"A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it." So wrote Etienne de La Boetie in his 1552 essay, The Politics of Obedience : The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Search E-bay for a recording of this essay...and listen to it!
While this article makes sense, as far as it goes, there is a problem with it: What happens, after a lifetime of putting up with abuse? When you are on your deathbed, are you going to say to yourself, "I wish I had resisted, at least once?"
You cannot become more free by complying with every statist whim. The problem with being "the one who can take the abuse and remain standing" is that, after a while, you are no longer standing. You are on your knees.
The problem also is this notion that every sign of resistance will be rewarded with a beat-down. It just ain't so. There are many, many cases where pushback had no adverse consequences whatever; other cases where the gain in self-respect was worth the pain.
When one's personal situation calls for survival (e.g., when supporting a family), then survive. When that no longer holds, then at least on some occasions, don't put up with crap. And on the off chance that that results with the end of your life, then take as many of the bastards with you as you can. Eventually, if enough people do this, they will run out of bastards.
gendercide on some countries are still existent and their government officials are doing nothing to really solve it and give justice for its victims. There are still more humane procedures to solve this gender crisis but it should not be done by killing our common human persons.
Larison's comments were interesting but I found even moreso the comments section. As to the comments (negative) concerning the History Channel, I agree that many presentations are done from a bias POV and the background of the question who (?) is left to the viewer to determine and most people don't. Depending on their own bias, they accept or reject the ideas presented and that's just our human nature. At the same time, the History Channel does throw out ideas (sometimes) that provoke thought and to challenge the status quo and that to me is what's healthy and needed. Yesterday STR ran a story on the CIA, LSD and NY Subway system and ironically the History Channel ran (for the uppteenth time) "Secrets of the CIA". Now someone sees that on the history channel, provokes thought and an internet search and pooof, they discover STR. OK, I'll revealing my own bias here but you get the point.
Provoking thought and the need for further individual study into a subject is an awefully needed thing these days and I welcome it from wherever it comes. Resisting my own personal bias, I wanted to ask some in the comments section if instead of the History Channel, would they recommend FoxNews or reality TV on the Fox Channel instead!
The more I see of TV these days the more I feel intellectually insulted and appreciate the qualities of old Looney Tune cartoons as being more mentally stimulating. More often than not, I enter a room with the TV on and in about 2 minutes I feel the urge to stand up, look at the TV and shout,
"aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh SSHHAADDUUPPP!"
I love Foghorn Leghorn (another bias of mine)
LOL!
I know a person who is a Vegetarian, at least, they believe they're Vegetarian, as everyday, for breakfast, they eat bacon, when questioned regarding this oddity they say that because they eat so liitle meat that qualifies them to be called Vegetarian.
There are many examples of such twisted logic.
The conclusion i seem always to return to is that the attraction that makes for these incredible turns of character is deemed small enough so as not to be thought of as a danger, that the self will not be affected as the greater part understands the possibilities involved if the drift were allow to flow freely, but this example isn't just a once, a peek and run, never to return and so in no need of repeat as the lesson was learn't, problem being, these small visit's become repetitions that are bound gradually become habit, habits that meld into normal behaviour, much like brushing of the teeth.
Then therefore there is little or no disinction between brushing one's teeth and say flipping the switch that looses a missile that takes out a village of innocent people because they were in the way of someones idea of whitening and on no lesser level of consequence than those that follow and support the building or continuation of the unseen hypocrisy in playful nothingness that then fog's the judgement and distorts the balance.
Wish you would lay off the anti-God stuff--unless you’ll admit that your image of him, in addition to being “omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent” also includes him being “omni-interfering.” You have a view of God that is very different from mine. Your view lacks a concept of “free moral agency.” You suppose that religious folks think that God is like some chess player, moving pieces around some heavenly chessboard--therefore, no free moral agency. Truth (as I see it, anyway) is that actions have natural, logical, principle-driven consequences (e.g., people allow themselves to be ruled by governments, then governments abuse their subjects), and God is the ultimate non-aggressor--he only acts where and when free moral agents give him license.
i would tend to agree with 'ottersonroger' (first Comment) that it reads very much like what would be expected from a factually lacking Politicaly biased view of events/history.
if the writer is without agenda/political affiliation - what would the reason be for such a narrow minded article (no offence meant)
the link has a few interesting Facts (though i wasn't there) that may help form a different angle of attack for next time .
