Recent comments

  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian: Try to dialog with Tzo. You totally failed to address his cogent argument. Or do you just keep saying the same thing over and over again in different ways no matter what anyone interjects? Comeon!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Tzo, you're the ace! Excellent argument. Ironically, by WhiteIndian's standard of basing all assessments only on observations of past behavior, he would have agreed with the white racists who were religious apologists for slavery. Their argument was that the "facts" had proven that the white man should dominate the black man who was among the cursed of God. They looked to their domination as proof of their fitness to rule -- a kind of riff on the ideas of Max Weber by which successful protestants in Europe supposedly (Max was stretching it) had proven that they had "earned" their salvation because their success showed it. Oh, brother! Message to WhiteIndian: get off the technology-dictates-reality-philosophy-of-Marx schtick!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Libertarians always misconstrue egalitarianism. Egalitarianism isn't "equal results." It's equal sociopolitical power, a lack of power structures. Only in an egalitarian society is a human completely free to act as a sovereign individual, and that is exactly what anthropologists observe. "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with litde or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders." NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf Egalitarianism isn't a "childish construct." There are whole volumes written about evolutionary biology and how egalitarianism developed in humans. So right there is one of your false premises. And you're misconstruing my previous statement. There are not unlimited resources in the world, anybody knows that. But the world is naturally abundant, so abundant that paleolithic people have to work only a fraction of the time civilized people work. It was the Original Affluent Society. Regarding division of labor, which Austrian types hold in high esteem: A professional violence class was one of the very first divisions of labor.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    It's not just because history shows 100% of agricultural city-States have State level politics, although that is a plenty good evidence all by itself. The POLIS (city-State) always has its POLICe. There are other corroborating reasons, some as follows: 1. Anthropologists and archeologists have documented that as group size approaches and goes over Dunbar's Number, egalitarianism is replaced by hierarchy. Ethnologists divide human societies into 4 main sociopolitical typologies, as follows: NON-STATE societies • band (egalitarian, small) • tribe (egalitarian, supra-band) • chiefdom (hierarchical, domestication, sacrifice, proto-State) STATE society • civilization (agricultural city-State) 2. Domestication, i.e., dominating nature, results in increased violence and cannibalism, and introduces practices like sacrifice and sacrifice religions, to control people. Chiefdoms (larger in size than bands or tribes, see Elman Service) are regarded by anthropologists and ethnologists as "proto-States" because of the controlling hierarchy. 3. Agriculture requires a large controlling agency over vast areas of land, to coordinate irrigation projects, drainage projects, roads and other infrastructure. As Richard Manning says so succinctly in his book Against the Grain, on p.73: "Agriculture creates government."
  • bs's picture
    bs 2 years 45 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Great article Jim! "It's late in the day; several of the world's governments are now so lethal that they might exterminate the human race (and others) before they can be peacefully abolished. We have, therefore, a race against time. The means exist; it remains only to participate." For survival, we will eventually have to solve our disputes/problems without the use of 'legal' force/violence. If this is true, we can go back as far as we want in history to make the claim 'how about now?'. Which I do, and it drives people crazy hearing an argument against WWII or the Revolutionary War, the 'good' wars.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "Egalitarianism isn't 'collectivist' in a Non-State (band or tribe) sociopolitical typology." Of course everybody wants everybody to be equal. But what does that mean in the real world? Everybody is different by nature, which is a good thing. My experience with people promoting egalitarianism is they seek equal results (which are impossible) to be enforced by institutional violence. Even in your idealistic pre-agricultural world, the tall people could reach fruit higher up on the tree and faster runners could avoid predators better than the rest. Egalitarianism is a childish construct totally void of any empirical precedent. If you have an alternative view of egalitarianism and empirical data to support it, then I would love to hear it. Hierarchies are not bad in and of themselves; the problem arises when they are created and maintained by violence. Respect worthy actions that elevate some persons to positions of superior respect is a voluntary phenomena that is as human as “walking upright”. Leaders that are followed voluntarily result in social organizations that benefit all, including the followers (or they would not voluntarily follow). It is when violence is used or threatened to create or maintain a hierarchy that they are wrong. You seem to have a total lack of respect for anything. "Do dolphins live in a world of scarcity?" Yes. Is the amount of water in the world infinite? Is the amount of fish available to eat unlimited? Are there no other dolphins that compete for these resources? This position really puzzles me and again gives me the impression that you view the world with child-like wonder. Do you really believe that the world has unlimited resources? What about locally attainable resources available to any creature? Do you really believe that dolphins and crows don’t compete with each other for food? "Quit the deductive logic built on false premises." What false premises? Your profound misunderstanding of those premises does not make them false. "Begin thinking inductively from empirical data.” " The epistemological problems should be obvious to someone with your intelligence. How do you recognize, choose and organize the massive volume of "data" in the world without a philosophical basis of understanding? How do you know if the data you are making conclusions from is accurate, complete or even pertinent without a framework to analyze it? Both inductive and deductive reasoning should be used in the search for knowledge. They go hand in hand when it is truth that you seek. Using only inductive reasoning without the benefits of deductive reasoning results in serial misunderstandings of cause and effect. The snobbery of scientism reveals the void inherent in the character of those that worship it. It has no soul. Finally, I must ask: Do you have any principles to live by other than vague references to egalitarianism? Do you have any ideals that you aspire to? How do you feel about the use of violence? The division of labor?
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If I am not mistaken, WhiteIndian simply believes that the existence of an agricultural city-state without a coercive government is an impossibility, and he makes his argument by pointing to the history of human civilization, wherein 100% (99.9%?) of all agricultural city-states have endured coercive government. Because of this, he can see no way that an agricultural city-state without coercive government can ever exist. I would like to hear some rational arguments as to why it is a logical impossibility for such a thing to occur, rather than "it has never happened before, therefore it can never happen in the future." Again: The abolition of slavery, the inventions of electricity, automobiles, airplanes, microwaves, computers, and going to the moon. Any argument that these things could never, ever possibly exist or happen because they had never existed or happened before seemed pretty bulletproof at one time or another, but ultimately the argument failed. Humans are smart. We solve problems. There is a problem in front of us now. Saying that there is no solution because up until now we have not been able to find it is no argument at all. Yes, the mass of humanity is fairly unimaginative and can't see anything beyond what is going on in the here and now. But there are always a few who push on and do the impossible. Logically, the solution to this problem is quite simple. Obviously, it is not so easy to put it into practice. But impossible? Someone hasn't been paying close attention to history at all.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    If left/right isn't the issue, as he says, then why pick on just leftist genocide. Capitalism has its own genocide too, killing off a whole Non-State society here in America to make room to impose city-Statism. Capitalism and communism are more alike than different. Both are agricultural city-Statist political schemes that cannot tolerate Non-State society. Why can agricultural city-Statists not tolerate Non-State society? If sovereign individual can hunt and gather their own food, they have no reason to work for others. When the agricultural city-State puts the food "under lock and key" (Quinn,) then people have to work for the system or starve.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Isn't turnabout fair play? Don't libertarian/ancap types call people Statists all the time? Yet they do it in total ignorance, and actually support agricultural-City-Statism, and then rage against the State. It's about as dumb as advocating jet aircraft, then complaining about the jet noise, and calling for the removal of jets from aircraft, and expecting the jet aircraft to somehow magically fly. The agricultural-city-State is a whole, inseparable package. There never has been a city without state level politics, and never will be.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I was making light of the contradiction of having to claim something that is simultaneously inalienable.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The smartest man in the world ought to know that all claims are not necessarily legitimate.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Who said you have to claim it "at some office"? I must have missed that.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You are your own worst enemy, WhiteIndian, with your holier than thou attitude and your name-calling.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thank you, tzo. "This book [The Secrets to Nonviolent Prosperity: The Principles of Liberty] is not about taking sides, left or right. These deceptive distinctions are pitting people against one another and keeping us from uniting and looking at the core issues. Rather than the traditional left/right spectrum, where you would have the communist, Stalin, on the left and the fascist, Hitler, on the right, we will use a different spectrum, with the range from ultimate power over yourself on one end to someone else having ultimate power over you on the other end. This is the meaningful distinction, because now you get the collectivist ideologies of mass murderers such as Stalin and Hitler together on one side, and the individualist philosophy of most honest people who just want to go about their lives without being hassled on the other side." ~ Trevor Z. Gamble
