Recent comments

Freedom of Non-Movement? LOL! Now free yourself of oxymorons. "You are now free to not move about the country" just isn't the best jingle to sell your ideology in the free market of ideas to, say, a traveling salesman.

Rebellion, a r3VOLution, a "war for freedom" may be inevitable, but it will result in "Meet the New Boss, Same Old Boss." I guarantee it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

Thank you, Jim Davies, I have enjoyed your work for many years. One troll famously tried to infiltrate a mensa group; the results read like 100 trolls and one regular, it didn't have a chance - but it was stupid enough to persist until removed. Usually, yes they are harmless though fractured funny bones and occasional waves of nausea may have been reported. I don't discount that it vanished and arrived here from Troll Island--drivel intact--at about the same time attention and criticism of Ron Paul, Austrian economics and libertarians surfaced.

"What is the solution? The solution is the privatization of security so the market mechanism can function to both ensure our safety and respect our rights." Sorry, that's not a solution. That's you wishing other people would fix it for you. Now we are back to lobbying the ruling class to be reasonable. Good luck with that. Why in the world would the ruling class give up on TSA? They have precisely zero incentive to do so. TSA is extremely valuable to them. A solution is something that fixes a problem. Right now. That solution is available: stop using airlines. As to TSA extending into the business of roadblocks and so forth, where there is no longer any alternative that will allow travellers to avoid their predations - well, I expect war will result. And then we will be rid of TSA for good.

Best prison song this side of Johnny Cash... Tom Snider | Prison Walls http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkdR4PKV1AI [ http://www.toddsniderlive.com ]

THE AGENDA 21 DEATH MAP and the UNited States of America To enlarge this map for easier viewing: Hold down your "ctrl" [control] key while hitting the "+" key (over on your number pad).

Anecdotal accounts of prohibitions against maternal alcohol use from Biblical, ancient Greek, and ancient Roman sources imply a historical awareness of links between maternal alcohol use and negative child outcomes. [31] [31] Jones, K.L., & Smith, D.W. (1973). Recognition of the fetal alcohol syndrome in early infancy. Lancet, 2, 999–1001. PMID 4127281 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_alcohol_syndrome#Historical_references

Thank you, AtlasAikido, for your excellent observation, above, about trolls. I have come very close to meeting trolls. I know a certain island, in a certain lake, which has a whole family of them, and if you land and explore they will hide behind big rocks and slip from one to another while you're not looking. These are harmless creatures, though scary to small children unless held by the hand. I don't know whether they regard themselves as self-owning, or not, but I fancy they do. They are smart enough never, ever, to be pinned down to a straight answer to a straight question, and of course they never allow anyone actually to see them; they have an uncanny ability to vanish when on the cusp of being caught. The purpose of their lives is to have fun and make mischief, but these real ones never cause damage and they have a much keener sense of humor than their imitators. They pass their time, when human explorers are not around, by telling each other fables and fairy tales - of which they have an inexhaustible supply. At http://www.theanarchistalternative.info/zgb/BB2.JPG you can see a photo I took of Troll Island, a few years ago. Of course, no troll is visible.

It's not anarchy. Anarchist falsely claim anarchy where there is none, such as in the American West during the brutally aggressive agricultural city-Statist invasion and genocide. Unless you want to call a holocaust anarchist. The roofing industry here is still operating under the the territorial monopoly of force called government. If you don't think so, try driving to get more roofing nails without a license plate on the company vehicle, or just offer a free bag of pot for every roofing job. And last I knew, roofers were still using the established government court system to settle disputes. Oh, right, now they do "give a rat's ass."

