agents faces when they realized there was nothing for them to steal was worth the ordeal–and then some.

      I may have set a record for filing what the IRS called “frivolous tax returns,” and was fined $500 for each one. (The fine is a lot more nowadays I think.) I didn’t pay those fines, and I suppose the fines were added to the tax they said I owed and haven’t paid. They weren’t really tax returns. What I did was send in a form 1040 every year with a statement in bold print accross the face of it which said, I CANNOT (OR WILL NOT) PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED HEREIN, UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY/IRS CAN ASSURE ME THAT IN SO DOING ALL OF MY RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES WILL REMAIN INVIOLATE. Of course the government never gave me assurance, and I never gave the government their requested information, nor any money.

      Since becoming a voluntaryist as opposed to a libertarian and constitutionalist sometime in the early 1990s, I quit sending the IRS anything even though it only took about ten minutes to prepare a 1040 using my procedure. However, since I declare I am no longer a US citizen, I’d alter the wording a bit if I had to do it again. And since my method of resisting has proven successful in that the government has been unable to collect the taxes it has said I owe from me, nor send me to prison, my method seems a lot easier and safer than going through all the trouble of “cracking the code.”

      Since I spent a couple of decades of rather intense research of the tax laws, court procedures, writ writing, etc., I probably understand THE LAW as well as anyone. Let me sum up my understanding of all man-made laws, up to and including the Constitution: THEY ARE ALL A CROCK! I don’t criticize Hendrickson or anyone who has the gumption to challenge the IRS. Irwin Schiff isxxx was one of my all time heroes. But to me, after a lot of time and effort playing the game in the government’s court, which is what anyone does who studies the laws, I decided to take my ball and racquet to where I could be more productive.

      I’ll conclude this overlong comment by saying I think David Montgomery has the better perspective from a voluntaryist viewpoint on the law and taxation–man-made law that is. It is what your rulers says it is. If you don’t have rulers, their laws are not a problem, so why waste time trying to unravel or interpret them.

    • Thanks for offering your thoughts, David.

    • David,

      I’ve seen this get passed around by the usual suspects on Twitter, and all I can say right now is that I plan on spending all my Sunday devouring this word for word, link for link, and look for ways to begin applying what you have to say here!

      This post looks amazing! 😀

    • Thanks, RJ! Hope your Sunday turned out ok. :)

    • Okay, this is a bit much to get through with limited available time, but it definitely seems worthwhile. Still in Tax Farming. This was obviously quite a large effort on your part, so I appreciate that as well. Thanks for taking the time to write and post this!

    • Thanks, Bruce — you’re welcome!

    • Easily done!

    • Ended up staying up all night because I couldn’t put this down. This became a bit comical once I reached the section on sleep and health. Nevertheless, I am pleased with my choice and blessed by all you wrote. Thanks for the love you put in to this.

  • Joe Withrow‘s article Transitioning from Coercion to Voluntary Association has a new comment 2 hours, 37 minutes ago

    voluntarysubmitted by jwithrow. Click here to get the Journal of a Wayward Philosopher by Email Journal of a Wayward Philosopher Transitioning from Coercion to Voluntary Association April 27, 2016 Hot Springs, [Read story]
    • Lots missing from this: “I set up a policy for my daughter when she was a few months old with an annual premium of $3,000. The cash value will be at least $62,000 (and likely higher) upon her 18th birthday at which point I will turn the policy over to her and she will have access to those funds .

      Can you spot them dear friends?

    • @atlasaikido
      duration of contruibution, imputed tax liability, inferred interest rate ( time value of money) fees???

    • Thank you for the comment! This entry wasn’t intended to be technical in nature, but I am happy to fill in some of the gaps.

      This strategy capitalizes the child’s mutual life policy for 18 years with outside funds in the amount of $3,000 per year. $3,000 is just what made sense for me; one could set up a policy of any size. Roughly 60% of this premium is applied towards an Additional Paid-Up Insurance rider which serves to grow both the death benefit and the cash value.

      No more outside funds are contributed to this policy after 18 years; the annual premium is paid directly from policy dividends, or taken from cash-value growth in the event that a policy dividend is not paid.

      The cash value receives favorable tax treatment because it is considered “equity” in the policy, and it grows 100% tax free while left in the policy. You can withdraw cash value 100% tax free up to the point at which cash value withdrawn equals total cash contributions to the policy. After that point I believe cash withdrawals are taxed as income.

