Jay Stuart Snelson--The Mighty Influential

in

Column by Vahram G. Diehl

It should be superfluous for me to say that listening to the words of Jay Snelson and meeting him gave me a startlingly more accurate and useful understanding of reality and in particular its subsection called human society. There have been and will continue to be many to reflect upon Jay's life's work and the enormous number of paradigms he swayed toward a viable methodology of sustainable peace. This series of accomplishments in itself would be enough to earn Jay esteem as a powerful and important teacher. There has, however, been an even greater blessing for me in having had him as an influence at the time I did.

 
Through the use of his dynamically self-assured speaking, Jay consistently has imprinted upon me and surely everyone else who has heard him a powerful intuitive conviction that whatever he was saying was worthy of careful attention and consideration. He has thoroughly convinced me against all previous inclination to the contrary that individuals working together and applying their skills in the proper ways can achieve enough leverage to make a staggering difference in the world in spite of its numerous barriers to progress. Before I had been convinced of the practical potential of this leverage, I could certainly never have amounted to much great accomplishment in my life. It is impossible to live a life of any real purpose or strive toward the achievement of any important goal without the confidence that one's actions will be effective. Jay's confidence in spreading this message was a drive for me to develop myself to the best of my natural abilities, to never stop seeking progress in the face of momentary externally-imposed hopelessness.
 
I, like others before me, have for most of my life felt utterly isolated in my manner of interpreting reality. For two decades, I was owner and operator of a systematic and structurally sound reasoning machine with hardly a single external influence to challenge me to optimize my intellectual facilities. Jay's captivating voice was my first real encouragement to develop an integral and ever-expanding intellectual understanding of causality in all endeavors, not merely in those fields where intellectuals of the past had been most successful in their compartmentalized application of scientific methodology. I cannot explain the powerful emotional relief I first experienced as his voice carried on over the hours and demonstrated conclusively to me that whatsoever currently lacks explanation requires only further and more efficient examination. Most people will probably never know the discomfort and pain that comes from believing you are the only one who thinks the way you do about the most important things in life. Jay and his associates made me feel tremendously less lost and alone in a world that commanded me to stifle my interpretation and voice.   
 
Jay's teachings have played a crucial role in bringing me to want to help others to fulfill their own potentials, just as he has inspired me to follow my own. Because of Jay's influence, I began to desire to use my own voice to give others what he had helped me achieve within myself. From Jay I received a most core reminder of what I so desperately wanted to accomplish with my life, and how unfulfilled I would remain until I was doing the work I had been built for. Without that reminder, I might for many years to come still have been searching for my role to play in this world. I know now today that I am a teacher, a purveyor of truth and a guide for those still wandering in the intellectual dark of conventional doctrine and dogma, unable to think for themselves and stand solidly in their own deductions against seas of opposition and ignorance. He has shown me what a right concept of deserved self-esteem really is and how to live a life of honest reward and purpose. 
 
There is a certain irony in the fact that Jay never sired any children, considering all the progressive ideals he espoused on proper parenting and the raising of outstanding offspring. I feel confident in claiming that if he had, he would have been a father who expected nothing but the best from his children and pushed them toward excellence in every regard. By entering the line of work he did as a lecturer and educator, he played a partial parental role over his students, who eagerly soaked up the knowledge and experience he had to offer. In this way, he has been an ideological father to thousands. Jay in no small way helped me to realize my own destiny and push myself out of the comfortably idle nest of post-adolescence and into free fall over the chasm of manhood. I am grateful beyond words to Jay for having had the courage to throw this challenge down before me in such an irresistible fashion. 
 
More than any other lesson, Jay showed me how much folly lies in being ashamed of one's own intellect, curiosity, and inclinations to be outspoken and opinionated about unpopular viewpoints. As he repeatedly demonstrated through historical retellings and his own actions, the greatest and most long-term influential members of our species have been those who were not afraid to speak their minds when it was most dangerous and socially inconvenient to do so. Jay's mighty influence stems from his power to think his own thoughts and articulate this propensity infectiously to others.   I am proud of who I am and the virtues I embody because I have been given treasured support by his words and actions; I have looked up to him in so many ways as the kind of intellectual hero I wish to become in my most glorious moments of productive enterprise in the decades to come. 
 
