Recent comments

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.

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.

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.

Sorry for the double posting! - Drupal was playing up. I don't know how to delete the first version.

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)

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.

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)?

Tzo, you're the ace! Excellent argument. Ironically, by WhiteIndian's standard of basing all assessments only on observations of past behavior, he would have agreed with the white racists who were religious apologists for slavery. Their argument was that the "facts" had proven that the white man should dominate the black man who was among the cursed of God. They looked to their domination as proof of their fitness to rule -- a kind of riff on the ideas of Max Weber by which successful protestants in Europe supposedly (Max was stretching it) had proven that they had "earned" their salvation because their success showed it. Oh, brother! Message to WhiteIndian: get off the technology-dictates-reality-philosophy-of-Marx schtick!

It's not just because history shows 100% of agricultural city-States have State level politics, although that is a plenty good evidence all by itself. The POLIS (city-State) always has its POLICe. There are other corroborating reasons, some as follows: 1. Anthropologists and archeologists have documented that as group size approaches and goes over Dunbar's Number, egalitarianism is replaced by hierarchy. Ethnologists divide human societies into 4 main sociopolitical typologies, as follows: NON-STATE societies • band (egalitarian, small) • tribe (egalitarian, supra-band) • chiefdom (hierarchical, domestication, sacrifice, proto-State) STATE society • civilization (agricultural city-State) 2. Domestication, i.e., dominating nature, results in increased violence and cannibalism, and introduces practices like sacrifice and sacrifice religions, to control people. Chiefdoms (larger in size than bands or tribes, see Elman Service) are regarded by anthropologists and ethnologists as "proto-States" because of the controlling hierarchy. 3. Agriculture requires a large controlling agency over vast areas of land, to coordinate irrigation projects, drainage projects, roads and other infrastructure. As Richard Manning says so succinctly in his book Against the Grain, on p.73: "Agriculture creates government."

"Egalitarianism isn't 'collectivist' in a Non-State (band or tribe) sociopolitical typology." Of course everybody wants everybody to be equal. But what does that mean in the real world? Everybody is different by nature, which is a good thing. My experience with people promoting egalitarianism is they seek equal results (which are impossible) to be enforced by institutional violence. Even in your idealistic pre-agricultural world, the tall people could reach fruit higher up on the tree and faster runners could avoid predators better than the rest. Egalitarianism is a childish construct totally void of any empirical precedent. If you have an alternative view of egalitarianism and empirical data to support it, then I would love to hear it. Hierarchies are not bad in and of themselves; the problem arises when they are created and maintained by violence. Respect worthy actions that elevate some persons to positions of superior respect is a voluntary phenomena that is as human as “walking upright”. Leaders that are followed voluntarily result in social organizations that benefit all, including the followers (or they would not voluntarily follow). It is when violence is used or threatened to create or maintain a hierarchy that they are wrong. You seem to have a total lack of respect for anything. "Do dolphins live in a world of scarcity?" Yes. Is the amount of water in the world infinite? Is the amount of fish available to eat unlimited? Are there no other dolphins that compete for these resources? This position really puzzles me and again gives me the impression that you view the world with child-like wonder. Do you really believe that the world has unlimited resources? What about locally attainable resources available to any creature? Do you really believe that dolphins and crows don’t compete with each other for food? "Quit the deductive logic built on false premises." What false premises? Your profound misunderstanding of those premises does not make them false. "Begin thinking inductively from empirical data.” " The epistemological problems should be obvious to someone with your intelligence. How do you recognize, choose and organize the massive volume of "data" in the world without a philosophical basis of understanding? How do you know if the data you are making conclusions from is accurate, complete or even pertinent without a framework to analyze it? Both inductive and deductive reasoning should be used in the search for knowledge. They go hand in hand when it is truth that you seek. Using only inductive reasoning without the benefits of deductive reasoning results in serial misunderstandings of cause and effect. The snobbery of scientism reveals the void inherent in the character of those that worship it. It has no soul. Finally, I must ask: Do you have any principles to live by other than vague references to egalitarianism? Do you have any ideals that you aspire to? How do you feel about the use of violence? The division of labor?

