Recent comments

  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    People aren't mere objects to be owned as property, to claim such is deliberate dehumanization or depersonification. Objectification is a tactic of both physical and emotional abusers. And economic abuse, in which people are looked upon by the controlling hierarchy as "The Ultimate Resource."
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Oh, he's scrounging for dirt again -- see below.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Gee, let's reach into the a bag of insults and find ... well ... an insult! Feeling threatened by the living, breathing reality of a woman who managed to escape becoming a corpse in Stalin's egalitarian communist utopia (50 million dead), which actually existed, the communist Whitaker Chambers attempted to perceive gas chambers where none were to be found -- all the while failing to see that the word "chamber" is in his own name. Thanks for reminding us.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteQuibbler, you may not have noticed, but people are objects. But that does not mean anyone is objectifying them. Control the anger, please.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    There you go again creating confusion where none existed -- in a sentence so short that it was easily avoided. Let's try it this way: "Words convey ideas; words convey premises, which are a kind of idea."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 50 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The absence of a contract signatory does not clear the committed collateral.
  • BrianDrake's picture
    BrianDrake 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    Paul, "The way you can tell when you have liberty, is when those who want out, can get outside. In other words, it is when anarchists are left alone. That is the test. You don’t have to approve of anarchism. You certainly don’t have to be an anarchist to have liberty." You have actually defined, by description, anarchism. If residing/living your life on Liberal Way, Conservative Boulevard, Communist Lane, etc. is something one chooses to do voluntarily, is able to leave when they choose, and is unable to compel others to adopt the same choice (i.e., force others to live on Communist Lane, or "stay in the city"), then there's no "archy" there. No archy = anarchy. Anyone who desires this situation, is de facto, an anarchist. That they personally prefer certain forms of social organization over others is secondary to the fact they desire a society where no man is forced to the form of social organization preferred by another. You could call these people "anarcho-Liberals", "anarcho-Conservatives" or "anarcho-Communists", but the fact remains, they are all anarchists. So I argue there's no middle ground between anarchy and statism. A statist who agrees to "leave the anarchists alone" is not a statist, he is an anarchist. Because, by "leaving the anarchists alone", he is agreeing that no man may be bound by a State he did not consent to. And, assuming he is coherent, this understanding extends to himself as well. He only continues as a "citizen" to the State the anarchists seceded unmolested from because he chooses to do so. If he chose not to, he would assert the same right he recognized in the "anarchists", that is, the right to be left alone by that, or any other State. But this philosophy attempts to transform the "State" he persists in being a "citizen" to into a voluntary institution. By definition, a State is NOT a voluntary institution and thus any State that "lets the anarchists alone" is no longer a State. It is a governing-services organization that, since it respects the wishes of its "citizens" to voluntarily opt in or out, must now compete with alternatives for the continued consent of its "citizens", which are now more accurately recognized as customers. And thus we have described market anarchy. The "you can remain a statist, just leave the anarchists alone" tactic might be a sly way to trick a statist into becoming an anarchist without realizing it, but it doesn't change the fact that deciding to "leave the anarchists alone" makes one an anarchist. I personally prefer, and find more useful the idea that liberty = self-ownership. The test to see if you have liberty is to ask if any human person, or group of persons has final authority over your life other than you. If the answer is yes, you don't have liberty, someone else owns you...and thus you are a slave.
