Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” So, other than "repeating the same simple 'facts' over and over and over again", ad nauseam, what is your plan to get yourself back the the 'leisurely' life of the hunter-gathers?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 40 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry for the double posting! - Drupal was playing up. I don't know how to delete the first version.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 2 years 40 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, bs! You're quite correct. It's an amazing testament to the power of Horace Mann's indoctrination machine that here we are, fully 70 years on, and _still_ we're being told that the bloodbath of WW-II was "good." There's better news, though. The evidence of FDR's trickery is now mountainous, and most of it was put in place not by market anarchists like us but by solid members of the Establishment. When the dam does burst and the truth can no longer be denied, swept away will be not just FDR's halo but the whole system of government thought control. There is for example Hamilton Fish III, from the very heart of the Beast: on December 8th 1941 he was the person who stood up in Congress to open the debate in favor of a declaration of war. At the time, like everyone else, he had been fooled by the Pearl attack. Read his "Tragic Deception" for what he found later. Then there's Robert Stinnett, whose "Day of Deceit" gives a richly detailed account of exactly who did what, in that fateful Summer and Fall of 1941 - all the more powerful an indictment for being understated; he never goes quite as far as asserting that FDR definitely knew exactly where and when the attack would happen. Stinnett is a highly decorated Navy vet and a research fellow at the Independent Institute. A skeptic should consider also Samuel Morison, mentioned in my http://TakeLifeBack.com/oto/otoh215.htm - he was another Navy man and close friend of FDR and a historian who remained a "Good War" believer; but immediately the President embargoed scrap metal and oil in July 1941, he wrote "This means war." Even now, the evidence continues to mount. Only last week I learned from Republican Patrick Buchanan that Hoover himself, FDR's predecessor, saw through the deception almost at once; well worth reading about that at http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html. He tells also of Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye of Japan, who throughout that Summer tried desperately to avoid war by negotiating with FDR, hinting that large concessions were on the table. Every time, he was ignored or rebuffed. These are all "insiders", whose findings the mainstream media and schoolteachers continue to suppress.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I find the that most city-Statist (civilizationists) libertarians are also opposed to "historical revisionism." Libertarian authors parrot the Hobbesian mythology of Non-State paleolithic life being "nasty, brutish, and short," just like all city-Statist apologists. But hard-won archeological evidence and anthropological studies show that reality is pre-city-State life was "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins 1972) The LIE: Ayn Rand: "Let your women take a look at a jungle female with her shriveled face and pendulous breasts, as she sits grinding meal in a bowl, hour after hour, century by century..." The TRUTH: "Their work week is short enough to make us drool in envy." Hunter Gatherers And The Golden Age Of Man http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html (nice summary, with great scholarly references)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Lawrence, don't lie and twist my argument. I'm not basing *all* assessment only on observation. I'm saying that when one observes something that contradicts a libertarian premise, you have to deal with reality. There is a whole bunch of empirical data that debunks libertarian premises. A=A, right? And if you think that racism is somehow a observed fact (it's not, by the way) then you're right in there with Murray Rothbard and his scientific racism. "In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." ~MURRAY ROTHBARD source: Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Scientific Racism http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-r...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Arguing with libertarian fundamentalists is akin to arguing with young earth creationist fundamentalist; one keeps repeating the same simple facts over and over and over again.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Maximum freedom, personal autonomy, and individual sovereignty is found in egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies. This is hard-won knowledge from the last half century of anthropology and archeology and evolutionary biology. If you want to reorganize today's society, and I think that is a noble goal -- it certainly is brutal and hellish as it is -- then you really need to catch up on the knowledge that debunks several libertarian premises. Rand, Mises, Rothbard, etal were horribly misinformed. Let's go over a few key points on which libertarian are wrong: 1. Egalitarianism isn't evil. It isn't collectivism. It's a observed facet of human evolution, it increased our survival rate, and is arguably our most defining trait. 