Please include author's name along with the title on the main page. I make it a point to read a select group of authors first and almost missed this article because author identity is unknown until link is opened.
Constructive criticism is always welcome, ottersonroger, but here I saw criticism without constructiveness. What aspect of Haiti's history, I wonder, leads you to suppose that its people have suffered too little government instead of too much?
FYI, there is no "party" here on STR. Even a quick visit to the "non-voting archive" should satisfy you that we eschew all political affiliation. Check out http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html
True, we are philosophically libertarian, in that we see government as parasitic even at best; we start from the premise that every human is his own self-owner, and therefore that any governor, who would take away from him some at least of the life decisions he wants to make for himself, is antithetical to human nature.
Possibly you have embraced the opposite premise. I'd be interested to learn which aspects of your own life you wish somebody else to rule.
Stefan Molyneux did a video interview on Haiti a month or so back. Here's the link below and draw your own conclusions. And Jim, thanks for your contribution and thoughts on the matter.
You may be right, but if that referendum had been held on September 12th, 2001 we would probably have nuked Afghanistan. I'm not sure that level of democracy is a genie I'd want out of the bottle.
I know how most STRers feel about voting, okay? But with that said I have long felt that if the American people could vote on this "world policeman role" as they do with referendums and ballot proposals on the local level, that America would very quickly return to the neutral, unentangled nation it started out as.
This is probaably the simplest and clearest explanation of the shortcomings of GDP as a measurement that I have ever seen. Given the contant attention being paid to GDP by the MSM, it's well worth reading if you'd like to improve your understanding of GDP.
no matter how much (or little) their just using the paper that 'they' print in the first place, the peoples use is to launder it into some weak form of legitimacy, they get the land and mineral's to play with.
Nicely done column; gets to the root of things. The power elite are thrilled to have people on the "left" and "right" jockeying for a chance to add their own favored tyranny to the mix; when the voters tire of the current party in power and put the opposite wing in charge, the new "leaders" begin adding "their side's" desired tyrannies WITHOUT dismantling the tyranny added by the previous crowd, despite campaign promises.
This ratchet effect ensures that government power grows reliably, year after year. Smoking bans, as Alex points out, are just one example of the process.
I would have appreciated this justified attack on eminent domain much more if the author hadn't engaged in shilling for corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. The latter is a particularly egregious example to cite, as a study has shown that this corporate welfare queen has received more than one billion dollars in state subsidies, often via abuse of eminent domain.
I wonder if Congress will ever get around to passing a similar resolution regarding the Holodomor, the muder of more than 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin.
This highlights the inherent weakness of positive law that ignores individual human rights. No matter its original intent (and that can always be argued), its subsequent interpretation can only be detrimental to human freedom.
Yeah, let's all get back to that Constitution, wherein it is stated that the government controls all the land and private property does not exist. That's a fine foundation for a free society.
How can you logically argue for animal rights in one breath, and in the same breath mock health care rights?
Or, put differently, at what size of organism does the right to _defense_ end? We can build a defensive military and police to protect the right (to defend health) of humans against humans, and maybe against some wildlife, but when it gets microscopic, suddenly it's absurd?
What about Steve McQueen's blob? If it came rolling down the street, but it was determined it was unicellular, does that mean everyone it's consuming would have to pay for their own defense? What about an alien invasion?
I think the health care debate is one where libertarian thinkers have failed miserably to have any coherence, for precisely the same reasons presented here for animal rights. All enlightenment arguments for classical liberalism are ultimately health based...
