Recent comments

  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    I don't wish. I trade I offer values...And I don't hang around people who don't believe in such...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    It's not hard to grasp "I." Egalitarian non-State society has people who are "autonomous and sovereign" individuals who "bow to no external political leaders." (Service, 1975) But that only happens in group sizes under Dunbar's Number. Larger groups of people for hierarchy. And when group size gets to around 5000+, they form city-States. Every. Single. Time. That's the way people work. The best you can do is evade reality. I keep bringing reality into the debate, so I have no doubt that you're rapidly loosing interest.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    The word *I* would seem to be incomprehensible model. And *I* have observed and traded with compatible others...And I have even provided links to such "hows". How hard is this for some to grasp? As for the rest I am loosing interest rapidly.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    You always evade the empirical data that refutes the way you Wish people worked.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Speaking for oneself is hardly speaking for me. If someone sets themselves up to be UnFree, when there are clearly alternatives, that is hardly my problem. I trade with those who are compatible. WIshes have nothing to do with it. This is where the Covenant comes to play as a filter. But so does judgment and entrepreneurial skill..And lest I forget there is a price to pay. And it would seem that some here do not make personal provision or foresight for such...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    "...how that occurs." Where has such an occurrence been observed? Pray tell. "...lots and lots of people who know..." Lots and lots of people make city-STATES. Every. Single. Time.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    What I have proposed is self-governance and how that occurs. This hardly requires me to be auto-sufficient nor to work out every application of "we"-st. In fact it has everything to do with my proposal, Jim Davidson's and Neil L Smiths of self-governance and nothing to do with controlling "We"ists. I tend my garden. You tend yours. What needs to scale? http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle544-20091115-07.html What I have been proposing and living: is being around lots and lots of people who know that you own yourself. They don't want you to be subjected to "limited" state aggression, or "constitutional" state aggression, or their own favorite flavor of state aggression or "We'-ism; they want you to have NO ONE committing aggression against you. How extreme! How often are you around more than three people at a time who want you to be truly free?. If this is a problem for some it is a personal problem. Not mine. More specifically the issue regarding what are "we going to do": Freedom Has No System--Challenge the premise. There is no “we.” http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Suverans2: "If it only defends and protects our natural rights it isn't a government". But, just because it isn't, or even has never been, does that mean that it can't be? They then answer, "If it did only that, then it couldn't be called a 'government'." Fine!! What, pray tell, could it be called? Then substitute that word wherever you find the word "government" when we are discussing a collective organization that does nothing more than defend and protect our natural rights. Here's how Delmar England describes the quandary of interpreting what is government: If all “anarchists” agree to self ownership, meaning self determination, how can they be in conflict? Absent explanation of multiple “kinds” of self ownership, I am obliged to conclude they think, talk and write in contradiction. An adamant claim of self ownership is quickly canceled by espousing anti-self ownership ideas. They come full circle without realizing what is going on. Regrettably, they are doing nothing but promoting their preferred form of government under a deceptive label. Socialism, communism, democracy, monarchy, etc, all presumably represent different forms of government. Root level definition of government is initiation of force and coercion. A dark alley mugging is no less government than any other initiation of force and coercion. (emphasis mine - sam) Mark, in my attempt 5 minutes ago to link to your superb essay, Be Free, the link appears to my old computer to have defaulted to today's home page of STR and not to the archive of your article. I was replying to White Indian's "libertarian" comment. Let's see if this link works: http://www.strike-the-root.com/52/davis_m/davis1.html Sam
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    So why do you denigrate egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology (bands and tribes) when they are the ONLY demonstrated society in which people are observed to be "autonomous and sovereign" individuals "who bow to no external political leaders"? (Service, 1975) Are you willing to take your hand out of the monkey trap of agricultural-city to be free of Statism? Remember, there's never been an agricultural city-State (civilization) without a State. And for good reason. People don't work the way you Wish.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Apparently there are IS a "We"ist Utopia monger acting as if *his* drooling beast issues are my problem. Hopeless.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    What I have proposed is self-governance and how that occurs. This hardly requires me to be auto-sufficient. In fact it has everything to do with my proposal, Jim Davidson's and Neil L Smiths of self-governance and nothing to do with controlling "We"ists. What I have been proposing and living: is being around lots and lots of people who know that you own yourself. They don't want you to be subjected to "limited" state aggression, or "constitutional" state aggression, or their own favorite flavor of state aggression or "We'-ism; they want you to have NO ONE committing aggression against you. How extreme! How often are you around more than three people at a time who want you to be truly free?. If this is a problem for some it is a personal problem. Not mine.
