Recent comments

  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    I don't disagree for a moment that land property and agriculture is one of, if not the most important problems to consider. Anyone who wishes to discuss the pluses and minuses of how land should best be dealt with in a voluntary society will find plenty of people to discuss the issue with here, I believe. It seems to me that WI is being a bit dogmatic with his insistence that agriculture = slavery, and his citing of Mr. Whomever as the infallible and ultimate authority on the subject, subject closed. That's not much of a discussion. As a starting point, I believe that in a voluntary society wherein the agriculturist is truly dependent upon his land for his profession, he will quickly discover the best methods to preserve the soil, which is in his best individual interest. This seems like common sense to me. The reason why this hasn't happened very often is that sure enough, in agreement with WIs observations, agricultural societies have been run by coercive governments which distorts the agriculture market's behavior to the point of it being self-destructive to the land. Modern government is all about short-term benefits to temporary office-holders and long-term who really cares?. A free agricultural society would probably blow the doors off of the bounty that is currently being produced.
  • mhstahl's picture
    mhstahl 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, Why not look to the justice system as observed in existent non-state societies? Max Gluckman referred to the complex system observed amongst African and South American tribal groups as "Peace in the Feud" -http://past.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/1/1.extract The concept is similar to von Notten's observations of contemporary rural Somalia in "Law of the Somali's". This system also doubtless predates the written system of Wer and Bot in early Anglo-saxon England-where, by the way, redress of grievance through feud was acceptable, even officially despite a rudimentary government. I believe that I've read examples of this sort of organization in rural India, and certainly Pakistan, as well-though at the moment I can't recall the source. I would suggest in your example that this man "who was respected by all for his wisdom and fairness." is such in part at least because he is part of the Raj. Also, while Corbet certainly has a point about red-tape bleeding all involved white(by intent, by the way if we look to history), I wonder if he saw, or was aware of cases where that "fairness and wisdom" failed and the parties involved disagreed with the outcome? The biggest question, it seems to me, in evaluating a system of redressing grievance is who has the ability to bring overwhelming force to the table-in this case, as in "red tape" justice, it is the Raj without question. At least officially. Without that central authority, everything becomes much more fluid, and much more interesting. Without a central adjudicator able to muster such force, then it is the balance of force between the two parties and their protective groups(families, friends, and potentially others depending upon local custom) to ensure that the matter is resolved-depending of course on local custom as well, there is little predictability in this system. I recommend Gluckman's work highly, along with Sahlins(referenced frequently by someone else here) if you want to really explore the interaction of humans without "red-tape". I enjoyed the article, thanks!
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    While I'm not in complete agreement with everything White Indian has said, his mention of the tilling of the soil as being a problem is something that I think deserves some analysis by thoughtful readers of this fine journal. In particular, agorists, (conscious participants in the underground economy,) may do well to recognize another kind of underground economy, (in the sense that practitioners of permaculture mean it, the underground economy is literally the underground networks of plant roots, fungi, bacteria, micro-organisms, and systems for retaining, transferring, and releasing nutrients, minerals, and moisture that naturally develops in undisturbed soil.) In the same way that heavy-handed top-down intervention in the human economy is disruptive and results in long-term inefficiencies, heavy-handed top-down intervention in the soil ecology is also disruptive and results in long-term inefficiencies. Agorists who wish to increase their ability to sustain themselves efficiently with as little effort as possible may do well to incorporate insights from permaculture, an approach to designing human settlements and agricultural systems that is modeled on the relationships found in nature. Check out this excellent piece on the underground economy in the permaculture sense: http://southwoodsforestgardens.blogspot.com/2011/05/underground-economy.... As a self-proclaimed eco-agorist, I'd like to think of myself as internally reconciling the apparent dichotomy between market anarchism and certain elements of the anti-civilization philosophy White Indian appears to be promoting, and regardless of whatever derision this will earn me from either side of this ongoing debate, I, for one, welcome the "TROLL"'s criticism. Carry on. :)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Playing Soviet Political Officer? Da, comrade, Suverans doesn't like the information presented.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Agricultural civilization is the sociopolitical typology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopolitical_typology , one of only four, in which we live. You don't live in an egalitarian Non-State band society. You don't live in a egalitarian Non-State tribal society. You don't live in a hierarchical Cheifdom (proto-state) society. You do live in a hierarchical agricultural city-State (civilization) mass society.
