What Occupy Wall Street Gets Wrong

Corporatism is not the same thing as the free market.

“We are the 99 percent!” That’s the battle cry of Occupy Wall Street. What are we to make of it? It’s a worthwhile question with a complex answer.

On the one hand, it is certainly the case that by historical and world standards, the 99 percent have an amazingly high standard of living. This includes most of those we call “poor” in this society. Suffice it to say that the amount of time it takes the average worker to earn the money required to buy a whole range of consumer goods has shrunk dramatically in my lifetime. That is indisputable, but it isn’t the half of it. The products are superior, and many things we take for granted weren’t available just a short time ago. Before the early 1980s you couldn’t buy a personal computer. Only a few years ago the most you could do with a mobile phone was make a call!

More Access

I am not saying no one is in dire straits, but the fact is—recession aside—more people in the United States have greater access to more affordable and superior goods than ever before. Even if the 1 percent have a larger share of total income in the United States than at some previous time, total income is far greater. The 99 percent’s absolute amount is also far greater.

But it’s not enough to say the 99 percent have never had it so good. To use an admittedly provocative analogy: Would we be happy to learn that the last generation of southern slaves lived better in material terms than earlier generations of slaves (or even free people)? Maybe they did, but so what? They were slaves.

I’m not saying the non-superrich are slaves. I’m saying that if many 1 percenters made and maintain their fortunes by unjust methods—which means coercively at the expense of others—then that is morally significant, and it doesn’t matter how well off the rest of us are by historical and contemporary world standards. If we would have been even better off had the 1 percent not unjustly captured wealth from labor’s productivity gains or consumer surplus by suppressing competition with government help, that is a legitimate grievance justifying protest.

So we must inquire whether 1 percenters (and others) have acquired their fortunes by immoral means.

Oppenheimer’s Insight

I approach this question by drawing on an insight emphasized by the left-libertarian sociologist Franz Oppenheimer (1864-1943), originator of the conquest theory of the State and inspiration to Albert Jay Nock. It is an insight found previously in the nineteenth-century French laissez fairests J. B. Say, Frédéric Bastiat, and others. In his book The State, Oppenheimer wrote:

There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one’s own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.… I propose … to call one’s own labor and the equivalent exchange of one’s own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means” for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the “political means.”

So our inquiry is directed to whether 1 percenters make their money through the political means or the economic means. The right answer is “both.” Let’s start by acknowledging that we do not live in a free-market economy, by which I mean an economy based solely on “equality of authority” and voluntary exchange, void of all privilege founded in coercion. Quite the contrary. Corporatist privilege abounds, and so we may reasonably suspect that any large fortune is the result of a combination of the economic and political means. In any individual case one or the other may predominate. Some people are genuine market entrepreneurs. But others are largely political entrepreneurs. Since the State touches all aspects of life, we are talking about matters of degree.

While it can be difficult to determine how much any individual depends on the political means, we can enumerate some of the many devices described by that term.

Barriers to Entry

Among the political means are all the historical barriers to both competitive entry and competitive vigor that governments—national, state, and local—maintain at the behest of well-connected interests. These include impediments to foreign trade like tariffs and quotas, occupational and business licensing, land-use restrictions such as zoning, building codes, eminent domain, subsidies, government contracting, tax differentials, monopoly franchises, minimum product standards, limits on labor activity, intellectual property laws, and regulations, which bear more heavily on small and yet-to-be-launched firms than on large incumbent firms. These things were common as far back as the colonial period and persisted after the revolution and adoption of the Articles of Confederation and Constitution.

We may single out transportation subsidies, such as those relating to the cost of building the railroads and maintaining the interstate highway system, as particularly distorting. Those subsidies favor national-market business models over regional- and local-market models by socializing transportation costs. Nor should we neglect government’s various land-distributions schemes  dating back to colonial times, which gave large areas of prime real estate to special interests, such as railroads, and shaped the evolution of the American economy in ways other than how a truly spontaneous consensual market order would have. The State’s engrossment of land to this day limits opportunity and mobility by foreclosing alternatives to conventional wage employment. The period often seen as closest to laissez fare—the Gilded Age —was anything but, having followed on the heels of the Civil War, which enriched particular people through military contracts, government debt speculation, and the cartelization of banking.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Suki||

    This is way too short for that deceptive title.

  • ||

    Commenter "John" is an admitted homosexual. Take this into consideration when reading anything he writes, and take all of his "facts" with a grain of salt the size of the scrot he sleeps with every night.

  • ||

    Step right up, another winner!

  • ||

    It isn't an ad hom attack, because the homosexuals have an agenda which they press, and so people need to know when someone addressing them is a homosexual so that they have a frame of reference through which to view the information being provided.

    Since homosexuals have an admitted agenda to force everyone into acceptance and promotion of their lifestyle, it is important to out anyone with whom you regularly interact to the public at large.

  • ||

    You might want to take a course on logic.
    Homos with an agenda is a subset of all homos.
    Its alright to say homos, isn't it?

  • ||

    "Homos with an agenda is a subset of all homos."

    No, it isn't. It's all but a statistically insignificant portion of them.

  • water closet||

    "Homos with an agenda is a subset of all humans, each of which has an agenda."

    fixedit

  • OBAMA 2012||

    NO HOMO

    OBAMA 2012

  • 0bama 2012||

    Your children, your liberties, and your economy need to be anally raped a whole lot more often!

    0bama 2012

  • Homo, humus, earth||

    Homo means "from the earth."

    Don't deny you're homo.

  • ||

    Earth Sapien?

    I call bullshit only because I have never heard that before.

  • ||

    Also because after looking it up I discovered homo in Latin means wise.

    homo sapien = Wise ape.

  • ||

    Also why are they shaved in the Wikipedia image?

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi.....bels_2.png

    Does having hair imply you are less human?

    Is Wikipedia racist?

  • water closet||

    Does having hair imply you are less human?

    Is Wikipedia racist?

    Give the guy a break. He's oriental.

  • ||

    Either it is true what they say about oriental guys, or they shaved more than hair there. Yikes.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Either it is true what they say about oriental guys, or they shaved more than hair there. Yikes.

    Hasn't stopped them from making 2 billion of them.

  • ||

    Looks normal sized to me.

  • ||

    That chick is hot.

  • ||

    looked it up again and homo in Latin means man....

    sapien means wise

    so wise man

  • Homo, humus, earth||

    "The Latin name for man, homo, derived from humus, the stuff of life in the soil.”

    - Dr. Daniel Hillel
    Professor of Soil Physics and Hydrology,
    University of Massachusetts

  • Homo, humus, earth||

    “The Latin words humus, soil/earth, and homo, human being, have a common derivation, from which we also get our word 'humble.'"

    ~ Eugene H. Peterson
    James M. Houston Professor of Spiritual Theology at Regent College

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Homo is Latin for "man/human", but it comes from the same proto-Indo-European root word as humus. So, yes, that etymology is correct.

    Interestingly enough, the same derivation can be found in Hebrew. Adam means "red" "blood" "red clay/soil" and "person" (e.g. the name of the first person). Eve is the Anglicized form of Chevah which means "life". It's clear that the Genesis story is a metaphor FOR THE EVIL AGRI-CITY_STATE!!!!!....God takes a piece of "Adam" (soil) and from it grows "Chevah" (life).

  • THE EVIL AGRI-CITY_STATE!!!!!!||

    I'm livin' inside your head rent-free now! Thanks for the positive feedback.

    And you're right on the Genesis mythology being a literary account of the "fall of man" from paleolithic life in the hands of god to neolithic drudgery and toil. "By the sweat of thy brow."

    Agriculture is a bunch of damn stupid WORK!

    Even Jesus, the Buddhist missionary, recognized it, with his rage against the rich farmer, and admonishing to:

    Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and yet God feedeth them: of how much more value are ye than the fowls!

    ~ Jesus
    verse 40, chapter 4, The Jefferson Bible

  • HeroicMulatto||

    And you're right on the Genesis mythology being a literary account of the "fall of man" from paleolithic life in the hands of god to neolithic drudgery and toil. "By the sweat of thy brow."

    Do you agree with the moral of Cain and Abel? Or was Abel, the nomadic herdsman, also too much of an Agri-City-Statist?

  • Murderous FIBertarians||

    Cain, literarily speaking, was:

    • the 1st agriculturalist farmer
    • the 1st murderer (of his hunter-gatherer brother, Abel)
    • founder, or the father of the 1st City-State builder
    • the 1st FIBertarian "I don’t know,” he replied. "Am I my brother's keeper?"

    Pretty accurate story of his-story, literarily.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    That was a serious question.

  • I was serious.||

    "Am I my brother's keeper?" is significant to libertarian thought, and they're on the side of the murderer, and whitewash their violence.

    Never read Part 3, Chapter 5 of Atlas Shrieked?

  • HeroicMulatto||

    So you consider pastoral shepard life to be hunting/gathering. I see.

  • Pastoralism isn't foraging...||

    ...but it is a "rebel" edge-of-civilization lifestyle often conflated with foraging.

    Dr. Eric Smith
    lecture notes on pastoralism:
    http://courses.washington.edu/anth457/pastoral.htm

  • Jeffersonian||

    Descriptive, not prescriptive.

  • Why is prescriptive necessary?||

    "Most individuals as well as social classes who cannot bear disillusionment without positive solutions will simply not listen to, understand, and certainly not agree with the disillusioning analysis, even if the critical thinker speaks with the voice of an angel."

    ~Eric Fromm

    White Indian says, first, Embrace the Suck. (translation: accept that reality is FUBAR)

  • Jeffersonian||

    If you want to go from A to B, it is useful to know that such a path exists. It does not.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Having spent more than a few years in Zomia, I have to say that life wasn't so bad.

  • WI has the book||

    The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast by James C. Scott
    Yale University Press

  • ||

    Ahhhhh ...bunch of damn work is it?.....now I see your motivation. You hate libertarians because they think each should live by their own labor, and you are a super-lazyass. Got it.

  • TAKING isn't "your own labor"||

    "[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

  • ||

    Your narrative would be better if the native peoples hadn't been warring and taking from each other for thousands of years before white people settled here.

  • Quit parroting Hobbes bullshit||

    Your narrative would be better if it weren't city-Statist bullshit.

    Civilization has always had a basic interest in holding its subjects captive by touting thenecessity of official armed force. It is a prime ideological claim that without the state's monopoly on violence, we would be unprotected and insecure. After all, according to Hobbes,the human condition has been and will always be that of "a war of all against all."

    In the second half of the 20th century, this pessimistic view of human nature began to shift.Based on archaeological evidence, it is now a tenet of mainstream scholarship that pre-civilization humans lived in the absence of violence—more specifically, of organized violence.

    The Origins of War
    John Zerzan
    www.scribd.com/doc/20298938/Ze.....ins-of-War

  • White Cowboy||

    it is now a tenet of mainstream scholarship that pre-civilization humans lived in the absence of violence—more specifically, of organized violence.

    The science is settled!!!

  • Fibertard Fundamentalists||

    just like creationists, always shitting on science, because it disproves their dogma

  • ||

    Are you seriously trying to argue that the Comanche never made war on any other tribes?

  • Jeffersonian||

    Are you seriously trying to argue that the Comanche never made war on any other tribes?

    The Sioux had pretty much exterminaed the Pawnee by time the iniquitous city-staters arrived, too.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Civilization has always had a basic interest in holding its subjects captive by touting thenecessity of official armed force. "

    Vis-a-vis tribal Society, where the rule is always "Obey the boss or get filled with spears".

    Oh, wait . . .

  • ||

    Chimps make war.

  • ||

    Earth Sexual?

  • ||

    is an admitted homosexual

    I am Spartacus.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Liar.

    OBAMA 2012

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Libertarian logic is too short for anything.

  • Dadgum Gummit!||

    Logic PWND!

  • Capitalism is coercive||

    The only way the elite can get people to work in the factories, offices, and armies is to starve them into submission via artificial privation property borders that prevent hunting and gathering a free meal as humans did for millions of years.

  • ||

    Viable alternative?

  • if there is a solution...||

    ...you have to understand the problem first, instead of denying it.

    And who knows, there may be no solution.

    When they cut down the last tree on Easter Island, I bet there was some guy saying, "This isn't wise, and this is why."

    And then you piped up...

  • Easter Island dude||

    Eric Fromm wrote:

    "Most individuals as well as social classes who cannot bear disillusionment without positive solutions will simply not listen to, understand, and certainly not agree with the disillusioning analysis, even if the critical thinker speaks with the voice of an angel."

  • ||

    Hey, that's the way I feel sometimes, too.

    Have you ever had to listen to those insufferable objectivists who, contrary to all the evidence and all of human history, still insist that the individual is better off with giving an armed mob a monopoly on the use of force, the administration of justice and currency?

  • ||

    These powers have been given to a well organized gang which is more destructive than a mob.

  • ||

    Yeah, anarchy is great. Right up to the point Hitler (or choose your own evil nation/despot) decides he wants your property. Your philosophy is delusional.

  • Yeah, Serial Child Killers....||

    ...make such great inspirations for political movements.

    ATLAS SHRIEKED: Ayn Rand’s First Love and Mentor Was A Sadistic Serial Killer Who Dismembered Little Girls
    http://exiledonline.com/atlas-.....nds-heart/

    Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
    by Michael Prescott
    http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

  • ||

    $

  • POLIS POLICE POLITICS ||

    For the love of money [POLIS' privation property values] is the root of all evil [POLICe brutality.]

