"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
A Vision of a Free Society
A five-part series by Jacob Hornberger "devoted to presenting the positive case for freedom" and . . . "an unhampered market economy." Though published in 1997 it still presents a damning case in support of more freedom, which Hornberger states will bring "higher standards of living, peace, harmony, and the values — responsibility, compassion, and morality — that all of us hold dear."
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
JH: "What would happen if all of the government operations...that regulate peaceful behavior were abolished?"
Then we wouldn't have agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)
We wouldn't have the big-government Land enTITLEment program that creates artificial borders to restrict the free movement of Non-State society families "gamboling about plain and forest" (Manning, 2004) to forage for food.
We wouldn't have psychopathic city-Statists like Ayn Rand bloviating at a US Military Academy how it's ok to commit genocide on a whole continent of Non-State families living without political leaders and hierarchy and bosses.
We wouldn't have illegitimate privation property "rights" that rely on city-Statist violence.
We wouldn't have "libertarians" and oxymoronic "anarcho-capitalists" meticulously whitewashing how much violence is necessary to enforce totalitarian agriculture's privation property.
We wouldn't have babies born in industrialized institutions bonding to material objects (e.g., a "security blanket"), instead of bonding to people, who then become greedy mercenaries who are never satisfied by even "unlimited wealth."
We would no longer feel that "Encounters with people are causes of severe, unbroken, unrelenting stress, and that stress finds its only reduction through contact with material objects." (Pearce, 1980)
We wouldn't find life to be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short," either. That is a city-Statist apology for the benevolence of the glorious city-State. The last several decades of anthropology and archeology have debunked that city-Statist lie.
It would be the "Original Affluent Society." (Sahlins, 1972)
"The life of an Indian is a continual holiday." ~Thomas Paine
It would be party time.
Ayn Rand was "surrounded by the State"--last time I looked she had NO kind words for it---and many kind words, principles and applications regarding Individuals.
People are forced (by politics) to consider the lesser of two evils, when no evil need prevail. http://mises.org/daily/5758/Depoliticize-Everything.
While Rand fell for the Limited Govt--mini-statist mantra--her writings lead to opposite conclusions for those who think for themselves and don't just smoke because she smoked. Or need time to self-inoculate or wash off the detritus of mini-statism let alone figure out there is NO such thing as mini-anarchy.
Even though her description of Galt's Gulch is a functional anarchy (no rulers), Rand abhorred what she thought of as "anarchy" and she explicitly embraced the idea of minimal government. HOWEVER, as George H Smith points out "...Rand's principles, if consistently applied, lead necessarily to a repudiation of government on moral grounds".
“IN DEFENSE OF RATIONAL ANARCHISM”
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~thomas/po/rational-anarchism.html
And Carrie Burdzinski identifies good reason why SOME Objectivists do not apply these principles.
“Objectivist Resistance to Anarchy: A Problem of Concept Formation?”
Column by new Root Striker Carrie Burdzinski.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/91/burdzinski/burdzinski1.html
Today it is easier to attack a politically correct shadow with a pitch fork than the statue--the elephant in the room--that darkens the landscape. And thereby avoid the controversial causes and any taint of stigma.
I recommend Tom Woods and Stefan Molyneux Take On Wall Street to begin to understand this issue!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l
XNOxnn7_uA&feature=youtube_gdata
Woods asks the Right Question: Would there likely be Less Wars and Bailouts--that enrich the military-industrial complex and politically connected fat cats--Or More if the Fed Gov had a magical money machine? This is not a hypothetical question. They--all the above--Do have such a machine and access to it: it is called The Federal Reserve System.
As Hayek (a Nobel prize winning student of Mises) points out money is half of every transaction economy wide. And Woods makes a cogent connection: Is there a chance that this magic printing machine has a tinsy chance of creating economy wide up and down boom, bust volatility and classes of people herded, corralled and enriched by Govt?
This is not the same as the pyramid of ability or comparative advantages of a division of labor society (remnant of hands off--laissez faire--anarcho--self-rule--capitalism. What's changed? There is now more impoverishing Wars and the same for Bailouts than can be supported or hidden.
There is only one entity that can pit the poor against the rich, the young against the old, the white against the black, this country against another and thrive thru divide and conquer.