  • Evan's picture
    Evan 2 years 17 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    I'd just like to say that I'm thoroughly enjoying watching these epic debates between proponents of anarcho-primitivism and market anarchism, and I hope they continue indefinitely. I think such dialogue is particularly appropriate for a site with Thoreau in the masthead.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL seems in order here.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    "...you're well part of it too, whether you want to be or not..." ~ WhiteIndian Why because you say I am? Who the f**k are you to say what I am a "part of"? I am no more a "part of" your "agricultural city-Statism" than is a man who happens to be caught in the middle of riot is a "part of" that riot. Yes, the riot very likely will affect him, but the fact that it affects him in no way makes him a "part of" the riot; and anyone who accuses him of being a "part of" that riot, without a shred of evidence, is a false accuser, i.e. a goddamned liar.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Good article Paul. It made me think ;>). It's a good read and you make some excellent points. However, I think Claire was speaking to the phenomenon of people who don't think for themselves, not simply stupid or ignorant, but lacking intellectual curiosity. Claire's example of the women at the door who asked her husband what "we" think is mind boggling to people accustomed to open minded consideration or even those seeking confirmation bias. Although there is likely a high correlation between lower intelligence and low intellectual curiosity, they don't necessarily go hand in hand. The deference to experts, politicians, ministers, books and other sources of knowledge in lieu of thinking for oneself is a frustrating experience at all levels. Even on this board, how often has someone asked a simple question of someone else who is obviously intelligent only to get a long list of quotes and links to articles written by other people, yet no real answer or apparent comprehension? I also admire your patience Paul; something I should work on.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    There is no voluntaryist agriculture. It's well-established in the field of anthropology and archeology that domestication (proto-agriculture) greatly increases violence. Richard Manning sums it up accurately: "Agriculture creates government." The very first sentence in anthropologists Stanley Diamond's book In search of the primitive: a critique of civilization is: "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home." A voluntaryist agricultural civilization is as realistic as a voluntaryist Soviet communism. In fact, much of what you believe is rather like the Marxists, as is noted in Marxism of the Right by Robert Locke. I think you're as capable of inventing a voluntary civilization as the communists, who promised much the same, and ignored much of the same evidence against such ever happening. - "...not really having to worry about starving, freezing, or being eaten by a tiger..." Still parroting the Hobbesian mythology that is an apology for Statism? Really, that makes you a blatant liar. It's untrue. It's been debunked by the empirical data gleaned from anthropology, ethnology, evolutionary biology, archeology. The agricultural revolution shortened man's life by half. Now there are a multitude of Diseases of Civilization never seen before agricutural city-Statism. I'd say there is something to be said for not really having to worry about being sick or dying from famine. (Yeah, foragers rarely have famine, agriculturalists frequently so.) The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race Jared Diamond, UCLA School of Medicine Discover Magazine, May 1, 1987. Pages 64-66. http://www.mnforsustain.org/food_ag_worst_mistake_diamond_j.htm - "...live together in large societies without government..." So unlikely, I say Impossible. Never has been done, and it's as likely as conjuring an animated corpse. You know why too: span-of-control and Dunbar's Number, as covered in attorney Jeff Well's book "A Theory of Power." http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html - "...their lack of existence, present or past, is irrelevant." Sure. Just like the absence of animated corpses is irrelevant in your Wishing for a Zombie. Maybe you can do it with enough Cargo-Cult techno-fetishism! Right after power too cheap to meter. - "Elevating non-humans to human status..." You can congratulate yourself for sounding exactly like a Freeper Fundamentalist. (or an Austrian economist; the differences in agricultural city-Statist political flavors is greatly exaggerated amongst them.) You still swallow, at least in part, the monotheistic hierarchy myth civilization invented (even if a secularized version) as an apologetic for domination. GOD MAN WOMAN (submits to husband) ANIMALS (submits to husbandry) NATURE (valuable only if used by the hierarchy) Fact: humans are animals. Fact: other animals also demonstrate morality. See "Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals" by Frans B. M. de Waal, Harvard University Press.
  • B.R. Merrick's picture
    B.R. Merrick 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I LOVE JOHN TAYLOR GATTO! And after reading Claire Wolfe's article compared to Bonneau's, I'd have to say that I agree with Gatto and Bonneau. Hell, I've thought plenty of "stupid" thoughts. Sometimes "stupidity" leads to greater wisdom, if you leave individuals alone long enough in their supposed willful ignorance. (And how much of it is truly willful is relative and subjective.) Anarchy would never work if people weren't -- by an large -- decent, thinking souls.
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 17 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    "Egalitarianism simply means equal socio-political power. No government, no bosses, no "lording-over." Only in egalitarian Non-State societies can one be a sovereign individual." Such a simple truth you state here. But then you complicate things by insisting that I, along with dozens or hundreds or thousands of others cannot implement this simple idea in WHATEVER MANNER we wish. Even if we choose to plant seeds in the ground and keep animals for food and labor. And build houses. And learn particular trades. And develop a trading system based on exchanging commodities. And any of a great number of VOLUNTARY means of organizing society. You criticize voluntary behavior and interactions, which makes your arguments opinion and nothing more. Opinions noted. The sentence I quoted above is my foundational premise, and I parrot no other agriculturist city-Statist errors. I attach zero baggage to the statement, as it stands quite nicely all by itself. You insist on stapling on caveats and criticizing the efforts of people who simply want to live according to this premise. I am not Mises, Rothbard, or Rand, so critiquing their flaws and attributing them to me is unwarranted. You seem to fall into the trap of believing that a city of 1,000,000 people is really a single coherent entity. There's that old statist-speak and ideology leaking in. Let me assure you that I interact with way fewer than Dunbar's number of human beings, as do most folks. All these little egalitarian groups overlap and interact with each other, and from the outside this set of clumps, numbering 1,000,000, seems to be an unwieldy large group of humans called a city. But it is not. Your insistence that each group of 150 people must be physically separated from each and every other such group in order to form a bunch of egalitarian societies doesn't compute with me. The fact that you ignore the thousands and thousands and thousands of very real benefits (aids to human comfort and survival) that are the result of the division of labor and voluntary hierarchical systems in large cooperative societies is also a bit strange. I get the "untroubled life of the free man in nature" thing, but there is something to be said for not really having to worry about starving, freezing, or being eaten by a tiger. I am perhaps naive enough to believe that human societies are in the process of evolving toward the time when we can actually live together in large societies without government, and arguments about their lack of existence, present or past, is irrelevant. And if most of the current ideas about land ownership are flawed or downright unjust—and I agree with you that this is probably the case—why do you insist that there is no possible solution? The moment a man decides to harvest seeds from a plant and place them into the Earth to create more plants, all is lost? Stop yourself. If you reject the idea of "enslaving" plants and animals and "raping" the Earth by purposely putting seeds in the ground in an orderly fashion instead of letting them fall naturally, then that's fine. Elevating non-humans to human status, as if they were moral agents, is not much of an argument IMO. Yer gonna eat 'em one way or another, so consistency cannot be part of your position here.