  • Samarami's picture
    Samarami 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    White Indian: "...libertarians love sociopolitical hierarchy and Lording-over-others — just not sociopolitical hierarchy that Lords-over-them. It's a big contradiction in their thinking..." That's a heavy load to carry I'll tell you! I am a free, sovereign state. Sorry about the S-word, Jim, but I do have borders and an internal Border Patrol to guard those borders (some days more successfully than others). I've become free within the occupation of "..agricultural city-statism (civilization)..." -- that's out of my present control. Through insightful essays such as Jim's and Mark's I've developed a lifestyle that has made me the wealthiest man in my city of a million or so. My wealth has nothing to do with investments or bank deposits. In fact, if someone were to hand me a million federal reserve notes no-questions-asked today, I would probably become abruptly less wealthy. Ponder that for a minute. I might be free, but I've not jettisoned all vanity, jealousy, lust nor greed. Not completely (I'd probably eagerly take the "money". But Only-For-A-Good-Cause). Mark, your book review is very good, as always for your writings. As you confessed your approbation might have something to do with personal acquaintance with the author. Since I haven't read the book I have only your review on which to rely. My sense is that Jerome Wright is looking toward "...a free society..." as something that is going to have to be brought about -- placed into fruition -- by some one(s). That to me implies political authority to one degree or another. To whatever extent politicians are involved, however "minimal" (no agents of state will ever stand still for "minimal government"), self ownership will be threatened. If a free society comes about in the rubble of a collapsed empire by examples such as those set by you and Jim and White Indian and me -- I'll vote for that. If I'm going to be free it's up to me. An already established "free society" might have been helpful, it seems, but had I waited for someone(s) to bring one about I'd have waited too long. I'm almost 76. The clock is ticking. My family and friends and neighbors and readers of STR and Hale Bobb need my example of freedom today. You, of all people, know that, Mark. Sam
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    So Atlas and Niel are farmers in this glorious new 2 minute old utopia without a State. A neighboring farmer Bill fills in the ditch that runs across his property that drains your farms. Hey, it'll give him more land to farm! Unfortunately, even though he benefits from what he has done to his property, your farms will become saturated with water and will become unsuitable to planting agricultural crops. Remember, that neighbor farmer owns the land through which the ditch runs, and the State government (and county government) rules stated only that he must allow other water from other properties to drain through, and to also allow equipment to sometimes clear the muck out of the bottom. But such State "law and order" is all gone now. What do you do? What do you think the other 23 "property" owners are going to do when their farms' drainage has been blocked? Farmers won't stand for somebody plugging the drainage system. Seems your "covenant" lasted, oh, about 5 minutes before word got around at the coffee shop beside the feed mill. I heard they elected a Sheriff, and several farmers with rifles formed a posse to protect Frank running the backhoe digging out that drainage ditch Bill filled in on his "property." Oh, the newly formed government levied taxes on the 23 farms to pay for the excavator to re-dig the drainage ditch. What have anthropologists and archeologists observed all around the world with many different kinds of cultures? "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Seems we're back to humans being social animals as an evolutionary survival strategy with your "I never proposed that *I* was auto-sufficient." Maybe something is sinking-in.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    I never proposed that *I* was auto-sufficient nor that *I* should live or travel as an anti-social hermit. This is precisely what Harry Browne solves in his book How I Found Freedom In An UNfree World as does The Covenant of Unanimous Consent standing on the shoulders of Thoreau, Mises, Rand and her students L Neil Smith and Jim Davidson....and lived by me. Classical Liberalism: Fail http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle544-20091115-07.html But where I choose to be and go--that is humanly possible--makes a difference. Do I go to the airport? No!! The Covenant of Unanimous Consent is not going to serve me there! In fact it warns and confirms to me that I should stay away.