As I read in the article about Valentine's Day being a christian holiday based on reverence to a so-called christian saint, I couldn't help but think of Plato and the Noble Lie observed in it's modern form in the Straussians and the various religionist movements that grip people in subjugation, mentally as well as physical and political. To make matters worse are how these religions so clearly and continuously violate real ethics and morals while uttering the noble lie that in all of heaven and earth, they are the sole source for all morality, ethics and worst of all, truth.
On this day of myth and purpose of filthy lucer, I'm hard pressed to think of who is the more unwise, the Saudi's who follow our lead or our own western culture who continue to stick their heads in holes and refuse to stand like the free individuals they should be and were intended to be.
I see it everyday in Honolulu, just in their driving and parking.
They can´t seem to understand that the lack of respect from the citizens is due to their lack of respect for the law.
Instead they just want us to obey unquestioningly. They are more cowardly than regular bullies because they hide behind the uniform and the state.
Walking through downtown Honolulu, I´m more likely to get robbed and insulted for jay walking than mugged or harassed by drug dealers. They at least leave me alone and don´t insult me with the idea that they are protecting me.
Now THIS is why I enjoy this site so much. I learn something new every time I visit. I honestly did not realize that Marx was the originator of the word "capitalism." I had a very clear, simple understanding of the word capitalism (one of an accountant, really). But what we find as a core belief...it really isn't the true definition of capitalism, is it? Maybe laissez-faire IS the better term. I've invested some time reading various authors in the subject of economics (mainly because the Keynesian models that were crammed down my throat in business school began to be personally rejected a few years ago), but it seems that I really am at a point where I need to read Marx and understand the origin of some these terms better. I've been dismissive of Marx, always deferring to others on the subject of "Das Kapital." This is a good impetus to pick up a copy and try to work through Marx's text.
The question could also be: Why confuse an ethical free market with capitalism. It makes my dick itch when people fixate on semantics in politics, but I try to stick to original meanings as much as possible. The word that always comes to mind as the perfect example is 'liberal'.
'Libertarian' is rooted in egalitarian imperatives, but we work from the prefix, discuss ethics and there's nothing more libertarian that scrutinizing power at all times, so looser usages of 'libertarian' doesn't bother me because libertarians are scrutinizing the ownership of the term.
But 'capitalism' has an extremely distinctive meanings from the roots of the word's creation by Karl Marx. I think it was a mistake for classical liberals to equate laissez-faire philosophy with the corporatism Marx was identifying as capitalism. The Misesean definition is the reactionary one -- isolating the definition of 'socialism' to be Bolshevism and 'capitalism' as the opposite of that -- not what Prof. Chartier is discussing.
The premise of this speech is interesting and certainly a speech I'd like to hear. However, I finding parsing of language more than just a little annoying, especially in light of how much damage has been done by others redefining conventional definitions. Chartier's simplest definition of capitalism is succinct (if little understood by most) and essentially what makes trade, wealth and true egalitarian prosperity possible for a growing majority of the population. Why confuse capitalism with corporatism?
Reprint Rights
"A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it." So wrote Etienne de La Boetie in his 1552 essay, The Politics of Obedience : The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude. Search E-bay for a recording of this essay...and listen to it!
While this article makes sense, as far as it goes, there is a problem with it: What happens, after a lifetime of putting up with abuse? When you are on your deathbed, are you going to say to yourself, "I wish I had resisted, at least once?"
You cannot become more free by complying with every statist whim. The problem with being "the one who can take the abuse and remain standing" is that, after a while, you are no longer standing. You are on your knees.
The problem also is this notion that every sign of resistance will be rewarded with a beat-down. It just ain't so. There are many, many cases where pushback had no adverse consequences whatever; other cases where the gain in self-respect was worth the pain.
When one's personal situation calls for survival (e.g., when supporting a family), then survive. When that no longer holds, then at least on some occasions, don't put up with crap. And on the off chance that that results with the end of your life, then take as many of the bastards with you as you can. Eventually, if enough people do this, they will run out of bastards.
The article states "Despite his deep-rooted individualism, Thoreau was readily moved to activism against injustice. "
Shouldn't this be BECAUSE of his deep rooted individualism?
