Reason Morning Links: ACLU Weighs In on Kelly Thomas Beating, Big Holes In The New Yorker's Bin Laden Story, Cartel Bigwig Claims He's a DEA Informant

|

  • The ACLU alleges that Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas has an "abysmal" record, and thus shouldn't be assigned to the Kelly Thomas case. 
  • The New Yorker's incredible account of the hit on Osama bin Laden may contain some fabrications, but will still probably win lots of awards. 
  • DEA agents allegedly told Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla that he could continue running the Sinaloa Cartel so long as he dropped dimes on fellow cartels. 
  • Henry Blodget on yesterday's market crash: "It's different this time, and not in a good way." 
  • Florida Governor Rick Scott's approval rating has risen six points since May, but he still has the worst rating of any governor in the country. 
  • Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that 2,000 people have died in Syria's protests. 

New at Reason.tv: "Rawesome Foods Raided… Again!"

NEXT: Friday Funnies

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.

  1. Remember kids, today is Matt Damon day. We all post under the name Matt Damon today.

    Matt Damon’s got a lot to learn

    Matt Damon’s 5 Best Unscripted Political Moments
    …Indeed, Matt Damon doesn’t make me cringe when he talks politics; he speaks from a place of understanding and intelligence, and he doesn’t sound like a blowhard, either. He’s the kind of guy that I’d like to see run for office one day because he knows the issues and can speak to them passionately and articulately. It helps, of course, that I agree with his politics. Right now, when there are practically no politicians in Washington who are well liked or for whom we can passionately root, it’s nice to see someone like Damon speak some goddamn sense….

      1. Stop being paternalistic!

        1. I can’t help it. I’m an adult.

        2. the paternalism is intrinsically

    1. GROW UP. I’m the adult. I will dictate what’s said here. Now grow up.

  2. The New Yorker’s incredible account of the hit on Osama bin Laden may contain some fabrications, but will still probably win lots of awards.

    And your point is …?

    1. Matt Damon will be in the movie.

      1. playing osama, right?

        1. I’ll be playing the bullet! I’ll be all like “BANG -ziiiinnnggggg- SPLAT!” and it will be 90 minutes of slow-motion MATT DAMON. And stuff.

    2. I am shocked, shocked that the government account of what happened to Osama that was leaked to the press might not be totally true!

  3. We need more Matt Damon links.

    1. Agreed.

  4. the government’s ability to do anything about this market crash is severely limited.

    Oh, Henry, Henry, Henry. For a purported “Business Insider”, you are basically clueless.

    1. Never ever underestimate government’s ability to make any “market crash” worse.

  5. Cease and desist.

    1. MATT DAMON!

  6. Hillary Clinton says that 2,000 people have died in Syria’s protests.

    How many Americans?

    1. Does it matter? This is the global age. We’re all citizens of the Globe. And when one of us is harmed, everyone else is obligated to come to our aid.

      1. Start the bombing!

  7. have the wealthy [JOBZ] creators created [JOBZ] yet?

    1. No they haven’t, which is why they should be punished.
      The fact that the government has set up so many barriers to the creation of new jobs through licensing, permit processes, and other hoops a business must go through before doing something that is otherwise legal, only shows that businesses are the bad guy.
      I mean, how dare they complain that they must ask permission from ten different government people before creating a job?
      It’s not the government’s fault that they aren’t creating jobs, it’s their fault.
      Demand is magic!
      Government creates demand by first removing money from the economy through taxation and borrowing, and then giving it to people so they can buy the stuff that those rich business people are prevented from producing.
      More government is the answer!

      1. obviously reduced taxes arent

        1. I think that the regulatory burden is a bigger issue than the tax burden.

          1. so the wealthy [JOBZ] creators cannot create [JOBZ]?

            1. It’s not a matter of “can’t”, it’s a matter of “more trouble than it’s worth”. And I’m not so much talking about the wealthy, or large corporations, who can always afford to meet or purchase exceptions to regulation. The burden falls hardest on small business owners or entrepreneurs (c.f. the whole cadmium toy regulation thing).

            2. Those job creators should just suck it up and go through all the regulatory hurdles to create jobs, and the fact that they are not doing so only shows that they are lazy and uncaring.
              If some government regulator places all kinds of expensive conditions on creating a job, the rich job creator should dig into their bountiful pile of profits and do what the regulator demands.
              If they don’t then they’re just a bunch of greedy greed heads and should be shut down completely.

              1. Are you two actually arguing with an illiterate boob who trolled with a nonsensical question it doesn’t really want an answer to?

                1. Are you two actually arguing with an illiterate boob who trolled with a nonsensical question it doesn’t really want an answer to?
                  I’m just bored out of my mind at a quasi-government job where I get a paycheck to do not much of anything because the government committee in charge of giving me work is to lazy to do its job, but pointing out that they’re not doing their job will be received as pointing out that my job is not needed, so I keep my mouth shut.
                  Meanwhile I am looking for a real job, and when I find one you will know because I will no longer post obnoxious nonsense on this site to pass the time.

                  1. Meanwhile I am looking for a real job, and when I find one you will know because I will no longer post obnoxious nonsense on this site to pass the time.

                    You’re hooked. You’ll never get away.

                    Come play with us, Danny… forever and ever and ever…

                  2. I’m in the exact same situation.

                2. Chrome. Reasonable.

                  That is all.

                3. seriously it aint about you

              2. That’s a little harsh, perhaps, but basically correct.

                1. FRIDAY, FRIDAY

            3. I know of a 4 year-old girl who tried to startup a small beverage operation, but the local cops quickly shut her down.

              It’s kinda hard to create jobs when the government is standing right behind the job creator, picking his pockets while simultaneously fucking him in the ass. Meanwhile, other agents of government are standing in front of him with a baton in one hand, menacingly tapping it against the palm of the other hand.

              1. How can government create jobs when it is the greatest barrier to creating jobs?
                That doesn’t make sense?
                I mean, we’ve got these people in government who say they’re doing everything they can to create jobs, and all I ever hear about is permits being denied, applications being denied… Denied, denied, denied.
                Government creates jobs by denying job creators from starting or expanding their business?
                I don’t get it.

                1. Someone’s got to keep my evil ass in check.

                  1. We already know their plans for you…
                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…..re=related

                2. It’s OK–the government is there to make sure the right jobs get created.

              2. government is standing right behind the job creator, picking his pockets while simultaneously fucking him in the ass. Meanwhile, other agents of government are standing in front of him with a baton in one hand, menacingly tapping it against the palm of the other hand.

                Did you get a preview of the next Urkobold cartoon?

          2. It doesn’t really help that the US corporate tax burden is something like the second highest among developed countries, either.

            1. Sure, but I think that the US offers certain benefits that will keep companies here despite the current taxes. Hassles or roadblocking regulations, on the other hand, are more likely to drive them abroad.

              1. I was watching tv the other day where the host was in some foreign land where people aren’t free like they are here in the USA, and the streets were just lined with vendors selling all sorts of things.
                Anyone with an idea could just set up shop on the side of the road.
                If their idea is good and people like it, the shop grows, they hire people, jobs are created, wealth is created…
                I’m so glad we don’t live in an oppressive nation that allows people the freedom to do such terrible things.

                1. When you’re dying of salmonella poisoning from some kid’s lemonade, those words will come back to haunt you.

                  1. Because poisoning your customers is a great model for growing your business.

                    1. Right, and we all know about the millions who have been poisoned by roadside lemonade stands run by 4 year-old girls.

                      SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!!

                  2. It’s Friday Friday, Gotta get down on Friday

                2. “Anyone with an idea could just set up shop on the side of the road.”

                  I see this all the time in Los Angeles… it’s not that impressive.

                3. Probably because I’m cynical I have to wonder how often those folks have to give a donation to any cop or official that walks along – and because I’m a libertarian cynic, have to wonder if they end up paying less than Americans do in license fees, permits, etc.

                  1. Stupid limited threads; my comment was in response to sarcasmic’s comment on foreign street vendors.

              2. I think you are partly right about that. Biggest market and all. However, low coorporate tax rates in other countries matters especially if there is cash domiciled in those lower tax territories. Companies won’t repatriate cash to the US if there is a ten or fifteen percentage point differential in tax rates. They’ll find a way to invest in the more favorable tax jurisdiction.

          3. Look at those ambitious people, in the video, trying to meet the public demand. Cops smashing in and taking their product.

            Regulatory burden with gun.

            1. Those ambitious people didn’t get proper permission from the proper authorities.
              Because they went ahead and created jobs without first going through the regulatory process is their own damn fault.

              Free people do not need to ask permission. Those people acted like free people.

              How DARE they?!?!

        2. Higher taxes mean the rich job creators have less money with which to create jobs. But they should just cut into their profits when taxes go up. I mean, they’re already rich, right? What do they need profits for?
          But the fact that they need approval from ten different government folks before creating a job, and the fact that those government folks with the power to say “No” feel like they aren’t doing their job unless they say “No” is the fault of the business people.
          The regulators are just doing their job. It’s not their fault.

          1. the airlines raised the fares to capture the lapsed FAA taxes. amazing how the wealthy get those who are [NOT WEALTHY] to carry water for them.

            1. Well, SURE.

              On the first day that those FAA taxes were no longer being collected, the airlines just left the fares the same.

              That’s only natural.

              The airline ticket market on each route was already at equilibrium at the net total fare.

              The price would eventually have dropped because sooner or later one of the airlines would have taken advantage of the lower cost structure created by the absence of the taxes to lower their fares, and forced the market to follow them.

              Prices are sticky. What a revelation.

            2. how duz marketz wrk? durr durr durr

              1. Just wanted to point out that ‘retardOO’ is a redundancy.

                1. just wanted to point-out that reduced taxes are NOT creating jobs.

