Recent comments

  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    "...you are of the opinion that I must have, "mutual consent...or...brute force", to establish ownership of my self?" Seems so. Just like any other property. How could it be otherwise? Maybe in your own mind, you might have a different opinion. But you still have to make that claim stick, where others are concerned. And that's where we run into mutual consent, or brute force.
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex R. Knight III
    Let them have it. Panarchy is the answer to that question.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    You're conflating self-awareness and volition, and both of those are side issues to establishing autonomy (self-ownership.) So I'll ask again, if "self-ownership" is axiomatic for humans, then is it axiomatic for other animals? Other life in general? If not, why not? I'm ok with "self-ownership," but the capitalist version is a toxic mimicry of autonomy, a bait and switch, meant to scam people into thinking of themselves and all of our home planet's Earthlings as mere property to be used by the hierarchical elite. But people are not mere property. You can dispose of property; it's the right of the property holder. You can't dispose of people. But that's the whole libertarian theory of labor, people selling themselves as wage slaves. Or even into full slavery, as suggested by Austrian "scholar" Walter Block. So when a libertarian type proselytizes with their "do you own yourself" I answer: "People are not mere property. You can dispose of property; its the right of the property holder. You can't dispose of people." That puts a little kink in their proselytization efforts. If they need more kink, I made a short play for one libertarian, as follows: {{ Libertarian Snuff Films, Inc. }} 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: Dispose of it? 
MASTER: That's right, bitch. [BANG!] [fap fap fap fap fap fap fap] 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. Voluntary Slave Contracts 
by Walter Block 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html There's the logical conclusion to thinking of humans as mere property, even if "self-owned" property: Libertarian Dehumanization.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry, WhiteIndian, that you can't throw light on the dividing line regarding volitional choice. I had hoped that with your clearly superior understanding of the natural world, you might have. That being so, we're stuck with using the self-ownership axiom for humans, at least. Possibly some other species, you don't know which (and nor do I.) That axiom does not depend on Rand, still less on Christianity (which teaches, I thought, that all men are subject to the rule of _God_.) Nor does it derive from capitalism, which is a consequence of the axiom and in no sense its source. What nonsense have you been taught to read?! Accordingly, a hierarchical form of society, regardless of its ubiquity, is 100% contrary to human nature. If every person has the intrinsic right to rule himself (that's what the axiom holds) then nobody has any right to rule anyone else. That follows, as day follows night; there is no escape from that conclusion. Since there is no known exception to your observation (there are minor ones, I think; mediaeval Iceland comes to mind) that means that for the last ten thousand years mankind has been up a government creek. Your post could be read to say "it has always been so, therefore it is optimal and must or should always be so" - but here on Strike the Root we take the diametrically opposite view. We start by recognizing the axiom as inviolate, and therefore say that mankind has to be turned around, taken out of the creek. Government - illegitimate rule, as above - has to be abolished. That is our purpose, and I for one hope you will join us. If you wish to visualize how a large society would work without hierarchical rule, go to www.TakeLifeBack.com/trilib and order a copy of my book "A Vision of Liberty." For a brief take on world history since fixed agriculture was discovered, consider "Denial of Liberty" in the same trilogy.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Natural is a slippery word, and mostly used to justify things that most people don't think of as natural. I like Ran Prieur's definition of "natural," * as follows: Lies of Civilization #3. Everything is natural. Happily most people recognize this as a silly pseudo-philosophical distraction, but I want to knock it down anyway. The argument rests on a semantic distortion, a redefinition of "natural" to include absolutely everything, because I say so. Civilization is natural because humans are animals, toxic waste is natural because it's derived from stuff that comes from the Earth, bla bla bla. Real people do not use the word "natural" in this way. Maybe it's "natural" if I take this club and bash your head in, but you would prefer that I didn't, so you define words like "murder" to express and defend this preference. In the same way, people define "natural" to express and defend their preference for living trees over plastic trees, meadows over parking lots, rivers of drinkable water over rivers of dioxin. This is what "natural" really means, and if we don't want to die of cancer and turn the Earth into a poisoned desert, we have a responsibility to linguistically separate the natural from the unnatural and choose the natural many times a day. If you want a tight definition, natural means in symbiosis with nature, and nature means the totality of symbiotic life on Earth, and symbiotic means related in ways that are mutually beneficial and beneficial to the whole, where wider benefit takes precedence. Defining "beneficial" pushes the limits of our impoverished language, but I'm going to say generating autonomous and diverse aliveness. And if you don't know what aliveness means, look harder. Regarding Suverans2, I don't think homosexuality is any any less natural than living in cities, working "Jobs," quoting law dictionaries in speech, or most of how we live and behave nowadays in our "plastic fantastic" ** city-Statism (civilization.) I do think crowding increases sexual deviancy (not that there's anything wrong with that,) as I alluded to below in another comment. ___________________ * Ran Prieur (2003) Seven Lies About Civilization http://ranprieur.com/essays/7lies.html ** Timothy Leary (1994) Chaos & Cyber Culture, Ronin Publishing.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    "Crowding" isn't natural. Neither is "hierarchy" or "sexual deviance" in humans and many other animals. We're well on our way. __________ “The one thing they did not have was space...He allowed the population to grow to 80 in the first instance.” As the scientist observed, a social hierarchy developed: One despot male and 9 females claimed the two defensible pens with only one ramp provided; 60 others crowded into the other 2 pens with two ramps. Calhoun found that “rodent utopia” rapidly became “hell.” He described the onset of several pathologies: violence and aggression, with rats in the crowded pen “going berserk, attacking females, juveniles and less-active males.” There was also “sexual deviance.” Rats became hypersexual, pursuing females relentlessly even when not in heat. The mortality rate among females was extremely high. A large proportion of the population became bisexual, then increasingly homosexual, and finally asexual. There was a breakdown in maternal behavior. Mothers stopped caring for their young, stopped building a nest for them and even began to attack them, resulting in a 96 percent mortality rate in the two crowded pens. Calhoun coined a term—“behavioral sink”—to describe the decay. excerpt from: Plumbing the ‘Behavioral Sink’ Medical Historian Examines NIMH Experiments in Crowding http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Excellent points, WI. And what is "natural" about starting a fire that was not instigated by a lightning strike? I hope Suverans2 simply cries "uncle" and gives up on this instead of going off to his dictionary again to depart from the stream of the argument by burying us in minutia.