Jay Stuart Snelson has taught me to live to the best of my abilities and be proud to make as much positive change in the world as I can manage during my time in it. I can think of no lesson or message more important or humanitarian to leave behind for the world. The ripples of his mighty influence will resound in incomprehensible ways for an incalculable amount of time. In such a relatively short time that I have been under his influence, his life has empowered mine in so many ways that I will require far more introspection than I have allotted here to begin to realize and acknowledge them all. Although imperfect in practice like all people, Jay was a man of principle. By devoting his life to an ideal, he has achieved a sort of ideological immortality in the minds of those who also adopted such ideals. His journey does not end here; it will continue on through those he has taught, touched, and inspired to live up to a higher standard of humanity. We are the torch-carriers of reason, education, and uninhibited liberty for all now. We will make our teacher proud. 
 
-
 
Jay Stuart Snelson lectured for over four decades on alternatives to organized violence and war. His seminars on Optimization Theory and Win-Win Theory, presented through his Institute for Human Progress, have shown that through observational analysis and verification, a truer and more reliable understanding of social causality can be achieved. In “Taming the Violence of Faith,” Snelson reveals a practical, viable solution to the endless crises unleashed by war, poverty and servitude.
 
Learn more about Jay's work for freedom at the Sustainable Civilization Institute website.
9
Your rating: None Average: 9 (2 votes)
livefreeretiree's picture
Columns on STR: 13

Gregory helps young people and the older people who have trouble relating to them.
View his website on education and youth coaching here: www.enabledyouth.com
Email him at gregory@enabledyouth.com

Comments

AtlasAikido's picture

I concur with livingfreer and suverans2....

It is simple but not for Whiteindian. The issue in his hands is just another self-serving set-up. May I offer this little insight hmmm? It is called a refutation to those who think statistics and spurious patterns trump logic....

Any numbskull can find statistics to show that if the resource base stays the same and population increases then all hell will break loose. This is the Malthusian mirage. Based on this sophisticated doctrine, believers go around telling people that we should desist from further folly, for the impending threat of doom is ever looming.[4] And government, of course, is our only hope. Another silly use of this method is finding out that the population of Italy is decreasing, hence, they project that after a while there will be no Italians left.

The predictions based on the Malthusian fallacy are used as indicators of sustainability—i.e., temporal egalitarianism—itself a nonsensical concept. Things change over time. In any case, as P.A. Yeomans, the Australian agriculture designer said: *" conservation is never enough"*;

The Malthusian Trap
http://mises.org/daily/1675

The Malthusian law is the basis of the environmental movement. Its application is often masked by the term "carrying capacity," which is the number of individuals that a unit of area can hold. And, more recently, "ecological footprint," which is a measure of how many units of area an individual uses—literally an inversion of carrying capacity. In practice, ecological footprints have very amusing results. For example, if we all wanted to live like Bill Gates, at current resource levels we would need multiple planet Earths.

These concepts, as they are commonly used, would have to be among the most un-Austrian. Subjective individualism is ignored; uncertainty of the future is ignored; impossibility of quantification of human action is ignored; and government intervention is always put forward as the solution. It is nothing more than the flip side of the free-rider problem: we can exclude others, therefore we should not increase the rate or take more than our fair—i.e., equal—share in which we exclude others; otherwise there will be nothing left for others.

What Malthus failed to realize is that, as William Godwin nicely pointed out, "possible men do not eat, [whereas] real men do."[3] What they will eat in the future and exactly how it is grown cannot be deduced, no matter how elaborate the Malthusian equations are. Arguing that there is already proof of overpopulation by citing a problem, like poverty, is no argument at all: it is to consider proof of overpopulation as its theorized result.

PS Regarding Whiteindian's evidenced turning of "tail": As I pointed out in a prior post which Whiteindian was unable to refute: "It is nonsensical to "test" whether the interior angles of a triangle (in Euclidean geometry) add up to 180 degrees. Whiteindian's data does not fall into this category. Where is the similarity between what I pointed out to him about a simple triangle and his data on humans"?

