Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    THE AGENDA 21 DEATH MAP and the UNited States of America To enlarge this map for easier viewing: Hold down your "ctrl" [control] key while hitting the "+" key (over on your number pad).
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    First, do you have any evidence that http://rewild.info/ has anything to do with the UN!?!? Good lord, your extreme paranoia is really funny! Especially coming from you, the oh-my-god-it's-LIBEL Drama Queen. Hey, I DEMAND a JURY! lol! Anyway, you reveal yourself as a bald-faced liar today. You're pathetic. Second, "Barbedwiresmile" vacuously conflates primitive society with people who "farm and raise livestock...life of work and sweat." Wow! In reality, foraging and agriculture are about as opposite as opposites can get. Foragers aren't much interested in working hard, which is why White Invaders referred to the Indians as "lazy." To be that dull-witted takes a level of stupidity I can barely fathom. Third, the critique of city-Statism (civilization) isn't necessarily advocating primitivism. It's just an honest accounting of where we were and how we got here, and dispenses with the Hobbesian mythology that million of years of human history were "nasty, brutish, and short" and calling into question the Abrahamic skygod hierarchy of Gen. 1:26.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    Anecdotal accounts of prohibitions against maternal alcohol use from Biblical, ancient Greek, and ancient Roman sources imply a historical awareness of links between maternal alcohol use and negative child outcomes. [31] [31] Jones, K.L., & Smith, D.W. (1973). Recognition of the fetal alcohol syndrome in early infancy. Lancet, 2, 999–1001. PMID 4127281 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome#Historical_references
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Sharon Secor
    "The Rewilding Project is brought to us from the United Nations. A relevant tentacle of Agenda 21..." But, I repeat myself. "Funny how those who attack agriculture as unhealthy or unsustainable have never had to produce their own food. Funny too how those who would advocate some variant of “rewilding” or launch a grand critique of civilization are often those who live an indoor life of academics and philosophy. I respect any who criticize the modern state and modern systems of soft-fascism and statism. However, I would invite you to live off the land, to farm and raise livestock and split wood for your fire. To work with your hands mending and repairing and preserving. To live and work with sympathy for the land and its product while understanding and appreciating its fruits and gifts. When you have lived this life of work and sweat and self-sufficient satisfaction, you will appreciate freedom no less, you may be no less anti-statist, but you will have a better perspective on the fine lines between the modern state (and all of its evils) and the concept of “civilization”, without which most (if not all) commenting on this site would quickly die a miserable death of starvation and exposure. In other words, try walking the walk before you talk the talk. To do less is to appear as intellectually dishonest in advocating for us all a road that you yourself have not yet traveled." Comment by Barbedwiresmile — 17 June 2009 @ 9:22 AM
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, AtlasAikido, for your excellent observation, above, about trolls. I have come very close to meeting trolls. I know a certain island, in a certain lake, which has a whole family of them, and if you land and explore they will hide behind big rocks and slip from one to another while you're not looking. These are harmless creatures, though scary to small children unless held by the hand. I don't know whether they regard themselves as self-owning, or not, but I fancy they do. They are smart enough never, ever, to be pinned down to a straight answer to a straight question, and of course they never allow anyone actually to see them; they have an uncanny ability to vanish when on the cusp of being caught. The purpose of their lives is to have fun and make mischief, but these real ones never cause damage and they have a much keener sense of humor than their imitators. They pass their time, when human explorers are not around, by telling each other fables and fairy tales - of which they have an inexhaustible supply. At http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/BB2.JPG you can see a photo I took of Troll Island, a few years ago. Of course, no troll is visible.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    No need for paranoid conspiracy theory, Atlas; I've been a libertarian for years, until I started checking my premises. BTW, the city-Statist system of privation property to restrict the free movement of Non-state families from foraging is central planning, no matter how much you deny it. Unless you call divvying up the pillaged Land from the Trail of tears amongst the grasping agricultural city-Statist thieves and genocidalists a "free market." Oh right, you do. So you're just as much of a dishonest agricultural city-Statist as Krugman, whitewashing the aggression necessary for your political ideology. But the blood still soaks through your whitewash job, Atlas.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    It's not anarchy. Anarchist falsely claim anarchy where there is none, such as in the American West during the brutally aggressive agricultural city-Statist invasion and genocide. Unless you want to call a holocaust anarchist. The roofing industry here is still operating under the the territorial monopoly of force called government. If you don't think so, try driving to get more roofing nails without a license plate on the company vehicle, or just offer a free bag of pot for every roofing job. And last I knew, roofers were still using the established government court system to settle disputes. Oh, right, now they do "give a rat's ass."