      But, it is far more advantageous to simply borrow against the cash value. Loans are not taxed, and there is no repayment schedule with policy loans. Additionally, you could use policy loans to fund a business entity in your control, and then pay the loans back while writing interest expenses off against business revenue. This would require a little bit of planning and due diligence, but not much.

      The IRR is very conservative at first – in fact negative for the first several years due to fees. But once the policy is adequately capitalized you no longer need to contribute anymore funds to the policy and that’s when you see exponential growth. The fees are built right into the policy premium, by the way.

      So in my example: $3,000 per year for 18 years equals a total investment of $54,000. This contribution is contractually guaranteed to yield $650,000 in cash value at the bare minimum 47 years later.

      The biggest risk with this is probably inflation. Ideally policy dividends will offset inflation to some degree, but the best hedge is simply to build a strategic asset portfolio with a portion of the cash value. Right now that portfolio should probably be heavily weighted with precious metals and royalty/mining stocks.

      There is always the risk of your mutual life company going under, but I don’t worry much about this. These mutual life companies are invested heavily in conventional mortgages, treasuries, and quality corporate bonds. They do not dabble in any “risky” assets whatsoever. If (when?) the economy gets run-over by a government/central bank hurricane then the firms holding all of the derivatives will tank before these companies do. Everyone will have some important financial decisions to make when that day comes.

      Just to clarify, this is not intended to replace anything you are doing with your personal finances currently. This is exclusively to set up your children with a sustainable pool of capital that grows each year. This entry focused on rendering the welfare state obsolete, but this strategy can also replace student loans or provide start-up capital for a business.

      The key is to set up the policy at a very young age when these policies are the cheapest. These types of policies become very expensive at later ages.

    • @rrule Lol I was hoping you had more than that. It is as I suspected.

      Not sure how wealthy that is if someone else is holding, keeping and controlling your money. 
      (Holding a monthly coupon and insurance statement in hand or direct payment receipt, or perhaps your lawyer takes care of that. Ooops. Not something I would want a loved one to learn.)

      Is that the best a supposed individualist wayfarer can come up with? 

      Not what I would do for a loved one. I think the article started off with the warning about a highwayman….and the entities of such i.e. banks, insurance companies… Corporations are creatures of the state. Next you will be telling me about bank insurance…

      Individualist Wayfarer as you use it would infer a “distinctive” feature that is not any different than the non wayfarer…if  that’s your position.

      Some people  lost ALL their millions counting on the system in 2008.  Some people never learn…but wait insurance companies are different ROLF.

      Could it be that by the time payoff time comes (in depreciated inflated dollars as some concede) there will be a bail in, currency crisis, bank run, cap on withdrawals? Yes the dollar is up, but compared to what? Japan, Germany, Pakistan?

      Is there a wee chance it’s all rigged? Hmmm

      When was the last time you went to a bank and tried to get your money out? You got lawyers, you got cpas, cfas etc etc…you got clout. What a bunch of bs! Early withdrawal? Sorry…

      What do you want to use the money for? Please fill out this form we will need 3 forms of id. Oh yes we can’t let you take out more than x amount bleet beet bleet…oh yes oh yes…

      Not funny as your loved one’s eyes begins to tear up…well for some reason your dad didn’t fill in the right form. 3 law firms managed to slip up. Yeah take em to court. Right on!! Dear reader would you be surprised at the chicanery the insurance companies dabble in?

      Yep, folks the solution is to buy life insurance…calling into an automated message system, dialling 0 for operator, to talk to a call center rep, we are sorry that account is no longer valid or could you please verify who you are because that accounts been frozen tied up in dome snafu (I could list them but its too boring) or I’m sorry for some reason we didn’t get the payment on time we have it all documented bla bla…read Bill Bonners warning about the system…and on it goes or start asking around…

      The formula is do you have personal authourity? Do you actually command and control your life? Doesn’t sound like it to me…the system is rotten to the core. How much imagination does it take to figure out an alternative? Hmmm 

      If you have to wait 18 years to get your money dear reader go read what Shultz of the snoopy column has to say about such. 

      If your eyes glaze over reading this you ain’t seen nothing when the day of reckoning comes. I don’t need to ask Bill Bonner. Been there. Done that…

      Sent from my 4G LTE Device

    • ***Lol I was hoping you had more than that. It is as I suspected.

