Recent comments

  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    If I didn't know better I'd think from the first 3/4 of his video Napolitano was edging toward anarchy. But alas, at the end he confirms his belief that by engaging in politics and electing a Ron Paul "we" can, in fact, tame the beast. Abstain From Beans. Sam
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I've misplaced my note on a line from one of James Michener's novels where a black man was observing the impudence of the white man's ethnic cleansing practices toward the natives of a given area, then publishes his history books with prevarications like "...Columbus 'discovered' America..." (and erects monuments and statues commemorating the "event"). So I'm in agreement with your take on the murderous behavior of granting homesteading "rights" to stolen land. And I've not been an avid Ayn Rand fan. Even Murray Rothbard toward the end scuttled her along with her ship as I understand it. I'll certainly agree with this statement from the article: Government’s role in making and keeping people poor is just one of the factors that make poverty endemic and make it hard to survive while poor. I will disagree with the author's reification: "Government" has no roll in keeping people poor. Agents OF government fill that roll -- individuals who should know better but choose to ignore truth for the sake of authoritarianism. As Mr. Davies so colorfully outlined in a recent piece, government ("the state") is pie in the sky. I am curious to hear, however, who the "one honest capitalist..." might be. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Now, that, is what I call really "weighing in"!! Thank you, Mark Davis. Well said.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Nice story around one man's opinion: Looking about for easy game and abundant grub is more fun than farming. Gee, nobody ever thought about that, what a revelation. All those good ‘ol boys that go fishing or hunting every weekend never thought of just doing it every day. Assuming this opinion is some kind of revealed universal truth that all people must agree with, it still begs the assumption that human populations will not increase past the point of universal abundance such that there will never be scarcity of, or competition for, resources. That's biologically and physically impossible. Bacteria, rodents, insects and men will reproduce to the point of resource depletion unless resource supplies can be increased fast enough. I don't see waves of mass starvation to keep populations low as all that nice a place to be. Not to mention I really like my bed and a roof over my head. But I digress, you see, my planting my own plants and raising my own animals to manage supply, harvest on schedule and eat as I please allows me to control my destiny more so than trusting to providence and perpetual abundance while we reproduce to our hearts delight. The agricultural scenario makes me happier than the alternative of "gamboling about" and apparently a lot of other people too. The position of assuming that the world owes me a living, especially when I'm no longer a young man physically able to "gambol about" is not as wonderful as you make it appear. For example, I have a cabin in the mountains on a little 10-acre farm that I am retiring to when I get tired of the beaches and toiling for The Man here in Florida. My land abuts a large forest of 1,000s of square miles that is owned by an Indian tribe and various state agencies, that are 99% uninhabited and in a natural state. My neighbors and I (and our families and friends) have a clear choice daily of whether to work in the garden, milk a goat, get eggs from the chickens, trade or exchange produce, books and stories with each other, make a fire in the fire-place or take a nap in my cozy abode. At any time we could all choose to gather together and start foraging for food, forsake our beds, roofs, shoes, computers and books to avoid working in the garden. I don't know anybody that would prefer "hunting and living off the land" to farming for longer than a weekend, maybe a week when younger. Anyone that can't see why people took up agriculture has never really tried living off the land, especially in the winter.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "Commonwealth employees are immune from liability due to intentional misconduct, so long as the employee is acting within the scope of his or her employment," [Chief U.S. District Judge Gary] Lancaster wrote. Interesting! How can "intentional misconduct" be "within the scope of his or her employment"? 'Sounds' like an oxymoron, but then, I'm not a "white...mendacious...domestic...foppish whore", so it probably would seem that way to me. If there are any "white...mendacious...domestic...foppish whores" in the house, maybe we could 'hear' from you next?