  • AtlasAikido's picture
    AtlasAikido 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Apparently, The Villains in Atlas Shrugged are very much alive and real.----- http://mises.org/daily/5218/The-Continued-Relevance-of-Rands-Villains For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, the lobbyist Wesley Mouch decries the capitalist Hank Rearden's invention of a wonderful alloy that is stronger than steel. And in prior months, in the real world, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. took to the house floor to declare that Steve Jobs's iPad was killing jobs. Congress must, according to Jackson, recognize that Apple is driving companies such as Barnes & Noble and Borders out of business, and the company should be stopped in the interests of fairness. Jackson decried Congress for failing to foster "protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work." It's as if he wanted us to believe the printing press was harmful to the economy because it decreased the demand for scribes. Such a condemnation of a successful business and a demand for protection of failing industries could easily have been lifted directly from Rand's novel. As for Jackson--The similarities are not restricted to this lone Democratic congressman. Similar absurd arguments were bountiful on both sides of the aisle in debates about policies ranging from Obamacare to the bailouts. Americans are directed to believe that if they would just allow the federal government to act in order to prevent further change in the economy, then stability could be restored. It is this *paltry masquerade of politicians feigning action and granting themselves greater power in the name of equality and economic stability that leads Americans to Rand's story*. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats both put on a charade of activity in April, claiming to remedy our nation's budget woes. Both parties threatened to shut down the government over a series of austerity measures amounting to a final savings of $352 million this fiscal year. That's $352 million out of budget deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion, or .02 percent of what would be required to actually balance the budget. Politicians bickered over funding for relatively low-cost line items like NPR and Planned Parenthood, all the while ignoring the harsh reality that our public debt is on track to surpass our GDP. In other words, *Republicans and Democrats have managed to mortgage the entire household worth of the United States*. Their remedy for this self-imposed tragedy? Grant themselves greater power through increased regulations and rising taxes. With each repeated failure of federal action to remedy our economic situation, politicians reveal themselves more fully to the American people as nothing but self-serving villains. Their strategy relies on the appearance of action coupled with soaring rhetoric to convince Americans of their good deeds. Meanwhile, these politicians are gambling with our lives and prosperity, risking the well-being of hard-working individuals in thoughtless policies designed merely to secure reelection. It is due to her apt depiction of these self-serving villains that Ayn Rand's novel has climbed to number four on the top-sellers list on Amazon and that the film is likely to do far better than its mediocre quality would merit. Americans are growing tired of politicians gambling away their prosperity to preserve their own power. The crowd in Reno applauded as Ellis Wyatt walked away, not because he was some great hero, but because they understood the pain of working tirelessly while a reckless and unproductive government needlessly spends away the results of your labor and rewards your hard work with mounting regulations. The idea of walking away has become attractive — and indeed, Americans are increasingly leaving the United States for opportunities abroad, with record numbers emigrating to Australia and East Asia. So long as Ayn Rand's villains continue to resemble the reality in Washington, the story of Atlas Shrugged will remain popular. The average American may not be a powerful railroad executive or steel magnate, but most believe they are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Many are beginning to realize that their future is being gambled away by politicians whose only risk is losing the votes of the individuals who have lost everything. http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2011/01/05/more-americans-moving-overseas-t... I was just informed about THIS, thought some might be interested. http://atlasshruggeddocumentary.com/
  • Paul's picture
    Paul 4 years 50 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    Yeah, maybe they should have been more careful.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I've no need of a reminder. "From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: 'To a gas chamber — go!'" ~Whitaker Chambers Source: "To a gas chamber - go!" | October 10, 2007 http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/to-gas-chamber-go_1...
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Yes, voluntaryists are so into gas chambers.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Actually, Rothbard was not taken out-of-context. (And no, one doesn't need to quote a whole essay to stay in context by any scholarly definition.) The blog from which I cited Rothbard's racist comments even quotes a prominent libertarian who concurs that Rothbard was racist. It seems you're the one displaying intellectual dishonesty. But remember how I compared Libertarians to fundamentalists? You've just scored again -- accusing those who quote the Sacred Canon of taking their Holy Prophets "out-of-context." Context!!!!!! Feb 22, 2010 | 239,985 views http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o Anyway, whenever fundies like you get frustrated and give a royal wave good-bye, you never mean it. I guess we'll see. P.S. I didn't miss any "argument" Tzo made. All he's doing is re-parroting the Scriptures, like a fundamentalist conjuring up Canonical word magic, as if that addresses what I brought up -- that humans are not property, and equivocating humans with property is a deliberate capitalist ploy of dehumanization and objectification.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    You "medicalized" first, with your autism insult. I'd reckon that makes YOU the *original* "Soviet Union" "gas-chamber" operator -- if we're to judge you by your own standards. Sweet Hayzeus, what a cirqe de Godwin.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    PS: Your willingness to medicalize the ideologies of unpopular movements would have fit in nicely in the Soviet Union, where people were declared insane for not being socialist enough. We can all smell the gas chambers now, and this time you'll have the psychiatric community pulling the strings. How therapeutic!