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Yeah, Serial Child Killers...
    make such great inspirations for political movements."

    And yet even if your ad hominem were accurate, it's still a good deal better than your preferred system in which a small group of people use extreme violence and empty promises of eagaltarianism to place themselves into power, and then slaughter everyone who looks at them sideways.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Yeah, Serial Child Killers...
    make such great inspirations for political movements."

    And yet even if your ad hominem were accurate, it's still a good deal better than your preferred system in which a small group of people use extreme violence and empty promises of eagaltarianism to place themselves into power, and then slaughter everyone who looks at them sideways.

  • ||

    Your argument is absolutely pathetic, and disproves more than proves your point.

    Hitler used the state genius. You have proven that your worst case scenario for anarchy is completely plausible in a state-run society.

    But its worse than that. Hitler by himself was nothing. If he was your neighbor, and wanted your stuff, you'd have a fighting chance to stop him.

    With the power of a coercive nation-state however, he can kill millions.

  • ||

    You're accusing Hitler of 'anarchy'? Yeah because clearly the problem with National Socialism was too little government!

  • ||

    Have you ever had to listen to those insufferable objectivists who, contrary to all the evidence and all of human history, still insist that the individual is better off with giving an armed mob a monopoly on the use of force, the administration of justice and currency?

    Strawman, Mikey. I have never speculated upon if something that can never happen is "better".

    Anarchism has the same basic problem as Marxism. It describes a society that does not reflect actual human actions. Both reside upon the premise that the entire human race will agree to act that way. It will never happen, so why bother thinking it would be "better"? Human being simply do not behave that way.

    I mean, if I were to think that an unrealistic Utopia were possible, I would definitely go with the Godesky one were mana fell from heaven and disease and trauma didn't exist.

  • Libertarian = Marxism of Right||

    Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics.
    www.theamericanconservative.co...../14/00017/

  • The Original Affluent Society||

    It was real.

    If you don't mind empirical data, fundie boy.

    Sahlins, M. "Notes on the original affluency society," in Man the Hunter. Edited by R.B. Lee and I. DeVore, pp. 85-89.

    Weatherford, Jack. "Native Roots: How The Indians Enriched America". Pg 38-42.

    Turnbull, Colin. "Mbuti Womenhood," in Women the Gatherer, Francis Dahlberg, Ed.

    Kroeber, Therodora. "Ishi in Two Worlds: A Biography of the Last Wild Indian in North America."

    Duffy, Kevin. "Children of the Forest: Africa's Mbuti Pygmies."

    Boyden, S. V. "The Impact of Civilization on On The Biology of Man."

  • Jerryskids||

    Taken to its logical conclusion, the reduction of the good to the freely chosen means there are no inherently good or bad choices at all, but that a man who chose to spend his life playing tiddlywinks has lived as worthy a life as a Washington or a Churchill.

    I believe that is what is meant by "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

    If Churchill had spent his whole life playing tiddlywinks, would his life have been wasted? Not to him, I suspect.

    Most of us are not "Libertopians" - we accept the fact that different people want different sorts of social arrangements and they work toward what they want. We just think society could stand to be more libertarian and that's what we work toward.

  • ||

    Anarchism has the same basic problem as Marxism. It describes a society that does not reflect actual human actions. Both reside upon the premise that the entire human race will agree to act that way.

    I COMPLETELY agree. Arguments for anarchy can be totally defeated with the following simple question:

    I'm an evil person/group/government...who's gonna make me?

  • Southerner||

    I'm an evil person/group/government...who's gonna make me?

    Or who's gonna stop me? That's the same basic argument. People are basically evil at heart, so if you take away all restraints, it's a fair assumption they will do all the evil they can. Anarchists never seem to realize how downright parasitic, rapacious, and genocidal people really are when there's nothing left to restrain them but the laws of physics.

  • ||

    How is the state doing for stopping them now?

    Statists seem to think that all people are horrible, except for those in government, who are altruistic and selfless. You describe people as being "parasitic, rapacious, and genocidal", and it doesn't take a PhD in history to find instances of governments doing all of those things on a grand scale.

    You are now giving the state power to legally murder, plunder and pillage.

    You also make the assumption that people are basically evil at heart, and this is just not the case. Most people who do the most harm are those in positions of power who think they know better than their "subjects". It is power that corrupts.

  • ||

    How'd you get a government if there's anarchy? And make you what?

  • Civilis||

    The US is approx 1900 square acres, or about six acres per person. Average land value is $2350 per acre. For the annual US minimum wage for one year, you can buy those six acres at average cost. This is unreasonable how?

  • Campinginyourpark||

    The US is approx 1900 square acres
    I protest this SMALL country

  • Let civilis dig rock. Or sand.||

    I love these numbskull Fibertards who have no concept of arable land.

    Hey, Civilis, can I pick the 6 acres you get to survive on? I'll even triple it, ok?

  • Civilis||

    Because I'm lazy, I like working with a computer. I can live in an apartment much smaller than 6 acres just about anywhere I can get internet access.

    By the way, that value is taken from the USDA's survey of Average Farm Real Estate Value. While I do make mistakes (thanks for catching the 1900 million acres mistake), I do know what arable land is.

  • Alright||

    I just get tired of numbskulls who argue against overpopulation by saying stupid shit like: we could fit everybody in Australia and they'd have 2 acres of land.

    I always ask if I can pick the 2 acres, and I'll pay for their plane ticket to that two acres, and see how it works out for them.

  • Why do we need arable land?||

    Wikipedia: "In geography and agriculture, arable land (from Latin arō; “I plough, I farm”) is land that can be used for growing crops."

    I thought farming was for the unenlightened.

  • Farming is stupid hard work||

    ...but you still can't do it in the Mojave.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    The quickest solution to over-population that doesn't involve your imposing your Marxist ideology on the rest of the world is to eat a bullet yourself. Reduces the EArth's burden by one jackass.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "I just get tired of numbskulls who argue against overpopulation by saying stupid shit like: we could fit everybody in Australia and they'd have 2 acres of land.

    I always ask if I can pick the 2 acres, and I'll pay for their plane ticket to that two acres, and see how it works out for them."

    See, now, your problem is that you're a complete idiot who is either unwittingly or intentionally missing the entire point (not to mention misquoting it) of the provided argument to nitpick the meaningless.

  • Southerner||

    Arable land is overrated. A lot of the more desolate land is actually more valuable than farmland because that's where all the mining and energy generation and manufacturing take place. If not for the eco-fascists and all the misanthropists in academia and government, everybody in the world could be struggling with obesity and psychological problems rather than starvation and plague.

    The greatest act of charity we could feasibly commit right now would be to cut off all government funding to self-appointed population control experts and the institutions that spawn them. The more we starve these parasites, the more the free market will thrive, and the more resources everyone else in the world will have. The more we allow their totalitarian nonsense to proliferate, the more poverty and tyranny will proliferate with them.

  • Civilis||

    1900 million square acres. I admit I made a mistake in typing.

  • Civilis||

    And that's continental US, btw.

  • Alright||

    USA
    470 million acres arable land
    2 million acres annually lost to erosion, salinization
    1 million annually lost to city use

    "We'll all be getting a little hungry by and by." ~Robert Heinlein

  • Civilis||

    Very dodgy statistics; reference Major Uses of Land in the US 2002 and Major Uses of Land in the US 2007.

    You also falsely assume those trends will continue indefinitely.

  • ||

    You also falsely assume those trends will continue indefinitely.

    Duh, don't they always?

  • Oh, they'll reverse.||

    Yes, they will, indeed.

  • Robert Thomas Malthaus||

    That's what I said!

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "470 million acres arable land
    2 million acres annually lost to erosion, salinization
    1 million annually lost to city use"

    lolz dumbass thinks the entire continent is going to dissapear.

  • ||

    Heinlein admitted he was wrong about that prediction in a new edition of the book in which he said it.

  • Big Cat Kahuna||

    This is just silly. Intellectual calcification of the noble savage meme.

    Got Literacy?

  • ||

    No, capitalism is not coercive.

    Those hunter-gatherers lived nasty-brutish and short lives that were usually over by the time they were 25. It was that truly was the "survival of the fittest".

    Take this in comparison to the world of the market, that if we go by every standard that matters - life span, caloric intake, etc, - is the survival of EVERYBODY.

    You assume that hunting and gathering would bring you a "free meal", but this is economically and practically foolish. A great deal of time and effort are required for this enterprise, which must be considered a cost.

    Go out and try this, and tell me if it wouldn't just be easier to go to the grocery store?

    It is private property rights that allow for the creation of wealth, and allow for the longer, healthier more productive lives.

  • ||

    If hunting and gathering was so awesome, we would still be doing it. I prefer working in a factory, or anywhere with air conditioning.

    And if you think hunting and gathering is a free meal...ROFL!

  • What OWS Gets Wrong||

    Everything.

  • ||

    I was typing out a long explanation for that, but you saved me the trouble. Thank you.

  • Let them eat cake.||

    That should work.

  • ||

    please wash your hands before you come to the table...

  • Ghost||

    Damn, you beat me to it.

  • Southerner||

    The real question, as with the old "What's wrong with this picture?" games one sees on Highlights for Children magazine covers, is "Is there anything right with this picture?"

  • Gojira||

    Glad to see some anti-IP stuff thrown in there. I find it to be a particularly interesting field, and it isn't discussed on this site much.

  • ||

    No matter who peddles the counterfeit Godfather, everybody knows who plays Vito Corleone.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I see the point of the anti-IP side, but I see the point of the pro-IP side, too. There has to be a better way, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "I see the point of the anti-IP side"

    Please explain it, because I've yet to encounter any argument except for, "I'm entitled to the work and/or thoughts of others."

  • ||

    Basically, "I could make improvements to the work and/or thoughts of others, if doing would not result in me being imprisoned/bankrupted. "

  • ||

    I'm entitled to share things I own with my friends. If the thing I own is a book you wrote TOO DAMNED BAD for you.

    In the past, authors and artists had no problem with having their works lent out--it generated interest and new custom. Now that their works are easily replicable 'lending' and 'sharing' are no longer the virtues they once were.

  • ricketson||

    Good points, but it stopped before hitting one of the big factors operating within American politics -- the idea of progress.

    Many working-class people have long believed that they were being robbed, but they put up with it because they also believed that things were getting better. They believed both that their prosperity was increasing and that their social influence was increasing. This is enough for most people to tolerate the less-than-ideal political situation.

    However, the myth of progress has fallen apart over the past couple of decades. It has been replaced with the perception of stagnation for the lower classes. If the myth of progress disappears, people might stop putting up with the imperfections of the world (whatever they think these imperfections may be)

  • Romulus Augustus||

    Yeah, and they might join the Libertarian Party. But they won't.

  • Why would they do that?||

    Are they as stupid as you to join the anti-government political party symbolized by a government statue trying to get elected to government?

  • ||

    the myth of progress?
    cell phones
    flat screens
    no starvation
    no polio
    mango flavored vodka...

  • Take a full accounting, Bucko||

    and don't lie, either.

    • no starvation? LOL half the civilized world is at or near starvation. Yeah, I've heard all your bullshit excuses why, but it's widely recognized by science that hunter gathers suffer much less hunger than agriculturalists.

    • no polio huh? Polio is a disease of Civilization. Yeah.

    • cell phones, flat screens, electronic heroin. Horrible replacements for sitting around a fire with a band of brothers after a hunt. Also, give a full accounting of pollution, please.

  • Sent from my clay tablet||

    ...while dreaming of a world that vanished long ago at the fault of nobody I'm addressing.

  • ||

    Polio is a disease of Civilization

    Polio bends bones in a distinct way.

    Lots of such bent bones are found among the remains of prehistoric non-agricultural peoples.

    There are "diseases of civilization".....but you picked a bad example with polio.

  • Polio=Disease of Civilization||

    "Polio is a communicable disease which is categorized as a disease of civilization."

    www.sciencedaily.com/articles/p/poliomyelitis.htm

    that was easy

  • ||

    electronic heroin.

    Got to love reading such rubbish on the internet.

  • Electronic Heroin plug in drug||

    Heroin addicts, for instance, lead a damaged life: their increasing need for heroin in increasing doses prevents them from working, from maintaining relationships, from developing in human ways. Similarly alcoholics' lives are narrowed and dehumanized by their dependence on alcohol.

    "Let us consider television viewing in the light of the conditions that define serious addictions.

    "Not unlike drugs or alcohol, the television experience allows the participant to blot out the real world and enter into a pleasurable and passive mental state.

    Marie Winn, THE PLUG IN DRUG; Penguin, 1977, pp. 23-25.
    http://dieoff.org/page21.htm

  • Most Interesting Man in World ||

    Couldn't have sold it easier to a drunken Indian. Stay thirsty, my friends.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    All you've managed to do with the citation of these articles is to let everyone know you're too stupid and unoriginal to formulate and overuse expressions like "electronic heroin" on your own.

  • Sevo||

    "• no starvation? LOL half the civilized world is at or near starvation."

    Bull
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    shit.

  • Comrade Sevo blows smoke||

    • 1 billion are hungry, right now.

    • Another 2 billion live in food insecurity.