                  1. i mean all those reduced taxes rates that exist only in my head because if anyone has any diposable income they are not paying their fair share herp derp

                  2. Wait, I guess you’d actually have to reduce taxes first.

                    1. we need 2 raise taxes not lower them i dont see any shortage of govt jobz

                    2. we need 2 raise taxes not lower them i dont see any shortage of govt jobz

                      Let me be clear: this is a contender for all-time stupid on the full-retard comments list.

                    3. spoofing a “troll” makes as much sense as cutting taxes on the wealthy to NOT create [JOBZ]

                    4. If we raze taxis hi enuff the gubmint can employ everonez and we won’t need duh prvite sekter

                  3. The metric is “created or saved”

            3. Spirit Airlines did not. They passed that savings on to their customers. And as a result, their prices are lower and sales have been great.

              That’s how the free market works. There is always going to be at least one player who realizes he can make money by taking better care of his customers.

          2. The concept of a direct relationship between taxes and employment is almost as shaky as the Keynesian supposition on interest rates and unemployment.

            1. Do not bring boring facts into the argument or someone will compare employment rates and regulatory burdens and taxes across a selection of countries and prove your point!

              Standard disclaimer, etc.

        3. The burden of ‘business taxes’ falls to the employees in the form of lower salaries and more unemployment; and to the consumer in the form of higher taxes.

      2. Don’t forget minimum wage laws!

  8. Matt Damon gives killer blowjobs

    1. But have you heard whether he may or may not fuck sheep?

      1. Who you calling a sheep!?!

        1. Sheep are intrinsically paternalistic.

          and soft.

  9. Worst day on the stock market since the 2008 financial crisis. We’re now back to where we were in December 2010. The jobs report comes out later today and is almost surely going show an increase in the unemployment rate, so get ready for another big drop.

    1. ** pumps fist **

      Yes!!

      1. My arms are REALLLY getting tired from holding you up.

        1. I swear, it’s like a text-only Friday Funnies in here.

          1. You say that like it’s a *bad* thing.

    2. The jobs report comes out later today and is almost surely going show an increase in the unemployment rate, so get ready for another big drop.

      Sorry, not today. Rate down, number up. Surprise!

      1. Yes, I saw that. Seems odd that the rate would drop considering that only 117,000 jobs were added. We need to add 125,000 a month just to keep up with population growth. The fact that the unemployment rate went down most likely means that more people have given up looking for a job. Not exactly a good sign.

        1. Totally agree…plus, I do think that gov numbers should be taken with a grain of skepticism. However, in our click-and-twitch market, I am sure there will be a burst skyward at the 9:30 open…followed by a slow glide down to flat…that’s a guess anyway 😉

          1. They’ll probably be revised downwards again.

        2. You’re 100% correct. The true labor force participation rate just dropped to 63.9%, which is the lowest it has been since January 1984.

        3. Labor force participation rate down – so the downward move in the unemployment rate was driven by an exodus of those seeking employment

      2. Of course these numbers are likley to be adjusted in the following weeks, as usual, and will likely end up looking at least somewhat worse.

    3. Whatever happens, it will be unexpected.

      1. I didn’t see that comment coming.

        1. Even WE saw that coming.

  10. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says that 2,000 people have died in Syria’s protests.

    At the hands of Fast and Furious: Syrian Drift, no doubt.

    1. No! This time, we sold the guns to Assad’s forces!! **crosses arms and grins**

  11. Matt Damon is still employed, right?

    1. But I make a shitty salary.
      MATT DAMON!

      1. I heard you do it for the love of acting.

  12. Maybe the Fullerton cops were Libertarians defending private property.

    “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
    American author and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern Libertarianism

    Are Libertarians raising money to help defend these hard working defenders of private property against the socialist ACLU?

    1. poor people smell.

    2. I care where they go.

      They should be liquefied and given to poor people like government cheese.

    3. These particular cops are government employees. What Murray Rothbard supported was a private legal system where law enforcement would be the responsibility of insurance companies or other private individuals.

      Nice try taking his words out of context however.

      1. Rothbard said “cops” not “private employees.” We all know what cops are. Don’t bullshit me.

        And nothing is taken “out of context,” but such false accusations are typical of Fundamentalists religions…

        Context!!!!!!
        225,922 views
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK7P7uZFf5o

        1. Cops are not private employees in our current paradigm but under anarco-capitalism they would be.

          Anyone who has actually read Rothbard knows that he supports this.

          The video you link to is not of Rothbard.

          1. Thanks for clarifying cops are not private employees, Mr. Obvious.

            Rothbard said COPS, not private employees. Yeah, I’ve read the Rothbard tripe and know what he advocated.

            What he advocated wasn’t so much liberty, but PROPERTY, and defending it at all costs, including against inferior peoples of a certain color.

            “In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.” ~Murray Rothbard

            Racialist Science; it’s Free Market!

            Yeah, I know the video isn’t Rothbard, Mr. Obvious. The video is meant to instruct Fundamentalist True Believers like you in the improper use of accusing people of taking their Holy Scriptures, such as Reverend Rothbard’s raucous ramblings, “out of context.” I took nothing out of context; I doubt you know the academic meaning of quoting out of context.

            1. You’re not the first twit to try to link libertarianism to racism, WI.

              DemocraticUnderground is over ————-> that way.

              1. actually it’s

              2. Rothbard wrote of RACIALIST SCIENCE.

                So you’re going to have to deal with it, twit.

                1. Writing about something and supporting the concept are two very different things.

                  1. Rothbard wrote in favor of racialist science.

                    Deal with it.

                    1. “Rothbard wrote in favor of racialist science.”

                      [Citation needed]

                    2. It’s on LewRockwell.com. Google Rothbard+Racialist+Science. I’ve already provided a link somewhere in here.

                    3. ” I’ve already provided a link somewhere in here.”

                      Not one where he actually supports it.

                    4. In short; RACIALIST SCIENCE is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors. ~Murray Rothbard

                      Pick an online reference:

                      http://holocaustcontroversies……l-and.html

                      or

                      http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

        2. Look below, hmm posted the quote in Context!!!!!!

          1. The quote was posted in context above too. Do you even understand the academic meaning of quoting out of context?

            1. You troll like two greased monkeys fucking a football.

              1. Strange when somebody quotes Libertarians how Libertarian heads go ‘splody.

                1. It’s the Big-L on your “Libertarian” that makes me lose interest.
                  You’re likely to find relatively few Big-L Libertarians here.

                  1. It’s the Big-B on your “Big” that made me lose interest.

                    1. What the heck did that even mean, WI?

                  2. Quetzy speaks the truth, White Indian.

    4. Are Libertarians raising money to help defend these hard working defenders of private property against the socialist ACLU?

      God no. Who will carry my sedan chair?

    5. Ignore this troll. They’re posting this same quote all over the Intarwebz.

      1. Funny how quoting Libertarians upsets Libertarians.

        1. We want to be taken seriously but not that seriously!

          1. Why would anybody take seriously a secular religious movement with a huge contradiction that sticks out like a sore thumb?

            Sure, everybody likes the NAP, even Jesus preached the ethic of reciprocity.

            Libertarians troll and proselytize with the NAP, then do the ol’ bait-and-switch to GRABBING MORE SHIT.

            And I think most of them think that Life and Property are essentially of the same Value.

            People who think that will say things like Rothbard’s “unleash the cops” and other nutty crap that makes most people totally ignore Libertarianism.

            Thinks like Voluntary Slavery, where the ownership fetish extends to owning people as slaves, and even beating them for sadistic pleasure, as the turd in the punchbowl Walter Block advocates.

            Maybe Libertarians need to market Voluntary Slavery as Human Resources. I mean, like really, that would work.

            1. Voluntary slavery is an oxymoron. It is possible to work for another person voluntarily, even at $0.00 salary (this is called volunteering). It is even possible to do this for your entire lifespan as a consenting adult. But slavery is never voluntary.

              There are some people who might argue semantics on this point but even those people do not mean slavery in the normal sense.

              1. Tell it to the Mises crowd.

                That several of their scholars defend voluntary slavery means they’re being consistent in defending property and owning people as wage slaves.

                They get paid well to do that stuff too. Economists are the new priestcraft, serving the real owners of this country.

                1. The Mises crowd often argue about this among themselves. They do not march in lockstep with one another.

                  They sometimes argue semantics. That is what you are talking about, mere semantics. What does the word “slave” mean. They sometimes act like grammarians.

                  1. The few who come right out and advocate slavery are just doing the job they all do:

                    An economic priesthood blessing the ownership of other humans as mere resources.

            2. Why would anybody take seriously a secular religious movement

              You tell us. You apparently take libertarianism seriously enough to troll here.

              1. OUT OF CONTEXT! LOL

                not really, but why didn’t of the other grammar nazis here jump on your incomplete quote? I left it go for an hour. It takes them 2 seconds to piss and moan about an … ellipse.

                Funny stuff.

                1. “OUT OF CONTEXT! LOL

                  not really, but why didn’t of the other grammar nazis here jump on your incomplete quote? I left it go for an hour. It takes them 2 seconds to piss and moan about an … ellipse.

                  Funny stuff.”

                  Your responses are becoming surreal.

                  1. Get off the pot then.

                    1. “Get off the pot then.”

                      Marcel Duchamp would be proud of you.

                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)

              2. Do Libertarians take Marxism/Socialism seriously?

                I don’t, but sometimes explain to proponents their logical mistakes and contradictions in their philosophy and economics.

                Same with libertarianism. Actually, there isn’t too much difference:

                Both are trying to divorce the State from the agricultural City State (civilization.)

            3. Well, actually, I’m a libertarians and I think the NAP isn’t useful as anything more than a general guideline. Real life is too complicated to reduce everything to NAP analysis.