Is Free-Market Anarchism Unworkable? Not in America’s Roofing Industry http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli63.1.html

TANSTAAFL is an agricultural city-Statist bromide. Before agricultural city-Statism, there was such a thing as a free lunch. Yep, for 99% of human history. Just go out a couple hours a day and gather up some nuts. Just that easy. For free. No hard labor, no working for The Man, no slaving for money. Despite a low annual rainfall (6 to 10 inches), Lee found in the Dobe area a "surprising abundance of vegetation". Food resources were "both varied and abundant", particularly the energy rich mangetti nut- "so abundant that millions of the nuts rotted on the ground each year for want of picking..." Interesting that the Hazda, tutored by life and not by anthropology, reject the neolithic revolution in order to keep their leisure. Although surrounded by cultivators, they have until recently refused to take up agriculture themselves, "mainly on the grounds that this would involve too much hard work". In this they are like the Bushmen, who respond to the neolithic question with another: "Why should we plant, when there are so many mongomongo nuts in the world?" The Original Affluent Society Stone Age Economics Marshall Sahlins, Professor of Anthropology Emeritus, University of Chicago http://www.primitivism.com/original-affluent.htm P.S. You haven't read much "Austrian" economics if you haven't heard that an employee transfers ownership of his life, in part, to an employer. Better read up. Misean "scholar" Walter Block even defends selling oneself into a "voluntary slavery," complete with sadistically whipping such human property.

G'day Lawrence M. Ludlow: I apologize for apparently not addressing your points. And, I can't imagine not applying the labels "natural" and "unnatural" to "something like this". I don't presume that nature even has a "mind", let alone knowing it. Thus, I would have to ask, why on Earth did you say "we anthropomorphize Nature"? Unless you are calling this statement of mine, "...nature's response to overpopulation", attributing human shape or characteristics to nature. If so, I apologize for the miscommunication, because that was certainly not my intent. I was alluding to a study, many years back, concerning rats in a grain silo. While the silo was full the rats acted "naturally", i.e. peacefully, heterosexually, etc.--the way rats "normally" act towards one another--except for hyper-reproduction, because of an overabundance of food. As they began taking grain out of the silo the rats began murdering each other and homosexuality became prevalent. The rats, I would venture, didn't hold a meeting and decide to change their behavior; it was, rather, "nature's response to overpopulation". And, just for the record, I have neither fear of, nor hatred for, homosexuals. Someone here has advised me to just let "sleeping dogs lie", and so this may be my last comment on this subject.

Bait and switch (con game) is arguing points that don't pertain to this site and not addressing the issue of Reclaiming Self-Ownership. Liberty Stability http://www.strike-the-root.com/liberty-stability#comment-4968

Herding the faithful like a Soviet political officer. Think this. Do that. Identify enemies of the city-State. Da, comrade.

A lesson to be drawn? Don't drop the articles and links dear reader. I try to read those first and come to my own conclusions before addressing the comments, especially if there is a "troll"/"vandal" lurking. At some point good people will be driven off because they will give up reading and sorting thru the non-sequiters. Technical tweaks may also help. On Reddit, votes on your comments don't affect your karma score, but they do on Mises.org. And it does seem to influence people when they can see their reputation in the eyes of their peers drain away....

Who needs enemies with the kind of help? Getting back to the issues of self-ownership as they relate to this article and Jim Davies: "Liberty Stability" http://www.strike-the-root.com/liberty-stability#comment-4959