Woods and Molyneux further discuss: Seeing thru the duality of what is bad, evil and corrupt in the private sector magically rendered good in the public sector. It can only occur on the scale we have via a "coercive" monopoly that can be wielded by the politically connected to bypass the competition of free market. Rand's novel presciently warned of ALL of this...
There is a reason that “Atlas Shrugged” is becoming a political “Harry Potter”. Ayn Rand SHONE a spotlight on a problem that STILL exists today: Not pre-1989 Soviet commmunism, but 2010-style State capitalism (mercantilism/fascism)..
http://atlasshruggeddocumentary.com/
Ayn Rand extolled the city-State (civilization) and the city-Statist genocide perpetuated on Non-State societies on Turtle Island.
"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to take over this continent."
~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, March 6, 1974
Note where this racist psychopath endorsed the American Indian Holocaust.
As the Tannehills--students of Rand and Mises--argue persuasively, the free market provides solutions that governments would never dream of. “The big advantage of any action of the free market,” contend the Tannehills,
is that errors and injustices are self-correcting. Because competition creates a need for excellence on the part of each business, a free-market institution must correct its errors in order to survive. Government, on the other hand, survives not by excellence, but by coercion; so an error or flaw in a governmental institution can (and usually will) perpetuate itself almost indefinitely, with its errors being “corrected” by further errors. Private enterprise must, therefore, always be superior to government in any field.
(It is worth mentioning here that corporations acting in collusion with the state are not private enterprises as the Tannehills define them. They are simply entities that have co-opted the government’s “gun-for-hire” to do their dirty work for them. Think Wall Street “bailout” recipients and their army of DC lobbyists. Indeed, think any institution at all that seeks unfair protection or promotion from the state.)
Freedom, Naturally
Mises Daily: Thursday, May 26, 2011 by Joel Bowman
http://mises.org/daily/5305/Freedom-Naturally
Unfortunately Thomas DiLorenzo's--student of Rand and Mises--illuminating work was not available till well after her death. I would not expect Ayn Rand to know or unravel what has taken till now to be communicated across the web regarding the State and Native Indians...
...Sherman was every bit as much a racist and white supremacist as Lincoln. He was also an anti-Semite, and of course hated red-skinned people almost as much as he hated South Carolinians — and would later kill them in even greater numbers.
Slaves were raped, pillaged, and murdered indiscriminately along with the white population of the South, and Sherman did nothing to stop it. *This is documented*.
It has been claimed in print that Sherman was some kind of *egalitarian* who was motivated by indignation over the degree of racial inequality in the South. (Cisco proves what delusional liars such Lincoln (and Sherman) cultists as Victor Davis Hanson are in "Abuse of African-Americans" by Sherman's army in Cisco's final, stomach-turning chapter.
...The union of the founders was destroyed in 1865. War Crimes Against Southern Civilians explains in great detail how, in addition to killing some 300,000 dissenters to rule by Washington, D.C. on the battlefield, the U.S. Army, under the micromanagement of Abe Lincoln, also murdered tens of thousands of Southern civilians, including thousands of slaves and free blacks, while stealing tens of millions of dollars of their private possessions as well. None of it was necessary, of course, for the purpose of ending slavery; all other countries on earth ended slavery peacefully during the nineteenth century. This included the British, Spanish, French, Dutch, and Danish colonies, where 96 percent of all the slaves in the Western Hemisphere once existed. The purpose of the war was to finally realize the Hamiltonian dream of a consolidated, monopolistic government that would pursue what Hamilton himself called "national greatness" and "imperial glory." The purpose of the war, in other words, was a New Birth of Empire, one that would hopefully rival the Europeans in the exploitation of their own citizens in the name of the glory of the state.
Malice Toward All, Charity Toward None: The Foundations of the American State
by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo123.html
AtlasAikido, there is no Agora (market) in any City (settlements of 5000+) without State-level politics.
That's why I keep calling it a City-State, which is both the popular definition of civilization and the scholarly definition.
Trying to separate the two and say only one aspect is bad is as silly as saying "fighter aircraft provides solutions that jet engines would never dream of."
A jet fighter is all one concept, a single package. There is no fighter aircraft without the jet. A noiseless jet is an oxymoron.
City-Statism (agricultural civilization) is a single cultural package.
A voluntary city is an oxymoron.
The Randroids turn a blind eye to the violence within their own system.
For instance, what they call "private property" in land is nothing more than a big government Land enTITLEment program to restrict the free movement of Non-State people like the Native Americans, who once gamboled about forest and plain hunting and gathering.
It takes a brutal city-statist invasion and occupation to enforce Gambol Lockdown.
Try to whitewash it as you may, agricultural city-Statism has been proven genocidal, and your "mixing-labor" and "homestead" fabrications can't whitewash it enough to keep the blood from soaking through.
~And then there are the undergrounds and loyalties of sub-culture markets. In the movie Joyeux Noel the military men and officers gave up on WWI for Christmas Day...
A true story...
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0424205/
I should emphasize that the film is not confined to the extraordinary night and day of December 24–25, 1914. We are introduced to some of the characters before the conflict begins. We see how the war changes them. We also see how the officially unsanctioned truce changes them.
Aside from its artistic merits, Joyeux Noël gets things right in the realm of ideas. It opens with scenes of three schoolboys, German, French and British, each reciting nationalistic pieties about the foreign devils who threaten his respective homeland. It ends with German troops on their way to the Eastern Front, humming a melody they learned from Scottish soldiers on Christmas Eve. What happens in between is the discovery that those doing the shooting and dying on one side don’t have any real quarrel with those doing the shooting and dying on the other side.
Those familiar with the workings of the free market will have no trouble recognizing the "spontaneous order" that breaks out when soldiers from opposing sides exchange champagne for chocolate, share photographs of their wives and help one another bury their dead.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/rosinger1.html
~I think that the "5000+" go-no-go-Agora criteria White Indian has brought up is a lump sum--arbitrary in many senses because it gets one all caught up in the "We" instead of seeing the many "I"'s that inhabit the crevices of topology maps and temporary zones of autonomy....
For someone who spends as much time as WhiteIndian on and in the Agora--market place--This agora in witnessed point of fact, while proclaiming (discounting) it as not finite enough; or a place to live; or a place to trade ideas. Well I hear you. Actually see your words and your Avatar. Although you are at once invisible you are also connected.
And so there is Bitcoin, The Amish and The Wenchou model--In China but also replicated all over the world and Reagan of all people railing about the uber under market and then there is the Italian and Russian under markets.
~As for Ayn Rand too many see her hat on the coat rack and refuse to pick it up and look under it for a fellow thinker and innovator instead of a know-it-all, seeing-all-authority figure and model of ALL her own premises and illuminations not to mention those assumptions she personally missed, whilst uncovering and undoing centuries of rust infested canned philosophies...
Happily there are students of Rand and Mises--Linda and Morris Tannehill, Thomas DiLorenzo, LewRockwell...--who have actually innovated and that innovation has brought such men as Ron Paul into the light for the young to see the Matrix/farm for what it is. As for the Zombies that hang out at ARI or SOLO with Leonard Peikoff, Michele Milken and such (warmongers). Gak! You have my sincere and heartfelt sympathies. John Stossel--objectivist--has come a long way. And John Stewart seems to have the makings of another George Carlin not to mention a Misean Economist . And Stephan Molyneux is another objectivist misean who is breath of fresh air.
References:
Best Bitcoin Ad
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pV9ptoCMyc
A little about the Amish...(They are not Luddites although they appear to be) http://www.lewrockwell.com/shaffer/shaffer146.html
Anarchy and Agoras...Welcome to Wenzhou, where the mountains are high, the emperor is far away, and people are busy creating their own economic miracle.
http://www.bradleymgardner.com/2011/11/16/wenzhou-chinas-black-market-city/
It is at times useful to imagine how a truly laissez-faire society, one entirely emancipated from the shackles of state coercion, might exist and operate. Morris and Linda Tannehill examine this very idea in The Market for Liberty: Is Government Really Necessary? These laissez faire ideas were culled from Rand and Mises.
http://mises.org/resources/6058
# Dagny Taggart Confronts the Union
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-dw&feature=g-vrec&context=G2421b...
# Dagny Confronts James
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etzke3JW8O8
# Rearden Metal is not for sale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1jLbGSngRE&NR=1&feature=endscreen
# I Hate Ron Paul (Sarcasm intended)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/100854.html
# Re: Presidential Paul Nails Leno Show
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/101002.html
# Ron Paul discusses Ayn Rand
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI
There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise.
http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
Finally Hamilton, Lincoln, Sherman fit the bill of a proto-fascist military police state and Thomas Dilorenzo and LewRockwell.com does a great job uncovering that and how that brought us to where we are today. http://www.strike-the-root.com/was-ayn-rand-proto-fascist
Just because people don't totally lose their humanity and empathy in a prison setting does not mean they're still not in prison.
Libertarian types point to prisoners trading trinkets to plush up their prison cells and call the walls "private property" and the frantic whoring of themselves to more powerful others so they don't starve inside the walls a "free" market.
I still call city-Statism (civilization) a prison, which rather upsets those with the plushest cells and fear of living outside the walls of their own minds.
And there's not much difference between a communist prison or a capitalist prison.
Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?
MARX: NO!
MISES: NO!
You're just part of the Marx-Mises Axis of Gambol Lockdown against a Non-State society lifeway of gathering food without paying any other person.
When it comes to FREEDOM, there is no “WE”.
There really is only ONE person that you are capable of freeing and that is yourself. A person with the attitude of a slave cannot be free anywhere.
THE CONTEXT of the statement is that when it comes to solving problems without using the Collective, the Government, the State (the WE), a person must adopt the ATTITUDE of an individual instead of a collective, one must think for himself/herself. For an example of switching from “WE” to “I”, Ayn Rand’s book “Anthem” comes to mind. Another example that springs to my mind is when the Lone Ranger says to Tonto “We are surrounded by hostile Indians. We are in real trouble.” and Tonto replies “What you mean ‘WE’, white man?”
To elaborate on that example: Someone says that the State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, we are in real trouble, what are we going to do about it. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?”
Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve enslaving other people. As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”.
References:
There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise.
http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
Humans are observed to be social animals. "We" is a part of reality. (You know, that ol' A=A thingy. Unless you want to "blank-out" reality.)
Fact: Humans have lived as social animals in bands or tribes for the last couple or three million years.
Fact: This social animal did NOT live in a hierarchical State sociopolitical typology. We did live in egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typologies.
Conclusion: your equivocation of "we" and "state" is without merit, and refuted by empirical data.
Psychopaths have the same erratic view of "we" as libertarians tend to expatiate. It's not surprising; Ayn Rand based characters in her writing on a very real psychopath, William Hickman.
Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
by Michael Prescott
http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm
ATLAS SHRIEKED: Ayn Rand’s First Love and Mentor Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls
by Mark Ames
http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-follower...
This Hickman issue is actually one of the most favorite materials being used by Leftists--including WhiteIndian and his "We" Social Group/Band views--to discredit Ayn Rand AND short circuit the process of properly and intellectually refuting her philosophy of "I" The Self-ruled Individual.
I have already dealt with some of these issues as they relate to Ad Hominem attacks being used by the Totalitarian Left against Ayn Rand:
* Ayn Rand and Alan Greenspan and the Illuminati plotted to rule the world;
* Ayn Rand was an UnSociable rule-the-word sociopath/psychopath and her philosophy of Objectivism promotes fascism;
* Ayn Rand lived on welfare while advocating against it; and was a fan of a child serial killer named William Hickman
I cover some of the issues here:
http://www.strike-the-root.com/was-ayn-rand-proto-fascist
But what did the author-philosopher actually say about Hickman? In The Journals of Ayn Rand, she is clearly quoted: “[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me.”
There was clearly a context when Rand made her journal entry. Anyone who read her books would understand that the philosopher/writer is against initiation of force. She was morally against the crime Hickman committed and throughout her life, she advocated individual freedom and not collectivism.
WhiteIndian's horrid criticisms of Rand/Mises bespeak a serious misunderstanding of her philosophy of Individualism in a division of labor society (remnant) and how they relate to current economic and political events playing out right now a la Greenspan, Bernanke and bureaucracy. Not the least WhiteIndian misconstrues libertarian philosophy and Rand's principles.
It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html
Grovelling at the Fed: Greenspan and Bernanke
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/sheehan-f4.1.1.html
WhiteIndian has said that he has all of Ayn Rands works (presumably he has read them) and he is witnessed agreeing with the Left and using its methods. For those smearing Rand as a lover of psycho-killers, by ignoring her qualifying comments is, I submit, intellectually dishonest.
The Left’s Endless Smears Against Ayn Rand
http://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/04/19/the-left-smears-ayn-rand/
I'm not leftist, (but thanks for caring enough to spew the very worst of Ad Hominem within your groupthink.) Both leftist and right-wing-nuts city-Statists like you aggressively enforce Gambol Lockdown against Non-State band and tribal lifeways.
Your philosophy of "individualism" both twists and denies the nature of humans; it goes against observable reality, it blanks-out empirical data. Again, to reiterate what you're dodging and weaving around:
1. Humans are social animals, observable and corroborated with other science. Perhaps you've never heard of mirror neurons. They're in your brain. Yours might not work so well, but they're there.
2. In egalitarian Non-State societies, the human animal is observed to behave with altruism and empathy as a social animal, while simultaneously behaving as a "sovereign" (Service) who answers to no political hierarchy.
Your defense of Rand is akin to a communist's defense of Marx, Lenin, or Stalin.
I understand Rand *said* she defended individuals and wasn't racist. Fact is, she talked out the other side of her mouth and lauded genocide, and was quite the racist about her snarling support of the American Indian Holocaust by the collective invasion of city-Statism (civilization,) which she also supported. While talking out the other side of her mouth about how she hated the state.
In real life, we call those contradictions. Within the cult, they're laboriously whitewashed.
So what do you think of a person who speachifies at the Empire's military academy about how sweet it was to slaughter 90,000,000 people? And TAKE by force the Land they lived on. Yah, see, the city-STATIST RAND said it was ok to TAKE:
"[The Native Americans] didn't have any rights to the land ... Any white person who brought the element of civilization had the right to TAKE over this continent." ~Ayn Rand, US Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974
Stalin would have smiled on Rand's statement, since he did much the same, for much the same reason, to Non-State societies in Siberia.
Remember Hickman? And who and how it was used? Witnessing and pointing out WhiteIndian's context dropping/adoption/use of a Leftist smear tactic IS hardly an Ad hominem on my part.
Next he will be trying to attribute HIS Intellectual Dishonesty to Rand, me...
WhiteIndian's use of such was in place of where a refutation to Rand's and Mises AND their students works might have been leveled. I still have seen none.
Lincoln, Sherman and Sheridan (Govt) do not come up in the Slavery and Native Indian genocide map for WhiteIndian. This is hardly Rand's fault for missing what is considered TODAY as Revisionist History!
Instead of hiding behind this WhiteIndian "WE" Group-Band-Socialism with blame attributions for anything outside his world view (wrongly attributed as best I can tell): What is WhiteIndian going to do to free HIMSELF?
You're still dancing and weaving over well-established facts:
1. Man is a social animal.
2. Man lived for 2 million years as a social animal in a Non-State sociopolitical typology exhibiting egalitarianism, social sharing, empathy, altruism, and individual sovereignty.
They're not "wrongly attributed," as you deceitfully purport. There are volumes of scholarly data backing my assertions.
You blank-out reality established by empirical observation. And you blank-out Rand's vocal support for the agricultural city-Statist genocide of up to 90,000,000 Native Americans.
That takes a young-earth creationist strength faith, and a fundamentalists' penchant to gloss over hard-earned empirical data as a "leftist conspiracy."
Question: do you accept the theory of evolution?
I am not an authority on "blank-outs and deceit [and] you're still dancing and weaving over well-established facts". You provide NO reasons other than a repetitive tone of aggression and derision.
Lincoln, Sherman and Sheridan (Govt) do not come up in the Slavery and Native Indian genocide map for you. This is hardly Rand's fault for missing what you failed to mention YOURSELF and what is by all accounts considered TODAY as Revisionist History!
I asked you what you are going to do to FREE YOURSELF?
I asked the same question some days ago. If you think that "the theory of evolution" is *relevant* to that you should provide reasons for such NOT me!
I'm not sure why your obsessing about my personal life.
Can we discuss the empirical data from real life observation and scholarly information that invalidates the tenets your contradictory religio-economic faith?
Re: "I'm not sure why your (sic) obsessing about my [your] personal life".
~I think we agree somewhat on the following: "I’ll admit that getting people to see the gun in the room is a very important and crucial step when trying to win them over, but that is not enough. In my experience, after I have been successful at pointing out the systematized coercion, and institutionalized violence in the current system, the conversation always turns to how we would deal with the practical issues".
Re: "Can we discuss the empirical data from real life observation and scholarly information that invalidates the tenets your contradictory religio-economic faith?"
~This is not really relevant to me other than asking the wrong question. "This is where I would start to explain how "we" would handle these things, but lately I have been pointing out the “we” in the room. In a revolution of the individual, “we” questions should not be answered. Put the ball back in their [your] court".
~More specifically: "Ask them--you--what they would do. When human interaction is purely voluntary, there can be no system. It is important to let the ones asking the questions find their own solutions, or what they think might be solutions".
~I am not interested in your personal life per se but I am re-directing to what is directly controlled by you! (If you think/assume you can control others then that is another issue outside the scope of this post). "I have at xx years old, accepted that I am probably as free now as I will ever be. I know there is one crucial step that has to be taken before humans are physically free, and that step is to be mentally free of the WE etc. If it will be their decision in a voluntary society, it must be their decision now. I must say, watching my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free person is a little disheartening".
Perhaps you get my drift? If not? Fine. Read on if you wish, as to other things that create "WE" problems...
Freedom Has No System by Chris Dates
http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
Again, "we" isn't a problem (humans are evolved to be "we" social animals,) except when it gets enforced in agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)
Yet you support city-Statism (civilization.)
You may recognize "the gun," but you continue to ignore the whole cultural package of Agricultural-City-Statism, and it's consequences.
For instance, "the gun," the professional violence class, is one of the first results of division-of-labor, another thing you think is grand.
If identifying and correcting the contradictions you hold isn't "really relevant," that's fine. But that's part of thinking like a free person, right?
Re: "Can we discuss the empirical data from real life observation and scholarly information that invalidates the tenets your contradictory religio-economic faith?"
This question assumes your conclusion. Not mine. It is irrelevant to what you are going to do to make yourself free.
Re: "For instance, "the gun," the professional violence class, is one of the first results of division-of-labor, another thing you [I] think is grand"
Oh my Dear Darling, this is the kettle calling the teapot black. The internet webby IS the division of labor par non, par excellance, sine qua non....
What is relevant is what are you going to do to set yourself free? I am already free. What is perhaps really relevant is the modeling of such and on that note, I must leave you now.
If you want to deny well-established facts, as evidenced by evolutionary biology (you're a "we" social animal,) archeological (warfighting was one of the first divisions of labor,) and anthropological empirical observation, that's fine.
Yes, I realize the internet is a part of division of labor too. I also realize that owning property, or renting property (i.e., holding property rights) within the city-State is a delegation of using force to the Sheriff and whoever else may enforce them.
I don't whitewash the violence necessary to live within the city-State (civilization,) like you do. You claim that holding a Land enTITLEment from the government is compatible with the Non-Aggression Principle. It's not.
I hold no such illusions that may make one feel better about themselves.
While you ballyhoo much about aggression, you really don't see the extent of "the gun" enforcing city-Statist (civilization) culture. You're in as much denial about it as a socialist NEA educator who won't admit that compulsory education is forced by a gun.
I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself. Your tongue in my mouth...Gak! I don't know what strawman you are arguing against but you are not refuting anything I said...
You are arguing that "we" is inherently Statist.
We is not statist. Two or three million years of evidence.
"We" and egalitarianism and altruism are a part of your paloe-genetic heritage.
Still, we no kissy-face; quit fantasizing.
Your tongue in my mouth is is about you speaking for others. Pointing out the simplest application of your position escapes you. Your tongue in my mouth is what you practice. And evidently it has the power to shame you.
Laissez faire capitalism (remnant) and this site where your *property rights* are upheld--No one is breaking into your account and writing FOR you. And I and others are getting along here well enough without your Govt "We" drooling beast. "We" are frolicking in the forest. And you seem to be joining us here.
Why don't you post your password so "We" can all share your account? From each according to the needs of the "WE".
As for the rest dear reader, I can barely sum up the energy...
WhiteIndian the Gamboling We is not a leftist says he and his we? which is it? Part of some amorphous we that is witnessed using leftist links and smear tactics to buttress evidenced Anti-capitalist views but NOT life style.
Trolling here on the internet--a Capitalist tool not originated by--but grown by, just adds to the list of let me see now, dropping context, intellectual dishonesty, arguing strawmen, contradictrions...See above.
But living in your world is evidently boring and uninteresting because you evidently live here more than the world you espouse...frolic away, I cannot blame you. Hanging with the anti-capitalist is so dreary and boring...
Still evading the evidence that humans are social animals? Your evasion hasn't changed any empirical evidence.
And like I said before, "we" does not mean communism in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Nothing is forced, humans are sovereign individuals in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology.
It seems the dishonesty, and deliberate evasion of empirical data from archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology is all yours, AA.
And any property right that has to have government to defend it is Statist. You can try to whitewash the aggression required by repeating soothing "laissez-faire" words from your canon, but in the end, agriculture requires aggression and constant enforcement by threatened violence, and you're a city-Statist at heart.
Like Ayn Rand herself, you're willing to commit genocide upon 90,000,000 native inhabitants, and then call it "freedom."
Re: Still evading the evidence that humans are social animals?
~Your words not mine.
Re: Your evasion hasn't changed any empirical evidence.
~Empirical evidence hmmm. You are social? You have exhibited Unsocial behavior.
Re: And like I said before, "we" does not mean communism in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Nothing is forced, humans are sovereign individuals in an egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology.
~Like I said before "I" in an Unfree World does not mean I have not found Freedom. You apparently have to wait until you have convinced others that your world of unforced humans are sovereign individuals in your egalitarian Non-State sociopolitical typology. Hopeless. You are not modeling freedom at least not in my book. Will others follow those who talk of freedom or those who model it?
Re: It seems the dishonesty, and deliberate evasion of empirical data from archeology, anthropology, and evolutionary biology is all yours, AA.
~If you can't back up pour empirical data with the integrity in action of what you propose then of what use is your data?
Re: And any property right that has to have government to defend it is Statist.
~Ii actually never brought up property rights till this last post. You have been and so I called you on it. And now you maintain that you have a property right to your account which is clearly not protected by the govt the state but the owners of this site. No one here says the State is upholding your rights. That's all you again.
Re: You can try to whitewash the aggression required by repeating soothing "laissez-faire" words from your canon, but in the end, agriculture requires aggression and constant enforcement by threatened violence, and you're a city-Statist at heart.
~I am clearly not whitewashing your contradictions. If you have sovereign individual aspirations you have a strange second hander approach to it. What you model is not a sovereign individual but someone who is a "RanDroid".
~Like Ayn Rand herself, you're willing to commit genocide upon 90,000,000 native inhabitants, and then call it "freedom."
I don't hold Rand responsible for uncritical zombies nor for helping the tobacco industry types nor those who will not help themselves and smoke because Rand smoked. They have been with us a long time. And they will even join up and perhaps assimilate the unwary with package deals.
I am not Ayn Rand but thanks for the compliment. If you have a problem with initiated violence you should take that up with your drooling beast and if Rand is your red/bluecoat then perhaps you should grow a life. She is dead. You're alive as best as I can tell but these continued disconnects you make remind of what?
Tom Woods Is Interviewed by a Zombie
Recently by Thomas E. Woods, Jr.:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/woods/woods145.html
And
It’s Ayn Rand Bashing Time, Once Again
by Walter Block
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block172.html
PS Where is your password for your "we" account on this site?
Still you evade the scientific, empirical evidence that humans evolved as egalitarian, social band animals.
It's pretty much like talking to a young-earth creationist. Observed reality destroys their quite similar mythology too.
No, I'm not socialist. Socialism is another political ideology of agricultural city-Statism.
Ignorant of facts, you spew your worst pejorative, "socialist!," much like some fundamentalist church lady calling somebody who accepts the empirical data supporting evolution a "satanist!"
It's really lame, and reveals the anti-intellectual nature of your belief system.
I asked in a prior post as it relates to Living Freely in an Unfree World with other compatibles what problem/or not WhiteIndian had as it relates to an interpersonal contract that fulfilled individual freedom? I still have not received an answer to that although this is what WhiteIndian professes is his so-called banner. Which would appear to make Sovereign Individuals look and feel like his evidenced behavior here. A more honest Avatar would be ForkTongue-SovereignIndies.
It is apparent to me that WhiteIndian did not Go Injun in the manner of Jim Walker and does not even rate as a Jed Smith who was very imprudent in his dealings with the Indians.
I suspect that given the speed of WhiteIndians replies that he is other than his avatar professes. Calling himself WentIndjun would perhaps be too obvious a clue as his imprudent counterparts and as to what his actual covert purposes are. But I offer this as something to consider. He is no freedom lover or sovereign individual but the anti-thesis of such.
I'm not discussing my personal life with you. It's as relevant as discussing my personal life with a Fundamentalist believer in an argument over creationism vs. evolution.
Empirical data from archeology, anthropology, evolutionary biology, and other sciences refute your belief system. You refuse to address it.
In reply to such prior questions as "Question: do you [I] accept the theory of evolution?" I ask WhiteIndian--"what are you going to do to FREE YOURSELF?" as the relevant question.
Making it personal--something directly controlled--does not mean I am interested in WhiteIndian's personal life per se. The following article addresses that. There is *No We*: Challenge the Premise. http://zerogov.com/?p=2334
For instance: The truth is no one knows what “we” will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing. Any answer that is given to questions pertaining to the problems that individuals would face in such a society are purely speculation. I cannot tell you what we would do, I can only tell you what I would and do. I would/do honor my contracts; I would/do defend myself; I would/do choose to help others in need; I would/do expect no one to support me; and I would/do plan accordingly.
This as as good as a time as any to point out that humans may desire to live together but certainly not with cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle. Some individuals will choose to live alone if they desire peaceful existence until they find others who are of like mind.
To elaborate: Someone says that the State solution to such and such problem isn’t working, we are in real trouble, what are we going to do about it. The essay “Freedom Has No ‘System” very nicely answers with the equivalent of “What do you mean ‘WE’, Statist?”
Such an approach puts the burden of freeing oneself onto the Statist. It UNDERSCORES the fact that the Statist has NOT bothered to think of solutions that do NOT involve enslaving other people. As pointed out in the article: “…[watch] my fellow humans squirm when asked to think like a free people…”.
AA: "The truth is no one knows what 'we' will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing."
Wrong. Non-State sociopolitical typology has been studied to a fair-thee-well. Quit evading the empirical data.
AA: "...cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle."
That's you, and any other advocate of invasive and occupational agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)
RE: AA: "The truth is no one knows what 'we' will do in a completely voluntary society, there is just no way of knowing."
Wrong. Non-State sociopolitical typology has been studied to a fair-thee-well. Quit evading the empirical data.
~Apparently you are evading that you are a member of that empirical data and cannot speak to it other than third person. That seems pretty evasive to me
RE: AA: "...cheats and liars and those who break the Non-aggression principle."
That's you, and any other advocate of invasive and occupational agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)
~ I was not referring to you. I think you have attributed to me what is not here on these posts. get off your high horse and come down to earth.
~You are telling me nothing about what you are going to do to be free. Address that. This is not about your personal life but you refuse to back up your words with what you are going to do about the subject of this thread--freedom. So why can't you answer a simple question? Without the invectives and put downs and arch-types?
Empirical data backs up my words -- and refutes your assertions.
For example: humans evolved as egalitarian social band animals, and lived as such in a Non-State sociopolitical typology for millions of years demonstrating empathy and altruism -- and refutes your dogmatic belief that there is no "we" or that "we" necessarily means a State society.
It is nonsensical to "test" whether the interior angles of a triangle (in Euclidean geometry) add up to 180 degrees. But your data does not fall into this category. I choose to live with others or not. I am human. Your data is missing something. It can be refuted. I just did.
Re: "humans evolved as egalitarian social band animals, and lived as such in a Non-State sociopolitical typology for millions of years demonstrating empathy and altruism -- and refutes your [my] dogmatic belief that there is no "we" or that "we" necessarily means a State society".
You cannot answer a simple *I* question. Who is answering with you or for you? The point of the issue of this thread with me and you is try to stop asking "we" questions and making "we" assertions (they are assumptions). They are the ways of statists. You say you are not leftist nor a statist but you posted leftist links. You are speaking for others which is very statist like. *If you are not a leftist or statist stop using their ways*.
Speak for yourself! Or continue to come across as a leftist or Statist with all your assumptions (speaking for others) hiding behind so called scientific data.
All you did was demonstrate your intellectual ignorance, which is on par with young-earth creationists.
You cannot speak for yourself let alone others. Where is the similarity between what I pointed out to you about a simple triangle and your data on humans?