    • 1 in 4 kids around the world are under-weight

    • 2 billion suffer from iron deficiency, 2 billion suffer from iodine deficiency

    "Today less than 0.001 per cent of the world's people live outside of the direct control of state societies." ~Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.

    Ain't city-Statism (civilization) great, Comrade Sevo, da?

  • ||

    Kakoy zhe ti nedatrakhaniy pedarast, WI. Shtob tebya v rot otyebal polyarniy medved, otrodye ti zosronoye.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    You're FPS Russia. Admit it.

  • ||

    FPS Russia is fucking badass, but I'm pretty sure he's not Russian. :P

  • you mad bro?||

  • ||

    Did you just call him a pederast with a bear in his mouth?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "but it's widely recognized by science that hunter gathers suffer much less hunger than agriculturalists."

    Come on, now. if you're going to tell him not to lie, you've gotta hold yourself to the same standard.

    "no polio huh? Polio is a disease of Civilization. Yeah."

    Make sense, damnit.

    "cell phones, flat screens, electronic heroin. Horrible replacements for sitting around a fire with a band of brothers after a hunt."

    Nah. Techn ology and modenr convenience beat the Hell out of sitting around and smoking a peade pipe with a bunch of half-naked dudes, nevermind how bullshit your myth of everyday life of the Noble Savage is.

    "Also, give a full accounting of pollution, please."

    Just as soon as you acknowledge the famine, disease, hardship, tribal war and rigid heirarchies that inevitably arise in tribal society.

  • ||

    to hunter gatherer wannabe guy:

    No one is stopping you from living that way. Btw, there were probably people like you back in the caves who moaned about the pre-fire days.

  • ricketson||

    You defend the idea of progress by appealing to the baubles of the rich and public health accomplishments from 50 years ago? So it seems that you agree that poorer Americans have not seen any progress since Reagan was elected.

  • Civilis||

    The baubles of the rich? Seriously? Cell phones (as an example) are ubiquitous among everyone in the US and a good chunk of the public in the rest of the world. I have seen buildings in the hinterlands of the former Soviet Union that could pass for a poor farmer's home from 100 years ago except for the satellite dish.

  • ricketson||

    Forget about the gadgets.

    The real question is "what does it cost to live in a low-crime neighborhood with access to job sites?" And can you afford it without picking up and moving across the country every few years?

  • Sevo||

    ricketson|3.16.12 @ 8:29PM|#
    "The real question is "what does it cost to live in a low-crime neighborhood with access to job sites?" And can you afford it without picking up and moving across the country every few years?"

    Uh, no. That 'question' is loaded with so much bullshit that there's no answer.
    I think you mean: 'What does is cost to live in the high-rent district?'
    Answer: It costs high rent.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    Yes. This.

    Rent prices aren't randomly chosen (except by social-engineering bureaucrats). High-rent places have high rent because they are located in desirable areas.

    The question should be, "how can I save my money, so I can move from my bad neighborhood into a nice one"?

  • cityStatism=SOCIAL ENGINEERING||

    You're being purposefully domesticated.

    One of the most recognizable signs of domestication is a reduction in brain size—domestication makes a population stupid.

    Wolves & Dogs
    by Jason Godesky
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....index.html

    Yep, your brain is getting smaller.

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Yep, your brain is getting smaller.

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....shrinking"

    Wow. You and the idiot who wrote that piece really oughta read, "The Mismeasure of Man". You're behind the (bell) curve by about fifty years or so.

    Though it wouldn't surpirse me in the least if you ascribed to phrenology and craniology.

  • ||

    Libertarians are for limited government, not an end to government. The fact that you believe they are an anti-government party, which I assume means you believe they want to eliminate all government, shows your own ignorance. Perhaps you should google it... you might learn something, causing what little mind you do have to expand.

  • Some, sure.||

    Libertarians are for limited Statist aggression, not an end to Statist aggression.

    Gotta love it, city-Statist slicker.

    At any rate, Libertarians are for an end of government as is has been for 10,000 years, and for government as it never has been, nor ever will be. May as well hope for flying pigs and cold fusion in your hand or Jesus coming back soon.

  • For Farm, for City, for State||

    Your continued irrelevancy continues to amuse me, cracker chief.

  • Government isn't aggression?||

    Weird how initiation of violence becomes so irrelevant to Fiberard.

  • For Farm, for City, for State||

    weird how aggression and race always come up no matter what the topic is, cracker chief. Me thinks you have an intellectually dishonest agenda, cracker chief.

  • Abandoning the N.A.P.?||

    I figured it was just a debate convenience for Fibertard.

  • ||

    soooo, i guess i get to keep my mango flavored vodka?

  • ||

    Occupy don't give a shit about any of the points raised in the article, that have already been discussed extensively by libertarians. They want free stuff and they want it NOW.

  • Capitalism = RIGHT to TAKE||

    • Is any white person's right an individual or collective right?
    • Is the right to take a negative or positive right?

    "[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

  • ||

    But, the ole fugly objectivist sure kicked the shit out of Marlo's muff, phil donahue.

  • Phil, meet Mike.||

  • Civilis||

    Again, the answer to both questions is "Neither". (We would also accept 'mu' for the answers.)

  • I say you're dodging.||

    Liberarians mostly agree with her assessments of rights, libertarians are big on rights, and they classify legitimate and non-legitimate rights by the terms I've given as choices.

    It's getting hot in here, eh?

  • Civilis||

    No, it's not. As has been painstakingly pointed out to you before, the whole thing has to be taken in the context of her mistaken impression of the status of the pre-second European colonzation of the Americas. There is no 'Right to Take'. It's like claiming that the US constitution gives me the right to own a pet grizzly.

  • I still say you're dodging.||

    It has to be taken in the context that:

    1. That's exactly what happened.
    2. That's exactly what most capitalistic Americans think is just fine.
    3. She was parroting the cultural story in a culturally iconic setting, and let the masquerade of positing against initiation-of-violence fall. Fall significantly.

  • Civilis||

    It's right there in the quote; she talks about bringing the elements of civilization, meaning she didn't think there was an agricultural civilization in the US pre-colonization. She's basically stating that if no one else is living in a permanent settlement on the land, you can settle there. That's kind of been a feature of society since we've been humans.

  • Invasion is NOT a feature||

    you just spout city-Statist falsehoods from economic priestcraft who whitewash the aggression of city-Statism, Civilis.

    Civilization has always had a basic interest in holding its subjects captive by touting thenecessity of official armed force. It is a prime ideological claim that without the state'smonopoly on violence, we would be unprotected and insecure. After all, according to Hobbes,the human condition has been and will always be that of "a war of all against all."

    In the second half of the 20th century, this pessimistic view of human nature began to shift.Based on archaeological evidence, it is now a tenet of mainstream scholarship that pre-civilization humans lived in the absence of violence—more specifically, of organized violence.

    The Origins of War
    John Zerzan
    www.scribd.com/doc/20298938/Ze.....ins-of-War

  • Civilis||

    Which raises a question you've been unwilling to answer whenever it's been addressed to you. The tribe the next valley over? They just settled down and invented agriculture and bronze working and stuff. How do you stop them? (Loaded question, I know.) Simple logic says that when an agricultural society and a non-agricultural society conflict the non-agricultural society always loses, I'd be an idiot not to go with the agricultural society.

  • Might Makes Right?||

    There ya go.

  • Civilis||

    Might doesn't make right, but history doesn't care who's right. History just notes down the 'win' and 'loss'. You may be right, but your descendants are just footnotes in a history book, while his continue to make history.

  • We're working on it.||

    5. Rhizome Network Defense. A review of a Cambridge team's analysis of potential tactics to defend rhizome structures against hierarchy [civilization.]

    www.jeffvail.net/2007/01/what-is-rhizome.html

  • Civilis||

    The rhizome social model, while nice from a libertarian standpoint, is useless in a pre-agricultural society. Ironically enough, it's much more applicable to the post-singularity futurist version of a stateless society.

  • Dan||

    Native americans were not a society. They were not a country. They were not a civilization.

    There was nothing to invade. In fact most of the united states was sold to the european colonies because the native americans didn't even recognize what claiming ownership of property was. They thought they were scamming the europeans by "selling" them something that had no value, and thought they could keep doing it over and over.

  • Dan||

    Studying bones and pottery shards from thousands of years ago and claiming you can make any sort of legitimate assertions about what life was like then is assinine in the extreme. Anybody that would believe such nonsense is simply searching for "evidence" that will support their pre-existing notions.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    "pre-civilization humans lived in the absence of violence—more specifically, of organized violence."

    They also lived in the absence of making it to their 35th birthdays, on average.
    You fkn retard.
    Get smallpox and die, already.

  • Civilis||

    Without placing all the qualifications on what is being discussed, saying 'the right to take' is like claiming the US Constitution gives me 'the right to be secure' (if one of the lefty trolls uses this as the next TEAM RED or TEAM BLUE idea, I apologize profusely.)

  • Just let me secure dat stapler||

    for ya.

    Yeah, um.

    www.virtualstapler.com/office_.....speaks.jpg

    LOL God, how can you live with yourself conflating "TAKE" with "SECURE." Good lord.

  • Civilis||

    Does the fourth amendment to the constitution guarantee 'the right of the people to be secure'? Yes or No? Is it a positive or negative right? Is it an individual or collective right?

  • On rights.||

    Libertarians are the ones who classify rights by those terms in their political philosophy, so it's a fair question for you.

    As far as "rights" go, the 4th A is a negotiated, government-granted "right" trying to, quite poorly, mimic the autonomy and sovereignty of Non-State bands and tribes.

    "Historically, people in non-state societies are relatively autonomous and sovereign. They generate their own subsistence with little or no assistance from outside sources. They bow to no external political leaders."

    ~Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.

  • Civilis||

    That is an awful lot to say without answering the question.

    Does the fourth amendment to the constitution guarantee 'the right of the people to be secure'? Yes or No?

  • on paper, yes, in reality, no||

  • Civilis||

    Did you actually read the fourth amendment?

  • Jerryskids||

    Yes, it does. In the same way the first guarantees free exercise.

    Where do I get my free gym membership?

  • ||

    Right on! Now let's defend internet piracy...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I am not saying no one is in dire straits, but the fact is—recession aside—more people in the United States have greater access to more affordable and superior goods than ever before

    Everything's relative. Other people have more, and we all know that ain't fair.

  • ||

    And doable with an EBT card.

  • Capitalist BigGOV enTITLEments||

    Can we talk about those?

  • ||

    sorry, liberty had me at EBT...

  • ||

    These other people have looted enough money from publicly owned banks that they were entrusted to manage that every one of their future generations will be able to live in splendor without working.

  • ||

    Marvin Miller:

    From the anti-city statist perspective, please discuss his work.

  • matt||

    we have never had a free market... so where libertarians get things wrong is what happens in the real world..

    at least the occupy protestors understand that power is going to cater to a certain parties interest, they just rather it be the people's and not the corporations

  • ||

    The OWSers should ponder two eternal verities as they seek to ratify and. Control the Total State:

    Money and power will always find each other.

    You today, me tomorrow.

  • 1%-er||

    ...they just rather it be the people's and not the corporations

    Aren't we people, too?

  • matt||

    yeah but your financial interests are looked after and already met.. we shouldn't be moving toward catering to the richest and away from catering to the larger section of the population like we have for the past 30+ years

  • Campinginyourpark||

    I'm going to reveal something that has been true since the SOB that could make fire made the dude that couldn't sit outside and guard the camp. NATURE has never given the advantages to decide who is decides the catering to the STUPID.

  • matt||

    ugh... we elected bush twice... i don't buy your "nature argument"

    but FDR was elected 4 times... so i might want to buy your argument

  • Campinginyourpark||

    ugh... we elected bush twice... i don't buy your "nature argument"

    But you just did

  • Civilis||

    The way to correct this is not 'take more power from the corporations and give it to the government' but 'take power from the government and give it to the people'. When the government has power, it always trickles down to those who cozy up to the government, be it CEO or Comerade Minister of Shoes.

  • matt||

    taking away medicare, medicaid, and welfare does not take away power from exxon mobile and goldman sachs...

    privatizing social security does not take power away from big banks...

    you make a nice broad argument, but i assume your real world application on how to limit government, the vast majority of it does not fit in line with taking power over government away from corporations...

  • Civilis||

    Privatizing Social Security, for example, gives me power (to choose a better investment portfolio, one more suited to what I need).

    What I hear from you is, you want more power given to the government but act surprised when when the government uses that power to benefit people who can give favors (such as money) to politicians.

    Why isn't OWS protesting George Clooney? Here is a member of the 1%, using his power (campaign donations, celebrity status) to get the government to do what he wants.

  • Civilis||

    Just out of curiosity, what power does Exxon Mobil (for example) have, besides money?

  • Sevo||

    Civilis|3.16.12 @ 9:52PM|#
    "Just out of curiosity, what power does Exxon Mobil (for example) have, besides money?"

    I'll bet you already know: None.
    Except as they can use that money to buy the coercive power of politicos.
    So the corrective proposed by the OWS folks is to take the money away (and give it to those politicos to distribute).
    While the real solution is to limit the power of those politicos, so the money can't buy coercion.

  • Campinginyourpark||

    EXACTLY! It's a lot easier to take away power from some one than developing the NUTS to have your own!