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Butler Shaffer had a good piece over on Lew Rockwell a few months ago: http://lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer239.html In reading Butler's article again, I can see that "environmentalists" can be some violent folks. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    They claimed that "...the officers were intending to serve the purposes of their 'master,' the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania..." according to the court's summary. Say, who is this person, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania"? Is this so-called 'master' fiction or non-fiction? If (s)he is non-fiction, I would like to talk to him, or her, and, NO, THANK YOU, I do not want to talk to his, or her, 'agent(s)' or 'representative(s)', I want to talk to him, or her, face-to-face. I want to look this non-fiction 'master' in the fricken eye when (s)he falsely accuses me!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "Techno-porn." ~Rice Farmer (Japan) News Links, January 7, 2012 http://www.ricefarmer.blogspot.com/ (Rice Farmer lives out in the hills, growing rice and veggies organically.)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    One could just as easily say "individualism, when its you attempting to induct me into civilization which I have not chosen to participate..." Apparently pronouns aren't the real problem. Domestication and living in large groups beyond human neurobiological limits, whether collectivism or individualism is the political flavor of the day, are the problems. Domestication is the beginning of human violence, as extremely well documented by anthropology and archeology. Large groups require hierarchy, which is the beginning of the state. If you like violence and the state, you'll just love domestication and large groups.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    "We", when it's you attempting to induct me into a group in which I have not chosen to participate, is the most dangerous word in the world (watch the video at the end of the article unless your ears are tender to foul language). My world. Jim, this is another quotable classic of yours, alongside many dozens of others. The term I hear ringing through your essay is "reification". To reify is to treat an abstract as though it were a living, breathing entity -- to create an image of something out of nothing. Conquerors and their admirers have used this tactic incessantly throughout the ages to maintain legitimacy of state in the minds of people. In early history, once the hordes came to see there was no enduring profit in "scorched earth" practices (raping the women, massacring the entire cities and leaving the corpses to rot in the desert and the cities in smoldering ruins), they would keep the inhabitants alive as slaves...er, producers ("taxpayers", "citizens"); and, led by the kahn, let them Join-the-Family-of-Nations. Have their own flag in which to pledge allegiance. To what? To the Khan, of course. "My country 'tis of thee..." The genius of "democracy" (any party of two robbing any party on one) came much later in history. Thanks for the article! Sam
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    I look forward to studying your voluntary city, or "Free State," if it happens. I predict it will not ever happen, because you're evading the reality of how large groups of people actually behave, no matter what religion, constitution, covenant, or magical incantations they sign, pray to, or swear allegiance to, or pretend to not do any of that.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    A realistic demonstration would be to publicly grow and publicly advertise marijuana or raw milk, or just put up a shingle to cut hair. But you're really not free. Not free to do that or a million other things prohibited by the government of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) I appreciate your (and Browne's) trying to find ways to cope with mass society. One is "free" to do many things in prison, some even find great enlightenment in prison. But they're still in prison. And still not free in the sociopolitical sense of being free of coercion.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Actually I do not advocate agri city statism. I have actually been demonstrating that it is possible to live free in a unfree world.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    I only need to find those who are compatible with me. This is not hard to do. There will always be those who will be attracted to what I stand for. The Covenant of Unanimous Consent makes it possible for all to know what I love and stand for.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Being that you advocate agricultural city-Statism (civilization,) and thus are a "We"-ist (even as you dodge-and-weave, trying to avoid that reality,) it appears you hold a contradiction. But you won't check your premises.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Avoiding the observed sociopathic set-up reality of a confirmed "We"-ist makes sense at least to me. Evading such would indeed be foolhardy.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Corporations, crews, families, marriages: they don't exist; that is, they don't exist to those who evade reality.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    You're the one evading reality. So thank you for making my point.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    You're grasping for straws while you evade the empirical data in volumes of scholarly literature that refutes your premises about how people work.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Thanks for making my point.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    That is correct, Scott Lazarowitz, as was written to you earlier, "The same holds true, by the way, for "IBM, or any other company or club or church" or "a crew on a ship", a "hunting party", a "married couple" or a "family"; the only thing non-fiction about any them are their individual human members." Add to that list, "Goldman Sachs, Raytheon, BP, and Halliburton"; they are corporations and corporations are artificial persons, i.e. fictions.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    I am grasping that there are those who continue to think and act on the premises of "what are *we* going to do?" When clearly there are individuals who have challenged the premise of "We" and have found freedom in an unfree world and can even point to how they achieved that..