    6. The whole quote for context oh Pale Injun…

      “Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals ? robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

      Game, set, and my foot in your ass. Please be careful sitting I stubbed my toe yesterday. Now get your ass back on the reservation and make me some beaded shit.

      1. Thanks for posting the whole quote. Merely being homeless is not the same thing as being a robber, mugger, rapist or murderer.

        1. Rothbard said BUMS and VAGRANTS.

          Which the dishonest Libertarian left out.

          hmmmm

          1. Not in the passages I read, this is point 4 of a series of points to get the right to move to being more libertarian.

            I think your copy past from whatever liberal site you got this from is off my little moccasin wearing friend.

            1. Then you must not be able to read. I’ve quoted accurately.

              And I got Rothbard’s quotes from LewRockwell.com.

              Is that a “whatever liberal site?”

                1. Shut The

                  Fuck Up

                  Indeed

            2. 4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals ? robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

              5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

              http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

              At least we know LewRockwell.com is a “liberal website.” Funny stuff one can learn here.

              Note that Rothbard said to unleash cops on BUMS and VAGRANTS.

              1. Jesus you’re a pedantic tard. I’m far from a Rothbardian, but you could turn someone into one.

                That’s fine he also qualified the comment with the final statement in 4, do you know the context of that list and what it was for?

                You’re stating shit out of context and making retarded claims. Nothing new when it comes to commentary on libertarians.

                1. You are trolling pretty well though. Kudos.

                  1. I’m not trolling. But Libertarians whose head go ‘splody when I quote Libertarians often call that name.

                    I’d like some answers, but they have none, because deep in their heart, they know that they’ve talked about busting heads and shooting people with their Libertarian Guns who were harming their sacrosanct property.

                    Remember, Kelly Thomas was suspected of burglarizing cars – and the cops took care of that, Rothbard style.

                    At least they looked “UNLEASHED” to me.

                    1. This may surprise you, but libertarians are not homogeneous drones. This may be hard to believe since the two major parties often exhibit this trait.

                    2. Oh, Libertarians don’t generally – ven homogenously (except for the Mutualist ‘tards) – think highly of Property? You don’t say!

                      So, can you show me a Libertarian who disagrees with the concept of “Life, Liberty, and Property?”

                    3. “they know that they’ve talked about busting heads and shooting people with their Libertarian Guns who were harming their sacrosanct property.”

                      This is what is known as projecting – on your part.

                    4. Negative Ghostrider, I’m not projecting. I read Libertarians, and what they say.

                      Guns, property, guns, property, guns, property, guns, property.

                    5. We respect both property rights and gun rights correct. But most of us do not obsess about them. I defend gay marriage but not not obsess about it. I defend someone’s right to smoke marijuana but do not obsess about it.

                      You may read, but apparently do not understand. I can help you understand if you are open minded enough.

                    6. Ya got an E-Meter or Nolan Chart handy?

                    7. By the way, I respect guns and property too.

                      I just don’t bullshit people that holding landed property is totally compatible with the NAP.

                      It takes initiation of violence to hold property. Ask the dead on the Trail of Tears.

                      It takes violence to keep it. That’s why the government has a Land Title office, the first Government EnTitlement program.

                    8. The Trail of Tears occurred because the rights of indigenous people were not respected.

                      But if one of those people fired upon an armed invader wearing a costume who made clear his intention to take this property by force, this is not the INITIATION of force. It was the armed invader who did the initiating.

                      Just for clarification, wandering onto property by accident (i.e. losing one’s way) does not justify force.

                    9. The Trail of Tears occurred because agricultural civilization is aggressive and occupational, and its farmers want more PROPERTY.

                    10. “The Trail of Tears occurred because agricultural civilization is aggressive and occupational,”

                      Not inherently so. There is nothing about planting corn and potatoes (both of which originated in the Americas) that is inherently aggressive and occupational.

                      “and its farmers want more PROPERTY.”

                      The important part is that they wanted to forcibly take property that belonged to others.

                    11. The agricultural City State is inherently aggressive, invasive, and occupational.

                      Libertarians mistakenly think it’s just the “State” part of it, and rail against it, but the whole package is inseparable.

                    12. I am not a Scientologist, so no.

                      Are you?

                      But look, libertarianism is not dogmatic at all. We often argue among ourselves about some issues. Abortion is one issue of great contention among libertarians but that is only one example.

                      We support property rights because we view other rights as coming out of that single right. You own your own body. You have the right to your own body because you own it.

                      Do you understand this point?

                    13. I understand abstract ownership of land is contradictory to the NAP.

                      It takes violence to take it and to keep property rights.

                      And don’t pull that “do you own your body” bullshit on me.

                      Next thing I know, you want to own me.

                      That “do you own your body” bait-and-switch technique is meant to degrade and objectify humans into mere property.

                      It’s as if the Great Libertarian Jesus said:

                      “Own thy neighbor as thyself.”

                    14. There are different kinds of violence. Voluntary violence exists in sporting matches. When boxers or wrestlers go into a ring, they know very well what they are getting into.

                      Involuntary violence occurs when the rights of another person are violated. When rights are violated most** libertarians would agree that it is appropriate to respond with violence. What all libertarians oppose is the initiation of violence. We are all, at least halfway pacifistic. Some libertarians like Robert LeFevre are entirely pacifistic.

                      **Robert LeFevre was an exception to this. Like I said, libertarianism is not dogmatic.

                    15. Preach it brother! I’ve heard/read it all before.

                      Now I want you to think of words that describe how you regard yourself.

                      Just don’t use the degrading and objectifying word “own.”

                      Why do I ask you to do this? People who regard other humans as mere resources use the word “own.” Capitalism reads like a horrible BDSM novel. And so does Socialism. (They’re mere variations on the theme of Dominating the earth and everything on the earth.)

                      Do you love yourself?

                      Do you nurture yourself?

                      Do you feed yourself?

                      Do you provide for yourself?

                      Once you get a dupe to say “own” they’re Koch Brothers meat.

                    16. “Just don’t use the degrading and objectifying word “own.””

                      I am curious why you view the word “own” as degrading?

                      “Now I want you to think of words that describe how you regard yourself.”

                      Human
                      Friend
                      Libertarian
                      College librarian

                      “People who regard other humans as mere resources use the word “own.””

                      [Citation needed]

                      “Capitalism reads like a horrible BDSM novel. And so does Socialism. (They’re mere variations on the theme of Dominating the earth and everything on the earth.)”

                      If you reject both capitalism and socialism what is it you advocate? A blend of two systems you consider horrible?

                      “Do you love yourself?”

                      Yes

                      “Do you nurture yourself?”

                      Yes

                      “Do you feed yourself?”

                      Yes

                      “Do you provide for yourself?”

                      Yes

                    17. Then why do Libertarians attempt to objectify and degrade humans as mere property by asking them if they “own” themselves?

                      As if humans are property to own and control like a leather shoe.

                    18. I am curious. Why do you view the word “own” as degrading?

                      If you own yourself how does this allow me to control you?

                    19. Does not a Master own a slave? Does not an employee own, at least in part, an employee?

                      The Libertarian economic priesthood is paid for by the Koch Brothers and others “who really own America” (as our Dear Frisbeetarian George Carlin puts it) because it is just another justification for the present system, plus Libertarianism works as an outlet for dissent, or as the owners would call it, the managed opposition, for people who see something wrong with the system.

                      Now get back to work, or I’ll lay a guilt trip on ya.

                    20. Libertarian venting websites (like this one) blow off burn off the natural gas, so the owners of the country can extract the oil without things blowing up.

                      But they mostly (not completely, of course) support the system.

                      The system is agricultural City State, or civilization.

                      If you think you can’t live without the MetroPolis (city,) then expect the Politics and Police too.

                      POLIS POLITICS POLICE.

                      As Richard Manning says in his book Against the Grain:

                      “Agriculture creates Government.”

                      The agricultural City-State is a single entity, and the Libertarian task of divorcing the State from the City is as futile as the Marxists’ attempt.

                    21. “Does not a Master own a slave?”

                      No, he merely claims to. In truth the “slave-owner” is a kidnapper, nothing more.

                      “Does not an employee own, at least in part, an employee?”

                      No. The employee can quit at any time he wishes.

                      “because it is just another justification for the present system”

                      Our “present system” is not libertarian. Libertarian economists actually OPPOSE our present system.

                    22. The present agricultural City-State system is mostly the way Libertarians want it, being that it’s heavily weighted towards private property, the most of nearly any country on the planet.

                      No, employees can’t quit working and live like the Original Affluent Society our ancestors enjoyed for 2 million years.

                      Disestablishement, or Privation from the Land – remember, Private means Privation or lack of something – means if an employee quits working, he and his family starves to death.

                      No squirrel owns a whole forest, charges rent to live in a hole, and makes other squirrels work for him or starve to death. But agricultural civilization is such a dominating system.

                    23. “being that it’s heavily weighted towards private property, the most of nearly any country on the planet.”

                      Ahh, this must explain why I am required by law to pay taxes [or the county takes my home.] This must explain why I need a “business license”. This must explain why “imminent domain laws”.

                      “No, employees can’t quit working and live like the Original Affluent Society our ancestors enjoyed for 2 million years.”

                      If that is the lifestyle you wish to live in, you would be free to do so in a libertarian world. Perhaps not in our PRESENT world but that is not the fault of libertarians.

                      “No squirrel owns a whole forest, charges rent to live in a hole, and makes other squirrels work for him or starve to death. But agricultural civilization is such a dominating system.”

                      Squirrels homestead. Homesteading is a libertarian concept.