  • Jeffersonian||

    we shouldn't be moving toward catering to the richest and away from catering to the larger section of the population like we have for the past 30+ years

    The vast majority of the budget is dedicated to larding up the poor and the old, not the rich. Sure, there's corporate welfare, but it's dwarfed by just the sort of programs you're pounding your tin cup on the pavement for.

  • I've heard it all now||

    The vast majority of the budget is dedicated to larding up the rich and the connected, not the poor.

    But nice Freeper talking points there.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security? Do they ring a bell?

  • Corporate Industrial Medicine||

    forget about me?

  • Civilis||

    We keep telling them to do the math, and yet they never do. When they get hit with the raw numbers it never slows them down for more than a moment. Some people just cling to emotional arguments.

  • ||

    Who exactly is catering to the richest and not the larger section of the population? It's not any of the corporations that produce consumable goods. You could say banks do, but they were all too willing to cater to the larger part of the population that thought they should be able to own a 4-2-2 on 40k a year. The only people I can think of that truly cater to the rich are the government.

    Of course that makes a lot of sense, seeing as how the 535 congress-critters are all one-percenters. Gotta take care of your own ya know. (And that doesn't even include local politicians or the more highly paid government employees.)

  • No True Scotsman||

    yeah, yeah, the whine of true believers everywhere...

    we have never had true communism... so where socialist get things wrong is what happens in the real world..

    blah blah blah

    guess what?

    Capitalism = Cronyism
    Communism = Cronyism

    how can I tell?

    I observe, without spouting socialist or fibertarian bullshit about why what I see isn't true.

  • matt||

    i didn't think occupy was calling for communism... maybe some of them are, but i thought the broadest support was for raising taxes on the rich, providing health care to the poor, establishing banking laws like we had in the 1950's and 60's, and getting the money out of politics....

    those aren't the tenets of communism.. at least those aren't the ten tenets mentioned in the communist manifesto (which is where most of my knowledge on communist theory comes from)

  • ||

    The whole "give us free stuff or we will blow up your shit" thing is kinda vaguely communist though, no?

  • matt||

    occupy is not saying that.. if they were, then we would be in the middle of a revolution

  • Campinginyourpark||

    The funny thing is...we will sit out here in the park and waste months of our lives to make someone else do what we're too stupid to do ourselves.

  • Jeffersonian||

    lulz...we'd be in the middle of it for about five minutes.

  • ||

    There's no requirement that they must understand the consequences of their advocacy and their preferences in policy. They believe in stupid shit, which happens to be/lead to immoral and detrimental horseshit. I don't give a fuck what they're saying -- I'm watching what they're doing.

  • yeah, we're watching you too||

    So when are you going to start whipping slaves, for teh children?

    My child is gravely ill...He'd like more than anything else to boss me around, and then whip me every time I displeased him.

    Voluntary Slave Contracts
    by Walter Block, Austrian economist and Libertarian professor
    www.lewrockwell.com/block/block134.html

    The 99%'s raised eyebrow gazes upon thee.

  • nekoxgirl||

    kinky!

  • ||

    I never took you as a "Story of O" kinda guy.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "The 99%'s raised eyebrow gazes upon thee."

    Funny how you make some vague accusations of slavery, and then close with a proclamation of mindless collectivist autonomy in the name of YOUR beliefs.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The Occutards are just waiting for the signal, matt. THEN, they'll start burning shit the way Muslims freak out when someone draws a cartoon of their child-molester figurehead.

  • FIFY the RomneyBot ||

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    but i thought the broadest support was for raising taxes on the rich

    Taking money through force to redistribute to political cronies is justifiable, how?

    providing health care to the poor

    Shouldn't OWS protest directly to hospitals and other health care providers, then? Better yet, why not start a hospital or clinic specifically for poor people? You could even turn it into a job for yourself, and make money.

    establishing banking laws like we had in the 1950's and 60's

    Actually, not a bad idea. I would like to see all banking/finance/securities regulations repealed. A regulatory environment like 1950 would be great. Hell, I'd like to see all banking/finance/securities law blown up. Unfortunately, OWS advocates for more regulations and laws.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "those aren't the tenets of communism.. at least those aren't the ten tenets mentioned in the communist manifesto (which is where most of my knowledge on communist theory comes from)"

    Uh, progressive tax and magical free healthcare are right out of Marx's Ten Pillars to Totalitarianism.

  • Bill||

    We don't get it wrong, you do. We know that the more things you have the gov't run and regulate, the more corruption you have and the more unfair the outcome. You want to say there has never been a free market (which we agree with) and then you go on to say so let's do more of what caused the problems in the first place. But sadly you can't think more than one layer of logic deep so all you can see are your good intentions for what will happen when Top Men are put in charge and everything works out according to your "plan".

    Oddly enough, your plans never have any details and when the laws are written you have to pass them and then maybe read them later to see what they say.

  • we||

    This notion that our system isn't "real" capitalism, and even the Gilded Age wasn't "real" capitalism...

    ... maybe not, but then ...

    ...just for a moment, possibly entertain the notion that Stalin and Pol Pot were not the truest expression of socialism?

  • No True Scotsman||

    Only capitalists are allowed to pull the "no-true-scotsman" fallacy.

    However, communism must be judged by its results, however imperfect.

    Sorry, but that's what they told me.

  • we||

    Oh. I didn't know the rules. Thanks for setting me straight.

  • No True Scotsman||

    Son, all I've ever asked of Americans is that they believe in the Invisible Hand as they would the word of God. We rich elite are here to help the poor, because inside every laid off loser there is a successful American trying to get out. It's a hardball world, son. We've gotta keep our heads until this recession rage blows over.

  • Sevo||

    No True Scotsman|3.16.12 @ 8:19PM|#
    "Son, all I've ever asked of Americans is that they believe in the Invisible Hand as they would the word of God."

    Satire or bullshit?

  • Full Metal Jacket||

    Written.
    www.imdb.com/title/tt0093058/quotes

    For the Comrade Political Officer. Sir!
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VHKpGJX29s

    ;)

  • Sevo||

    Bullshit.
    Got it.

  • ||

    Well, they government-run currencies are fucking up, so they need a new one -- and bullshit's as good as anything else, right?

  • Aye, Aye, Comrade Zampolit!||

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "However, communism must be judged by its results, however imperfect. "

    As to the fact that those results come directly from the application of the repressive totalitarianism and crimes against humanity that Marx insisted were neecessary to bring about egaltarian utopia: SHHHHHHHHHH.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Or Kim or Mao or Castro or Hoxha or Tito or Mao or Honecker or Mugabe or Lenin or...

    We seem to have a systematic problem.

  • Quite a Trail of Tears||

    Don't forget the American killing fields.

    "...to pursue [Indians] to extermination, or drive them to new seats beyond our reach." ~Thomas Jefferson

  • Joe||

    Ahhh if only Jefferson were alive today

  • ||

    He'd commit suicide about a day into his renewed life.

  • suicide is painless||

  • Jerryskids||

    He'd be clawing at the inside of his coffin.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Of course Jefferson was remarking how the Indians had allied themselves with the British against the United States, massacring women and children, and thus deserved to be forcibly separated from the rest of the nation.

    Ellipses are a bitch, no?

  • ||

    Don't be ridiculous, dude. What the hell do you think this is, rational discourse? Nobody cares about stupid things like facts and context and stuff.

    DED WHITE MALES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! is all anybody needs to know.

  • Jeffersonian||

    I know, silly me. And earlier in the same letter Jefferson regetted that things hadn't gone better with the Indians, despite apparently valiant efforts to do so. He even looked forward to when whites and Indians "would have mixed their blood with ours, and been amalgamated and identified with us within no distant period of time."

    Not exactly Himmler there.

  • ||

    It really fucking makes my blood boil when some two-bit pinko faggot starts ravaging me with an hour-long Wilson/FDR/Obama eulogy, any his answer to anything pre-1914 is, "oh, like those guys like john jefferson and thomas quincy adams n stuff -- i heard about those guys in civics class once, i think!!"

    Knowledge/education, how the fuck does it work?

  • Jeffersonian||

    The most hilarious thing being that if it had been up to Wilson, guys like Obama would be allowed to scrub toilets and sweep floors in DC, at best. Wilson was a vile racist, a fact quickly covered up by today's "progressives."

  • ||

    I like to introduce any discussion of Wilson when debating politics by announcing him as the Federal Segregationist. Progressives you're arguing with = mind-fucked.

  • American Indian Holocaust||

    Genocide is genocide, and Jefferson took part in it, even if he was a conflicted man, and a better man than Himmler.

    Agricultural city-Statism does that to good people.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Wrong. Jefferson was steadfastly on the side of friendship, peace and commerce with the Indians. Only when they stabbed America in the back and allied themselves in war against it did Jefferson then turn violent. The Indians were quite adept at exterminating white settlers, too (and each other, I might add). He wasn't conficted, he modified his views when more data became available.

    Did they not think anyone was going to shoot back once they made war on America?

  • American Indian Holocaust||

    Wrong, Jefferson personally wanted to be friends, but as leader of the agricultural city-Statism hordes, had to talk and do what was politically expedient for the last 10,000 years of agricultural city-Statism: Invade and Occupy.

  • ||

    GAM-BOWL LAWK-DOWN

    IS IN FULL EE-FECT,

    MUH-FUCKERS

  • I'm living in ur head rentfree||

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

  • Jeffersonian||

    "GAM-BOWL LAWK-DOWN"

    I mean, I can see what's going on here. White Idiot is preying on the gaseous guilt that has been inculcated into white America for the past 40-50 years. We are to just assume that the goddamn Indians were peaceful, pastoral and were purely the victims of bad old Whitey, but it just isn't true, no matter what Billy Jack says.

  • ||

    The topic of discussion isn't even relevant in his case, dude. Modern energy policy; North American Indians; libertarianism; anything -- any subject you could hope to discuss, he'll fuck up with his insidious horseshit. He's just a fucking retard. Never hope for anything even fractionally rational or logical or reasonable from the moron.

  • you mad bro?||

  • ||

    It gets tedious real quick.

  • Jeffersonian||

    You really have no clue, do you? Jefferson never took part in or ordered the removal of or aggression against Indians. The letter you mendaciously cited was from after he left the Presidency, in 1813, and his views only changed from friendship to hostility because of the Indians' open aggression against settlers.

  • ||

    Obama saved America from the Tea Party redneck lynch mob. FDR saved America from the capitalist-induced socioeconomic disasters of his time. Thomas Jefferson Holocaust HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR.

    This asshole isn't exactly original, is he?

  • Quoting Jefferson in 1776||

    "...the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

    Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776
    www.archives.gov/exhibits/char.....cript.html

    Oops. Got a clue yet?

  • ||

    An accurate description of their savagery. Yep, I got a clue -- Thomas Jefferson wasn't a politically correct limpdick. Let's move on to your next tirade.

  • Savage = dweller of the woods||

    what's accurate, you mendacious agricultural city Statist?

  • Jeffersonian||

    "...the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions."

    Just so. And it does not appear things changed much from 1776 to 1813, with the Indians massacring settlers in precisely such a manner.

    IOW, there was going to be war between the whites and the Indians. It's just that you're sore that the Indians lost it, White Idiot.

  • Jeffersonian goes all NEO-CON||

    Might makes right, sore loser. HOORAH!

    LOL, Fibertard's true colors come through.

  • Jeffersonian||

    LOL, Fibertard's true colors come through.

    Here's a lesson: Don't start a war if you're not prepared to lose it. The Indians allied themselves with Britain again (as they did prior to 1776, prompting the part of the DoI you dishonestly clipped off), killing and destroying.

    Again, was everyone supposed to stand around and let them? Is this primitive logic?

  • Indians didn't invade Europe||

    maybe that fact is lost on Jeffersonian

  • Jeffersonian||

    LOL, Fibertard's true colors come through.

    Here's a lesson: Don't start a war if you're not prepared to lose it. The Indians allied themselves with Britain again (as they did prior to 1776, prompting the part of the DoI you dishonestly clipped off), killing and destroying.

    Again, was everyone supposed to stand around and let them? Is this primitive logic?

  • Indians didn't invade Europe||

    maybe that fact is lost on Jeffersonian

  • water closet||

    The indians would have invaded and conquered Europe if they could have. Fortunately, they were a pathetic, backward bunch of unimportant savages.

  • toiletarian||

    The libertarians would have been voted into government if they could have. Fortunately, they were a pathetic, backward bunch of unimportant mouth breathers.

    Wanna go another round?

  • ||

    Wow that is so clever.

    You know, some people would actually debate the merits of your rantings if you didn't resort to name calling and fifth grade antics.

  • you drew first blood||

    Wow that is so clever.

    You know, some people would actually debate the merits of your rantings if you didn't resort to name calling and fifth grade antics.

  • ||

    How exactly did I draw first blood?

  • Jeffersonian||

    maybe that fact is lost on Jeffersonian

    So? Indians came from Asia. And?

  • ||

    Hey, Jeff -- I think White Shistain here has a particularly acute case of Butthurt Syndrome.

  • Jeffersonian||

    He's truly an idiot.

  • You're butthurt...||

    ...because you lose every election.

    Hey, loser, just admit your dream of life has been defeated.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Hey, loser, just admit your dream of life has been defeated.