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    So this what you know who is doing here. It all makes sense now: In recent years and months, both Austrian economics and libertarianism have received increased attention and criticism. The more recent attention is probably in part due to Ron Paul’s visibility and his publicizing both types of ideas. I suppose it’s a good sign that they are no longer ignoring us. Now they feel compelled to respond. But it would be nice if they didn’t misrepresent and distort our views. But since both libertarianism and Austrian economics are sound and grounded in reason and reality, I guess that’s all that left to them. Otherwise they’d have to concede defeat. And truth and justice have never really been the raison d’êtres of the mainstream power class, have they? the attacks on Austrian economics come from both “left” economics (Keynes, Krugman), since its teachings undermine their arguments for statist central planning; and from “right” economics (monetarists, Milton Friedman), as it shows how unscientific and confused is their scientism and monism and physics-aping methodology. The attacks on libertarianism likewise come from left and right and other mainstreamer/academic statists. For examples:... http://www.libertarianstandard.com/2012/01/17/the-disingenuous-liberty-i...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Is Free-Market Anarchism Unworkable? Not in America’s Roofing Industry http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli63.1.html
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    P.S. Privation Property = FORCE. Our system of private property in land FORCES landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not. Wherever access to land is free, men work only to provide what they actually need or desire. Wherever the white man has come in contact with savage cultures this fact becomes apparent. There is for savages in their native state no such sharp distinction between "work" and "not working" as clocks and factory whistles have accustomed the white man to accept. They cannot be made to work regularly at repetitive tasks in which they have no direct interest except by some sort of duress. Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of DURESS. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect STARVED into working for him and into working as he directs. ~Dr. Ralph Borsodi This Ugly Civilization Simon & Schuster, 1929 http://www.schoolofliving.org/Borsodi/This_Ugly_Civilization.pdf Agricultural Civilization--including both capitalist and communist--is a long Trail of Tears.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    TANSTAAFL is an agricultural city-Statist bromide. Before agricultural city-Statism, there was such a thing as a free lunch. Yep, for 99% of human history. Just go out a couple hours a day and gather up some nuts. Just that easy. For free. No hard labor, no working for The Man, no slaving for money. Despite a low annual rainfall (6 to 10 inches), Lee found in the Dobe area a "surprising abundance of vegetation". Food resources were "both varied and abundant", particularly the energy rich mangetti nut- "so abundant that millions of the nuts rotted on the ground each year for want of picking..." Interesting that the Hazda, tutored by life and not by anthropology, reject the neolithic revolution in order to keep their leisure. Although surrounded by cultivators, they have until recently refused to take up agriculture themselves, "mainly on the grounds that this would involve too much hard work". In this they are like the Bushmen, who respond to the neolithic question with another: "Why should we plant, when there are so many mongomongo nuts in the world?" The Original Affluent Society Stone Age Economics Marshall Sahlins, Professor of Anthropology Emeritus, University of Chicago http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm P.S. You haven't read much "Austrian" economics if you haven't heard that an employee transfers ownership of his life, in part, to an employer. Better read up. Misean "scholar" Walter Block even defends selling oneself into a "voluntary slavery," complete with sadistically whipping such human property.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    TNSTAFL...As to the owning of others I see no evidence of that with the writings of glen, jim, paul, livingfreeretiree, suverans2 etc.....I see no one on this agorist anarchy indomitus site who is forcing you to transfer your ownership of yourself.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow: I apologize for apparently not addressing your points. And, I can't imagine not applying the labels "natural" and "unnatural" to "something like this". I don't presume that nature even has a "mind", let alone knowing it. Thus, I would have to ask, why on Earth did you say "we anthropomorphize Nature"? Unless you are calling this statement of mine, "...nature's response to overpopulation", attributing human shape or characteristics to nature. If so, I apologize for the miscommunication, because that was certainly not my intent. I was alluding to a study, many years back, concerning rats in a grain silo. While the silo was full the rats acted "naturally", i.e. peacefully, heterosexually, etc.--the way rats "normally" act towards one another--except for hyper-reproduction, because of an overabundance of food. As they began taking grain out of the silo the rats began murdering each other and homosexuality became prevalent. The rats, I would venture, didn't hold a meeting and decide to change their behavior; it was, rather, "nature's response to overpopulation". And, just for the record, I have neither fear of, nor hatred for, homosexuals. Someone here has advised me to just let "sleeping dogs lie", and so this may be my last comment on this subject.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    If "ownership" of your own self must be transferred—via wage or voluntary or chattel slavery—to the owners of earth's resources in exchange for food or tokens for food and resources to survive in a society, that kind of negates the "self" part. (Except in libertarian economic la la land.) Libertarianism is all about "Thou Shalt Own Thy Neighbor as Thyself" -- even if it's just for only the most productive part of your neighbor's day. Hell, wage slavery more profitable for the owner class than having chattel slaves who have to be fussed over and cared for 24/7. Privatize gains, socialize costs. Then bitch about the socialized costs. Neat little swindle ya'll got goin' there.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Bait and switch (con game) is arguing points that don't pertain to this site and not addressing the issue of Reclaiming Self-Ownership. Liberty Stability http://www.strike-the-root.com/liberty-stability#comment-4968