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Clearly you haven't been following the posts of Glen Allport or me on NVC (non-violent communication) -- or the people at the complete liberty website. Many of us have been following the work of Marshall Rosenberg and his Center for Nonviolent Communication for some time, but you'd better ignore that, eh? You wouldn't want to get caught at one of our weekly NVC seminars, would you? Then you'd have to take it all back? Then again, I don't want to pop your over-generalizing bubble of sophomoric assumptions and hyper-criticism because then you wouldn't feel better about yourself after shooting at all the imaginary problems that OTHER PEOPLE have.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    The etymology has an underlying truth: there has never been a City without a State. Both "POLIS" and "CIVILIZATION" mean city-State because human language reflects, quite accurately in this instance, demonstrable reality. Many libertarian volumes laud civilization (the city-STATE) as a good while simultaneously deprecating the State as evil. And how many times have I seen Statist used as a pejorative? Calling civilization (the city-State) good while calling the State bad is a contradiction. You're dodging and weaving around that reality. Care to address the issue rationally?
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 50 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Once again, you miss the argument Tzo made, and then you go spinning off into your own world of wordplay again and veer off into pseudo-Rothbard land. I say "pseudo" because the blog you cite (instead of citing the entire essay by Rothbard as an honest use of scholarly apparatus requires) is an example of deliberately mis-construing what Rothbard said and meant, and you probably know that because you are making cheap shots without merit. He was clearly discussing a hypothetical instance in which statistics are used, but you are hoping nobody notices that, aren't you? I won't defend all of what Lew Rockwell or Murray have said (they err frequently), but in this case, he is clearly not using the term in the way you hope a skimming reader would assume without full context. On a separate topic (because you have not made your point on racism) you should take a peek at how many people on this site are aware of the foolishness of the whole paleo-phase of Murray and Lew -- but the example you cite is not one of them since Murray is making a rhetorical point about statistics. I've even written about it in the environmental essays that I put together on it. But there you go, spinning off into your own self-make whirlwind. I'm just going to have to view you and your comments as non-communication -- i.e. as troll dust meant to waste time. Bye.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    WhiteBoy: That's your problem. You put words in other people's mouths, and then you complain about those words. Why would anyone say "good" or "evil" about the fact that there was something called a polis in Greece as in your statement #1 and #2? What kind of game is that? If you looked at your comments on Alex Knight's essay, you'd already know that I thought that the Greeks were indeed very silly about many things. So stop with the ventriloquist act, eh?
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I'm not sure how your sophomoric name-calling addresses any factual or analytic problems you see with what I've presented about anthropology, but I do invite you to address a problem, if there are indeed any. Pointing out a contradiction isn't telling you how you think. The contradiction in libertarian thought is simultaneously thinking: 1. The AGRICULTURAL CITY-[state] is GOOD. 2. The [agricultural city]-STATE is EVIL. The "Statism" that your rage against is a single cultural package. Agriculture+City+State, commonly known as agricultural civilization or simply civilization. You continue to blank-out that reality with various childish subterfuges. But if you can identify where I'm wrong, let me know, OK?
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Jad Davis
    The foreign lenders lent to a sovereign entity that no longer exists. Tough luck for them.
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Thanks for the fix, Suverans2. I accept it in the generous spirit in which it was given. I don't interpret it (as WhiteMallBoyIndian would) as an act to capture me via a net woven out of my typos! One of WhiteBoy's problems is that he hasn't mastered anthropology enough to speak about it clearly to others and instead confuses himself and others while reading our minds for us and telling us what (he thinks) we think! Anyway, I had better get back to my "planning out a completely controlled" anarcho-society, complete with plans for everything!