If left/right isn't the issue, as he says, then why pick on just leftist genocide. Capitalism has its own genocide too, killing off a whole Non-State society here in America to make room to impose city-Statism. Capitalism and communism are more alike than different. Both are agricultural city-Statist political schemes that cannot tolerate Non-State society. Why can agricultural city-Statists not tolerate Non-State society? If sovereign individual can hunt and gather their own food, they have no reason to work for others. When the agricultural city-State puts the food "under lock and key" (Quinn,) then people have to work for the system or starve.

I was making light of the contradiction of having to claim something that is simultaneously inalienable.

Who said you have to claim it "at some office"? I must have missed that.

Thank you, tzo. "This book [The Secrets to Nonviolent Prosperity: The Principles of Liberty] is not about taking sides, left or right. These deceptive distinctions are pitting people against one another and keeping us from uniting and looking at the core issues. Rather than the traditional left/right spectrum, where you would have the communist, Stalin, on the left and the fascist, Hitler, on the right, we will use a different spectrum, with the range from ultimate power over yourself on one end to someone else having ultimate power over you on the other end. This is the meaningful distinction, because now you get the collectivist ideologies of mass murderers such as Stalin and Hitler together on one side, and the individualist philosophy of most honest people who just want to go about their lives without being hassled on the other side." ~ Trevor Z. Gamble

I hold truck with pakeha hori. You're right, I'm not Sioux (a Plains "apocalyptic culture" after the start of the invasion/holocaust, but I have proof of my ancestors living in an Oak Savannah "food forest," even if it isn't quite gummit approved. Greetings. Your first question: women are vulnerable. Barely, with our low sexual dimormism and absent sexual dichromaticism, but vulnerable nonetheless, especially in City-Statism. We protect them and their children from Rothbardian/Austrian School Libertarian city-Statist ahem "voluntary" slavery ABUSE, no matter their status. OK? My estimation of pre-industrial life isn't idealization. It's from hard, scientific, empirical data. And I know the data, personally, from top to bottom. Don't take my word; there is plenty of scholarly data out there to be gleaned. "The Noble Savage" might be hogwash, but it's racist hogwash from English racists-- look up the term at its origin. Human are pleistocene band animals, and their history is just being understood outside of the city-Statist hogwash CULTure we're taught at every moment in school and every social encounter. Nowadays, 2 hours of "work" barely pays for gas to get to "work" for the capitalists. Better read Sahlins and Lee, who did ethnographic studies on that. Slavery was always a result of domestication/agriculture. I'm quite familiar with the anthropological references on slavery. ZERO bands or tribes (egalitarian Non-State societies) practices slavery. You're mistaken, but probably via misinformation of the city-Slicker Hobbesian mythology or Libertarian/Capitalist disinfo. Hell, I reject all tribal primitive supremacism too. It's the past. I'm fine with that. But I do not reject well-documented empirical data about the Original Affluent Society, much of which debunks ignorant libertarian premises. And when I say "ignorant," that means the depths of ignorance of young-earth creationist who wouldn't know empirical data if it hit them in the head as igneous rock.