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Evading observed reality is of no value to anybody.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 7 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    I don't wish. I trade I offer values...And I don't hang around people who don't believe in such...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 7 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    It's not hard to grasp "I." Egalitarian non-State society has people who are "autonomous and sovereign" individuals who "bow to no external political leaders." (Service, 1975) But that only happens in group sizes under Dunbar's Number. Larger groups of people for hierarchy. And when group size gets to around 5000+, they form city-States. Every. Single. Time. That's the way people work. The best you can do is evade reality. I keep bringing reality into the debate, so I have no doubt that you're rapidly loosing interest.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    The word *I* would seem to be incomprehensible model. And *I* have observed and traded with compatible others...And I have even provided links to such "hows". How hard is this for some to grasp? As for the rest I am loosing interest rapidly.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    You always evade the empirical data that refutes the way you Wish people worked.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Speaking for oneself is hardly speaking for me. If someone sets themselves up to be UnFree, when there are clearly alternatives, that is hardly my problem. I trade with those who are compatible. WIshes have nothing to do with it. This is where the Covenant comes to play as a filter. But so does judgment and entrepreneurial skill..And lest I forget there is a price to pay. And it would seem that some here do not make personal provision or foresight for such...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    "...how that occurs." Where has such an occurrence been observed? Pray tell. "...lots and lots of people who know..." Lots and lots of people make city-STATES. Every. Single. Time.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    What I have proposed is self-governance and how that occurs. This hardly requires me to be auto-sufficient nor to work out every application of "we"-st. In fact it has everything to do with my proposal, Jim Davidson's and Neil L Smiths of self-governance and nothing to do with controlling "We"ists. I tend my garden. You tend yours. What needs to scale? http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle544-20091115-07.html What I have been proposing and living: is being around lots and lots of people who know that you own yourself. They don't want you to be subjected to "limited" state aggression, or "constitutional" state aggression, or their own favorite flavor of state aggression or "We'-ism; they want you to have NO ONE committing aggression against you. How extreme! How often are you around more than three people at a time who want you to be truly free?. If this is a problem for some it is a personal problem. Not mine. More specifically the issue regarding what are "we going to do": Freedom Has No System--Challenge the premise. There is no “we.” http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Suverans2: "If it only defends and protects our natural rights it isn't a government". But, just because it isn't, or even has never been, does that mean that it can't be? They then answer, "If it did only that, then it couldn't be called a 'government'." Fine!! What, pray tell, could it be called? Then substitute that word wherever you find the word "government" when we are discussing a collective organization that does nothing more than defend and protect our natural rights. Here's how Delmar England describes the quandary of interpreting what is government: If all “anarchists” agree to self ownership, meaning self determination, how can they be in conflict? Absent explanation of multiple “kinds” of self ownership, I am obliged to conclude they think, talk and write in contradiction. An adamant claim of self ownership is quickly canceled by espousing anti-self ownership ideas. They come full circle without realizing what is going on. Regrettably, they are doing nothing but promoting their preferred form of government under a deceptive label. Socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy, etc, all presumably represent different forms of government. Root level definition of government is initiation of force and coercion. A dark alley mugging is no less government than any other initiation of force and coercion. (emphasis mine - sam) Mark, in my attempt 5 minutes ago to link to your superb essay, Be Free, the link appears to my old computer to have defaulted to today's home page of STR and not to the archive of your article. I was replying to White Indian's "libertarian" comment. Let's see if this link works: http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis_m/davis1.html Sam