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    @Paul: I've been using the prison metaphor to describe city-Statism (civilization) since reading Daniel Quinn, who used it. Prison is a good illustration. I think Richard Manning has an even more accurate metaphor -- civilization as a ZOO. We're animals in cages, and animals in cages turn psychotic -- and that is exactly how hunter-gatherers view civilized people. Psychotic. Richard Manning on the Psychosis of Civilization http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5iBOXcoP_8 Considering that schizophrenia is a Disease of Civilization, as psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey argues in Schizophrenia and Civilization, I think Manning is onto something. @Ken: Freud had it nailed, but thought of city-Statism (civilization) as a "necessary evil." He wrote, "The principal task of civilization, its actual raison d'ette, is to defend us against nature...But how ungrateful. how short-sighted after all to strive for the abolition of civilization! What would then remain would be a state of nature, and that would be far harder to bear." Most city-Statist imprisoned (in-zooed? LOL) people agree with him, including the vast majority of libertarians. That last 60 years of anthropology, ethnology, and evolutionary biology debunk Freud's blind acceptance of the Hobbesian mythology. Man in a "state of nature" enjoyed "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972) The next step? Our lives need to "mirror our genetic heritage" as Manning states in the youtube video above.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    But where did you find that I suggest the word "gang" is anywhere in his articles? Go back up, read what I wrote, and understand it. His deceptive definition of corporation, people who "agree to assemble and cooperate," can be applied to any of the groups above I listed as examples.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Now that you mention autism, libertarians are noted for it. they're the only political group to score higher on systemizing than on empathizing. Not only are they the only political group -- they scored *way* higher. The study notes that such systemizing" is “Characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating AUTISM.” Iyer, Ravi, Koleva, Spassena , Graham, Jesse, Ditto, Peter H. and Haidt, Jonathan, Understanding Libertarian Morality: The Psychological Roots of an Individualist Ideology (August 20, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1665934 Keep trying to design a the system of a voluntary civilization. Should be as simple as conjuring an animated corpse. The communist have been banging their head against the same "stateless city-State" block wall for years.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    I think the word you intended was solipsism, but your humor is much appreciated. Thanks.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    You're welcome. And, I do agree that that author does not, evidently, understand what the differences between a "public/business corporation" and a "private corporation" are, or he is intentionally trying to mislead his reader(s), but where did you find the word "gang" anywhere in his articles? Correction: Last paragraph, (in my preceding post), should have read, "...if their 'guardian or conservator', called the STATE, says they shouldn't." Addendum to my preceding post: sui juris noun Law. capable of managing one's affairs or assuming legal responsibility. Origin: 1605–15; < Latin suī jūris of one's own right ~ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
  • KenK's picture
    KenK 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Paul Bonneau
    That's what Sartre was getting when he noted that: "Hell is other people"* (telling you what to do). Having or needing to reign in our personal prerogatives and impulses in order to live amongst others** is the whole basis for the emergence of statism IMO. I appreciate your insights Paul. Do you have any thoughts about what the next step is? * No Exit, J.P. Sartre, http://www.scribd.com/doc/2925864/No-Exit-by-Jean-Paul-Sartre ** Civilization and Its Discontents, Sigmund Freud, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilization_and_Its_Discontents#Overview
  • Lawrence M. Ludlow's picture
    Lawrence M. Ludlow 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Enjoy the autistic solopsism.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Saying a corporation is merely people who "agree to assemble and cooperate," which is what the article purports, is like saying an animal is a dog. So thanks for reinforcing my point, even if you strain to be contrary. Your last paragraph is right on, and why I questioned the author's deceptive definition of corporation.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Asking if a gang is a corporation is like asking if an animal is a dog. Gang. Any company of persons who go about together or act in concert; in modern use, mainly for criminal purposes. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 679 Children don't get to "enjoy", i.e. "to have, possess, and use with satisfaction; to occupy or have benefit of[1]", all their natural rights until such time as they are willing/able to take responsibility for their own actions and their own survival; most individuals are never ready, so they go from being "wards" of the natural family to being "wards[2]" of the "parens patriae[3]", called the STATE. The same holds true for "compan[ies] of persons". The reason for incorporating is to avoid individual personal responsibility, which is why the individual persons who make up corporations should NOT "enjoy" all their so-called constitutional rights, i.e. legal rights, if their "guarding or conservator", called the STATE, says they shouldn't. _________________________________________________________________________________ [1] Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1991), page 529 [2] Ward. ...A person, especially a child or incompetent, placed by the court under the care and supervision of a guardian or conservator. Ibid. page 1583 [3] parens patriae : the state in its capacity as the legal guardian of persons not sui juris... ~ Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Is a gang a corporation? An army? A choir? A tribe? A band? A marriage? It's rather deceptive to define a corporation merely as people who "agree to assemble and cooperate."
