Recent comments

  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    "I’ve never been asked for my consent." ~ Paul Hein Have you ever filed a "United States' income tax return, which, by law, must be signed as true and correct under penalty of perjury"? "Should I attempt to withdraw it, I’d quickly find out the real difference: in a word, violence." ~ Paul Hein Have you ever tried it? And, then refused to apply for, or willingly accept, any member-only benefits/privileges?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Ending "city-Statism" may be "simple", but it is most certainly not "easy"? easy adjective▸not difficult to do, or not needing much work ~ MacMillan Dictionary
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    "It's not my job to improve people or to make them logical; it's their job." Well said. I agree that if we can "trick" people into behaving as anarchists, it does not matter if they embrace that label. Leave us alone and I don't care what they think beyond that. I disagree with your correction. As I elaborated in my first comment, there is no "government cudgel" in a society that respects the right to "opt out". Boxing is not the same as assault. The participants may be performing the same violent actions, but the fact that they are both voluntary participants, and they recognize their decision to engage in violence does not give them right to use violence on those who don't consent, is what distinguishes their sport from aggression. The moment the liberals and conservatives concede they may only "battle over the election process" with other willing participants, and not those who say no, there is no State (obviously assuming this decision to "leave the anarchists alone" is put into practice). They can of course call it a State, and call themselves whatever they want, but the reality is that is not a State, any more than boxers qua boxers are violent criminals. That statists can still be "statists" in a state-less society does not require much imagination. Even in our current Statist world, there exists the example of BDSM clubs. In the market, sans the State, there will probably be "political clubs" catering to those with an even darker fetish for pain and conflict. "Conservatives" and "liberals" can duke it out to their heart's content (even violently-enforcing rules set by the electoral winners upon each other). But as long as they genuinely leave alone those who do not consent, it is anarchy. Going back to your rhetorical strategy, if it works, great. More power to you. I'm just not convinced that it's genuinely an easier, more effective strategy because at its core, I don't really see it as a different strategy. An anarchist is the only person who is genuinely wiling to leave other people alone, and if it was really that easy to convince people to leave others alone (i.e., to be an anarchist, whether they used that word or not), we'd already be living in glorious anarchy by now. "I'm not suggesting a very large change for them, but a very small one. Just tolerance, that's all." But you're wrong, that's the largest change possible for them. Tolerance is the crux of the matter. It is what distinguishes us, the anarchists, from EVERYONE ELSE. Again, if "just tolerance, that's all" was so simple, we'd already be living in glorious anarchy. Now don't get me wrong, I actually think most people are anarchists at heart; that they don't have the desire or at least the courage to individually enforce their preferences on others (i.e., the desire/courage to enforce their intolerance). But because they've been raised as Statists, that's the way they've been programmed to think. And while I will also not claim perfect logical consistency (though admitting a failing is not the same as embracing that as desirable), I argue it is the logical INconsistency of Statism that's the achille's heal of that rotten philosophy (and what makes it rotten to begin with). And thus, it is the progress TOWARDS logical consistency that will help people see the State for what it is and recognize that tolerance must be afforded to others if it is expected for oneself. So if your method of presentation is effective in connecting with a statist and helping them move a bit more towards logical consistency, and eventually to a point where they agree to treat others they way they want to be treated (that is, left alone when desired), then bravo. Good luck to you (sincerely). Actually, rather than just wishing you well, I'm curious if you can report on the effectiveness of your proposed strategy. How often have you used it and what have been the results? Honestly, if you've got an effective tactic, I don't think I'd be alone here at Strike the Root in being very interested in your success.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Fine business on the Sahlins tome, especially the chapter "The Original Affluent Society." I think it is much like "On the Origin of Species." Humans have indeed built culture. Perhaps it is historically inevitable. We also have developed the Sixth Great Extinction. Is suicide inevitable? We are the Gods about which we created myths. And we'll either suicide ourselves via nuclear weapons or other Collapse, or learn to attenuate our lust to dominate the planet. Frankly, I think it'll go nuclear, and our specie will be like bacteria in a wine barrel. Catabolic collapse, blip in time. 22 generations from now, Stone Age, and my children's children will be hunting the genetics I'm preserving/"improving" (basically, re-wilding, as best one can do besieged by a Monsanto wasteland and its city-lyzed hoards) after I (or somebody) cuts the fences on "my" land.