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    - "They are particularly tasty..." You're mindlessly regurgitating Hobbesian mythology, reflected in Darwin's "red in tooth and claw" view of nature. A more accurate view of natural evolution, and how life really works, is Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution by Peter Kropotkin. "Darwin saw his theory of natural selection arising from the incredible lethality and ruthlessness of the natural world. This narrative has remained in place, even while the evidence to support it has eroded completely away." ~In Praise of Laziness by Jason Godesky | 5 June 2007 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2007/06/in-praise-of-laziness/index.html - "...product-of-evil computer..." City-Statists like you consistently crow at how completely Non-State society has been wiped off the surface of the earth. So I'll ask you: "Did you drive on any publicly funded roads? Using that internet developed by the military for nuclear warfighting? How's that working out for you?" - "Everyone should be forced..." Incorrect. Egalitarian societies do not force anything. You don't even know what egalitarianism means, because you think it means "forced equal outcomes," which the city-Statist Austrian school of religio-economics has taught you. Egalitarianism simply means equal socio-political power. No government, no bosses, no "lording-over." Only in egalitarian Non-State societies can one be a sovereign individual. "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with litde or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." ~Elman Service NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf - "...the nine things you keep repeating." The only reason I have to keep repeating is you keep parroting nine agricultural city-Statist errors.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Legalistic spell casting, "word magic," or legalistic spell casting. Membership in the zoo of agricultural city-Statism (civilization) isn't voluntary, you're well part of it too, whether you want to be or not; it's enforced by aggression. If you earn enough money, or travel enough public roads, I think you have a good chance of learning the hard way of how convincing your "withdrawal" is to law enforcement. "Officer, am I free to gambol*" isn't begging, it's a literary device for teaching libertarian types who say , "officer, am I free to go?" how Non-State foragers would view our Gambol Lockdown society. P.S. , If you haven't caught onto that yet, I'm against agriculturalism. Tilling the soil is THE primary problem. The Original Affluent Society didn't do back-breaking toil; work is a curse (as recognized in the Genesis mythology of the "Fall of Man," i.e., the "Agricultural Revolution.") __________________________ * Regarding the word "gambol:" Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today—civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors—is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question "Why agriculture?" is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls "just-so stories." In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. GAMBOLING ABOUT PLAIN AND FOREST, HUNTING AND LIVING OFF THE LAND IS FUN. That's all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p. 24
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 17 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Yes, I know. Dolphins do not have specialization and hierarchy and are very happy. They are particularly tasty, as well. How's that product-of-evil computer of yours working out for you? "The people who support division of labor..." I certainly don't. Everyone should be forced to do exactly the same set of things. This is perfectly natural. Human history is replete with men and women all sharing the hunting/gathering/fighting/cooking/building/working/medicine equally, with no one specializing in anything. Also, a person just learning a skill should never defer to the knowledge of a more experienced person, because this is hierarchy, and is bad. Teaching is inherently evil and unnatural. I look forward to the next regurgitation permutation of the nine things you keep repeating. 9! is 362,880 (Dunbar's number times 2,419), so I'm sure we have many more to go. I might suggest writing a little program to generate the entire set and posting it to a website so we may all stop by and admire the full set in all its glory. Hey, it was kind of fun going back to junior high! But now I'm bored.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    It's difficult for you to stay on topic, isn't it? I made no mention of "fake bills, bogus property liens and bizarre court papers". There's no *word magic* in withdrawing from membership in your "agricultural city-Statism", unless you deem the American declaration of independence, *word magic*. And, the *just* right doesn't require "a pinch of shrew spleen"; it does require your being what you say you are, something, of course, that you can't do, because the evil "agricultural city-Statists" won't let you, no matter how much, or how often, you beg them with your own *word magic*, "Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?" Sheeeeesh! Get up off your knees, WhiteIndian, it doesn't become a man to act that way. Here's a definition for you. "Agriculturalism, also known as the School of Agrarianism, the School of Agronomists, the School of Tillers, and in Chinese as the Nongjia, was an early agrarian Chinese philosophy that advocated peasant utopian communalism and egalitarianism."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago
    What is Laissez-Faire?
    Web link Mike Powers
    If Jeffrey was honestly for leaving the world alone, then why does he support big-government Land enTITLEment, which is agricultural city-Statist regulations that creates artificial borders to restrict the free movement of Non-State societies to hunt and gather, as our ancestors did in the Original Affluent Society as sovereign individuals? (Sahlins, 1972) Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest? Mr. Tucker just won't let it be.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    The People who support division of labor — specialization in violence was one of the first instances — and hierarchy (both are gushingly rhapsodized in Austrian religio-economic literature) are getting exactly what they asked for.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    G'day BrianDrake, What I wrote was: "Have you ever tried it? And, then refused to apply for, or willingly accept, any member-only benefits/privileges?" This was in reference to what Paul Hein had written: "Should I attempt to withdraw it [consent to be governed], I’d quickly find out the real difference: in a word, violence." Did you and/or your friends formally withdraw your consent to be governed, or formally rebut the presumption that you had consented to be governed, and "then refuse to apply for, or willingly accept, any member-only benefits/privileges?" Quite frankly, it sounds more like you and your friends may have been, or are, "tax protesters", or "tax resisters" and the usual route of tax protesters/tax resisters is that they use a membership number, i.e. a Taxpayer Identification Number (U.S.), to procure member-only benefits/privileges, but then refuse to pay for them, i.e. they refuse to pay their "dues[1]", their Federal Income Tax. You may be right that "Filing an income tax return is not consent", but if one is not a "taxpayer[2]", i.e. not a dues-paying member of the "country club", why on Earth would he perjure himself by filling out, (complete with a "membership number"), and signing, "under penalty of perjury", a document essentially demonstrating that he is one? There is a very big difference between "those who refuse to comply", and those who are not "subject to". It's as big as the difference between "dogs" and "men". ___________________________________________________________________________ [1] Dues. Certain payments, rates or taxes. As applied to clubs and other membership organizations, refers to sums paid toward support and maintenance of same and as a requisite to retain membership. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page [2] Taxpayer. One who is subject to a tax on income, regardless of whether he or she pays the tax. I.R.C. § 7701(a)(14) ~ Ibid., page 1462