2. Paleolithic tribal life wasn't "nasty, brutish, and short;" it was rather the "Original Affluent Society." The whole litany of Hobbesian mythology has been debunked by the last 60 years or so of archeology and anthropology. Yet all agricultural city-Statists -- libertarians, conservatives, leftists -- parrot it. 3. Land enTITLEment "rights" are a big-government Regulatory scheme over the home planet's surface to restrict the free movement of Non-State societies. Such "rights" are established by brutal invasion (e.g., the Trail of Tears) and enforced by threat of violence in a continual occupation -- thus violating the Non-Aggression principle. Stanley Diamond's first sentence in his volume "In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization," states accurately, "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home." Attorney Jeff Vail does a superb job of exposing the difference between legitimate property rights and illegitimate property rights in his book "A Theory of Power."* Regarding "going back to primitivism:" it's going to happen to some extent or another, whether you like it or not. Agricultural civilization is as much of a cheating scheme as is fiat money, and thus, the city-State (and its faux financing) always collapses. We're in the beginnings of a catabolic collapse now. I think we're watching The Final Empire** go down. _________________ * 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" Online Chapter 9 - Forward, to Rhizome http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html ** The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and the Seed of the Future by William H. Kötke http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    All I get from your posts is that you think we should live in small roving bands of hunter-gatherers. Egalitarianism isn't one of my premises; it is one of yours. I look at ideas like "We should all be equal" or "We should all be happy" as self-evident, utopian and short on practical applicability. I’m more interested in determining how we can move forward reorganizing society in the real world. The non-aggression principle is one such basis. Do you have any suggestions (besides killing off 99% of the population - which is what it would take to go back to being in said roving bands)?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian: Try to dialog with Tzo. You totally failed to address his cogent argument. Or do you just keep saying the same thing over and over again in different ways no matter what anyone interjects? Comeon!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Tzo, you're the ace! Excellent argument. Ironically, by WhiteIndian's standard of basing all assessments only on observations of past behavior, he would have agreed with the white racists who were religious apologists for slavery. Their argument was that the "facts" had proven that the white man should dominate the black man who was among the cursed of God. They looked to their domination as proof of their fitness to rule -- a kind of riff on the ideas of Max Weber by which successful protestants in Europe supposedly (Max was stretching it) had proven that they had "earned" their salvation because their success showed it. Oh, brother! Message to WhiteIndian: get off the technology-dictates-reality-philosophy-of-Marx schtick!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Libertarians always misconstrue egalitarianism. Egalitarianism isn't "equal results." It's equal sociopolitical power, a lack of power structures. Only in an egalitarian society is a human completely free to act as a sovereign individual, and that is exactly what anthropologists observe. "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." NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf Egalitarianism isn't a "childish construct." There are whole volumes written about evolutionary biology and how egalitarianism developed in humans. So right there is one of your false premises. And you're misconstruing my previous statement. There are not unlimited resources in the world, anybody knows that. But the world is naturally abundant, so abundant that paleolithic people have to work only a fraction of the time civilized people work. It was the Original Affluent Society. Regarding division of labor, which Austrian types hold in high esteem: A professional violence class was one of the very first divisions of labor.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    It's not just because history shows 100% of agricultural city-States have State level politics, although that is a plenty good evidence all by itself. The POLIS (city-State) always has its POLICe. There are other corroborating reasons, some as follows: 1. Anthropologists and archeologists have documented that as group size approaches and goes over Dunbar's Number, egalitarianism is replaced by hierarchy. Ethnologists divide human societies into 4 main sociopolitical typologies, as follows: NON-STATE societies • band (egalitarian, small) • tribe (egalitarian, supra-band) • chiefdom (hierarchical, domestication, sacrifice, proto-State) STATE society • civilization (agricultural city-State) 2. Domestication, i.e., dominating nature, results in increased violence and cannibalism, and introduces practices like sacrifice and sacrifice religions, to control people. Chiefdoms (larger in size than bands or tribes, see Elman Service) are regarded by anthropologists and ethnologists as "proto-States" because of the controlling hierarchy. 3. Agriculture requires a large controlling agency over vast areas of land, to coordinate irrigation projects, drainage projects, roads and other infrastructure. As Richard Manning says so succinctly in his book Against the Grain, on p.73: "Agriculture creates government."