Háu (I know you're probably not Lakota Sioux, but what the hey). I think you're the one who misinterpreted what 'inalienable' means in your first comment with the set-piece about a woman with a sick kid (the perennial trope of the "the bad man is my only source of hope in my plight" - which raises the question: what has this woman done to alienate literally EVERY OTHER PERSON in the vicinity?) The 'property rights' argument for self-ownership, when said to be 'inalienable', asserts that an individual is not simply the 'first recourse' owner of his own body and mind: it also asserts that he may not properly dispose of it - a thing is 'alienable' at law if the owner may transfer ownership to a third party. So an 'inalienable' property right in one's self (body, mind and so on) can NOT be transferred to a third party. On that doctrine, when the State behaves as if it is the owner of an individual, it commits a tort. The rest of your comments reflect some idealisation of pre-Industrial life: as Demsetz' work shows, Native populations also practiced territorial exclusion, and ideas of free access (e.g., to hunting grounds) were subject to rapid change in the event that they developed economic significance: if prey became scarce, tribes would be more forceful in their assertion of sole rights over hunting grounds on which competing tribes were 'ordinarily' permitted to hunt. Look - I'm a "pakeha hori': my maternal grandfather was 100% Maori, (but my Dad is like a turehu: tall, blue eyed and fair skinned). So I sort of 'get' the idea that a naive idealised view of tribal society has its attractions if you have some connection to a dispossessed people. That said: arguably the Maori were never dispossessed, because they fought England to a standstill and signed a treaty of equals under which the Maori STILL own all the natural resources of New Zealand [the 'taonga'] - 'we' Maori are fucking badass, unlike all the other darkies who capitulated or let themselves be genocided... which is why Maori have little or no sympathy for other native populations. (And Maori did their killing without projectile weapons: the taiaha and the patu (or méré) are hand-to-hand weapons). Still, the idea that native populations lived in some some sort of Rousseau-ian idyll is hogwash. Life in "primitive" societies was not "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" by any means (Hobbes was a r-tard): if one survived childhood, life expectancy was about 60 - not bad for a pre-industrial society (and due in large part to superior hygiene relative to inner-city populations in Europe at the same time). Life expectancy AT BIRTH was low though (in part due to poor contraceptive practices and the tendency to practice infanticide as a means of population control: that seems inefficient to me - feeding a pregnant woman with no expectation of raising the offspring - but obviously they found it the best method). And although some anthropologists claim that members of primitive societies worked fewer hours per day than modern man, that ignores the fact that in those societies people had no means of investment (except children) and that once one had acquired enough calories to "vivre jusqu'à demain matin", there was no point to exerting oneself further. Nowadays, two hours' labour at minimum wage, furnishes income sufficient to purchase the mean daily caloric requirement (1900 alories); the rest is undertaken for higher-quality shelter, and to pay for the many layers of bullshit artists and parasites that form the political class. Also - not for nothing, but MANY Indian tribes (and ALL Maori iwi) practised slavery. (Last but not least: although I make japes about how Maori rock, I reject ALL tribal primitive supremacism... it's deplorable whether it's "Maori-are-badass" or "cock-snippings-make-us-God's-chosen")

I have to claim it? At some office? I thought somebody here said it was "inalienable." Which way is it? You can't "have your cake and eat it too." * ____________ * "A leaf cannot be a stone at the same time, it cannot be all red and all green at the same time, it cannot freeze and burn at the same time. A is A. Or, if you wish it stated in simpler language: You cannot have your cake and eat it, too." ~Atlas Shrieked

I've got every volume Ayn Rand wrote on my library shelves. She did not check her premises against empirical data. Big mistake.

Libertarian, anarcho-capitalism, etal. suggests selling oneself as property to another as "employment" or "voluntary" (LOL) "slavery." In the agricultural city-State, such a sale is necessary to survive.* Really, you need to read the libertarian literature like I have. That's how they put it. Get after it. You might end up as disgustipated** as I with libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, etal. ________________ * "Our system of private property in land forces landless men to work for others; to work in factories, stores, and offices, whether they like it or not...Disestablishment from land, like slavery, is a form of duress. The white man, where slavery cannot be practiced, has found that he must first disestablish the savages from their land before he can force them to work steadily for him. Once they are disestablished, they are in effect starved into working for him and into working as he directs. * THIS UGLY CIVILIZATION by DR. RALPH BORSODI NEW YORK, SIMON AND SCHUSTER, 1 9 2 9 ** Tool - Disgustipated http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOvwc8_QXiY