                    24. Squirrels don’t send other squirrels on a Trail of Tears.

                      Agricultural civilization is aggressively invasive and occupational.

                      Unless you want to claim the US is homesteading Iraq.

                    25. “Unless you want to claim the US is homesteading Iraq.”

                      You seem to be observing a wide swath of evil behaviors and attributing those behaviors to planting rows of corn. I would like to see how you connect the dots.

                    26. Anthropologists attribute a wide swath of evil behaviors to agricultural societies.

                      Cannibalism is rare to absent in pre-agricultural societies (at least homo sapien sapiens) and is generally found in agricultural societies.

                      Blood sacrifice religions are not found in pre-agricultural societies.

                      Famine is a hallmark of agricultural societies. (Which is why people get sacrificed – to get the gods to give a good harvest.)

                      Rape is more prevalent in agricultural societies, which are more paternalistic. What, 1 in 5 women in the US are sexually assaulted now. Talk about nasty and brutish.

                      Shorter lifespan, shorter bones, softer teeth, and other illnesses are a hallmark of switching to agriculture.

                    27. Well, good luck with having a beef against the invention of agriculture. Let me know if you succeed in rolling that one back.

                    28. Agriculture consistently collapses, thus rolling itself back.

                      Agriculture is the fiat money of the biological world – completely destructive, but fun while the party lasts short term.

              2. White Indian|8.5.11 @ 8:14AM|#
                Maybe the Fullerton cops were Libertarians defending private property.

                “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?”

                You’re a fucking disingenuous and pathetic troll. First you indeed took a quote out of context and purposely engaged in some creative editing to make it appear the author wrote something he did not. Then when your ruse was exposed, you attacked those who rightly criticized you and showed your quote to be wrong. Then you stuck to your story that your quote was accurate – which it so plainly and clearly is not.

                The plain wording of the ACTUAL quote makes it clear that the author was NOT advocating allowing cops to “administer instant punishment” on bums and vagrants for the purposes of beating the crap out of them. He did seem to advocate that treatment for violent criminals, which I have no problem with.

                As far as bums and vagrants, he advocated using the police “to clear the streets of” them. I.e., “move along; you can’t sleep here.”

                Do you honestly believe that any libertarian here actually advocates the use of police force to beat the shit out of homeless people?

                If so, you’re a bigger idiot than all of the above would indicate. And that truly would be an achievement.

                1. I took nothing out of context.

                  You’re just embarrassed that I know Libertarianism so well.

                  Go piss on Rothbard’s grave if you want to vent your spleen.

                  1. After presented with the entire quote you still claim your original quote is an accurate representation?

                    Above you said

                    “I took … out of context”

                    Does that accurately represent what you said?

                    1. You are just embarrassed by Rothbard’s quote about unleashing cops on bums, and giving me shit for presenting it.

                    2. You presented a quote just as accurate as

                      “I took … out of context”

                      Does that accurately represent what you said?

                    3. If you think that is accurate, then have at it. Libertarianism seems to be on the Charismatic end of the religious socio-economic scale.

                    4. “If you think that is accurate, then have at it.”

                      Is it any less accurate than your Rothbard “quote”?

      2. The liability shouldn’t be too much for a worthless bum in Libertarian Land, right? What, a week off with pay for the defenders of private property from bums and vagrants.

        Oh, you left out Rothbard’s “bums and vagrants”!!!

        Now why would you do that? hmmmm!!

        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

        And blacks too.

        “In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.” ~Murray Rothbard

        1. le sigh…

          If, then, the Race Question is really a problem for statists and not for paleos, why should we talk about the race matter at all? Why should it be a political concern for us; why not leave the issue entirely to the scientists?

          Two reasons we have already mentioned; to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project. But there is a third reason as well: as a powerful defense of the results of the free market. If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and “discriminatory” and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

          In any case, there is cause for jubilation these days, for it looks as if the left-egalitarian blackout-and-smear gang has been dealt a truly lethal blow.

          1. Bury ’em in quotes when you’re wrong about everything else, then give ’em an effeminate sigh. I’ll have to remember that one.

            1. Or provide the quote in it’s context. Which ever works.

                1. Thanks, you’re so sweet.

        2. Once again hmm has provided you for the actual context of the quote you took out of context.

          1. I took nothing out of context. You’re playing a dishonest game here trying to cover up embarrassing Libertarian quotes.

            1. You are either deliberately taking them out of context or misunderstanding them. I am wiling to concede that perhaps you misunderstand them.

              But it is one or the other.

              1. You don’t know what “out of context” means. Like a Fundamentalist Bible Thumper, it apparently means “I don’t like that verse you quoted.”

                1. I notice above you used ellipses. You used them to take out the most important part of the quote.

                  http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ellipsis.aspx

                  1. I know about ellipses. A shortened quote with a … is not automatically “out of context.” Keep whacking away, but my primary fault is quoting embarrassing Libertarian quotes that Libertarians would rather not be brought up.

                    1. The way you used ellipses was to take out the most important part of the Rothbard quote.

                      Unless you copied it from elsewhere.

                    2. It’s not the most important part, it’s a lame academic excuse for “unleashing cops.”

                      Does anybody believe that “unleashed cops” are going to really be punished any more than they are on a leash now?

                    3. You’re like an even more annoying version of the “I’m not touching you! I’m not touching you!” game that 5 year-olds play. Or “I know you are, but what am I?” game.

                      The plain fact is you completely distorted and changed the clear meaning of the actual quote by selectively editing and leaving out a section that is significant to the author’s intended meaning. You can argue all you want about whether that meets someone’s technical definition of “taking out of context,” but it sure as shit is NOT the “direct quote” you’re trying to make it out to be. It is disingenuous at best and in fact dishonest. I.e. BULLSHIT.

                    4. You’re psychologically projecting your bullshit childish games onto me.

                    5. White Indian|8.5.11 @ 2:02PM|#
                      I know about … whacking away, but my primary fault is … embarrassing … that Libertarians would rather not be brought up.

                    6. If a Libertarian uses ellipses, is he taking things out of context automatically? hmmm

                      Ya’ll are pathetic; you’re as embarrassing to the movement as Rothbard himself who called for “cops to be unleashed” on “bums and vagrants.”

                      Jeeesh, I’m glad I left the Church of Libertarianism.

                  1. Yeah, read Libertarian authors and Barf.

                    1. Person from India who is white,

                      You still have not told me: If you oppose both capitalism and socialism what is it you advocate to replace them?

                    2. My name comes from James Axtell’s book The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America. (Oxford University Press.)

                      In it, he quotes from Benjamin Franklin, who observed:

                      When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return, and that this is not natural to them merely as Indians, but as men, is plain from this, that when white persons of either sex have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life, and the care and pains that are necessary to support it, and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them. One instance I remember to have heard, where the person was brought home to possess a good Estate; but finding some care necessary to keep it together, he relinquished it to a younger Brother, reserving to himself nothing but a gun and a match-Coat, with which he took his way again to the Wilderness.

                      It’s hard to advocate anything that has been invaded, occupied, and destroyed.

                    3. When can we expect you to leave the confines of modern life to live in the paradise of pre-industrial, pre-agricultural society among the natives there? Speaking for those of us here, I hope the answer is sooner rather than later.

                    4. In the Darien jungle, I mean.

                    5. There’s no place to go, agricultural civilization has invaded and occupied the whole earth now.

                      Amazing how a Libertarian turns into a Butch Bush-league talker so quickly.

                    6. WI,

                      I can sympathize with anyone who has had an option removed from him by force. A lifestyle option that you would like to at least try, has been stolen from you. In a libertarian society, with more freedoms you would have a better chance to recreate lifestyles of the past – or blended lifestyles taking some aspects of the past but retaining some aspects of contemporary medicine and technology. As a libertarian I am happy to see you live in any lifestyle you choose so long as it does not initiate force upon others.

                    7. I don’t even advocate it, PIRS. It’s just that I understand things now from studying anthropology and archeology, and I understand the current system in that light.

                      You’re against the State.

                      So am I, but I understand the City-State is a single entity.

                      I don’t really know what to do, but I know that Libertarians who promote a Jetsons City and think they can divorce that from the State are totally ignorant of how the agricultural City-State system really works.

                    8. Jetson’s was a work of fiction.

                      I remember when the year 2000 turned around there were lots of media reports about how science fiction authors wrote about that year in the distant past. Didn’t quite work out that we all had jet packs. There were even writers who though all of North America would be one giant city – didn’t happen.

                      There is no reason that large swaths of forest could not still exist in a libertarian society, nothing to prevent it at all. If you value a particular lifestyle there is no reason it could not be recreated in a libertarian society.

                      You have a better shot at living the lifestyle you want in a libertarian society than you do in our present society.

                      We both agree the state should be abolished.

                      Can we at least work together on that?

                    9. It’s a Jetsons World
                      http://mises.org/resources/652…..lic-Crimes

                      I know Christianity better than most Xians too.

                    10. “We both agree the state should be abolished.

                      “Can we at least work together on that?”

                      Agreed.

                      It’s coming to an end. All the survivalist/doom porn websites (even WSJ and Forbes nowadays) know it.

                      I just hope we have a landbase fertile enough to not lose our species to extinction.

                      Ever read this? He’s perceptive, and includes psychology is his work, which is more down my path than even anthropology.

                      The Final Empire: The Collapse of Civilization and the Seed of the Future
                      by William H. K?tke
                      http://www.rainbowbody.net/Finalempire/

                    11. Jeffery Tucker, the author of that book, would not deny any of the points I was actually making above. He would not deny that the 2011 we are living in today is far different from the one of science fiction of years past. Nor would he deny that a voluntary community that wishes to live as you apparently would is perfectly compatible with a libertarian society.