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    So why do you denigrate egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology (bands and tribes) when they are the ONLY demonstrated society in which people are observed to be "autonomous and sovereign" individuals "who bow to no external political leaders"? (Service, 1975) Are you willing to take your hand out of the monkey trap of agricultural-city to be free of Statism? Remember, there's never been an agricultural city-State (civilization) without a State. And for good reason. People don't work the way you Wish.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Apparently there are IS a "We"ist Utopia monger acting as if *his* drooling beast issues are my problem. Hopeless.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    What I have proposed is self-governance and how that occurs. This hardly requires me to be auto-sufficient. In fact it has everything to do with my proposal, Jim Davidson's and Neil L Smiths of self-governance and nothing to do with controlling "We"ists. What I have been proposing and living: is being around lots and lots of people who know that you own yourself. They don't want you to be subjected to "limited" state aggression, or "constitutional" state aggression, or their own favorite flavor of state aggression or "We'-ism; they want you to have NO ONE committing aggression against you. How extreme! How often are you around more than three people at a time who want you to be truly free?. If this is a problem for some it is a personal problem. Not mine.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    White Indian: "...libertarians love sociopolitical hierarchy and Lording-over-others — just not sociopolitical hierarchy that Lords-over-them. It's a big contradiction in their thinking..." That's a heavy load to carry I'll tell you! I am a free, sovereign state. Sorry about the S-word, Jim, but I do have borders and an internal Border Patrol to guard those borders (some days more successfully than others). I've become free within the occupation of "..agricultural city-statism (civilization)..." -- that's out of my present control. Through insightful essays such as Jim's and Mark's I've developed a lifestyle that has made me the wealthiest man in my city of a million or so. My wealth has nothing to do with investments or bank deposits. In fact, if someone were to hand me a million federal reserve notes no-questions-asked today, I would probably become abruptly less wealthy. Ponder that for a minute. I might be free, but I've not jettisoned all vanity, jealousy, lust nor greed. Not completely (I'd probably eagerly take the "money". But Only-For-A-Good-Cause). Mark, your book review is very good, as always for your writings. As you confessed your approbation might have something to do with personal acquaintance with the author. Since I haven't read the book I have only your review on which to rely. My sense is that Jerome Wright is looking toward "...a free society..." as something that is going to have to be brought about -- placed into fruition -- by some one(s). That to me implies political authority to one degree or another. To whatever extent politicians are involved, however "minimal" (no agents of state will ever stand still for "minimal government"), self ownership will be threatened. If a free society comes about in the rubble of a collapsed empire by examples such as those set by you and Jim and White Indian and me -- I'll vote for that. If I'm going to be free it's up to me. An already established "free society" might have been helpful, it seems, but had I waited for someone(s) to bring one about I'd have waited too long. I'm almost 76. The clock is ticking. My family and friends and neighbors and readers of STR and Hale Bobb need my example of freedom today. You, of all people, know that, Mark. Sam
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    So Atlas and Niel are farmers in this glorious new 2 minute old utopia without a State. A neighboring farmer Bill fills in the ditch that runs across his property that drains your farms. Hey, it'll give him more land to farm! Unfortunately, even though he benefits from what he has done to his property, your farms will become saturated with water and will become unsuitable to planting agricultural crops. Remember, that neighbor farmer owns the land through which the ditch runs, and the State government (and county government) rules stated only that he must allow other water from other properties to drain through, and to also allow equipment to sometimes clear the muck out of the bottom. But such State "law and order" is all gone now. What do you do? What do you think the other 23 "property" owners are going to do when their farms' drainage has been blocked? Farmers won't stand for somebody plugging the drainage system. Seems your "covenant" lasted, oh, about 5 minutes before word got around at the coffee shop beside the feed mill. I heard they elected a Sheriff, and several farmers with rifles formed a posse to protect Frank running the backhoe digging out that drainage ditch Bill filled in on his "property." Oh, the newly formed government levied taxes on the 23 farms to pay for the excavator to re-dig the drainage ditch. What have anthropologists and archeologists observed all around the world with many different kinds of cultures? "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Seems we're back to humans being social animals as an evolutionary survival strategy with your "I never proposed that *I* was auto-sufficient." Maybe something is sinking-in.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    I never proposed that *I* was auto-sufficient nor that *I* should live or travel as an anti-social hermit. This is precisely what Harry Browne solves in his book How I Found Freedom In An UNfree World as does The Covenant of Unanimous Consent standing on the shoulders of Thoreau, Mises, Rand and her students L Neil Smith and Jim Davidson....and lived by me. Classical Liberalism: Fail http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle544-20091115-07.html But where I choose to be and go--that is humanly possible--makes a difference. Do I go to the airport? No!! The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is not going to serve me there! In fact it warns and confirms to me that I should stay away.