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    The Covenant of Unanimous Consent confirms to me that I should stay away from some and trade with others. This is hardly anti-social; and what and who I choose to talk to makes a difference (last time I looked). I do not talk to sociopaths (who are antithetical to the Covenant of Unanimous Consent).... Follow the links and come to your own decisions Dear Reader, Clearly for some *I* nor anyone else on this site of individuals has a clue about *anything* regarding living personal freedom nor agoras or market places including Browne, Thoreau, Smith, Rand, Davidson... This discussion which some here ARE continuing to sidetrack is that the purpose of such things as the Covenant is NOT to CONTROL the government and those who still think and act on "We"-isms (*much like statists and sociopaths*), but to provide a form of SELF-governance. And the young Neil Smith (1985) used this distinction of *I* governance vs *We* government when writing the Covenant ( http://tinyurl.com/Galts-Oath-and-the-Covenant ). Last time I looked the folks who speak of "We"-isms have no authentic self. In-fact they have no respect for boundaries as they speak for what is good others; they impose on others AND they try to control others using We-ism 's and by definition are primary and secondary sociopaths who want to rule/control/tear down others and the world.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    The man who goes alone dies more. But if killing yourself is an "individual objective," then, hey, have at it, Atlas. Has the record shown that single-pilot (SP) flying is more risky than flights with two-pilot crews? In a word, yes. Turbine Edition: Single-Pilot Safety The risks of riding solo Aircraft Owners and Pilot's Association http://www.aopa.org/pilot/turbine/safety0810.html
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    As you declare your antisocial ideology, are you aware that "sociopathy" is defined as Antisocial personality disorder? And can you explain how "'we'-ism" is somehow "antisocial?" Do you even know what "we" means?
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    The Group ("We"-ism) Trap is the assumption that greater strength can be achieved by sharing. Just the opposite happens: Individual objectives are watered down, time and effort are wasted in arranging compromises, and individual incentive is reduced. The individual becomes much less flexible and mobile (perhaps lichen like is a good analog), because he must deal with others before getting on with the task at hand. As Thoreau said, "The man who goes alone can start today; but he who travels with another must wait till that other is ready."1 How I Found FREEDOM in an UNFREE WORLD A Handbook for Personal Liberty HARRY BROWNE 25TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION WITH A NEW FOREWORD AND AFTERWORD
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Harry Browne would have done well to check his premises, like studying something along the lines of: Swanson, G. A. (2008), Living systems theory and an entity-systems approach. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 25: 599–604. Or to simply consider a lichen, a "composite organisms consisting of a symbiotic organism composed of a fungus with a photosynthetic partner." Maybe lichens fell into the group trap; yeah, that's the ticket.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Scott, The idea that "somehow" we MUST chose the lesser of two evils--institutionalized evil Vs chaos. One can see thru that false alternative and grasp that the Most Dangerous Superstition as Larken Rose wrote in his book, is the implied or explicit belief in the need for such nightmares in order to provide law and order. It is a myth, superstition, made up, unreal...and the reason why ideas are more powerful than a bullet or a standing army. It is the wrong ideas that supports the whole apparatus of sociopaths. and the right ideas that remove the sanction/complicity of the victim. John Galt's Oath in Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. "I SWEAR, BY MY LIFE AND MY LOVE OF IT, THAT I WILL NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN, NOR ASK ANOTHER MAN TO LIVE FOR MINE". In a prior thread discussion the purpose of such things as the Covenant is not to CONTROL the government and those who still think and act on "We"-isms (much like statists and sociopaths), but to provide a form of self-governance. But I have no doubt Jim and Suverans2 will have some good points to make.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    ... THE GROUP TRAP is the belief that you can accomplish more by sharing responsibilities, efforts, and rewards with others than you can by acting on your own. It's an easy trap to fall into. It's a common expression that "in union there is strength." Just the opposite is true, however. You achieve more for yourself when your rewards are dependent upon your own efforts rather than upon the efforts of other people. When you join a group effort to achieve freedom, you waste precious resources on an endeavor that has very little chance of success. In the same way, group efforts are common in businesses, marriages, and even friendships, and there too the Group Trap can cause subtle problems. Groups are not living entities. They don't think or act; only individuals do. And yet, any group effort is based upon the assumption of a group purpose that overrides the individual differences of its members. It's expected that the group will act as a single unit with a unified purpose. Only individuals think—and each one