  • bs's picture
    bs 2 years 40 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Great article Jim! "It's late in the day; several of the world's governments are now so lethal that they might exterminate the human race (and others) before they can be peacefully abolished. We have, therefore, a race against time. The means exist; it remains only to participate." For survival, we will eventually have to solve our disputes/problems without the use of 'legal' force/violence. If this is true, we can go back as far as we want in history to make the claim 'how about now?'. Which I do, and it drives people crazy hearing an argument against WWII or the Revolutionary War, the 'good' wars.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "Egalitarianism isn't 'collectivist' in a Non-State (band or tribe) sociopolitical typology." Of course everybody wants everybody to be equal. But what does that mean in the real world? Everybody is different by nature, which is a good thing. My experience with people promoting egalitarianism is they seek equal results (which are impossible) to be enforced by institutional violence. Even in your idealistic pre-agricultural world, the tall people could reach fruit higher up on the tree and faster runners could avoid predators better than the rest. Egalitarianism is a childish construct totally void of any empirical precedent. If you have an alternative view of egalitarianism and empirical data to support it, then I would love to hear it. Hierarchies are not bad in and of themselves; the problem arises when they are created and maintained by violence. Respect worthy actions that elevate some persons to positions of superior respect is a voluntary phenomena that is as human as “walking upright”. Leaders that are followed voluntarily result in social organizations that benefit all, including the followers (or they would not voluntarily follow). It is when violence is used or threatened to create or maintain a hierarchy that they are wrong. You seem to have a total lack of respect for anything. "Do dolphins live in a world of scarcity?" Yes. Is the amount of water in the world infinite? Is the amount of fish available to eat unlimited? Are there no other dolphins that compete for these resources? This position really puzzles me and again gives me the impression that you view the world with child-like wonder. Do you really believe that the world has unlimited resources? What about locally attainable resources available to any creature? Do you really believe that dolphins and crows don’t compete with each other for food? "Quit the deductive logic built on false premises." What false premises? Your profound misunderstanding of those premises does not make them false. "Begin thinking inductively from empirical data.” " The epistemological problems should be obvious to someone with your intelligence. How do you recognize, choose and organize the massive volume of "data" in the world without a philosophical basis of understanding? How do you know if the data you are making conclusions from is accurate, complete or even pertinent without a framework to analyze it? Both inductive and deductive reasoning should be used in the search for knowledge. They go hand in hand when it is truth that you seek. Using only inductive reasoning without the benefits of deductive reasoning results in serial misunderstandings of cause and effect. The snobbery of scientism reveals the void inherent in the character of those that worship it. It has no soul. Finally, I must ask: Do you have any principles to live by other than vague references to egalitarianism? Do you have any ideals that you aspire to? How do you feel about the use of violence? The division of labor?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If I am not mistaken, WhiteIndian simply believes that the existence of an agricultural city-state without a coercive government is an impossibility, and he makes his argument by pointing to the history of human civilization, wherein 100% (99.9%?) of all agricultural city-states have endured coercive government. Because of this, he can see no way that an agricultural city-state without coercive government can ever exist. I would like to hear some rational arguments as to why it is a logical impossibility for such a thing to occur, rather than "it has never happened before, therefore it can never happen in the future." Again: The abolition of slavery, the inventions of electricity, automobiles, airplanes, microwaves, computers, and going to the moon. Any argument that these things could never, ever possibly exist or happen because they had never existed or happened before seemed pretty bulletproof at one time or another, but ultimately the argument failed. Humans are smart. We solve problems. There is a problem in front of us now. Saying that there is no solution because up until now we have not been able to find it is no argument at all. Yes, the mass of humanity is fairly unimaginative and can't see anything beyond what is going on in the here and now. But there are always a few who push on and do the impossible. Logically, the solution to this problem is quite simple. Obviously, it is not so easy to put it into practice. But impossible? Someone hasn't been paying close attention to history at all.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If left/right isn't the issue, as he says, then why pick on just leftist genocide. Capitalism has its own genocide too, killing off a whole Non-State society here in America to make room to impose city-Statism. Capitalism and communism are more alike than different. Both are agricultural city-Statist political schemes that cannot tolerate Non-State society. Why can agricultural city-Statists not tolerate Non-State society? If sovereign individual can hunt and gather their own food, they have no reason to work for others. When the agricultural city-State puts the food "under lock and key" (Quinn,) then people have to work for the system or starve.