For those actually interested "On Reclaiming Self-Ownership" without waiting for the rest of the world and every living thing... http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/shaffer10.html by Butler Shaffer "On what basis does another...presume to rule you?," Butler Shaffer rephrased the question. This question took us into a discussion of the subject of "authority." During the course of this discussion, a young man began to ask a series of questions: "But how else are we going to live, if we don’t follow others [i.e., authorities]?" "Do you understand how allowing others to direct your thinking and your actions produces conflict within yourself?", I asked. "Yes, I think so," the young man responded. "Would you like to learn how to live your life in a more self-directed way, without relying on ‘authorities’ to tell you how to do so?", I inquired. "Yes," my student answered. "How will you find out?", I asked. "By asking you," he replied. "Let me make certain I understand you: are you saying that you are now aware of how you have allowed others to control your thinking and actions by accepting these people as ‘authorities’ over you?" "Yes," he responded. "And now you are asking me to tell you how to stop living this way and take control over your own life? Can I make you a self-directed person?" There was a long silence, during which one could almost see what was going on in this man’s mind. Finally he declared: "I guess this means that it’s up to each one of us, doesn’t it?" "Do you need me to answer this question for you?", I asked. "No," my student answered. In the final analysis, I can do no more than respond with one of my favorite quotes, authored by one of the best minds in all of libertarian thinking, F.A. Harper, who said: "the man who knows what freedom means will find a way to be free." PS If *I* want [choose] to understand the above, I need to go thru the entire process in my own mind. Others can provide me assistance--*just as Rand has for me*--but it is I that must volitionally CHOOSE (or evade) to address this issue (by raising MY level of awareness to a state of full rationality) and then, via MY reason and use of logic, I must rationally CHOOSE what the alternatives are and which are true and which are false.

Real life observation debunks Rand's erroneous "axioms." An honest fellow would appreciate the correction.

"He spoke, in passionate sincerity, discarding convention, discarding concern for whether it was proper..." I will admit my style here is deliberately Randroidian, even if my message is anti-Randroidian. Once again: I'm not converting anybody, or advocating anything here, even when begged to state what I champion. I'm just correcting your errors, and offer a critique of agricultural city-Statism (civilization.) There's no "going back" to primitivism (unless we have a horrible collapse via nuclear war or other tragedy, which is actually quite likely.) But looking forward, we must have an accurate picture of what we left behind. The Hobbesian mythology and the Abrahamic athropocentrism of Genesis 1:26 (even if secularized) are taken as gospel by most people. Including Libertarians, Objectivists, Communists, Liberals, Conservatives. They're wrong. You're wrong. I'm here saying there's better information now, and if you're truly interested in creating a world with more freedom, you'd do well to check your premises.

It is hard to decide whether WI is a troll, or just one of those individuals who simply is incapable of constructively interacting with others. One even gets the impression he is actually trying to bring pre-ag life into disrepute by presenting his case so obnoxiously - that is, that he is a provocateur - but that makes no sense because I doubt the ruling class worries about people en masse converting to a pre-ag "lifestyle". I'm putting my money on "troll". The ironic thing is that if WI somehow magically found himself actually living in a pre-ag tribe, he'd probably find himself quickly expelled from the tribe if not killed outright. I'm guessing people in those societies did not put up with trollish behavior for long. It's only the post-ag Internet ecosystem that allows him to thrive (if you want to call it that). Just in case he isn't a troll, he ought to take a look at Dale Carnegie's work.

Hi Jim, I thought I would add this... Re: "You're conflating self-awareness and volition, and both of those are side issues to establishing autonomy (self-ownership.)" No they are not side issues. Jim addressed the issue of establishing autonomy (self-ownership. I will attempt to address the issue of whether I see a conflation of reason and volition and whether those two attributes are side issues. In The Romantic Manifesto in the chapter titled What Is Romanticism?, Ayn Rand says "...the faculty of reason is the faculty of volition...'', and "...volition is a function of man's rational faculty''. The common underlying faculty being discussed is man's consciousness. Quoting Ayn Rand: "Man's volition is an attribute of his consciousness (of his rational faculty) and consists in the choice to perceive existence or to evade it.''. They DO, BELONG together as different attributes of consciousness. But just as "white'' of an eye does not belong in a discussion of shape of an eye, and "round'' is not a color of an eye, so "volition'' is not in epistemology and "reason'' is not in metaphysics. Certainly reason is not volition any more than round is white! I see no place that Jim conflated! The faculty of reason is the faculty of volition. So? Since I/we each must think for ourselves, I/we each must resolve this issue on our own and to our own satisfaction. Rand and her students provided me with intellectual tools to recognize rationalizations and I have utilized these tools to help me understand this issue. If I want [choose] to understand, I need to go thru the entire process in my own mind. Others can provide me assistance--just as Rand has for me--but I must volitionally CHOOSE (or evade) to address this issue (by raising MY level of awareness to a state of full rationality) and then, via MY reason and use of logic, I must rationally CHOOSE which of the alternatives are true and which are false. As I am doing this, be fully aware of the two different contexts of the two different CHOICES I am facing! Notice that the first is an action of consciousness and the second involves the content of consciousness. I am NOT ignoring the appropriate context when switching from one mode of CHOICE to the other. I do not see Jim ignoring that. "Man's faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature, but it opens the way for a host of contradictions and rationalizations--when and if men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man. Is there a conflation of reason (self-awareness) with volition(will/level of awareness) as it relates to Jim's point? No. I do not see that. Jim's point to me is consistent with: The ACT of focusing one's consciousness is volitional.'' and "... only a volitional ACT of his consciousness, a PROCESS of thought, can provide [the knowledge needed for life]. On this issue of man (rational animal) Vs the genus of animal I think Rand did a good job of the differentia regarding that issue! And the above provides light to the difference between such.

