Recent comments

  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago
    The Collectivist Mind
    Web link Michael Dunn
    Agriculture itself is collectivist. In fact, agriculture is the first-line reason why we have governmental functions in agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) Richard Manning sums up the evidence from archeology and anthropology well in his book Against the Grain, "Agriculture creates government," because big drainage and/or irrigation projects cover vast areas of land, roads, etc. Libertarians have a sophomoric, literalistic view of property rights. Their naivety was demonstrated this year when a few libertarian-type city-slickers, who moved to the rural area in which I live, made the news. See, a farmer had a drainage problem -- a large tile draining his farm was broken down. The farmer called up the county engineer, who is in charge of drainage. The farmer asserted his agricultural fields' property rights, which includes well drained soil. The farmer's property rights extend about 12 miles, all the way to the big river. All land owners pay yearly drainage assessments (digging ditches, clearing trees, installing drainage tile, etc.) All this work to maintain "individual" property values is done "collectively" via the county engineer and state crews. The tile that needed dug up and replaced ran through the yards of the newly built McMansions. Oh, how they belly-ached, and spouted various libertarian themes to the papers and eventually in court. But, of course, the state laws governing the abstract concept of property rights (including 12 miles worth of collectively maintained tile and ditches to preserve property "value" for agriculture) prevailed. The farmer's property rights were preserved in spite of Libertarian legalistic contrariness. Last time I talked to one of the libertarians, he still maintained the conceptual fiction that his property was basically an extension of his body, and he ("his" land) had been "raped," and blah, blah, blah.... I just asked him how a human body can extend 12 miles. I got a blank expression.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    In reply to such prior questions as "Question: do you [I] accept the theory of evolution?" I ask WhiteIndian--"what are you going to do to FREE YOURSELF?" as the relevant question. Making it personal--something directly controlled--does not mean I am interested in WhiteIndian's personal life per se. The following article addresses that. There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 For instance: The truth is no one knows what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing. Any answer that is given to questions pertaining to the problems that individuals would face in such a society are purely speculation. I cannot tell you what we would do, I can only tell you what I would and do. I would/do honor my contracts; I would/do defend myself; I would/do choose to help others in need; I would/do expect no one to support me; and I would/do plan accordingly. This as as good as a time as any to point out that humans may desire to live together but certainly not with cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle. Some individuals will choose to live alone if they desire peaceful existence until they find others who are of like mind. To elaborate: Someone says that the State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, we are in real trouble, what are we going to do about it. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?” Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve enslaving other people. As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Re: "humans evolved as egalitarian social band animals, and lived as such in a Non-State sociopolitical typology for millions of years demonstrating empathy and altruism -- and refutes your [my] dogmatic belief that there is no "we" or that "we" necessarily means a State society". You cannot answer a simple *I* question. Who is answering with you or for you? The point of the issue of this thread with me and you is try to stop asking "we" questions and making "we" assertions (they are assumptions). They are the ways of statists. You say you are not leftist nor a statist but you posted leftist links. You are speaking for others which is very statist like. *If you are not a leftist or statist stop using their ways*. Speak for yourself! Or continue to come across as a leftist or Statist with all your assumptions (speaking for others) hiding behind so called scientific data.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    It is nonsensical to "test" whether the interior angles of a triangle (in Euclidean geometry) add up to 180 degrees. But your data does not fall into this category. I choose to live with others or not. I am human. Your data is missing something. It can be refuted. I just did.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    You cannot speak for yourself let alone others. Where is the similarity between what I pointed out to you about a simple triangle and your data on humans?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    All you did was demonstrate your intellectual ignorance, which is on par with young-earth creationists.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Empirical data backs up my words -- and refutes your assertions. For example: humans evolved as egalitarian social band animals, and lived as such in a Non-State sociopolitical typology for millions of years demonstrating empathy and altruism -- and refutes your dogmatic belief that there is no "we" or that "we" necessarily means a State society.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    RE: AA: "The truth is no one knows what 'we' will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing." Wrong. Non-State sociopolitical typology has been studied to a fair-thee-well. Quit evading the empirical data. ~Apparently you are evading that you are a member of that empirical data and cannot speak to it other than third person. That seems pretty evasive to me RE: AA: "...cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle." That's you, and any other advocate of invasive and occupational agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) ~ I was not referring to you. I think you have attributed to me what is not here on these posts. get off your high horse and come down to earth. ~You are telling me nothing about what you are going to do to be free. Address that. This is not about your personal life but you refuse to back up your words with what you are going to do about the subject of this thread--freedom. So why can't you answer a simple question? Without the invectives and put downs and arch-types?