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Isn't turnabout fair play? Don't libertarian/ancap types call people Statists all the time? Yet they do it in total ignorance, and actually support agricultural-City-Statism, and then rage against the State. It's about as dumb as advocating jet aircraft, then complaining about the jet noise, and calling for the removal of jets from aircraft, and expecting the jet aircraft to somehow magically fly. The agricultural-city-State is a whole, inseparable package. There never has been a city without state level politics, and never will be.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I was making light of the contradiction of having to claim something that is simultaneously inalienable.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The smartest man in the world ought to know that all claims are not necessarily legitimate.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Who said you have to claim it "at some office"? I must have missed that.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You are your own worst enemy, WhiteIndian, with your holier than thou attitude and your name-calling.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thank you, tzo. "This book [The Secrets to Nonviolent Prosperity: The Principles of Liberty] is not about taking sides, left or right. These deceptive distinctions are pitting people against one another and keeping us from uniting and looking at the core issues. Rather than the traditional left/right spectrum, where you would have the communist, Stalin, on the left and the fascist, Hitler, on the right, we will use a different spectrum, with the range from ultimate power over yourself on one end to someone else having ultimate power over you on the other end. This is the meaningful distinction, because now you get the collectivist ideologies of mass murderers such as Stalin and Hitler together on one side, and the individualist philosophy of most honest people who just want to go about their lives without being hassled on the other side." ~ Trevor Z. Gamble
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I don't have any axe to grind, other that liberty; and KOCH-based libertarian religio-economic rhetoric is as much a scam a GOVT-based fiat money. You'll need to ask the paid shill Walter Block at Mises Institute why a mother would be willing to sell themselves into slavery for a sick child, it's his "voluntary slavery" scenario. But we've already had in the news, documented, mothers committing murder-suicide with their children in desperate circumstances, along with plenty example of men doing the same, unable to be "providers." Yes, the agricultural city-Statist system is corrupt. You recognize it as Statism, rather incompletely. It's agricultural City-Statism, wholely. You can't have a voluntary City anymore than an animated corpse. Libertarianism is as silly as conjuring Zombies. The non-fantastical Non-State society, we now know how it worked. Anthropologists call it the "Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I hold truck with pakeha hori. You're right, I'm not Sioux (a Plains "apocalyptic culture" after the start of the invasion/holocaust, but I have proof of my ancestors living in an Oak Savannah "food forest," even if it isn't quite gummit approved. Greetings. Your first question: women are vulnerable. Barely, with our low sexual dimormism and absent sexual dichromaticism, but vulnerable nonetheless, especially in City-Statism. We protect them and their children from Rothbardian/Austrian School Libertarian city-Statist ahem "voluntary" slavery ABUSE, no matter their status. OK? My estimation of pre-industrial life isn't idealization. It's from hard, scientific, empirical data. And I know the data, personally, from top to bottom. Don't take my word; there is plenty of scholarly data out there to be gleaned. "The Noble Savage" might be hogwash, but it's racist hogwash from English racists-- look up the term at its origin. Human are pleistocene band animals, and their history is just being understood outside of the city-Statist hogwash CULTure we're taught at every moment in school and every social encounter. Nowadays, 2 hours of "work" barely pays for gas to get to "work" for the capitalists. Better read Sahlins and Lee, who did ethnographic studies on that. Slavery was always a result of domestication/agriculture. I'm quite familiar with the anthropological references on slavery. ZERO bands or tribes (egalitarian Non-State societies) practices slavery. You're mistaken, but probably via misinformation of the city-Slicker Hobbesian mythology or Libertarian/Capitalist disinfo. Hell, I reject all tribal primitive supremacism too. It's the past. I'm fine with that. But I do not reject well-documented empirical data about the Original Affluent Society, much of which debunks ignorant libertarian premises. And when I say "ignorant," that means the depths of ignorance of young-earth creationist who wouldn't know empirical data if it hit them in the head as igneous rock.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The members of "Tool" have done remarkably well selling albums and playing their music. Do these men owe you something for that success? Believe it or not, I'm not your enemy. I'm actually a bit intrigued with how you've arrived with these conclusions even if I don't agree. I'm fairly certain that I can't "read the libertarian literature" like you have. You're carrying some serious anger and have some ax to grind which seems to obscure logic. You've never explained why someone would want to sell themselves (for a sick child? highly unlikely) or why that would even be necessary. If you find the whole system we live in corrupt and broken, well I suppose we'll agree on at least that point even if we disagree why. I would not aggress against you to live in the world I want. Would you extend me the same courtesy?