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "Nobody can know everything there is to know in the world." Actually, people once knew by 13 or 14 everything they needed to know in the world to get along just fine; they were sovereign individuals. "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." ~Elman Service * NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf "So, to compensate..." Being that there was nothing for which to compensate, this is city-Statist "just-so" make-believe story, promulgated by agricultural city-Statist worldwide, from Marx to Mises. "...we specialize. We have created a division of labor..." Indeed, we have. Specialization and division of labor is one of 5 defining primary characteristics of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) "...which is a good thing." A good thing if you're high on the hierarchy, because it benefits hierarchy. Libertarians should keep in mind that one of the first specializations after the plowboy was the soldier. In fact, sword and plowshare are both really the same -- catastrophic destruction of Mother Nature and her children. Division of labor means specialization in violence. Which suits the purposes of hierarchy just fine. Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil. by Jason Godesky | 21 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 17 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    The government has the right "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever." All the rest of the document is redundant. If they can legislate all cases, then everything that government may ever want to do can be declared legal. And if government can legislate anything, why go on and point out specific cases, like the post offices and the roads? Because that one sentence had to be surrounded by a flurry of fine-sounding respectability. For anyone who wants to point to the 1st Amendment, or any other little old Constitutional thing, the government points to its right "To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever." The People who support the Constitution are getting exactly what they asked for.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Hocus pocus legalistic "word magic." You have to get it *just* right, with a pinch of shrew spleen and always, always Black's Law Dictionary. It always works -- until it doesn't. 'Paper terrorist' headed to prison Anti-government radical gets 5 years for filing bogus liens, paperwork By Adam Bosch, Middletown Times Herald-Record December 12, 2011 http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Paper-terrorist-headed-to-prison... The only sovereign individuals on the planet are those who live in egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies, bands and tribes. If you live in a hierarchical chiefdom or agricultural city-Statism (civilization,) you're just another brick in the wall.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "Congress CANNOT Write Any Law It Wants" according to Judge Napolitano
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    Filing an income tax return is not consent. You are threatened with violence if you do not, just as you are threatened with violence (under PENALTY of perjury) if you file it inaccurately. It is well established in law and reason that consent given under duress is non-binding; i.e., not consent. Really, this is so simple it's astounding to me that people make this claim. Read Spooner's "No Treason" for a thorough demolishing of this nonsense. "Have you ever tried it?" Yes, and my bank account was emptied by the IRS completely without my involvement. I have friends and know of people who are either currently languishing in a cage, or have in the past for the "crime" of saying "no thank you" to the demands of the IRS. This isn't some intellectual fantasy, real people have their lives ruined by the IRS all the time. Paul is completely correct. No, it is not always immediate. But eventually, those who refuse to comply come face to face with the iron fist, the violence, that is the State.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Martial Law
    Web link Michael Dunn
    "What the American People are witnessing now with this new legislation is the further development of an American Police State into a Military Dictatorship, a process that was started by the so-called USA Patriot Act in 2001," says Professor Francis Boyle, the constitutional law authority at the University of Illinois, Champaign. "If it is enacted into law, America will lose all pretense of having our Military subjected to the control of democratically elected civilian leaders as originally envisioned and required by the Constitution. Our experiment in 1776 will have failed," adds Boyle, author of "Tackling America's Toughest Questions"(Clarity Press.)
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Martial Law
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Which seven of your fine senators voted nay on this? We have the answer. Nay IA Harkin, Thomas [D] Nay KY Paul, Rand [R] Nay OK Coburn, Thomas [R] Nay OR Merkley, Jeff [D] Nay OR Wyden, Ron [D] Nay UT Lee, Mike [R] Nay VT Sanders, Bernard [I] http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=s2011-218
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    "I’ve never been asked for my consent." ~ Paul Hein Have you ever filed a "United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury"? "Should I attempt to withdraw it, I’d quickly find out the real difference: in a word, violence." ~ Paul Hein Have you ever tried it? And, then refused to apply for, or willingly accept, any member-only benefits/privileges?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Ending "city-Statism" may be "simple", but it is most certainly not "easy"? easy adjective▸not difficult to do, or not needing much work ~ MacMillan Dictionary
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "It's not my job to improve people or to make them logical; it's their job." Well said. I agree that if we can "trick" people into behaving as anarchists, it does not matter if they embrace that label. Leave us alone and I don't care what they think beyond that. I disagree with your correction. As I elaborated in my first comment, there is no "government cudgel" in a society that respects the right to "opt out". Boxing is not the same as assault. The participants may be performing the same violent actions, but the fact that they are both voluntary participants, and they recognize their decision to engage in violence does not give them right to use violence on those who don't consent, is what distinguishes their sport from aggression. The moment the liberals and conservatives concede they may only "battle over the election process" with other willing participants, and not those who say no, there is no State (obviously assuming this decision to "leave the anarchists alone" is put into practice). They can of course call it a State, and call themselves whatever they want, but the reality is that is not a State, any more than boxers qua boxers are violent criminals. That statists can still be "statists" in a state-less society does not require much imagination. Even in our current Statist world, there exists the example of BDSM clubs. In the market, sans the State, there will probably be "political clubs" catering to those with an even darker fetish for pain and conflict. "Conservatives" and "liberals" can duke it out to their heart's content (even violently-enforcing rules set by the electoral winners upon each other). But as long as they genuinely leave alone those who do not consent, it is anarchy. Going back to your rhetorical strategy, if it works, great. More power to you. I'm just not convinced that it's genuinely an easier, more effective strategy because at its core, I don't really see it as a different strategy. An anarchist is the only person who is genuinely wiling to leave other people alone, and if it was really that easy to convince people to leave others alone (i.e., to be an anarchist, whether they used that word or not), we'd already be living in glorious anarchy by now. "I'm not suggesting a very large change for them, but a very small one. Just tolerance, that's all." But you're wrong, that's the largest change possible for them. Tolerance is the crux of the matter. It is what distinguishes us, the