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Restoring Non-State liberty to sovereign individuals with the personal responsibility to care for themselves and their families is easy: end city-Statism. END:CIV Resist or Die http://endciv.com/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I kindly addressed your points, so go fly a kite. You don't meet my needs for a fair intellectual fight. Hint: tipping over the chess board isn't "winning." At this point, you seem to rushed, and too immature, and very likely, too enslaved, too addicted, to techo-salvationism. You said good-bye once; when can you make it stick?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian: I'm sorry that you chose not to dialog with me. Your comments do not meet my need for back-and-forth discussion and communication.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've already written here. But thanks for the invitation, that was a kindness after our non-lethal intellectual "mano y mano" sparring the last couple days, (matching the generally non-lethal "conflict" -- or "counting coup" -- of most paleolithic societies; I trust you take that a compliment.) I've got lots of land. By your temporary city-lyzed rules. I've converted (and am still converting much of) it to paleolithic oak savannah. Oak savannah and Amazon Rainforest were both human-created gardens. Did you know that? Read Mann. Here: "Before it became the New World, the Western Hemisphere was vastly more populous and sophisticated than has been thought—an altogether more salubrious place to live at the time than, say, Europe. New evidence of both the extent of the population and its agricultural advancement leads to a remarkable conjecture: the Amazon rain forest may be largely a human artifact" March 2002 ATLANTIC MAGAZINE http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/03/1491/2445/ I'm ready to cut the fences in 5 or 500 years (it won't be 500) keeping the close-to-paleolithic genetics I've nurtured. I am White. I understand the Greek (actually pre-Greek) mythology of agriculture=Rape of Demeter (and her daughter Persephone,) goddess of agriculture and grain. Of agriculture I have repented. I once was an ignorant agriculturalist. I've repented acres and acres back to natural fertility. Farmers, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. Farming is like fiat money. Of temporary boom, then the Four Horsemen, century after century (even in NA; Apocolypto.) I am Indian. I communicate, literally (it's scientifically possible, see Frans B. M. de Waal) to Mr. Crow and Mrs. Squirrel and their spirit is mine, in the same evolutionary biological tree of life. http://TOLweb.org/tree/ I have fallen under "The Spell of the Sensuous: Perception and Language in a More-Than-Human World." (Abrams, 1997) I am White Indian. The White Indians of Colonial America Author(s): James Axtell Source: The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 55-88 Published by: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA www.shsu.edu/~jll004/colonial_summer09/whiteindians.pdf
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Thanks for that link. I too think along those lines although I don't necessarily exclude even city life from our genetic heritage. We built it after all, just as we built culture. Anyone who wants to live in a city should do so. BTW I've got Sahlins' book "Stone Age Economics". I wonder how his ideas have stood up over time.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    I can't dispute your points here on a logical or linguistic basis. But I think you mistake my aim here. People (including myself) are not perfectly logical or consistent, and I don't expect them to be, either. I prefer to work with them as they are, not as I wish they would be. They may be feeling more like a prisoner these days. I'm hoping they see where this feeling comes from. Making no other changes than letting anarchists go is a way for them to restore their liberty. I don't care if they think through the implications. I don't care what label they stick on themselves, and I certainly do not want to go to the effort of convincing them they are really anarchists even if you or I might think they really are so. There is no profit in it. All I want is a trade: tolerance for a small number of people who consider themselves anarchists, in return for restoring that feeling of liberty. It's not my job to improve people or to make them logical; it's their job. It's my job to get liberty for myself if I can manage it. If they want they can observe what happens in a really free society, and profit from that knowledge. Or not. It's entirely up to them. Actually, to correct you on one point, I am not assuming that letting anarchists go is necessarily accompanied by putting down the government cudgel entirely. In fact I am assuming that most likely liberals and conservatives still will continue to battle over the election process, only leaving anarchists out of it. I'm not suggesting a very large change for them, but a very small one. Just tolerance, that's all.