    You want to run around naked, stepping in bufflo shit and **my** dream has been defeated??

    You're bonkers.

  • naked, stepping in bufflo shit||

    Actually, the Indians thought of the civilized people as filthy.

    And they were.

    That's why medical science today calls many ailments "Diseases of Civilization."

    Oh, enjoy your ammonia soaked fecal burger from the glorious capitalist shitserver.

  • Jeffersonian||

    So go buy a few acres, Jason, strip naked and gambol. No one is fucking stopping you, least of all here. Throw away the laptop, the iPhone, the antibiotics, the teevee, the running water, the sanitation, the roads...and live like you want.

    Why are you online when you could be naked and sleeping under the stars?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Agricultural city-Statism does that to good people."

    What excuse do tribal people who killed off entire groups of enemy peoples (apart from those they integrated through slavery) fall back on?

  • Any excuse will do 4 genocide||

  • Jeffersonian||

    I know, so lame. "They're making war on us...whaaaaa!!" I mean, Jefferson and everyone else should have just stood around and waited to be slaughtered by those noble savages, pure gambolers as they were.

    But you know, White Idiot, they were allied with the Brits and, had they prevailed, do you think the British would have put up with that shit? Maybe you ought to read about how the Brits dealt with that other bunch of Indians...

  • American Indian Holocaust||

    I'm familiar. Maybe you should read this:

    The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America (Cultural Origins of North America)
    James Axtell
    Oxford University Press

    There's even a chapter called "White Indians." ;)

  • ||

    George Catlin's 'North American Indians' is also enjoyable. But my point stands -- gambol lockdown is in full effect.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Sorry, I'm washing my hair and sorting my socks. No time.

  • ||

    Hey, dude, you probably mutilated a baby llama and made use of city-statist privation property to claim those socks and the drawer they're in as yours, didn't you?

    Even when you're away from H&R, you're engaged in immoral gamboler-culling. How disgusting!

  • you mad bro?||

  • Spike||

    I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody Indians.

    You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land.

    That's what conquering nations do. It's what Caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it."

    The history of the world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story.

  • ||

    vene, vidi, pee-pee

  • Neat NEO-CON HOORAH!||

    What the hell, is the NAP just a bunch of bullshit?

  • ||

    i like mine at about 3:00pm...

  • Civilis||

    Capitalism is just what individuals 'do' without outside coercion. (I made six flint arrowheads. I will trade three arrowheads for ten deer pelts.) Individual capitalist mistakes don't throw the whole system off in the long run, they don't have the power to (ex. 'I accidentally bought two left shoes'). In a socialist system, if the system makes a mistake, it necessarily propagates through the system to a much greater extent ('factory 12 produced only left shoes to meet quota')

  • Capitalism requires coercion.||

    Without government initiation of force, there would be no capitalism. Or communism. Or even civilization itself.

  • Sevo||

    Worthy of..............

  • Comrade Sevo registers his...||

    ...disagreement and inability to argue coherently. Da, comrade political officer. A brave stand tonight against the Enemies of the cityState.

  • Sevo||

    Comrade Sevo registers his...

    More bullshit from the bullshiter worthy of........

  • *yawn*||

    do you just copy and paste that crap?

  • Sevo||

    *yawn*
    More bullshit from the bullshiter worthy of........

  • *yawn more*||

  • Sevo||

    *yawn more*
    Please do. Keeps you from bullshitting.

  • you mad bro?||

  • Civilis||

    True. Life requires force. Because man is imperfect, human society has always required force. Civilization, yes, requires force. The best we can do for the forseeable future is minimize the use of coercion/force by maximizing the ability of people to obtain things through voluntary tranactions.

  • The N.A.P. takes a nap, eh?||

    At least you're honest and not dogmatic about the NAP. I can live with that.

  • Civilis||

    I strongly support libertarian ideals because they minimize coercive transactions (implicitly based on force) and maximize voluntary transactions, which works out best for me as a random member of society. I don't agree that a pure libertarian society works best in all circumstances. In the era of industrial warfare (~1800-1945) it doesn't matter how pure your society is, if your opponent can mobilize more resources to crushing you than you can put up to stop him, you get crushed. It doesn't matter how much it sucks to be a random person in such a place. Thankfully, we're past that stage.

  • libertarianism loves coercion||

    they just whitewash the coercion necessary to enforce what they define as their "rights"

  • Civilis||

    Calm down, debate rationally. All this time, I've not insulted you, nor relied on cheap rhetorical tricks. You've responded with reasonable responses and seemed to actually want to debate up until very recently, unlike the way you've treated everyone else.

    Can you give me a serious definition of 'libertarian' and a serious definition of what constitutes 'coercion'?

  • libertarian coercion...||

    ...to enforce agricultural city-Statist granted "rights."

    1. Man roles out sleeping bag in corner of field on the grass, which happens to be at the intersection of four artificial borders meant to restrict free movement of people.
    2. Man falls asleep.
    3. Four libertarian farmers will claim he's agressing against them.
    4. Four libertarian farmers will initiate violence against the sleeping wanderer, and call it their "right."

    That's how much libertarians love agricultural city-Statist initiation-of-aggression.

    They whitewash their aggression by the silly argument that a sleeping man is somehow aggressing against four "property" owners.

    Go for it.

  • Civilis||

    Again, can you give me your definition of the words 'libertarian' and 'coercion'?

    In your example, are there any 'no trespassing' signs or fences? What's the social covenant regarding easements and right of way?

  • Sevo||

    "In the era of industrial warfare (~1800-1945) it doesn't matter how pure your society is, if your opponent can mobilize more resources to crushing you than you can put up to stop him, you get crushed."

    Uh, try this again minus the claim of a 'pure society'.
    The era you refer to was one of the development of rent-seeking.

  • Civilis||

    I agree. I'm speaking in hypotheticals. "Suppose two equal size/population/resource/industrial capacity countries, 1939 tech levels. Country A is libertarian. Country B is a communist/socialist/fascist dictatorship with claims on some/all of A's territory. Country B begins extensive military mobilization. Can country A survive while still being remotely libertarian?" Answer: No (my opinion; others may argue differently). If you changed the tech level to, say, 1989, then I'd say Yes.

  • ||

    If you and I live in a deserted island where we can gambol to our hearts content, and I catch 6 fish while you gathered 18 coconuts and then I traded three of my fish for six of your coconuts, capitalism just started on our little free island. And it started without the use of government force.

  • that's not capitalism, idiot||

    capitalism is claiming abstract ownership of the earths surface and resources, and then charging fellow humans rent for daring to live on the earth

  • ||

    See, I was trying to be civil and have a dialogue. I refrained from name calling, but you just can't do that, can you?

    You do know that even hunter-gatherer tribes claimed certain geographical areas as "theirs" right?

  • Civilis||

    Cite, please?

    Merriam Webster defines capitalism as an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.

    DesigNate's example is a simple example of the distribution of goods in a free market, therefore, it is capitalism. Your definition is unusual; perhaps if you want to be a part of a larger debate you might want to at least understand the definitions for terms everyone else is using and use them the same way so we can understand what you are asking?

  • Trading furs =/= capital goods||

    quit scamming me on definitions, Civilis

  • ||

    introducing the brand new chevy electric goalpost mover...

  • ||

    Everything that lives tries to claim ownership of territory.

    Would you feel better if the four libertarian farmers in your scenario had marked their territorial boundaries with a stream of urine? If they took the action other male great apes take when their territory is invaded? Or do you truly believe that humans, alome of all creatures on Earth, have no territorial instincts?

  • Big Cat Kahuna||

    I don't know if I want to lurk here anymore. It's getting to be more and more like some pot-fueled collegiate late-nighter. I know my comment rates a "Can't counter my points so just shut up," etc.

    But really, the above statement...I mean what can you say? A head scruff and a kindly, "oh my child," seems about right.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Without government initiation of force, there would be no capitalism. Or communism. Or even civilization itself."

    So, Civilizaion requires government to exist, which itself requires Civilization to initiate, propagate and justify it's own existence.

    So which is it? Chicken or egg?

  • man, that's lukewarm||

    just for a moment, possibly entertain the notion that Stalin and Pol Pot were not the truest expression of socialism?

    Socialism is the confiscation of wealth by a centralized authority which then uses that wealth for whatever the centralized authority wants. There are many different political salespitches for what the centralized authority would/will/should do with the confiscated wealth, but human nature doesn't change and those in charge of using the confiscated wealth will, inevitably use it in a self-interested way.

    Wealth is created by the action of individuals working either together or individually. The individual exchanges his time and efforts for the wealth. When someone takes the individual's wealth, that someone is taking a part of the individual. In the extreme cases of Communism/Marxism/Leninism, the state takes everything, making the individual into a slave.

  • man, that's bullshit||

    Capialism is the confiscation of wealth by a centralized authority which then uses that wealth for whatever the centralized authority wants.

    The first man who, having fenced in a piece of land, said "This is mine," and found people naive enough to believe him, that man was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows: Beware of listening to this imposter; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.

    ~Jean Jacques Rousseau
    Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality Among Men (1754)

  • ||

    Dude, even your "original affluent society" bullshit had property. When the Comanche and the Sioux were gamboling over hill and plain, it's not like they were all living in one communal teepee. And they understood capitalism just fine seeing as how they traded furs and arrows and tools for wampum.

    But I guess that doesn't count or something.

  • No, trading furs doesn't count||

    Capitalism is quite different. Capitalism requires violence, and you whitewash it.

  • ||

    see, see, i just knew going into Wal Mart would someday kill me...

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    "you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody."

    Is this where you fkheads get "private property is the root of all evil"?
    If so, somebody dig up JJR and drive a stake through his heart because his bad idea lives on in the minds of vampire hippies.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Capialism is the confiscation of wealth by a centralized authority which then uses that wealth for whatever the centralized authority wants."

    No, that's Socialism/Communis, as the nice man explained slowly for you.

    I can get that you didn't bother to read what he wrote, but what's your excuse for missing the past 150+ years of political history?

  • Getoffmybuzz||

    This is all a question of morality and I can't find any standard except my own interests. What exactly will I get out of any OWS agenda? If I'm a 1 percenter(by world standards that's 37 grand a year) what exactly is the reason I need to pay attention to this?

  • yeah, oil spills are natural||

    because oil comes from the ground

    it's like I'm at the golf course

  • WanT||

    You pretty much had me up till the anti IP stuff...

    Sure, an upstart is constrained by IP law if they're trying to use a patented idea... but the upstart can also have their new idea protected allowing them entry to the market. With no IP law, the upstart's product can be immediately copied by a larger, resource-laden competitor and typically brought to market at a fraction of the cost then as for the upstart.

    Don't get me wrong, IP needs lots of reform (especially in software sphere), but to say its a sinister tool of larger corporations is completely false.

  • Campinginyourpark||

    You really think these people are have an idea they can't use because of patent law? LMFAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
    This is all about a reason to tax the "wealthy" that don't deserve to keep what they have because...umm...mom said I can stay out here and camp for a few weeks if I wash the Benz...LMAOOOOOOOO

  • Campinginyourpark||

    I used 2 verbs because I'm all about action, man!

  • Getondeeznutz||

    You owe me for my ancestors not being as smart or frugal as yours!

  • Nando||

  • Sevo||

    Define "inequality".

  • Nando||

    It's explained in the first paragraph.

  • Sevo||

    So it's bullshit?
    That's what I thought.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Quoting Al Jazeera? Shit, that's lower than quoting DemocraticUnderground.

  • Nando||

    Don't want to hurt your confirmation bias.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What the fuck are you talking about?

  • what are you spooks up to?||

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Don't want to hurt your confirmation bias."

    Confimation bias my ass. There's opposing views, and then there's Holocaust Deniers and 9/11 Conspiracy whackos.

  • Comrade Sevo need a dictionary||

    About 20 years ago, economic inequality was an oft-used critique against communism...but that was then.

    Economic inequality (also known as the gap between rich and poor, income inequality, wealth disparity, or "wealth and income differences") comprises all disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income.

  • Sevo||

    "Economic inequality (also known as the gap between rich and poor, income inequality, wealth disparity, or "wealth and income differences") comprises all disparities in the distribution of economic assets and income."

    Oh, the HORROR!
    Stop the presses! Some people have more stuff than others!

  • So it's OK if I have a Dacha..||

    ...and you live in a mud hovel, comrade?

  • Sevo||

    Worthy of.............

  • Warty oaf....comrade Sevo||

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "So it's OK if I have a Dacha..
    ...and you live in a mud hovel, comrade?"

    Only so long as you're a member of The Party.

  • Nando||

    Having more stuff isn't the problem.
    Pay attention, this next bit is quite important.
    People who have the stuff (ie the so 1%) are increasing how much stuff they are getting, while the rest (the 99%) are not increasing their lot.
    This discrepancy is greater than it has ever been.
    Ergo, those who don't have stuff are not able to improve their lot.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So fucking what, Nando?

  • Nando||

    It means the so-called "American Dream" is not available to all.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Spare us the "equality of outcome" bullshit, Nando. It was a bogus argument from the day it was first uttered.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    So we should strive to make income as unequal as possible, got it chief.

    Oh wait, you aren't a chief in anything.

    OBAMA 2012.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    What you want, cannot be done. Either no one - including those in elected office, ESPECIALLY those in elected office - has more than anyone else... or we have "inequality", which is the natural order of things.