Suverans2's picture

G'day Atlas Aikido,

Some person, (or persons), here appear to be an AGENT(S) of[1] those promoting Agenda 21. But, that aside, I also think persons projecting that humans will overpopulate the Earth are failing to include Mother Nature's ability to, reduce specie numbers, when 'she' feels it is necessary, in their calculations.
_____________________________________________________________

[1] Of. A term denoting that from which anything proceeds; indicating origin... ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 1080 gfywi

Suverans2's picture

And, speaking of Agenda 21, check this out Allan Watt youtube. http://tinyurl.com/dxomg8l

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

repeat

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

AtlasAikido: Your comment is a far too common one within the libertarian community, and it contradicts free-market principles -- and ironically is anti-Mises despite your use of the Mises website, which contradicts Mises at great length. There is no inherent "pro-growth" meme buried in libertarianism. The free market is agnostic on this count – just as it is agnostic about nuclear power and any other claim to know where the market is going and what it will support. The current tax-subsidized overproduction of labor (which is what population growth is in a socialist system that redistributes the costs of creating people and artificially stimulates their growth through numerous incentives and tax reductions and tax transfers to non-reproducers) is the creation of socialism. The free market does not speculate about any intrinsic "right sizing" of the human population. Instead, it allows the law of supply and demand to work without the interference of the state.

A very powerful case can be made that the current population is artificially high as a result of state subsidies. This very point was made for more than six pages in Mises tome, "Human Action," even though the folks at LewRockwell.com and Mises.org prefer to throw Mises under the bus on this one. I quoted extensively from these sections in part two of the 3-part series I wrote a few years ago. You might want to read it and think again about trespass, market forces, and the impact of socialism on the overproduction of people. Here are the links (in particular, note part 2 [Mises Loves Malthus]:

Libertarians and the Environment, Part 1 of 3: Principles Abandoned -- http://www.strike-the-root.com/libertarians-and-environment-part-1-of-3-...

Libertarians and the Environment, Part 2 of 3: Mises Loves Malthus --
http://strike-the-root.com/libertarians-and-environment-part-2-of-3-mise...

Libertarians and the Environment, Part 3 of 3: Christian Interpretations --
http://strike-the-root.com/libertarians-and-environment-part-3-of-3-chri...

It would be interesting to see if you change your mind after reading these extensive sections from Mises and the arguments that surround them.

AtlasAikido's picture

Yes "It would be interesting to see if you change your mind after reading these extensive sections from Mises and the arguments that surround them". Your meaning or implication?

I see "There is no inherent "pro-growth" meme buried in libertarianism" (you posted but not the reference). I would agree this makes no sense (period). As for the rest of what you excerpted well yes (duh in a friendly way). LOL

You probably should summarize the throwing of Mises under the bus part. I missed that. I thought the excerpts I referred to had good enough application...(the rest of the article may have had issues).

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

Atlas: Mises disagrees strongly with you about Malthus. See my post, which somehow moved to the wrong location. I made the same point in one to freeretiree.

Darkcrusade's picture

Investigation shows that Malthus was used and commissioned by the elite and when he realised that truth, he recanted of his errors. But the damage had been done and his recantations where never to get the publicity of his elitist backed works.

When one finds out this about Malthus,and Owing to the fact that they have the divine right to rule with the precious blue bloodlines that always end up in positions of power.Birthrates are the achilles heel to White-indians suppositions. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_Presidents_by_genealo...

http://blacklistednews.com/The-Dickensian-Politics-of-Serfdom-And-Degrad...

Suverans2's picture

What is the goal of your AGENCY, to try and clog up the works to, (for all intensive purposes), shut down Strike the Root? If so, I'd have to say, you have succeeded; a good share of the time we can no longer access the website.

Site off-line ...User strike already has more than 'max_user_connections' active connections.

livefreeretiree's picture

Suverans2 makes a good point. The way our ancestors would settle a dispute when one refused to engage in rational communication [such as a answering a simple fucking question (really one or two sentences would suffice if somebody had a clue what they were talking about)] would be to throw down a challenge for physical dominance. So, White Idiot, I challenge you. Either answer the following question, back the fuck off and admit ignorance, or face me in fisticuffs like the tribal man you supposedly are. I am in San Diego, but it shouldn't be too difficult to get out to Pittsburgh in the near future. Any one know where the coward Jason Godesky lives?

The question again is:

"Why can't a group of humans living together (with agriculture and domestication, with or without voluntary hierarchies of exchange, in any arbitrary size of grouping) do so without violent confiscation of one another's property (whatever that property may be including grains or meats) and rely exclusively on voluntary transactions, and why would this by unsustainable?"

Funny, you would expect an "expert" on the subject to be able to answer such a simple inquiry as this.

