Recent comments

  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 33 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Suverans2 -- it isn't "my" government and of course it didn't create the air; of course it isn't "in charge" of the air (except by its own rules), and it didn't say to the air "I demand that you be of a higher quality." None of that is anything I said, or believe. Really: what are you thinking? My point was simple: I observe that the air is a lot cleaner in So. Cal than it was in the late 1960s, and pollution controls are the main reason why. Again, simple observation. As I pointed out, government didn't have to be the agent pushing to make this happen, but it was. I'd rather it was a UL-like group, or a consumer group, or a pro-health group, or (more likely) a coalition of many voluntary groups that wanted to be able to breathe the air without choking on it. To be clear: I like clean air. I'd also rather that government wasn't involved in the process of getting and keeping the air clear, but that doesn't mean I'll ignore what actually happened. Oh -- and yes, of course persons are individual people; groups -- be that governments, corporations, or whatever -- are not.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    A good TED talk on the differences between liberals and conservatives follows: Jonathan Haidt on the moral roots of liberals and conservatives http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind.html Within a group of humans respecting their neurobiological social limits, known as Dunbar's Number, left and right are like legs that help each other out. Neither personality styles are more morally right or wrong, they just are, and both have great strengths. Only in the mass society of the agricultural city-State must we endure standing on one leg, or the other, for extended periods of time, until we get tired of it, and revolt to the other leg. Humans are Pleistocene band animals, and we just aren't adapted to mass society, any more than dolphins would be if dolphins had a massive industrial hierarchy, instead of having fun in small pods.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Indeed, we have "painted ourselves into a corner." But, agriculture isn't here to stay. The soil is like a bank, and agriculture is like printing fiat money and deficit spending. Agriculture turned the thick Cedar Forests of Mesopotamia into the Iraqi desert. Half the topsoil of the Midwest has been lost in only a few short years. But the civilizations centered in those regions had a grand ol' time -- while it lasted -- spending their grandchildren's soil inheritance. Collapse of fiat money is certain; collapse of agriculture is certain. Both for the same reason -- the rule of diminishing returns. Neither are sustainable, because both are deliberately trying to cheat reality.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Empirical data demonstrates that there is always a State in an agricultural city-Statist (civilization) sociopolitical typology. Show me a society with settlements of roughly 5000+ that doesn't have State level politics, and I might regard your anarcho-capitalist fantasies with a little more respect. Anarcho-capitalism is just that - an immature fantasy, on the level of the rest of your scatological and infantile discourse.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    The word "conservative" has become as meaningless and self-contradictory as the word "liberal", so I refrain from using it any more, unadorned with double quotes. And this applies from the top of the ruling class to the bottom.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Actually, there are farmers who actually enjoy farming. I am sympathetic to your view here, but there is one little problem now. We have painted ourselves into a corner. The Pleistocene existence can support on the order of 6 million humans on this planet, not 6 billion. Looks like agriculture is here to stay, for that reason alone.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "To secede is to quietly go your own way." I like this way of looking at it.
  • Steve's picture
    Steve 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Repudiation--the answer to odious debt.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Thank you, Darkcrusade. "There are indeed certain arbitrary customs used among civilized nations. But, if a sovereign think fit to give full and due notice that he does not intend to observe them, he can only be blamed at most for a want of courtesy and liberality, provided he do not violate any principle of natural law. But it is no doubt best to observe those customs and in general it would be a violation of natural law to disregard them without giving full and due notice to the other party. It is evident however that they cannot be considered as laws."
  • emartin's picture
    emartin 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Where did you get the idea that there would be a "state" or an "officer" to answer to in an anarcho-capitalist environment? If you were to habitually gambol through and destroy portions of a corn patch, orchard, etc or shit on a lawn that I've nurtured and claimed for my own, I may recommend therapy before I go to the age old remedy of treating you like any other varmint. Furthermore, don't be masturbating in front of my kids.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 2 years 34 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    http://books.google.com/books?id=nS4ZAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA68&ots=tSTxVlbp7J&dq... Three pages on The Law.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    I look at most -isms much the same. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Fascism. Even libertarianism or anarcho-capitalism or agorism or syndicalism. All of them reveal their agricultural city-Statist nature with one question: Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest to live a Non-State society's lifeway? All of these political flavors of agricultural city-Statism (civilization) have the same answer: NO!
  • painkilleraz's picture
    painkilleraz 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Great article, agreed on all counts
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Right on target Scott. At least the socialists admit they want to use the state to steal from others to pay for their "needs". Conservatives pretend to be against socialism until their pet "needs" must be funded by others and then they say "of course" the state must provide them. Further proof that conservatives have no real principles.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    No historical examples had the Internet. Clearly, communication is important to the issues we are talking about. Cynicism is not uncalled for, but one can go overboard with it, or be immobilized by it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "In Indigenous societies, we are told that Natural Law is the highest law, higher than the laws made by nations, states, municipalities and the world bank. That one would do well to live in accordance with Natural Law, with those of our Mother [the Earth]." ~ Winona LaDuke, of the Mississippi Band of the Anishinaabe of the White Earth Reservation, Minnesota
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "I like "indomitus" as a word for "not part of YOUR system." Or "not enslaved." It is Latin for "savage" but it carries these other meanings." ~ AtlasAikido A good word, AtlasAikido. Another English synonym for indomitus is untamed; how appropriate, and here's a little something to go along with that, from Noah Webster. "The savages of America, when uncorrupted by the vices of civilized men, are remarkable for their hospitality to strangers, and for their truth, fidelity and gratitude to their friends, but implacably cruel and revengeful towards their enemies. From this last trait of the savage character, the word came to signify."
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    This, Atlas, is an excellent response to the naysayers of freedom. How many there are of us who cannot grasp the idea that we do not need to build a free society. We simply need to be free ourselves. I think I'd like to rephrase that: I simply need to be free myself. All too often when blogging about "freedom" I find myself wanting to use the most dangerous word in the world: "we". And as your last sentence says, (using my own words) "...if it's going to be it's up to me..." I can't speak for you. But I can learn from you. And you can learn from me. That's what STR is all about. I think the thesis you've laid out for us above is what gave rise to my use of the term, "...I am a sovereign state..." We've had some argumentation back and forth over the white man's legalese, and I've certainly had some challenges over that declaration even from freemen I truly respect. But it simply means, as Bill Bupert indicated in the "zerogov" essay you linked at the end of your well-thought-out reply: I'm not sure how "society" -- or even you -- or even me for that matter -- will pan out under "freedom". Trial and error may be the game plan some days. But the responsibility for my freedom resides with me and me only. The hallmark of the white man seems to be obfuscation -- using lots of words to camouflage lack of knowledge or understanding. Wouldn't it be simpler and more honest to say, "I don't know"? Speaking of hallmarks, I believe honesty must be one of the badges of freedom. I don't know. Sam
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Thank you for your good wishes. The good news is that individual secession has nothing to do with "income-tax evasion", and it is not "weird[ly] hyper-legalistic[ly] technical". I am also very aware that just because a man is not a member of a gang, that it does not mean that gang members will not attack him and rob him occasionally, it mainly means that he does not wish to partake of their plunder and that he is not subject to their peculiar laws. At this time, (while the PTB are still pretending to be governing by the "rule of law"), it is relatively successful, (read that peaceful), for me and my woman, but all bets are off once 'they' declare martial law, which, by the way, I believe 'they' are close to doing, because 'they' can feel how close 'they' are to a "slave-revolt".
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "Well, you're being a bit presumptuous yourself. The government isn't my "masters" or "gang" anymore that it is for you." ~ WhiteIndian I apologize, I presumed from your self-proclaimed belief; "...the best I can do, for now, while inside the prison of civilization, is to unschool and rewild and survive the inescapable prison sentence of city-Statism", that you had not formally "withdrawn from membership" in the "gang", and that you used a chattel number (U.S.) to obtain benefits.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Good luck with that; I hope it works out. But I've observed a long line of failures with legalistic "sovereign citizen" strategies, particularly with not paying income tax to the IRS, and people in the movement blaming those who get their lives ruined for all kinds of weird hyper-legalistic technical mistakes. And then it comes to this realization: if freedom is a complicated legal puzzle where you're sparring with Evil Empire all the time, you're probably not all that free from the point of a dispassionate outside anthropological observer.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Thank you for your polite and patient reply, Sam. I'll not take up any more of your time debating with you, my friend, other than to say that I hope you, (and anyone else who may be reading this), understand that a "declaration of independence", is not a "treaty" or "agreement" of any kind, and it does not require anyone's "approval"; it is what it is, an "(law) unsworn statement that can be admitted in evidence in a legal transaction", and nothing more. In this particular case, it is a "manifest proclamation[1]" that lawfully rebuts their "presumption in law" that I am a citizen/subject. _____________________________________________________________________ [1] Manifest. Evident to the senses, especially to the sight, obvious to the understanding, evident to the mind, not obscure or hidden, and is synonymous with open, clear, visible, unmistakable, indubitable, indisputable, evident and self-evident. ... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 962
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    "Do you really think that claim will change their behavior?" It already has, on many occasions, with both kinds of agents, leo's and judges. Oh, and it must be more than a mere "claim"; anyone claiming that they have "withdrawn from membership" will be investigated, and those making false-claims are, without a doubt, reprimanded harshly.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I've got and have read all the deceptive and fantastical "Agorist" literature. The "Agora" was an open "place of assembly" in ancient Greek city-STATES...free-born male land-owners who were citizens would gather in the Agora for MILITARY duty or to hear statements of the RULING king or council. (wiki) See what the "Agorist" evangelicals left out? Oh sure, later, the Agora also served as a marketplace. (wiki) The "Agorist" premise is false, and they have overlooked some simple facts of empirical observation: • Humans never have had, and never will have, settlements of 5000+ (civilization) without hierarchical State-level politics. • Hierarchy begins above 150-500 population as a non-egalitarian chiefdom (the proto-State.) • Formation of hierarchy is related to neurobiological evolution in the concept of "Dunbar's Number." It's not sin. It's not corruption. It's a neurobiological limit related to brain size. • Domestication and agriculture are the primary behavior that lead to increased violence, cannibalism, sacrifice, famine, subjugation of women, war in culture after culture. Agorism is going to work at saving the world about as soon as that famous zombie is going to rapture the elect to heaven. Both of the salvationist hopes to escape the hell of the agricultural city-State (civilization) are founded on false premises. Agorists wants to magically have the agricultural city-State, without the oppressive political hierarchy. It won't happen any sooner than animated corpses can be conjured. The State is an integral and inseparable part of the cultural package of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    No offense taken, no offense intended -- particularly toward you. My use of the bullying term "traipsing" was shooting from the hip, I'm afraid. Which is necessary at times -- particularly when dealing with the white man. He has proven from the beginning of his history that one must never, ever attempt to make any type of a "treaty" or "agreement" with him. That accounts for my adamancy that I have not "declared" anything to the white man. To secede is to quietly go your own way. As you have so aptly put it: Your "gang" can kick my ass every day, but that does not make me a member of your "gang". I became sovereign -- not so much from him as of him. Mull that distinction in terms over for a moment. Glad to see your use of "so-called forefathers". The men at the head of that group had a hankering to rule. They resented the old gangsters from across the ocean doing the ruling (even though their filching was miniscule compared to the larceny of the progeny of "our" forefathers). Like Ron and Rand Paul, Pete Schiff and some of the others today vying for political one-upsmanship, a few of them were (apparently) honest and sincere men. But they wanted to take the reins of "government" when the vast majority of the poor sheep who eventually fell in line were doing okay and being responsible for themselves and their families and their growing communities without cancerous central government. Sovereignty means I am responsible for my own protection, my own sustenance, my own contracts and agreements, and the relationships I maintain with friends and family. That would include you.. I made my declaration of sovereignty to my Representative -- who is responsible for the rotation of the earth on its axis. So my Representative is also important to you, I might add. 