      I would recommend a little more due diligence rather than relying on concise comment responses.

      ***Next you will be telling me about bank insurance…

      Actually, I wont. I am a little disappointed you are projecting something upon me completely external to my blog post. I expect this type of thing when I link to these articles on Facebook and Linked In, but I would expect Liberty.me folks to be a little more classy.

      ***Some people  lost ALL their millions counting on the system in 2008.  Some people never learn…but wait insurance companies are different ROLF.

      Mutual insurance companies handled 2008 with few problems. Not a single mutual insurance company needed or received a bail-out. Most of them continued paying dividends according to schedule. Again, these companies are much different than the publicly traded insurance companies that you see advertised. You probably wouldn’t recognize the name of any of these mutual companies.

      ***When was the last time you went to a bank and tried to get your money out? You got lawyers, you got cpas, cfas etc etc…you got clout. What a bunch of bs! Early withdrawal? Sorry…

      What I outlined is actually a strategy to warehouse cash outside of a bank. Further, my example entailed a $3,000 annual commitment. I am assuming most people will pursue other strategies with a much greater portion of their assets. I also buy my daughter physical precious metals as part of her asset allocation, not to mention I allocate a substantial percentage of my own portfolio to physical precious metals for precisely the circumstances you are warning about.

      ***read Bill Bonners warning about the system

      I have. I subscribe to the Bill Bonner letter, and read the Diary daily. I love his stuff. Again what I detailed in this blog post is a very small piece of the puzzle. If the entire financial system collapses and disappears then we can pull out our precious metals, our stored food, and our airplane bottles of whiskey and do the best we can. I have made reasonable preparations for such a scenario, but I don’t put all of my eggs in that basket.

      By the way, Bill doesn’t put all of his eggs in that basket either – he is investing $5 million into Chris Mayer’s long-term value oriented stock picks. I am sure you know that stocks are typically registered “street name” which introduces additional counterparty risk. Not to mention all of the other shenanigans that take place in the stock market.

      ***The formula is do you have personal authourity? Do you actually command and control your life? Doesn’t sound like it to me…

      I probably shouldn’t even address this one, but I will against my better judgment.

      My family moved several years ago from a metropolitan city to a rural property on five acres at the end of a gravel road nestled within the mountains. We have plenty of provisions stored, we maintain a small apple orchard, we have a wood-burning fireplace and a wood-burning stove, we collect rain-water, we have a fully-stocked wine cellar, and I work from home on my own terms. My wife coordinates weddings at a nearby mountain resort on the weekends. My daughter was born directly into my hands right here in this house. Only my wife and my dog were in the house at time of birth – the midwife arrived minutes later. We try to structure our affairs to be as self-reliant as possible.

      ***If you have to wait 18 years to get your money dear reader go read what Shultz of the snoopy column has to say about such. 

      You don’t. You have access to all of your cash value at anytime for any reason. In fact, you can pull your cash value out and put it in precious metals, bitcoin, real estate, or whatever else you want on a whim. This strategy does require a long-term commitment to make it worthwhile, however, because the return is very mundane in the early years.

      Again, this is a very very small piece of the puzzle. This post was intended to demonstrate how the welfare state is already unnecessary, and it was geared more towards self-identified “progressives”. Liberty.me is only one of numerous places where I post these entries. My site, Zenconomics.com, tends to get visits from “progressives” due to the name.

      For the record, the book I referenced in this blog post also dedicates a chapter to “home resiliency” detailing how one can rather easily accumulate six-months worth of provisions for the worst-case scenario. The finance course I referenced also spends a little time on this subject. Personally, I view this as an important hedge, but I also seek wealth-building opportunities within the financial system as well.

    • @jwithrowa0 I was responding to Rick @rrule NOT you. To pretend I am projecting on to you is a joke. Switching and dropping context is what puns are made of.

      Now let’s get down to business. You skipped right over the first para I wrote prior to your punny. 

      Here it is: //Not sure how wealthy that is if someone else is holding, keeping and controlling your money. (Holding a monthly coupon and insurance statement in hand or direct payment receipt, or perhaps your lawyer takes care of that. Ooops. Not something I would want a loved one to learn.)

      Is that the best a supposed individualist wayfarer can come up with?//

      Now you correctly point out you are doing other things. Cool. But those others things are not what I am referring to.

      You are warehousing cash. 