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Actually, on the cultural development of "private property," historians/paleo-anthropologists are learning much from older civilization's records, including preserved personal accounts on clay tablets from the elite of several thousand years ago. Funny thing about those ancient accounts, they sound so modern jet-set. I know jet-set. I've shaken hands with Steve Forbes on the tarmac of Signature Aviation, simply because my jet was following the Capitalist Tool, and I recognized him. I know exactly how the hierarchy thinks today -- it's just like 5000 years ago. (P.S. Steve was a consummate gentlemen, we exchanged pleasantries fro only 10 seconds. I'm talking about the others, who were also gentlemen, mostly, with whom I've been in jet aircraft for decades.) It's exactly like art depicts today. Those clay tablets also show how some clever Hebrew goat-herders plagiarized the holy book we call the Old Testament of the Bible, which we once took seriously, and most still do. I say that, because the concept of anarcho-primitivism is now to the establishment what biological evolution was to the establishment. It's pretty well established in scholarly literature how domestication led to "big men," the emergent elite, agriculture, sacrifice religions, division of labor, etc. These findings do much to remove the masquerade of culture's "just-so" (Gould) his-story. Regarding property, the best way to regard it nowadays in our cultural context is legitimate property vs. illegitimate property. There is legitimate and illegitimate sex, right? Same with property. That which requires force, or "we need the gubmit to protect our right to" is illegitimate. Which is most nowadays. Legitimate property, property that you could easily persuade a Non-State forager, is things needed for survival. But they'd still laugh, because they were so open and giving. Civilized people judged that looseness of "property" as "stealing," but forager bands are so affluent, they can afford to give it all away. Here, have my bow, I'll make another one. In fact, anthropologists have noted that the "leaders" of tribes were those who gave away the most. And they could afford it, in an economy of abundance; poor was still rich as the richest. (Remember, poverty is relative, and agriculturalists starve far more than foragers.) Work a couple hours a day, plenty to eat, no starvation (such as fragile agriculture brings,) relaxed sexual mores, and plenty of story telling, gambling, and partying. Who needs a bong or Skyrim in that environment? Illegitimate property requires state protection. You'll hear minarchist libertarians say "We need government to protect property rights." That sort of property is illegitimate, requires aggression, constant aggression, and libertarians sloppily gloss over the aggression. Anarcho-capitalists are dumber than the minarchists, who realize exactly what it takes to maintain illegitimate property rights -- big government aggression. (Ayn Rand was correct in that regard, even if she whitewashed the aggression and called it "rights.") "Private defense agencies" are going to be conjured just as soon as animated corpses. An-caps are zombie hopefuls, much like Christ-eaters. "Take eat, this is..." And what creates the state? "Agriculture creates the State." (Manning) We already know in several cultures how domestication increases violence, and agriculture is the full manifestation of domestication, and introduces the necessity of the state. Agriculture creates a prison culture on the land, and the artificial borders called "property borders" are the cell walls. Within the prison, walls are nice. Most libertarians recognize this, and consider the walls sacred. When I call the walls a part of a prison. Illegitimate property is promoted via the divine. Ever hear of divine right of kings? Divine right of property is the next bullshit magical thinking to go. You'll hear it secularized nowadays, called "natural" rights and such, but illegitimate property rights are based on divine hierarchical magic words. Regarding Kinsella, he's correct regarding IP. But all Landed property that requires the State to protect it is really an IP. Nobody owns the land, they own pieces of Land enTITLEment papers from big government, and human who believes in those magic words, and if they don't believe, they are aggressed against. Squirrels ignore it. Crows ignore it. Our evolutionary distant cousins give evidence of the ephemeral nature of pieces of paper. I agree with you we don't know everything about history, especially from long ago. But we know enough now to conclusively decide that many old premises, which libertarians parrot along with progressives and conservatives, are flat out wrong. Like I said, the concept of "The Original Affluent Society" (Sahlins, 1972) is as paradigm-shifting, and just as upsetting to the establishment, as "On the Origin of Species." Let's summarize just the Libertarianism-addressing points: (1) Privation Property (needed for agriculture and city-Statist division-of-labor) needs be aggressively, statistly, enforced (by the first and second divisions of labor, soldiers and the megaPOLIS's (city-State's) POLICe. And you thought whoring was the first "profession." No, violence was.) (2) Privation Property is a big-government Land enTITLEment to establish artificial borders that restrict the free movement of Non-State societies to forage as sovereign individuals and families. (3) Non-State socio-political typologies do not regard anything much as property, especially themselves. Jesus (a fictional solar-deity character much informed by Eastern Buddhism...sometimes word for word from Buddhist scriptures) didn't say "Thou shalt own thy neighbor as thyself." Wage-slaving is not far removed from chattel slavery when "the food is kept under lock and key" (Quinn) and people are disestablished from the land by agricultural Statist force. (4) The first division of labor, lauded from Rand to Mises to Rothbard and beyond, was force. Soldiers. Police. To enforce agriculture borders. To keep Non-State foragers from foraging. (5) Foraging is the original "free" (no need to pay "the man" with money) lunch. TANSTAAFL is only 500 years old in North America, and 8000 years old in Mesopotamia.