                    12. There is no voluntary agricultural City-State. It has invaded and occupied the whole world now.

                      Whenever a Libertarian says “State” or “Government,” what they should really say to be more accurate is “agricultural City-State.”

                    13. You don’t need a libertarian society to have large swaths of forest. Right now, White Indian could walk away from his keyboard and be living out in the middle of some Alaskan forest within a few days. The forest is there and nobody’s stopping him.

                    14. Yeah, that’s what agricultural civilization does:

                      Invades and occupies and then pushes the free families making a natural living on the land to the marginal hinterlands.

                      How’s it feel being a Libertarian aggressor telling me to love it or leave it? You took it and occupied it. You need to own up to that.

                      Yes, you. Maybe your ancestors did all the bloody killing, but you’re still a part of the occupation.

                      You are an occupier. Just like the occupiers of Iraq. Think staying a few generations makes it ok?

                    15. And so … you’re sitting here trollling on the Internet. Shouldn’t you be off escaping again into the Woods?

                    16. Where? Nobody can make a living in the woods anymore, and you know it.

                      You’ve occupied all the good ground, only a few marginal places are there still bands of “uncontacted” (unmolested) natural humans who haven’t been shot to make way for McDonald’s beef or oil for your car.

                    17. We’re warming up all of Alaska for you, or the Canadian Great White North, if you prefer. It’s not going to be as honky dory as you think it’s gonna be, though. You won’t be able to pop upstairs and have your mom make you a PBJ.

                    18. Half of agricultural civilization’s population starving or living in food insecurity isn’t so “honky dory.”

                      Nasty, brutish, and short didn’t describe the paleolithic Original Affluent Society as much as the bottom half civilization.

                      That’s why Libertarians hate inductive reasoning and science, as much as any Creationist – it shows your economic religion false.

                      But you are successful at one thing. Death. Death as evidenced by the Sixth Great Extinction. Ain’t that “honky dory?”

                    19. You’ll have to excuse me. Need to tend to my vegetable patch and then go oppress some hunter-gatherers.

                    20. You’ll have to excuse me. Need to tend to my vegetable patch and then go oppress some hunter-gatherers.

                    21. Darned server squirrels. They could use a nice, long Trail of Tears march!

                    22. The land you’re cultivating was taken from the first families by force. Land Title is the primary government enTitlement program.

                      And you hold it by force, via the sheriff and land title office (or recorder’s office.)

                      And Libertarians will bullshit me about how anybody “trespassing” on their lawn is somehow “initiating aggression” against them. It’s the way they clear their conscious, via equivocation.

                      Let’s say a sleepy Injun vagrant rolls out a sleeping bag on the corner of you lawn, in fact, on the corner of 4 adjacent lawns. Harming nothing, nobody in sight. Is he somehow, magically, initiating force against 4 owners of land at the same time?

                      Sleeping Injun vagrant more kick’em’ass than Chuck Norris!

                    23. Nope. Not going to say that. What was done to the American aborigines was wrong. Am going to say the concept of statute of limitations (or, more generally, letting go of crimes done in the distant past) is a very good idea, beneficial to today’s ancestors of those aborigines as well as us white guys.

            2. I notice above you used ellipses. You used them to take out the most important part of the quote.

              http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/ellipsis.aspx

      3. Yeah, nice use of the ellipsis there WI, but the full quote shows that you are well and truly full of shit.

        1. Are you denying Rothbard called for unleashing the cops on bums and vagrants?

          You’d be wrong. Typical though.

          1. Okay I’m bored with you. Time for some more coffee…

            1. It’s two “m’s” you fucking retard. TWO Ms!!111!!!1!!1!

            2. Funny how quoting Libertarians makes Libertarians express disdain and want to run away.

              1. Quote some Spooner. That makes us insane!

                1. I’ll raise you one insane Rand quote.

                  1. I’ll have to see it first. And it has to be real.

                    1. “[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, Q and A session following her Address To The Graduating Class Of The United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, March 6, 1974

                      Now get off my property and DIE like a sub-human qua sub-human on the Trail of Tears.

                    2. Ayn Rand did not consider herself a libertarian. She called us libertarians “Hippies of the Right”.

                    3. And she was right.

                    4. PIRS, I’m aware of Rand’s view of Libertarians. Idiots who think people can’t read bring this up every time they want to distance from her. Lame.

                    5. You have demonstrated your inability to read by taking Rothbard out of context and even when presented with the proper context dancing around it.

                    6. You have demonstrated your Libertarian bent to falsely accuse people of taking embarrassing Libertarian quotes out of context.

                    7. “You have demonstrated … people … taking … quotes out of context”

                      Is that an accurate representation of what you said above?

                    8. Most American Indians had no concept of property rights, held slaves, routinely stole from and killed other Indians (and Whites) with no regard to their rights. Such a culture has no claim to moral superiority, and certainly has no ethical prerogative to subject its own tribal members to perpetual savagery and poverty.

                    9. Libertarian Lies.

                      Most American Indians did NOT hold slaves (but, yes, some agricultural chiefdom’s did, and those warring with the invaders.)

                      And if Indians lived in “perpetual savagery and poverty,” then why did Thomas Paine write:

                      “The life of an Indian is a continual holiday, compared with the poor of Europe; and, on the other hand it appears to be abject when compared to the rich. Civilization, therefore, or that which is so-called, has operated two ways: to make one part of society more affluent, and the other more wretched, than would have been the lot of either in a natural state.”

                      Is Thomas Paine a goddam socialist or something?

                    10. Person from India who is White,

                      Not all libertarians agree on every single issue. For example, I happen to disagree with some of the things that Lib’Tarian has said. Perhaps he disagrees with Thomas Pain.

                      What we all have in common is that we want you and everyone else to be able to live your life as you choose so long as you do not initiate force against another person.

                      Let me ask you this question, would it not be a good thing if the property rights of uncontacted tribes in the Amazon were respected? Under libertarian theory the land is theirs because they have “homesteded” it. They are using it to fulfill their needs and have been for perhaps millennia. It is their property under libertarian theory.

                    11. Thanks, Mr. Obvious, I understand there are variations of thought in a religious-economic movement. Yet you avoided the question:

                      Do you, as well as most Libertarians, think Property is essentially as valuable as life?

                      Care to answer?

                      I’ve said Property is the core value of Libertarianism, and you keep weavin’ and dodgin’.

                    12. “Do you, as well as most Libertarians, think Property is essentially as valuable as life?”

                      I can only answer in Japanese (or Chinese) : Mu.

                      Life is impossible without property.

                      Does a dog have a Buddha nature? Same kind of question.

                    13. “Life is impossible without property.”

                      Finally.

                      Well, humans lived for 2 million years without the abstract ownership of private property of the earth’s surface and resources.

                      How long have sqirrels, elephants, and dolphins?

                      But thanks for admitting to me your religion’s dogma.

                      “Life is impossible without property.”

                      Ever read Marshall Sahlins or Richard Lee? Or any anthropology? They’ve pretty much dispatched such bullshit.

                    14. A concept can exist without a word for it. The word I used above [mu] is Japanese. For a long time English had no such word until it was borrowed from that language. Just because people (or squirrels) don’t think about or have a word for a concept does not mean it exist. Ever see a dog react to someone coming into his territory? Or ants? They are acting on instinct. They are defending their property. Why do you think squirrels hide their nuts? There is a reason for this. It is their property.

                    15. Squirrels don’t have an abstract concept of property ownership, whereby they can own a whole forest, and make other squirrels pay RENT or die for lack of acorns.

                      For a good introduction to the concept of property, I suggest reading attorney Jeff Vail, who states:

                      The abstract notion of ownership serves as the single, greatest perpetuator of hierarchy. When one steps back and examines the notion of “owning” something, the abstraction becomes readily apparent. Ownership represents nothing more than a power-relationship?the ability to control. The tribal institution of “Ownership by use” on the other hand, suggests simply that one can only “own” those things that they put to immediate, direct and personal use to meet basic needs?and not more. A society crosses the memetic Rubicon when it accepts the abstraction that ownership can extend beyond the exclusive needs of one individual for survival. 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.

                      ~A Theory of Power
                      Chapter 9 – Forward, to Rhizome
                      http://www.jeffvail.net/2005/0…..nline.html

                    16. How droll, unoriginal and blatantly false — hierarchical relationships are extant in wide swathes of the animal kingdom, where (as you note) there are no abstractified ownership rights. This is just the sort of nonsensical and self-contradicting garbage that libertarians decry; shoddy thinking for the closed mind.

                    17. Yes, red ass baboons are hierarchical.

                      Humans evolved to be egalitarian, which increased their survival rate.

                      Hierarchical social organization for humans is a 35 million year devolution.

                      But I like your power tie, which is an artificial manifestation of Sexual Dimorphism expressed in red-ass baboons so they can dominate other baboons.

                    18. Your cite stated without qualification that “Hierarchy, at any level, requires this excess, abstract ownership[…]” — it’s not my fault you can’t read and comprehend the genius that you quoted extensively as an argument for your own case. That might be my hierarchical biases imposing themselves on you, though.

                    19. It’s not my fault you can’t read and comprehend.

                    20. Squirrels don’t have an abstract concept of property ownership

                      Have you ever seen what happens when one squirrel tries to take over another’s nest? Or tries to take away an acorn or mate from another?

                    21. Do you see squirrels fighting or killing each other all the time?

                    22. Native Americans weren’t territorial? I wonder what all those wars they had were over?

                    23. If you’ve studied anthropology, instead of Libertarian deductive bullshit, you’d know that the “warlike” Plains tribes were a post-apocalyptic culture, living a new lifestyle on introduced horses, after their families had been decimated by the invasion of civilization.