      Remember Liberty Dollar? How convenient that their gold and silver were all stored in a “secure” warehouse that the USA government could raid. Maybe, like Waco, they did it for the chiiiilden? To the best of my knowledge, no attempt was made to confiscate the silver coins in the pockets of thousands of unknown citizens…

      So they are not raiding cash? Think again my friend…

      Remember MF Global? Those were “secure”, allocated funds that were stolen. The CEO/president–who is a good friend of the USA Vice-president–has NEVER been charged or jailed. Even some libertarian financial advisers got taken in that fraud.

      Bottom line: If you “trust” a 3rd party, ANY 3rd party–i.e. if you do not hold it in your hand–you are at risk! If you don’t hold it, you don’t own it.

      Re: I would recommend a little more due diligence rather than relying on concise comment responses.

      Due diligence is an investigation of a business or person prior to signing a contract, **or an act with a certain standard of care.**
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Due_diligence

      That’s why I am here.

    • ***Remember MF Global? Those were “secure”, allocated funds that were stolen. The CEO/president–who is a good friend of the USA Vice-president–has NEVER been charged or jailed. Even some libertarian financial advisers got taken in that fraud.

      A former United States Senator would never willfully commit fraud, would he!?

    • @jwithrowa0 @rrule I am a “fan” of PIIP–Progress by Incremental Improvement and Prototyping.😆)

      Honor, strength, sharing ideas and creating alliances…

      Boundless
      https://connect.liberty.me/boundless/

  • MacGregor Ross‘s article Security Analysis Series: Chapter 1 Summary has a new comment 2 hours, 56 minutes ago

    “The Scope and Limitations of Security Analysis. The Concept of Intrinsic Value” Chapter Summary Analysis is the study of available facts with the attempts to draw conclusions based on sound logic. That log [Read story]
    • Once you have suffered through “Security Analysis” ( in my opinion the best investment book ever written), I’ll introduce you to other books on valuation.

      Meanwhile a discussion of intrinsic value would be amusing. I have my own ideas, which I will not share yet, as they might preclude other discussion, despite the fact that I’m a student too.

    • @rrule I would be thrilled to be recommended more books!

      If I were to attempt to formulate a more precise definition of intrinsic value, I think I would ultimately just be the true (not estimated) NPV of future cash flows of all assets in a business. Thus differences in market value, determined by the market’s voting machine, and NPV of a business, which market price will tend to shift towards in the long run, create potential profit margins for the value investor in places where the market is over-valuing.

      What is interesting to me is that this definition isn’t very “out of the box” in terms of finance, but is rather mainstream. So on the assumption that my definition is correct, what is it that differentiates value investors from the mainstream? I think there are a few key concepts, and I’m interested to hear peoples’ thoughts. But perhaps my definition of intrinsic value itself is questionable.

    • @mross12
      Would you be comfortable with the concept that intrinsic valuations are really a range, rather than a sum?
      Is there utility in the concept of pricing intangibles and optionality. What are redundant assets actually worth, if management has no current intention in monetizing them?

    • @rrule To your first question, I would think that actual intrinsic value itself at any given point in time must be a single finite number. But valuations made by an investor as a range makes a lot of sense to me. It is practically impossible to pin point the exact figure given the amount of unknown information and uncertainty that exists for any given business. But it is possible to make an educated guess for the approximate range of which the intrinsic value sits in. I’m guessing this concept also ties in to the margin of safety principle?

      As for redundant assets, I would think that their intrinsic value would have to be worth liquidation value?

      Lastly, I don’t totally know what to think of intrinsic value/pricing intangibles. You raise some thought provoking questions… Some obviously have value attached to them (the Coca-Cola brand, for example), whereas others seem arbitrary and ridiculous to capitalize on a balance sheet (goodwill, patent costs, etc). So clearly an analyst would have to go on a case by case basis making adjustments to the accounting in order to approximate their intrinsic value.

    • @mross12
      Any lurkers have thoughts, plenty to work with here for any would be investors or speculators????

    • @rrule I think (and hope!) the lack of discussion is due to the location of this post on my blog, as opposed to the discussion forums — I will try tomorrow to post my next chapter summary in the forums to get a little more discussion from others!

    • @mross12 You bring up some good points on intrinsic value, MacGregor, i.e. NPV on all cash flows of assets, intangibles, redundant assets. The only thing I might add to the intrinsic value calculations are the people involved. How does one quantify the value managers bring to the business? I.e. Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Ross Beaty, Robert Friedland and the Lundin’s, of the world?

    • @matt77 Nice to meet you Matt!

      Your point on the “people” aspect of a balance sheet is, to me, one of the most fascinating aspects of finance.

      It is clearly impossible to quantify, but we certainly consider it as an extremely important qualifying factor. And I think it is extremely important to any value investor for two reasons. Firstly, because without people, there can be no future cash flows. The NPV of assets in a company necessarily drop to liquidation value without a “human” component. Thus, human interaction, and especially that of management, has a massive effect on intrinsic value.

      Secondly, and more interestingly to me, the absence of human capital on company balance sheets leaves a massive opportunity for profiting off the mainstream investing community. Certainly select management teams ought to be considered an asset of some kind, and my suspicion is that because this asset is not quantified for the mainstream investor in accounting records, the value is often partially or fully ignored. But these are the type of considerations one has to make as an “intelligent” investor. I am also planning on writing an entire article dedicated to the role of human capital in finance/investing, so perhaps I can expand on my thoughts further there.

      Also, I think it is interesting to note that later on in Security Analysis, Graham cautions the investor on “paying for management twice” via impressive earnings, and their credentials. From what I have read so far in Security Analysis, and from my recollections in reading The Intelligent Investor, he seems relatively skeptical to the idea that most management teams are worth their weight in gold.

      What do you guys think of my musings/ramblings? Any thoughts or criticisms?

    • @mross12
      Why might Graham not considered intangibles ( hint, read Buffet) and why might some of the businesses we discuss involve management valuation matrices, when Graham and Dodd thought they were less valuable in their practice?

    • @rrule I dug up an online article (I am about 30 pages shy of reaching the balance sheet analysis section in Security Analysis) that puts forth that Graham generally refused to include intangibles in his valuations. Until my research on Buffet’s view, I placed myself largely in this camp.

      The same article also cited that Buffet places great value on intangibles that generate “economic goodwill”, IE earnings far above the industry average. They used this example, which I’ll include for any lurkers:

      “Company A has a net worth of $100,000, $40,000 of which is net tangible assets and $60,000 of which is intangible (brand name, goodwill, patents etc). Company B has the same net worth but $90,000 its assets are tangible. Each company earns $10,000 a year.

      So Company A is earning $10,000 from tangible assets of $40,000 and Company B is earning $10,000 from tangible assets of $90,000.

      If both companies wanted to double earnings, they might have to double their investment in tangible assets. For Company A to do this, it would have to spend $40,000 to add $10,000 of earnings. For Company B to do this, it would have to spend another $90,000 to add $10,000 to earnings. All other things being equal, Company A would have better future prospects of increase in real earnings than Company B.”

      This was incredibly enlightening for me! Buffet views “economic goodwill” as a leverage for future earnings. It is interesting to think about how those returns diminish; likely much different for each case? Thanks for the guiding questions Rick.

      As for businesses we discuss (assuming you mean the resource business) having more emphasis on management in valuation, my primary thought would be that in the resource industry, it is remarkably difficult to guide a resource junior to a senior. This makes proven management teams that much more valuable. If the odds of turning a $1 resource equity into $5 is 2%, and a quality management team can increase those odds to 4%, we have just doubled our expected outcome. So clearly we can place substantial value on proven management.

      But I’m unsure of this line of thinking. Maybe @matt77 or another lurker has an idea?

      Source:

      Book value

    • @mross12
      Great post my friend, now back to the question, why would Buffet see the value of intangibles, while Graham dismissed them?

      Was one right and the other wrong? Were their practices different? Did they inhabit different eras?
      As to the business we discuss, is it appropriate to limit our discussion to resources? Are some aspects of the resources business more akin to knowledge businesses? Has value creation and realization changed over time? Has politics changed the relative importance of intellectual capital over physical capital?

    • @rrule Upon conducting more research, I’ve found out that there generally exists two value-investing camps: first, the “Old School” Graham-style of buying low P/E, low leverage, and low P/B equities, and second the “New School” Buffet-style of buying low P/E, low leverage, and high return on invested capital equities (obviously these are dramatically simplified descriptions).