Suverans2's picture

The point Suverans2 was trying to make to you, livefreeretiree, is a definition of insanity is doing the same thing over [feeding the troll], and over [feeding the troll], and over [feeding the troll], and over again [feeding the troll AGAIN], and expecting a different outcome. Three fricken pages of bullsh*t [feeding the troll] and what have you actually accomplished? I'll answer that one for you. A BIG FAT NOTHING!! Unless of course you are simply trying to clog this website up completely with your bullsh*t [feeding the troll], in which case the two of you have accomplished your goal. Congratulations! Keep up the 'good' work. gfywi

livefreeretiree's picture

Okay, point taken. Out of respect for the other users of this site, I will cease trying to get a straight answer out of the troll. I think he has demonstrated his incompetence enough in these three pages as it is, anyway, to anyone who can independently analyze.

Full disclosure: most of this has been a social experiment for me. I've never really dealt with trolls, at least not ones this persistent and brainwashed. I've learned a lot of from this, mostly that the internet is full of dipshits who need to feel validated by putting their words all over the works of others. I kept hearing this was true, but I never really believed it. I suppose I can thank White Idiot for the one thing I learned from him.

Suverans2's picture

And, as you are about to promptly learn, livefreeretiree, everything beyond this, "Okay, point taken. Out of respect for the other users of this site, I will cease...", will be food for the TROLL. gfywi

Samarami's picture

The thread appears to have ricocheted away from Snelson and into personal attacks.

    Most people will probably never know the discomfort and pain that comes from believing you are the only one who thinks the way you do about the most important things in life.

I can take you into any of thousands of AA meetings around the country and show you groups of individuals, a majority of whom have known the discomfort:

"...That's why we're here!" (Also: "...We're all here 'cause we ain't all there..."

As a highly educated imbecile I was forced to learn much of what I know today from the many addicted men and women, many with 8th through 10th grade education levels or lower, who helped me stop drinking and drugging myself to death. For them I am truly grateful. And from that fellowship I learned the basics of libertarianism and anarchy.

I know there is one individual (a "liberty naysayer"???) who posts here and who claims, "...I know the libertarian canon; I've got much of it on my library shelves. I'm quite familiar..." My message: knowin' canon and bein' free are two entirely separate conditions. A 3rd grader with no knowledge of "canon" can be free; guys and gals with multiple doctorates under their belts can be prisoners in their own "wisdom". They'll never be free.

I can't remember exactly how Jay Stuart Snelson stated it, so I'll paraphrase:

    "Ignorance ain't what you don't know; ignorance is what you know is so that ain't so"

Snelson's main message: The gains of others is NOT my loss (would that "occupiers" come to understand). By helping you achieve your goals, I win. By hindering you and/or denigrating you, I lose.

"Agricultural city-Statism (civilization)" and/ or its lack of sustainability is not at issue. I am here and it is now. I am a sovereign state. I am free. I can accrue benefits by sharing my free state with you, and you can gain by becoming free ("agricultural city-state" or no) by whatever means you become free -- my help or no. As Snelson would say, "...that's a win-win". Sam

.

Samarami's picture

The thread appears to have ricocheted away from Snelson and into personal attacks.

    Most people will probably never know the discomfort and pain that comes from believing you are the only one who thinks the way you do about the most important things in life.

I can take you into any of thousands of AA meetings around the country and show you groups of individuals, a majority of whom have known the discomfort:

"...That's why we're here!" (Also: "...We're all here 'cause we ain't all there..."

As a highly educated imbecile I was forced to learn much of what I know today from the many addicted men and women, many with 8th through 10th grade education levels or lower, who helped me stop drinking and drugging myself to death. For them I am truly grateful. And from that fellowship I learned the basics of libertarianism and anarchy.

I know there is one individual (a "liberty naysayer"???) who posts here and who claims, "...I know the libertarian canon; I've got much of it on my library shelves. I'm quite familiar..." My message: knowin' canon and bein' free are two entirely separate conditions. A 3rd grader with no knowledge of "canon" can be free; guys and gals with multiple doctorates under their belts can be prisoners in their own "wisdom". They'll never be free.

I can't remember exactly how Jay Stuart Snelson stated it, so I'll paraphrase:

    "Ignorance ain't what you don't know; ignorance is what you know is so that ain't so"

Snelson's main message: The gains of others is NOT my loss (would that "occupiers" come to understand). By helping you achieve your goals, I win. By hindering you and/or denigrating you, I lose.

