Recent comments

  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Hate to break it to you, but, "someone" else already has.
  • golefevre's picture
    golefevre 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Repudiation--the answer to odious debt.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 weeks ago Page Scott Lazarowitz
    Great article, agreed on all counts
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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 3 years 25 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.)