                    24. Also, it’s just fucking embarrassing that you’re relying on the most pseudo-scientific of all the branches of study in anthropology (itself an academic, rather than a scientific, discipline): namely, development of early humanity. The anthropological community’s musings on humanity’s earliest forms of social organization are no less speculative than those of libertarians.

                    25. You sound like a young earth Creationist. Those damn uppity scientists, anyway!

                      Last I knew, Libertarians weren’t out in the field, digging up bones, doing laboratory analysis on teeth.

                    26. So being an anthropologist as a vocation is completely incompatible with being a libertarian politically? That’s quite an assumption.

                    27. It’s almost like an evolutionary biologist being incompatible with being a Fundamentalist Baptist preacher.

                      Because empirical evidence and inductive thinking from such evidence tends to destroy house of cards deductive syllogisms built on poor premises.

                      Mises’ tomes are especially full of crap premises, easily deflated with a look in an anthropology, psychology, or other real science text.

                      Thus, like Baptist preachers, Libertarians are often caught railing against those damn uppity leftist scientists destroying the morals of the children.

                    28. 1. That’s an opinion, not fact

                      2. You seem determined to hang Mises around our necks for some reason. Am I bound by some blood oath to agree with everything Mises wrote because I have commonality with small l libertarians? (although we certainly are not monolithic)

                    29. And the only “scientists” I have issue with are those in the craptastic “soft” pseudo-science fields, and those who try to gain entree into the political process by using their data.

                      Separation of church and state is dandy. Now, let’s forge ahead and make walls of separation between the economy and the state, and science and the state.

                    30. Anthropology, archeology, and evolutionary biology aren’t “pseudo-science.” Their empirical findings merely refute Libertarian premises; thus, your bile.

                    31. Oddly, I never mentioned any sciences by name. Someone have turf to defend?

                    32. Oddly, I have already mentioned sciences by name that destroy the premises upon which Libetarian “house of cards” deductive syllogisms are constructed. Now you’re too cowardly to stand by your judgement.

                    33. So, Sitting Bull was actually just Mad Maxx in drag?

                    34. Right, because the Cheyenne didn’t get pushed clear from the Great Lakes Region to west of the Rockies by the Souix. Who were pushed from east of the Great Lakes region to the eastern rockies and northern great plains by….anybody? Buehler?

                      You really picked the wrong site to come throw around your self-perceived intellectual superiority.

                    35. I think you’re the only one who has perceived my intellectual superiority.

                    36. I’m positive that I don’t perceive any such thing. You are articulate. However, being articulate doesn’t make one either correct or intelligent.

                    37. You brought up my intellectual superiority, not me, not anybody else.

                      Are you going egalitarian on me? Do I need to be as stupid as you?

                    38. Your SELF-PERCEIVED intellectual superiority. Which is having considerable trouble getting off the ground.

                      As you conveniently evade my point about Native American tribes constantly pushing against and dislocating weaker North American tribes.

                      Why, it’s almost like territoriality and aggression are HUMAN conditions rather than being artificially induced by teh evul capitalizms….

                    39. I don’t have any self-perceived intellectual superiority that I know of – until YOU brought up the subject.

                      Maybe I AM one of those superior Randian Men of Mind, and your emotional response to me is a lightning quick rational calculation.

                      Anyway, I’m flattered that you brought up the subject of intellectual superiority.

                      Is it a bad thing to be superior? Or should I hide it and be stupid like you?

                    40. And still you evade…..

                    41. What am I evading? Your jealousy upon perceiving what you call my intellectual superiority?

                    42. Isn’t it Thursday yet?

                    43. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that this idiot buys into the “Original Affluent Society” bullshit.

                    44. I think the “white” 1/2 of White Indian is suffering from a tremendous guilt complex. He must subscribe to the concept of original sin.

                    45. Ah, the amateur Libertarian psychologist with his free market E-meter.

                      Actually, my name is a chapter in The Invasion Within: The Contest of Cultures in Colonial North America. Oxford University Press.

                      I’m sorry if I make you feel inferior.

                    46. You nailed it in one try. I bow to you, good sir. 😛

                      No Troll Thursday is still 6 days away?

                    47. But, do you subscribe to the concept of original sin? We can exchange snarks all day, or you can address my points. Your call.

                      Of course, your failure to address my points will be duly noted.

                    48. Yeah, that damn empirical evidence.

                      We all need to just have faith in Mises, Rothbard, Rand, etal, unless a certain passage from their scriptures embarrass us, and then we attack the person who knows about it.

                    49. “that damn empirical evidence” which you merely reference, rather than cite to make your case. If the piles of empirical evidence are really so obvious and irrefutable, then it wouldn’t bother you to provide an iota of them in this debate, would it? It’d be a tad harder than question-begging, affirming the consequent, and red herrings, but I’m sure you’re up to the task.

                    50. Lazy bum. Ever pick up a basic college anthropology text? I’m gonna unleash Rothbard’s cops on you.

                    51. You fucking moron! You haven’t used “inherently paternalistic” even once! I write books, and you just eat the covers. Sheesh!

                    52. Sweet Jesus, I forgot, Zman.

                    53. Yeah, just like a creationist can’t wrap his mind around the idiots that buy into evolution.

                      But if you want to know, it’s because empirical evidence trumps your house of cards deductive syllogisms built on false premises every day, Mr. Trouser.

                    54. They didn’t have any right to the land. No one has ‘rights’ to land. You have the ability to hold land, to stake property. If that hold is recognised and/or if you can defend it, then it is your land–as long as you can hold it. But there is no ‘right’ to land any more than there is a ‘right’ to have steak every night.

      4. hmm dude, that was a pretty asinine thing for Rothbard to say, even with the added context. Do you not agree?

        1. Libertarians are quite eager about defending property. This one, in his eagerness, revealed just how far Libertarians would go to defend property, and just how much they’re really interested in anything close to liberty.

          1. Guess so. You go trolling for someone to argue with on the Internet, you’re going to find someone to argue with. Not sure it really proves anything about the characteristics of any group of people.

    7. Oh, well, obviously if [authority figure] said it,* I believe it. Herp derp.

      *IF he even said it.

      1. Rothbard said it, herpy derpy.

        And it isn’t all that crazy of a quote considering that Libertarianism isn’t really much about liberty, but about grabbing and retaining the one thing as valuable as Life itself.

        Now “Get Off My Property,” ya worthless bum, before I UNLEASH the Libertarian Cops to administer some baton shampoo on your socialist skill.

        1. “Libertarian COPS”

          LMAO, not in this paradigm. Police officers are obligated to enforce all laws, not just the ones they agree with. A “Libertarian COP” would quickly get burned out from enforcing laws he / she considers unjust.

          In a system of anarco-capitalism there WOULD be libertarian COPs.

          1. The cops were acting in a Rothbardian “unleashed” manner, were they not? That makes them Libertarian, Libertarian enough at least to get you frothing.

            1. No, they were beating up a guy who was not initiating force.

              1. Burglarizing cars isn’t initiating force? Geeesh, a new Libertarian take.

                1. Evidence that he was burglarizing cars, please…

                  1. It’s in several articles I’ve read that he was suspected of burglarizing vehicles. Can’t you read?

                    1. The police were called to complaints of car owners who found their cars vandalized (window broken). Kelly had the misfortune of merely being in the area when the cops arrived.

                      You should find better sources with which to apply your superior reading skills.

                    2. Goodness. Another point evaded. You are tearing it up. Can’t think for yourself without a few quotes?

                    3. “Thomas, who was suspected of BURGLARIZING cars when approached by officers, died five days after the confrontation…”

                      http://www.ocregister.com/news…..homas.html

                      I read well enough, lying prick.

                    4. “I’ve read that he was suspected of burglarizing vehicles.”

                      Being suspected of a crime is not the same as actually committing the crime.

                    5. Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

                      But the cops were doing the Libertarian thing, protecting property from being burglarized.

                      And they looked “unleashed” to me, as Rothbard advocated.

                    6. So the man they killed was going to vandalize the cars? Can I borrow your crystal ball for a moment?

                    7. You said he *was* going to burglarize.

                      I *quoted a news article* that said he was *suspected* of burglarizing.

                      Lame shit there, Sly Sy.

                    8. I *quoted a news article* that said he was *suspected* of burglarizing.

                      And since that reporter obtained that information from the Fullerton PD, which might be subject to an immense wrongful death suit and therefore attempt to lessen those damages by attributing illegal behavior to the victim, you choose to use it to make an accusation of this site’s approval for the FPD actions.

                      You accuse one of the few sites on the internet expressing outrage at the actions of the cops of approving their behavior? A massive failure of reading comprehension.

                      We get it. You like Democrats, and need to try and link libertarians with the far right. Drop the bible-thumping comparisons already. It’s the only consistency of your comments.

        2. Allow me to make my point more obvious: it doesn’t matter what he said, despite it having been made clear that you dishonestly manipulated the citation to remove important context. For your comment to be relevant you would need to show that anyone here agreed with the quote as presented. It’s not a matter of “Rothbard said it, I believe it, that settles it.”

          And since you’re trolling here, you’re the trespasser. But I’m going to deal with you by ignoring you from here on out because you’re an insufferably dishonest twit.

          1. You gonna unleash the Rothbardian pigs on me, just because you don’t like embarrassing quotes from Libertarians on a Libertarian website. Feel the freedom, man.

    8. Rothbard was a loon.

      1. Libertarians tell me that all the time.

        Yet he’s still highly regarded, and I’m told to read him all the time. And his books are on sale all over Libertarian websites.

        Weird, eh?

        1. Part of the reason I quit the Libertarian Party, and make sure to let everyone know I’m a small ‘L’ libertarian.

          1. I’ve been through both of those stages. Keep reading some more, and you’ll make sure people know you’re not a Big L or a little l libertarian.