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    It's not that hard to present the issues of axioms, self-ownership/property, the agora, (and every living thing) in two short paragraphs for all to see with a supporting link. I just did it (in the prior post). The only herding going on here has been from you know who!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Herding the faithful like a Soviet political officer. Think this. Do that. Identify enemies of the city-State. Da, comrade.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Are humans to be "consumed, sold, rented, mortgaged, transferred, exchanged or destroyed?" Because that's what owners do with mere property. Therein lies the bait-and-switch con-game of libertarianism, as identified by Robert Locke in his 2005 article Marxism of the Right: "Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    A lesson to be drawn? Don't drop the articles and links dear reader. I try to read those first and come to my own conclusions before addressing the comments, especially if there is a "troll"/"vandal" lurking. At some point good people will be driven off because they will give up reading and sorting thru the non-sequiters. Technical tweaks may also help. On Reddit, votes on your comments don't affect your karma score, but they do on Mises.org. And it does seem to influence people when they can see their reputation in the eyes of their peers drain away....
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Agorism is another city-Statist con-game. What is the agora? "...a central spot in ancient Greek city-STATES...free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the Agora for MILITARY DUTY or to hear statements of the RULING KING or council..." Of course, "later" in this prison of agricultural city-Statism, the wardens allowed some shops to sell cigarettes and trinkets among the prisoners, and agorists consider such as the ultimate freedom, especially if they can get rich off the city-Statist prison arrangement.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Who needs enemies with the kind of help? Getting back to the issues of self-ownership as they relate to this article and Jim Davies: "Liberty Stability" http://www.strike-the-root.com/liberty-stability#comment-4959
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    I post 2 scientific text titles, just the references to the information in my post, and you throw a conniption, implying I don't have an original thought, even though all of the post but the references titles were my own words. Now you cut'n'past a wall'o'text. I don't really care if you do that or not, but what's up with your fetish for contradiction?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    For those actually interested "On Reclaiming Self-Ownership" without waiting for the rest of the world and every living thing... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer10.html by Butler Shaffer "On what basis does another...presume to rule you?," Butler Shaffer rephrased the question. This question took us into a discussion of the subject of "authority." During the course of this discussion, a young man began to ask a series of questions: "But how else are we going to live, if we don’t follow others [i.e., authorities]?" "Do you understand how allowing others to direct your thinking and your actions produces conflict within yourself?", I asked. "Yes, I think so," the young man responded. "Would you like to learn how to live your life in a more self-directed way, without relying on ‘authorities’ to tell you how to do so?", I inquired. "Yes," my student answered. "How will you find out?", I asked. "By asking you," he replied. "Let me make certain I understand you: are you saying that you are now aware of how you have allowed others to control your thinking and actions by accepting these people as ‘authorities’ over you?" "Yes," he responded. "And now you are asking me to tell you how to stop living this way and take control over your own life? Can I make you a self-directed person?" There was a long silence, during which one could almost see what was going on in this man’s mind. Finally he declared: "I guess this means that it’s up to each one of us, doesn’t it?" "Do you need me to answer this question for you?", I asked. "No," my student answered. In the final analysis, I can do no more than respond with one of my favorite quotes, authored by one of the best minds in all of libertarian thinking, F.A. Harper, who said: "the man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free." PS If *I* want [choose] to understand the above, I need to go thru the entire process in my own mind. Others can provide me assistance--*just as Rand has for me*--but it is I that must volitionally CHOOSE (or evade) to address this issue (by raising MY level of awareness to a state of full rationality) and then, via MY reason and use of logic, I must rationally CHOOSE what the alternatives are and which are true and which are false.