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Háu (I know you're probably not Lakota Sioux, but what the hey). I think you're the one who misinterpreted what 'inalienable' means in your first comment with the set-piece about a woman with a sick kid (the perennial trope of the "the bad man is my only source of hope in my plight" - which raises the question: what has this woman done to alienate literally EVERY OTHER PERSON in the vicinity?) The 'property rights' argument for self-ownership, when said to be 'inalienable', asserts that an individual is not simply the 'first recourse' owner of his own body and mind: it also asserts that he may not properly dispose of it - a thing is 'alienable' at law if the owner may transfer ownership to a third party. So an 'inalienable' property right in one's self (body, mind and so on) can NOT be transferred to a third party. On that doctrine, when the State behaves as if it is the owner of an individual, it commits a tort. The rest of your comments reflect some idealisation of pre-Industrial life: as Demsetz' work shows, Native populations also practiced territorial exclusion, and ideas of free access (e.g., to hunting grounds) were subject to rapid change in the event that they developed economic significance: if prey became scarce, tribes would be more forceful in their assertion of sole rights over hunting grounds on which competing tribes were 'ordinarily' permitted to hunt. Look - I'm a "pakeha hori': my maternal grandfather was 100% Maori, (but my Dad is like a turehu: tall, blue eyed and fair skinned). So I sort of 'get' the idea that a naive idealised view of tribal society has its attractions if you have some connection to a dispossessed people. That said: arguably the Maori were never dispossessed, because they fought England to a standstill and signed a treaty of equals under which the Maori STILL own all the natural resources of New Zealand [the 'taonga'] - 'we' Maori are fucking badass, unlike all the other darkies who capitulated or let themselves be genocided... which is why Maori have little or no sympathy for other native populations. (And Maori did their killing without projectile weapons: the taiaha and the patu (or méré) are hand-to-hand weapons). Still, the idea that native populations lived in some some sort of Rousseau-ian idyll is hogwash. Life in "primitive" societies was not "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" by any means (Hobbes was a r-tard): if one survived childhood, life expectancy was about 60 - not bad for a pre-industrial society (and due in large part to superior hygiene relative to inner-city populations in Europe at the same time). Life expectancy AT BIRTH was low though (in part due to poor contraceptive practices and the tendency to practice infanticide as a means of population control: that seems inefficient to me - feeding a pregnant woman with no expectation of raising the offspring - but obviously they found it the best method). And although some anthropologists claim that members of primitive societies worked fewer hours per day than modern man, that ignores the fact that in those societies people had no means of investment (except children) and that once one had acquired enough calories to "vivre jusqu'à demain matin", there was no point to exerting oneself further. Nowadays, two hours' labour at minimum wage, furnishes income sufficient to purchase the mean daily caloric requirement (1900 alories); the rest is undertaken for higher-quality shelter, and to pay for the many layers of bullshit artists and parasites that form the political class. Also - not for nothing, but MANY Indian tribes (and ALL Maori iwi) practised slavery. (Last but not least: although I make japes about how Maori rock, I reject ALL tribal primitive supremacism... it's deplorable whether it's "Maori-are-badass" or "cock-snippings-make-us-God's-chosen")
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Somebody else will claim it? Hell, I though it was inalienable. Care to clarify?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I have to claim it? At some office? I thought somebody here said it was "inalienable." Which way is it? You can't "have your cake and eat it too." * ____________ * "A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too." ~Atlas Shrieked
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Words convey ideas; words are the premises behind ideas. In case you haven't heard.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've got every volume Ayn Rand wrote on my library shelves. She did not check her premises against empirical data. Big mistake.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hate to break it to you, but you, as an agricultural city-Statist, who accepts hierarchy, is already PWNED by the hierarchical elite. P.S. Look up "hierarchical elite" or "big men" on http://Scholar.Google.com (which provides a search of scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources, including theses, books, abstracts and articles) if you want to know the last 10,000 years of enslavement strategy for domesticated suckers like you. P.P.S. A trusted source on hierarchy (definitely not Mises) Thesis #10: Emergent elites led the Agricultural Revolution. Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil. http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Libertarian, anarcho-capitalism, etal. suggests selling oneself as property to another as "employment" or "voluntary" (LOL) "slavery." In the agricultural city-State, such a sale is necessary to survive.* Really, you need to read the libertarian literature like I have. That's how they put it. Get after it. You might end up as disgustipated** as I with libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, etal. ________________ * "Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not...Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs. * THIS UGLY CIVILIZATION by DR. RALPH BORSODI NEW YORK, SIMON AND SCHUSTER, 1 9 2 9 ** Tool - Disgustipated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOvwc8_QXiY