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Melinda L. Secor
    Aggressive NeoCons like Newt do have a better understanding of city-Statism than "isolationists," i.e., civilization must always "grow" (invade, conquer) Several authors analyze this, with one of the best being Jeff Vail's essay The Problem of Growth,* in which he states, "the critical problem facing humanity: the structure of our civilization, its inherent need to grow (and therefore its unsustainability...)" Why? It's a matter of the game theory of The Prisoner's Dilemma. As Jason Godesky states in his essay "Civilization Must Always Grow: "The Prisoner’s Dilemma provides the logical foundation of why civilization must always continue to grow. Each society faces a choice: do we continue to intensify production, adopt greater complexity, and increase the size or scale of our society, or do we happily accept the level we’re already at? If you choose not to intensify, you will be out-competed by those who do–and your lower level of intensity and complexity will become a resource they can absorb to fuel their further acceleration, whether by outright conquest or more subtle forms of economic or cultural exploitation." "War is a staple of [city-Statism] civilization,"*** enabled by division of labor and agriculture, as John Zerzan points out in his essay The Origins of War. There is no static, voluntary, peaceful city-State (civilization,) of which libertarians theorize, for many reasons, and the likelihood of conjuring one is as realistic as creating an animated corpse. War is the way city-slickers roll. _________________ * What is Rhizome? Chapter 1. Problem of Growth. A capstone formulation of why our societal structure is unsustainable, how rhizome presents a solution, and how to implement it. by Jeff Vail http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/01/what-is-rhizome.html ** Thesis #12: Civilization must always grow. by Jason Godesky | 23 October 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/thirty/ *** The Origins of War John Zerzan http://www.scribd.com/doc/62268835/The-Origins-of-War-John-Zerzan
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Fine business, Mark, on avoiding grain; I concur, and have improved my health greatly. It's good to see a few people are catching on to the nutritional facet of the critique of civilization -- agricultural city-Statism (civilization) makes us sick, as Mark Cohen documents.(1) In fact, there is a whole host of diseases called "Diseases of Civilization" and "Civilization Syndrome." Dr. Torrey devotes a whole chapter to the evidence that schizophrenia itself is a recent "disease of civilization."(2) But let's get to the heart of libertarianism: economics. The best metaphor for the agricultural city-State (civilization is a prison,(3) as Daniel Quinn puts it. Many other writers, especially anthropologists, recognize this as they look at the data, as does psychiatrist R.D. Lang in his third chapter in his The Politics of Experience. Civilization is brutal, and unlike how most liberarian writers think, in actuality, civilization imprisoned humans into a rigid hierarchy. Straight to property rights: if civilization is a prison, abstract land property rights are the walls. Those walls are a big-government entitlement program to regulate and restrict the free movement of people to live a Non-State lifeway. In other words, libertarians WANT the prison walls, and then call them "freedom." Mention that the walls are what enslaves humanity to agricultural city-Statism, and they have a hissy fit. Attorney Jeff Vail does a good job of deconstructing the libertarian/capitalist perspective of property rights in his book A Theory of Power.(4) He refers to Jason Godesky who also brings up how Lockesian property rights are based on monotheistic hierarchy.(5) The following hierarchical structure is what most libertarians believe, even if they've somewhat secularized it, the core magical thinking of the culture remains: JEHOVALLAH MAN WOMAN (submits to husband) ANIMALS (submits to husbandry) NATURE (only valuable if used by humans) How did the garden-of-Eden Mesopotamian cedar forest get deforested and desertified into the hellish Iraqi desert? City-Statist "property rights" on clay tablets. It's mine, God gave it to to use, and I can use it as I will. That is deforesting and desertifying our home planet, and western christian civilization has greatly intensified the destruction.(6) It's only taken a short time to lose half the topsoil in the Midwest. ______________ (1) Health and the Rise of Civilization Mark Nathan Cohen Yale University Press, 1989 excerpt from pp. 131-141 here: http://www.primitivism.com/health-civilization.htm (2) Schizophrenia and civilization E. Fuller Torrey, M.D. http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=acls;idno=heb02208 (3)A Condensation of Daniel Quinn Thought Part 1: The Problem is Civilization Prison http://www.lejournalmural.be/english-antilibrary/gorilla-content.html (4) The abstract notion of ownership serves as the single, greatest perpetuator of hierarchy. When one steps back and examines the notion of “owning” something, the abstraction becomes readily apparent. Ownership represents nothing more than a power-relationship—the ability to control. The tribal institution of “Ownership by use” on the other hand, suggests simply that one can only “own” those things that they put to immediate, direct and