    Bitching because your neighbor has a nicer house or car than you, is just pitiful envy-based worldview bullshit... but you child-fuckers slurp that worldview down like a whore chugs semen.

  • TROLOLOLOLOL 2012||

    "Bitching because your neighbor has a nicer house or car than you"

    Because that is what it's about, rather than the fact that there are millions of people barely making ends meet while a small group has a massively disproportionate amount that could pay for their lavish lifestyles tens of times over. Got it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yes, that IS, as you say, "it".

    How long could those "millions of people" be "taken care of", even if your kind could confiscate all that wealth? What would happen after THAT money ran out?

    You can dream of fleecing the "millionaires and billionaires" of all of their wealth, but the simple fact remains that THAT won't fix anything... nor would raising taxes by four cents on the dollar. Much less, that, than the former.

    But keep dreaming, traitor.

  • ||

    Except the 99% HAVE increased their lot. So not only are you retarded, you're full of shit too.

  • ||

    dude, they're broke...

  • ||

    If you can afford iphones and ipads and stereo systems that cost $1,000's of dollars in your car, and designer clothes, you aren't THAT broke.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "dude, they're broke..."

    That'll happen when you spend half a year forcibly invading public and private property to assault, vandalize and defecate as you see fit.

  • ||

    ^this^

  • taxkilla||

    the most effective form of protest is to limit the amount of money you give the government.
    this tax season we can all play a decisive role in the occupy movement.
    Occupy the IRS !
    www.taxkilla.com

  • Nando||

    why do you hate the poor?

  • ||

    Are you seriously trying to argue that if we aren't FOR the government doing something, we are against it's being done AT ALL?

    WTF!?!

  • Nando||

    YES
    If the government won't do it, who will?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why does it need doing?

  • Nando||

    Why do you hate the poor?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Proof? Show your work. Let's see those telepathic skills, Nando.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Because poor people exist, nitwit.

    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That's not an answer, Obama-worshiping pedophile.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Actually it is when you consider the impact having a lot of poverty has on an economy, but hey!


    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    We've spent literally trillions of dollars on New Deal/Great Society shit, and we *still* have poor people. That, is not "progress".

  • OBAMA 2012||

    We have a lot less than if we didn't have any of those programs. Sadly it's never something that will be eradicated, just minimized. Doing nothing is certainly not the answer.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, you can foretell how the past would have played out. Reverse Nostradamus.

    You ARE a fool.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Just common sense buddy boy. You'd see it if you'd stop letting Ayn Rand defecate on your gray matter.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm not a fan of Rand, who hated libertarians, if you'd do your homework instead of cheerleading for the doom of our country.

  • Ayn Rand = Libertarian||

    ..in the wider sense of the term.

    Influential libertarian philosophers
    • Ayn Rand
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

    It usually begins with Ayn Rand
    Jerome Tuccile
    Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and the LP's Big Moment
    July 9, 2008
    reason.com/archives/2008/07/09/jerome-tuccille

    Whodathunkit, limpdick?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Actually it is when you consider the impact having a lot of poverty has on an economy, but hey!"

    Clearly the solution is to take money from certain segments of the population and burn it in a big pit to provide warmth for the homeless.

  • ||

    Then you are a fucking retard. Habitat-for-Humanity, Soup Kitchens, Red Cross, SPCA, Khan Academy....and those are just charities off the top of my head. I'm sure if I wanted to bother with doing a google search I could find more examples.

    A thought occurs to me: You didn't mention agricultural city-statism so I'm guessing you aren't WI. And I don't think I've even seen Tony come out and admit that the government is the only one that will do things. You're a regular aren't you?

    If so, well played. If not, then you are too stupid to live.

  • Charity 4 poor! gov't 4 elite!||

    WE NEED GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT OUR CAPITALIST SCAMMING RIGHTS.

  • ||

    You do realize that the government protects your rights and property too, right?

  • Civilis||

    Well, government would if it worked as intended. It's broken, and attempts to fix it by making it more powerful just break it more.

  • ||

    It seems to me that WI is advocating for all out anarchy. Maybe he's just pissed cause we aren't hard core enough?

  • Perpetual motion machines...||

    ...would supply infinite energy if they worked as intended.

    Government that works as intended is like a perpetual motion machine, that is, a fantasy.

    There ya have it, Fundie bois.

  • ||

    So you are pissed that we aren't hardcore enough to go full tilt anarchy?

  • man, that's lukewarm||

    OT

    Some one please explain to me again why we ever wanted to get rid of Gadhafi?

  • ||

    Some of these uses of the state "political means" are merely functions of a working state. Anarcho-capitalism is the only alternative, and not every libertarian is an anarcho-capitalist.

  • man, that's lukewarm||

    randomly OT

    I can't stand the overuse of the phrase "take it to a whole new level".

  • JG Pennypacker||

    Those Gadhafis. Pure class!

    As a wealthy American Non-Profiteer, I had a deal in the works to set up a no holds barred Gadhafi kids (the Lockerbie bombers) vs the Hussein Boys (Saddam's Scuds) fight-to-the-death MMA match in a plexiglass cage at the Bellagio.

    It didn't pan out.

  • JG Pennypacker||

    Instead we had an Iron Sheik replica hawk the new slot machines.

    Still made a buck and gave it to Doctors Without Borders

  • water closet||

    “We are the 99 percent!” That’s the battle cry of Occupy Wall Street. What are we to make of it? It’s a worthwhile question with a complex answer.

    Sheldon Richman fails in his first paragraph. The question is not worthwhile, it's trivial and the answer is simple, not complex: "No, they aren't the 99%."

  • ||

    I also object to Richman's use of the term "battle cry". These pussies would last about ten seconds against one guy with a handgun and decent aim. I'm even betting they'd all manage to fuck up their Molotov tosses.

  • Sevo||

    "I observe, without spouting socialist or fibertarian bullshit about why what I see isn't true."

    Nope; your stupidity prevents any possible 'seeing'; you spout bullshit simply because you're incapable of doing otherwise. Your bullshit an undefined bullshit.
    It is as pure a bullshit as anyone has ever seen. It is unlimited bullshit. It is bullshit that anyone of any bias sees as bullshit. There probably isn't a single word you've ever posted here that isn't bullshit.
    Simply, it is bullshit to the ^n bullshit. Googleplex bullshit!
    Oh, and did I mention you're a bullshitter?

  • Comrade Political Officer SEVO||

    ...takes a brave stand against the Enemies of the cityState!

    Angling for some vodka, tovarisch?

  • Sevo||

    More bullshit worthy of...........

  • ||

    Sevo's a libertarian, dumbass. He would have been arrested by the NKVD and shot at Lubyanka for counter-revolutionary insurrectionism. At least TRY.

  • Da, Comrade||

    Agricultural city-States are like that.

  • Sevo||

    "At least TRY."
    When all you have is bullshit, that *is* "trying".
    There's nothing else there; it's bullshit all the way down.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    You're just jealous that Obama is fixing the economy.

  • Sevo||

    When all you have is bullshit, that *is* "trying".

  • OBAMA 2012||

    You sound like a broken record, libertarian.

    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Speaking of broken records...

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Lots of them here.

    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Only a pedophile would vote for Obama.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I had to laugh when it said "fixing the economy". That's like tossing a puppy in a blender, and saying you've just made a delicious health shake.

  • PETA||

    We'd look the other way on pureed puppies, if it meant Obama gets at least another four years to rule us all.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Nah, I'd say he's actually fixing the economy. Denial is not a river in egypt, friend (not really my friend)

    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He hasn't fixed shit, cocksucker.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Except the economy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yeah, it's going gangbusters. We're all just fartin' through silk.

    /sarcasm

  • OBAMA 2012||

    But it's getting better (all the time)

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You're really that brainwashed, aren't you?

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Is it not getting better? Jobs added? Growth recovering? Oh yeah.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It would recover more quickly if your figurehead ruler and his minions would just get the fuck out of the way and stop trying to "fix" things.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Ah, so you admit it's recovering. Looks like I was right all along.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I did nothing of the sort. I don't think it IS recovering. I *said* "it would recover more quickly".

    Gotcha bullshit is gotcha bullshit, traitor.

  • TROLOLOLOLOL 2012||

    "It would recover more quickly"

    This implies that it is recovering, albeit a slower rate.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I have yet to see any recovery. Shit may be slightly less worse than it was, but that's not "recovery".

    If Obama bit the head off a live newborn kitten on live TV... would you still vote for him?

  • Team Blue||

    If that's what it takes... besides, the kitten probably had it coming.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "You're just jealous that Obama is fixing the economy."

    Yeah, they did the same thing to Oliver Cromwell.

  • man, that's lukewarm||

    I don't know whether to be repelled or impressed by the H&R troll. He is annoying, but he has tremendous stamina.

  • Outcompeting the competitors||

    And they're butthurt.

  • Legend in its own mind||

  • Confidence & stamina, loser.||

    White Indian counts coup on your small brained fear-of-wilderness.

    Know why horses run back in a barn on fire?

    Same reason libertarians keep defending agricultural city-Statism (civilization.)

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "White Indian counts coup on your small brained fear-of-wilderness."

    White Indian's concept of wilderness begins and ends with the grass on the university quad.

  • Maxxx||

    He is annoying, but he has tremendous stamina.

    Stamina = shrill fugly wife that drives hubby to self imposed basement exile.

  • thirtyandseven||

    Wife? You overestimate Primitard's intersex relational capacity.

    But he'd probably tell you his virginity results from a deeply held conviction that sex is an institution of cITy-stATe oppression.

  • Married, sex 3x in 24 hrs.||

    Philosophically triumphing over the über-competitors builds up lots of testosterone. Hey, I hope your testosterone level isn't drooping too low for an erection. So sad.

    McCain Vote Might Mean Low Testosterone Later
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/M.....id=8884703

    The testosterone levels of men who voted for Obama stayed the same throughout the evening.

    OBAMA 2012.

    For better SEX.

    Women like that.

  • ||

    Married, sex 3x in 24 hrs.

    Interesting, you struck a nerve

  • Fibertard limp dicks explained||

    The testosterone levels of MEN WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA stayed the same throughout the evening.

    McCain Vote Might Mean Low Testosterone Later
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/M.....id=8884703

    OBAMA 2012.

    For better SEX.

    Women like that. If you know one.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Reminds me of that old chestnut about Democrats promising the government will do everything from mowing your lawn to improving your sex life.

  • ||

    you know in your guts,
    that he's nuts...

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Obama 2012! He'll fix those greedy corporations!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Speaking of broken records...

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Yeah, many libertarian broken records in this thread.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off, traitor.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    A traitor for supporting the man who is repairing the economy? I think you lack a proper definition of the word "traitor".

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You, and the man you support, are BOTH traitors, and I know how to use the word properly.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Clearly not.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    The ONLY way you can have the world you want, Obamatard, is to shitcan all freedom as we know it - certainly what little we have left - and replace it with a government that watches every person to make sure no one has more money or stuff than anyone else.

    Of course, to *really* work fairly, that would include the people in power... but I'm betting you either forgot how highly Soviet-era politicians lived, or how well-heeled Kim Jong was, or how many square meals the Castro brothers get.

    THAT, is the world you and your punk-ass president want for us.

    Fuck that.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Or maybe that's not how it would happen at all as there are many socialized countries in the world and I don't think any of them are considered oppressed countries. You seem to have communism and socialism confused, my friend (not really my friend)

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I know the difference, and if you did your due diligence, you'd know they're related concepts.

    We're HEADED that way, and Obama isn't doing a damn thing about it. The "patriot" Act is still in place, DHS is watching and listening, the IRS perpetrates revenge-based audits... and you liberals look the other way.

    Fuck, Bush was bad enough for liberty... Obama is no better.

    Lap it up, traitor.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Related does not mean equal. At all.

    And no, we aren't headed towards communism. That's laughable. And I'm pretty sure you should direct your anger towards congress instead of OBAMA.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, I have plenty of loathing for Congress, too... all but maybe two out of the Gang of 535, ought to be banished from the land in lifetime exile for their crimes.

    I said we're headed for the kind of America where the government clamps down on freedom. We'll likely wind up like China's current system, or worse, and you fools will go along with it... happily.

    I'll bet you pleasure yourself when you read about how North Korean citizens are treated.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    By the way, it's "Obama". Not all-caps.

    Oh, and... he's just a mortal. Hate to burst your bubble, Sparky, but he's flesh-and-blood, just like everyone else.

  • TROLOLOLOLOL 2012||

    OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck, it's like a cultist chanting the name of his savior.

    NO president - let alone ANY politician - deserves to be treated larger-than-life. If anything, they deserve nothing but scorn.

  • Paultard||

    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL
    NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL NEWT PAUL

  • Never mind what I signed.||

    "I disavow." ~Newt Paul

  • Communism = Capitalism||

    mostly

    If you did your due diligence, you'd realize both are just slight variations on Agricultural city-Statism.

    And both capitalism and communism enforce a brutal Gambol Lockdown to force people into working in their fields, factories, offices, and armies.

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest foraging a free lunch?

    MARX: NO!
    MISES: NO!

  • Civilis||

    Squirrels and grizzly bear are both just slight variations on animals. Be careful when out hunting.