'Nuff ranting for tonite. Sam.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Yes, it is frustrating that a good word like "no king" in Greek (an-archon) has been destroyed by past association with statist collectivism and initiatory force. And it is frustrating that a system of privately owned resources and free markets could be described by a word like capitalism, except for the long-standing association of that word with cronyism and fascism—the marriage of big government to big business. Nor is it pleasant to suppose that a system of putting people before power structures described by a word like socialism has been associated with statism and power structures to the detriment of people. But why fret about some words? There are plenty of other words. Or you can invent a new one. I like "indomitus" as a word for "not part of YOUR system." Or "not enslaved." It is Latin for "savage" but it carries these other meanings. And we can make it mean what we want to.---I like the word "agorism" because it comes with 95 theses, it has a nice ring to it, it hasn't been connected to statism or initiatory force, and it seems like our best path forward.-----Whatever you choose to do, worrying about what labels are used to describe what you do seems like the last thing to do. In general, worry is a wasted emotion. But this sort of fixation on words is a sort of idolatry. As if getting just the right words were going to fix everything. They won't. The good news is, we don't have to treat words as though they were a scarce world resource. They aren't. New words are invented every day. State socialism is evil whether you call it capitalism or socialism. Statism is evil whether you identify it with the right or the left. Anarchy is almost certainly a botched word because of its association with chaos and bomb throwing. Socialism is almost certainly a botched word because of its association with state ownership of everything. Capitalism is almost certainly a botched word because of its association with cronyism and fascism. One of the reasons I like "agorism" so well is that it is not tainted by association with a lot of past indiscretions by people who had their heads firmly stuck in their own rectums. But, look, type the word "agorism" on your Facebook status, or in a comment, and your computer probably identifies it as misspelt, *depending on your browser and whether you've added this word to your dictionary*. It is a new word. Where did it come from? It comes from the word "agora" which is Greek for market place and forum or gathering place. It was used by Samuel Edward Konkin III (SEK3) to identify his economic and political philosophy of withdrawal from... There is no magical incantation of just the proper words that is going to cause everyone on the planet to embrace individual liberty, private property, free markets, and lay the foundation for ending the state, freeing the slaves, and stopping the wars. We're going to do those things, and we'll do them using whatever words work with a particular audience. It isn't rational to worship words as though they were going to be our salvation. We should find the ideas that work and use whatever words we need to convey those into each mind we encounter. After all, every individual is different, and worthy of whatever words are needed to shine the ligth. One size does not fit all. Paraphrased from Word Idolatry http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle563-20100328-03.html In closing, freedom has no system, and it never will. Billions of humans making trillions of decisions could never be harnessed or thoroughly theorized by even the most brilliant voluntaryist thinkers or free market economists. I try not to use the term, “free market system” anymore, because humans trading goods and services is not a system, it’s what humans do. I have abandoned the use of the word “system” completely. Of course, some of the more logical folks out there might say that having no system is a system. Well, for those of you who would say that and discard this whole essay, I would ask you this…. Is there a difference between those who seek to build a system, and those who only seek to build? Objectivist-Anarchist-Agorist-Autodidact students have stood on Rand's, AND Mises and Thoreau's shoulders to make breakthrus based on their work...And now their students are standing on their students shoulders--Samuel Edward Konkin III and Jim Davidson, and Chris Dates--to make new break thrus... There is No We: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    First, altruism isn't sacrifice, no matter how Rand twists words. Consult a dictionary. Then consult scholarly scientific research on altruism, especially related to evolutionary biology. (Yes, I know what Rand said; I've got her books, including "The Virtue of Selfishness," along with much of the rest of the libertarian canon in my library.) Second, sacrifice (and cannibalism) is solely associated with domestication and agriculture (which resulted in city-Statism (civilization.)) Non-State egalitarian bands and tribal foragers, whom Ayn Rand and most other city-Statists denigrate, never practiced sacrifice. That leaves Rand and company, promoting agricultural city-Statism (civilization) while attributing the sacrifice and cannibalism observed in agricultural hierarchies to primitive Non-State foraging tribes who never practiced it.* "Check your premises." She would have done well to take her own advice. She got so much so wrong; empirical data debunks many of the false assumptions upon which objectivism, libertarianism, an-caps, agorists, etc. base their philosophy. _____________ A couple good, and easily available-on-line references to back up my assertion, filled with scholarly references in which you can dig deeper, regarding sacrifice, cannibalism, and violence, and their rise with domestication, agriculture, and finally the agricultural city-state (civilization) is as follows: Future Primitive John Zerzan http://www.primitivism.com/future-primitive.htm The Thirty Theses Jason Godesky http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/index.html
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Well, you're being a bit presumptuous yourself. The government isn't my "masters" or "gang" anymore that it is for you. You, me, or anybody else in the agricultural city-State (civilization) live under a hierarchy enforced by daily violence. If you see a cop's lights come on behind you, you will pull over. If you don't, you'll eventually get caught, get arrested, and possibly go to jail. Good luck with telling the cops you've "seceded." Do you really think that claim will change their behavior? Whether or not you recognize such hierarchy legally or morally, it's there. It's real. And you'll behave accordingly, and so will the enforcers of hierarchy, from the point of view of a dispassionate anthropological viewer.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    And, you are a bit presumptuous. You don't even know me. You also, evidently, misread what I wrote, I do not "wish to secede". Here is what I wrote: I am what I say I am, not what you and/or your master, the STATE, say I am. I do not consent to be a member of your "gang" [body politic]. Your "gang" can kick my ass every day, but that does not make me a member of your "gang". Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act. I have seceded, whether you and/or your master(s) "legally" recognize it or not.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Monsters incubated and propagated by Govt have everything to do with the practice of altruism (sacrifice) and nothing to do with the man who neither sacrifices himself to others nor sacrifices others to himself. The anti-concept definition of selfish is accepted as its actual meaning. The idea of a truly selfish man is not part of our culture... I don't hold Ayn Rand responsible for uncritical zombies--and certainly not sociopaths--nor those who will not help themselves and smoke cigarettes just because Rand smoked. Such have been with us a long time. And they will even join up and perhaps assimilate the unwary with package deals... Selfishness...is so alien an idea in our culture that Rand dedicated an entire book to dissolving misconceptions about its meaning and extolling its virtues (The Virtue of Selfishness). And while some are uncritical, more and more of her Objectivist-Anarchist-Agorist-Autodidact students have stood on Rand's, AND Mises and Thoreau's shoulders to make breakthrus based on their work... Some Examples: "Objectivist Resistance to Anarchy: A Problem of Concept Formation?” Column by new Root Striker Carrie Burdzinski. http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/burdzinski/burdzinski1.html Even though her description of Galt's Gulch is a functional anarchy (no rulers), Rand abhorred what she thought of as "anarchy" and she explicitly embraced the idea of minimal government. HOWEVER, as George H Smith points out "...Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds". “IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM” http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html Stephan Molyneux's Handbook to Statist.."In the interests of efficiency, I have decided to distill every argument I have ever had with your average statist, so that I can hand it out to *those who argue that government is voluntary*, if I don't like it I can leave, taxation is not violence, etc... http://www.strike-the-root.com/72/molyneux/molyneux4.html Morris and Linda Tannehill's "The Market for Liberty" Book review--Freedom Naturally http://alpha.mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally Making it possible to see thru the political myths men have lived by since Neolithic times. Making it possible to understand that liberty is the mother of order not its daughter and that If revolution comes by violence and advance of light the struggle will have to be begun again. http://mises.org/resources/6058 Walter Block and Wendy McElroy at Mises.com and LewRockwell.com 238. Lew Rockwell Attacked By a Parasite On December 2, 2011, In Podcast, By admin Standard Podcast Ron Smith talks to Lew Rockwell until a federal employee intervenes. http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2011/12/02/238-lew-rockwell-... Doug Casey--Fresh Starts http://lewrockwell.com/casey/casey100.html And of course myself....
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    G'day Sam, You wrote: If by "withdrawn consent" you mean traipsing down to a court or state house or other government compound and making a scene with the white man -- no, I have not (thankfully). But I did declare sovereignty. At that time I became an individual, independent state residing within an occupied "nation" (that's what they like to call themselves -- a "family of nations"). First, I must have offended you, because I feel your use of the word "traipsing" was intended to demean; not your usual style. I mean, would you say that the so-called forefathers of the United States went "traipsing" to King George to declare their independence? Would you also consider it "traipsing" if, say, you presumed that I had stolen something of yours, (because virtually all the circumstantial evidence pointed towards me), and I went to you to officially rebut that presumption, i.e. to manifestly declare my innocence? If I have offended you, it was not intended, and I apologize. Next, if you would be so kind, how do you define "sovereignty"? I can only hope that this, "Sovereignty means I recognize just who is the real enemy," is not your actual "definition" of sovereignty, my friend. And, lastly, it would be interesting to know who, or what, did you "declare sovereignty" to? Thank you, Sam.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I guess you have to be 95 to avoid TSA humiliation. Or is that 105?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    I have a hypothesis that reading Ayn Rand novels and Objectivist/Libertarian Literature whereby one learns to deliberately suppress empathy and altruism has much the same effect as these violent video games upon the brain. Psychopaths have much the same MRI results as observed in the article. Current science considers psychopathy an "organic" brain "malfunction," but I wonder how much of it is just an adaptation to the hyper-aggressive and violent nature of agricultural city-Statism, especially the intense industrial civilization that is destroying the home planet and human health and well-being (save for the few at the top of the hierarchy who benefit.)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    "Civil liberties" is an oxymoron. Agricultural city-Statism (Civil-ization) is a deliberate Prison of domesticated plants and domesticated animals, including the human Pleistocene band animal. Just because you have a plush "private" cell and "Prison Liberties" negotiated with the hierarchical elite wardens, doesn't mean you're anything close to free. Yet talking about the civi/prison walls, or even suggesting that they're collapsing from rot, really upsets most people in the "liberty" movement. They merely want incremental changes, like prison guards who will treat them with respect, a "privatized" mess hall, "privatized" prison janitors, and private prison cells instead of group dorms. Libertarian types are mostly in favor of the prison itself. It's their comfort, its the only life they know. They want the walls. It's sort of like Stockholm Syndrome.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    If by "withdrawn consent" you mean traipsing down to a court or state house or other government compound and making a scene with the white man -- no, I have not (thankfully). But I did declare sovereignty. At that time I became an individual, independent state residing within an occupied "nation" (that's what they like to call themselves -- a "family of nations"). Does that mean agents of state or their dangerously armed and costumed predator enforcers became less pains in the ass to me?? No. A robber and a thief is a pain in the ass. For years we've all expended certain resource on locks for our doors and cars, burglar alarms, etc. But that was for the non-government pain-in-the-ass. S/he's the easy gangster with which to deal. The government parasite will send his henchmen in war-surplus armored trucks en-mass, batter your door down with a "no-knock mandate", shoot your dogs and anybody who they suspect doesn't show proper submissiveness, without fear of reprisal -- and will never worry about having made an error. Whatever "judge" they might appear before is paid out of the same booty-bag. Sovereignty means I recognize just who is the real enemy. It stops me from getting excited about going out and "voting" for a Ron Paul or a Peter Schiff, nice guys both. The sovereign man knows these "nice" sociopaths are still sociopaths (if indeed they have a desire to "win" a white man's election to "serve" Leviathan). The sovereign man knows the beast will not be tamed by a man or men. So he can concentrate upon living in freedom and helping friends and family declare freedom for themselves. Sam .
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    If you're an evolved Pleistocene band animal on home planet Mother Earth, whom we call a human being, it has to do with you. You don't even know that nature of the beast from which you wish to secede. Better get interested in empirical observation and inductive logic from facts, not deductive libertarian-thinkery based on demonstrably false premises.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    As interesting as all this is, it has nothing to do with a self-governing individual secessionist like me. And, although I would agree that there are "many [who] dissent", i.e. I can't seem to find any others who have, in truth, withdrawn consent, notwithstanding I do find quite a few who claim that they have never consented.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago
    Enron, Ten Years Later
    Web link Westernerd
    The foremost big-government regulation(1) of the agricultural city-State (civilization) is a Land enTITLEment program that restricts the free movement of Non-State society families to gambol about plain and forest(2) to forage (gather and hunt) as sovereign individuals.(3) Who wants Gambol Lockdown deregulation? Certainly not the Mises-Marx axis of agricultural city-Statists. Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest? MARX: NO! MISES: NO! ____________________ (1) "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73 (2) "Gamboling about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.24 (3) "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders. Nor are they routinely exploited by outsiders." ~Elman Service, NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES, http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    The title "Political Society v. Civil Society" is interesting to disect, because it conveys as little as "blue vs. azure." The Polis, (with it's POLITics) = city-State = CIVI-lization. The words "civil" and "civilized" are merely self-congratulatory words used by agricultural city-Statists. Brutal POLITics is how the megaPOLIS' "CIVI-lized" city-slickers roll.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I appreciate your sentiments; many dissent and do not consent to agricultural city-statism's virtual prison lockdown on 99% of our home planet's surface. The problem I see with the sovereign movement, -- constitutionalist, libertarian, an-cap, or other flavors -- is that they imagine that some "pure" form of government within the agricultural city-state (civilization) that isn't brutally aggressive can be somehow conjured. They call it limited government, pure capitalism, constitutional government, privatized defense associations, etc. They would be as deluded. An integrated study of neurobiology, biological evolution, anthropology, and archeology will show that humans not only have not formed such a fantastical organization, it is most likely humans cannot, about as likely as conjuring an animated corpse. Most libertarian/anarchist literature, while expressing sentiments for a return to the freedom we humans lost with civilization -- and I share in that -- ignores significant empirical data obtained in the last 50 years, and is based on many false premises, thus leading Mises, Rand, etc. to significant errors. The most telling error is that libertarian types swallow is the Hobbesian mythology, which is a fabricated apology for city-statism. "Nasty, brutish, and short" has been discredited by empirical data; the more accurate view is "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins) In conclusion, I now judge libertarianism as a secular salvationist hope to escape the horrors of agricultural civilization, much like Christianity seeks to escape the curse of agricultural civilization in Heaven.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    G'day Sam, Found a great quote in Abstain From Beans. "Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right." Thanks.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I am what I say I am, not what you and/or your master, the STATE, say I am. I do not consent to be a member of your "gang" [body politic]. Your "gang" can kick my ass every day, but that does not make me a member of your "gang". Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus. An act done by me against my will, is not my act.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Oh, you're a member. Not willingly, of course, but you are a member. There is no "sovereign individual" in the agricultural city-State (civilization.) The agricultural city-State (civilization) sits atop mountains of skulls. It's not interested in your ideas about how it's laws do not apply to you. The only individual sovereignty is found in an egalitarian (non-hierarchical) Non-State sociopolitical typology (bands or tribes.) "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and SOVEREIGN. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders. Nor are they routinely exploited by outsiders." NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES, adapted from Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton. http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Your government, Glen Allport, did not create air, it is therefore not "in charge" of the air, or even "air quality". "IT" does not say, to the air, "I demand that you be of a higher quality". As in all things, it is "in charge" of that which it has created, which includes artificial persons[1], such as citizen/subjects and corporations. ____________________________________________________ [1] Artificial persons. Persons created and devised by human laws for the purposes of...government, as distinguished from natural persons. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 113 [Emphasis and bracketed information added] NATURAL PERSONS. Such as are formed by nature [and therefore are subject to the "natural law of the human world"], as distinguished from artificial persons, [such as citizens] or corporations, formed by human laws for purposes of society and government. Wharton. ~ A Dictionary of the Law (Black’s 1st c. 1891), pg. 802 [Emphasis and bracketed information added]
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I agree, the minarchists are deluding themselves. There is no "mini" State. But the anarcho-capitalists are deluding themselves too. There is no "voluntary city." The "State" (government) is a necessary and integral part of the cultural package of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) Wherever there is POLIS (city-State) there is going to be POLICe and POLITics. That's the way city slickers roll. "When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe." ~Thomas Jefferson
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Ah, right, the % sign does add a couple zeros to correct my math calculation and make you one of a kind on the home planet! One of 7 billion humans mass-produced by agricultural city-Statism to serve as cannon fodder and a labor pool for the hierarchical elite. "In fact, the only thing that necessitates a large population is hierarchy itself. Hierarchy requires large pools of labor to provide for the nobility, and large populations that can be levied into large armies with which hierarchy can expand." Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil. by Jason Godesky | 21 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I've heard all of the catechism, (and I've got most of the libertarian canon, having once considered myself "libertarian/ancap" TRUE® Capitalism believer.) But you're whitewashing the aggression necessary to sustain any agricultural city-Statism (civilization,) whether Communism or Capitalism. Both left and right city-Statist government schemes rely on big-government enforced regulation of the Land, drawing artificial borders to restrict the free movement of free families to live a Non-State society's lifeways. (Service) Agricultural city-Statists must prevent people from natural ways of foraging for food. When the system controls and locks up the food,(Quinn) people are starved into submission; otherwise, nobody will work in the agricultural city-Statist's factories. (Bordosi) Stalin was just as eager to wipe-out tribal societies and force integration into agricultural city-Statism (civilization) as Ayn Rand, who stated to US Army West Point graduates in 1974: "[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." Hers is a bald-faced apology for genocidal mass-murder. Still, Libertarians typically try to wriggle out of the inherent violence of the system by claiming that the aggression was all in the past during the Invasion of Turtle Island. But the aggression remains in this occupation. The aggression is revealed with one simple question: Officer, am I free to "gambol about plain and forest?" (Manning) The answer from the Marx-Mises axis of agricultural city-Statism is: MARX: NO! MISES: NO! It takes lots of guns to invade and mass-murder Non-State society and make that "no" stick every day of the city-Statist occupation. ___________________ References (in order used) • Many people living in non-state societies enjoy lifeways that a number of Americans seem intent on reinventing - such as close association with the land, small group size, and emphasis on oral traditions. NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES by Elman Service http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf • You’ll know you’re among the people of your culture if the food is all owned, if it’s all under lock and key. But food was once no more owned than the air or the sunshine are owned. No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key—and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because if the food wasn’t under lock and key, who would work? ~A Condensation of Daniel Quinn Thought Food Under Lock and Key http://www.lejournalmural.be/english-antilibrary/gorilla-content.html • Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not...Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs. ~Dr. Ralph Bordosi This Ugly Civilization http://www.schoolofliving.org/Borsodi/This_Ugly_Civilization.pdf • 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 http://www.amazon.com/Against-Grain-Agriculture-Hijacked-Civilization/dp...
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    My "1%" statement to your essay is simply a declaration of freedom. I am sovereign -- a free state within an occupied "nation". Tzo's miniscule percent of a percent may be more realistic. And White Indian's calculation that tzo is one of 500 on earth may indeed represent a reasonable assessment of just how many truly "free" individuals there are in this world occupied by agents of state and supporters thereof (albeit reluctant supporters in most instances). Your essay, Glen, was good, well put together, statistically verified and informative. You put a lot of hard work into it, and I respect you for that. You obviously see agents of state for the predators they are. But alas, your solution turns out to be political. We've had lengthy and exhaustive threads here as recently as a month or two ago dealing with "mini" statism and the Ron Paul campaign. My studies indicate mini statism is akin to mini pregnancy. As a father of 7, grandfather of 24, and great grandfather of many; well, I can tell you something about mini pregnancies. I would not hesitate to turn the delivery of my children -- now grandchildren and great grandchildren -- over to Dr. Ron Paul. I know him and Mrs. Paul personally (have children and grandchildren actively working in his "campaign" for Grand Wizard). Government elections do not engender honesty. Dr. Paul is honest. He is not electable. I support Dr Paul's return to doctoring, which is an honest profession. Abstain from beans. Sam
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    This was a wonderful and particularly accurate depiction of the state of civilization in this horrible train-wreck of a society, which has departed in every way possible from its overt excuse for existence. The anachronistic and silly observations of WhiteIndian above are an example of the intellectual product of arrested cases of development. His assumption is that were are to somehow revere the Greeks! What silliness. The Framers themselves looked with horror upon both Greece and Rome -- and with good reason. In his abject worship of the Greek Polis and its absurd civilization, he must assume that we revere the very people who forced the hemlock on Socrates and destroyed their own civilization from inside-out by bankrupting it on building projects and imposing dominion on its neighbors -- thus increasing the bankruptcy! I suppose if one wishes to model the dysfunctional behaviors of the Greeks, the absurd and criminal miscreants in Washington, D.C. can be said to be the re-enactors of de-civilization. And to address the actual topic of your article -- something that the swerving intellect of WhiteIndian was unable to do -- Alex, you have reminded us of the parallel paths that democracy took in Germany and is now imitating in the USSA. We now have two systems of courts -- one that pretends to hold sway (with habeus corpus and the rest of the legal framework) and the other that mimics the infamous "people's courts" of Nazi Germany (the off-the-books, secret, torturing, extra-judicial kangaroo courts and assassinations that are used to sweep away people that the government would like to silence lest the booboisie be stampeded away from its devotion to shopping). Bravo, Alex, for reminding us that -- as my friend Tim once said to me about those who want to wear a uniform in a plunder-based society of coercion: "Larry, you know what's wrong with cops? They wanted to be cops."
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 34 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Actually, just 1 (move two more decimal places for the %-sign).