            1. OK, sure. Wouldn’t be any skin off my nose if I decided one day that I’m not a libertarian. I’m not religious about it or anything. So far, it’s been a pretty fruitful and rational way of thinking about modern societal power structures.

              1. I admire Libertarian for one thing: they recognize the violence inherent in the State, and want to see it end.

                Not many folks are that perceptive. So give yourself a pat on the back.

                But every Libertarians say “State” or “Government,” they should really be saying “agricultural City-State” or civilization.

                So here’s an exercise: replace “state” with “civilization” with some luminary Libertarians, and their statement becomes a whole lot more accurate:

                The leviathan civilization, that monster devouring the earth in this century, is in the throes of death. ? Llewellyn H. Rockwell

                Civilization can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster. ? Ludwig von Mises

                The great non sequitur committed by defenders of Civilization, is to leap from the necessity of society to the necessity of Civilization. ? Murray N. Rothbard

                Earth’s ecology is a long record of civilization’s policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of ecology. ? Ludwig von Mises

                Ah, now I agree! If they had only said it that way.

                1. Sorry, I can’t follow your thinking. I can’t think precisely at the level of grand, vague concepts like “Civilization”, “Government”, “Agricultural City-State”. Now, if we were talking about how libertarian political philosophy informs my opinions of, say, the activities of the San Jose Redevelopment Agency or the Renton Police Department or the United States Treasury under the direction of Tim Geithner, and I can give you more than vague philosophizing.

                2. Or, to put it another way, when you type “agricultural City-State” I just see “granfalloon Granfalloon-granfalloon”. What can one say in general about granfalloons except that you can’t say anything in general about an illusion.

                  1. Mike, go to Scholar.Google.com, where scholarly journal articles, college texts, etc. are indexed.

                    Type in “Agricultural Civilization.” See the scads of references.

                    Or just go to Wikitruthiness, where it states: “The word civilization comes from the Latin civilis, meaning civil, related to the Latin civis, meaning citizen, and civitas, meaning city or CITY-STATE.”

                    I prefer using agricultural City-State with Libertarians, because they so densely want to eliminate the State without realizing the agricultural City-State, or agricultural civilization, is a single integrated scheme.

                    Maybe it’s cumbersome, but it’s like having to say the term “winged aircraft” to a fool who wants the wings of his aircraft to wither away so he can take better aerial photographs.

                    Winged Aircraft is an integrated system. Chop off the wings, and a winged aircraft will crash and burn.

                    Agricultural Civilization is an integrated system. Do away with the State, and the agricultural City State, or agricultural civilization will crash and burn.

                    1. “Agricultural+city+state” yields results at Scholar.google.com, although “agricultural+civilization” is much more common.

                      Why is this stuff so hard?

                    2. I’m pretty familiar with agricultural civilization from playing Civ, and, you know, having sent my whole life in it.

                    3. You’re the one who expressed bafflement at agricultural City State. Agricultural Civilization, agricultural City State, same thing.

                    4. No, Mr. Reading Comprehension, I expressed that one cannot assign simple descriptions or characterization to vast, multi-faceted, loosely-defined entities such as “agricultural civilization”. Reference the parable of the blind men and the elephant.

          2. I would be willing to bet that there aren’t 3 regulars here who DO belong to the Libertarian Party.

            1. I’ve made digs at the LP several times here. Can’t remember anybody coming to the party’s defense.

    9. So, you’re saying that Murray Rothbard said irresponsible, racist shit that damaged the reputation of libertarianism. Not news.

      1. Which Libertarian/Austrian/crankarcho-capitalist author hasn’t damaged the reputation of Libertarianism?

        1. Showing your true colors now? So, you’re not just pointing out flaws in Rothbard and his followers, but trolling for an argument with libertarians in general, huh.

  13. “That means the government’s ability to do anything about this market crash is severely limited.”

    False. You know what the government can do Henry?

    GO THE FUCK AWAY

    Seriously. I am so tired of everyone asking Washington to Do Something. We’re in this mess for a large part because of Washington. We’re going to stay in this mess for a large part because of Washington. More Government is not going to solve this. More deficit spending is not going to solve this. What’s going to solve this? Less onerous regulations. A stronger dollar. Less debt. And a country whose Government is not on super-thin ice because of it’s complete inability (as reflected by the non-solution to the debt crisis) to be fiscally sound.

    GO THE FUCK AWAY

    1. This. And furthemore, can we stop with the allusions to the Great Depression on these kind of stories? Until people are actually doing things like standing in bread lines or busting up furniture for firewood, it is absolutely insulting to the memories of people who actually lived through it to compare our situation.

      1. Until people are actually doing things like standing in bread lines or busting up furniture for firewood

        Never happen. This is The Greatest Nation on Earth? in The Twenty-First Century?.

      2. 1) I’ve driven by some long lines at the local food pantry

        2) Fireplaces are rarer these days.

        – yes, a little snark.

      3. Dude. I may have to delay buying a new iPhone for a few months. That’s, like, twice as bad as having to stand in a breadline!

        1. Breadline apps are the next big thing?

    2. I was thinking the same thing. The only thing I want the Government to do is stop creating new problems. Given enough time we can clean up all of its other messes.

    3. But if someone with authority isn’t doing something, who will?

      Certainly not the millions of individuals who make up the market. I mean, without a central authority telling them what to do, how will they know what to do?
      Besides, the millions of interactions between millions of people can’t be quantified and observed, therefor it doesn’t exist.
      Only top down impositions can be quantified! So we must have more of them! Only top down can fix things because we can see it! If you can’t see it it doesn’t exist!

    4. Do you like the Government’s first and most important enTitlement program – land title?

    1. Matt Damon acts destitute in Minnetonka for a good cause

      Well, I chuckled over the ending.

  14. DEA agents allegedly told Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla that he could continue running the Sinaloa Cartel so long as he dropped dimes on fellow cartels.

    Oooo, I’ve been waiting for season 6 of The Shield for a while now.

    1. mackey sells out everyone & goes into porn

      1. Don’t forget the Dani, Claudette, and Julian threeway with the strapons.

        And the cats strangling Dutch.

    2. Looks like Sinaloa is up to speed the tricks of the Greeks in Season 2.

    3. DEA agents allegedly told Jesus Vicente Zambada Niebla that he could continue running the Sinaloa Cartel so long as he dropped dimes on fellow cartels.

      I guess now we know WWJD.

  15. Just a note to all you prophets out there off to found your own sect… Despite what you might think, not everything a prophet or messiah does need be recorded.

    “They played other tapes in which Jeffs was heard instructing as many as a dozen of his young wives on how to please him sexually ? and thus, he told them, please God.

    ‘You might have asked yourselves … a lot of people may ask, why would someone record sex?’ Nichols told jurors during closing arguments. ‘This individual considers himself to be the prophet. Everything he did, hour after hour, he was required to keep a record of that.'”

    1. Everything he did, hour after hour, he was required to keep a record of that.

      Required by whom, exactly?

      1. By me.

        1. That was me, actually, just a joke handle.

  16. Monetize it – don’t criticize it
    Monetize it and I will supervise it

    1. I’m like a walking razor
      Don’t you watch my size
      I’m dangerous
      Said I’m dangerous

  17. Compatibility of Matt Damon with Mitt Romney
    Physical 36%
    Emotional 9%
    Intellectual 98%
    Overall 48%

    1. You’ve underweighted the ‘Emotional’

  18. My name makes for lousy anagrams

    Damn At Tom
    Madman Tot

  19. So I guess there’s no Troll-free Friday, huh?

    1. I would prefer a Matt-Damon-free Friday.

      1. Blaspheme!!

    2. Troll Free Thursday worked out pretty well

      1. I didn’t really monitor the other threads, but it worked pretty well for the Morning Lynx.

    3. Depends on the quality of your incif file.

  20. Turns out that the answer to WWJD is “narc em out.”

  21. “Matt Damon Day” prank fails

    Nothing else happens.

    1. Unfortunately, it’s more like “Matt Damon Day Prank Fails, Troll still thinks it’s hilarious and keeps posting all day.”

      1. H&R commentator makes rare, cogent point.

        Nothing else happens.

      2. HEY IT’S A SHITTY JOB. SOMEBODY HAS TO DO IT, BUT ONLY BECAUSE THEY LOVE IT, BECAUSE WHY ELSE WOULD THEY DO IT, SINCE IT’S A SHITTY JOB. BY THE WAY MY MOTHER IS A TROLL, SO I KNOW WHAT I’M TALKING ABOUT.

      3. Matt Damon is Jason Bourne.

        1. I thought he was late and unlamented Johnny Longtorso.

          Oops. Is outing somebody frowned upon here?

          Sorry.

  22. BTW:
    Have we won in Libya yet?

      1. Obama should screen the Godfather to see how it’s done.

        1. Revenge is a dish best served with arugula and a nice chianti.

          1. Revenge is a dish best served during a baptism.

    1. maybe in libya our wealthy [JOBZ] creators can create [JOBZ]

        1. hi olld mex still wating on a anser wehr r thess [JOBZ] r at

          1. obvuois anser is to do stimuls2 and QE3, only govermint creates jobs

            1. this shit is so stupid even i don’t believe it and im a fucking retard

          2. Let me be clear: I am pivoting to jobs. For the sixth..no, SEVENTH, time since I took office. I will continue to build upon my earlier success.

            1. Oh darling, I would happily fellate you with your wife watching, and even I don’t believe that any more.

      1. Jeez, this guy’s even dumber than me!

        HELLO RETARD I’M SPEAKING SLOWLY SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND ME…

        1. still cant understand matt. try somalian

    1. I’m betting a good portion of that 117,000 is a low teacher adjustment, which is probably off by enough to push it back to 9.2% So the adjusted number will probably be 9.2 lol

      Gotta love having the room to fudge the numbers and adjust them later.