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Egalitarianism isn't "collectivist" in a Non-State (band or tribe) sociopolitical typology. Collectivist Stalin killed egalitarian Non-State society peoples in Siberia with the abandon that Capitalist America killed egalitarian Non-State families on the land here on Turtle Island. Egalitarianism is an extremely strong trait in humans, as evidenced by low sexual dimorphism, and the complete lack of sexual dichromaticism (such as our evolutionary cousins, the red-ass baboons) demonstrate. Egalitarianism is as much a part of you, as a human, as walking upright. Hierarchy is a 65 million year evolutionary throwback. A devolution. Those silk power ties and silk handkerchiefs I have in my closet (I play a red-ass baboon fairly well, being a reluctant alpha male in this temporary hierarchy we call city-Statism) are an artificial display of hierarchy, yet, quite anti-human. So I can match the combative persona of "[so-called]free"-market fundamentalists. We don't live in a world of scarcity. We live in a world of abundance. Or at least, used to for 99% of human existence, until agricultural city-Statism's hierarchy started profiting from the hell it created for those lower on the pyramidal hierarchy. Do dolphins live in a world of scarcity? Do crows live in a world of scarcity? No. Scarcity is an artificial construct, meant to make you submit to the hell that agricultural City-Statism creates to funnel wealth up the hierarchical pyramid into "higher, tighter, and righter hands." Religion was used in the first, Sumerian, civilization, to effect compliance. Now religio-economic fundamentalism is used to effect compliance to the hierarchy. And you're complying, as designed, and loosing freedom as a result. Quit the deductive logic built on false premises. Begin thinking inductively from empirical data. While I work on my "mommy issues." (Anybody in a brutally hierarchical agricultural city-State (civilization) has them, so you work on 'em too, eh?)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Re: I'm not begging. "Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest" is a rhetorical tool to show how much daily violence is necessary to maintain the big-government Land enTITLEment program that draws artificial borders to restrict the free movement of people from living a Non-State society lifeway. What you call "private" property is nothing more than the heavy hand of agricultural city-Statist regulation of the home planet's surface. -I live in a state of mobility. Quick little fish in a slow trawling net...If you think I am not private property then think what you want. But there will be consequences....LOL Re: And do you think you can conjure an animated corpse? Is it "possible" even while empirical data shows it's not? Not only has there never been a city-State without State level politics, we know why. Conjuring a "voluntary city" is going to happen the day after animated corpses walk. Yours is a Zombie socio-economic fundamentalism -- a reaction against the city-State's violence, but with a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the agricultural city-State (civilization) that has invaded and now occupies 99.9% of the home planet's surface. -Animated corpse? If it occupies your hand then move your body...Yes most started off flooded with statism. If you let it get hold of your neck and you loose your head then how is that different than living in the jungle? I have met men who mentally disarm themselves when they would never do such in the forest...So carry your forest equipment equivalents in your head. Some wear their kilts whilst observably trousered...Some carry their moral code locked and loaded.... Re: The truth is, anthropology and ethnology do indeed know what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society. There is is a way of knowing. It's called observation. Humans are Pleistocene band animals. -Your observation seems to have made you band dependent and individual weak. Or perhaps not. So be it. Yet I also am not proposing auto-self-sufficiency.... Re: You're also reacting against agricultural city-Statism's forced mass society, which is quite understandable, with fundamentalist religio-economic gibberish. Humans are social animals, and there is a "we." If you've ever served as part of a tight-knit and efficient crew (or band or tribe,) you'd know the silliness of that statement. No, it's not "collectivism." -You have others who are compatible with your mind set. But is it possible that I would too? Hmmm. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed so say you. Perhaps being "understood" as an individual first, in order to be useful to oneself and perhaps attract others of like mind. If one goes to the right places... Re: Basically, you're talking out of your hat without a basic knowledge of the human animal. The last 50 years of anthropology and archeology have revealed much; it's been as earthshaking as what the theory of evolution was to society. -I am talking to myself and for myself and into my hat perhaps but not dropping context where I am talking...Perhaps there are other compatibles for you and me? Re: The "Original Affluent Society" (Sahlins, 1972) is the real, proven, workable Non-State sociopolitical typology to which humans are neuro-biologicially evolved. (Dunbar, 1992) White Indian has learned it, and given up ignorant philosophical fundamentalism that sounded precisely like yours. -Interestingly enough I am a hybrid like yourself. And went Indian much like Jim Walker and not like the imprudent Jed Smith. See Westering Man by Bil Gilbert. If you step back for a second, I do not have a problem with what you believe. You are welcome to it. **Where in the Covenant of Unanimous Consent do you have a issue?