personal use to meet basic needs—and not more. A society crosses the memetic Rubicon when it accepts the abstraction that ownership can extend beyond the exclusive needs of one individual for survival. (Read Jason Godesky on Ownership) Abstract ownership begins when society accepts a claim of symbolic control of something without the requirement of immediate, direct and personal use. Hierarchy, at any level, requires this excess, abstract ownership—it represents the symbolic capital that forms the foundation of all stratification. ~Jeff Vail A Theory of Power Chapter 9 - Forward, to Rhizome http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html (5) "To date, however, no philosopher has ever successfully divorced Lockesian property rights from monotheism." ~ The Right to Property by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005 http://rewild.info/anthropik/2005/07/the-right-to-property/ (6) "Our science and technology have grown out of Christian attitudes toward man's relation to nature which are almost universally held not only by Christians and neo-Christians but also by those who fondly regard themselves as post- Christians. Despite Copernicus, all the cosmos rotates around our little globe. Despite Darwin, we are not, in our hearts, part of the natural process. We are superior to nature, contemptuous of it, willing to use it for our slightest whim." ~ The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis by Lynn White, Jr. Science, 10 March 1967: Vol. 155 no. 3767 pp. 1203-1207 http://www.uvm.edu/~gflomenh/ENV-NGO-PA395/articles/Lynn-White.pdf
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 51 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, Suverans2. Duh, I didn't see that "Edit" word under the comment.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 51 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Duplicate deleted
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Dodge and weave if you wish, the issue still stands -- how empirical evidence from archeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, etc. completely refutes the city-Statist Hobessian mythology found throughout libertarian/ancap/what-have-you literature.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I was NOT playing word games with you; I fall under none of your "rubrics", as far as I can determine. But that aside, you seem to be the one who is playing "word games", agricultural city-Statist. Here's a word that I believe describes you to a "T". ;) troll ▸ someone who deliberately sends a rude or annoying message to a discussion group on the Internet ~ Mamillan Dictionary
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Another wrong premise about libertarians that you keep repeating is that we accept the Hobbesian world view. I even wrote an article debunking that view here: http://www.strike-the-root.com/61/davis_m/davis7.html To wit: "No arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." ~ Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes "The above premise is flat wrong. The state did not create arts, letters, or society. The state cannot eliminate fear, poverty, loneliness or violence: it institutionalizes them. The premise of state worshipers that life is "nasty, brutish and short" ignores what individuals are capable of when left free. It is the state that leads to conditions making life unbearable, not liberty. The state is based on restricting, controlling and expanding its power. Society is based on respect and trust for and among individuals." I’m actually sympathetic with your views on how wonderful life was in the Garden of Eden. Who isn’t? I also am on a modified "Caveman Diet" that avoids grains (gluten) and other sources of sugar and carbohydrates. It’s basically eating vegetables, fruits and meat. It took some getting used to as I love eating bread, grits, pasta, rice and ice cream, but I do feel better and have lost weight. I still like walking in the woods, fishing and fresh air. Free love would also be great, but my wife probably won’t go for it. The thing is that The Garden of Eden is a lost paradise. I will do what I can to be a sovereign individual in the modern world by making choices that positively impact my physical, psychological and spiritual health consistant with this ideal. You and anybody else can do the same. But The Garden of Eden is gone forever and we have to live in a crowded world. A world of scarcity creates conditions that require peaceful methods to reduce conflict. The non-aggression principle and respect for property rights have proven to be the best methods for accomplishing this goal.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Oh boy, more word games. Generally under the rubric of libertarianism falls objectivism, anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism, etc. At any rate, the Hobbesian mythology parroted by objectivist, anarcho-capitalist, libertarian, etc. authors has been debunked by empirical evidence. Now what city-Statist game will you play to avoid the facing the truth? I can't wait to see, but such games run quite the same across all city-Statist political schemes, whether its monocled Reason Foundation minarchists, Free-Republic Neo-Cons, or liberal Progressives.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Rebuttal: I am not a "libertarian", and, to the best of my recollection, I have never claimed to be a "libertarian". It appears, from your reply, that your whole goal here is to get your libertarian "friends" to admit that they are "wrong", which just, coincidentally, would mean, (at least in your mind), that you are "right". Feel free to factually rebut that presumption if it is wrong.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    Who cares if I want to go back to a foraging lifestyle, or not? It's the truth of the matter that you're trying to avoid by insisting that I have to somehow "find a way" to live that lifestyle again. Libertarians constantly apologize for the agricultural city-State (civilization) on debunked premises. In other words, you're factually wrong. The question is, when will you admit that you're wrong?