thinks differently. Their interests and desires may overlap, but each person will continue to define his own objectives and have his own opinion concerning the best way to achieve those objectives. Perhaps each person entering a group unconsciously assumes that it will act in unison for his objectives and by his methods. But every other participant probably has a similar assumption regarding his ideas. What they get instead will inevitably be a compromise. The individual's goals and his concept of the best methods will be automatically compromised before anything happens to further his objectives. It also means that a certain amount of time and effort will have to be expended to arrange the compromise—again, before anything concrete is done to further the objectives. On the other hand, the individual who acts alone doesn't have to alter his objectives. He can employ the means he considers best suited to the objective, and he doesn't have to waste time and effort trying to arrange a compromise with partners... THE DESPAIR TRAP ...You're in the Despair Trap if you believe that you have to stay where you are and work things out somehow. Or if you believe that you couldn't be any better off if you were to change your situation. Or if you think that the government or society can stop you from being free. You're in the Despair Trap if you think that you'll always be poor because you come from a family that's always been that way. Or when you feel that love relationships must always deteriorate into uneasy compromises. Or when you believe that "people" don't appreciate good products, good ideas, or good individuals. You're in the trap when you think there are too many complications in your life to be able to break out from where you are. Or when you think that freedom and happiness are overrated myths... Excerpted from How I Found FREEDOM in an UNFREE WORLD A Handbook for Personal Liberty HARRY BROWNE 25TH ANNIVERSARY EDITION WITH A NEW FOREWORD AND AFTERWORD
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, if the State doesn't really exist, then by whom are all those reckless and murderous CIA drone operators employed? On whose behalf are all those cop-thugs enforcing "laws," and what is it that is making those "laws"? Well, if the State doesn't really exist, then neither do Goldman Sachs, Raytheon, BP, and Halliburton.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Just because you develop amnesia with your incantations of word-magic, doesn't make human relationships — like crews, families, clubs, churches, or even the sociopolitical typology of the state — magically disappear. Your body's physical phenotype exhibits something biologists call low sexual dimorphism. One of the biological measurements in mammals is canine tooth size. This is because "social behavior," "hierarchy" and "egalitarianism" "sexual selection" are NOT fictions. Your short canine teeth are an evolutionary result of social concepts and relationships. Yes, they're quite real. The level of evasion here is enormous. While Ayn Rand did plenty of it herself, she describes evasion well via John Galt's speech: "...they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter—and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it." That describes you and the "state doesn't exist" flakes to a tee. P.S. If everybody developed amnesia, would amnesia exist? It doesn't according to your "litmus test."
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    G'day Scott Lazaowitz, Hope this helps. FIC'TION, n. [L. fictio, from fingo, to feign.] ...2. That which is feigned, invented or imagined. ~ Webster's 1828 American Dictionary of the English Language Ask yourself, was the STATE "feigned, invented or imagined"[1], and the obvious answer is YES; it therefore can be easily seen that it is, indeed, a fiction. It was first "imagined", then it was "invented", by the use of "feigned" words. Now, when we put that together with this concept... "And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you..." ...we see that it can be a very dangerous fiction. gfywi ____________________________________________________________________ [1] The same holds true, by the way, for "IBM, or any other company or club or church" or "a crew on a ship", a "hunting party", a "married couple" or a "family"; the only thing non-fiction about any them are their individual human members. A good litmus test, to determine if something is fiction, or non-fiction, is to imagine what would happen if every human being on Earth developed amnesia simultaneously. Would a STATE exist (except on paper)? Would a "family" exist? The honest answer is NO; only the individual human beings that once made up these fictions, would exist. gfywi Now, on the other hand, "if every human being on Earth developed amnesia simultaneously", would the Earth stills exist; would the trees still exist; would the sun still exist; would silver still exist? Then these are non-fiction.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Try not feeding your dog. Then try not paying property taxes. You'll find out who owns what.