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian. I will parse out what you have outlined in this post, and I believe you have claimed far too much for your view as will be shown. If you wish to dialog and address these points just as I am now addressing them in the sequence you raised them, I will be happy to continue. If you cannot address each point as I did and either concede to me or correct me, it will not meet my need for a two-way conversation. Our disagreement comes from a lack of checking your premises. I'm arguing primarily from empirical data. • WhiteIndian, a non-combative, inoffensive way to make this statement (and more accurate) would be to say: “We both operate from different premises, and we each weigh more heavily different sets of empirical data.” You offend when you accuse others of not checking premises and of not using empirical data. ______________________________________ The concept of private property developed culturally after humans began to control and contain nature, that is, "domestication." (Domestication is the proto-agricultural domination of plants and animals.) • A historian would say that there is very little evidence to determine either the existence of private property or its meaning in a pre-historical world. Perhaps a more accurate way of saying this would be as follows: “Some but not all anthropologists hypothesize that …, but it is open to refutation.” • Further, one could say that the concept of private property could exist before domestication. If I catch a rabbit while hunter-gathering, I would consider that it was mine to roast if I caught it and thus my property. No domestication required, yet we have property. _______________________________________ As John Zerzan, whose work is referenced with scholarly references almost to a fault, states so succinctly in his Twilight of the Machines: "Domestication erects the rigid boundaries of surplus and private property. with concomitant possessiveness. enmity, and struggle for ownership." • Zersan’s tatements about “rigid boundaries” are polemical and political, not scientific. Let us keep to description. First, it is a non sequitur to make that statement followed by the claim (not proven) that having something put away for a rainy day creates a rigid boundary. But it is true that enmity (caused by envy and high time preference) can follow among those who do not store up for a rainy day. Is Zerzan claiming that unless one lives on the razor-edge of starvation, conflict results? Is starvation preferable to the possibility of envy? And I am not suggesting that people necessarily starved in a primitive world. I know that in the Middle Ages, taxes on peasant were certainly lower than they are now, so I am willing to posit good health and plenty in a primitive society, but such a state of existence absolutely precludes specialization beyond a minimal amount, don’t you agree? _____________________________________ To rephrase Carl von Clausewitz, formal property rights are resource wars by other means. • This is a claim, not a proof. I cannot address non sequiturs without inventing an argument that was not made. ______________________________________ Several anthropological studies show that egalitarian Non-State foraging societies had little or no concept of property. If they did have a concept of property, the property was only those very few things a person would need for his own use for survival. • Property used for survival is still property. You contradict yourself here. _______________________________________ They didn't view themselves as property, and would consider you batshit crazy for feeling the need to. • You are playing upon the equivocal use of the term “property” to draw anger from the reader here. I’ll ignore the insult and try to stick with the topic. I believe that the mere act of either considering or not considering oneself as property is proof that such a being believed he had control over his body. Since this is a pre-historical state of being, you have no basis on which to project your thoughts into his mind (crossing boundaries and claiming to know for him/her). ___________________________________ For the last 8000 years in the agricultural city-State, property has become increasingly abstract, and one may "own" property well beyond any survival needs or even the ability to enjoy. • Many people who wish to impose structures have expanded the concept of property into realms where no scarcity exists – as in the case of intellectual property (IP). I believe with Stephan Kinsella that this is unnecessary, creates scarcity where none existed, a form of monopoly, and unjustified. Similarly patent and copyright. I will assume you are aware