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 51 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Click on "Edit", select the entire comment, then type the word "Deleted", which will be the word then put in place of the body of the comment.
  • Suverans2's picture
    Suverans2 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” So, other than "repeating the same simple 'facts' over and over and over again", ad nauseam, what is your plan to get yourself back the the 'leisurely' life of the hunter-gathers?
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 51 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Sorry for the double posting! - Drupal was playing up. I don't know how to delete the first version.
  • Jim Davies's picture
    Jim Davies 4 years 51 weeks ago
    History, Rewritten
    Page Jim Davies
    Thank you, bs! You're quite correct. It's an amazing testament to the power of Horace Mann's indoctrination machine that here we are, fully 70 years on, and _still_ we're being told that the bloodbath of WW-II was "good." There's better news, though. The evidence of FDR's trickery is now mountainous, and most of it was put in place not by market anarchists like us but by solid members of the Establishment. When the dam does burst and the truth can no longer be denied, swept away will be not just FDR's halo but the whole system of government thought control. There is for example Hamilton Fish III, from the very heart of the Beast: on December 8th 1941 he was the person who stood up in Congress to open the debate in favor of a declaration of war. At the time, like everyone else, he had been fooled by the Pearl attack. Read his "Tragic Deception" for what he found later. Then there's Robert Stinnett, whose "Day of Deceit" gives a richly detailed account of exactly who did what, in that fateful Summer and Fall of 1941 - all the more powerful an indictment for being understated; he never goes quite as far as asserting that FDR definitely knew exactly where and when the attack would happen. Stinnett is a highly decorated Navy vet and a research fellow at the Independent Institute. A skeptic should consider also Samuel Morison, mentioned in my http://TakeLifeBack.com/oto/otoh215.htm - he was another Navy man and close friend of FDR and a historian who remained a "Good War" believer; but immediately the President embargoed scrap metal and oil in July 1941, he wrote "This means war." Even now, the evidence continues to mount. Only last week I learned from Republican Patrick Buchanan that Hoover himself, FDR's predecessor, saw through the deception almost at once; well worth reading about that at http://lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan198.html. He tells also of Prime Minister Prince Fumimaro Konoye of Japan, who throughout that Summer tried desperately to avoid war by negotiating with FDR, hinting that large concessions were on the table. Every time, he was ignored or rebuffed. These are all "insiders", whose findings the mainstream media and schoolteachers continue to suppress.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Web link Westernerd
    I find the that most city-Statist (civilizationists) libertarians are also opposed to "historical revisionism." Libertarian authors parrot the Hobbesian mythology of Non-State paleolithic life being "nasty, brutish, and short," just like all city-Statist apologists. But hard-won archeological evidence and anthropological studies show that reality is pre-city-State life was "The Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins 1972) The LIE: Ayn Rand: "Let your women take a look at a jungle female with her shriveled face and pendulous breasts, as she sits grinding meal in a bowl, hour after hour, century by century..." The TRUTH: "Their work week is short enough to make us drool in envy." Hunter Gatherers And The Golden Age Of Man http://www.raw-food-health.net/HunterGatherers.html (nice summary, with great scholarly references)
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Lawrence, don't lie and twist my argument. I'm not basing *all* assessment only on observation. I'm saying that when one observes something that contradicts a libertarian premise, you have to deal with reality. There is a whole bunch of empirical data that debunks libertarian premises. A=A, right? And if you think that racism is somehow a observed fact (it's not, by the way) then you're right in there with Murray Rothbard and his scientific racism. "In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors." ~MURRAY ROTHBARD source: Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Scientific Racism http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.com/2010/07/murray-rothbard-lew-r...