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Suverans2: You don't appear to have addressed my points. Further, I cannot imagine what would possess a person to try to apply the labels "natural" and "unnatural" to something like this. I mean, really: do you presume to know the "mind" of Nature? And why do we anthropomorphize Nature and transform her into a being with some purpose. This is all very Hegelian and rather strange.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Do you find anything natural about skyscrapers? Splenda? Artificial intelligence? Law dictionaries? This Natural Law stuff intrigues me.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow, I realize that this is a touchy subject, not in any small part, because so much government brainwashing, from a very early age, has gone into making everyone believe that homosexuality is just an “alternate lifestyle”, rather than nature's response to overpopulation. You wrote: Suverans2: I think you are nearly entirely in error is saying same-sex marriage is contrary to nature. It is only contrary to nature if you think that reproduction is the only consideration. Since reproduction need not be included as a defining element of humans -- after all we are much richer beings than being mere breeders -- your response limits its purview to only the most limited aspect of human beings. Further, in other primates, same-sex matings are often perceived as play acting of cross-sex relationships. Further, they are entirely commonplace. You evidently believe that same-sex marriage is the natural order of things. So be it, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Your use of the word “matings” seems to have been used to infer that these are permanent or semi-permanent unions, over and above same-sex copulations, for “play acting of cross-sex relationships”, or merely for pleasure, by these “other primates”. Furthermore, humans mating [copulating] with animals is “entirely [too] commonplace”, as well, so does that, in your opinion, make bestiality logically in harmony with [the] nature [of man], too?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Yeah, it is bogus; but I never said that. You can ignore empirical data if you want, but it is well documented that humans in Mass Societal sizes beyond Dunbar's Number form hierarchy, and in City-size settlements form States. Every Civilization (settlements 5000+) in all human history has State Level Politics. Every. Single. Time. It's why anthropologists include "State Level Politics" in the 5 primary defining characteristics of civilization. There isn't a single observed exception. As far as volition defining self-ownership, I don't know where the "volition dividing line" rests. It certainly isn't where Ayn Rand and Capitalism and Christianity purport. Other animals too have emotions*, volition, morality.** But the whole of Western Civilization—whether Capitalist or Socialist—ideology rests on "the Christian axiom that nature has no reason for existence save to serve man." *** If other animals have self-ownership also, the basic premise of agricultural city-Statism (civilization) is weighted in the balance and found wanting. MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN P.S. Think of me as NeoGalt speaking, except the chief engineer can shut me off if he wants. I am the man born without guilt over my paucity of Calvinist slavin' ethic. _________________________ * When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals by Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson http://www.amazon.com/When-Elephants-Weep-Emotional-Animals/dp/0385314280 ** Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals by Frans B. M. de Waal http://www.amazon.com/Good-Natured-Origins-Humans-Animals/dp/0674356616 *** Lynn White, Jr. (1967). "The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis." Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3767. pp. 1203-1207.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Here is what is being called, by the Agenda 21 shill, my “long angry or violent speech” [diatribe], which demonstrates my “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality” [homophobia]. That is correct, Lawrence M. Ludlow, "marriages are things undertaken in nature by consenting beings", LONG BEFORE the existence of states. As you, and most people here probably know, I have no 'reverence' of any states. The only "just powers" of de jure (rightful) governments, (or whatever one wishes to call such an entity), is to protect its consenting members' natural rights. Same-sex marriage is unnatural. Quick definitions from WordNet (unnatural) ▸ adjective: not in accordance with or determined by nature; contrary to nature With no intention of being judgmental, or offending anyone here, "same-sex marriage" is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of man, just as the union of two nuts, or the union of two bolts, is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of nuts and bolts", while "different-sex marriage", is, logically, in harmony with the nature of man, just as the union of a nut and bolt is, logically, in harmony with the nature of nuts and bolts. So,what is the main reason that individuals would vote to have their unnatural same-sex marriage "legally recognized"? You got it, so the unnatural STATE will give them the same entitlements attached to natural different-sex marriages. If a jury of my peers finds me guilty of making a “long angry or violent speech” [diatribe], which demonstrates an “unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality” [homophobia], then I ask, no, I demand, that, as punishment, I be permanently banned from this website.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    "--'..the market mechanism would function, in the same manner it always does...' "No, it doesn't. " Yes, it does. What Hunt, Lautzenheiser and a host of other tax-feeding, parasitic, pseudo-intellectuals wholly fail to grasp is that value is subjective. Were it objective, of course a market could not function; hardly any exchanges would occur. The fact that they do occur, by the billion every day, proves conclusively that value is subjective. For some odd reason, I value the pleasure of writing this rebuttal more than I value relaxing on the couch. For more obvious reasons, I value the salmon I had for lunch on Sunday more than the five legal tender notes I gave for it in exchange. The market certainly does work - provided it's allowed to. "Government" is well defined as "that which forcibly prohibits a market" and so all we see today is a complicated, messy mix; some aspects of market behavior, much non-market activity, all of which violates the self-ownership axiom and so is destructive of human welfare. The fact that markets work is not a matter of "faith", but of observation and reason.