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    AA: "The truth is no one knows what 'we' will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing." Wrong. Non-State sociopolitical typology has been studied to a fair-thee-well. Quit evading the empirical data. AA: "...cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle." That's you, and any other advocate of invasive and occupational agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Re: Still evading the evidence that humans are social animals? ~Your words not mine. Re: Your evasion hasn't changed any empirical evidence. ~Empirical evidence hmmm. You are social? You have exhibited Unsocial behavior. Re: And like I said before, "we" does not mean communism in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Nothing is forced, humans are sovereign individuals in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. ~Like I said before "I" in an Unfree World does not mean I have not found Freedom. You apparently have to wait until you have convinced others that your world of unforced humans are sovereign individuals in your egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Hopeless. You are not modeling freedom at least not in my book. Will others follow those who talk of freedom or those who model it? Re: It seems the dishonesty, and deliberate evasion of empirical data from archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology is all yours, AA. ~If you can't back up pour empirical data with the integrity in action of what you propose then of what use is your data? Re: And any property right that has to have government to defend it is Statist. ~Ii actually never brought up property rights till this last post. You have been and so I called you on it. And now you maintain that you have a property right to your account which is clearly not protected by the govt the state but the owners of this site. No one here says the State is upholding your rights. That's all you again. Re: You can try to whitewash the aggression required by repeating soothing "laissez-faire" words from your canon, but in the end, agriculture requires aggression and constant enforcement by threatened violence, and you're a city-Statist at heart. ~I am clearly not whitewashing your contradictions. If you have sovereign individual aspirations you have a strange second hander approach to it. What you model is not a sovereign individual but someone who is a "RanDroid". ~Like Ayn Rand herself, you're willing to commit genocide upon 90,000,000 native inhabitants, and then call it "freedom." I don't hold Rand responsible for uncritical zombies nor for helping the tobacco industry types nor those who will not help themselves and smoke because Rand smoked. They have been with us a long time. And they will even join up and perhaps assimilate the unwary with package deals. I am not Ayn Rand but thanks for the compliment. If you have a problem with initiated violence you should take that up with your drooling beast and if Rand is your red/bluecoat then perhaps you should grow a life. She is dead. You're alive as best as I can tell but these continued disconnects you make remind of what? Tom Woods Is Interviewed by a Zombie Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.: http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods145.html And It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again by Walter Block http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html PS Where is your password for your "we" account on this site?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I asked in a prior post as it relates to Living Freely in an Unfree World with other compatibles what problem/or not WhiteIndian had as it relates to an interpersonal contract that fulfilled individual freedom? I still have not received an answer to that although this is what WhiteIndian professes is his so-called banner. Which would appear to make Sovereign Individuals look and feel like his evidenced behavior here. A more honest Avatar would be ForkTongue-SovereignIndies. It is apparent to me that WhiteIndian did not Go Injun in the manner of Jim Walker and does not even rate as a Jed Smith who was very imprudent in his dealings with the Indians. I suspect that given the speed of WhiteIndians replies that he is other than his avatar professes. Calling himself WentIndjun would perhaps be too obvious a clue as his imprudent counterparts and as to what his actual covert purposes are. But I offer this as something to consider. He is no freedom lover or sovereign individual but the anti-thesis of such.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 19 weeks ago
    Owning an IRS Lawyer
    Web link Don Stacy
    Attorneys and Lieyers? http://ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant/weekly16P.pdf
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I'm not discussing my personal life with you. It's as relevant as discussing my personal life with a Fundamentalist believer in an argument over creationism vs. evolution. Empirical data from archeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and other sciences refute your belief system. You refuse to address it.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Still you evade the scientific, empirical evidence that humans evolved as egalitarian, social band animals. It's pretty much like talking to a young-earth creationist. Observed reality destroys their quite similar mythology too. No, I'm not socialist. Socialism is another political ideology of agricultural city-Statism. Ignorant of facts, you spew your worst pejorative, "socialist!," much like some fundamentalist church lady calling somebody who accepts the empirical data supporting evolution a "satanist!" It's really lame, and reveals the anti-intellectual nature of your belief system.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Still evading the evidence that humans are social animals? Your evasion hasn't changed any empirical evidence. And like I said before, "we" does not mean communism in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Nothing is forced, humans are sovereign individuals in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. It seems the dishonesty, and deliberate evasion of empirical data from archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology is all yours, AA. And any property right that has to have government to defend it is Statist. You can try to whitewash the aggression required by repeating soothing "laissez-faire" words from your canon, but in the end, agriculture requires aggression and constant enforcement by threatened violence, and you're a city-Statist at heart. Like Ayn Rand herself, you're willing to commit genocide upon 90,000,000 native inhabitants, and then call it "freedom."