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Arguing with libertarian fundamentalists is akin to arguing with young earth creationist fundamentalist; one keeps repeating the same simple facts over and over and over again.
  • WhiteIndian's picture
    WhiteIndian 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    Maximum freedom, personal autonomy, and individual sovereignty is found in egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies. This is hard-won knowledge from the last half century of anthropology and archeology and evolutionary biology. If you want to reorganize today's society, and I think that is a noble goal -- it certainly is brutal and hellish as it is -- then you really need to catch up on the knowledge that debunks several libertarian premises. Rand, Mises, Rothbard, etal were horribly misinformed. Let's go over a few key points on which libertarian are wrong: 1. Egalitarianism isn't evil. It isn't collectivism. It's a observed facet of human evolution, it increased our survival rate, and is arguably our most defining trait. 2. Paleolithic tribal life wasn't "nasty, brutish, and short;" it was rather the "Original Affluent Society." The whole litany of Hobbesian mythology has been debunked by the last 60 years or so of archeology and anthropology. Yet all agricultural city-Statists -- libertarians, conservatives, leftists -- parrot it. 3. Land enTITLEment "rights" are a big-government Regulatory scheme over the home planet's surface to restrict the free movement of Non-State societies. Such "rights" are established by brutal invasion (e.g., the Trail of Tears) and enforced by threat of violence in a continual occupation -- thus violating the Non-Aggression principle. Stanley Diamond's first sentence in his volume "In Search of the Primitive: A Critique of Civilization," states accurately, "Civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home." Attorney Jeff Vail does a superb job of exposing the difference between legitimate property rights and illegitimate property rights in his book "A Theory of Power."* Regarding "going back to primitivism:" it's going to happen to some extent or another, whether you like it or not. Agricultural civilization is as much of a cheating scheme as is fiat money, and thus, the city-State (and its faux financing) always collapses. We're in the beginnings of a catabolic collapse now. I think we're watching The Final Empire** go down. _________________ * Ownership represents nothing more than a power-relationship—the ability to control. The tribal institution of “Ownership by use” on the other hand, suggests simply that one can only “own” those things that they put to immediate, direct and personal use to meet basic needs—and not more. A society crosses the memetic Rubicon when it accepts the abstraction that ownership can extend beyond the exclusive needs of one individual for survival. (Read Jason Godesky on Ownership) Abstract ownership begins when society accepts a claim of symbolic control of something without the requirement of immediate, direct and personal use. Hierarchy, at any level, requires this excess, abstract ownership—it represents the symbolic capital that forms the foundation of all stratification. ~Jeff Vail "A Theory of Power" Online Chapter 9 - Forward, to Rhizome http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/03/theory-of-power-online.html ** The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and the Seed of the Future by William H. Kötke http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/
  • Mark Davis's picture
    Mark Davis 4 years 51 weeks ago Page Lawrence M. Ludlow
    All I get from your posts is that you think we should live in small roving bands of hunter-gatherers. Egalitarianism isn't one of my premises; it is one of yours. I look at ideas like "We should all be equal" or "We should all be happy" as self-evident, utopian and short on practical applicability. I’m more interested in determining how we can move forward reorganizing society in the real world. The non-aggression principle is one such basis. Do you have any suggestions (besides killing off 99% of the population - which is what it would take to go back to being in said roving bands)?