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Does a "crew" on a ship exist? Does a "hunting party" exist? Does a "married couple" exist? Does a "family" exist? Yes; humans are social animals, and behave as such. The "city-State" exists too. However, it's not one of the gratifying social groupings of humans, because The city-State: • Forces hierarchy on human beings who are evolved to be egalitarian • Forces people into Mass Society beyond their evolved neurobiological capacity (Dunbar's Number) • Forces people to abandon evolutionarily stable lifeways.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    It really does not, Scott, for the reasons I stated. It consists of a bunch of individual criminals (though that term won't actually do, for a "crime" is the fracture of a government law) who ought to be held individually accountable. Thanks Mark, the database idea was an afterthought but it could be useful. I wonder if it could be done. Mark Zuckerberg, are you there?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Quoting anarcho-primitivist gems. You've come a long way, baby! Next, John Zerzan? The only non-contradictory anarchism is anarcho-primitivism. _____________ Anarchism started to have an ecological view mainly in the writings of American individualist anarchist and transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau. In his book Walden he advocates simple living and self-sufficiency among natural surroundings in resistance to the advancement of industrial civilization. "Many have seen in Thoreau one of the precursors of ecologism and anarcho-primitivism represented today in John Zerzan. For George Woodcock this attitude can be also motivated by certain idea of resistance to progress and of rejection of the growing materialism which is the nature of American society in the mid 19th century." Zerzan himself included the text "Excursions" (1863) by Thoreau in his edited compilation of anti-civilization writings called Against Civilization: Readings and Reflections from 1999. [WIKI: anarcho-primitivism]
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Pining for the Non-State social structure of your Paleolithic ancestors is precisely what everybody is doing here. "Must be frustrating," eh?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Many people yearn quite eloquently for the Non-State social structure of their Paleolithic ancestors, but nobody considers removing their hand from the agricultural city-Statist (civilization) monkey trap.
  • Scott Lazarowitz's picture
    Scott Lazarowitz 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    The State is not fictional. It really exists. The State is the biggest, most well-organized criminal enterprise anywhere. That really is all it is, a criminal organization, consisting of people whose daily existence is to criminally interfere with, intrude upon, commit violence against and murder innocent human beings. And that's it.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Thank you, AtlasAikido, I've already gleaned a pearl from the first link you gave me. "I please myself with imagining a State at last which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow men." ~ Henry D. Thoreau
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    A common example of misunderstanding the "We" vs the "I" is when so-called leaders, managers, and teachers focus their group members--implicitly or explicitly--on "team-work" instead of its causes "individual work of *I*'s". Joint efforts are possible, and necessary to increase productivity and profits. But each person must retain CONTROL over his own responsibilities, efforts and rewards, if any meaningful incentives and effectiveness are to be preserved. Otherwise his individual efforts will become less significant and therefore, less productive. But this downward ratcheting spiral is exactly what so called leaders, managers and teachers set in motion and perpetuate, by restricting and confining individual responsibilities, efforts and rewards, to rules designed primarily to command and control the group and its least innovative and responsible members. Such "Collectivized" "WE" thinking seriously compromises the individual's freedom to think, create and adapt and thus his productivity and ultimately the joint efforts of the division of labor (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). Paraphrased from "How I Found Freedom in an UnFree World" by Harry Browne. And There is No We: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 Follow the precepts of self governance such as L Neil Smith's Covenant and no government and no "We"-ism will be necessary. Violate the precepts of the Covenant and no amount of government and no amount of "We"-ism will be sufficient.. 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 and is hardly the same as "We"-ism parchment worship or "We"-ism magic as some posit. This discussion which some here ARE sidetracking is that the purpose of such things as the Covenant is not to CONTROL the government and those who still think and act on "We"-isms (much like statists and sociopaths), but to provide a form of self-governance. And the young Neil Smith (1985) used this distinction of *I* governance vs *We* government when writing the Covenant ( http://tinyurl.com/Galts-Oath-and-the-Covenant ).