anarchists, from EVERYONE ELSE. Again, if "just tolerance, that's all" was so simple, we'd already be living in glorious anarchy. Now don't get me wrong, I actually think most people are anarchists at heart; that they don't have the desire or at least the courage to individually enforce their preferences on others (i.e., the desire/courage to enforce their intolerance). But because they've been raised as Statists, that's the way they've been programmed to think. And while I will also not claim perfect logical consistency (though admitting a failing is not the same as embracing that as desirable), I argue it is the logical INconsistency of Statism that's the achille's heal of that rotten philosophy (and what makes it rotten to begin with). And thus, it is the progress TOWARDS logical consistency that will help people see the State for what it is and recognize that tolerance must be afforded to others if it is expected for oneself. So if your method of presentation is effective in connecting with a statist and helping them move a bit more towards logical consistency, and eventually to a point where they agree to treat others they way they want to be treated (that is, left alone when desired), then bravo. Good luck to you (sincerely). Actually, rather than just wishing you well, I'm curious if you can report on the effectiveness of your proposed strategy. How often have you used it and what have been the results? Honestly, if you've got an effective tactic, I don't think I'd be alone here at Strike the Root in being very interested in your success.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Fine business on the Sahlins tome, especially the chapter "The Original Affluent Society." I think it is much like "On the Origin of Species." Humans have indeed built culture. Perhaps it is historically inevitable. We also have developed the Sixth Great Extinction. Is suicide inevitable? We are the Gods about which we created myths. And we'll either suicide ourselves via nuclear weapons or other Collapse, or learn to attenuate our lust to dominate the planet. Frankly, I think it'll go nuclear, and our specie will be like bacteria in a wine barrel. Catabolic collapse, blip in time. 22 generations from now, Stone Age, and my children's children will be hunting the genetics I'm preserving/"improving" (basically, re-wilding, as best one can do besieged by a Monsanto wasteland and its city-lyzed hoards) after I (or somebody) cuts the fences on "my" land.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Restoring Non-State liberty to sovereign individuals with the personal responsibility to care for themselves and their families is easy: end city-Statism. END:CIV Resist or Die http://endciv.com/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I kindly addressed your points, so go fly a kite. You don't meet my needs for a fair intellectual fight. Hint: tipping over the chess board isn't "winning." At this point, you seem to rushed, and too immature, and very likely, too enslaved, too addicted, to techo-salvationism. You said good-bye once; when can you make it stick?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian: I'm sorry that you chose not to dialog with me. Your comments do not meet my need for back-and-forth discussion and communication.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've already written here. But thanks for the invitation, that was a kindness after our non-lethal intellectual "mano y mano" sparring the last couple days, (matching the generally non-lethal "conflict" -- or "counting coup" -- of most paleolithic societies; I trust you take that a compliment.) I've got lots of land. By your temporary city-lyzed rules. I've converted (and am still converting much of) it to paleolithic oak savannah. Oak savannah and Amazon Rainforest were both human-created gardens. Did you know that? Read Mann. Here: "Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact" March 2002 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/2445/ I'm ready to cut the fences in 5 or 500 years (it won't be 500) keeping the close-to-paleolithic genetics I've nurtured. I am White. I understand the Greek (actually pre-Greek) mythology of agriculture=Rape of Demeter (and her daughter Persephone,) goddess of agriculture and grain. Of agriculture I have repented. I once was an ignorant agriculturalist. I've repented acres and acres back to natural fertility. Farmers, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Farming is like fiat money. Of temporary boom, then the Four Horsemen, century after century (even in NA; Apocolypto.) I am Indian. I communicate, literally (it's scientifically possible, see Frans B. M. de Waal) to Mr. Crow and Mrs. Squirrel and their spirit is mine, in the same evolutionary biological tree of life. http://TOLweb.org/tree/ I have fallen under "The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World." (Abrams, 1997) I am White Indian. The White Indians of Colonial America Author(s): James Axtell Source: The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 55-88 Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA www.shsu.edu/~jll004/colonial_summer09/whiteindians.pdf
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for that link. I too think along those lines although I don't necessarily exclude even city life from our genetic heritage. We built it after all, just as we built culture. Anyone who wants to live in a city should do so. BTW I've got Sahlins' book "Stone Age Economics". I wonder how his ideas have stood up over time.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I can't dispute your points here on a logical or linguistic basis. But I think you mistake my aim here. People (including myself) are not perfectly logical or consistent, and I don't expect them to be, either. I prefer to work with them as they are, not as I wish they would be. They may be feeling more like a prisoner these days. I'm hoping they see where this feeling comes from. Making no other changes than letting anarchists go is a way for them to restore their liberty. I don't care if they think through the implications. I don't care what label they stick on themselves, and I certainly do not want to go to the effort of convincing them they are really anarchists even if you or I might think they really are so. There is no profit in it. All I want is a trade: tolerance for a small number of people who consider themselves anarchists, in return for restoring that feeling of liberty. It's not my job to improve people or to make them logical; it's their job. It's my job to get liberty for myself if I can manage it. If they want they can observe what happens in a really free society, and profit from that knowledge. Or not. It's entirely up to them. Actually, to correct you on one point, I am not assuming that letting anarchists go is necessarily accompanied by putting down the government cudgel entirely. In fact I am assuming that most likely liberals and conservatives still will continue to battle over the election process, only leaving anarchists out of it. I'm not suggesting a very large change for them, but a very small one. Just tolerance, that's all.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Actually, on the cultural development of "private property," historians/paleo-anthropologists are learning much from older civilization's records, including preserved personal accounts on clay tablets from the elite of several thousand years ago. Funny thing about those ancient accounts, they sound so modern jet-set. I know jet-set. I've shaken hands with Steve Forbes on the tarmac of Signature Aviation, simply because my jet was following the Capitalist Tool, and I recognized him. I know exactly how the hierarchy thinks today -- it's just like 5000 years ago. (P.S. Steve was a consummate gentlemen, we exchanged pleasantries fro only 10 seconds. I'm talking about the others, who were also gentlemen, mostly, with whom I've been in jet aircraft for decades.) It's exactly like art depicts today. Those clay tablets also show how some clever Hebrew goat-herders plagiarized the holy book we call the Old Testament of the Bible, which we once took seriously, and most still do. I say that, because the concept of anarcho-primitivism is now to the establishment what biological evolution was to the establishment. It's pretty well established in scholarly literature how domestication led to "big men," the emergent elite, agriculture, sacrifice religions, division of labor, etc. These findings do much to remove the masquerade of culture's "just-so" (Gould) his-story. Regarding property, the best way to