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    --"...the market mechanism would function, in the same manner it always does..." No, it doesn't. Faith in "government" is surpassed in this country only by faith in "God" and faith in "The Invisible Hand." _____________________ Economists base their political program on a belief called “Pareto optimality.” “Pareto optimality” is not scientific because it is not defined in a way that can be falsified. In other words, “Pareto optimality” is a belief like “Christ died for our sins” is a belief — neither can be falsified. Economists proselytize for their religious beliefs like Christian missionaries proselytize for theirs. The belief that “Pareto optimality” actually occurs in the real world is the linchpin of economics. If one accepts that “Pareto optimality” is true in the real world, in then contemporary economic models are true by definition. ~Jay Hanson http://dieoff.org/ “The neoclassical school is the dominant (and probably the numerically largest) school in contemporary economics. For neoclassical economists, microeconomic theory (i.e., welfare economics) underlies every theoretical subfield of specialization and every theoretical, practical, and policy-oriented conclusion at which they arrive. All of their costbenefit analyses, their demonstrations of the universal gains from foreign trade, their notions of market efficiency that are encountered in every branch of applied economics, as well as their notion of rational prices, have absolutely no meaning whatsoever other than that manifested in their faith that a free-enterprise, competitive market system will tend toward a Pareto optimal situation. Without a Pareto optimal situation in effect, these phrases and notions cannot be defended. In fact, in the absence of an optimal situation, these phrases have no meaning whatsoever. They are given meaning only when the neoclassical economists first posit the existence of a Pareto optimum; then, by definition, all exchangers are said to gain, resources are said to be ‘efficiently allocated,’ prices are said to be ‘rational’ and therefore conducive to making accurate assessments—on utilitarian grounds—of the social costs and social benefits of various government projects. Utilitarian neoclassical welfare economics pervades and dominates nearly all neoclassical analyses on all theoretical and practical matters.” — HISTORY OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT: A CRITICAL PERSPECTIVE, Third Edition, E. K. Hunt & Mark Lautzenheiser, 2011
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Making the truth of the self-ownership axiom contingent upon a "human neurobiological limit" is bogus from top to bottom. An axiom is an axiom. This axiom is fundamental to this forum and if you're not willing to accept it, WhiteIndian, I respectfully suggest you go form your own. On the other hand your comment about other animals is very interesting - I've often wondered about it. Probably Ayn Rand, through Galt, was correct in that the ability to make volitional choice is the key, because self ownership is all about choosing and deciding; but in limited ways the dogs I've known do seem to have exercised some such choice. I can well believe that the folk who reached America from the West instead of from the East had a much finer appreciation and understanding of animal behavior, and we Euros need to respect it more. Where, though, does it end? - does a bee in a hive or an ant in an army have volitional choice? - not, I think. How about veggies? - likewise. How can one spot the dividing line, do you say? Don't under-rate Ayn Rand, by the way. She was far more perceptive than any in her generation, about the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of socialism. She had a few faults, notably failing to follow her own findings to their logical (anarchist) conclusions, but mankind is deep in her debt.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Alex Schroeder
    A good one, Alex; competing screening systems would bring vast improvement. Might we not take it further? - "allowing each airline the authority..." is just to restore to the airline what was stolen in the first place. Why not "allow" each airline to decide whether or not to welcome armed passengers? - if even a minority had carried handguns aboard on 9/11, there would have been no "9/11." Some might even offer boarding passengers the loan of a handgun along with headphones... no malefactor would even dream about hijacking such a prickly target. But we can take the idea further yet. These various ways of combating "terrorism" all assume that terrorism is there, that some people want to commit murder-suicide with an airplane. Why do they? - because they have a motive, obviously. Where did that motive originate? - in some action of the FedGov; for 9/11, its relentless support for the State of Israel, which profoundly offends many Muslims. "Terrorism" can be ended by removing the motive. We can chat with our fellow passenger by reminding him that we just went through the tiresome dragnet of TSA screening because the Feds have a foreign policy. "But you can't have a government without a foreign policy!" - precisely :-)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Query for Atlas on "Self-Ownership:" • To how many species on the evolutionary Tree of Life* does this "Principle" apply? • If only one, at what point in biological evolution did "self-ownership" (which I correlate with the more widely used scientific term autonomy**) become "axiomatic" for that specie, and why only for that specie? ____________________ * Evolutionary Genealogy: The Great Tree of Life http://evogeneao.com/tree.html ** Life is a complex phenomenon that not only requires individual self-producing and self-sustaining systems but also a historical-collective organization of those individual systems, which brings about characteristic evolutionary dynamics. On these lines, we propose to define universally living beings as autonomous systems with open-ended evolution capacities, and we claim that all such systems must have a semi-permeable active boundary (membrane), an energy transduction apparatus (set of energy currencies) and, at least, two types of functionally interdependent macromolecular components (catalysts and records). ~Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Juli Peretó and Alvaro Moreno. (2004) "A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Volume 34, Number 3, 323-346. www.springerlink.com/content/p6j42r66k2277373/
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    As George H. Smith points out, Ayn Rand's own moral code does NOT lead to mini-statism. It leads to anarchy. Understanding Rand's Objectivist Ethics led me to embrace agorism and The Covenant of Unanimous Consent--which gets one out of controlling others including giving a fig newton about religion nor Locke's so called bible issues if in fact there were any. It is a non-issue. I merely posted possible refutations for those who are interested. A lesson to be drawn? I read links/article first and come to my own conclusions before others inveigle non-sequiters, especially when there is a "troll"/"vandal" lurking.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    A new aspect. Something to be aware of. The troll becomes more friendly. Beware!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Locke's Divine-Right-Of-Property is Bible-based. Are you still in denial about that?
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Easy Tarzan, I never called you a troll and i have supported your commenting.Perhaps you mis-interpreted my challenge of some posters here calling STR their ''house.'' Some were acting like you forced your way into somebodies 'house' uninvited and started re-arranging the furniture. I cleaned up the metaphor to liken it to a childrens coloringbook party.Once you colored outside the lines(or used the wrong color crayons) some called for your bannishment.(I think anyone should be able to post here,and if the posting is disagreeable,should be withstood intellectually by the members.) As was pointed out to me;the financing of STR is from a poster that you were having an exchange with and he had to resort to insults when ,as he put it,his reason failed. Now if someone(an owner) financially supports STR, I can see that person having the right to kick anybody off for any cause or no cause,but that seemed to fly in the face of the principals here espoused.The same way a Creator has the right to shorten an unrepetent reprobate life. (Truth is, i do not agree with most of what you have pimped on STR.Although i think you should be allowed to dialogue.I had posted earlier about birth-rates.Perhaps you should check your premises.) It is your UN-civilised countries who have the biggest population growth.Majority of their time is spent obtaining sustenance for one day(and it seems procreating).Intersting that some call that a Game-show in this society.You might have seen it,it's called survivor.A T.V. show here,while it is a life and death reality for those living in a smoke filled tee-pee or mud-hut collecting buffallo chips to put on a fire to keep warm and cook a field mouse for dinner. Every industrialised country is dying. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBS6f-JVvTY&feature=relmfu The total fertility rate is the average number of children that each woman will have during her lifetime. The TFR is an average because, of course, some women will have more, some fewer, and some no children at all. Theoretically, when the TFR = 2, each pair of parents just replaces itself. Actually it takes a TFR of 2.1 or 2.2 to replace each generation — this number is called the replacement rate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FM1YU-Ni_84 http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/peo_bir_rat-people-birth-rate The big surprise of the past twenty years is that in not one country did fertility stop falling when it reached the replacement rate -- 2.1 children per woman. In Italy, for example, the rate has fallen to 1.2. In Western Europe as a whole and in Japan it is down to 1.5. The evidence now indicates that within fifty years or so world population will peak at about eight billion before starting a fairly rapid decline. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/99aug/9908popdrop.htm It is the reason the elites on concentrating their eugenics programs on tribes and countries in Africa etc.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    The link to Suverans2 homophobic tirade didn't magically disappear just because of your Obtuse Obfuscation (OO) you wrote there! Following is the, ahem, nuts and bolts of it: Same-sex marriage is unnatural..."same-sex marriage" is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of man, just as the union of two nuts, or the union of two bolts, is, logically, "contrary to [the] nature" of nuts and bolts", while "different-sex marriage", is, logically, in harmony with the nature of man, just as the union of a nut and bolt is, logically, in harmony with the nature of nuts and bolts...their unnatural same-sex marriage... ~Suverans2, posted on January 11, 2012 http://www.strike-the-root.com/marriage-state-vs-contract-and-religion Oh, look, Atlas dropped his SOPA on the shower floor!
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Thank you Glen. Dear Reader I shall move onto what one would/could conclude if they read the link I supplied in my prior post instead of following non-sequiters, but first... What an Intentional Fool (IF) counts on is the fulcrum of complexity. Can he insinuate a plausible derailment of what a casual blogger has no time to sift thru (in effect waving them off an issue)? And at the same time can he/she inveigle a poster to correct the IF's derailments? Now at this point the issue is. Does one say ok, I will check the link and see if there was a derailment. I understand some will just keep reading and file this point for later reference. Whether the derailment is a modus operandi does not come up until one makes the connection for themselves. Once enough folks make a definitive identification, and some clearly have--Glen, livingfreeretiree, Suverans2, etc --the Intentional Fool's power is lost and the word Troll/Knave comes to have a clear and understandable meaning.... Where was I (as it relates to my prior posts)? Ah yes! While the Lockeian tradition of mini-statism - includes some of the followers of Ayn Rand it cannot be reconciled with her moral code. Which is the point of the article. Those who accept the premise that individuals (and only individuals) possess equal and reciprocal rights, and if one insists that these individuals must consent to be ruled by a government, and if one condemns as illegitimate all governments that rule without consent - then all governments, past and present, have been illegitimate. There is no Objectivist politics nor economics. If some conflate Locke's politics with Rands followers that is hardly a refutation of her moral code which does indeed lead to agorism. Understanding Rand's Objectivist Ethics led me to embrace agorism and The Covenant of Unanimous Consent--which gets one out of controlling others (including giving a fig newton about religion. It is a non-issue. I merely posted possible refutations for those who are interested). But whilst we have some troll arguing about whether "dolphins are evil" or conflating Rand's moral code with some of her followers, this IS going on... "Today, the Wikipedia community announced its decision to black out the English-language Wikipedia for 24 hours, worldwide, beginning at 05:00 UTC on Wednesday, January 18 (you can read the statement from the Wikimedia Foundation here). The blackout is a protest against proposed legislation in the United States – the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) in the U.S. House of Representatives, and the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) in the U.S. Senate – that, if passed, would seriously damage the free and open Internet, including Wikipedia. This will be the first time the English Wikipedia has ever staged a public protest of this nature, and it’s a decision that wasn’t lightly made. Here’s how it’s been described by the three Wikipedia administrators who formally facilitated the community’s discussion. From the public statement, signed by User:NuclearWarfare, User:Risker and User:Billinghurst: English Wikipedia anti-SOPA blackout https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/English_Wikipedia_anti-SOPA_blackout Good for Wikipedia PS I pointed out in point 11 of a prior post. It is hardly "easier to think" and explore ideas and trade with others--without getting bogged down in non-sequiters--if one has a "troll or vandal" around...It does end up being "submissive"--amongst other things--if one continues to give such by conceding the moral high ground and the benefit of the doubt.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Don Stacy
    Suverans2: I think you are nearly entirely in error is saying same-sex marriage is contrary to nature. It is only contrary to nature if you think that reproduction is the only consideration. Since reproduction need not be included as a defining element of humans -- after all we are much richer beings than being mere breeders -- your response limits its purview to only the most limited aspect of human beings. Further, in other primates, same-sex matings are often perceived as play acting of cross-sex relationships. Further, they are entirely commonplace.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    John Galt says, "His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice." I suppose Ayn never observed any other animals. Or much else. "Animals left the natal site on their own volition and settled down where no close relatives were present." Natal dispersal in the European wild rabbit by J. KÜNKELE and D. VON HOLST Lehrstuhl für Tierphysiologie, Universität Bayreuth, Germany Animal Behaviour Volume 51, Issue 5, May 1996, Pages 1047–1059 www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003347296901062
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Yours was the worn out "homosexuality isn't natural" harangue. Now you're going to deny you said that? Cute. P.S. You never have answered if dolphins are un-natural, either here, or in my question about other species' homosexual behavior in reply to your homophobic tirade.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    libel is a false, malicious statement published in mainstream media (i.e. on the internet, in a magazine, etc.). It is somewhat synonymous to defamation. Please, I would like the moderator of this website to show me my "homophobic tirade". homophobia unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality. tirade A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature. If it cannot be shown, I politely request that that libelous remark be removed.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Question on "self-ownership": to how many species on the evolutionary Tree of Life* does this principle apply? If only one, at what point in biological evolution did "self-ownership" (autonomy**) become "axoimatic" for that specie, and why only for that specie? ____________________ * Evolutionary Genealogy The Great Tree of Life http://evogeneao.com/tree.html ** Life is a complex phenomenon that not only requires individual self-producing and self-sustaining systems but also a historical-collective organization of those individual systems, which brings about characteristic evolutionary dynamics. On these lines, we propose to define universally living beings as autonomous systems with open-ended evolution capacities, and we claim that all such systems must have a semi-permeable active boundary (membrane), an energy transduction apparatus (set of energy currencies) and, at least, two types of functionally interdependent macromolecular components (catalysts and records). Kepa Ruiz-Mirazo, Juli Peretó and Alvaro Moreno. (2004) "A Universal Definition of Life: Autonomy and Open-Ended Evolution." Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres. Volume 34, Number 3, 323-346. http://www.springerlink.com/content/p6j42r66k2277373/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Liberty Stability
    Page Jim Davies
    Yours is a nice description of egalitarian Non-State band and tribal society: "Because in a true free society, everyone understands the self-ownership axiom. Since everyone is free to maximize his own enjoyment of life, there is no motive to change the status. It's optimal, and therefore STABLE." Such a society works within the human neurobiological limit of "the number of people with whom one can maintain stable STABLE relationships." [wiki:Dunbar's_Number] Outside of those neurobiological limits—in a Mass Society—sociopolitical hierarchy becomes necessary and freedom is destroyed.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Regarding your homophobic tirade, are dolphins breaking "natural law?" List of animals displaying homosexual behavior http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "Traditionally, Natural Law is called "natural" for two reasons. First, Natural Law is distinguished from conventional law; in other words, Natural Law does not depend on or derive from manmade institutions and customs. (If it did, it would not be able to serve as a standard by which to judge manmade law.) Second, Natural Law is distinguished from supernatural law; in other words, Natural Law is accessible to human reason rather than requiring divine revelation. (Historically, Natural Law theorists have disagreed with one another about whether Natural Law derives its authority from God's commands; but even those who have held — wrongly, in my view — that Natural Law does indeed depend on divine commands have nevertheless insisted that Natural Law represents that portion of God's commands that we could figure out for ourselves as being rational and reasonable, through our own unaided intellect, without appeal to scripture or other forms of revelation.)" ~ Excerpted from The Nature of Law by Roderick T. Long , Part IV, by Roderick T. Long p.s. tzo, you may find this entire treatise interesting
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Careful reasoning? "...it is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115:16), 'has given the earth to the children of men'..." ~John Locke Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690) Book II, Chapter 5 Of Property
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    "In his own time, [John Locke] was famous for arguing that the divine right of kings is supported neither by scripture nor by the use of reason. In developing his theory of our duty to obey the state, he attacked the idea that might makes right: Starting from an initial state of nature with no government, police or private property, we humans could discover by careful reasoning that there are natural laws which suggest that we have natural rights to our own persons and to our own labor. Eventually we could discover that we should create a social contract with others, and out of this contract emerges...the institution of private property [beyond "our own persons and our own labor"]. This is how reasoning places limits on the proper use of power by government authorities. ... Labor is the origin and justification of property; contract or consent is the ground of government and fixes its limits." ~ Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, A Peer-Reviewed Academic Resource gfywi
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    This was a repeat; the intertubes are sometimes slow and I hit the "save" button a second time.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Thanks for posting this.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    I'd like to thank Dr Ron Paul for bringing this to me attention when he responded to Billy O'Reilly and called him out on his knavish ways. And my thanks to Suverans2. Regarding The Sad Truths of Internet trolls: 1. Trolls enjoy using shock-value statements to get angry responses from others. ~Well if you don't know what is happening then of course. I am smiling of course as this is how one picks a fight..... 2. Trolls gain energy by you insulting them. ~And they do loose energy when one clues in the bar, cafe patrons as to what is going on...(trolls are never found in secluded alleys nor under secluded bridges) 3. Trolls gain energy when you get angry. ~Sounds a lot like Semper Fi shock and awe bullshit. If you doubt this follow any self-respecting 12 year old goat herder (boy or girl) overseas.. 4. Trolls are immune to criticism and logical arguments. True trolls cannot be reasoned with, regardless of how sound your logical argument is. ~But I am not responding to the troll. I am responding to the audience...Whilst doing other things... 5. Trolls do not feel remorse like you and me. They have sociopathic tendencies, and accordingly, they delight in other people having hurt feelings. ~LOL. Sounds like a personal problem. 6. Trolls consider themselves separate from the social order. ~Not so. They clearly need an audience! They are cowards and cannot do their work unless others support and sanction them. Which is entirely different to defending oneself. 7. Trolls do not abide by etiquette or the rules of common courtesy. ~ Personal problems do tend to manifest thusly.... 8. Trolls consider themselves above social responsibility. ~All the better to see them for what they are...Although this is clearly not sufficient... 9. The only way to deal with a troll is to ignore him, or take away his ability to post online. ~Well not until you understand what is going on. Just telling someone to shrug is asking anyone too much. Rand wrote a book on the subject (Atlas Shrugged) and still too many miss the meaning. Some miss the meaning in Aikido, but relying on just Aikido is also asking too much of anyone. 10. More information can be found here: What Is an Internet 'troll'? About.com Internet for Beginners Study number ~ Yes it does come across like a beginners manual. Actually it is very rule based AND highly misleading. But more on that later... Some "incoming" points as I was posting: 11. It is hardly "easier to think" and explore ideas and trade with others if one has a "troll or vandal" around...It is "submissive"--amongst other things--if one continues to give such by conceding the moral high ground... 12. Who--once enlightened--would accept let alone entertain the notion that a "troll or vandal" "provides documented evidence that YOU hold contradictions, and [that] encourage[s] YOU to check your premises". Indeed you do if you let him/her have its way with you.... 13. "If one wants to strike-at-the-root of increased violence, it can be traced back to one thing DOMESTICATION" ~ This coming from a troll to his victims is how funny to you dear reader? I will expand on what is happening in another post (perhaps)... Best Regards, AtlasAikido
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    ". . .a human diet can be grown on 1000 square feet." So agriculture is OK, then, after all? I'd say "of course it is" and if we got rid of corporatism (Monsanto, oil co's, banksters, etc) and in other ways began respecting property and other individual rights, we'd have organic, sustainable ag along with honest non-Big-Pharma medical care and a thousand other things. Whether that would be enough to support 6+ billion humans is, I think, something we'd have to find out from experience. Show me a pre-ag world where 7 billion people lived comfortably, and I'll concede the point. "I never said violence and is unique to civilized people." Maybe not, but you have repeatedly maintained that agriculture brought about violent and other negative changes for society as a whole. I'd say it ENLARGED such violence and misery, primarily by increasing the population. The potential for concentrated power brought more tyranny and thus more misery. The solution isn't to eliminate ag and domestication; it is to reduce and eventually eliminate tyranny. And the idea that there was never a "professional violence class" in ancient or primitive societies is contradicted by the existence of cannibal tribes, warlike tribes, head-hunters, and the many types of evidence for war, violence, human sacrifice, and so on. SOME ancient societies were nice; some weren't. "Primitive societies were not devoid of violence, but they did limit it." -- again, you can pick your sources, but you know full well they aren't the ONLY sources of information. Plenty of primitive societies did a very poor job of "limiting" violence, and that's in addition to death and misery from plague, famine, exposure, and so on. "Agriculture CUT human lifespan. So you're just parroting more lies. Fact check for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy." The HIGHEST number on that chart is a whopping "25 - 40 years" (in "early modern britain"-- NOT a pre-ag society) until the present, where it's 67.2 years. Yes, I see that the number drops in the Neolithic as primitive ag gets underway, but then it goes up for millennia, and modern ag -- despite Monsanto's best efforts -- is clearly more effective at keeping large numbers of humans alive than either primitive ag or hunter-gathering. That's not to deny the ill-health effects of low sunlight, junkfood, and other modern (and quite preventable) evils. On primitive lifespan, from another Wikipedia page: "The life expectancy in prehistoric times was low, 25–40 years,[9] with men living longer than women; archaeological evidence of women and babies found together suggests that many women would have died in childbirth, perhaps accounting for the lower life expectancy in women than men. Another possible explanation for the shorter life spans of prehistoric humans may be malnutrition; men, as hunters, generally received better food than their female counterparts, who would subsequently have been less resistant to disease.[10]" From en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistoric_medicine. -- again, does this really sound like something to strive for? You insist that the roots of violence "... can be traced back to one thing": domestication. Again, gentle, non-violent societies based partly (Jains, Buddhists, etc) or wholly (a number of primitive tribes, for instance -- surprised you ignore this) show that SOMETHING ELSE is the issue. Too much emotional damage and too much tyranny, are my answer. "Violence and control against other species leads to more violence and control against our own species." -- I agree with that entirely, although given a choice between a non-ag life among emotionally damaged sociopaths -- of which there have been plenty in such conditions -- and a mostly-healthy and largely-free life in a world where ethical domestication (meaning with less cruelty and with a focus on the experience of anything [sentient] that is domesticated) is the norm -- I'd choose the latter.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    Lifespan? Agriculture CUT human lifespan. So you're just parroting more lies. Fact check for you http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy That 19 year lifespan -- that's a short, nasty, brutish CIVILIZED lifespan, and you're dishonesty trying to conflate it with Paleolithic lifespans. Childbirth? "She also noted that the death of the mother in childbirth was relatively rare...[compared to] birth in more civilized communities." ~Mark Nathan Cohen Health and the Rise of Civilization Yale University Press Malnutrition? "Archaeological evidence suggests that specific deficiencies, including that of iron (anemia), vitamin D (rickets), and, more controversially, vitamin C (scurvy) as well as such general signs of protein calorie malnutrition as childhood growth retardation have generally become more common in history rather than declining. ~Mark Nathan Cohen Health and the Rise of Civilization Yale University Press http://primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm Conspiracy Theories? -- "we CAN'T eliminate agriculture without killing maybe 6.5 billion humans." That's a tired old lie. Permaculturalists like John Jeavons have demonstrated time and time again that a human diet can be grown on 1000 square feet. But that doesn't make the capitalists any money, and doesn't concentrate calories enough to march armies, so we don't do it. Violence and War I never said violence and is unique to civilized people. Again, you're being intellectually dishonest suggesting that I said that. I like this passage to put city-Statist violence in perspective: "No society can ever be fully devoid of violence, but those that aspire to such a goal only become more violent by denying its place in the world. Primitive societies did engage in violence, and without a permanent class of professional killers...To properly compare the effectiveness of such approaches to our own, we need to take an honest accounting of violence in our own society—wars, murder, violent crime, incarceration, police brutality, and the full impact of our professional violence class. We need to look also to the ubiquitous violence inherent in our social system: the threat of violence that lies behind paying your rent, obtaining your food, and every other aspect of civilized existence. Primitive societies were not devoid of violence, but they did limit it, and it was a much rarer thing. Among them, violence was something that happened. For us, it’s a way of life." ~Jason Godesky The Savages are Truly Noble 10 May 2007 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2007/05/the-savages-are-truly-noble/ If one wants to strike-at-the-root of increased violence, it can be traced back to one thing: DOMESTICATION, that is: Violence and control against other species leads to more violence and control against our own species. P.S. I'm with you on the nospank and I've got Liedloff's book which is good stuff.
  • Glen Allport's picture
    Glen Allport 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    >You see 2 people living in a rabbit cage as "prosperity?" >You're evading reality. Really? Here's one bit of reality I am clear on: There are poor and miserable people everywhere, including in native tribes and pre-ag cultures. Not to mention huge rates of death in such cultures from childbirth (for both mothers and newborns), huge rates of death in infancy and childhood, frequent malnutrition and starvation, and widespread conditions even WORSE than the "cage people" in Hong Kong endure -- THEY, at least, have shelter inside, and access to many things their more primitive ancestors did not. But that isn't the point: the point is that you've highlighted a tiny group of unfortunates and are acting as if this is the condition for the mass of people there. It is NOT (and you KNOW this, just as you know that widespread misery existed in pre-ag cultures, and so are, in my opinion, being intellectually dishonest) -- and MY point, which I thought I was quite clear on, is that on the whole, modern tech and societies with at least reasonable levels of liberty HUGELY and WIDELY improve the situation of the people generally. You haven't disproved that and you won't, because it is the simple, strongly-supported truth. Or are you saying you PREFER early death for most people from disease, injury, infection, malnutrition, violence, and all the other things that caused human lifespan, for most of our history, to be so low -- as little as 19 years on average, according to some estimates? Even if it's more like 35 years, that still seems a pretty cruel thing to wish for. I'm not "glorifying agricultural city-Statism": I write columns (many of them) describing why coercive Statism of ANY type is evil and harmful. I spend plenty of time and provide LOTS of links and references in my columns -- ask the editor, who finds it time-consuming to format them all -- to support my position that the combination of coercion (or disrespect for the rights of others, if you prefer -- be they Indians or anyone else) and low levels of emotional health (and thus compassion, empathy, ethical behavior, etc) are the problem -- NOT technology, NOT agriculture, NOT ANYTHING ELSE but too-little love and freedom. And like others at STR, I have written specifically and repeatedly about the maltreatment of the Indian tribes -- if you assume those here at STR are uncaring or uninformed about the genocide against the Indians and the resulting unhealthy effects on the survivors, then you are, at a minimum, not very observant. But there are only 24 hours in every day, and so we must pick our battles. This, I charitably assume, is why you aren't spending equal time ranting about slavery in the American South and the lasting effects of that, and of racism generally, on blacks. It's why you haven't gotten around to chiding me and others here for not spending more time writing about the mistreatment of the Jews under the Pharaohs and the Romans, not to mention under the National Socialists in Hitler's Germany. Or do you just not care about THOSE victims? I know and support Jordan Riak, who runs Nospank.net. Preventing violence to children is HIS chosen calling, and its a worthwhile calling to have. I see it as only part of the issue; again, both liberty (respect for others) and love (emotional health, which requires proper and compassionate treatment of the young) is MY chosen issue. Yours seems to be reminding the world of the maltreatment of Indians and other indigenous peoples, and on the idea that agriculture leads inevitably to horrors. That first is one I agree with and support (and have written about more than once). The second, about agriculture, is more complex and in my opinion, only partially correct; ag has done many things both good and bad, and the BAD can be reduced and I believe almost entirely eliminated by increasing both liberty and compassion. We can DO that; we CAN'T eliminate agriculture without killing maybe 6.5 billion humans -- and if this is what you're advocating, let us know. In any case, we WON'T eliminate ag voluntarily, although the mass extinction we have started may eventually do this as a side-effect of wiping out most humans. Whether I am right or wrong about the benefits of love and freedom -- and frankly, I've written so often and included so many references and links that I have a hard time believing anyone could doubt those benefits, not because of my writing in particular but because I know how powerful and voluminous the data is -- this is MY chosen cause. If I had any reason to think that more love and freedom could possibly be a BAD thing, I'd rethink that focus. You are flatly wrong about the lack of violence and other horrors among pre-ag cultures. Some were gentle and others were very much not, and there is a LOT of eviderncer for this. On the violence of hunter-gatherer cultures, including ancient ones, here's a selection from "War in Human Civilization" – this text is in the free sample available from Amazon for Kindle and Kindle software http://www.amazon.com/War-in-Human-Civilization-ebook/dp/B006QV81C6/ref=... "The picture that has emerged from these studies [of hunter gatherers] is of neither a Hobbesian hell nor a Rousseauite paradise of pre-sin innocence, but a more mundane complex. In a Rousseauite vein, hunter-gatherers have been found to have labored less, had more leisure, and been generally healthier than agriculturalists. . . . Still, periodic droughts, or any other adverse climatic condition affecting their subsistence, often decimated them. Also, on the bleak side, pressure on resources was avoided by widespread infanticide, especially of baby girls. . . . Quarrels were rife among hunter-gatherers as among the rest of humankind, resulting in very high homicide rates among most hunter-gatherer peoples, much higher than in any modern industrial society. And yes, intergroup fighting and killing were widespread among them. . . . A Neantherthal man from some 50,000 years ago, found with a stabbing wound in the chest from a right-handed opponent, is our earliest documented specimen. . . . At Sandalja II in the former Yugoslavia a group of 29 people from the Upper Palaeolithic have been found with their skulls smashed. Violent injuries were also found to be very common in Upper Palaeolithic cemeteries in the former Czechoslovakia. In the Late Palaeolithic cemetery at Gebel Sahaba in Egyptian Nubia over 40 percent of the men, women, and children buried there were victims of stone projectile injuries . . . Moreover, evidence of fighting among historically recorded hunter-gatherers, whose way of life was not very far from that of their Upper Palaeolithic ancerstors, is abundant." Before you accuse me of painting ALL such cultures as violent, spend some more time reading my columns. I have descibed the Amazon Yequana tribe several times, for example, based on Jean Liedloff's description of them "The Continuum Concept" from her two years with the tribe [photos at continuum-concept.org/YequanaPhotos]. My point is that violence, war, cruelty, and so on are NOT something unique to modern man or to ag cultures in particular.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Locke's Divine-Right-Of-Property is Bible-based, and is just as plausible as the Divine-Right-of-Kings. "...it is very clear that God, as King David says (Psalm 115:16), 'has given the earth to the children of men'..." ~John Locke Two Treatises on Government (1680-1690) Book II, Chapter 5 Of Property "To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism." ~Jason Godesky The Right to Property 18 July 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2005/07/the-right-to-property/
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Federal Gov't = Business Elite's Middle Management. Obama's just a tool of an efficient, interlocking network of boardroom elite capitalists. Those same hierarchical elites are the ones paying for the religio-economic think tanks promoting laissez-faire capitalism, which absolves business of any wrong doing. Basically, the gov't is the "cut-out man." If anybody gets hurt, the "cut-out man" gets blamed; the elite get to say "I didn't have anything to do with it; hell, I'm all for freedom!" Plausible deniability through libertarian think tanks! It's pretty easy to find priestcraft whores to preach the message, and useful idiots who believe it, like you.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    I'm not writing on walls with crayons in somebody's house; I'm writing in a space provided to invite public comment. What you're seeking is conformity to a religio-economic catechism, and I'm not playing along like a submissive true believer. Instead, I've provided documented evidence that you hold contradictions, and encourage you to check your premises. But its easier to call me a troll or vandal than to think.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    What I care about is liberty and I will point out flaws in any system that would diminish it. I would also challenge any system that is totalitarian in nature and any attempts to reconcile dictatorship with liberty/ self ownership. My *moral grounds* for rejecting murder stems from property rights and self ownership. You do not need religion to justify basic morality. You know that murder is wrong without anyone telling you. And it is still wrong when done or commanded by imaginary friends (and its corollary The Most Dangerous Superstition--Authority). 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 Do bible believers honestly not see the inherently illogical and unsolvable conundrum they face by trying to resolve two antithetical systems? I don't understand how anyone who cares about ethics can be religious after having read those "holy" books. The power of denial is amazing. Cue George Carlin...
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Some have advocated a bannishment of a new member on STR. Suggesting that it was somebodies 'house.' If an omnipotent God has souvreignty over his creation,and the Body and soul of individuals,by your own "logic???" He has the Just claim to decide to shorten an unrepentent body,if he so choses, and than have mercy on the everlasting soul. The woefully misunderstood reading of Yeho-Shua, and the warfare-stratagems of the adversary addressed throughout,from Genesis on. Reveals the principle of exposisitional constancy,although written by many different authors seperated by thousands of years.Why go to Yeho-Shua,When you could have pointed to the flood God sent. One of the disturbing aspects of the Old Testament record was God's instructions, upon entering the land of Canaan, to wipe out every man, woman, and child of certain tribes inhabiting the land. This is difficult to justify without the insight of a "gene pool problem" from the remaining Nephilim, Rephaim, et al., which seems to illuminate the difficulty.(As the Scriptures state Noah was perfect in his generations! http://www.khouse.org/articles/1997/110/ ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIukHNKVkSA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBbBenCTTwE Further concerning a bannishment;the metaphor would be correct if some were invited to come to my house and use my crayons to color in my coloring books,but now i do not like the colors you are using so iam taking away my crayons and books and you must leave. As this is my house,crayons and books,It IS MY RIGHT! (Which i agree with, IF he does the financing of STR.)
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    On those trying to reconcile liberty w the bible To those who imbibe in a bible (amplified) and ask if one needs be a believer? The bible is a theocratic totalitarian system and cannot be reconciled with the concept of liberty and peace which is what i am living. Why try to? Bible based amplified teachings? You can't address a person logically who is either a) someone claiming to be Christian/Jewish who is ignorant regarding what the bible actually says (Yahweh is a murderer and condones murder as well) or b) someone who know's of the bibles immoral nature and defends it anyway because common sense and morality don't apply to "god". This is like arguing non-aggression with someone who thinks force is just dandy because it works so well. What could you ever possibly hope to say to such a person of this mentality? With all due respect. Pointing out the incompatibility of theocracy and liberty is not disrespectful (although a waste of time to some but others may get the information they may need to become free). The religious system of a murderous entity claiming to be god is in no way in line with freedom or self ownership. All one needs to do to see the tyrannical mentality of Yahweh is to peruse the list of laws in the Torah and see how many are absurd (much like our (mal prohibitum) laws are today) and how many are punishable by death. Or you can start with Joshua chapter 6 where Yahweh sanctions the murder of women and children, innocent people. This sort of *genocidal* edict is common in the Old Testament. Evilbible.com has many examples of such behavior. You can make excuses for why murder isn't really murder because god did it, or said it ok or they must have deserved it for being wicked. It's hypocrisy and fallacy.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    It would be fascinating to study the connection between biblical Fundamentalism and economic Fundamentalism; I suspect the correlation is high.
  • Darkcrusade's picture
    Darkcrusade 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius. "Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also." Annals XV, 44 What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account: Jesus did exist Jesus was the founder of Christianity Jesus was put to death by Pilate Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus) Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists) ************************************************************** GAIUS SUETONIUS TRANQUILLUS (69 - 130 A.D.) Suetonius was a prominent Roman historian who recorded the lives of the Roman Caesars and the historical events surrounding their reigns. He served as a court official under Hadrian and as an annalist for the Imperial House. Suetonius records the expulsion of the Christian Jews from Rome (mentioned in Acts 18:2) and confirms the Christian faith being founded by Christ. "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome." Life of Claudius 25.4
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 5 years 9 weeks ago Page Glen Allport
    You see 2 people living in a rabbit cage as "prosperity?" You're evading reality. Domestication = greatly increased violence. It's just that simple, and there are volumes of archeological and anthropological evidence backing up that statement, some of which I've provided already and won't repeat again, because people complain I repeat and repeat it. Well, as you can see, I have to repeat and repeat; the same bromides apologizing for agricultural city-Statism get repeated and repeated. Although I will repeat myself on this: the Plains Indians were a post-apocalyptic society of refugees from the Invasion further east, with double the violence of pre-Conquest tribes. It's intellectually dishonest to keep pointing to victims of Conquest as normal pre-Conquest society. Agricultural city-Statists such as yourself have a huge system of apologetics based on nothing but Hobbesian myths. It's a way of dehumanizing 99% of humanity as "savages." (Even though that word merely means "dwellers of the woods.") Thus, you and libertarians and an-caps hold a glaring contradiction: You glorify agricultural city-Statism (civilization), an integrated cultural system, while belly-aching about the inseparable Statism aspect. I'm advocating nothing but this: acknowledge your contradiction and begin to check your premises upon which your contradiction is based.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 5 years 9 weeks ago
    Natural Law
    Web link Don Stacy
    Someone wrote: I have seen...natural law references in your posts, and so I don't think I would be mistaken in assuming you are interested in the subject. My response: It is much more than mere "interest", my friend. Individual Secessionists return to their original state. Their status reverts back to that of Natural Persons, which A Dictionary of Law (1891) defines as, "Such as are formed by nature, as distinguished from artificial persons...formed by human laws for purposes of society and government." What one creates, one controls, and since Natural Persons, i.e. men and women, are not "formed by human laws", they are therefore, not subject to "human laws", (without their consent). It is obvious, (to me at least), that I did not form myself, just as governments did not form themselves, therefore neither of us may create "our own law", we are both subject to the law of our respective creators. So, it took no stretch of the imagination to realize that if Natural Persons are formed by nature then they are subject to the Law of Nature, the Natural Law (of man). Thus began my love of the Natural Law (of man).
  • Atman's picture
    Atman 5 years 9 weeks ago Web link Cheryl Cline
    .