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    ..."if they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers." Our world is in the mess it is in today because most of us have internalized the fine art of asking the wrong questions. Contrary to the thinking that would have us believe that the conflict, violence, tyranny, and destructiveness that permeates modern society is the result of "bad" or "hateful" people, disparities in wealth, or lack of education, all of our social problems are the direct consequence of a general failure to respect the inviolability of one another’s property interests! ...Property" is not simply some social invention, like Emily Post’s guide to etiquette, but a way of describing conditions that are essential to all living things. Every living thing must occupy space and consume energy from outside itself if it is to survive, and it must do so to the exclusion of all other living things on the planet. I didn’t dream this up. My thinking was not consulted before the life system developed. The world was operating on the property principle when I arrived and, like the rest of us, I had to work out my answers to that most fundamental, pragmatic of all social questions: who gets to make decisions about what? The essence of "ownership" is to be found in control: who gets to be the ultimate decision maker about people and "things" in the world?.... Do You Own Yourself? by Butler Shaffer http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer9.html PS The above addresses the issues of axioms, self-ownership/property, the agora, (and every living thing) in a format that is understandable and relevant.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Real life observation debunks Rand's erroneous "axioms." An honest fellow would appreciate the correction.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    G'day Paul, I need neither to establish ownership of my self, but, you are correct in saying, I very likely will need "mutual consent...or...brute force" to enjoy that ownership of my self. Enjoy. To have, possess, and use with satisfaction; to occupy or have benefit of. You and I have been down this road before, haven't we, my friend. As I understand it, your belief is that if someone has the physical ability to enslave you, you no longer have a lawful claim to your 'self'; the slave-master is now the rightful owner of you. Is my understanding correct?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "He spoke, in passionate sincerity, discarding convention, discarding concern for whether it was proper..." I will admit my style here is deliberately Randroidian, even if my message is anti-Randroidian. Once again: I'm not converting anybody, or advocating anything here, even when begged to state what I champion. I'm just correcting your errors, and offer a critique of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) There's no "going back" to primitivism (unless we have a horrible collapse via nuclear war or other tragedy, which is actually quite likely.) But looking forward, we must have an accurate picture of what we left behind. The Hobbesian mythology and the Abrahamic athropocentrism of Genesis 1:26 (even if secularized) are taken as gospel by most people. Including Libertarians, Objectivists, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives. They're wrong. You're wrong. I'm here saying there's better information now, and if you're truly interested in creating a world with more freedom, you'd do well to check your premises.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    A troll is an excellent avatar. It attaches itself under an article, muddies the article by attaching itself to the article and then waits. Rather than submit an article itself. It cannot because it is incapable of building its own bridge.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    It is hard to decide whether WI is a troll, or just one of those individuals who simply is incapable of constructively interacting with others. One even gets the impression he is actually trying to bring pre-ag life into disrepute by presenting his case so obnoxiously - that is, that he is a provocateur - but that makes no sense because I doubt the ruling class worries about people en masse converting to a pre-ag "lifestyle". I'm putting my money on "troll". The ironic thing is that if WI somehow magically found himself actually living in a pre-ag tribe, he'd probably find himself quickly expelled from the tribe if not killed outright. I'm guessing people in those societies did not put up with trollish behavior for long. It's only the post-ag Internet ecosystem that allows him to thrive (if you want to call it that). Just in case he isn't a troll, he ought to take a look at Dale Carnegie's work.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Morality, rationality, volition, problem solving, self-awareness are all exhibited behaviors in animals other than human. Rand was mistaken, and preaching a heretical—but still basically Abrahamic—hierarchically anthropocentric worldview fundamentally resting on Genesis 1:26, as follows: • JEHOVALLAH ("The Invisible Hand") • KINGS and PRIESTCRAFT (Heroic Industrialists) • MAN ("Inferior" to their "betters," as Mises stated in a letter to Rand) • WOMAN (submits to husband) • ANIMALS (submits to husbandry) • NATURE (valuable only if used up by the above hierarchy) You'd do well to check your Dear Leader's premises against observed reality, Atlas. Her "axioms" as valid as the "inspired scriptures." Rational Animals? Susan Hurley (Editor), Matthew Nudds (Editor) Oxford University Press http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Psychology/CognitivePsycho... Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals Frans B. M. de Waal Harvard University Press http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674356610
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Hi Jim, I thought I would add this... Re: "You're conflating self-awareness and volition, and both of those are side issues to establishing autonomy (self-ownership.)" No they are not side issues. Jim addressed the issue of establishing autonomy (self-ownership. I will attempt to address the issue of whether I see a conflation of reason and volition and whether those two attributes are side issues. In The Romantic Manifesto in the chapter titled What Is Romanticism?, Ayn Rand says "...the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition...'', and "...volition is a function of man's rational faculty''. The common underlying faculty being discussed is man's consciousness. Quoting Ayn Rand: "Man's volition is an attribute of his consciousness (of his rational faculty) and consists in the choice to perceive existence or to evade it.''