  • Statist Fear-Of-Wilderness FUD||

    Small-brained Domesticates always bring up the fear-of-wilderness SCARY STUFF outside the comfort of their Nanny city-State walls.

    Yeah, you're a small-brained domesticated idiocrat. (Read The Domestication of the Human Species by Peter J. Wilson, Yale University Press.)

    One of the most recognizable signs of domestication is a reduction in brain size—domestication makes a population stupid.

    Wolves & Dogs
    by Jason Godesky
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....index.html

    Yep, your brain is getting smaller.

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

  • Civilis||

    I don't know, I'm still capable of rational debate after 14 hours. It's been instructive to watch your debate skills since last night.

  • A Boy and His Dog||

    Most of the human brain domestication shrinkage has been in the olfactory bulb, because of co-evolution with dogs (who do the smelling and alerting for us.) But I think it's going idiocracy style now. Look around and dare disagree.

    Anyway, there's hope to rewild to your genetic potential if you make it through Purgatory.

    Nuclear World War will be deliverance from the hell of civilization
    www.youtube.com/user/DeepRainforest/videos

    A Boy And His Dog
    www.imdb.com/title/tt0072730/

  • Civilis||

    Idiocy? Today? As opposed to someone sitting under a tanned skin in freezing weather, eating burnt deer guts slaving away at banging rocks together so that he can have a few spears to bring down another deer when the weather warms? Admittedly, we've got luddites and so-called progressives that are stuck wishing for a past that never was, but those have been throughout history.

    Humanity will die out eventually, one way or another. But we owe it to ourselves and our future generations to see how far we can go and what we can do.

  • Original Affluent Society||

    Keep up your city-Statist caricatures of pre-conquest life, but your abusive Nanny city-State treats you much worse, and is hardly progress.

    Would you rather sit around a fire tonight with a band of brothers? Or text them from your desk slave job? Yeah.

    Imagine being part of a society with are no taxes, politics, leaders, bosses, 9 to 5 jobs, little crime, and no rich or poor people. In their world, everything is shared, and happiness seems to not include the accumulation of more goods. ~Kevin Duffy, Children of the Forest

  • Civilis||

    I like my desk job; I'm certainly not a slave. I hate bugs and pollen and ice and smoke. If I liked sitting around a fire with a band of brothers I'd take up hunting; much easier, much less messy, and I could go home when I got bored. Me: campfire or desk, your choice. You: campfire.

    Personally, I've studied archeology. You're the one with the romanticized idea of primitive life; you're the one with no idea of the mindless drudgery of the background processes necessary so that you can run around in the forest and play hunter. It's okay, none of the people you cite tended to mention those little details, did they?

  • Empirical data isn't romantic.||

    mindless drudgery = bullshit understanding (you obviously weren't paying attention in class

    You spend more time commuting to your job than a hunter gatherer "worked" all day. And then his "work" was just what we take off from work and call play.

  • Civilis||

    Breaking my hands creating spearpoints is play? How much time have you spent flintknapping and preparing hides? Do you know how much effort it takes?

    Me, I'm the type that prefers reasoned, intellectual, rational debate as my form of entertainment. Oh, and I like to read as well. I admit I don't know what you do for fun, but I can look at what a majority of people do for fun.

  • Civilis||

    Just to humor me, what do you think a day in the life of a hunter-gatherer looks like? For bonus points, what is his retirement or disability pension look like?

  • ||

    I'm entertained by this new tack. Fear-of-wilderness? I don't fear the wilderness. But you'd be daft to not have a healthy respect for it. Fuck, even your "original affluent society" respected the fact that bears and mountain lions could eat them.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "You seem to have communism and socialism confused"

    Communism is a form of socialism, moron. That's like "confusing" dogs with labradors.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Obama 2012! He'll fix those greedy corporations!"

    . . . riiiiiight after they give him another record-setting amount in campaign funds.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Obama is the MAN!

  • Obama Campaign HQ||

    Your check is in the mail.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Received and cashed.

  • IRS||

    You DID pay taxes on that, right?

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Yeah, I paid them gladly, knowing I'm contributing my share to society for the services I use... instead of calling it "theft".

  • Mr. FIFY||

    So, you're saying you took money from the Obama campaign, to spew his propaganda... AND paid taxes on it.

    Very interesting, if true. And not at all surprising.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    I didn't say where I got my check from, just that a check was received and cashed. Reading comprehension not a strong suit, eh?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I wouldn't put it past a lowlife like you, getting paid from the DNC to shill for the mascot-in-chief.

  • TROLOLOLOLOL 2012||

    No I just do this to irritate you.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Irritating me is one thing... actively working to destroy what little freedom we have left after the Bush and Obama (shit, it goes farther back than those two cretins, but let's focus on the immediate past), is just plain goddamned sick.

  • Capitalism destroys freedom.||

    Capitalism deliberately destroys the Non-State lifeway of foraging a free lunch so that people can be starved into working in capitalist fields, factories, offices, and armies.

  • Civilis||

    Are you still on this? One year's minimum wage, and you have enough money to buy enough arable land for you to settle down on and live without working in someone else's field, factory, office, or army. Or you can choose to use either the governmental or private networks set up to provide food to those who can't or won't work for themselves.

  • Are you still on this?||

    Non-State foraging has been annihilated by aggression in 99.9% of the whole world now. Your denial is impressive.

  • Civilis||

    Work for one year, you have enough land to forage on for the rest of your life, and no libertarian will contest your right to do so.

    Your stubborn insistence that foraging was always annihilated by aggression is also impressive. History and archeology frequently shows us that over time, societies evolved into agricultural states.

  • City-Statism is Evolutionarily||

    ...inevitable? ok, but that's a weird position to take.

    BUT, at least you're getting the basics of the 4 main sociopolitical typologies, that civilization = agricultural city-Statism, a whole package.

    The great libertarian Cold Fusion Project to fuse the autonomy of Non-State peoples with the material toys of State societies will likely fail.

  • Civilis||

    You have nothing to base that on, unless you want to say anything human will likely fail.

    One of the more puzzling aspects of history, if looking at it from your perspective, must be the change in behavior in societies in the past hundred years. Since the dawn of history, societies that come to contest the use of natural resources for their survival have fought vigorously to own them. Persia fought to conquer Greece, Rome conquered the Mediterranean, the Aztecs conquered their neighbors, Napoleon attempted to conquer Europe. If they gave up land, it's because someone took it from them. Yet, suddenly, staring mid 1800s, many societies (predominantly those in Western Europe, which had claimed most of the territory to begin with) began shedding territory and natural resources voluntarily. As technology changes, the behaviors of individuals and societies change.

  • ||

    99.9% of the whole world? Really?

  • 99.999%. In 1975. Really.||

    "Today less than 0.001 per cent of the world's people live outside of the direct control of state societies."

    Elman R. Service (1975), Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural Evolution. New York: Norton.
    NON-STATE AND STATE SOCIETIES
    http://faculty.smu.edu/rkemper.....ieties.pdf

    Also see:
    Sociopolitical typology
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.....l_typology

  • Civilis||

    So? The big flaw in your logic is the simple fact that most of that 99.999 percent is growth within agricultural societies. If there had been no agricultural society, there wouldn't be 7 billion more primitive foragers.

  • Invasion + Conquest = Growth||

    Premise Two: Traditional communities do not often voluntarily give up or sell the resources on which their communities are based until their communities have been destroyed. They also do not willingly allow their landbases to be damaged so that other resources—gold, oil, and so on—can be extracted. It follows that those who want the resources will do what they can to destroy traditional communities.

    ~Derrick Jensen
    Endgame
    www.endgamethebook.org/Excerpts/1-Premises.htm

  • Civilis||

    I guess my previous comment was spot on:

    One of the more puzzling aspects of history, if looking at it from your perspective, must be the change in behavior in societies in the past hundred years. Since the dawn of history, societies that come to contest the use of natural resources for their survival have fought vigorously to own them. Persia fought to conquer Greece, Rome conquered the Mediterranean, the Aztecs conquered their neighbors, Napoleon attempted to conquer Europe. If they gave up land, it's because someone took it from them. Yet, suddenly, staring mid 1800s, many societies (predominantly those in Western Europe, which had claimed most of the territory to begin with) began shedding territory and natural resources voluntarily. As technology changes, the behaviors of individuals and societies change.

  • I don't see any change...||

    ...in the invasive and occupational nature of culture, but we're all in the same boat now, so good luck changing it. I don't think you'll be successful, because you're ignoring too many things:

    1. Dunbar's Number (mass society doesn't work)
    2. Environmental destruction (civilization is fundamentally unsustainable)
    3. Technology isn't salvation; it is used mostly for control by the hierarchy. (thermonuclear war for dwindling resources is nearly inevitable)

  • Civilis||

    1. Propose a solution that most people would agree would work better if you can. It works well enough.
    2.&3. are strictly hypothetical. Civilization is fundamentally unsustainable is true in the sense that humanity is doomed because the universe will die of heat death in 20 billion years. There's a fuckload of resources out there; we just need the technology to use them. Technology is what you make of it. The key is to remove as much of the government heirarchy as you can.

    You keep bringing up thermonuclear war as being inevitable. This is unsupportable conjecture. The one thing nuclear weapons have done is minimize the amount of inter-society violence. (Intra-society violence is a separate problem we are trying tom solve.)

  • ||

    That's not what you said, you said that:

    Non-State foraging has been annihilated by aggression in 99.9% of the whole world now

    The way that sentence is structured, it is saying that 99.9% of the available foraging outside of "States" has been annihilated by aggression. Not that 99.9% of the world's population live inside some kind of "State".

  • Joe Cassara||

    Just one minor correction regarding the availability of personal computers: you could in fact buy one before the early 1980s. I suggest you research what is known as "the 1977 Trinity", comprised of the RadioShack TRS – 80, the Commodore Pet, and the Apple II.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I still have an Amiga... anyone want to buy it?

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Nobody wants it.

    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off, socialist child-fucker.

  • NAMBLA||

    Oh, HELL no. We don't want him in our ranks.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Yes, resist socialism like the neanderthals you are. It's not like we're getting surpassed by any of those socialist countries in anything important... like education.

    tee hee.

    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Only a fucking retard would embrace socialism.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Like a large chunk of the western world... right?

    OBAMA 2012

  • Mr. FIFY||

    If I ever re-embraced that shit, or its cousin "communism", like I did half my lifetime ago... I'd just shoot myself.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Well then I hope you re-embrace it soon.

    Meanwhile I'll be off celebrating OBAMA winning in 2012.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hasn't happened yet, cocksucker.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    It's inevitable. Like tomorrows sunrise or the sunset that follows, OBAMA will win in November.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That's just fucking sick.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    To you. And not at all untrue.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Not just me, child-fucker.

    And, yes, I equate socialist cheerleaders to pedophiles, because in the long run, they're basically the same level of loathsomeness.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    How's fallacious logic working out for you?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Nothing fallacious about it, traitor.

    Your Team is fucking our children out of a future, and you're fucking gloating about it. You embrace that shit.

    Fuck you.

  • TROLOLOLOLOL 2012||

  • Trail of Tears||

    Your capitalist team fucked out children's Non-State future. Don't mind if I smirk while you get your city-Statism (civilization) good and hard, slicker.

    "The life of an Indian is a continual holiday..." ~Thomas Paine

  • ||

    Thomas Paine is your appeal to authority?

  • Thomas Paine was an observer||

    Got something against empirical data, Fundie boi?

  • ||

    See again, I ask a simple question and you resort to name calling. You could have left the "fundie boi" part off and had a valid statement (although I think Paine was an idealist and wistfully longed for a more primitive lifestyle. Thus removing his objectivity from the conversation).

    But I like your choice of words. "Fundie", as if because we disagree I am somehow = to a fundamentalist christian. And "boi", using the typical spelling to denigrate homosexual men. Nice way of showing your bigotry and hatred.

  • Market Fundamentalism=Religion||

    Economists instead were assigned the task to dispense priestly blessings that would allow business to operate independent of damaging political manipulation. They accomplished this task by means of their message of “laissez faire religion, based on a conception of a society composed of competing individuals"...Admittedly, as the economic “symbolism got farther and farther from reality, it required more and more ceremony to keep it up.”

    — Robert H. Nelson, REACHING FOR HEAVEN ON EARTH

    Economic efficiency has been the greatest source of social legitimacy in the United States for the past century, and economists have been the priesthood defending this core social value of our era.

    — Robert H. Nelson, ECONOMICS AS RELIGION

    P.S. your question was a rhetorical accusatory question, silly, so don't dish it out if you can't take it.

  • ||

    I didn't mean it as a rhetorical question, but that's good to know that when I do it = dishing it out.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Now we know "obama 2012" is either Godesky, or some other sick bastard/ette.

  • Two for the Occutards||

  • choke on my KOCH, suckaz!||

    CATO? Really. The fuck?

    The Kochs have reportedly donated $30 million to Cato.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    And Soros donates millions to MediaMatters and other hellholes.

  • TROLOLOLOLOL 2012||

    The Koch Bros. has been busted lying a lot more than Soros.

    Cry more, baby.

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    So... it's okay when Soros influences politics, but it's NOT okay when anyone even vaguely right-of-center influences politics?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I'm done fuckin' around with Team Blue. I'm not going to be even remotely nice to these pig-fuckers, from this point on.