"Agricultural city-Statism (civilization)" and/ or its lack of sustainability is not at issue. I am here and it is now. I am a sovereign state. I am free. I can accrue benefits by sharing my free state with you, and you can gain by becoming free ("agricultural city-state" or no) by whatever means you become free -- my help or no. As Snelson would say, "...that's a win-win". Sam

.

livefreeretiree's picture

Thanks, Sam. In loving memory of Jay Snelson, let us remember the principles he taught and embodied and seek to carry them on in our own lives. I would like to meet you sometime if the opportunity should arise.

freebee's picture

WhiteIndian, Thanks for all the links you've provided. This is new territory for me and I'm looking forward to learning about ideas and concepts that I was never aware of. I've always favored capitalism, but had problems with one individual controlling thousands of acres of land. The ideas you've presented seem to make sense to me.

WhiteIndian, one question. Is believing and understanding these ideas an end in itself, or is there any practical lesson for how a person lives his life to be learned?

Vahram, I'd like to believe you're a really nice guy, but you sound like a raving maniac. Enough with the name calling.
John
P.S. This is my first comment on any website. A testament to how much I enjoyed reading all of your posts and STR.

WhiteIndian's picture

We have to fully understand where we were before we can understand our present plight, which is my main thrust here. I'm not advocating as much as I'm correcting misperceptions, identifying contradictions, and debunking city-Statist lies. Those city-Statist lies include the Hobbesian mythology that naturally "bad" (sinful) humans somehow were the only specie to have evolved into a life of "nasty, brutish, and short" before the glorious and benevolent and "good" city-State blessed us with salvation.

Empirical data (what I'm trying to present here) refutes religio-economic "axiomatic" lies.

The Original Affluent Society (Sahlins, 1974) is as earthshaking as On the Origins of the Species (Darwin, 1859).

Both books on origins are so very upsetting to the Calvinist/Capitalist (those ideologies are *very* closely related, see Lynn White, Jr., The Historical Roots of Our Ecologic Crisis, Science, New Series, Vol. 155, No. 3767 (Mar. 10, 1967), pp. 1203-1207) religio-economic Fundamentalists.

Now, to answer your question: I'm not necessarily for "going back to primitive foraging." Right now, it is impossible to do; the Land Base is horribly destroyed by city-Statism (civilization.)

Still, we have to re-ascend from the hell of agricultural city. In small steps, incremental steps. I HOPE!!! (It still might go nuclear war/fast collapse; my analysis is that is most likely, and you better have some "Re-Wild" skills in your back pocket.)

livefreeretiree's picture

I'm okay with raving maniac. I consider it one of my best traits!

AtlasAikido's picture

White Indian *METHODS* have been attacked for good reason (as opposed to the details. But even that has been seen thru by the author of the article on this thread and others.....)

Now this issue of trolls would make a proper subject to address. I think that others have provided good summation of why White Indian fits this bill. His arguments have been seen thru...did he expect me to let him walk into this camp (yes I live in the wilderness, I doubt he does, but I care not). It is hilarious to see someone who speaks about subjects and assumes and assumes yet is such a self congratulatory tender foot...

His methodology has been shown for what it is...He is a troll. That is NO common ground for me....

Let ALL reflect on the strawmen, context dropping, intellectual dishonesty White Indian uses in place of refutation and actual debate. http://www.strike-the-root.com/vision-of-free-society-1

Now please think about it for a moment. Say dear reader WhiteIndian's appears on your proximate horizon and start his evidenced ways in your camp...What will you do? Will you pretend that his purposes are peaceful? Well, there is an answer for that. I do believe Whit Indian has a taste for rabbit food...That is not my problem.

If this site can't handle the traffic--good last time I looked--then perhaps it should state that it is technology ham-stringed from the get-go.

WhiteIndian's picture

WI uses empirical data from scholarly sources to debunk your agricultural city-STATIST economic fundamentalism which dishonestly deprecates Non-State sociopolitical typology and how humans evolved to be egalitarian band animals who lived as "autonomous and sovereign" individuals. (Service, 1975)

It's not surprising to see you weave tilt-a-whirl denials and accusations on the level of Church Lady.

Could I be....ssssSATAN?

AtlasAikido's picture

LOL. This how you debate? This is truly laughable. Using concepts that *you* aspire to but cannot live because you need the world to end to practice such. How unfree of you, in an unfree world. You lack courage indeed, forget about the wilderness and words like "rewilding". Although I suspect sociopath fits the bill--you're need to be in charge of the universe megalomania is quite illuminating.