. They DO, BELONG together as different attributes of consciousness. But just as "white'' of an eye does not belong in a discussion of shape of an eye, and "round'' is not a color of an eye, so "volition'' is not in epistemology and "reason'' is not in metaphysics. Certainly reason is not volition any more than round is white! I see no place that Jim conflated! The faculty of reason is the faculty of volition. So? Since I/we each must think for ourselves, I/we each must resolve this issue on our own and to our own satisfaction. Rand and her students provided me with intellectual tools to recognize rationalizations and I have utilized these tools to help me understand this issue. If I want [choose] to understand, I need to go thru the entire process in my own mind. Others can provide me assistance--just as Rand has for me--but I must volitionally CHOOSE (or evade) to address this issue (by raising MY level of awareness to a state of full rationality) and then, via MY reason and use of logic, I must rationally CHOOSE which of the alternatives are true and which are false. As I am doing this, be fully aware of the two different contexts of the two different CHOICES I am facing! Notice that the first is an action of consciousness and the second involves the content of consciousness. I am NOT ignoring the appropriate context when switching from one mode of CHOICE to the other. I do not see Jim ignoring that. "Man's faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature, but it opens the way for a host of contradictions and rationalizations--when and if men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man. Is there a conflation of reason (self-awareness) with volition(will/level of awareness) as it relates to Jim's point? No. I do not see that. Jim's point to me is consistent with: The ACT of focusing one's consciousness is volitional.'' and "... only a volitional ACT of his consciousness, a PROCESS of thought, can provide [the knowledge needed for life]. On this issue of man (rational animal) Vs the genus of animal I think Rand did a good job of the differentia regarding that issue! And the above provides light to the difference between such.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "...you are of the opinion that I must have, "mutual consent...or...brute force", to establish ownership of my self?" Seems so. Just like any other property. How could it be otherwise? Maybe in your own mind, you might have a different opinion. But you still have to make that claim stick, where others are concerned. And that's where we run into mutual consent, or brute force.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Let them have it. Panarchy is the answer to that question.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    You're conflating self-awareness and volition, and both of those are side issues to establishing autonomy (self-ownership.) So I'll ask again, if "self-ownership" is axiomatic for humans, then is it axiomatic for other animals? Other life in general? If not, why not? I'm ok with "self-ownership," but the capitalist version is a toxic mimicry of autonomy, a bait and switch, meant to scam people into thinking of themselves and all of our home planet's Earthlings as mere property to be used by the hierarchical elite. But people are not mere property. You can dispose of property; it's the right of the property holder. You can't dispose of people. But that's the whole libertarian theory of labor, people selling themselves as wage slaves. Or even into full slavery, as suggested by Austrian "scholar" Walter Block. So when a libertarian type proselytizes with their "do you own yourself" I answer: "People are not mere property. You can dispose of property; its the right of the property holder. You can't dispose of people." That puts a little kink in their proselytization efforts. If they need more kink, I made a short play for one libertarian, as follows: {{ Libertarian Snuff Films, Inc. }} LIBERTARIAN MASTER: Do you own your body? MOM: [holding sick child] Yes. 
MASTER: And what can you do with property you own? MOM: Sell it? MASTER: Correct. Do you voluntarily sell yourself to me so I'll pay for your child's health care? MOM: Yes, I'm desperate. MASTER: Answer yes or no, and then sign here. MOM: Yes. [signs contract] MASTER: Did you once own your body, bitch? SLAVE MOM: Yes, Master.
 MASTER: Now I own you. What can an owner do with any property?
 SLAVE MOM: Dispose of it? 
MASTER: That's right, bitch. [BANG!] [fap fap fap fap fap fap fap] He'd like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him....Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me. Voluntary Slave Contracts 
by Walter Block 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html There's the logical conclusion to thinking of humans as mere property, even if "self-owned" property: Libertarian Dehumanization.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry, WhiteIndian, that you can't throw light on the dividing line regarding volitional choice. I had hoped that with your clearly superior understanding of the natural world, you might have. That being so, we're stuck with using the self-ownership axiom for humans, at least. Possibly some other species, you don't know which (and nor do I.) That axiom does not depend on Rand, still less on Christianity (which teaches, I thought, that all men are subject to the rule of _God_.) Nor does it derive from capitalism, which is a consequence of the axiom and in no sense its source. What nonsense have you been taught to read?! Accordingly, a hierarchical form of society, regardless of its ubiquity, is 100% contrary to human nature. If every person has the intrinsic right to rule himself (that's what the axiom holds) then nobody has any right to rule anyone else. That follows, as day follows night; there is no escape from that conclusion. Since there is no known exception to your observation (there are minor ones, I think; mediaeval Iceland comes to mind) that means that for the last ten thousand years mankind has been up a government creek. Your post could be read to say "it has always been so, therefore it is optimal and must or should always be so" - but here on Strike the Root we take the diametrically opposite view. We start by recognizing the axiom as inviolate, and therefore say that mankind has to be turned around, taken out of the creek. Government - illegitimate rule, as above - has to be abolished. That is our purpose, and I for one hope you will join us. If you wish to visualize how a large society would work without hierarchical rule, go to www.TakeLifeBack.com/trilib and order a copy of my book "A Vision of Liberty." For a brief take on world history since fixed agriculture was discovered, consider "Denial of Liberty" in the same trilogy.