Disappointing. Didn't much get into 'why he matters'.
Some anarchist. All Chomsky ever talks about is foreign policy, the domain of the statists.
gendercide on some countries are still existent and their government officials are doing nothing to really solve it and give justice for its victims. There are still more humane procedures to solve this gender crisis but it should not be done by killing our common human persons.
For myself, they went far enough when they agreed to participate, the rest was obvious.
well it can lie, cheat and manipulate as well as any other format, especially if mainstream pop music.
Muse's album "The Resistance" is a modern example of this.
Larison's comments were interesting but I found even moreso the comments section. As to the comments (negative) concerning the History Channel, I agree that many presentations are done from a bias POV and the background of the question who (?) is left to the viewer to determine and most people don't. Depending on their own bias, they accept or reject the ideas presented and that's just our human nature. At the same time, the History Channel does throw out ideas (sometimes) that provoke thought and to challenge the status quo and that to me is what's healthy and needed. Yesterday STR ran a story on the CIA, LSD and NY Subway system and ironically the History Channel ran (for the uppteenth time) "Secrets of the CIA". Now someone sees that on the history channel, provokes thought and an internet search and pooof, they discover STR. OK, I'll revealing my own bias here but you get the point.
Provoking thought and the need for further individual study into a subject is an awefully needed thing these days and I welcome it from wherever it comes. Resisting my own personal bias, I wanted to ask some in the comments section if instead of the History Channel, would they recommend FoxNews or reality TV on the Fox Channel instead!
The more I see of TV these days the more I feel intellectually insulted and appreciate the qualities of old Looney Tune cartoons as being more mentally stimulating. More often than not, I enter a room with the TV on and in about 2 minutes I feel the urge to stand up, look at the TV and shout,
"aaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh SSHHAADDUUPPP!"
I love Foghorn Leghorn (another bias of mine)
LOL!
I know a person who is a Vegetarian, at least, they believe they're Vegetarian, as everyday, for breakfast, they eat bacon, when questioned regarding this oddity they say that because they eat so liitle meat that qualifies them to be called Vegetarian.
There are many examples of such twisted logic.
The conclusion i seem always to return to is that the attraction that makes for these incredible turns of character is deemed small enough so as not to be thought of as a danger, that the self will not be affected as the greater part understands the possibilities involved if the drift were allow to flow freely, but this example isn't just a once, a peek and run, never to return and so in no need of repeat as the lesson was learn't, problem being, these small visit's become repetitions that are bound gradually become habit, habits that meld into normal behaviour, much like brushing of the teeth.
Then therefore there is little or no disinction between brushing one's teeth and say flipping the switch that looses a missile that takes out a village of innocent people because they were in the way of someones idea of whitening and on no lesser level of consequence than those that follow and support the building or continuation of the unseen hypocrisy in playful nothingness that then fog's the judgement and distorts the balance.
Fasting triggers cellular apoptosis but no one is going to make any money off of that.
Wish you would lay off the anti-God stuff--unless you’ll admit that your image of him, in addition to being “omniscient, omnibenevolent and omnipotent” also includes him being “omni-interfering.” You have a view of God that is very different from mine. Your view lacks a concept of “free moral agency.” You suppose that religious folks think that God is like some chess player, moving pieces around some heavenly chessboard--therefore, no free moral agency. Truth (as I see it, anyway) is that actions have natural, logical, principle-driven consequences (e.g., people allow themselves to be ruled by governments, then governments abuse their subjects), and God is the ultimate non-aggressor--he only acts where and when free moral agents give him license.
i would tend to agree with 'ottersonroger' (first Comment) that it reads very much like what would be expected from a factually lacking Politicaly biased view of events/history.
if the writer is without agenda/political affiliation - what would the reason be for such a narrow minded article (no offence meant)
the link has a few interesting Facts (though i wasn't there) that may help form a different angle of attack for next time .
http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=haiti
Please include author's name along with the title on the main page. I make it a point to read a select group of authors first and almost missed this article because author identity is unknown until link is opened.