So basically you are this one guy/gal anti-churchlady/satan wanna be *data* troll, running off a cliff, but with a para-glider strapped to his/its back (made of rabbit skin...and some sutured scalps no doubt). And a couple of appeasers following right off the cliff, only with no para-glider. It's going to be quite a mess in the ravine when eventually you all hit.

Keep praying--Although preying on the unwary is what you are evidently hard wired for. You missed your calling....you could have been one of history's great sociopaths dispensing words of wisdom…

Profile of a Sociopath...
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

PS Thanks for becoming a living experiment of what a troll is. The data is self-explanatory and can be dredged up within seconds and for all to see and make their own minds up. Behold WhiteIndian. Let ALL reflect on his use of strawmen, context dropping, intellectual dishonesty in place of refutation and actual debate. http://www.strike-the-root.com/vision-of-free-society-1

WhiteIndian's picture

It doesn't matter if I "aspire to live" a Non-State society lifeway or not; observable facts are still observable facts.

The empirical data from anthropology archeology, ethnology, archeology, and evolutionary biology refute your false premises upon which you base your religio-economic fundamentalism (nearly equivalent to biblical literalist.)

Like a biblical literalist, you keep focusing on me. Stop. Evaluate the data.

To the point, one simple fact of which the evidence is abundantly clear is that humans evolved to be egalitarian.

There are 126,000 scholarly journal articles, texts, etc. at Scholar.google.com on a simple search of "human+egalitarian." Your rigid belief system man not accept it; however, the evidence is overwhelmingly straightforward.

I encourage you to take Ayn Rand's advice and check your premises, rather than parroting her premises she didn't bother to check.

There is a We. The "We" was Non-Statist, voluntary, composed of "autonomous and sovereign" individuals (Service, 1975) for millions of years of human history until agricultural city-Statism (civilization) was brutally forced upon humans by a few "Big Men" or "emergent elite." (Go ahead, look up those anthropological terms at Scholar.google.com too.)

AtlasAikido's picture

Oh yes I see his mighty works...

Reading monster's works and doing monster work would appear to have created a monster. Apparently WhiteIndian's "mental lens" will not allow him to be free in an unfree world until the end of the world per his prior to last post. This is as good as an indictment of using the royal "we" premises of a statist, megalomaniac and sociopath.

And now he is debating concepts that don't matter to him. But because they are observable facts--as he sees it--he justifies his need for the world to end to practice his teacher's ways. Hopeless!

Profile of a Sociopath This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths. http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

Qualities:

1. Contemptuous of those who seek to understand them
2. Does not perceive that anything is wrong with them
3. Authoritarian
4. Secretive
5. Paranoid
6. Only rarely in difficulty with the law, but seeks out situations where their tyrannical behavior will be tolerated, condoned, or admired
7. Conventional appearance
8. Goal of enslavement of their victim(s)
9. Exercises despotic control over every aspect of the victim's life
10. Has an emotional need to justify their crimes and therefore needs their victim's affirmation (respect, gratitude and love)
11. Ultimate goal is the creation of a willing victim
12. Incapable of real human attachment to another
13. Unable to feel remorse or guilt
14. Extreme narcissism and grandiose
15. May state readily that their goal is to rule the world

livefreeretiree's picture

I would love to use White Idiot for another living social experiment and drop him smack into the middle of the jungle so he can see that life in the wilderness is not the leisurely romanticized fairy tale he has made it out to be (like I did when I was 12 years old!). Then I grew up and actually went to the jungles of Central and South America and learned how reality works firsthand. The areas I have been in are probably many times more survivable than most of the places our ancestors set up camp, so I can only imagine the kind of harsh "natural" cruelty WI wishes he could send us all back to (and effectively murder billions of people in the process). We could make a documentary about what happens when you put anarcho-pritivists into actual primitive environments and watch them squirm and whine about how cold it is and they wish they still had their internet access and forums to complain in.

New rule: you're not allowed to talk about living a natural existence until you've actually tried it, or I will come after you with my sharpened stick.

WhiteIndian's picture

The Original Affluent Society isn't a romanticized fairy tale.

But you WISH it were, because it debunks your romanticized fairy tales about your brutal, genocidal city-Statism.

Your fairy tale is built on false premises and poor deductive "logic."

The Original Affluent Society is based on hard-won empirical data and scientific analysis. Your silly "documentary" is needed about how primitive Non-State people live, their lifeways have been studied quite thoroughly.