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Natural is a slippery word, and mostly used to justify things that most people don't think of as natural. I like Ran Prieur's definition of "natural," * as follows: Lies of Civilization #3. Everything is natural. Happily most people recognize this as a silly pseudo-philosophical distraction, but I want to knock it down anyway. The argument rests on a semantic distortion, a redefinition of "natural" to include absolutely everything, because I say so. Civilization is natural because humans are animals, toxic waste is natural because it's derived from stuff that comes from the Earth, bla bla bla. Real people do not use the word "natural" in this way. Maybe it's "natural" if I take this club and bash your head in, but you would prefer that I didn't, so you define words like "murder" to express and defend this preference. In the same way, people define "natural" to express and defend their preference for living trees over plastic trees, meadows over parking lots, rivers of drinkable water over rivers of dioxin. This is what "natural" really means, and if we don't want to die of cancer and turn the Earth into a poisoned desert, we have a responsibility to linguistically separate the natural from the unnatural and choose the natural many times a day. If you want a tight definition, natural means in symbiosis with nature, and nature means the totality of symbiotic life on Earth, and symbiotic means related in ways that are mutually beneficial and beneficial to the whole, where wider benefit takes precedence. Defining "beneficial" pushes the limits of our impoverished language, but I'm going to say generating autonomous and diverse aliveness. And if you don't know what aliveness means, look harder. Regarding Suverans2, I don't think homosexuality is any any less natural than living in cities, working "Jobs," quoting law dictionaries in speech, or most of how we live and behave nowadays in our "plastic fantastic" ** city-Statism (civilization.) I do think crowding increases sexual deviancy (not that there's anything wrong with that,) as I alluded to below in another comment. ___________________ * Ran Prieur (2003) Seven Lies About Civilization http://ranprieur.com/essays/7lies.html ** Timothy Leary (1994) Chaos & Cyber Culture, Ronin Publishing.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Crowding" isn't natural. Neither is "hierarchy" or "sexual deviance" in humans and many other animals. We're well on our way. __________ “The one thing they did not have was space...He allowed the population to grow to 80 in the first instance.” As the scientist observed, a social hierarchy developed: One despot male and 9 females claimed the two defensible pens with only one ramp provided; 60 others crowded into the other 2 pens with two ramps. Calhoun found that “rodent utopia” rapidly became “hell.” He described the onset of several pathologies: violence and aggression, with rats in the crowded pen “going berserk, attacking females, juveniles and less-active males.” There was also “sexual deviance.” Rats became hypersexual, pursuing females relentlessly even when not in heat. The mortality rate among females was extremely high. A large proportion of the population became bisexual, then increasingly homosexual, and finally asexual. There was a breakdown in maternal behavior. Mothers stopped caring for their young, stopped building a nest for them and even began to attack them, resulting in a 96 percent mortality rate in the two crowded pens. Calhoun coined a term—“behavioral sink”—to describe the decay. excerpt from: Plumbing the ‘Behavioral Sink’ Medical Historian Examines NIMH Experiments in Crowding http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Excellent points, WI. And what is "natural" about starting a fire that was not instigated by a lightning strike? I hope Suverans2 simply cries "uncle" and gives up on this instead of going off to his dictionary again to depart from the stream of the argument by burying us in minutia.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Suverans2: You don't appear to have addressed my points. Further, I cannot imagine what would possess a person to try to apply the labels "natural" and "unnatural" to something like this. I mean, really: do you presume to know the "mind" of Nature? And why do we anthropomorphize Nature and transform her into a being with some purpose. This is all very Hegelian and rather strange.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Do you find anything natural about skyscrapers? Splenda? Artificial intelligence? Law dictionaries? This Natural Law stuff intrigues me.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow, I realize that this is a touchy subject, not in any small part, because so much government brainwashing, from a very early age, has gone into making everyone believe that homosexuality is just an “alternate lifestyle”, rather than nature's response to overpopulation. You wrote: Suverans2: I think you are nearly entirely in error is saying same-sex marriage is contrary to nature. It is only contrary to nature if you think that reproduction is the only consideration. Since reproduction need not be included as a defining element of humans -- after all we are much richer beings than being mere breeders -- your response limits its purview to only the most limited aspect of human beings. Further, in other primates, same-sex matings are often perceived as play acting of cross-sex relationships. Further, they are entirely commonplace. You evidently believe that same-sex marriage is the natural order of things. So be it, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Your use of the word “matings” seems to have been used to infer that these are permanent or semi-permanent unions, over and above same-sex copulations, for “play acting of cross-sex relationships”, or merely for pleasure, by these “other primates”. Furthermore, humans mating [copulating] with animals is “entirely [too] commonplace”, as well, so does that, in your opinion, make bestiality logically in harmony with [the] nature [of man], too?