Let them have it. Panarchy is the answer to that question.

Sorry, WhiteIndian, that you can't throw light on the dividing line regarding volitional choice. I had hoped that with your clearly superior understanding of the natural world, you might have. That being so, we're stuck with using the self-ownership axiom for humans, at least. Possibly some other species, you don't know which (and nor do I.) That axiom does not depend on Rand, still less on Christianity (which teaches, I thought, that all men are subject to the rule of _God_.) Nor does it derive from capitalism, which is a consequence of the axiom and in no sense its source. What nonsense have you been taught to read?! Accordingly, a hierarchical form of society, regardless of its ubiquity, is 100% contrary to human nature. If every person has the intrinsic right to rule himself (that's what the axiom holds) then nobody has any right to rule anyone else. That follows, as day follows night; there is no escape from that conclusion. Since there is no known exception to your observation (there are minor ones, I think; mediaeval Iceland comes to mind) that means that for the last ten thousand years mankind has been up a government creek. Your post could be read to say "it has always been so, therefore it is optimal and must or should always be so" - but here on Strike the Root we take the diametrically opposite view. We start by recognizing the axiom as inviolate, and therefore say that mankind has to be turned around, taken out of the creek. Government - illegitimate rule, as above - has to be abolished. That is our purpose, and I for one hope you will join us. If you wish to visualize how a large society would work without hierarchical rule, go to www.TakeLifeBack.com/trilib and order a copy of my book "A Vision of Liberty." For a brief take on world history since fixed agriculture was discovered, consider "Denial of Liberty" in the same trilogy.

"Crowding" isn't natural. Neither is "hierarchy" or "sexual deviance" in humans and many other animals. We're well on our way. __________ “The one thing they did not have was space...He allowed the population to grow to 80 in the first instance.” As the scientist observed, a social hierarchy developed: One despot male and 9 females claimed the two defensible pens with only one ramp provided; 60 others crowded into the other 2 pens with two ramps. Calhoun found that “rodent utopia” rapidly became “hell.” He described the onset of several pathologies: violence and aggression, with rats in the crowded pen “going berserk, attacking females, juveniles and less-active males.” There was also “sexual deviance.” Rats became hypersexual, pursuing females relentlessly even when not in heat. The mortality rate among females was extremely high. A large proportion of the population became bisexual, then increasingly homosexual, and finally asexual. There was a breakdown in maternal behavior. Mothers stopped caring for their young, stopped building a nest for them and even began to attack them, resulting in a 96 percent mortality rate in the two crowded pens. Calhoun coined a term—“behavioral sink”—to describe the decay. excerpt from: Plumbing the ‘Behavioral Sink’ Medical Historian Examines NIMH Experiments in Crowding http://nihrecord.od.nih.gov/newsletters/2008/07_25_2008/story1.htm