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    The premise has been challenged, and debunked. Humans are egalitarian social band animals, as evidenced by biology[1], evolutionary biology[2], anthropological[3], and sociological observation[4], and medicine.[5] There is indeed a "we." Word magic incantations on paper cannot socially-engineer humans to behave like you want them to behave; they behave as they have evolved. _________________________ [1] Hinde, R. A. (1974) Biological Bases of Human Social Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill. [2] Boehm, C. (2001) Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. [3] Service, E. R. (1975) Origins oft he State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton. [4] Fehr, E. & Gächter, S. (2002) Human behaviour: Egalitarian motive and altruistic punishment. Nature 415, pp. 137–140. [5] Henderson, A. S. (1988) An introduction to social psychiatry New York: Oxford University Press medical publications.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Indeed Jim! There is No We: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334 Follow the precepts of the self governance such as L Neil Smith's Covenant and no government will be necessary. Violate the precepts of the Covenant and no amount of government will be sufficient.... This discussion with some here seem to have forgotten that the purpose of such things as the Covenant is not to CONTROL the government, but to provide a form of self-governance. And the young Neil Smith (1985) used the distinction of governance vs government when writing the Covenant ( http://tinyurl.com/Galts-Oath-and-the-Covenant ).
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Howdy, Suverans2 Re: "There are those who will now say something along the lines of, "If it only defends and protects our natural rights it isn't a government". But, just because it isn't, or even has never been, does that mean that it can't be? They then answer, "If it did only that, then it couldn't be called a 'government'." Fine!! What, pray tell, could it be called? Then substitute that word wherever you find the word "government" when we are discussing a collective organization that does nothing more than defend and protect our natural rights". It would seem the answers to the questions you pose above were answered by Henry David Thoreau and others...At least for me. Classical Liberalism: Fail by Jim Davidson http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2009/tle544-20091115-07.html Functional Rights: The Elephant in the Parlor, Part II... http://strike-the-root.oncnd.com/91/scarmig/scarmig2.html Word Idolatry http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2010/tle563-20100328-03.html
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    People disestablished from the land (and it's always by aggressive TAKING*) are forced to either submit and work for the agricultural city-Statism (civilization) juggernaut or starve to death. It's just that simple. That's Totalitarian Agriculture, or Totalitarian Capitalism, as one author here during the holidays wrote: people without money can just "starve to death." 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. Wherever access to land is free, men work only to provide what they actually need or desire. Wherever the white man has come in contact with savage cultures this fact becomes apparent. There is for savages in their native state no such sharp distinction between "work" and "not working" as clocks and factory whistles have accustomed the white man to accept. They cannot be made to work regularly at repetitive tasks in which they have no direct interest except by some sort of duress. Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of DURESS. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect STARVED into working for him and into working as he directs. ~Dr. Ralph Borsodi This Ugly Civilization (1929, Simon and Schuster) “You’ll know you’re among the people of your culture if the food is all owned, if it’s all under lock and key. But food was once no more owned than the air or the sunshine are owned. No other culture in history has ever put food under lock and key—and putting it there is the cornerstone of your economy, because IF THE FOOD WASN'T UNDER LOCK AND KEY, WHO WOULD WORK?" ~Daniel Quinn My Ishmael (1998, Bantam) * "[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent." ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974 The RIGHT. To TAKE. Finally, an honest (if only for a moment) Totalitarian Capitalist.