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Yeah, it is bogus; but I never said that. You can ignore empirical data if you want, but it is well documented that humans in Mass Societal sizes beyond Dunbar's Number form hierarchy, and in City-size settlements form States. Every Civilization (settlements 5000+) in all human history has State Level Politics. Every. Single. Time. It's why anthropologists include "State Level Politics" in the 5 primary defining characteristics of civilization. There isn't a single observed exception. As far as volition defining self-ownership, I don't know where the "volition dividing line" rests. It certainly isn't where Ayn Rand and Capitalism and Christianity purport. Other animals too have emotions*, volition, morality.** But the whole of Western Civilization—whether Capitalist or Socialist—ideology rests on "the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man." *** If other animals have self-ownership also, the basic premise of agricultural city-Statism (civilization) is weighted in the balance and found wanting. MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN P.S. Think of me as NeoGalt speaking, except the chief engineer can shut me off if he wants. I am the man born without guilt over my paucity of Calvinist slavin' ethic. _________________________ * When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson http://www.amazon.com/When-Elephants-Weep-Emotional-Animals/dp/0385314280 ** Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals by Frans B. M. de Waal http://www.amazon.com/Good-Natured-Origins-Humans-Animals/dp/0674356616 *** Lynn White, Jr. (1967). "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis." Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3767. pp. 1203-1207.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Here is what is being called, by the Agenda 21 shill, my “long angry or violent speech” [diatribe], which demonstrates my “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality” [homophobia]. That is correct, Lawrence M. Ludlow, "marriages are things undertaken in nature by consenting beings", LONG BEFORE the existence of states. As you, and most people here probably know, I have no 'reverence' of any states. The only "just powers" of de jure (rightful) governments, (or whatever one wishes to call such an entity), is to protect its consenting members' natural rights. Same-sex marriage is unnatural. Quick definitions from WordNet (unnatural) ▸ adjective: not in accordance with or determined by nature; contrary to nature With no intention of being judgmental, or offending anyone here, "same-sex marriage" is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of man, just as the union of two nuts, or the union of two bolts, is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of nuts and bolts", while "different-sex marriage", is, logically, in harmony with the nature of man, just as the union of a nut and bolt is, logically, in harmony with the nature of nuts and bolts. So,what is the main reason that individuals would vote to have their unnatural same-sex marriage "legally recognized"? You got it, so the unnatural STATE will give them the same entitlements attached to natural different-sex marriages. If a jury of my peers finds me guilty of making a “long angry or violent speech” [diatribe], which demonstrates an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality” [homophobia], then I ask, no, I demand, that, as punishment, I be permanently banned from this website.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    "--'..the market mechanism would function, in the same manner it always does...' "No, it doesn't. " Yes, it does. What Hunt, Lautzenheiser and a host of other tax-feeding, parasitic, pseudo-intellectuals wholly fail to grasp is that value is subjective. Were it objective, of course a market could not function; hardly any exchanges would occur. The fact that they do occur, by the billion every day, proves conclusively that value is subjective. For some odd reason, I value the pleasure of writing this rebuttal more than I value relaxing on the couch. For more obvious reasons, I value the salmon I had for lunch on Sunday more than the five legal tender notes I gave for it in exchange. The market certainly does work - provided it's allowed to. "Government" is well defined as "that which forcibly prohibits a market" and so all we see today is a complicated, messy mix; some aspects of market behavior, much non-market activity, all of which violates the self-ownership axiom and so is destructive of human welfare. The fact that markets work is not a matter of "faith", but of observation and reason.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    --"...the market mechanism would function, in the same manner it always does..." No, it doesn't. Faith in "government" is surpassed in this country only by faith in "God" and faith in "The Invisible Hand." _____________________ Economists base their political program on a belief called “Pareto optimality.” “Pareto optimality” is not scientific because it is not defined in a way that can be falsified. In other words, “Pareto optimality” is a belief like “Christ died for our sins” is a belief — neither can be falsified. Economists proselytize for their religious beliefs like Christian missionaries proselytize for theirs. The belief that “Pareto optimality” actually occurs in the real world is the linchpin of economics. If one accepts that “Pareto optimality” is true in the real world, in then contemporary economic models are true by definition. ~Jay Hanson http://dieoff.org/ “The neoclassical school is the dominant (and probably the numerically largest) school in contemporary economics. For neoclassical economists, microeconomic theory (i.e., welfare economics) underlies every theoretical subfield of specialization and every theoretical, practical, and policy-oriented conclusion at which they arrive. All of their costbenefit analyses, their demonstrations of the universal gains from foreign trade, their notions of market efficiency that are encountered in every branch of applied economics, as well as their notion of rational prices, have absolutely no meaning whatsoever other than that manifested in their faith that a free-enterprise, competitive market system will tend toward a Pareto optimal situation. Without a Pareto optimal situation in effect, these phrases and notions cannot be defended. In fact, in the absence of an optimal situation, these phrases have no meaning whatsoever. They are given meaning only when the neoclassical economists first posit the existence of a Pareto optimum; then, by definition, all exchangers are said to gain, resources are said to be ‘efficiently allocated,’ prices are said to be ‘rational’ and therefore conducive to making accurate assessments—on utilitarian grounds—of the social costs and social benefits of various government projects. Utilitarian neoclassical welfare economics pervades and dominates nearly all neoclassical analyses on all theoretical and practical matters.” — HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE, Third Edition, E. K. Hunt & Mark Lautzenheiser, 2011
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Making the truth of the self-ownership axiom contingent upon a "human neurobiological limit" is bogus from top to bottom. An axiom is an axiom. This axiom is fundamental to this forum and if you're not willing to accept it, WhiteIndian, I respectfully suggest you go form your own. On the other hand your comment about other animals is very interesting - I've often wondered about it. Probably Ayn Rand, through Galt, was correct in that the ability to make volitional choice is the key, because self ownership is all about choosing and deciding; but in limited ways the dogs I've known do seem to have exercised some such choice. I can well believe that the folk who reached America from the West instead of from the East had a much finer appreciation and understanding of animal behavior, and we Euros need to respect it more. Where, though, does it end? - does a bee in a hive or an ant in an army have volitional choice? - not, I think. How about veggies? - likewise. How can one spot the dividing line, do you say? Don't under-rate Ayn Rand, by the way. She was far more perceptive than any in her generation, about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of socialism. She had a few faults, notably failing to follow her own findings to their logical (anarchist) conclusions, but mankind is deep in her debt.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 3 years 6 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    A good one, Alex; competing screening systems would bring vast improvement. Might we not take it further? - "allowing each airline the authority..." is just to restore to the airline what was stolen in the first place. Why not "allow" each airline to decide whether or not to welcome armed passengers? - if even a minority had carried handguns aboard on 9/11, there would have been no "9/11." Some might even offer boarding passengers the loan of a handgun along with headphones... no malefactor would even dream about hijacking such a prickly target. But we can take the idea further yet. These various ways of combating "terrorism" all assume that terrorism is there, that some people want to commit murder-suicide with an airplane. Why do they? - because they have a motive, obviously. Where did that motive originate? - in some action of the FedGov; for 9/11, its relentless support for the State of Israel, which profoundly offends many Muslims. "Terrorism" can be ended by removing the motive. We can chat with our fellow passenger by reminding him that we just went through the tiresome dragnet of TSA screening because the Feds have a foreign policy. "But you can't have a government without a foreign policy!" - precisely :-)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Query for Atlas on "Self-Ownership:" • To how many species on the evolutionary Tree of Life* does this "Principle" apply? • If only one, at what point in biological evolution did "self-ownership" (which I correlate with the more widely used scientific term autonomy**) become "axiomatic" for that specie, and why only for that specie? ____________________ * Evolutionary Genealogy: The Great Tree of Life http://evogeneao.com/tree.html ** Life is a complex phenomenon that not only requires individual self-producing and self-sustaining systems but also a historical-collective organization of those individual systems, which brings about characteristic evolutionary dynamics. On these lines, we propose to define universally living beings as autonomous systems with open-ended evolution capacities, and we claim that all such systems must have a semi-permeable active boundary (membrane), an energy transduction apparatus (set of energy currencies) and, at least, two types of functionally interdependent macromolecular components (catalysts and records). ~Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Juli Peretó and Alvaro Moreno. (2004) "A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Volume 34, Number 3, 323-346. www.springerlink.com/content/p6j42r66k2277373/
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    As George H. Smith points out, Ayn Rand's own moral code does NOT lead to mini-statism. It leads to anarchy. Understanding Rand's Objectivist Ethics led me to embrace agorism and The Covenant of Unanimous Consent--which gets one out of controlling others including giving a fig newton about religion nor Locke's so called bible issues if in fact there were any. It is a non-issue. I merely posted possible refutations for those who are interested. A lesson to be drawn? I read links/article first and come to my own conclusions before others inveigle non-sequiters, especially when there is a "troll"/"vandal" lurking.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 6 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    A new aspect. Something to be aware of. The troll becomes more friendly. Beware!