of his summary of the thought on this. ____________________________________ I don't have any special knowledge about this; I've just checked my own premises, studied the scholarly literature in the fields of anthropology, ethnology, evolutionary biology, and archeology. • No comment needed. _____________________________________ The conclusion that humans lived in an Original Affluent Society (Sahlins 1972) is as paradigm-shaking to the controlling hierarchy as Darwin's Origin of the Species. (Darwin 1859) Daniel Quinn calls it the Great Remembering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Remembering Quite a few of us are catching on, which is nice to see. This family did, and made a movie about it: What a Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/watch-the-movie/ • I have to assume the Sahlins thesis is one that assumes a world of plenty, which may or may not be true. _____________________________________________________ Now that I have addressed your comments, I will make a few of my own -- not nearly as many. I hope you will first address the points I raised to continue the conversation. I also would like to take up where you ended. I do not know if the authors you cite are familiar with the methodology of the Annales school of history, but it would be useful to consider not just the discipline of anthropology, but other aspects of culture, demographics, science, technology, literature, law, economics, art, religious belief, philosophy, and social organization – just to begin -- when examining a culture. But much of the evidence is lacking in pre-history, so it is a shaky foundation no matter what is posited. Too many academic problems come out of mono-causally based theories and theories based on scant evidence, and this occurs within every discipline that seeks to base a theory on a thin foundation. Anyway, after you have re-addressed the very points you raised, you might want to continue, but please try not to impute insanity, etc. to others -- difficult as it is to resist. Nobody wants that, and it doesn’t meet my needs for mutual respect.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    SUGGESTION: WhiteIndian, why not write a clear essay (I mean write your own STR column) outlining your thesis and wishes with regard to the topic of liberty? Then you would finally have an opportunity to lay out your thoughts in an organized fashion instead of trying to make them fit into writings that may have only a tangential relationship to what you want to say. I sense you have a need to be heard, so why not lay yourself open to a thorough presentation -- starting where you wish and developing as you wish?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Our disagreement comes from a lack of checking your premises. I'm arguing primarily from empirical data. The concept of private property developed culturally after humans began to control and contain nature, that is, "domestication." (Domestication is the proto-agricultural domination of plants and animals.) As John Zerzan, whose work is referenced with scholarly references almost to a fault, states so succinctly in his Twilight of the Machines: "Domestication erects the rigid boundaries of surplus and private property. with concomitant possessiveness. enmity, and struggle for ownership." To rephrase Carl von Clausewitz, formal property rights are resource wars by other means. Several anthropological studies show that egalitarian Non-State foraging societies had little or no concept of property. If they did have a concept of property, the property was only those very few things a person would need for his own use for survival. They didn't view themselves as property, and would consider you batshit crazy for feeling the need to. For the last 8000 years in the agricultural city-State, property has become increasingly abstract, and one may "own" property well beyond any survival needs or even the ability to enjoy. I don't have any special knowledge about this; I've just checked my own premises, studied the scholarly literature in the fields of anthropology, ethnology, evolutionary biology, and archeology. The conclusion that humans lived in an Original Affluent Society (Sahlins 1972) is as paradigm-shaking to the controlling hierarchy as Darwin's Origin of the Species. (Darwin 1859) Daniel Quinn calls it the Great Remembering. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Story_of_B#The_Great_Remembering Quite a few of us are catching on, which is nice to see. This family did, and made a movie about it: What a Way To Go: Life at the End of Empire http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/watch-the-movie/
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hi Wes.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    A good friend of mine has taken note of the threads on this post and had this to add vis-a-vis WhiteIndian. He's much better at using NVC than I am -- especially in the "typing" mode (as opposed to person to person). It will be interesting to see the ripple effects of a good NVC approach, so here goes... "It seems the impasse in dialogue here primarily stemmed from the disagreement with words (and thus concepts) such as "ownership" and "property" which, as WhiteIndian has noted, have been employed by domination structures to rule over people, while people in such structures forward a PR scheme that pretends to be protectors of our persons and property. Observe how many minarchists (from pro-"Constitution" Ron Paul types to Libertarians and Objectivists) believe that government is an organization essential to protecting our individual rights. Without government, no one would respect property!...they contend. I'm guessing that WhiteIndian is feeling dismayed and a bit suspicious, because he wants some reassurance that no domination of people will exist in a society of complete liberty that upholds the sanctity of individual rights (i.e., the freedom to act justly in a social context). As noted, the words "ownership" and "property" seem to trigger a lot of revulsion in him, given their misusage by present and past domination structures. Perhaps he (like all of us, as well) never got his needs for sovereignty, or autonomy, choice, and respect fully met as a child. After all, "property," when it's not considered in the rights-respecting context of freedom, can be a way for individuals within the paradigm of statism to try to gain security in a world of increasingly coerced scarcity. Just look at the sundry controlled markets involving so-called "intellectual property," in which our economy is being stifled in myriad ways (copyright, patent, and trademark litigation galore). Property (your own self being the most personal of property) is definitely a concept that many in our culture are either ambivalent about or outright fear, typically on account of not trusting people's ability to use and/or dispose of said property in the way they want (i.e., in a way that's safe for them and their environment). The part of our conscious mind that makes choices, i.e., selects things from a range of known options, is the root of sovereignty, or self-ownership. Reason and by extension volition (the processes of identifying and integrating information and making decisions) are indeed irrefutable absolutes--any statements to the contrary can't be made without using them. Naturally, as Trevor Gamble has articulated in his new book, when people fully respect this process in themselves and others, they'll have a society of real freedom. Respect for self-ownership and property rights is simply a useful way to convey how we can use our minds in reality to benefit ourselves and others, to bring values into the marketplace without conflict. In other words, nonviolent prosperity."
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I live in metro-Detroit and i think I can add to the understanding of what really happened here. The state's social service bureaucracy (which is mainly composed of white progressive professional types) has had its hand slapped by Detroit's judiciary (who are all black). There is no doubt that Ms.Godbolo shot off a pistol (into the ceiling) to deter the entry of the social service bureaucrats and the cops who were there to seize her daughter and which by law is a crime. Due to the racial dynamics involved Detroit's hyper-partisan judiciary brushed aside the law (but not nullifying it) upholding what they think is right and just instead. Good for them. But in the end this case was more about Detroiters sticking it to man (state of MI) not about doing the right thing based on natural law. This ruling sets no legal precedent so if it should happen again without all the publicity the parent defending their offspring from the depredations of the state bureaucracy could easily wind up imprisoned, separated from their family, injured, or even dead.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Drupal dropped off, so I hit publish again, and got a double post. I apologize.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've read all of Rand's works, and have most of them on my library shelf. I'm well aware of her minarchist diatribe against anarchist "libertarians." I'm well aware of the continued fundamentalist-like infighting between objectivists and libertarians. Still, most political scholars generally lump objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and several other similar political views under the rubric of libertarian, just for the sake of simplicity, because "Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence towards the libertarian movement. Many libertarians justify their political views upon aspects of Objectivism," [wiki: Libertarianism and Objectivism] even while understanding the differences between the fundamentalist religio-economic sects. Keep straining at gnats if you must; it doesn't quite prove what you so desperately hope it does. And you never have addressed what brought this all up, so I'll remind you: Why do you suppose you can taunt me with "autistic," yet, when I retort with a scholarly study linking autism and libertarianism, you equate that to Soviet "medicalized" tyranny with...(ahem)..."gas chambers?" Care to explain yourself? Or does your evasion continue?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've read all of Rand's works, and have most of them on my library shelf. I'm well aware of her minarchist diatribe against anarchist "libertarians." I'm well aware of the continued fundamentalist-like infighting between objectivists and libertarians. Still, most political scholars generally lump objectivists, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, and several other similar political views under the rubric of libertarian, just for the sake of simplicity, because "Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been and continues to be a major influence towards the libertarian movement. Many libertarians justify their political views upon aspects of Objectivism," [wiki: Libertarianism and Objectivism] even while understanding the differences between the fundamentalist religio-economic sects. Keep straining at gnats if you must; it doesn't quite prove what you so desperately hope it does. And you never have addressed what brought this all up, so I'll remind you: Why do you suppose you can taunt me with "autistic," yet, when I retort with a scholarly study linking autism and libertarianism, you equate that to Soviet "medicalized" tyranny with...(ahem)..."gas chambers?" Care to explain yourself?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Since WhiteQuibbler has never read Ms. Rand, his knowledge of her is based on what he pulls from Internet posts of critics. If he knew her writings instead of just Googling in a public place, he would know that (1) like WhiteQuibbler, Rand opposed libertarians and (2) most libertarians became libertarians because Ms. Rand expressly opposed them. Similarly, he finds an ally in National Review, an organ whose primary spokesperson (Buckley) supported the growth of a totalitarian state in the USA to combat the totalitarianism of the USSR. You are out of your depth once again.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest? MARX: NO! MISES: NO! Those damn agricultural city-Statists all sound alike to me.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Another caged animal in the agricultural city-Statist (civilization,) "zoo," as Richard Manning puts it. Richard Manning on the Psychosis of Civilization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iBOXcoP_8 The only real solution is to deregulate big-government enforced artificial borders designed to restrict the free movement of people. Libertarians call city-Statist Land enTITLEment "private property." I call it "Gambol* Lockdown." _______________ * Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today—civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors—is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question "Why agriculture?" is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls "just-so stories." In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. GAMBOLING about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not. That's all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.24
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Only a mendacious "grievance collector" would think those examples of objectification, meant to illustrate common cases of objectification and depersonalization, were all applied to libertarianism. However, you bring up the subject of war. Self-styled "free-market" types aren't at all consistent on war. Ayn Rand lauded the genocide of 90,000,000 invasion/occupation victims. And in a rather racist way, as follows: "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." ~Ayn Rand, speech at the US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974 Plus, there's nothing like a good ol' libertarian police beat-down on those damn long-haired hippies that are ruining property values where they hang out: "Cops must be unleashed ... unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" ~Murray Rothbard Libertarians claim to be non-aggressors, but they merely whitewash the aggression they're willing to commit, without truthfully identifying it as aggression.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 weeks ago
    Free to Die?
    Web link Don Stacy
    Civilization is a collectivist activity. Walter Williams and the Kock-sucker economists laud the collectivist part of city-Statism (civilization) that increases the wealth of their pay masters, while ignoring the external costs of those collectivist activities. One can point out the hypocrisy of being for universal pollution and universal birth defects, but being against universal health care for the victims. Myself, I'm against universal health care. But then I'm against collectivist civilization, and the birth defects and sundry horrors it meets upon its victims.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Now we see the WhiteIndian meltdown. He attacks as sexists and war-mongers the one philosophical group that has consistently opposed war (antiwar.com is the oldest antiwar web site and is known for opposing the interventions as far back as Yugoslavia) and has never referred to women in the manner he does.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 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 49 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The absence of a contract signatory does not clear the committed collateral.
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 2 years 49 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 49 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 49 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Yeah, maybe they should have been more careful.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 49 weeks ago Page livefreeretiree
    Or, as Edward Abbey called it, "Syphilization".
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 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 49 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yes, voluntaryists are so into gas chambers.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 49 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.