** It is personal. I am interested in that. Not observations I and you apparently share regarding cancers posing as cures....That's why Harry Browne called them assumptions, so called philosophical truisms or Traps. Re: It's time to catch up. -Becoming free whilst living in the matrix is not impossible. A prequel of that world I already live in: An opening couplet... "I don't believe in predestined fate The future is what we [I] choose to create." Anthem for the Ama-Gi (a tribe or band of well oiled individual and separate cogs that come and go). http://www.indomitus.net/anthem.html If ones' own moral code is important enough to state--for one to know explicitly and improve on; and for others to know oneself--without binding them down--then an inter-relationship Covenant could have much valuable application. How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. It pertains to relationships without the state.... http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html Again: **Where in the Covenant of Unanimous Consent do you have a issue?** It is personal. I am interested in that. Not observations I and you apparently share regarding cancers posing as cures....That's why Harry Browne called them assumptions, so called philosophical truisms or Traps.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Putting aside that you obviously have some "mommy issues" to work out, the above tirade reveals a profound dislike for personal freedom and liberty and/or a lack of respect for individual persons. Your previous posts promoting the collectivist ideal of egalitarianism while demeaning hierarchical social structures are, well, immature. No objectification intended. I understand that you must feel like a collectivist martyr entering the lion’s den to take on the demonic "libertarian capitalists"; thus the combative attitude which I too can find entertaining at times. But if you really seek the truth then may I suggest you consider the more gentle reasoning that tzo and others here have offered with a more open mind. Anyway, the great purpose of organizing society (e.g. governing) in a world of scarcity is to determine how individuals may live together peacefully. That is how to minimize violence while agreeing to what justifies the use of violence. Libertarians start with the basic premise of self-ownership as a self-evident axiom that must be the foundation of organizing a peaceful society. This axiom should lead to an understanding and acceptance of the primacy of property rights when considering the sustenance we all require to stay alive. This ideal is most often termed the non-aggression principle; and Austrian Economics offers logical explanations for human actions that follow this principle. My friend Jerry prefers to term this principle as The Principle of Equal Freedom as the basis of Non-Coercive Government which he believes should be the basis of free societies. I hope to finish up a review of Jerry’s book on this subject by the end of the year and perhaps his choice of words will be more palatable to your deeply felt prejudices and help you to better understand this concept.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    That would all be well and good, but it has only been you that has suggested others sell themselves. That's extremely bad counsel in my estimation.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Objectification of people, via a bait-and-switch "self-ownership" polemic, is a tactic of abusers. I'll "quibble" about tactics of abusers all day.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Only if you objectify people as property, as the capitalist philosophy does. Objectification of people as property is a tactic of abusers.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You own yourself, fine. The things you need to survive and enjoy personally, fine. But the capitalist bait-and-switch of treating yourself as mere PROPERTY, a mere thing that can be used up and disposed of like a coat, that is objectification. Objectification is a tactic of abusers. And it goes much like I told in the extreme example above. More likely, it goes like: 1. You own yourself. 2. Things you own are property. 3. You can sell property. 4. Thus you can sell yourself to me. 5. Now, I, the rich capitalist, own you (either as a wage slave or ...ahem...voluntary chattel slave.) I'm opposed to objectification of people as property, and that is exactly what the how the "self-ownership" bait gets switched.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hate to break it to you, but, "someone" else already has.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I am a bit embarrassed to say that I didn't even know Trevor had written this book. I will definitely have to take the time to read this new book. Thanks for the review Lawrence. On a related note, I think these truths are fundamentally a part of us from the moment we first draw a breath in this world. We know intuitively (at least most do, anyway) that it is wrong to aggress against another. You'll hear a 4-year old summarize this idea nicely when they tell their older sibling, "You're not the boss of me!"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "There is only one fundamental right [just claim] (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right [just claim] to his own life." ~ Ayn Rand