Constructive criticism is always welcome, ottersonroger, but here I saw criticism without constructiveness. What aspect of Haiti's history, I wonder, leads you to suppose that its people have suffered too little government instead of too much?
FYI, there is no "party" here on STR. Even a quick visit to the "non-voting archive" should satisfy you that we eschew all political affiliation. Check out http://www.strike-the-root.com/vote.html
True, we are philosophically libertarian, in that we see government as parasitic even at best; we start from the premise that every human is his own self-owner, and therefore that any governor, who would take away from him some at least of the life decisions he wants to make for himself, is antithetical to human nature.
Possibly you have embraced the opposite premise. I'd be interested to learn which aspects of your own life you wish somebody else to rule.
Jim Davies
Stefan Molyneux did a video interview on Haiti a month or so back. Here's the link below and draw your own conclusions. And Jim, thanks for your contribution and thoughts on the matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijf2hIwBgFc&feature=youtube_gdata
Very incomplete, superficial understanding of Haitian history. Selected points are chosen only if they support the party line.
You may be right, but if that referendum had been held on September 12th, 2001 we would probably have nuked Afghanistan. I'm not sure that level of democracy is a genie I'd want out of the bottle.
I know how most STRers feel about voting, okay? But with that said I have long felt that if the American people could vote on this "world policeman role" as they do with referendums and ballot proposals on the local level, that America would very quickly return to the neutral, unentangled nation it started out as.
This is probaably the simplest and clearest explanation of the shortcomings of GDP as a measurement that I have ever seen. Given the contant attention being paid to GDP by the MSM, it's well worth reading if you'd like to improve your understanding of GDP.
I never though i'd see the day when using (government issued!) cash would be a sign post to terrorists.
I admire Carson. I am surprised though to see him on STR.
Chilling.
no matter how much (or little) their just using the paper that 'they' print in the first place, the peoples use is to launder it into some weak form of legitimacy, they get the land and mineral's to play with.
Like a box of 21 gourmet chocolates. Each delicious and satisfying. Even better all in the same box. Bravo Sir.
Funny.
excelsior!
excellent!
From the poll:
33. Do you think Iran currently has nuclear weapons, or not?
Feb. 12-15
2010
Yes, has weapons 71%
No, does not 26%
No opinion 3%
This was based on about 500 interviews. I hope it does not reflect reality.
The rating function doesn't seem to be working.
Thanks for the info, I'm doing research about this one. You helped me, thanks again.
Mr. Petrillo
MMA Pound for Pound
Nicely done column; gets to the root of things. The power elite are thrilled to have people on the "left" and "right" jockeying for a chance to add their own favored tyranny to the mix; when the voters tire of the current party in power and put the opposite wing in charge, the new "leaders" begin adding "their side's" desired tyrannies WITHOUT dismantling the tyranny added by the previous crowd, despite campaign promises.
This ratchet effect ensures that government power grows reliably, year after year. Smoking bans, as Alex points out, are just one example of the process.
I would have appreciated this justified attack on eminent domain much more if the author hadn't engaged in shilling for corporations like McDonald's and Wal-Mart. The latter is a particularly egregious example to cite, as a study has shown that this corporate welfare queen has received more than one billion dollars in state subsidies, often via abuse of eminent domain.
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo/
I wonder if Congress will ever get around to passing a similar resolution regarding the Holodomor, the muder of more than 10 million Ukrainians by Stalin.
This highlights the inherent weakness of positive law that ignores individual human rights. No matter its original intent (and that can always be argued), its subsequent interpretation can only be detrimental to human freedom.
Yeah, let's all get back to that Constitution, wherein it is stated that the government controls all the land and private property does not exist. That's a fine foundation for a free society.
Glad to see STR is back. . . the first time I hit the site after it went down, my Anti-Virus alerted me. . . so nice that all wasn't lost.
STR is the first site I hit in the morning, it goes great with the first cup o'mud and a cig.
You guys rock.
Welcome back STR! I was checking 4-5 times a day waiting for the site to come back up. A good friend is back!