      I’m no historian on value-investing, but they are both heralded as the greatest investors of their respective generations. So it isn’t black and white in terms of who is right and wrong. However, it seems very shortsighted of Graham to ignore entire aspects of a business simply because they are not tangible/have no liquidation value. Buffet’s approach seems more accurate to me, but only if we can ascribe a quantifiable value to economic goodwill.

      I will also go slightly off the cuff and argue that because Graham was forced to endure through the worst depression in American history, safety of principal was paramount in his era. Low P/B typically offers more safety in an equity than high ROIC.

      Has value creation changed over time? Certainly so, in my opinion. Western economies in particular have shifted from manufacturing to service-based, making intangibles even more important to consider in valuation. Additionally, the global political climate these days is particularly hostile to physical capital, which can be taxed or expropriated. Intellectual capital isn’t subject to the same risks, making it more valuable.

      As for whether or not some aspects of the resource business are more akin to knowledge businesses, I’m not entirely sure as I don’t know the industry well enough yet. What comes to mind would be exploration, financial planning, and mine planning/development aspects as being knowledge based.

    • Mac
      I would argue that there is at least one more school of thought, that involves buying out of favor cyclical when sentiment and market conditions are unfavorable towards them. While this is appropriate to resource stocks, Whitman, Klarmen, Cundill and others have employed it in a host of other cyclical, capital intensive businesses.

    • @mross12 Nice to meet you too, MacGregor.
      I’ve never thought too much of the people aspect on a balance sheet but there is huge element of value to be considered there. I agree, without competent management decisions, the NPV of assets may not ever be realized or, they may be realized but not exploited at the correct point in time; optionality comes to mind.

      There certainly is an opportunity in finding successful management teams under the radar of the mainstream investment community. Management teams that have had multiple successes will naturally attract the limelight of the mainstream investment community and as such, will fetch a nice premium. This must’ve been what Graham was warning about in regards to paying twice for impressive credentials.

      I’m digging your musings and ramblings so far. I’m sort of a new student myself to the whole world of corporate finance and investing so I’m receptive to whatever you and others have to teach.

      I’m going to lurk around while you answer the rest of Rick’s questions.
      Great job so far!

    • @matt77 Thanks for the reply, Matt.

      I think in especially beaten up or outright disliked industries, the premiums one has to pay for quality management are negligible, creating opportunity. Its simply a matter of finding the right team and the right project (which isn’t really simple at all!).

    • @mross12 Great point! I often hear Rick say that in beaten up industries, as in what we are witnessing today in the resource sector, investors tend to pile the good teams with good projects in with the bad. Often, you can buy the best companies at a discount because the sector as a whole is hated. As to finding the right team, therein lies the challenge.

    • Hi MacGregor Ross, just found your blog through the discussion function on Liberty.Me.

      I’ll try to add more thoughts to the various discussion threads throughout, but I wanted to offer some immediate thoughts on the valuation exercise, i.e. the attempt to calculate intrinsic value.

      1. Intrinsic value is always estimated, but I don’t know if there exists a true intrinsic value for the firm that is simply unknowable – like a Platonic ideal. And even if one does, it has no bearing on our business.

      2. The process of valuation is much more important than the result, especially because to do it correctly you have to deeply understand the firm & its competitors and the industry. This is a level of work many are not willing to do.

      By the way, are you going to do a valuation on a company as you work through the Graham book? I would encourage it & probably can suggest a few if you’re interested. I personally like industrials, but I know Mr. Rick Rule likes his miners!

      Great name by the way – is MacGregor really your first name?

  • Matthew Reece‘s article On Air Ownership and Pollution has a new comment 3 hours, 33 minutes ago

    smogThe question of how to deal with air pollution is frequently asked of libertarian theorists, as it is an issue which has been dominated by governments for far longer than a human lifetime. Accordingly, it may be [Read story]
    • “Because each person has a right to exclusive control of one’s physical body, it is wrong for one person to interfere with another person’s exclusive control of their physical body without their consent.”

      Basically, you are saying that I can not kick out an intruder from my house. He has exclusive control over his body and I have no right to take said right from him (kick him out).
      Since we all know that all libertarians support my right to kick an intruder out then this means that my right trumps his. But this must not happen because his right is supposed to be exclusive. That is how one reaches a contradiction.

      ” Note that in order to argue against self-ownership, one must exercise exclusive control of one’s physical body for the purpose of communication.”

      A slave owner can argue freely against self-ownership and there is no contradiction in that. He simply does not mean that all people must own themselves.
      I have never met a slave myself, but I am convinced that if you asked one he would answer that he did not own himself. And the latter would be true because he would not have the right to decide for himself. No contradiction

      Contradictions start appearing when one decides to apply this statement generally, i.e. to everybody. Then the statement ” I do not own myself” says that nobody owns himself. But if nobody owns oneself, then who is the one that owns all the people? God?

      In short: From ” All people do not own themselves” being a contradiction does not follow logically that everybody must own oneself.

    • Read The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein.

      It’s nobody’s air. Air is free now, but there is no reason to suppose it always will be, or ought to be free. The same is true of water, and all other resources. There may be a day when air and water, at least non-poluted air and water, like everything else required for human life will have to be produced, then only what one has produced or purchased themselves will be theirs.

      What makes anyone think anything in life is supposed to be free or without consequence?

      TANSTAFL

  • Frank Maruschak replied to the topic The Lost Pyramids Of Caral in the forum General 4 hours, 4 minutes ago

    When one looks, one perceives a mental-picture of an image which is input through the lens of the eye and “processed” by the brain.  If one has myopia, hyperopia, or astigmatism that image is distorted.  “Looking” at History is looking back in time at what WAS, but no longer IS.  How do we “know” that that looking back isn’t distorted?

  • Darryl W Perry posted an update 4 hours, 13 minutes ago

    Version 4.0 (It’s all about the LOVE): Things that happen when you’re single too long :: Why the longer your single the better you’ll be in a relationship :: Things that make love timeless

    #Peac3VOLibertyRadio

  • Frank Maruschak replied to the topic What is your Liberty & How did you get it in the forum Communicating Liberty Ideas 4 hours, 29 minutes ago

    As long as one reads or writes using subjective-interpretation-methods the “meaning”(opinion) of liberty or libertarian belongs to the individual-reader/writer of the definition.

  • Ned Netterville posted an update 5 hours, 1 minute ago

    In 1983 there was a handful of self-identified voluntaryist in America, and maybe a dozen world wide. Many others were instinctively voluntaryists, but since the defining philosophy was obscure, those folks didn’t know that’s what they were. Since then, I think our numbers have grown exponentially each year. Exponential growth has mind…[Read more]

  • Rick Rule replied to the topic Security Analysis Series in the forum General 5 hours, 27 minutes ago

    I too, will participate. This is what liberty.me is about.

  • Vincent Birrittella posted an update 6 hours, 24 minutes ago

    https://libertella91.liberty.me/what-vigilantes-can-teach-us-about-the-government/

    New Article. Check it out. Hope you all appreciate it :)

  • Vincent Birrittella posted an update 6 hours, 25 minutes ago

    New article. Check it out. Hope you all appreciate it :)

    https://libertella91.liberty.me/what-vigilantes-can-teach-us-about-the-government/

The Tatiana Show – Pamela Morgan of Empowered Law

Tatiana and Josh interview Pamela Morgan of Empowered Law Pamela Morgan is an attorney, educator, entrepreneur, and public speaker. She has spent almost her entire career working in and advising s…Read more

You, Me, And BTC – Tolerating Crypto & The Real Bitcoin Use Cases

This is episode 122 of You, Me, and BTC – your liberty and Bitcoin podcast! Fist up today, we’re chatting about Japan’s official recognition of digital currencies and Europe’s approval of Bitstamp. H…Read more

The Isaac Morehouse Podcast – Don’t Get Mad at Millennials-Declan Wilson on the Good Side of Gen Y

A new buzzword appears from time to time, and it usually quickly gets plenty of negative connotations. During our Praxis meet-ups, I had the opportunity to meet Declan Wilson who joined me to talk abo…Read more

Live this week

See Upcoming Events

The Tatiana Show — Judd Weiss

Tatiana and Josh interview Judd Weiss.  

Unbiased America #46—Charles Peralo

Charles Peralo is running for Chairman of the Libertarian National Committee. The Unbiased Americans talk to Peralo about his campaign, his plans to grow the libertarian movement, and his positions on philosophy + policy.

Unbiased America #47—Austin Petersen

The Unbiased Americans welcome Austin Petersen, the creator of TheLibertarianRepublic and the handsomest of all the Libertarian Party candidates.  

Join Us

Freedom brings us together. Join the global liberty community for $5/month (first month is free).

Find out more