regard it nowadays in our cultural context is legitimate property vs. illegitimate property. There is legitimate and illegitimate sex, right? Same with property. That which requires force, or "we need the gubmit to protect our right to" is illegitimate. Which is most nowadays. Legitimate property, property that you could easily persuade a Non-State forager, is things needed for survival. But they'd still laugh, because they were so open and giving. Civilized people judged that looseness of "property" as "stealing," but forager bands are so affluent, they can afford to give it all away. Here, have my bow, I'll make another one. In fact, anthropologists have noted that the "leaders" of tribes were those who gave away the most. And they could afford it, in an economy of abundance; poor was still rich as the richest. (Remember, poverty is relative, and agriculturalists starve far more than foragers.) Work a couple hours a day, plenty to eat, no starvation (such as fragile agriculture brings,) relaxed sexual mores, and plenty of story telling, gambling, and partying. Who needs a bong or Skyrim in that environment? Illegitimate property requires state protection. You'll hear minarchist libertarians say "We need government to protect property rights." That sort of property is illegitimate, requires aggression, constant aggression, and libertarians sloppily gloss over the aggression. Anarcho-capitalists are dumber than the minarchists, who realize exactly what it takes to maintain illegitimate property rights -- big government aggression. (Ayn Rand was correct in that regard, even if she whitewashed the aggression and called it "rights.") "Private defense agencies" are going to be conjured just as soon as animated corpses. An-caps are zombie hopefuls, much like Christ-eaters. "Take eat, this is..." And what creates the state? "Agriculture creates the State." (Manning) We already know in several cultures how domestication increases violence, and agriculture is the full manifestation of domestication, and introduces the necessity of the state. Agriculture creates a prison culture on the land, and the artificial borders called "property borders" are the cell walls. Within the prison, walls are nice. Most libertarians recognize this, and consider the walls sacred. When I call the walls a part of a prison. Illegitimate property is promoted via the divine. Ever hear of divine right of kings? Divine right of property is the next bullshit magical thinking to go. You'll hear it secularized nowadays, called "natural" rights and such, but illegitimate property rights are based on divine hierarchical magic words. Regarding Kinsella, he's correct regarding IP. But all Landed property that requires the State to protect it is really an IP. Nobody owns the land, they own pieces of Land enTITLEment papers from big government, and human who believes in those magic words, and if they don't believe, they are aggressed against. Squirrels ignore it. Crows ignore it. Our evolutionary distant cousins give evidence of the ephemeral nature of pieces of paper. I agree with you we don't know everything about history, especially from long ago. But we know enough now to conclusively decide that many old premises, which libertarians parrot along with progressives and conservatives, are flat out wrong. Like I said, the concept of "The Original Affluent Society" (Sahlins, 1972) is as paradigm-shifting, and just as upsetting to the establishment, as "On the Origin of Species." Let's summarize just the Libertarianism-addressing points: (1) Privation Property (needed for agriculture and city-Statist division-of-labor) needs be aggressively, statistly, enforced (by the first and second divisions of labor, soldiers and the megaPOLIS's (city-State's) POLICe. And you thought whoring was the first "profession." No, violence was.) (2) Privation Property is a big-government Land enTITLEment to establish artificial borders that restrict the free movement of Non-State societies to forage as sovereign individuals and families. (3) Non-State socio-political typologies do not regard anything much as property, especially themselves. Jesus (a fictional solar-deity character much informed by Eastern Buddhism...sometimes word for word from Buddhist scriptures) didn't say "Thou shalt own thy neighbor as thyself." Wage-slaving is not far removed from chattel slavery when "the food is kept under lock and key" (Quinn) and people are disestablished from the land by agricultural Statist force. (4) The first division of labor, lauded from Rand to Mises to Rothbard and beyond, was force. Soldiers. Police. To enforce agriculture borders. To keep Non-State foragers from foraging. (5) Foraging is the original "free" (no need to pay "the man" with money) lunch. TANSTAAFL is only 500 years old in North America, and 8000 years old in Mesopotamia.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian. I will parse out what you have outlined in this post, and I believe you have claimed far too much for your view as will be shown. If you wish to dialog and address these points just as I am now addressing them in the sequence you raised them, I will be happy to continue. If you cannot address each point as I did and either concede to me or correct me, it will not meet my need for a two-way conversation. Our disagreement comes from a lack of checking your premises. I'm arguing primarily from empirical data. • WhiteIndian, a non-combative, inoffensive way to make this statement (and more accurate) would be to say: “We both operate from different premises, and we each weigh more heavily different sets of empirical data.” You offend when you accuse others of not checking premises and of not using empirical data. ______________________________________ The concept of private property developed culturally after humans began to control and contain nature, that is, "domestication." (Domestication is the proto-agricultural domination of plants and animals.) • A historian would say that there is very little evidence to determine either the existence of private property or its meaning in a pre-historical world. Perhaps a more accurate way of saying this would be as follows: “Some but not all anthropologists hypothesize that …, but it is open to refutation.” • Further, one could say that the concept of private property could exist before domestication. If I catch a rabbit while hunter-gathering, I would consider that it was mine to roast if I caught it and thus my property. No domestication required, yet we have property. _______________________________________ As John Zerzan, whose work is referenced with scholarly references almost to a fault, states so succinctly in his Twilight of the Machines: "Domestication erects the rigid boundaries of surplus and private property. with concomitant possessiveness. enmity, and struggle for ownership." • Zersan’s tatements about “rigid boundaries” are polemical and political, not scientific. Let us keep to description. First, it is a non sequitur to make that statement followed by the claim (not proven) that having something put away for a rainy day creates a rigid boundary. But it is true that enmity (caused by envy and high time preference) can follow among those who do not store up for a rainy day. Is Zerzan claiming that unless one lives on the razor-edge of starvation, conflict results? Is starvation preferable to the possibility of envy? And I am not suggesting that people necessarily starved in a primitive world. I know that in the Middle Ages, taxes on peasant were certainly lower than they are now, so I am willing to posit good health and plenty in a primitive society, but such a state of existence absolutely precludes specialization beyond a minimal amount, don’t you agree? _____________________________________ To rephrase Carl von Clausewitz, formal property rights are resource wars by other means. • This is a claim, not a proof. I cannot address non sequiturs without inventing an argument that was not made. ______________________________________ Several anthropological studies show that egalitarian Non-State foraging societies had little or no concept of property. If they did have a concept of property, the property was only those very few things a person would need for his own use for survival. • Property used for survival is still property. You contradict yourself here. _______________________________________ They didn't view themselves as property, and would consider you batshit crazy for feeling the need to. • You are playing upon the equivocal use of the term “property” to draw anger from the reader here. I’ll ignore the insult and try to stick with the topic. I believe that the mere act of either considering or not considering oneself as property is proof that such a being believed he had control over his body. Since this is a pre-historical state of being, you have no basis on which to project your thoughts into his mind (crossing boundaries and claiming to know for him/her). ___________________________________ For the last 8000 years in the agricultural city-State, property has become increasingly abstract, and one may "own" property well beyond any survival needs or even the ability to enjoy. • Many people who wish to impose structures have expanded the concept of property into realms where no scarcity exists – as in the case of intellectual property (IP). I believe with Stephan Kinsella that this is unnecessary, creates scarcity where none existed, a form of monopoly, and unjustified. Similarly patent and copyright. I will assume you are aware of his summary of the thought on this. ____________________________________ I don't have any special knowledge about this; I've just checked my own premises, studied the scholarly literature in the fields of anthropology, ethnology, evolutionary biology, and archeology. • No comment needed. _____________________________________ The conclusion that humans lived in an Original Affluent Society (Sahlins 1972) is as paradigm-shaking to the controlling hierarchy as Darwin's Origin of the Species. (Darwin 1859) Daniel Quinn calls it the Great Remembering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Remembering Quite a few of us are catching on, which is nice to see. This family did, and made a movie about it: What a Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/watch-the-movie/ • I have to assume the Sahlins thesis is one that assumes a world of plenty, which may or may not be true. _____________________________________________________ Now that I have addressed your comments, I will make a few of my own -- not nearly as many. I hope you will first address the points I raised to continue the conversation. I also would like to take up where you ended. I do not know if the authors you cite are familiar with the methodology of the Annales school of history, but it would be useful to consider not just the discipline of anthropology, but other aspects of culture, demographics, science, technology, literature, law, economics, art, religious belief, philosophy, and social organization – just to begin -- when examining a culture. But much of the evidence is lacking in pre-history, so it is a shaky foundation no matter what is posited. Too many academic problems come out of mono-causally based theories and theories based on scant evidence, and this occurs within every discipline that seeks to base a theory on a thin foundation. Anyway, after you have re-addressed the very points you raised, you might want to continue, but please try not to impute insanity, etc. to others -- difficult as it is to resist. Nobody wants that, and it doesn’t meet my needs for mutual respect.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    SUGGESTION: WhiteIndian, why not write a clear essay (I mean write your own STR column) outlining your thesis and wishes with regard to the topic of liberty? Then you would finally have an opportunity to lay out your thoughts in an organized fashion instead of trying to make them fit into writings that may have only a tangential relationship to what you want to say. I sense you have a need to be heard, so why not lay yourself open to a thorough presentation -- starting where you wish and developing as you wish?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Our disagreement comes from a lack of checking your premises. I'm arguing primarily from empirical data. The concept of private property developed culturally after humans began to control and contain nature, that is, "domestication." (Domestication is the proto-agricultural domination of plants and animals.) As John Zerzan, whose work is referenced with scholarly references almost to a fault, states so succinctly in his Twilight of the Machines: "Domestication erects the rigid boundaries of surplus and private property. with concomitant possessiveness. enmity, and struggle for ownership." To rephrase Carl von Clausewitz, formal property rights are resource wars by other means. Several anthropological studies show that egalitarian Non-State foraging societies had little or no concept of property. If they did have a concept of property, the property was only those very few things a person would need for his own use for survival. They didn't view themselves as property, and would consider you batshit crazy for feeling the need to. For the last 8000 years in the agricultural city-State, property has become increasingly abstract, and one may "own" property well beyond any survival needs or even the ability to enjoy. I don't have any special knowledge about this; I've just checked my own premises, studied the scholarly literature in the fields of anthropology, ethnology, evolutionary biology, and archeology. The conclusion that humans lived in an Original Affluent Society (Sahlins 1972) is as paradigm-shaking to the controlling hierarchy as Darwin's Origin of the Species. (Darwin 1859) Daniel Quinn calls it the Great Remembering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Remembering Quite a few of us are catching on, which is nice to see. This family did, and made a movie about it: What a Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/watch-the-movie/
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hi Wes.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    A good friend of mine has taken note of the threads on this post and had this to add vis-a-vis WhiteIndian. He's much better at using NVC than I am -- especially in the "typing" mode (as opposed to person to person). It will be interesting to see the ripple effects of a good NVC approach, so here goes... "It seems the impasse in dialogue here primarily stemmed from the disagreement with words (and thus concepts) such as "ownership" and "property" which, as WhiteIndian has noted, have been employed by domination structures to rule over people, while people in such structures forward a PR scheme that pretends to be protectors of our persons and property. Observe how many minarchists (from pro-"Constitution" Ron Paul types to Libertarians and Objectivists) believe that government is an organization essential to protecting our individual rights. Without government, no one would respect property!...they contend. I'm guessing that WhiteIndian is feeling dismayed and a bit suspicious, because he wants some reassurance that no domination of people will exist in a society of complete liberty that upholds the sanctity of individual rights (i.e., the freedom to act justly in a social context). As noted, the words "ownership" and "property" seem to trigger a lot of revulsion in him, given their misusage by present and past domination structures. Perhaps he (like all of us, as well) never got his needs for sovereignty, or autonomy, choice, and respect fully met as a child. After all, "property," when it's not considered in the rights-respecting context of freedom, can be a way for individuals within the paradigm of statism to try to gain security in a world of increasingly coerced scarcity. Just look at the sundry controlled markets involving so-called "intellectual property," in which our economy is being stifled in myriad ways (copyright, patent, and trademark litigation galore). Property (your own self being the most personal of property) is definitely a concept that many in our culture are either ambivalent about or outright fear, typically on account of not trusting people's ability to use and/or dispose of said property in the way they want (i.e., in a way that's safe for them and their environment). The part of our conscious mind that makes choices, i.e., selects things from a range of known options, is the root of sovereignty, or self-ownership. Reason and by extension volition (the processes of identifying and integrating information and making decisions) are indeed irrefutable absolutes--any statements to the contrary can't be made without using them. Naturally, as Trevor Gamble has articulated in his new book, when people fully respect this process in themselves and others, they'll have a society of real freedom. Respect for self-ownership and property rights is simply a useful way to convey how we can use our minds in reality to benefit ourselves and others, to bring values into the marketplace without conflict. In other words, nonviolent prosperity."
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 17 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I live in metro-Detroit and i think I can add to the understanding of what really happened here. The state's social service bureaucracy (which is mainly composed of white progressive professional types) has had its hand slapped by Detroit's judiciary (who are all black). There is no doubt that Ms.Godbolo shot off a pistol (into the ceiling) to deter the entry of the social service bureaucrats and the cops who were there to seize her daughter and which by law is a crime. Due to the racial dynamics involved Detroit's hyper-partisan judiciary brushed aside the law (but not nullifying it) upholding what they think is right and just instead. Good for them. But in the end this case was more about Detroiters sticking it to man (state of MI) not about doing the right thing based on natural law. This ruling sets no legal precedent so if it should happen again without all the publicity the parent defending their offspring from the depredations of the state bureaucracy could easily wind up imprisoned, separated from their family, injured, or even dead.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Drupal dropped off, so I hit publish again, and got a double post. I apologize.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've read all of Rand's works, and have most of them on my library shelf. I'm well aware of her minarchist diatribe against anarchist "libertarians." I'm well aware of the continued fundamentalist-like infighting between objectivists and libertarians. Still, most political scholars generally lump objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and several other similar political views under the rubric of libertarian, just for the sake of simplicity, because "Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence towards the libertarian movement. Many libertarians justify their political views upon aspects of Objectivism," [wiki: Libertarianism and Objectivism] even while understanding the differences between the fundamentalist religio-economic sects. Keep straining at gnats if you must; it doesn't quite prove what you so desperately hope it does. And you never have addressed what brought this all up, so I'll remind you: Why do you suppose you can taunt me with "autistic," yet, when I retort with a scholarly study linking autism and libertarianism, you equate that to Soviet "medicalized" tyranny with...(ahem)..."gas chambers?" Care to explain yourself? Or does your evasion continue?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've read all of Rand's works, and have most of them on my library shelf. I'm well aware of her minarchist diatribe against anarchist "libertarians." I'm well aware of the continued fundamentalist-like infighting between objectivists and libertarians. Still, most political scholars generally lump objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and several other similar political views under the rubric of libertarian, just for the sake of simplicity, because "Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence towards the libertarian movement. Many libertarians justify their political views upon aspects of Objectivism," [wiki: Libertarianism and Objectivism] even while understanding the differences between the fundamentalist religio-economic sects. Keep straining at gnats if you must; it doesn't quite prove what you so desperately hope it does. And you never have addressed what brought this all up, so I'll remind you: Why do you suppose you can taunt me with "autistic," yet, when I retort with a scholarly study linking autism and libertarianism, you equate that to Soviet "medicalized" tyranny with...(ahem)..."gas chambers?" Care to explain yourself?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Since WhiteQuibbler has never read Ms. Rand, his knowledge of her is based on what he pulls from Internet posts of critics. If he knew her writings instead of just Googling in a public place, he would know that (1) like WhiteQuibbler, Rand opposed libertarians and (2) most libertarians became libertarians because Ms. Rand expressly opposed them. Similarly, he finds an ally in National Review, an organ whose primary spokesperson (Buckley) supported the growth of a totalitarian state in the USA to combat the totalitarianism of the USSR. You are out of your depth once again.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest? MARX: NO! MISES: NO! Those damn agricultural city-Statists all sound alike to me.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Another caged animal in the agricultural city-Statist (civilization,) "zoo," as Richard Manning puts it. Richard Manning on the Psychosis of Civilization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iBOXcoP_8 The only real solution is to deregulate big-government enforced artificial borders designed to restrict the free movement of people. Libertarians call city-Statist Land enTITLEment "private property." I call it "Gambol* Lockdown." _______________ * Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today—civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors—is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question "Why agriculture?" is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls "just-so stories." In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. GAMBOLING about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not. That's all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.24
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 17 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Only a mendacious "grievance collector" would think those examples of objectification, meant to illustrate common cases of objectification and depersonalization, were all applied to libertarianism. However, you bring up the subject of war. Self-styled "free-market" types aren't at all consistent on war. Ayn Rand lauded the genocide of 90,000,000 invasion/occupation victims. And in a rather racist way, as follows: "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." ~Ayn Rand, speech at the US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974 Plus, there's nothing like a good ol' libertarian police beat-down on those damn long-haired hippies that are ruining property values where they hang out: "Cops must be unleashed ... unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" ~Murray Rothbard Libertarians claim to be non-aggressors, but they merely whitewash the aggression they're willing to commit, without truthfully identifying it as aggression.