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    The Covenant of Unanimous Consent confirms to me that I should stay away from some and trade with others. This is hardly anti-social; and what and who I choose to talk to makes a difference (last time I looked). I do not talk to sociopaths (who are antithetical to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent).... Follow the links and come to your own decisions Dear Reader, Clearly for some *I* nor anyone else on this site of individuals has a clue about *anything* regarding living personal freedom nor agoras or market places including Browne, Thoreau, Smith, Rand, Davidson... This discussion which some here ARE continuing to sidetrack is that the purpose of such things as the Covenant is NOT to CONTROL the government and those who still think and act on "We"-isms (*much like statists and sociopaths*), but to provide a form of SELF-governance. And the young Neil Smith (1985) used this distinction of *I* governance vs *We* government when writing the Covenant ( http://tinyurl.com/Galts-Oath-and-the-Covenant ). Last time I looked the folks who speak of "We"-isms have no authentic self. In-fact they have no respect for boundaries as they speak for what is good others; they impose on others AND they try to control others using We-ism 's and by definition are primary and secondary sociopaths who want to rule/control/tear down others and the world.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    The man who goes alone dies more. But if killing yourself is an "individual objective," then, hey, have at it, Atlas. Has the record shown that single-pilot (SP) flying is more risky than flights with two-pilot crews? In a word, yes. Turbine Edition: Single-Pilot Safety The risks of riding solo Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association http://www.aopa.org/pilot/turbine/safety0810.html
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    As you declare your antisocial ideology, are you aware that "sociopathy" is defined as Antisocial personality disorder? And can you explain how "'we'-ism" is somehow "antisocial?" Do you even know what "we" means?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    The Group ("We"-ism) Trap is the assumption that greater strength can be achieved by sharing. Just the opposite happens: Individual objectives are watered down, time and effort are wasted in arranging compromises, and individual incentive is reduced. The individual becomes much less flexible and mobile (perhaps lichen like is a good analog), because he must deal with others before getting on with the task at hand. As Thoreau said, "The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready."1 How I Found FREEDOM in an UNFREE WORLD A Handbook for Personal Liberty HARRY BROWNE 25TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION WITH A NEW FOREWORD AND AFTERWORD
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Harry Browne would have done well to check his premises, like studying something along the lines of: Swanson, G. A. (2008), Living systems theory and an entity-systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25: 599–604. Or to simply consider a lichen, a "composite organisms consisting of a symbiotic organism composed of a fungus with a photosynthetic partner." Maybe lichens fell into the group trap; yeah, that's the ticket.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Scott, The idea that "somehow" we MUST chose the lesser of two evils--institutionalized evil Vs chaos. One can see thru that false alternative and grasp that the Most Dangerous Superstition as Larken Rose wrote in his book, is the implied or explicit belief in the need for such nightmares in order to provide law and order. It is a myth, superstition, made up, unreal...and the reason why ideas are more powerful than a bullet or a standing army. It is the wrong ideas that supports the whole apparatus of sociopaths. and the right ideas that remove the sanction/complicity of the victim. John Galt's Oath in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. "I SWEAR, BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT, THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE". In a prior thread discussion the purpose of such things as the Covenant is not to CONTROL the government and those who still think and act on "We"-isms (much like statists and sociopaths), but to provide a form of self-governance. But I have no doubt Jim and Suverans2 will have some good points to make.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 8 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    ... THE GROUP TRAP is the belief that you can accomplish more by sharing responsibilities, efforts, and rewards with others than you can by acting on your own. It's an easy trap to fall into. It's a common expression that "in union there is strength." Just the opposite is true, however. You achieve more for yourself when your rewards are dependent upon your own efforts rather than upon the efforts of other people. When you join a group effort to achieve freedom, you waste precious resources on an endeavor that has very little chance of success. In the same way, group efforts are common in businesses, marriages, and even friendships, and there too the Group Trap can cause subtle problems. Groups are not living entities. They don't think or act; only individuals do. And yet, any group effort is based upon the assumption of a group purpose that overrides the individual differences of its members. It's expected that the group will act as a single unit with a unified purpose. Only individuals think—and each one thinks differently. Their interests and desires may overlap, but each person will continue to define his own objectives and have his own opinion concerning the best way to achieve those objectives. Perhaps each person entering a group unconsciously assumes that it will act in unison for his objectives and by his methods. But every other participant probably has a similar assumption regarding his ideas. What they get instead will inevitably be a compromise. The individual's goals and his concept of the best methods will be automatically compromised before anything happens to further his objectives. It also means that a certain amount of time and effort will have to be expended to arrange the compromise—again, before anything concrete is done to further the objectives. On the other hand, the individual who acts alone doesn't have to alter his objectives. He can employ the means he considers best suited to the objective, and he doesn't have to waste time and effort trying to arrange a compromise with partners... THE DESPAIR TRAP ...You're in the Despair Trap if you believe that you have to stay where you are and work things out somehow. Or if you believe that you couldn't be any better off if you were to change your situation. Or if you think that the government or society can stop you from being free. You're in the Despair Trap if you think that you'll always be poor because you come from a family that's always been that way. Or when you feel that love relationships must always deteriorate into uneasy compromises. Or when you believe that "people" don't appreciate good products, good ideas, or good individuals. You're in the trap when you think there are too many complications in your life to be able to break out from where you are. Or when you think that freedom and happiness are overrated myths... Excerpted from How I Found FREEDOM in an UNFREE WORLD A Handbook for Personal Liberty HARRY BROWNE 25TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION WITH A NEW FOREWORD AND AFTERWORD
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, if the State doesn't really exist, then by whom are all those reckless and murderous CIA drone operators employed? On whose behalf are all those cop-thugs enforcing "laws," and what is it that is making those "laws"? Well, if the State doesn't really exist, then neither do Goldman Sachs, Raytheon, BP, and Halliburton.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Just because you develop amnesia with your incantations of word-magic, doesn't make human relationships — like crews, families, clubs, churches, or even the sociopolitical typology of the state — magically disappear. Your body's physical phenotype exhibits something biologists call low sexual dimorphism. One of the biological measurements in mammals is canine tooth size. This is because "social behavior," "hierarchy" and "egalitarianism" "sexual selection" are NOT fictions. Your short canine teeth are an evolutionary result of social concepts and relationships. Yes, they're quite real. The level of evasion here is enormous. While Ayn Rand did plenty of it herself, she describes evasion well via John Galt's speech: "...they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter—and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it." That describes you and the "state doesn't exist" flakes to a tee. P.S. If everybody developed amnesia, would amnesia exist? It doesn't according to your "litmus test."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Scott Lazaowitz, Hope this helps. FIC'TION, n. [L. fictio, from fingo, to feign.] ...2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Ask yourself, was the STATE "feigned, invented or imagined"[1], and the obvious answer is YES; it therefore can be easily seen that it is, indeed, a fiction. It was first "imagined", then it was "invented", by the use of "feigned" words. Now, when we put that together with this concept... "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." ...we see that it can be a very dangerous fiction. gfywi ____________________________________________________________________ [1] The same holds true, by the way, for "IBM, or any other company or club or church" or "a crew on a ship", a "hunting party", a "married couple" or a "family"; the only thing non-fiction about any them are their individual human members. A good litmus test, to determine if something is fiction, or non-fiction, is to imagine what would happen if every human being on Earth developed amnesia simultaneously. Would a STATE exist (except on paper)? Would a "family" exist? The honest answer is NO; only the individual human beings that once made up these fictions, would exist. gfywi Now, on the other hand, "if every human being on Earth developed amnesia simultaneously", would the Earth stills exist; would the trees still exist; would the sun still exist; would silver still exist? Then these are non-fiction.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Try not feeding your dog. Then try not paying property taxes. You'll find out who owns what.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 8 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Does a "crew" on a ship exist? Does a "hunting party" exist? Does a "married couple" exist? Does a "family" exist? Yes; humans are social animals, and behave as such. The "city-State" exists too. However, it's not one of the gratifying social groupings of humans, because The city-State: • Forces hierarchy on human beings who are evolved to be egalitarian • Forces people into Mass Society beyond their evolved neurobiological capacity (Dunbar's Number) • Forces people to abandon evolutionarily stable lifeways.