AtlasAikido's picture

livefreeretiree. Superb! I thoroughly enjoyed your summation! Well said!

Paul's picture

I'm with Suverans2. I can't believe we have 3 pages of this stuff. The only reasonable conclusion seems to be that people actually enjoy dancing with trolls. Folks, explain to me please, what you get out of it?

livefreeretiree's picture

Well, for me it was a social experiment. Having reached a pretty solid conclusion now, I'm just listening to the observations of others and plotting out the logistics for my documentary on what happens when you put people who read Daniel Quinn novels into the circumstances they say they so badly want to be in and the are forced to reconcile their fantasies with reality.

FYI, I never saw a single telepathic gorilla during my entire time in the jungle. It was severely disappointing.

WhiteIndian's picture

Walking into the Church of Market Fundamentalism with Sahlin's Original Affluent Society is akin to walking into a Baptist church with Darwin's Origin of the Species under your arm.

Empirical data matter not to the collectivist fundamentalist belief system which must be desperately saved from reality. That reality has been studied thoroughly and documented in scholarly texts and journals.

And put into a movie! While it's not an actual documentary, the introduction is accurate in depicting to what we know anthropologically about these people, especially before civilization invaded even there, as it has, living in one of the most hostile environments in which man can survive:

The Gods Must Be Crazy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66pTPWg_wUw

So was Thomas Paine lying or not when he stated, "The life of an Indian is a continual holiday"?

But go ahead, heap scorn on reality. Mock empirical data. Denigrate Non-State "autonomous and sovereign" individuals who "bow to know political leader."

You're just revealing — despite all your pretenses of freedom — what you really are: a city-STATIST, one who's willing to let "Starve to Death" those who are non-compliant with his Totalitarian Capitalism.

Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture

AtlasAikido: I already typed out all of the Mises sections and provided the reference in the three essays I cited. Do you really expect me to re-type the pieces again? Read, man! Read! Then you won't repeat your misunderstanding of Malthus and of Mises -- which show famililarity not with the primary source, but with another writer who does not read Mises.

AtlasAikido's picture

Lawrence, I think livingreeretiree makes the point to your repeat post to him and me...see his answer. Oh the irony
"Lawrence: I never said the free market demanded growth. It...

As for the rest the context of the issue in the post I made was to point out the spurious conclusions that one can come to using statistical data inferences....

If you already think that because the parts you excerpted constitute Mises being thrown out in front of the bus, then thanks for letting me know.

The other issues that come up 200 million dead in the 20th C via Socialism, Fascism, communism ie Govts then this would appear to be a decrease in population, which it would seem has not been incorporated with the so-called increases you pointed out via Mises.

If you are saying that the Malthusian trap has other factors involved and that it has teeth given Mises position because Socialism screws up the balance system then that would make sense without digging any deeper than this point I just made. But please try to summarize your own positions better this is a thread and....and make a point that pertains to the issue at hand--see my post--instead of just coming in from left field.

AtlasAikido's picture

As for WhiteIndian: You don't advocate anything. This IS just a debate. Sand castles in the air for you. You said so...

But you want everyone to use precise language when dealing with you but you have license to say and make up whatever you say...You want to convince others but are not in the slightest bit intent/interest in being convinced yourself. This is a hall mark of a troll last time I looked....There is more. See this thread

Now to your point that you are trying to make. Apparently until the world comes to an end you cannot practice your teachings. This still makes you unfree in an unfree world. Hopeless!

WhiteIndian's picture

You're correct, I've avoided advocating; that's for another day. I'm merely presenting empirical data, with scholarly references, which INVALIDATES YOUR ERRONEOUS PREMISES.

• On Topic:

I've shown how civilization must always grow, that growth is unsustainable, and therefore, "sustainable [city-Statism ] civilization" is a contradiction as likely as conjuring animated corpses.

I've also provided evidence that the apologetics for city-Statism, i.e. the Hobbesian mythology of "nasty, brutish, and short" is a malicious fabrication. The reality is that egalitarian Non-State bands and tribes were the Original Affluent Society.

• Regarding your Randian mistakes:

I've substantiated that humans are one of many animals evolved to be egalitarian*, and humans are one of many animals to demonstrate altruistic behavior.**

Furthermore, you and Rand and self-styled "individualists" ignorantly denigrate the only society where individualism actually works.