Re: I'm not begging. "Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest" is a rhetorical tool to show how much daily violence is necessary to maintain the big-government Land enTITLEment program that draws artificial borders to restrict the free movement of people from living a Non-State society lifeway. What you call "private" property is nothing more than the heavy hand of agricultural city-Statist regulation of the home planet's surface. -I live in a state of mobility. Quick little fish in a slow trawling net...If you think I am not private property then think what you want. But there will be consequences....LOL Re: And do you think you can conjure an animated corpse? Is it "possible" even while empirical data shows it's not? Not only has there never been a city-State without State level politics, we know why. Conjuring a "voluntary city" is going to happen the day after animated corpses walk. Yours is a Zombie socio-economic fundamentalism -- a reaction against the city-State's violence, but with a complete lack of understanding of the nature of the agricultural city-State (civilization) that has invaded and now occupies 99.9% of the home planet's surface. -Animated corpse? If it occupies your hand then move your body...Yes most started off flooded with statism. If you let it get hold of your neck and you loose your head then how is that different than living in the jungle? I have met men who mentally disarm themselves when they would never do such in the forest...So carry your forest equipment equivalents in your head. Some wear their kilts whilst observably trousered...Some carry their moral code locked and loaded.... Re: The truth is, anthropology and ethnology do indeed know what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society. There is is a way of knowing. It's called observation. Humans are Pleistocene band animals. -Your observation seems to have made you band dependent and individual weak. Or perhaps not. So be it. Yet I also am not proposing auto-self-sufficiency.... Re: You're also reacting against agricultural city-Statism's forced mass society, which is quite understandable, with fundamentalist religio-economic gibberish. Humans are social animals, and there is a "we." If you've ever served as part of a tight-knit and efficient crew (or band or tribe,) you'd know the silliness of that statement. No, it's not "collectivism." -You have others who are compatible with your mind set. But is it possible that I would too? Hmmm. Nature to be commanded must be obeyed so say you. Perhaps being "understood" as an individual first, in order to be useful to oneself and perhaps attract others of like mind. If one goes to the right places... Re: Basically, you're talking out of your hat without a basic knowledge of the human animal. The last 50 years of anthropology and archeology have revealed much; it's been as earthshaking as what the theory of evolution was to society. -I am talking to myself and for myself and into my hat perhaps but not dropping context where I am talking...Perhaps there are other compatibles for you and me? Re: The "Original Affluent Society" (Sahlins, 1972) is the real, proven, workable Non-State sociopolitical typology to which humans are neuro-biologicially evolved. (Dunbar, 1992) White Indian has learned it, and given up ignorant philosophical fundamentalism that sounded precisely like yours. -Interestingly enough I am a hybrid like yourself. And went Indian much like Jim Walker and not like the imprudent Jed Smith. See Westering Man by Bil Gilbert. If you step back for a second, I do not have a problem with what you believe. You are welcome to it. **Where in the Covenant of Unanimous Consent do you have a issue?** It is personal. I am interested in that. Not observations I and you apparently share regarding cancers posing as cures....That's why Harry Browne called them assumptions, so called philosophical truisms or Traps. Re: It's time to catch up. -Becoming free whilst living in the matrix is not impossible. A prequel of that world I already live in: An opening couplet... "I don't believe in predestined fate The future is what we [I] choose to create." Anthem for the Ama-Gi (a tribe or band of well oiled individual and separate cogs that come and go). http://www.indomitus.net/anthem.html If ones' own moral code is important enough to state--for one to know explicitly and improve on; and for others to know oneself--without binding them down--then an inter-relationship Covenant could have much valuable application. How the Covenant of Unanimous Consent fulfills the promise of Thomas Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. It pertains to relationships without the state.... http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2006/tle381-20060820-04.html Again: **Where in the Covenant of Unanimous Consent do you have a issue?** It is personal. I am interested in that. Not observations I and you apparently share regarding cancers posing as cures....That's why Harry Browne called them assumptions, so called philosophical truisms or Traps.

That would all be well and good, but it has only been you that has suggested others sell themselves. That's extremely bad counsel in my estimation.

Only if you objectify people as property, as the capitalist philosophy does. Objectification of people as property is a tactic of abusers.

Hate to break it to you, but, "someone" else already has.

"There is only one fundamental right [just claim] (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right [just claim] to his own life." ~ Ayn Rand