Me too. STR was always the first site I looked at in the morning. Welcome back.
Agreed, I'm very happy to see STR back online. I must have checked the site 20 times a day for the last week.
I was very concerned when you were down due to the virus. I am glad to know that the world has not lost a great friend of human liberty.
Welcome Back.
How can you logically argue for animal rights in one breath, and in the same breath mock health care rights?
Or, put differently, at what size of organism does the right to _defense_ end? We can build a defensive military and police to protect the right (to defend health) of humans against humans, and maybe against some wildlife, but when it gets microscopic, suddenly it's absurd?
What about Steve McQueen's blob? If it came rolling down the street, but it was determined it was unicellular, does that mean everyone it's consuming would have to pay for their own defense? What about an alien invasion?
I think the health care debate is one where libertarian thinkers have failed miserably to have any coherence, for precisely the same reasons presented here for animal rights. All enlightenment arguments for classical liberalism are ultimately health based...
As I read in the article about Valentine's Day being a christian holiday based on reverence to a so-called christian saint, I couldn't help but think of Plato and the Noble Lie observed in it's modern form in the Straussians and the various religionist movements that grip people in subjugation, mentally as well as physical and political. To make matters worse are how these religions so clearly and continuously violate real ethics and morals while uttering the noble lie that in all of heaven and earth, they are the sole source for all morality, ethics and worst of all, truth.
On this day of myth and purpose of filthy lucer, I'm hard pressed to think of who is the more unwise, the Saudi's who follow our lead or our own western culture who continue to stick their heads in holes and refuse to stand like the free individuals they should be and were intended to be.
Thanks Robert for posting the article.
Thumbs up.
lol
WTF? Hollywood glam shots?
I see it everyday in Honolulu, just in their driving and parking.
They can´t seem to understand that the lack of respect from the citizens is due to their lack of respect for the law.
Instead they just want us to obey unquestioningly. They are more cowardly than regular bullies because they hide behind the uniform and the state.
Walking through downtown Honolulu, I´m more likely to get robbed and insulted for jay walking than mugged or harassed by drug dealers. They at least leave me alone and don´t insult me with the idea that they are protecting me.
Now THIS is why I enjoy this site so much. I learn something new every time I visit. I honestly did not realize that Marx was the originator of the word "capitalism." I had a very clear, simple understanding of the word capitalism (one of an accountant, really). But what we find as a core belief...it really isn't the true definition of capitalism, is it? Maybe laissez-faire IS the better term. I've invested some time reading various authors in the subject of economics (mainly because the Keynesian models that were crammed down my throat in business school began to be personally rejected a few years ago), but it seems that I really am at a point where I need to read Marx and understand the origin of some these terms better. I've been dismissive of Marx, always deferring to others on the subject of "Das Kapital." This is a good impetus to pick up a copy and try to work through Marx's text.
The question could also be: Why confuse an ethical free market with capitalism. It makes my dick itch when people fixate on semantics in politics, but I try to stick to original meanings as much as possible. The word that always comes to mind as the perfect example is 'liberal'.
'Libertarian' is rooted in egalitarian imperatives, but we work from the prefix, discuss ethics and there's nothing more libertarian that scrutinizing power at all times, so looser usages of 'libertarian' doesn't bother me because libertarians are scrutinizing the ownership of the term.
But 'capitalism' has an extremely distinctive meanings from the roots of the word's creation by Karl Marx. I think it was a mistake for classical liberals to equate laissez-faire philosophy with the corporatism Marx was identifying as capitalism. The Misesean definition is the reactionary one -- isolating the definition of 'socialism' to be Bolshevism and 'capitalism' as the opposite of that -- not what Prof. Chartier is discussing.
The premise of this speech is interesting and certainly a speech I'd like to hear. However, I finding parsing of language more than just a little annoying, especially in light of how much damage has been done by others redefining conventional definitions. Chartier's simplest definition of capitalism is succinct (if little understood by most) and essentially what makes trade, wealth and true egalitarian prosperity possible for a growing majority of the population. Why confuse capitalism with corporatism?