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I don't have any axe to grind, other that liberty; and KOCH-based libertarian religio-economic rhetoric is as much a scam a GOVT-based fiat money. You'll need to ask the paid shill Walter Block at Mises Institute why a mother would be willing to sell themselves into slavery for a sick child, it's his "voluntary slavery" scenario. But we've already had in the news, documented, mothers committing murder-suicide with their children in desperate circumstances, along with plenty example of men doing the same, unable to be "providers." Yes, the agricultural city-Statist system is corrupt. You recognize it as Statism, rather incompletely. It's agricultural City-Statism, wholely. You can't have a voluntary City anymore than an animated corpse. Libertarianism is as silly as conjuring Zombies. The non-fantastical Non-State society, we now know how it worked. Anthropologists call it the "Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I hold truck with pakeha hori. You're right, I'm not Sioux (a Plains "apocalyptic culture" after the start of the invasion/holocaust, but I have proof of my ancestors living in an Oak Savannah "food forest," even if it isn't quite gummit approved. Greetings. Your first question: women are vulnerable. Barely, with our low sexual dimormism and absent sexual dichromaticism, but vulnerable nonetheless, especially in City-Statism. We protect them and their children from Rothbardian/Austrian School Libertarian city-Statist ahem "voluntary" slavery ABUSE, no matter their status. OK? My estimation of pre-industrial life isn't idealization. It's from hard, scientific, empirical data. And I know the data, personally, from top to bottom. Don't take my word; there is plenty of scholarly data out there to be gleaned. "The Noble Savage" might be hogwash, but it's racist hogwash from English racists-- look up the term at its origin. Human are pleistocene band animals, and their history is just being understood outside of the city-Statist hogwash CULTure we're taught at every moment in school and every social encounter. Nowadays, 2 hours of "work" barely pays for gas to get to "work" for the capitalists. Better read Sahlins and Lee, who did ethnographic studies on that. Slavery was always a result of domestication/agriculture. I'm quite familiar with the anthropological references on slavery. ZERO bands or tribes (egalitarian Non-State societies) practices slavery. You're mistaken, but probably via misinformation of the city-Slicker Hobbesian mythology or Libertarian/Capitalist disinfo. Hell, I reject all tribal primitive supremacism too. It's the past. I'm fine with that. But I do not reject well-documented empirical data about the Original Affluent Society, much of which debunks ignorant libertarian premises. And when I say "ignorant," that means the depths of ignorance of young-earth creationist who wouldn't know empirical data if it hit them in the head as igneous rock.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The members of "Tool" have done remarkably well selling albums and playing their music. Do these men owe you something for that success? Believe it or not, I'm not your enemy. I'm actually a bit intrigued with how you've arrived with these conclusions even if I don't agree. I'm fairly certain that I can't "read the libertarian literature" like you have. You're carrying some serious anger and have some ax to grind which seems to obscure logic. You've never explained why someone would want to sell themselves (for a sick child? highly unlikely) or why that would even be necessary. If you find the whole system we live in corrupt and broken, well I suppose we'll agree on at least that point even if we disagree why. I would not aggress against you to live in the world I want. Would you extend me the same courtesy?
  • GeoffreyTransom's picture
    GeoffreyTransom 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Háu (I know you're probably not Lakota Sioux, but what the hey). I think you're the one who misinterpreted what 'inalienable' means in your first comment with the set-piece about a woman with a sick kid (the perennial trope of the "the bad man is my only source of hope in my plight" - which raises the question: what has this woman done to alienate literally EVERY OTHER PERSON in the vicinity?) The 'property rights' argument for self-ownership, when said to be 'inalienable', asserts that an individual is not simply the 'first recourse' owner of his own body and mind: it also asserts that he may not properly dispose of it - a thing is 'alienable' at law if the owner may transfer ownership to a third party. So an 'inalienable' property right in one's self (body, mind and so on) can NOT be transferred to a third party. On that doctrine, when the State behaves as if it is the owner of an individual, it commits a tort. The rest of your comments reflect some idealisation of pre-Industrial life: as Demsetz' work shows, Native populations also practiced territorial exclusion, and ideas of free access (e.g., to hunting grounds) were subject to rapid change in the event that they developed economic significance: if prey became scarce, tribes would be more forceful in their assertion of sole rights over hunting grounds on which competing tribes were 'ordinarily' permitted to hunt. Look - I'm a "pakeha hori': my maternal grandfather was 100% Maori, (but my Dad is like a turehu: tall, blue eyed and fair skinned). So I sort of 'get' the idea that a naive idealised view of tribal society has its attractions if you have some connection to a dispossessed people. That said: arguably the Maori were never dispossessed, because they fought England to a standstill and signed a treaty of equals under which the Maori STILL own all the natural resources of New Zealand [the 'taonga'] - 'we' Maori are fucking badass, unlike all the other darkies who capitulated or let themselves be genocided... which is why Maori have little or no sympathy for other native populations. (And Maori did their killing without projectile weapons: the taiaha and the patu (or méré) are hand-to-hand weapons). Still, the idea that native populations lived in some some sort of Rousseau-ian idyll is hogwash. Life in "primitive" societies was not "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" by any means (Hobbes was a r-tard): if one survived childhood, life expectancy was about 60 - not bad for a pre-industrial society (and due in large part to superior hygiene relative to inner-city populations in Europe at the same time). Life expectancy AT BIRTH was low though (in part due to poor contraceptive practices and the tendency to practice infanticide as a means of population control: that seems inefficient to me - feeding a pregnant woman with no expectation of raising the offspring - but obviously they found it the best method). And although some anthropologists claim that members of primitive societies worked fewer hours per day than modern man, that ignores the fact that in those societies people had no means of investment (except children) and that once one had acquired enough calories to "vivre jusqu'à demain matin", there was no point to exerting oneself further. Nowadays, two hours' labour at minimum wage, furnishes income sufficient to purchase the mean daily caloric requirement (1900 alories); the rest is undertaken for higher-quality shelter, and to pay for the many layers of bullshit artists and parasites that form the political class. Also - not for nothing, but MANY Indian tribes (and ALL Maori iwi) practised slavery. (Last but not least: although I make japes about how Maori rock, I reject ALL tribal primitive supremacism... it's deplorable whether it's "Maori-are-badass" or "cock-snippings-make-us-God's-chosen")
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Somebody else will claim it? Hell, I though it was inalienable. Care to clarify?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I have to claim it? At some office? I thought somebody here said it was "inalienable." Which way is it? You can't "have your cake and eat it too." * ____________ * "A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too." ~Atlas Shrieked
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Words convey ideas; words are the premises behind ideas. In case you haven't heard.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've got every volume Ayn Rand wrote on my library shelves. She did not check her premises against empirical data. Big mistake.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hate to break it to you, but you, as an agricultural city-Statist, who accepts hierarchy, is already PWNED by the hierarchical elite. P.S. Look up "hierarchical elite" or "big men" on http://Scholar.Google.com (which provides a search of scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources, including theses, books, abstracts and articles) if you want to know the last 10,000 years of enslavement strategy for domesticated suckers like you. P.P.S. A trusted source on hierarchy (definitely not Mises) Thesis #10: Emergent elites led the Agricultural Revolution. Thesis #11: Hierarchy is an unnecessary evil. http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Libertarian, anarcho-capitalism, etal. suggests selling oneself as property to another as "employment" or "voluntary" (LOL) "slavery." In the agricultural city-State, such a sale is necessary to survive.* Really, you need to read the libertarian literature like I have. That's how they put it. Get after it. You might end up as disgustipated** as I with libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, etal. ________________ * "Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not...Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs. * THIS UGLY CIVILIZATION by DR. RALPH BORSODI NEW YORK, SIMON AND SCHUSTER, 1 9 2 9 ** Tool - Disgustipated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOvwc8_QXiY
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Egalitarianism isn't "collectivist" in a Non-State (band or tribe) sociopolitical typology. Collectivist Stalin killed egalitarian Non-State society peoples in Siberia with the abandon that Capitalist America killed egalitarian Non-State families on the land here on Turtle Island. Egalitarianism is an extremely strong trait in humans, as evidenced by low sexual dimorphism, and the complete lack of sexual dichromaticism (such as our evolutionary cousins, the red-ass baboons) demonstrate. Egalitarianism is as much a part of you, as a human, as walking upright. Hierarchy is a 65 million year evolutionary throwback. A devolution. Those silk power ties and silk handkerchiefs I have in my closet (I play a red-ass baboon fairly well, being a reluctant alpha male in this temporary hierarchy we call city-Statism) are an artificial display of hierarchy, yet, quite anti-human. So I can match the combative persona of "[so-called]free"-market fundamentalists. We don't live in a world of scarcity. We live in a world of abundance. Or at least, used to for 99% of human existence, until agricultural city-Statism's hierarchy started profiting from the hell it created for those lower on the pyramidal hierarchy. Do dolphins live in a world of scarcity? Do crows live in a world of scarcity? No. Scarcity is an artificial construct, meant to make you submit to the hell that agricultural City-Statism creates to funnel wealth up the hierarchical pyramid into "higher, tighter, and righter hands." Religion was used in the first, Sumerian, civilization, to effect compliance. Now religio-economic fundamentalism is used to effect compliance to the hierarchy. And you're complying, as designed, and loosing freedom as a result. Quit the deductive logic built on false premises. Begin thinking inductively from empirical data. While I work on my "mommy issues." (Anybody in a brutally hierarchical agricultural city-State (civilization) has them, so you work on 'em too, eh?)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Re: I'm not begging. "Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest" is a rhetorical tool to show how much daily violence is necessary to maintain the big-government Land enTITLEment program that draws artificial borders to restrict the free movement of people from living a Non-State society lifeway. What you call "private" property is nothing more than the heavy hand of agricultural city-Statist regulation of the home planet's surface. -I live in a state of mobility. Quick little fish in a slow trawling net...If you think I am not private property then think what you want. But there will be consequences....LOL Re: And do you think you can conjure an animated corpse? Is it "possible" even while empirical data shows it's not? Not only has there never been a city-State without State level politics, we know why. Conjuring a "voluntary city" is going to happen the day after animated corpses walk. Yours is a Zombie socio-economic fundamentalism -- a reaction against the city-State's violence, but with a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the agricultural city-State (civilization) that has invaded and now occupies 99.9% of the home planet's surface. -Animated corpse? If it occupies your hand then move your body...Yes most started off flooded with statism. If you let it get hold of your neck and you loose your head then how is that different than living in the jungle? I have met men who mentally disarm themselves when they would never do such in the forest...So carry your forest equipment equivalents in your head. Some wear their kilts whilst observably trousered...Some carry their moral code locked and loaded.... Re: The truth is, anthropology and ethnology do indeed know what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society. There is is a way of knowing. It's called observation. Humans are Pleistocene band animals. -Your observation seems to have made you band dependent and individual weak. Or perhaps not. So be it. Yet I also am not proposing auto-self-sufficiency.... Re: You're also reacting against agricultural city-Statism's forced mass society, which is quite understandable, with fundamentalist religio-economic gibberish. Humans are social animals, and there is a "we." If you've ever served as part of a tight-knit and efficient crew (or band or tribe,) you'd know the silliness of that statement. No, it's not "collectivism." -You have others who are compatible with your mind set. But is it possible that I would too? Hmmm. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed so say you. Perhaps being "understood" as an individual first, in order to be useful to oneself and perhaps attract others of like mind. If one goes to the right places... Re: Basically, you're talking out of your hat without a basic knowledge of the human animal. The last 50 years of anthropology and archeology have revealed much; it's been as earthshaking as what the theory of evolution was to society. -I am talking to myself and for myself and into my hat perhaps but not dropping context where I am talking...Perhaps there are other compatibles for you and me? Re: The "Original Affluent Society" (Sahlins, 1972) is the real, proven, workable Non-State sociopolitical typology to which humans are neuro-biologicially evolved. (Dunbar, 1992) White Indian has learned it, and given up ignorant philosophical fundamentalism that sounded precisely like yours. -Interestingly enough I am a hybrid like yourself. And went Indian much like Jim Walker and not like the imprudent Jed Smith. See Westering Man by Bil Gilbert. If you step back for a second, I do not have a problem with what you believe. You are welcome to it. **Where in the Covenant of Unanimous Consent do you have a issue?** It is personal. I am interested in that. Not observations I and you apparently share regarding cancers posing as cures....That's why Harry Browne called them assumptions, so called philosophical truisms or Traps. Re: It's time to catch up. -Becoming free whilst living in the matrix is not impossible. A prequel of that world I already live in: An opening couplet... "I don't believe in predestined fate The future is what we [I] choose to create." Anthem for the Ama-Gi (a tribe or band of well oiled individual and separate cogs that come and go). http://www.indomitus.net/anthem.html If ones' own moral code is important enough to state--for one to know explicitly and improve on; and for others to know oneself--without binding them down--then an inter-relationship Covenant could have much valuable application. How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. It pertains to relationships without the state.... http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html Again: **Where in the Covenant of Unanimous Consent do you have a issue?** It is personal. I am interested in that. Not observations I and you apparently share regarding cancers posing as cures....That's why Harry Browne called them assumptions, so called philosophical truisms or Traps.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Putting aside that you obviously have some "mommy issues" to work out, the above tirade reveals a profound dislike for personal freedom and liberty and/or a lack of respect for individual persons. Your previous posts promoting the collectivist ideal of egalitarianism while demeaning hierarchical social structures are, well, immature. No objectification intended. I understand that you must feel like a collectivist martyr entering the lion’s den to take on the demonic "libertarian capitalists"; thus the combative attitude which I too can find entertaining at times. But if you really seek the truth then may I suggest you consider the more gentle reasoning that tzo and others here have offered with a more open mind. Anyway, the great purpose of organizing society (e.g. governing) in a world of scarcity is to determine how individuals may live together peacefully. That is how to minimize violence while agreeing to what justifies the use of violence. Libertarians start with the basic premise of self-ownership as a self-evident axiom that must be the foundation of organizing a peaceful society. This axiom should lead to an understanding and acceptance of the primacy of property rights when considering the sustenance we all require to stay alive. This ideal is most often termed the non-aggression principle; and Austrian Economics offers logical explanations for human actions that follow this principle. My friend Jerry prefers to term this principle as The Principle of Equal Freedom as the basis of Non-Coercive Government which he believes should be the basis of free societies. I hope to finish up a review of Jerry’s book on this subject by the end of the year and perhaps his choice of words will be more palatable to your deeply felt prejudices and help you to better understand this concept.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    That would all be well and good, but it has only been you that has suggested others sell themselves. That's extremely bad counsel in my estimation.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Objectification of people, via a bait-and-switch "self-ownership" polemic, is a tactic of abusers. I'll "quibble" about tactics of abusers all day.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Only if you objectify people as property, as the capitalist philosophy does. Objectification of people as property is a tactic of abusers.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You own yourself, fine. The things you need to survive and enjoy personally, fine. But the capitalist bait-and-switch of treating yourself as mere PROPERTY, a mere thing that can be used up and disposed of like a coat, that is objectification. Objectification is a tactic of abusers. And it goes much like I told in the extreme example above. More likely, it goes like: 1. You own yourself. 2. Things you own are property. 3. You can sell property. 4. Thus you can sell yourself to me. 5. Now, I, the rich capitalist, own you (either as a wage slave or ...ahem...voluntary chattel slave.) I'm opposed to objectification of people as property, and that is exactly what the how the "self-ownership" bait gets switched.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hate to break it to you, but, "someone" else already has.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I am a bit embarrassed to say that I didn't even know Trevor had written this book. I will definitely have to take the time to read this new book. Thanks for the review Lawrence. On a related note, I think these truths are fundamentally a part of us from the moment we first draw a breath in this world. We know intuitively (at least most do, anyway) that it is wrong to aggress against another. You'll hear a 4-year old summarize this idea nicely when they tell their older sibling, "You're not the boss of me!"
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    "There is only one fundamental right [just claim] (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right [just claim] to his own life." ~ Ayn Rand
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteIndian: Why do you always quibble about words instead of discussing ideas. I first came across your tangential musings on Alex Knight's observation of Nazi symbolism in the military culture of the U.S. soldiers. If you stepped off of your soapbox, you might realize that we're basically on the same side here. Sometimes your comments make sense (today, at least, they do -- even if they misconstrue the meaning), but on Alex Knight's article, you really were not coherent at all: http://strike-the-root.com/iconography-of-evil
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Tzo, thanks for explaining the deeper concept to WhiteIndianQuibbler, which lies beneath the words of ownership. I've noticed that he specializes in complaining about word constructions in this way instead of the merits of the concept and its meaning. As you pointed out, the word "ownership" is a way to convey the idea of ultimate control over one's self, and it is implicit in the very fact that we make an argument according to Hoppe. After all, how would we put forth any proposition if we didn't? Of course, Rothbard derives the idea of self-control/ownership using a parallel route, but it's the same. I notice how beside the point WhiteQuibbler's comments were with respect to Alex Knight's piece on Nazi symbolism in militarist America -- and for the same reason. This book is a soft introduction for beginners, and I hope Trevor can reach people through it.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    It would be a good idea to claim ownership of your own life, person and labor. Otherwise, someone else will!
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Glen Allport -- First, I was being presumptuous when I wrote "your government"; I presumed that you use a "chattel number", a Taxpayer Identification Number (U.S.), a number which identifies you as a member of the U.S. government. If I am wrong, I will humbly apologize. Second, what I was "thinking", and my point, too, is simple, is that even if I was in the place called "So. Cal" I would not be "using government services[1]", just because I breathe the air there. [1] Services. Things purchased by consumers that do not have physical characteristics. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1369
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I found this set of sample pages of the book referenced in the article: http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/read/102862/1/the-secrets-to-nonviol...
  • tzo's picture
    tzo 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Self-ownership is an inalienable right. So much for your dialogue. If you would like to invent some other words besides 'property' and 'ownership' when discussing one's self, fine. But the concept holds. I control me. I call that ownership. When I own something, I call that something property, even if it is me. Those words don't bother me at all. Again, my self-ownership is inalienable, which distinguishes the 'me' property from all the other property I may claim.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Regarding Lockesian "self-ownership:" If one owns property, and if people are NOT property, then the concept of self-ownership is farcical. Using the word we use to describe a relationship to property dehumanizes and degrades people into mere property to be controlled. And I think malevolent capitalists/libertarians attempt to dehumanize and degrade humans on purpose, to soften them up, so that the rich can control and own the poor, and the poor will accept it in their minds. An "owned," controlled human is a slave, whether part-time as a wage-slave, or full time as a chattel-slave. Now, imagine this scenario: LIBERTARIAN MASTER: Do you own your body? MOM: [holding sick child] Yes.
 MASTER: And what can you do with property you own? MOM: Sell it? MASTER: Correct. Do you voluntarily sell yourself to me so I'll pay for your child's health care? MOM: Yes, I'm desperate. MASTER: Answer yes or no, and then sign here. MOM: Yes. [signs contract] MASTER: Did you once own your body, bitch? SLAVE MOM: Yes, Master.
 MASTER: Now I own you. What can an owner do with any property?
 SLAVE MOM: Use it? MASTER: That's right, bitch. [Slave-mom is bound and whipped bloody.] SLAVE MOM: Ouch! MASTER: Shut up. What else can an owner do with property? SLAVE MOM: Dispose of it? 
MASTER: That's right, bitch. [BANG!] [fap fap fap fap fap fap fap] MASTER: Ah, another profitable title for Libertarian Snuff Films, Inc. that should find a large market. And I think I'll sell that bitch's little twirp on the Rothbardian Child Auction tomorrow. Think that's absurd? It's no more absurd than the BDSM ownership and use of humans proposed by "free"-market economist and Senior Fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics, as follows: "He'd like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him....Slave-master Rafe would never shell out the cold cash if, after he paid, I could haul him into court on assault and battery charges when he whipped me." ~Walter Block Voluntary Slave Contracts
 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html "Thou shalt own own thy neighbor as thyself" isn't what the Jesus character spoke, and for good reason -- humans aren't The Ultimate Resource to be used and controlled. What better words can we use to describe how we regard both ourselves and our fellow sojourners on our home planet?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    The rejection of the reality that humans are indeed social animals is a reaction to the forced mass-society of agricultural city-Statism. That sort of "we" isn't fun or fulfilling. While it is an understandable reaction, it is an ignorant, fundamentalist philosophy that is easily debunked by empirical data. There is a "we."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    I'm not begging. "Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest" is a rhetorical tool to show how much daily violence is necessary to maintain the big-government Land enTITLEment program that draws artificial borders to restrict the free movement of people from living a Non-State society lifeway. What you call "private" property is nothing more than the heavy hand of agricultural city-Statist regulation of the home planet's surface. And do you think you can conjure an animated corpse? Is it "possible" even while empirical data shows it's not? Not only has there never been a city-State without State level politics, we know why. Conjuring a "voluntary city" is going to happen the day after animated corpses walk. Yours is a Zombie socio-economic fundamentalism -- a reaction against the city-State's violence, but with a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the agricultural city-State (civilization) that has invaded and now occupies 99.9% of the home planet's surface. The truth is, anthropology and ethnology do indeed know what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society. There is is a way of knowing. It's called observation. Humans are Pleistocene band animals. You're also reacting against agricultural city-Statism's forced mass society, which is quite understandable, with fundamentalist religio-economic gibberish. Humans are social animals, and there is a "we." If you've ever served as part of a tight-knit and efficient crew (or band or tribe,) you'd know the silliness of that statement. No, it's not "collectivism." Basically, you're talking out of your hat without a basic knowledge of the human animal. The last 50 years of anthropology and archeology have revealed much; it's been as earthshaking as what the theory of evolution was to society. The "Original Affluent Society" (Sahlins, 1972) is the real, proven, workable Non-State sociopolitical typology to which humans are neuro-biologicially evolved. (Dunbar, 1992) White Indian has learned it, and given up ignorant philosophical fundamentalism that sounded precisely like yours. It's time to catch up.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 2 years 45 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    -The poster you responded to told you what he will do. I have told you what I will and do (more below). What YOU are going to do is up to you...you can continue to beg for permission to run in the forest for all I care... History's Most Elaborate Ad Hoc Hypothesis By Vahram G. Diehl http://www.strike-the-root.com/historys-most-elaborate-ad-hoc-hypothesis -As for the empirical data...Neither it nor statisticians and their spurious patterns can trump what human's do (in spite of being crippled by statism). The abolitionists of the past did not know of companies like, John Deere, Kubota, or International Harvester. How could they know? They would never witness the invention of the tractor and all of the wonderful implements that can be attached to them that make life on a farm so much easier. They would never witness the fabulous invention known as the internal combustion engine, or the introduction of hydraulic systems that make all of this technology possible. What empirical data would show such? They--abolitionists--were not concerned with any of this, they did not care about what would replace the slave; they only fought to end the horrible institution of chattel slavery. This is the root I was trying to strike with my last essay. I only wish to abolish slavery. I see something as wrong, I should not have to devise a working model as an alternative to this wretched practice. Is it not enough to expose the slavery in the system to get my fellow humans to throw off their shackles? Do I have to tempt them with new systems? Chattel slavery, although practiced for many, many centuries, is now seen as a horribly immoral institution. Slave owners of the past were not presented with cost benefit analysis, or return on investment sheets. The moral argument was presented, and it was supported with the fact that man is a self-owner, no matter the color of his skin. 21st Century Abolitionists by Chris Dates http://zerogov.com/?p=2371 -It is not my job--or anyone else unless they want to--to show you anything.... 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 already do. I would honor my contracts; I would defend myself; I would choose to help others in need; I would expect no one to support me; and I would plan accordingly. I want to be very clear here, I do not disagree with the theory that is being presented on how the logistics of society would be handled. There is no doubt that these organizations and such would arise and be needed in a voluntary society. I disagree with the fact that these theories are being pushed as answers before addressing the only real and true problem; collectivist thought. *When those who are curious about voluntarism ask the “we” questions, the underlying collectivist philosophy is still there, and this is what needs to be addressed first before any practical questions can or should be answered. Otherwise, you are just trying to get them to abandon their system for your system*. There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 2 years 45 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 45 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 45 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 45 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 45 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 45 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.