    As far as I'm concerned, they've just gone a tiny bit over the edge of being socially acceptable, as the staunchest of social-conservatives.

    The whole lot of both extremes, were they to suffer one massive group stroke debilitating them down to bedridden-and-feeding-tube status... would be too good for them.

    Fuck it, we're doomed no matter which Team gets all the power this year, two years from now, or even - IF we make it - four years from now.

    I'm gonna party it up. Hopefully, I'll die the moment before the jackboots start marching down our city streets.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Oh, and DHS... I worded that so you can't say it was a "threat"; I do not have the power to cause massive, debilitating strokes in even one person.

    But keep snooping anyway... you know you love it.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    He's winning in 2012. Nobody deserves it as good and hard than an agricultural city-Statist like FIFY who crows about the American Indian Holocaust like a sick fuck.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    *yawn*

  • Jackbooted thugs? Like this 1?||

    Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment...unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?

    ~Murray Rothbard
    Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) was the dean of the Austrian School of economics and the founder of libertarianism.

  • TROLOLOLOLOL 2012||

  • White Indian's 99% Query||

    • "...if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own [property]..." ~Murray Rothbard
    • "[Property] Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival." ~Ayn Rand

    The bait-and-switch chicanery that capitalists/FIBertarians engage in follows:

    BAIT: I need to own some things on earth as property that I need to *survive* (or would enjoy personally.)
    SWITCH: I need government to protect my "right" to own vast amounts of resources, *well beyond* what would ever be needed for a person to survive or enjoy.

    WHITE INDIAN ASKS'um HEAP BIG QUESTIONS

    • How do the 1% need 40% of the wealth to survive (or personally enjoy?)
    • How do the 10% need 85% of the wealth to survive (or personally enjoy?)

  • Civilis||

    Does it matter? What Rothbard is saying is that if I need to own any property to survive (such as your extensive flintknapping and tanning kit) then property is a right. As property is a right, who are you to say what property I need?

    Your numbers are off, BTW. As has been pointed out before.

  • Property by use is traditional||

    Property by use, of things necessary to survive, is traditional for millions of years.

    Abstract ownership claims of earth's land and resources, well beyond any single humans ability to use or enjoy, and then charging rents to other humans just to live on the earth, is big-government enforced PRIVATION PROPERTY.

    Learn the difference.

  • Property by use is traditional||

    If someone broke in and took my computer, I would feel wronged, because I could no longer use my computer. It is not that my “right to ownership” has been violated that bothers me; it is the violation of my “right to use.”

    Such a distinction may seem like splitting hairs at first, but there are important–if subtle–implications...

    The Right to Property
    by Jason Godesky | 18 July 2005
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2.....-property/

  • Civilis||

    Define for me, if you will, in your own words, the difference between ownership and use? If two people want to use the computer at the same time, how is it decided which is allowed to violate the other's right of use?

  • Abstract Ownership VS. Use ||

    Libertarians always defend property by use as bait, then switch to abstract ownership. So I'll come up with a modern example:

    Use: your house.
    Abstract ownership: an apartment building.

    Land Lords lord-it-over others, whether you whitewash it as "free market" or not.

  • Civilis||

    So you can't define the terms, you can only give me an example.

    If two people want to use an item, be it a spear or a computer at the same time, how is it decided which is allowed to violate the other's right of use?

  • Civilis||

    Also, with respect to your example, what's the problem with me claiming ownership of the apartment building and charging whatever rent I choose if I provide anyone who asks for it a vacant lot, a large, waterproof tarp and some sturdy poles so they have what they need to survive (in terms of shelter, at least)? Why does it matter what I have?

  • Definitions from An Attorney||

    USE

    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.

    (con't)

    ~Attorney Jeff Vail
    "A Theory of Power" Online
    Chapter 9: Forward, to Rhizome
    www.jeffvail.net/2004/10/theor.....ter-9.html

  • Definitions from An Attorney||

    (con't)

    ABSTRACT

    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.

    ~Attorney Jeff Vail
    "A Theory of Power" Online
    Chapter 9: Forward, to Rhizome
    www.jeffvail.net/2004/10/theor.....ter-9.html

  • ||

    That still doesn't answer Civilis' question about how one determines who gets to use the one spear if two people have an immediate need for it.

  • It's a contrived BS problem.||

    All his question does is demonstrate a lack of understanding of how Non-State people behave regarding property for the last 2 million years. It's well documented.

    Mauss, Marcel. 'The Gift: The Form and Reason for Exchange in Archaic Societies.'

    Graeber, David. 'Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value'.

    Hyde, Lewis, The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property.

  • Civilis||

    DesigNate is right. I posited a very simple example, but one with obvious relevance to the real world. If your theory of property cannot answer that basic question 'how do we determine who uses a resource' then it is useless to run a society.

    A related hypothetical:
    A society has an immediate shortage of food (or another resource necessary for survival). How does that society determine how to allocate the food it has? This question applies from tribes to civilizations to a group of people trapped on a lifeboat.

  • well, I tried answering||

    but "reason" keeps saying scholarly references are "spam." LOL

    so I give up

  • Civilis||

    Answer in your own words, then. That's all I want. You keep throwing out links when I'm interested in what you actually think.

  • OBAMA 2012||

    Don't act all butthurt when your side loses. And no tears!

    http://academics.eckerd.edu/in.....indian.jpg

  • ||

    STFU Rather.

  • I'm sorry your KOCH is limp||

    Ask your doctor if OBAMA 2012 is right for you.

  • ||

    mine said it should be removed from my backside...

  • My KOCH is limp.||

    Change your politics to WINNING.

    The testosterone levels of MEN WHO VOTED FOR OBAMA stayed the same throughout the evening.

    McCain Vote Might Mean Low Testosterone Later
    http://abcnews.go.com/Health/M.....id=8884703

  • ||

    STFU Rather. No one cares. And even casual lurkers know you are crazy.

  • I'm sorry your dick is limp.||

    But OBAMA 2012 can help. Ask your doctor.

  • ||

    Whatever rather. Stop confusing me with your b/fs. Can't you get laid already?

  • I voted against Obama in 2008||

    ...and all I got was this Dissolution of Marriage for failure to perform on contract.

    Ask your doctor if OBAMA 2012 is right for your new hairy-nippled girlfriend.
    http://s.wsj.net/public/resour.....064329.jpg

  • General Buttnaked ||

    Obama relection slogan:

    WAR IS PEACE
    FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

  • Peter denied Rand thrice||

    It's so funny when Fibertards deny AYN RAND as influential the libertarian movement. Funny. Every. Day.

    It usually begins with Ayn Rand
    Jerome Tuccile

    Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and the LP's Big Moment
    July 9, 2008
    reason.com/archives/2008/07/09/jerome-tuccille

    Yeah, the whole world knows you're like Peter, denying Rand thrice before the KOCH crowed.

    Influential libertarian philosophers
    • Ayn Rand
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

    lulz! Keep putting the FIB in FIBertard, bois!

  • General Buttnaked ||

    Ayn Rand, definately a liberaterian.(sarcasm)

    "The major lesson of the history of the [objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune."

    "They are not defenders of capitalism... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given."

  • General Buttnaked ||

    cont.

    "The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office."

  • Bradley ||

    Well. Another thread ruined. Remind me why WI isn't banned again.

  • Need your confirmation bias...||

    ...crackpipe hit today?

  • WhereYou'reWrong||

    Trolls like WI and the circle jerk of sockpuppets with nothing better to do than argue each other's supposed sexual proclivities are a means of shutting down any discussion of actual issues on this site. Ruining threads is their goal and, frankly, it's working.

  • ||

    I didn't mean to get sucked in, it just kinda happened.

  • Civilis||

    I apologize to the reason commentariat. The thread was dead, and I was bored, so I had fun testing out a new theory.

    My conclusions are: the primitivist (assuming it's one) is incapable of carrying on sustained debate, though he can be persuaded to try. It takes a lot of effort, and he eventually falls back to name calling.

    He can't reason very well for himself, so he has to seek out online sources that superficially confirm his biases, then post whatever quotes he has without reading them fully.

    He flubbed a few 'gimme' questions, like the 'new and improved' 4th Amendment interpretation I asked him about. He also seems to have difficulty with recognizing and understanding comparisons and analogies.

  • Batshit CrazyConspiracy Theory||

    And since when is initiation-of-violence not an "actual issue?"

  • Jerryskids||

    OT: Corporatism is not the same thing as the free market.

    AFAIK, corporations (non-bodily things made bodily, from the Latin corporare - to make into a body) are governmental entities, the offspring of money and politics. Investors pool money, issue equity and debt instruments much greater than the amount of the initial capital. If the corporation makes profits, the investors make money. If the corporation loses money, the investors can just walk away from the debt.

    If you loan me money and I can't repay it, I have a problem. If you loan Me, Inc. money and I can't repay it, you have a problem.

    I have trouble understanding where the idea of corporations gained such traction. It can have unlimited private profits but losses are nobodies' responsibility? Is that libertarian - you can do whatever you like but you gotta accept the consequences of your actions?

  • Civilis||

    The idea is that if Me, Inc. goes bankrupt, the owners lose just their stake in the business, not their house, car, money for food, etc.

  • ||

    Butt why? I think the ideer is that if become part owner (stocks) vs loan money to the owners.

  • BigT||

    Everyone knows that Me, Inc only has certain assets. Thus if you loan money to Me, Inc, you know that only those assets will be available if it goes bankrupt.

    Next question.

  • Isaac Bartram||

    Indeed, there is nothing stopping a lender from demanding extra security on a loan. Just ask any small business owner who has has to put up personal assets to secure a loan to his corporation.

    This, likewise

    If you loan me money and I can't repay it, I have a problem. If you loan Me, Inc. money and I can't repay it, you have a problem.

    is false.

    A quick check of bankruptcy laws will show that individuals declaring personal bankruptcy get to shelter a whole lot of assets from seizure whereas corporations are totally liquidated in a corporate bankruptcy*.

    *Yes, it's true that this does not apply to Chapt 11 bankruptcies but they don't happen unless the creditors say OK.

  • ||

    According to Oppenheimer, John Locke Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Regan and a slew of others are thieves. They all support progressive taxation. So I guess the country was founded on thieves and makes monuments of them.

    Really, so only "military contracts, government debt speculation, and the cartelization of banking" caused income inequality? Nothing about monopolies, the birth of limited-liability corporations, and the pressure for surplus labor in order for one to keep their job?

  • ||

    Wait, what was it that Benjamin Franklin said?

    "All the Property that is necessary to a man is his natural Right, which none may justly deprive him of, but all Property superfluous to such Purposes is the property of the Public who, by their Laws have created it and who may, by other Laws dispose of it. --Benjamin Franklin

  • Dan||

    Not to mention the perversion of copyright laws in order to allow people to maintain monopolies on properties for eternity.

    That is one of the largest factors in helping create a tiny exclusive elite class and making sure that their status as royalty is maintained for eternity.

  • Dan||

    The title of the article is exactly right. What the OWS morons are essentially arguing is that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Rather than projecting their anger and frustration at the corrupt businesspeople and politicians that pervert the system in order to serve their own purposes, they just want to get rid of the whole system.

  • ||

    The baby is dead and bloated and the fetid bathwater comprised of decades and centuries of runoff from corruption and injustice. Throw it out and let's start clean with something untainted by the legacy of poison.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Throw it out and let's start clean with something untainted by the legacy of poison."

    And what are the odss that your "new way" is just yet another in a long line of euphemisms for collectivism and government centralization?

  • ||

    Wow, this was by far the most reasonable article I've ever seen on reason.com

    One thing I'd add though is that the author seems to suggest that only the government can spawn anti-competitive practices. Uhm, what about business monopolies and the price fixing that always ensues? Sorry, your free-market is not a pinnacle of perfection. In the words of Quark: "What's the point of business if you can't corner the market?"

  • ||

    How does one create a monopoly without the government being involved?

  • General Buttnaked ||

    Ayn Rand, definately a liberaterian.(sarcasm)

    "The major lesson of the history of the [objectivist] movement to libertarians is that It Can Happen Here, that libertarians, despite explicit devotion to reason and individuality, are not exempt from the mystical and totalitarian cultism that pervades other ideological as well as religious movements. Hopefully, libertarians, once bitten by the virus, may now prove immune."

    "They are not defenders of capitalism... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given."

  • General Buttnaked ||

    cont.

    "The trouble with the world today is philosophical: only the right philosophy can save us. But this party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes them with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists and every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and call themselves libertarians and run for office."

  • ||

    We libertarians try to do politics without ethics, and remain forever half-baked, impotent and irrelevant.

  • ||

    I'm surprised Richman left out what is easily the most obvious OWS mistake:

    The 1% has owned about 30-40% of US wealth for the last few years, not 99%.

  • ||

  • ||

    Corporatism is a steady state solution of free market capitalism, if you will. It's not hard to see that the victors of competition will continue to accumulate resources, barriers to entry and political power over time and violate the theoretical requirements of a free market (emphasis on *theoretical*). There's a video on youtube where Milton Friedman was asked something along the lines "shouldn't a 100% estate tax be necessary for full merit-based competition in a free market". Friedman's response was something like it would give parents perverse spending incentives. True, but it still doesn't address the issue of the accumulation of wealth and political power.

  • ||

    "hook me up a new revolution cuz this one is a lie."

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement