Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago
    Free to Die?
    Web link Don Stacy
    Now 'trolling' for a "collectivist troll". Wonder if we can get a bite?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Neither, actually, I was just trolling [pun intended] for an hypocrite to see if one would jump at the bait. ;)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago
    Free to Die?
    Web link Don Stacy
    Universal pollution* from Koch Oil is libertarian. Universal birth defects** is a result. Universal health care for the victims? KOCHsucker says it's evil. But then, he's well-compensated*** to say so. For his paymaster. _______________ * Pollution linked to birth defects http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1731902.stm ** Huge rise in birth defects http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1878358.stm *** Three Koch foundations contributed $23,030,497 between 1985 and 2002 to the George Mason University, and Walter E. Williams is Distinguished Professor of Economics, George Mason University.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Do you prefer hypocrisy in the comedy or the tragedy genre? The Comedy of Libertarian Hypocrisy September 18, 2011 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/the-comedy-of-libertarian_b_96771... Libertarian Hypocrisy September 14, 2011 http://redtory.wordpress.com/2011/09/14/libertarian-hypocrisy/
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    hypocrite noun ▸ a person who claims to have certain moral principles or beliefs but behaves in a way that shows they are not sincere ~ MacMillan Dictionary
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I'm against dehumanization of people by objectifying and degrading people as property. • Rapist degrade people they want to control as "bitches." • Soldiers dehumanize people they want to control as "sand niggers." • Capitalists objectify "The Ultimate Resource" they want to control and use as "property" to be bought and sold. So they convince you that you own yourself -- as property -- and then turn you into their wage slave, because you have to sell yourself to somebody in this prison of civilization or starve. It's a profitable bait-and-switch racket, and keeps the wage-slaves in line.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Why do you always quibble about words instead of discussing ideas? The idea being: Dehumanization of people by objectifying and degrading them as property. • Rapist degrade people they want to control as "bitches." • Soldiers dehumanize people they want to control as "sand niggers." • Capitalists objectify people they want to control as "property" to be bought and sold. (Now with new and improved "voluntary" whitewashing for such slavery.)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Are the "problems that OTHER PEOPLE have" a topic in your meetings? Or is it more of a self-improvement encounter?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You bandy about "autism" insults, and then when I retort with a scholarly article correlating autism to libertarianism, you throw a tantrum with "medicalize" accusations that, ever so strangely, don't seem to apply to you. Do you have any principles at all, other than meticulous inconsistency?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Whittaker Chambers renounced communism and became an outspoken opponent. He was on the editorial board of William F. Buckley, Jr.'s National Review. As you can see, Chamber's quote is still on the National Review website. "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber — go!'” Big Sister Is Watching You Whittaker Chambers From the Dec. 28, 1957 issue of NR. http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/fl...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    People aren't mere objects to be owned as property, to claim such is deliberate dehumanization or depersonification. Objectification is a tactic of both physical and emotional abusers. And economic abuse, in which people are looked upon by the controlling hierarchy as "The Ultimate Resource."
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Oh, he's scrounging for dirt again -- see below.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Gee, let's reach into the a bag of insults and find ... well ... an insult! Feeling threatened by the living, breathing reality of a woman who managed to escape becoming a corpse in Stalin's egalitarian communist utopia (50 million dead), which actually existed, the communist Whitaker Chambers attempted to perceive gas chambers where none were to be found -- all the while failing to see that the word "chamber" is in his own name. Thanks for reminding us.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteQuibbler, you may not have noticed, but people are objects. But that does not mean anyone is objectifying them. Control the anger, please.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    There you go again creating confusion where none existed -- in a sentence so short that it was easily avoided. Let's try it this way: "Words convey ideas; words convey premises, which are a kind of idea."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    I had not heard that one; it's quite appropriate. Many writers rage against the State, yet their rants make so much more sense if one replaces "State" with the more complete term city-State, or "Civilization," as follows: War is just one more big civilization program. – Joseph Sobran Every decent man is ashamed of the civilization he lives under. – H.L. Mencken War is the health of Civilization. – Randolph Bourne (1917) Society in every state is a blessing, but Civilization, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. – Thomas Paine They forget that Civilization lives at the expense of everyone. – Frédéric Bastiat For the totalitarian mind, adherence to civilization's propaganda does not suffice: one must display proper enthusiasm while marching in the parade. – Noam Chomsky A Civilization which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes – will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished. – John Stuart Mill Civilization is a force incarnate. Worse, it is the silly parading of force. It never seeks to prevail by persuasion. Whenever it thrusts its finger into anything it does so in the most unfriendly way. Its essence is command and compulsion. – Michael Bakunin Civilizations need armies to protect them from their enslaved and oppressed subjects. – Tolstoy The leviathan civilization, that monster devouring the earth in this century, is in the throes of death. – Llewellyn H. Rockwell Civilization can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. – Ludwig von Mises The great non sequitur committed by defenders of Civilization, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of Civilization. – Murray N. Rothbard Earth's ecology is a long record of civilization's policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of ecology. – Ludwig von Mises
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The absence of a contract signatory does not clear the committed collateral.
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, "The way you can tell when you have liberty, is when those who want out, can get outside. In other words, it is when anarchists are left alone. That is the test. You don’t have to approve of anarchism. You certainly don’t have to be an anarchist to have liberty." You have actually defined, by description, anarchism. If residing/living your life on Liberal Way, Conservative Boulevard, Communist Lane, etc. is something one chooses to do voluntarily, is able to leave when they choose, and is unable to compel others to adopt the same choice (i.e., force others to live on Communist Lane, or "stay in the city"), then there's no "archy" there. No archy = anarchy. Anyone who desires this situation, is de facto, an anarchist. That they personally prefer certain forms of social organization over others is secondary to the fact they desire a society where no man is forced to the form of social organization preferred by another. You could call these people "anarcho-Liberals", "anarcho-Conservatives" or "anarcho-Communists", but the fact remains, they are all anarchists. So I argue there's no middle ground between anarchy and statism. A statist who agrees to "leave the anarchists alone" is not a statist, he is an anarchist. Because, by "leaving the anarchists alone", he is agreeing that no man may be bound by a State he did not consent to. And, assuming he is coherent, this understanding extends to himself as well. He only continues as a "citizen" to the State the anarchists seceded unmolested from because he chooses to do so. If he chose not to, he would assert the same right he recognized in the "anarchists", that is, the right to be left alone by that, or any other State. But this philosophy attempts to transform the "State" he persists in being a "citizen" to into a voluntary institution. By definition, a State is NOT a voluntary institution and thus any State that "lets the anarchists alone" is no longer a State. It is a governing-services organization that, since it respects the wishes of its "citizens" to voluntarily opt in or out, must now compete with alternatives for the continued consent of its "citizens", which are now more accurately recognized as customers. And thus we have described market anarchy. The "you can remain a statist, just leave the anarchists alone" tactic might be a sly way to trick a statist into becoming an anarchist without realizing it, but it doesn't change the fact that deciding to "leave the anarchists alone" makes one an anarchist. I personally prefer, and find more useful the idea that liberty = self-ownership. The test to see if you have liberty is to ask if any human person, or group of persons has final authority over your life other than you. If the answer is yes, you don't have liberty, someone else owns you...and thus you are a slave.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Apparently, The Villains in Atlas Shrugged are very much alive and real.----- http://mises.org/daily/5218/The-Continued-Relevance-of-Rands-Villains For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, the lobbyist Wesley Mouch decries the capitalist Hank Rearden's invention of a wonderful alloy that is stronger than steel. And in prior months, in the real world, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. took to the house floor to declare that Steve Jobs's iPad was killing jobs. Congress must, according to Jackson, recognize that Apple is driving companies such as Barnes & Noble and Borders out of business, and the company should be stopped in the interests of fairness. Jackson decried Congress for failing to foster "protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work." It's as if he wanted us to believe the printing press was harmful to the economy because it decreased the demand for scribes. Such a condemnation of a successful business and a demand for protection of failing industries could easily have been lifted directly from Rand's novel. As for Jackson--The similarities are not restricted to this lone Democratic congressman. Similar absurd arguments were bountiful on both sides of the aisle in debates about policies ranging from Obamacare to the bailouts. Americans are directed to believe that if they would just allow the federal government to act in order to prevent further change in the economy, then stability could be restored. It is this *paltry masquerade of politicians feigning action and granting themselves greater power in the name of equality and economic stability that leads Americans to Rand's story*. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats both put on a charade of activity in April, claiming to remedy our nation's budget woes. Both parties threatened to shut down the government over a series of austerity measures amounting to a final savings of $352 million this fiscal year. That's $352 million out of budget deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion, or .02 percent of what would be required to actually balance the budget. Politicians bickered over funding for relatively low-cost line items like NPR and Planned Parenthood, all the while ignoring the harsh reality that our public debt is on track to surpass our GDP. In other words, *Republicans and Democrats have managed to mortgage the entire household worth of the United States*. Their remedy for this self-imposed tragedy? Grant themselves greater power through increased regulations and rising taxes. With each repeated failure of federal action to remedy our economic situation, politicians reveal themselves more fully to the American people as nothing but self-serving villains. Their strategy relies on the appearance of action coupled with soaring rhetoric to convince Americans of their good deeds. Meanwhile, these politicians are gambling with our lives and prosperity, risking the well-being of hard-working individuals in thoughtless policies designed merely to secure reelection. It is due to her apt depiction of these self-serving villains that Ayn Rand's novel has climbed to number four on the top-sellers list on Amazon and that the film is likely to do far better than its mediocre quality would merit. Americans are growing tired of politicians gambling away their prosperity to preserve their own power. The crowd in Reno applauded as Ellis Wyatt walked away, not because he was some great hero, but because they understood the pain of working tirelessly while a reckless and unproductive government needlessly spends away the results of your labor and rewards your hard work with mounting regulations. The idea of walking away has become attractive — and indeed, Americans are increasingly leaving the United States for opportunities abroad, with record numbers emigrating to Australia and East Asia. So long as Ayn Rand's villains continue to resemble the reality in Washington, the story of Atlas Shrugged will remain popular. The average American may not be a powerful railroad executive or steel magnate, but most believe they are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Many are beginning to realize that their future is being gambled away by politicians whose only risk is losing the votes of the individuals who have lost everything. http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/01/05/more-americans-moving-overseas-t... I was just informed about THIS, thought some might be interested. http://atlasshruggeddocumentary.com/
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Yeah, maybe they should have been more careful.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 40 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Or, as Edward Abbey called it, "Syphilization".
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've no need of a reminder. "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber — go!'" ~Whitaker Chambers Source: "To a gas chamber - go!" | October 10, 2007 http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/to-gas-chamber-go_1...
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yes, voluntaryists are so into gas chambers.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Actually, Rothbard was not taken out-of-context. (And no, one doesn't need to quote a whole essay to stay in context by any scholarly definition.) The blog from which I cited Rothbard's racist comments even quotes a prominent libertarian who concurs that Rothbard was racist. It seems you're the one displaying intellectual dishonesty. But remember how I compared Libertarians to fundamentalists? You've just scored again -- accusing those who quote the Sacred Canon of taking their Holy Prophets "out-of-context." Context!!!!!! Feb 22, 2010 | 239,985 views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o Anyway, whenever fundies like you get frustrated and give a royal wave good-bye, you never mean it. I guess we'll see. P.S. I didn't miss any "argument" Tzo made. All he's doing is re-parroting the Scriptures, like a fundamentalist conjuring up Canonical word magic, as if that addresses what I brought up -- that humans are not property, and equivocating humans with property is a deliberate capitalist ploy of dehumanization and objectification.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You "medicalized" first, with your autism insult. I'd reckon that makes YOU the *original* "Soviet Union" "gas-chamber" operator -- if we're to judge you by your own standards. Sweet Hayzeus, what a cirqe de Godwin.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    PS: Your willingness to medicalize the ideologies of unpopular movements would have fit in nicely in the Soviet Union, where people were declared insane for not being socialist enough. We can all smell the gas chambers now, and this time you'll have the psychiatric community pulling the strings. How therapeutic!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Clearly you haven't been following the posts of Glen Allport or me on NVC (non-violent communication) -- or the people at the complete liberty website. Many of us have been following the work of Marshall Rosenberg and his Center for Nonviolent Communication for some time, but you'd better ignore that, eh? You wouldn't want to get caught at one of our weekly NVC seminars, would you? Then you'd have to take it all back? Then again, I don't want to pop your over-generalizing bubble of sophomoric assumptions and hyper-criticism because then you wouldn't feel better about yourself after shooting at all the imaginary problems that OTHER PEOPLE have.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The etymology has an underlying truth: there has never been a City without a State. Both "POLIS" and "CIVILIZATION" mean city-State because human language reflects, quite accurately in this instance, demonstrable reality. Many libertarian volumes laud civilization (the city-STATE) as a good while simultaneously deprecating the State as evil. And how many times have I seen Statist used as a pejorative? Calling civilization (the city-State) good while calling the State bad is a contradiction. You're dodging and weaving around that reality. Care to address the issue rationally?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Once again, you miss the argument Tzo made, and then you go spinning off into your own world of wordplay again and veer off into pseudo-Rothbard land. I say "pseudo" because the blog you cite (instead of citing the entire essay by Rothbard as an honest use of scholarly apparatus requires) is an example of deliberately mis-construing what Rothbard said and meant, and you probably know that because you are making cheap shots without merit. He was clearly discussing a hypothetical instance in which statistics are used, but you are hoping nobody notices that, aren't you? I won't defend all of what Lew Rockwell or Murray have said (they err frequently), but in this case, he is clearly not using the term in the way you hope a skimming reader would assume without full context. On a separate topic (because you have not made your point on racism) you should take a peek at how many people on this site are aware of the foolishness of the whole paleo-phase of Murray and Lew -- but the example you cite is not one of them since Murray is making a rhetorical point about statistics. I've even written about it in the environmental essays that I put together on it. But there you go, spinning off into your own self-make whirlwind. I'm just going to have to view you and your comments as non-communication -- i.e. as troll dust meant to waste time. Bye.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteBoy: That's your problem. You put words in other people's mouths, and then you complain about those words. Why would anyone say "good" or "evil" about the fact that there was something called a polis in Greece as in your statement #1 and #2? What kind of game is that? If you looked at your comments on Alex Knight's essay, you'd already know that I thought that the Greeks were indeed very silly about many things. So stop with the ventriloquist act, eh?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I'm not sure how your sophomoric name-calling addresses any factual or analytic problems you see with what I've presented about anthropology, but I do invite you to address a problem, if there are indeed any. Pointing out a contradiction isn't telling you how you think. The contradiction in libertarian thought is simultaneously thinking: 1. The AGRICULTURAL CITY-[state] is GOOD. 2. The [agricultural city]-STATE is EVIL. The "Statism" that your rage against is a single cultural package. Agriculture+City+State, commonly known as agricultural civilization or simply civilization. You continue to blank-out that reality with various childish subterfuges. But if you can identify where I'm wrong, let me know, OK?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The foreign lenders lent to a sovereign entity that no longer exists. Tough luck for them.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thanks for the fix, Suverans2. I accept it in the generous spirit in which it was given. I don't interpret it (as WhiteMallBoyIndian would) as an act to capture me via a net woven out of my typos! One of WhiteBoy's problems is that he hasn't mastered anthropology enough to speak about it clearly to others and instead confuses himself and others while reading our minds for us and telling us what (he thinks) we think! Anyway, I had better get back to my "planning out a completely controlled" anarcho-society, complete with plans for everything!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    "Human societies as we have always known...always been some gaining at the loss of others, rulers and ruled, masters and slaves, kings and subjects, etc." That is a common misperception. Elman Service said in his Origins of the State and Civilization, of egalitarian Non-State society: "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." NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf Also, regarding your equivocation of scientific laws of nature and political laws both "dividing," from what is gravity the ideal gas law dividing you? The word "law" regarding scientific generalization based upon empirical observation is really an unfortunate misnomer, stemming from the days that most scientists assumed there was a divine "law-giver." I do agree with you when you write, "A society without any degree of political intervention is the optimization of a spiritual society." Humans had a free society once -- but it wasn't civilization. It was called "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972) The great non sequitur committed by defenders of city-Statism (Civilization,) is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of a city-State (Civilization.)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    @Paul: I've been using the prison metaphor to describe city-Statism (civilization) since reading Daniel Quinn, who used it. Prison is a good illustration. I think Richard Manning has an even more accurate metaphor -- civilization as a ZOO. We're animals in cages, and animals in cages turn psychotic -- and that is exactly how hunter-gatherers view civilized people. Psychotic. Richard Manning on the Psychosis of Civilization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iBOXcoP_8 Considering that schizophrenia is a Disease of Civilization, as psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey argues in Schizophrenia and Civilization, I think Manning is onto something. @Ken: Freud had it nailed, but thought of city-Statism (civilization) as a "necessary evil." He wrote, "The principal task of civilization, its actual raison d'ette, is to defend us against nature...But how ungrateful. how short-sighted after all to strive for the abolition of civilization! What would then remain would be a state of nature, and that would be far harder to bear." Most city-Statist imprisoned (in-zooed? LOL) people agree with him, including the vast majority of libertarians. That last 60 years of anthropology, ethnology, and evolutionary biology debunk Freud's blind acceptance of the Hobbesian mythology. Man in a "state of nature" enjoyed "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972) The next step? Our lives need to "mirror our genetic heritage" as Manning states in the youtube video above.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    But where did you find that I suggest the word "gang" is anywhere in his articles? Go back up, read what I wrote, and understand it. His deceptive definition of corporation, people who "agree to assemble and cooperate," can be applied to any of the groups above I listed as examples.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Now that you mention autism, libertarians are noted for it. they're the only political group to score higher on systemizing than on empathizing. Not only are they the only political group -- they scored *way* higher. The study notes that such systemizing" is “Characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating AUTISM.” Iyer, Ravi, Koleva, Spassena , Graham, Jesse, Ditto, Peter H. and Haidt, Jonathan, Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology (August 20, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1665934 Keep trying to design a the system of a voluntary civilization. Should be as simple as conjuring an animated corpse. The communist have been banging their head against the same "stateless city-State" block wall for years.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I think the word you intended was solipsism, but your humor is much appreciated. Thanks.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    You're welcome. And, I do agree that that author does not, evidently, understand what the differences between a "public/business corporation" and a "private corporation" are, or he is intentionally trying to mislead his reader(s), but where did you find the word "gang" anywhere in his articles? Correction: Last paragraph, (in my preceding post), should have read, "...if their 'guardian or conservator', called the STATE, says they shouldn't." Addendum to my preceding post: sui juris noun Law. capable of managing one's affairs or assuming legal responsibility. Origin: 1605–15; < Latin suī jūris of one's own right ~ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    That's what Sartre was getting when he noted that: "Hell is other people"* (telling you what to do). Having or needing to reign in our personal prerogatives and impulses in order to live amongst others** is the whole basis for the emergence of statism IMO. I appreciate your insights Paul. Do you have any thoughts about what the next step is? * No Exit, J.P. Sartre, http://www.scribd.com/doc/2925864/No-Exit-by-Jean-Paul-Sartre ** Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents#Overview
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Enjoy the autistic solopsism.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Saying a corporation is merely people who "agree to assemble and cooperate," which is what the article purports, is like saying an animal is a dog. So thanks for reinforcing my point, even if you strain to be contrary. Your last paragraph is right on, and why I questioned the author's deceptive definition of corporation.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Asking if a gang is a corporation is like asking if an animal is a dog. Gang. Any company of persons who go about together or act in concert; in modern use, mainly for criminal purposes. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 679 Children don't get to "enjoy", i.e. "to have, possess, and use with satisfaction; to occupy or have benefit of[1]", all their natural rights until such time as they are willing/able to take responsibility for their own actions and their own survival; most individuals are never ready, so they go from being "wards" of the natural family to being "wards[2]" of the "parens patriae[3]", called the STATE. The same holds true for "compan[ies] of persons". The reason for incorporating is to avoid individual personal responsibility, which is why the individual persons who make up corporations should NOT "enjoy" all their so-called constitutional rights, i.e. legal rights, if their "guarding or conservator", called the STATE, says they shouldn't. _________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 529 [2] Ward. ...A person, especially a child or incompetent, placed by the court under the care and supervision of a guardian or conservator. Ibid. page 1583 [3] parens patriae : the state in its capacity as the legal guardian of persons not sui juris... ~ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Is a gang a corporation? An army? A choir? A tribe? A band? A marriage? It's rather deceptive to define a corporation merely as people who "agree to assemble and cooperate."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Aggressive NeoCons like Newt do have a better understanding of city-Statism than "isolationists," i.e., civilization must always "grow" (invade, conquer) Several authors analyze this, with one of the best being Jeff Vail's essay The Problem of Growth,* in which he states, "the critical problem facing humanity: the structure of our civilization, its inherent need to grow (and therefore its unsustainability...)" Why? It's a matter of the game theory of The Prisoner's Dilemma. As Jason Godesky states in his essay "Civilization Must Always Grow: "The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do–and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation." "War is a staple of [city-Statism] civilization,"*** enabled by division of labor and agriculture, as John Zerzan points out in his essay The Origins of War. There is no static, voluntary, peaceful city-State (civilization,) of which libertarians theorize, for many reasons, and the likelihood of conjuring one is as realistic as creating an animated corpse. War is the way city-slickers roll. _________________ * What is Rhizome? Chapter 1. Problem of Growth. A capstone formulation of why our societal structure is unsustainable, how rhizome presents a solution, and how to implement it. by Jeff Vail http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/01/what-is-rhizome.html ** Thesis #12: Civilization must always grow. by Jason Godesky | 23 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/ *** The Origins of War John Zerzan http://www.scribd.com/doc/62268835/The-Origins-of-War-John-Zerzan
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Fine business, Mark, on avoiding grain; I concur, and have improved my health greatly. It's good to see a few people are catching on to the nutritional facet of the critique of civilization -- agricultural city-Statism (civilization) makes us sick, as Mark Cohen documents.(1) In fact, there is a whole host of diseases called "Diseases of Civilization" and "Civilization Syndrome." Dr. Torrey devotes a whole chapter to the evidence that schizophrenia itself is a recent "disease of civilization."(2) But let's get to the heart of libertarianism: economics. The best metaphor for the agricultural city-State (civilization is a prison,(3) as Daniel Quinn puts it. Many other writers, especially anthropologists, recognize this as they look at the data, as does psychiatrist R.D. Lang in his third chapter in his The Politics of Experience. Civilization is brutal, and unlike how most liberarian writers think, in actuality, civilization imprisoned humans into a rigid hierarchy. Straight to property rights: if civilization is a prison, abstract land property rights are the walls. Those walls are a big-government entitlement program to regulate and restrict the free movement of people to live a Non-State lifeway. In other words, libertarians WANT the prison walls, and then call them "freedom." Mention that the walls are what enslaves humanity to agricultural city-Statism, and they have a hissy fit. Attorney Jeff Vail does a good job of deconstructing the libertarian/capitalist perspective of property rights in his book A Theory of Power.(4) He refers to Jason Godesky who also brings up how Lockesian property rights are based on monotheistic hierarchy.(5) The following hierarchical structure is what most libertarians believe, even if they've somewhat secularized it, the core magical thinking of the culture remains: JEHOVALLAH MAN WOMAN (submits to husband) ANIMALS (submits to husbandry) NATURE (only valuable if used by humans) How did the garden-of-Eden Mesopotamian cedar forest get deforested and desertified into the hellish Iraqi desert? City-Statist "property rights" on clay tablets. It's mine, God gave it to to use, and I can use it as I will. That is deforesting and desertifying our home planet, and western christian civilization has greatly intensified the destruction.(6) It's only taken a short time to lose half the topsoil in the Midwest. ______________ (1) Health and the Rise of Civilization Mark Nathan Cohen Yale University Press, 1989 excerpt from pp. 131-141 here: http://www.primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm (2) Schizophrenia and civilization E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb02208 (3)A Condensation of Daniel Quinn Thought Part 1: The Problem is Civilization Prison http://www.lejournalmural.be/english-antilibrary/gorilla-content.html (4) The abstract notion of ownership serves as the single, greatest perpetuator of hierarchy. When one steps back and examines the notion of “owning” something, the abstraction becomes readily apparent. Ownership represents nothing more than a power-relationship—the ability to control. The tribal institution of “Ownership by use” on the other hand, suggests simply that one can only “own” those things that they put to immediate, direct and personal use to meet basic needs—and not more. A society crosses the memetic Rubicon when it accepts the abstraction that ownership can extend beyond the exclusive needs of one individual for survival. (Read Jason Godesky on Ownership) Abstract ownership begins when society accepts a claim of symbolic control of something without the requirement of immediate, direct and personal use. Hierarchy, at any level, requires this excess, abstract ownership—it represents the symbolic capital that forms the foundation of all stratification. ~Jeff Vail A Theory of Power Chapter 9 - Forward, to Rhizome http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html (5) "To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism." ~ The Right to Property by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2005/07/the-right-to-property/ (6) "Our science and technology have grown out of Christian attitudes toward man's relation to nature which are almost universally held not only by Christians and neo-Christians but also by those who fondly regard themselves as post- Christians. Despite Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim." ~ The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis by Lynn White, Jr. Science, 10 March 1967: Vol. 155 no. 3767 pp. 1203-1207 http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 40 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, Suverans2. Duh, I didn't see that "Edit" word under the comment.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 40 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Duplicate deleted
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Dodge and weave if you wish, the issue still stands -- how empirical evidence from archeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, etc. completely refutes the city-Statist Hobessian mythology found throughout libertarian/ancap/what-have-you literature.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I was NOT playing word games with you; I fall under none of your "rubrics", as far as I can determine. But that aside, you seem to be the one who is playing "word games", agricultural city-Statist. Here's a word that I believe describes you to a "T". ;) troll ▸ someone who deliberately sends a rude or annoying message to a discussion group on the Internet ~ Mamillan Dictionary