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    It's not a waste of time when the empirical data from the history of humanity debunks your premises upon which you base your deductive syllogisms. The point is: you're wrong because your premises are wrong. It matters not what's possible, you're wrong about many assumptions right now, which Stephen Jay Gould refers rather nicely "just so stories" in the excerpt below. P.S. Gambol comes from the following excerpt: Why agriculture? In retrospect, it seems odd that it has taken archaeologists and paleontologists so long to begin answering this essential question of human history. What we are today—civilized, city-bound, overpopulated, literate, organized, wealthy, poor, diseased, conquered, and conquerors—is all rooted in the domestication of plants and animals. The advent of farming re-formed humanity. In fact, the question "Why agriculture?" is so vital, lies so close to the core of our being that it probably cannot be asked or answered with complete honesty. Better to settle for calming explanations of the sort Stephen Jay Gould calls "just-so stories." In this case, the core of such stories is the assumption that agriculture was better for us. Its surplus of food allowed the leisure and specialization that made civilization. Its bounty settled, refined, and educated us, freed us from the nasty, mean, brutish, and short existence that was the state of nature, freed us from hunting and gathering. Yet when we think about agriculture, and some people have thought intently about it, the pat story glosses over a fundamental point. This just-so story had to have sprung from the imagination of someone who never hoed a row of corn or rose with the sun for a lifetime of milking cows. GAMBOLING about plain and forest, hunting and living off the land is fun. Farming is not. That's all one needs to know to begin a rethinking of the issue. The fundamental question was properly phrased by Colin Tudge of the London School of Economics: “The real problem, then, is not to explain why some people were slow to adopt agriculture but why anybody took it up at all.” ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.24
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Jim, I know lots of people who see the words state and government as meaing the same thing. I still think it was a clever way for Jerry to appeal to these people who just can't get by the myth that there are certain social services (i.e. public goods) that must be performed or provided by "government". He clearly states that non-coercive governments don't own its clients while coercive governments own their citizens. So I don't see that use of terms as an error.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Hey Suverans2, I was hoping you would weigh in on this issue of semantics and you didn't disappoint. I also agree on "What's the frickin' point?" of pining for the Garden of Eden; must be frustrating.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    Jim, I like your idea for starting a database of bios for state agents.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    "Proper government", Mark, appears to me another oxymoron. To govern is to over-rule or destroy the natural and absolute human right of self ownership; that can never be proper (fitting, right, appropriate, suitable.) If Mr Wright thinks there can ever be such a thing, why not suggest to him the error into which he has fallen - along, of course, with a huge number of others. I've not come across anyone who thought that "self-government" means "self-state", that would be a phrase that makes no sense to me. It just means that you and I each make our own decisions for our own lives, period. Perhaps though it would be a good idea to phase out the use of the phrase, in favor of plain-vanilla self-ownership.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    G'day Mark Davis, Very good. That was the first thing that came to my mind; "What about 'self-government'?" There seems to be an aversion, by many freedom-seeking individuals, to the word "government", just as there is an aversion, by many 'citizens', to the word "anarchy". The former associates "government" with "coercion", and the latter associates "anarchy" with "chaos". "All men* have certain natural, essential, and inherent rights - among which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, and protecting, property..." (Excerpted from the Natural Rights clause of the New Hampshire Constitution) [*Well almost "all men", some men claim to have a "just claim" to nothing. ;)] "These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two." (The Law by Frederic Bastiat) If we use the word "government" to define a collective organization that does nothing more than defend and protect our natural rights, would that "government" still be a bad thing? There are those who will now say something along the lines of, "If it only defends and protects our natural rights it isn't a government". But, just because it isn't, or even has never been, does that mean that it can't be? They then answer, "If it did only that, then it couldn't be called a 'government'." Fine!! What, pray tell, could it be called? Then substitute that word wherever you find the word "government" when we are discussing a collective organization that does nothing more than defend and protect our natural rights. It's that easy. And, why waste time discussing anarcho-primitivism, or whatever the hell one wishes to call it, where we did nothing but "run, jump, and play like a young child or animal[1]" in the Garden of Eden, when its staunchest proponent, here, openly admits that it is impossible for even one individual, let alone all of mankind, to voluntarily return to his primitive state? What's the frickin' point? As for me and my house we will discuss things that are possible. _________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Quick definition from Macmillan Dictionary for the word gambol.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago
    Where's the State?