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Your tongue in my mouth is is about you speaking for others. Pointing out the simplest application of your position escapes you. Your tongue in my mouth is what you practice. And evidently it has the power to shame you. Laissez faire capitalism (remnant) and this site where your *property rights* are upheld--No one is breaking into your account and writing FOR you. And I and others are getting along here well enough without your Govt "We" drooling beast. "We" are frolicking in the forest. And you seem to be joining us here. Why don't you post your password so "We" can all share your account? From each according to the needs of the "WE". As for the rest dear reader, I can barely sum up the energy... WhiteIndian the Gamboling We is not a leftist says he and his we? which is it? Part of some amorphous we that is witnessed using leftist links and smear tactics to buttress evidenced Anti-capitalist views but NOT life style. Trolling here on the internet--a Capitalist tool not originated by--but grown by, just adds to the list of let me see now, dropping context, intellectual dishonesty, arguing strawmen, contradictrions...See above. But living in your world is evidently boring and uninteresting because you evidently live here more than the world you espouse...frolic away, I cannot blame you. Hanging with the anti-capitalist is so dreary and boring...
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Another example of this on a larger scale would be the Jones Act (Merchant Maritime Act). The restriction of "US flag" vessels for US territories greatly impedes competition and forces prices upward for everyone, especially in places like Hawaii where only US flag carriers are permitted to operate. Asian carriers would have swept up all of the Hawaii, Puerto Rico, and Caribbean business decades ago without this restriction. Not surprisingly, the industries that lobbied for this type of regulation were the railroads and trucking companies, much as you'd expect with similar tariffs and restrictions. However, somewhat more surprising (but not really when you understand how large companies use government) the coastal and ocean carriers didn't put up any protest. US carriers dominated the steamship market in the days of the Jones Act. This has led to the greatest collusion among the carriers that you can imagine and practices that make the mafia look down-right respectable by comparison.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "obsessed with fanatical zeal to IMPROVE the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own" A city-Statists like Ludwig Mises fits that description well. "You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the IMPROVEments in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the efforts of men who are better than you." ~Ludwig von Mises, letter to Ayn Rand, January 23, 1956
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Pro 6:1 ¶ My son, if thou be surety for thy friend, [if] thou hast stricken thy hand with a stranger, Pro 6:2 Thou art snared with the words of thy mouth, thou art taken with the words of thy mouth. Pro 6:3 Do this now, my son, and deliver thyself, when thou art come into the hand of thy friend; go, humble thyself, and make sure thy friend. Pro 6:4 Give not sleep to thine eyes, nor slumber to thine eyelids. Pro 6:5 Deliver thyself as a roe from the hand [of the hunter], and as a bird from the hand of the fowler. Pro 6:6 ¶ Go to the ant, thou sluggard; consider her ways, and be wise: Pro 6:7 Which having no guide, overseer, or ruler, Pro 6:8 Provideth her meat in the summer, [and] gathereth her food in the harvest. Pro 6:9 How long wilt thou sleep, O sluggard? when wilt thou arise out of thy sleep? Pro 6:10 [Yet] a little sleep, a little slumber, a little folding of the hands to sleep: Pro 6:11 So shall thy poverty come as one that travelleth, and thy want as an armed man. Pro 6:12 ¶ A naughty person, a wicked man, walketh with a froward mouth. Pro 6:13 He winketh with his eyes, he speaketh with his feet, he teacheth with his fingers; Pro 6:14 Frowardness [is] in his heart, he deviseth mischief continually; he soweth discord. Pro 6:15 Therefore shall his calamity come suddenly; suddenly shall he be broken without remedy. The Humanitarian with the Guillotine In her discerning book, The God of the Machine, Isabel Paterson draws important distinctions between Christian kindliness directed toward the relief of distress, and the misguided efforts of those who would make it a vehicle for self-aggrandizement. She points out that most of the major ills of the world have been caused by well-meaning people who ignored the principle of individual freedom, except as applied to themselves, and who were obsessed with fanatical zeal to improve the lot of mankind-in-the-mass through some pet formula of their own. "It is at this point," she says, "that the humanitarian sets up the guillotine.'' Although prompted by good intentions, such a program is usually the outgrowth of egomania fanned by self-hypnotism. As stated before, it is based on this idea: "I am right. Those who disagree are wrong. If they can't be forced into line, they must be destroyed." Egoism, a natural human trait, is constructive when kept within bounds. But it is highly presumptuous of any mortal man to assume that he is endowed with such fantastic ability that he can run the affairs of all his fellowmen better than they, as individuals, can rum their own personal affairs. As Miss Paterson observes, the harm done by ordinary criminals, murderers, gangsters, and thieves is negligible in comparison with the agony inflicted upon human beings by the professional "do-gooders," who attempt to set themselves up as gods on earth and who would ruthlessly force their views on all others - with the abiding assurance that the end justifies the means. But it is a mistake to assume that the do-gooders are insincere. The danger lies in the fact that their faith is just as devout and just as ardent as that of the ancient Aztec priest. http://mises.org/books/mainspring.pdf
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    I know you're trouble; violence is the way agricultural city-Statists roll. Aggression and war started with domestication (proto-agriculture) and has continued to intensify to nuclear weapons today.
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    State/government or no state/government, if you mess with my grain crops you're going to have troubles. You might want to cool it with the predictions of the future. I'm pretty sure that you're not all-knowing and the pretense is embarassingly ignorant.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Specialization (division-of-labor) is for insects." ~Heinlein Humans evolved as egalitarian band animals, and it takes central coordination, hierarchy, and administrative mechanisms to get them to behave like ants.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    It's all a part of the Koch-sponsored privatization* of government function, that is, turning America into a big company town that works only for the productive heroes, and eradicates the parasites who should get a job instead of protesting. Anybody who doesn't want to pay a fee for standing on and using property is a moocher. See how that Cato/Mercatus/Reason/GeorgeMasonU cirque-de-capitalism is working out? Transcript of prank Koch-Walker conversation http://host.madison.com/wsj/article_531276b6-3f6a-11e0-b288-001cc4c002e0...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    [fixed] "The agricultural city-State (civilization) engages in a range of housing and community activities that used to be the responsibility of sovereign individuals living freely in small bands and tribes. Its Land-monopoly privation property, resource-sucking cities, and pollution activities have proven to be costly and damaging to the both Non-State societies and the environment. The city-Statists' poor management and misguided policies have led to deforestation, desertification, and the Sixth Great Extinction."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Libertarian Utilitarianism: "The Needs of the Many (6 billion) outweigh the Freedoms of the Few to live a Non-State society lifeway" is the essential argument behind agricultural city-Statism.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Why would anybody who esteems government-protected property rights in Land have a problem with government-protected property rights on Water? The property right to operate the ferry is a big government enTITLEment, just like creating artificial borders on the surface of the earth is a Land enTITLEment program that grants monopoly-use-rights (often called "property rights") to parcel holders, and restricts the free movement of Non-State societies to forage and hunt the land. Remember, without big government guns, there are no "property rights" to vast tracts of agricultural Land. (I'm quite familiar with the libertarian canon that says different, and that you have many fantasies about how to enforce property rights without the State part of agricultural-City-Statism, but they are just that, make-believe stories.) "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    A question was never asked. They end with a "?" last I heard. Humans are in overshoot, biologically speaking. I have no idea "what to do" with the "Ultimate Resource" that has been deliberately bred and fed for the emergent elite's labor pool and canon-fodder stock. But others have decent ideas. Especially the permaculturalists have good ideas. John Jeavons http://www.johnjeavons.info/ of whom I highly respect, has a proven system whereby one may grow all their food in a very small area, and improve the soil besides. How about this? It's been around longer than the White Man's Ghost Dance. (That's the piece of paper people worship called the Constitution.) 300 Year Old Food Forest in Vietnam http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-5ZgzwoQ-ao It's not the Original Affluent Society (Sahlins, 1972.) It's intensive horticulture, and prone to all the violence correlated with domestication. But it's better than working for Lumbergh in Office Space.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    You are arguing that "we" is inherently Statist. We is not statist. Two or three million years of evidence. "We" and egalitarianism and altruism are a part of your paloe-genetic heritage. Still, we no kissy-face; quit fantasizing.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    If pointing to empirical data are "ineffective means" then so be it. No, tribes and bands didn't do agriculture. Stay with the empirical data, instead of your make-believe "axioms" that CULTure teaches you. You really don't know what you're talking about. Really. Horticulture is the sweet spot. Learn the difference between it and agriculture.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 19 weeks ago Page painkilleraz
    Embarrassing question expertly dodged. I guess you don't have an answer, eh? Not too surprising, actually. Bombast is a lot easier than finding truth. When you decide what is to be done with us 6 billion "human resources" that won't quite fit into your pre-agricultural society, let us know...
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 3 years 19 weeks ago
    Of Dogs and Men
    Page Paul Hein
    So... OK... Well, trollish behavior is largely in the eye of the beholder. I think WhiteIndian's problem here is that he chooses ineffective means of getting his ideas across, not that his ideas are worthless. I am interested in the same sorts of ideas. Voluntary city-statism may well be a dead end, but the thing to do is let those who volunteer for it have it. I don't see any other option. The problem is getting them to let the rest of us go. I don't think letting us go is impossible. For example the Romany seem to do a pretty good job of living as they want, with some problems of course (e.g. their encounters with Nazi Germany) - but they are still around. "Look, agriculture itself, all by itself, is coercive. You're taking a huge tract of Land and claiming: This is mine, and mine only, and nobody else can use it, and I'll kill ya even if you walk across it." Well, even tribes and bands did that sort of thing. The only difference was that they were protecting hunting grounds, not food plots; and necessarily, much larger areas must be protected. And I don't see what is wrong with protecting your means of sustenance, although of course there are better and worse ways of doing that. There is nothing inherently wrong with horticulture, outside of the fact that, being largely static, it is more vulnerable to attack by raiders and to being taken over by "big men". Although that certainly IS a serious defect.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself. Your tongue in my mouth...Gak! I don't know what strawman you are arguing against but you are not refuting anything I said...
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 19 weeks ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    G'day again Darkcrusader, "These laws cannot be written by man; it is mankind's conscience." It would appear from this that Verl is actually writing about the law of nature, the "natural law of the human world", but renaming it Common Law. If so, I may enjoy it very much. Thanks.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    If you want to deny well-established facts, as evidenced by evolutionary biology (you're a "we" social animal,) archeological (warfighting was one of the first divisions of labor,) and anthropological empirical observation, that's fine. Yes, I realize the internet is a part of division of labor too. I also realize that owning property, or renting property (i.e., holding property rights) within the city-State is a delegation of using force to the Sheriff and whoever else may enforce them. I don't whitewash the violence necessary to live within the city-State (civilization,) like you do. You claim that holding a Land enTITLEment from the government is compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle. It's not. I hold no such illusions that may make one feel better about themselves. While you ballyhoo much about aggression, you really don't see the extent of "the gun" enforcing city-Statist (civilization) culture. You're in as much denial about it as a socialist NEA educator who won't admit that compulsory education is forced by a gun.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 19 weeks ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    G'day Darkcrusade, Thanks to you, I was able to verify it, here. Much appreciated. And, thank you for the kind words. I will look into the book by Verl K. Speer, however, I must admit, the title alone (Common Law Jurisdiction) leads me to believe that Verl chose the wrong jurisdiction. I believe that Murray N. Rothbard was correct in stating that there are, basically, three jurisdictions; "In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: ...by slavish conformity to custom [common law], by arbitrary whim [statute law], or by use of man’s reason [natural law]". He further stated, "...the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom [common law] or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus [statute law]." William Blackstone, himself, states "...in a state of nature we are all equal...", which doesn't mean, as some irrational individuals claim, that we are all physically and mentally equal, it means we have equal rights, but only in the natural law jurisdiction. All other jurisdictions requires a "superior" man, or group of men, to be the lawmaker.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Re: "Can we discuss the empirical data from real life observation and scholarly information that invalidates the tenets your contradictory religio-economic faith?" This question assumes your conclusion. Not mine. It is irrelevant to what you are going to do to make yourself free. Re: "For instance, "the gun," the professional violence class, is one of the first results of division-of-labor, another thing you [I] think is grand" Oh my Dear Darling, this is the kettle calling the teapot black. The internet webby IS the division of labor par non, par excellance, sine qua non.... What is relevant is what are you going to do to set yourself free? I am already free. What is perhaps really relevant is the modeling of such and on that note, I must leave you now.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Again, "we" isn't a problem (humans are evolved to be "we" social animals,) except when it gets enforced in agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) Yet you support city-Statism (civilization.) You may recognize "the gun," but you continue to ignore the whole cultural package of Agricultural-City-Statism, and it's consequences. For instance, "the gun," the professional violence class, is one of the first results of division-of-labor, another thing you think is grand. If identifying and correcting the contradictions you hold isn't "really relevant," that's fine. But that's part of thinking like a free person, right?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Re: "I'm not sure why your (sic) obsessing about my [your] personal life". ~I think we agree somewhat on the following: "I’ll admit that getting people to see the gun in the room is a very important and crucial step when trying to win them over, but that is not enough. In my experience, after I have been successful at pointing out the systematized coercion, and institutionalized violence in the current system, the conversation always turns to how we would deal with the practical issues". Re: "Can we discuss the empirical data from real life observation and scholarly information that invalidates the tenets your contradictory religio-economic faith?" ~This is not really relevant to me other than asking the wrong question. "This is where I would start to explain how "we" would handle these things, but lately I have been pointing out the “we” in the room. In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered. Put the ball back in their [your] court". ~More specifically: "Ask them--you--what they would do. When human interaction is purely voluntary, there can be no system. It is important to let the ones asking the questions find their own solutions, or what they think might be solutions". ~I am not interested in your personal life per se but I am re-directing to what is directly controlled by you! (If you think/assume you can control others then that is another issue outside the scope of this post). "I have at xx years old, accepted that I am probably as free now as I will ever be. I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free of the WE etc. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now. I must say, watching my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free person is a little disheartening". Perhaps you get my drift? If not? Fine. Read on if you wish, as to other things that create "WE" problems... Freedom Has No System by Chris Dates http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I'm not sure why your obsessing about my personal life. Can we discuss the empirical data from real life observation and scholarly information that invalidates the tenets your contradictory religio-economic faith?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I am not an authority on "blank-outs and deceit [and] you're still dancing and weaving over well-established facts". You provide NO reasons other than a repetitive tone of aggression and derision. Lincoln, Sherman and Sheridan (Govt) do not come up in the Slavery and Native Indian genocide map for you. This is hardly Rand's fault for missing what you failed to mention YOURSELF and what is by all accounts considered TODAY as Revisionist History! I asked you what you are going to do to FREE YOURSELF? I asked the same question some days ago. If you think that "the theory of evolution" is *relevant* to that you should provide reasons for such NOT me!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    You're still dancing and weaving over well-established facts: 1. Man is a social animal. 2. Man lived for 2 million years as a social animal in a Non-State sociopolitical typology exhibiting egalitarianism, social sharing, empathy, altruism, and individual sovereignty. They're not "wrongly attributed," as you deceitfully purport. There are volumes of scholarly data backing my assertions. You blank-out reality established by empirical observation. And you blank-out Rand's vocal support for the agricultural city-Statist genocide of up to 90,000,000 Native Americans. That takes a young-earth creationist strength faith, and a fundamentalists' penchant to gloss over hard-earned empirical data as a "leftist conspiracy." Question: do you accept the theory of evolution?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Remember Hickman? And who and how it was used? Witnessing and pointing out WhiteIndian's context dropping/adoption/use of a Leftist smear tactic IS hardly an Ad hominem on my part. Next he will be trying to attribute HIS Intellectual Dishonesty to Rand, me... WhiteIndian's use of such was in place of where a refutation to Rand's and Mises AND their students works might have been leveled. I still have seen none. Lincoln, Sherman and Sheridan (Govt) do not come up in the Slavery and Native Indian genocide map for WhiteIndian. This is hardly Rand's fault for missing what is considered TODAY as Revisionist History! Instead of hiding behind this WhiteIndian "WE" Group-Band-Socialism with blame attributions for anything outside his world view (wrongly attributed as best I can tell): What is WhiteIndian going to do to free HIMSELF?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    This Hickman issue is actually one of the most favorite materials being used by Leftists--including WhiteIndian and his "We" Social Group/Band views--to discredit Ayn Rand AND short circuit the process of properly and intellectually refuting her philosophy of "I" The Self-ruled Individual. I have already dealt with some of these issues as they relate to Ad Hominem attacks being used by the Totalitarian Left against Ayn Rand: * Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan and the Illuminati plotted to rule the world; * Ayn Rand was an UnSociable rule-the-word sociopath/psychopath and her philosophy of Objectivism promotes fascism; * Ayn Rand lived on welfare while advocating against it; and was a fan of a child serial killer named William Hickman I cover some of the issues here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/was-ayn-rand-proto-fascist But what did the author-philosopher actually say about Hickman? In The Journals of Ayn Rand, she is clearly quoted: “[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.” There was clearly a context when Rand made her journal entry. Anyone who read her books would understand that the philosopher/writer is against initiation of force. She was morally against the crime Hickman committed and throughout her life, she advocated individual freedom and not collectivism. WhiteIndian's horrid criticisms of Rand/Mises bespeak a serious misunderstanding of her philosophy of Individualism in a division of labor society (remnant) and how they relate to current economic and political events playing out right now a la Greenspan, Bernanke and bureaucracy. Not the least WhiteIndian misconstrues libertarian philosophy and Rand's principles. It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html Grovelling at the Fed: Greenspan and Bernanke http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sheehan-f4.1.1.html WhiteIndian has said that he has all of Ayn Rands works (presumably he has read them) and he is witnessed agreeing with the Left and using its methods. For those smearing Rand as a lover of psycho-killers, by ignoring her qualifying comments is, I submit, intellectually dishonest. The Left’s Endless Smears Against Ayn Rand http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/the-left-smears-ayn-rand/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    I'm not leftist, (but thanks for caring enough to spew the very worst of Ad Hominem within your groupthink.) Both leftist and right-wing-nuts city-Statists like you aggressively enforce Gambol Lockdown against Non-State band and tribal lifeways. Your philosophy of "individualism" both twists and denies the nature of humans; it goes against observable reality, it blanks-out empirical data. Again, to reiterate what you're dodging and weaving around: 1. Humans are social animals, observable and corroborated with other science. Perhaps you've never heard of mirror neurons. They're in your brain. Yours might not work so well, but they're there. 2. In egalitarian Non-State societies, the human animal is observed to behave with altruism and empathy as a social animal, while simultaneously behaving as a "sovereign" (Service) who answers to no political hierarchy. Your defense of Rand is akin to a communist's defense of Marx, Lenin, or Stalin. I understand Rand *said* she defended individuals and wasn't racist. Fact is, she talked out the other side of her mouth and lauded genocide, and was quite the racist about her snarling support of the American Indian Holocaust by the collective invasion of city-Statism (civilization,) which she also supported. While talking out the other side of her mouth about how she hated the state. In real life, we call those contradictions. Within the cult, they're laboriously whitewashed. So what do you think of a person who speachifies at the Empire's military academy about how sweet it was to slaughter 90,000,000 people? And TAKE by force the Land they lived on. Yah, see, the city-STATIST RAND said it was ok to TAKE: "[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, US Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974 Stalin would have smiled on Rand's statement, since he did much the same, for much the same reason, to Non-State societies in Siberia.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Humans are observed to be social animals. "We" is a part of reality. (You know, that ol' A=A thingy. Unless you want to "blank-out" reality.) Fact: Humans have lived as social animals in bands or tribes for the last couple or three million years. Fact: This social animal did NOT live in a hierarchical State sociopolitical typology. We did live in egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies. Conclusion: your equivocation of "we" and "state" is without merit, and refuted by empirical data. Psychopaths have the same erratic view of "we" as libertarians tend to expatiate. It's not surprising; Ayn Rand based characters in her writing on a very real psychopath, William Hickman. Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman by Michael Prescott http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm ATLAS SHRIEKED: Ayn Rand’s First Love and Mentor Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls by Mark Ames http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-follower...
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    When it comes to FREEDOM, there is no “WE”. There really is only ONE person that you are capable of freeing and that is yourself. A person with the attitude of a slave cannot be free anywhere. THE CONTEXT of the statement is that when it comes to solving problems without using the Collective, the Government, the State (the WE), a person must adopt the ATTITUDE of an individual instead of a collective, one must think for himself/herself. For an example of switching from “WE” to “I”, Ayn Rand’s book “Anthem” comes to mind. Another example that springs to my mind is when the Lone Ranger says to Tonto “We are surrounded by hostile Indians. We are in real trouble.” and Tonto replies “What you mean ‘WE’, white man?” To elaborate on that example: Someone says that the State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, we are in real trouble, what are we going to do about it. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?” Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve enslaving other people. As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”. References: There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 3 years 19 weeks ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    Greetings Suverans2, We are in agreement concerning the misconscrewing of the author,Bork.IMHO. If that quote can be verified,one could not blame him for being off? Have you tried these? I've about exhausted my resources so i came back here. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/blackstone.asp http://librivox.org/commentaries-on-the-laws-of-england-by-william-black... http://thesecretpeople.wordpress.com/library/ p.s. i always read your postings and like what you have to say,along with a couple of other popular posters,i am learning bunches. Are you familiar with Verl K. Speer,you seem to be somewhat on the same page. http://commonlawjurisdiction.wordpress.com/
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    ~And then there are the undergrounds and loyalties of sub-culture markets. In the movie Joyeux Noel the military men and officers gave up on WWI for Christmas Day... A true story... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424205/ I should emphasize that the film is not confined to the extraordinary night and day of December 24–25, 1914. We are introduced to some of the characters before the conflict begins. We see how the war changes them. We also see how the officially unsanctioned truce changes them. Aside from its artistic merits, Joyeux Noël gets things right in the realm of ideas. It opens with scenes of three schoolboys, German, French and British, each reciting nationalistic pieties about the foreign devils who threaten his respective homeland. It ends with German troops on their way to the Eastern Front, humming a melody they learned from Scottish soldiers on Christmas Eve. What happens in between is the discovery that those doing the shooting and dying on one side don’t have any real quarrel with those doing the shooting and dying on the other side. Those familiar with the workings of the free market will have no trouble recognizing the "spontaneous order" that breaks out when soldiers from opposing sides exchange champagne for chocolate, share photographs of their wives and help one another bury their dead. http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/rosinger1.html ~I think that the "5000+" go-no-go-Agora criteria White Indian has brought up is a lump sum--arbitrary in many senses because it gets one all caught up in the "We" instead of seeing the many "I"'s that inhabit the crevices of topology maps and temporary zones of autonomy.... For someone who spends as much time as WhiteIndian on and in the Agora--market place--This agora in witnessed point of fact, while proclaiming (discounting) it as not finite enough; or a place to live; or a place to trade ideas. Well I hear you. Actually see your words and your Avatar. Although you are at once invisible you are also connected. And so there is Bitcoin, The Amish and The Wenchou model--In China but also replicated all over the world and Reagan of all people railing about the uber under market and then there is the Italian and Russian under markets. ~As for Ayn Rand too many see her hat on the coat rack and refuse to pick it up and look under it for a fellow thinker and innovator instead of a know-it-all, seeing-all-authority figure and model of ALL her own premises and illuminations not to mention those assumptions she personally missed, whilst uncovering and undoing centuries of rust infested canned philosophies... Happily there are students of Rand and Mises--Linda and Morris Tannehill, Thomas DiLorenzo, LewRockwell...--who have actually innovated and that innovation has brought such men as Ron Paul into the light for the young to see the Matrix/farm for what it is. As for the Zombies that hang out at ARI or SOLO with Leonard Peikoff, Michele Milken and such (warmongers). Gak! You have my sincere and heartfelt sympathies. John Stossel--objectivist--has come a long way. And John Stewart seems to have the makings of another George Carlin not to mention a Misean Economist . And Stephan Molyneux is another objectivist misean who is breath of fresh air. References: Best Bitcoin Ad http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pV9ptoCMyc A little about the Amish...(They are not Luddites although they appear to be) http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer146.html Anarchy and Agoras...Welcome to Wenzhou, where the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, and people are busy creating their own economic miracle. http://www.bradleymgardner.com/2011/11/16/wenzhou-chinas-black-market-city/ It is at times useful to imagine how a truly laissez-faire society, one entirely emancipated from the shackles of state coercion, might exist and operate. Morris and Linda Tannehill examine this very idea in The Market for Liberty: Is Government Really Necessary? These laissez faire ideas were culled from Rand and Mises. http://mises.org/resources/6058 # Dagny Taggart Confronts the Union http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-dw&feature=g-vrec&context=G2421b... # Dagny Confronts James http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzke3JW8O8 # Rearden Metal is not for sale http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jLbGSngRE&NR=1&feature=endscreen # I Hate Ron Paul (Sarcasm intended) http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/100854.html # Re: Presidential Paul Nails Leno Show http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/101002.html # Ron Paul discusses Ayn Rand http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 Finally Hamilton, Lincoln, Sherman fit the bill of a proto-fascist military police state and Thomas Dilorenzo and LewRockwell.com does a great job uncovering that and how that brought us to where we are today. http://www.strike-the-root.com/was-ayn-rand-proto-fascist
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 3 years 19 weeks ago Web link Pete_Eyre
    Just because people don't totally lose their humanity and empathy in a prison setting does not mean they're still not in prison. Libertarian types point to prisoners trading trinkets to plush up their prison cells and call the walls "private property" and the frantic whoring of themselves to more powerful others so they don't starve inside the walls a "free" market. I still call city-Statism (civilization) a prison, which rather upsets those with the plushest cells and fear of living outside the walls of their own minds. And there's not much difference between a communist prison or a capitalist prison. Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest? MARX: NO! MISES: NO! You're just part of the Marx-Mises Axis of Gambol Lockdown against a Non-State society lifeway of gathering food without paying any other person.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 19 weeks ago
    Never Volunteer
    Page Paul Hein
    G'day Darkcrusade, Here http://www.pacinlaw.org/pdf/Sovereigns_without_Subjects.pdf on page one is where I found the quote. It is on the foundation of this quote, by the way, that causes the author, IMO, to misconstrue the verbiage of Chisolm v Georgia. Here is an online version of William Blackstone's Commentaries http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/ but I have yet to locate the quote, because the search engine for this version of the Commentaries leaves much to be desired. I am in the process of trying to contact LB Bork to ask for his assistance in this matter. G'day LB Bork, In your treatise Sovereigns without Subjects your quote, on the first page, I have been unable to verify. I have an online version of William Blackstone's Commentaries but the search engine for it isn't the best. If you could tell me which Book and Chapter it can be found in, it would be most helpful. Thank you in advance for your time and effort.