Only in band and tribal egalitarian Non-State society do anthropologists observe humans behaving as "autonomous and sovereign" individuals who "bow to no external political leaders." (Service, 1975)

Again, "CHECK YOUR PREMISES."
___________________
* Christopher Boehm, Hierarchy in the forest: The evolution of egalitarian behavior, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999

Sandra L. Vehrencamp, A model for the evolution of despotic versus egalitarian societies Animal Behaviour, Volume 31, Issue 3, August 1983, Pages 667-682

Doron Shultziner, Thomas Stevens, Martin Stevens, Brian A. Stewart, Rebecca J. Hannagan and Giulia Saltini-Semerari, The causes and scope of political egalitarianism during the Last Glacial: a multi-disciplinary perspective, Biology and Philosophy, Volume 25, Number 3, 319-346

** Robert L. Trivers, The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism, The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 46, No. 1 (Mar., 1971), pp. 35-57

Ernst Fehr and Urs Fischbacher, The Nature of Human Altruism, Nature 425, 785 - 791 (23 October 2003).

AtlasAikido's picture

WhiteIndian is a self-admitted Altruist who clearly has NO life and is clearly UNFree! What he preaches IS clearly the same for others.

Apparently he needs sacrificial lambs to accomplish his goals whether they agree or not. Apparently his own kind are UNFit so he comes here! Beware of trolls bearing the gifts of a self-avowed Altruist!!

WhiteIndian's picture

You're parroting Rand's philosophical blunder that altruism requires sacrifice.

Such a metaphysical gaffe must blank-out the simple facts that:

• Humans and many other species behave altruistically (see the references above you ignored,) and

• Human sacrifice and sacrifice religions (like Christianity,) as well as warfare, are totally absent before domestication and agriculture, which—ignorantly and contradictorily—Rand purports are wonderful "developments."

AtlasAikido's picture

*You* and your megalomania "We" need WhiteIndian as the sole inter-locutor brand of Altruism, whether I agree or not *methodology* IS making Rand's and my point. You are quite the model sociopath....

WhiteIndian's picture

One who checks his premises against empirical data from the various branches of science ... is a model sociopath. Nice bit o' "logic" there, Atlas.

Observation beats your fantastical "methodology" of EVASION every day, at least for anybody with the slightest degree of INTEGRITY.

AtlasAikido's picture

WhiteIndian your observations are your observations. You have not convinced me of your teachings. You are hide bound to your data. Your data is faulty. What is your prime directive? You need to make a course adjustment. But your data fails you, I see. It is ossified and you are clearly addled...

WhiteIndian's picture

It's called science. You're evading The Original Society (Sahlins, 1974), like a Pentecostal preacher who evades the observations in The Origin of the Species (Darwin, 1859) to cling to his dogmatic fundamentalism.

If the science I've tendered is faulty, then provide other scientific data in support of your contrariness; however, I suspect your opposition is baseless, or rather, based on a novel based on debunked rubbish.

Go on, check your premises; your dear leader told you to do so (and it is a decent bit of advice.)

AtlasAikido's picture

Yes "It is nonsensical to "test" whether the interior angles of a triangle (in Euclidean geometry) add up to 180 degrees. Where is the similarity between a simple triangle and his data on humans"? This question iremains unanswered over the course of multiple threads now.

Evidently he does not have enough confidence in his own data to let it stand on its own merits. I have witnessed firsthand WhiteIndian smear tactics, dropping context, intellectual dishonesty regarding Rand. http://www.strike-the-root.com/vision-of-free-society-1

Let me see now I think I have addressed the issue of the data that WhiteIndian posits as "scientific', self-evident, "observable", "irrefutable" and his integrity methodology issues (I mean *evidenced* lack there of)

WhiteIndian's picture

You're confusing deductive logic with inductive reasoning (scientific method.) Your overly simplistic epistemology — deliberately contrived to evade empirical data that would invalidate your religio-economic "objectivist" cult — mirrors that of a Biblical Literalist.

Young Earth Creationists think the world was created by a skygod circa 4000 B.C. It's as "axiomatic" to them as the sides of a triangle adding up to 180º.

Yet their dearly beloved premises and the complex syllogisms derived from those premises are false. Demonstrably false by The Theory of Evolution.

Many of Rand's premises are also just as demonstrably false by science, including the Theory of Evolution.

But you're not honest enough to check your premises.

P.S. Science is a little difficult for simplistic minds like yours, because it doesn't purport to be "axiomatic." It's willing to be proven wrong by further observation. Unlike you. Enjoy playing with your triangles.