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian: Why do you always quibble about words instead of discussing ideas. I first came across your tangential musings on Alex Knight's observation of Nazi symbolism in the military culture of the U.S. soldiers. If you stepped off of your soapbox, you might realize that we're basically on the same side here. Sometimes your comments make sense (today, at least, they do -- even if they misconstrue the meaning), but on Alex Knight's article, you really were not coherent at all: http://strike-the-root.com/iconography-of-evil
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Tzo, thanks for explaining the deeper concept to WhiteIndianQuibbler, which lies beneath the words of ownership. I've noticed that he specializes in complaining about word constructions in this way instead of the merits of the concept and its meaning. As you pointed out, the word "ownership" is a way to convey the idea of ultimate control over one's self, and it is implicit in the very fact that we make an argument according to Hoppe. After all, how would we put forth any proposition if we didn't? Of course, Rothbard derives the idea of self-control/ownership using a parallel route, but it's the same. I notice how beside the point WhiteQuibbler's comments were with respect to Alex Knight's piece on Nazi symbolism in militarist America -- and for the same reason. This book is a soft introduction for beginners, and I hope Trevor can reach people through it.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    It would be a good idea to claim ownership of your own life, person and labor. Otherwise, someone else will!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen Allport -- First, I was being presumptuous when I wrote "your government"; I presumed that you use a "chattel number", a Taxpayer Identification Number (U.S.), a number which identifies you as a member of the U.S. government. If I am wrong, I will humbly apologize. Second, what I was "thinking", and my point, too, is simple, is that even if I was in the place called "So. Cal" I would not be "using government services[1]", just because I breathe the air there. [1] Services. Things purchased by consumers that do not have physical characteristics. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1369
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I found this set of sample pages of the book referenced in the article: http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/102862/1/the-secrets-to-nonviol...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Self-ownership is an inalienable right. So much for your dialogue. If you would like to invent some other words besides 'property' and 'ownership' when discussing one's self, fine. But the concept holds. I control me. I call that ownership. When I own something, I call that something property, even if it is me. Those words don't bother me at all. Again, my self-ownership is inalienable, which distinguishes the 'me' property from all the other property I may claim.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Regarding Lockesian "self-ownership:" If one owns property, and if people are NOT property, then the concept of self-ownership is farcical. Using the word we use to describe a relationship to property dehumanizes and degrades people into mere property to be controlled. And I think malevolent capitalists/libertarians attempt to dehumanize and degrade humans on purpose, to soften them up, so that the rich can control and own the poor, and the poor will accept it in their minds. An "owned," controlled human is a slave, whether part-time as a wage-slave, or full time as a chattel-slave. Now, imagine this scenario: LIBERTARIAN MASTER: Do you own your body? MOM: [holding sick child] Yes.
 MASTER: And what can you do with property you own? MOM: Sell it? MASTER: Correct. Do you voluntarily sell yourself to me so I'll pay for your child's health care? MOM: Yes, I'm desperate. MASTER: Answer yes or no, and then sign here. MOM: Yes. [signs contract] MASTER: Did you once own your body, bitch? SLAVE MOM: Yes, Master.
 MASTER: Now I own you. What can an owner do with any property?
 SLAVE MOM: Use it? MASTER: That's right, bitch. [Slave-mom is bound and whipped bloody.] SLAVE MOM: Ouch! MASTER: Shut up. What else can an owner do with property? SLAVE MOM: Dispose of it? 
MASTER: That's right, bitch. [BANG!] [fap fap fap fap fap fap fap] MASTER: Ah, another profitable title for Libertarian Snuff Films, Inc. that should find a large market. And I think I'll sell that bitch's little twirp on the Rothbardian Child Auction tomorrow. Think that's absurd? It's no more absurd than the BDSM ownership and use of humans proposed by "free"-market economist and Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, as follows: "He'd like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him....Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me." ~Walter Block Voluntary Slave Contracts
 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html "Thou shalt own own thy neighbor as thyself" isn't what the Jesus character spoke, and for good reason -- humans aren't The Ultimate Resource to be used and controlled. What better words can we use to describe how we regard both ourselves and our fellow sojourners on our home planet?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 40 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    The rejection of the reality that humans are indeed social animals is a reaction to the forced mass-society of agricultural city-Statism. That sort of "we" isn't fun or fulfilling. While it is an understandable reaction, it is an ignorant, fundamentalist philosophy that is easily debunked by empirical data. There is a "we."