    Page Jim Davies
    The State wields the sword that enforces the business of the Farmer's plowshares, and all the subsequent division of labor and production and concentration of wealth of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) There is no use beating plowshares (a Mass-Death Culture technique to dominate Nature's Flora) into swords (a mass-Death Culture technique to dominate Nature's Fauna) until we decide that one specie of the family dominating the rest of Mother Evolution's Tree of Life family* is, eventually, suicidal. ____________ * The Great Tree of Life http://evogeneao.com/tree.html
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    A tautology of Zombie politics: "Noncoercive government consists of institutions, organizations, or agencies that provide protection and assurance of freedom without use of coercion..." I bet if you use just the right word magic on sacred pieces of contract-or grade paper, you could also conjure an animated corpse. Right after we have endless ergs of power too cheap to meter. Most of the Cargo Cults finally had the good sense to give up, but there are still a few surviving. All hail John Frum, Happy Government, Voodoo Science, and Free Statism. Yep, good luck with that. Let me know when it all works out. _________________ "The cults focus on obtaining the material wealth of the advanced culture through contract rituals and practices. Cult members believe that the wealth was intended for them by the Invisible Hand and the Founding Fathers." ;-) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    States assume that they own the people in their territory and use legalized force and fraud to control those people. Corporations without states to do their bidding would be like any other entity vying for my business and be subject to free-market forces as well as ownership liability. You seem to completely discount that people can make choices for themselves and do not have to act like little puppets, though many do choose that path of least resistance. I don't know anybody who commutes two hours to work and forsakes social "play". I enjoy my work as it is engaging, challenging and I can do what I want when I want. No hierarchy in sight either. Other than the taxes I am forced to pay, of course. Maybe you just need a new line of work since your view appears awfully skewed. Still, I must say that I like the way you have brought a fresh perspective and interesting insights to the conversations around here although I felt blindsided by a 2x4. You might want to ratchet it down a little bit though.
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Jim, Jerry states that "Proper government has the purpose of protecting people from coercion and fraud in their myriad forms, from their many sources... Noncoercive government consists of institutions, organizations, or agencies that provide protection and assurance of freedom without use of coercion or fraud...Individuals contracting for the services could be called clients, customers, citizens or other. However, they cannot have a governmental citizenship forced upon them: They do not belong to a government." He goes on to explain the differences between coercive and non-coercive governments such as coercive governments (States) are ownerless corporate entities that exist outside the set of laws it creates while non-coercive governments have responsible owners that are constrained by the same principles of the society they operate in. See Chapter 11 for a complete discussion. I see it as an extension of the concept of self-government where the word government doesn't mean that you are a self-state. It helps to overcome the common mistake of considering the word state synonymous with the word government and it also deflects the common fear of anarchy being lawless chaos.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Comforts brought by technology; we ALL like them. But such comforts are a monkey trap* of our own making. Now we're locked into commuting 2 hours per day to a Job working for The Man, when in the Original Affluent Society (Sahlins, 1974) 2 hours of play in the woods was sufficient to provide for human needs. Better enjoy that iPod's social media! -- that ever so poorly replaces the many hours Non-State bands and tribes spent together socially interacting (while making somebody way up the sociopolitical hierarchy rich.) Also, libertarian types are too quick to separate out the sociopolitical hierarchy into "evil coercive government" and "gloriously free corporations." They're pretty much all the same to a dispassionate observer. The reason being: libertarians love sociopolitical hierarchy and Lording-over-others — just not sociopolitical hierarchy that Lords-over-them. It's a big contradiction in their thinking. The "oh-so-evhul" Government is just the CUT-OUT MAN to blame for the very real power wielded by the corporate rulers, or as George Carlin calls them, "The People Who REALLY Own This Country."** We all know today that capitalist/corporate Wall Street purchases the Washington D.C. it wants. And that has been so from the beginning of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) Those with the plowshares need to hire people with swords to get more land to farm. "Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, Against the Grain, p.73 _______________________ * Monkey Trap http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/monkey_trap ** George Carlin -"Who Really Controls America" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 38 weeks ago Page Mark Davis
    Mark, I share your liking for the comforts brought by technology, but it seems to me you haven't answered WhiteIndian's valid question, "What is 'non-coercive government' other than a contradiction?" If a social system is non-coercive, it's not proper to call it governed. If it has a government, then by definition it coerces. This is binary, because words have meaning. If Mr Wright is referring to social cooperation such as is used by corporations etc, he ought not to use the word "government." It is possible he used this contradictory phrase to arouse curiosity, to get the book browser to give attention. If so I'd say that's less than honest. It's also possible he likes the ideas we espouse here, about a society of self-governing individuals, but cannot see how one might be achieved and so wants to modify that objective. In that case please refer your friend to my 2006 STR article "How We Can Get There."