  23. You know what was a good movie? The Talented Mr. Ripley

      1. I saw Alain Delon’s Ripley a little while ago. I still haven’t seen Malkovich’s though. Thanks for the tip.

        1. Sigourney Weaver was the best Ripley. Period.

          1. Believe it or not!

            1. Tim is the greatest American hero?

              1. Then why hasn’t he won the war in Libya yet!

    1. Speaking of that, I stole every scene we were in together, bitch. Jude, too. You suck.

      1. If “stealing a scene from Phillip Seymour Hoffman” is required to be a good actor, then I’m not sure there are any good (living) actors.

  24. I refuse to participate in Morning Links that happen while I’m in transit.

    1. You can pretend to be Matt Damon…

      1. I liked Damon in The Other Guys. His pairing with Will Ferrell showed he had comedic talent.

        1. He was pretty good as the dentist in The Hangover, too.

        2. That was Marky Mark, not Damon.

          1. They all look alike to me.

      2. Au H20 has already saturated that market.

        1. Dude, I was forced to watch the Today show. You are damn right I posted on here to maintain my sanity!

  25. Were the friday funnies funny?

  26. Hey, has anyone seen a boat?

  27. Matt, get off the computer and get ready for your part in clerks 3 where you blow a donkey.

    1. Shit, again?

      How come these scenes never make it into final cut, Kevin? I’m starting to get suspicious.

  28. Pomosexual

    Pomosexual is a portmanteau of the terms pomo (an abbreviation of postmodernism) and sexual; it is a neologism used to describe a person who avoids sexual orientation labels such as heterosexual and homosexual. It is not to be confused with asexuality, which is a sexual orientation used to describe an individual who does not experience sexual attraction.


    Which leads to…

    Girlfags and guydykes…

    I smell a sitcom.

    1. In my day, we called this being bi.

    2. If I was given one bullet and a time machine, I’d go after Jacques Derrida.

      I wish I’d had wikipedia when I had to read that piece of shit Limited Inc.. I feel vindicated that Searle and Foucault agree with me on the utter incomprehensibility.

      1. Deconstructionism has been an inevitable idea since the Enlightenment. Once you realize you can take something apart, it will eventual become obvious that you can take anything apart.

        1. Now THAT sounds like my childhood!

        2. Eh, my problem is mostly that people who don’t understand it (which is pretty much everyone) use it as an intellectual bludgeon to beat readers into submission with bullshit. Sure, there was eventually going to be a fight about whether text and its signifiers had to be tied to the author’s intent, but Derrida did it in the dodgiest, intellectually shady way possible.

      2. I’ll give you the bullet if you can find a time machine. Although it may be better to find a killing device in that time to lessen the timeline disruption. Maybe this time Spock will be captain.

        1. Maybe this time Spock will be captain.

          Sorry. Scott Bakula will be born 30years earlier and get the job. At least in that timeline, StarTrek gets better as it progresses instead of worse.

          1. (Kirk takes Picard’s job, Picard take’s Cisco’s, and then Cisco is captain for both Voyager and Enterprise. time-travel, stfu.)

    3. EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT POMOSEXUALS GET SHITTY PAY FOR THEIR HARD WORK. THEY ONLY DO IT BECAUSE THEY LOVE IT.

    4. Captain Jack on the TV show Torchwood fits this description.

      1. I believe Captain Jack on the film series Pirates of the Caribbean also fits this description.

      2. I like to think of this place as a haven from the entire Dr. Who universe. Please don’t ruin it.

        1. EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE! EXTERMINATE!

    5. When guys claim to be “lesbians in a man’s body”, I am not sure bull dyke is the type of lesbian they are thinking of.

      1. I always want to punch guys who say that, but I’m afraid that I’ll be punching a woman.

      2. I always want to punch guys who say that, but I’m afraid that I’ll be punching a woman.

    6. My first big co-star and real-life girlfriend was Minnie Driver

    7. I hate to break it to the pomos, but anything other than affirmatively identifying as hetero makes you homo.

      If you “experimented”, you’re gay.

      If you are gay “sometimes” and hetero “sometimes”, you’re gay.

      If you’re “not sure”, or “don’t want to apply a label”, you’re gay.

      Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Insert usual disclaimers, with a pro-gay cosmo slant. But stop BSing me. Thanks.

      1. But what about all the chicks who made out with each other in college only to go on to become soccer moms? Are they gay? And if so, how does the term “gay” mean much anymore?

        1. STILL GAY

          1. If that is true, then most chicks under 40 are gay. Sorry, but that doesn’t jive.

            1. Did they “make out”, or did they get with the entire lesbian sex program?

              Because college girls will get drunk and make out in public as part of a performance for male attention, and I would not consider that “gay”. It’s just a game and a lark.

              1. I have known more than a few girls who did the full monty in college and seemed to be pretty straight to me. I can’t analyze them. But they are what they are.

                1. Caution:
                  Women have an agenda and motives that are beyond the cognitive powers of the average dude.

              2. ALL WOMEN ARE LESBIANS REGARDLESS.

                *GAVEL DROPS*

                ALL APPEALS MUST BE FILED BY AUGUST 31, 2011 TO FEDERAL DISTRICT COURT, WITH THE HONORABLE SLICK RICK PRESIDING

            2. Haha, only if “most chicks under 40” are on a reality show…

            3. My dad used to force me to make out with the mailman. What does that mean?

        2. Are they gay?

          Oh, yes.

        3. If a male acquaintance told you that in college he sucked a lot of dick, but since then he’s been dating women, do you think, “Oh, yeah, you’re totally straight”?

          1. True. But most of those chicks didn’t eat a lot of pussy in college. They just got it on a few times. And the rules seem to be different for women than men. There is such a stigma for men to do it, you pretty much have to be “gay” to try it. In contrast women don’t feel that stigma, so try it for fun or to make their boyfriend happy or whatever. So, I don’t think the women are “gay” but a man who says such a thing almost certainly is.

            1. OK, I can buy that.

            2. Google: women making out

            3. And the rules seem to be different for women than men.

              This is Rule#1 of Woman Club.

              1. ^THIS^

        4. Every woman I’ve ever known (well enough to ask or have them volunteer) has admitted to at least a little bicuriosity. I’m not sure the gay/straight paradigm strictly applies to women in the same way it applies to men.

          (I’m not saying there aren’t women who have never fantasized about being with another woman, but–like a guy who has never watched porn or never masturbated–they seem a rare breed to me.)

          1. Every woman I’ve ever known…

            Careful, sample size matters when it’s less than 10 😉

        5. “chicks who made out with each other in college”

          – that’s a good gay.

          1. just a side story – a few years ago I was at the bar with a gaggle of girls that I know. One of them, a friend of mine, started making out with another girl – they were all pretty drunk – as a guy took pictures of it.

            I brought the subject up a few days later and she vehemently denied doing any such thing!

      2. If you “experimented”, you’re gay.

        But … I also experimented with heterosexuality.

        Now I am confused.

        1. If you “experimented”, the experiment was almost certainly a success. Especially if it was repeated several times with the same result. Once again, NTTAWWT.

          1. Here’s the real test for men: if you’ve ever had a penis put into you body (any hole), you are gay. If you’ve ever stuck your dick into another male’s body, you are gay.

            For women, similar rules are not applicable since women rarely act in a rational manner and regularly do things solely to elicit a reaction from others.

      3. Where does boinking a tranny fall on this scale?

        1. I’ve always wondered about this. Obviously you don’t mind the dick being there but she still looks like a woman. A man having sex with a tranny still might not be attracted to the the male body, so how could he be full-out gay?

          1. so how could he be full-out gay?

            Because he put his dick into a person who also had a dick. That’s pretty much the textbook definition of gay sex. The fact that the receiver had a great pair of tits is beside the point.

        2. Pre-op or post-op?

      4. I’m trying to understand how all men aren’t considered guydykes.

        1. I’m pretty sure most guys don’t think that they are women pretending to be guys. It’s entirely too meta for most people.

          1. Yeah, but based on “Guydyke refers to a biologically male person who feels a strong romantic or erotic attraction towards lesbians, bisexual women, or lesbian culture.” describes nearly every straight male.

            1. That “or” before “lesbian culture” should probably be an “and.” Then you’d have some clarity.

            2. Throwing bisexual women in there is a red herring. The tiny fraction of men who aren’t attracted to bisexual women make a hash of the definition. It’s like that study that defined “purchasing the services of a sex worker” as “watching porn.”

              If you really are attracted to lesbians–actual lesbians–you might as well spend Saturday night beating your crotch with a wrench.

              The allure of lesbianism to most straight men is not an attraction to two women that don’t want to have sex with you whatsoever. It is the dream of the (good kind of) threesome fulfilled.

              1. If you really are attracted to lesbians–actual lesbians–you might as well spend Saturday night beating your crotch with a wrench.

                Point taken.

                The allure of lesbianism to most straight men is not an attraction to two women that don’t want to have sex with you whatsoever. It is the dream of the (good kind of) threesome fulfilled.

                That’s icing on the cake. I’m perfectly happy watching the Where the Boys Aren’t series, which is a male desert.

            3. It describes an fantasized view of lesbians that hetero guys create in their minds. Many, if not most, lesbians look like Ellen DeGeneris (once again, NTTAWWT). Most guys want a lesbian who looks like her wife.

            4. Also, what SF said – they’re lesbians, so they are very unlikely to be interested in males sexually.

              1. See, I look at lesbians in this context as a generic term, just 2 (or more) chicks getting it on with each other.

                But yeah, fantasized, for sure.

      5. If you “experimented”, you’re gay.

        Nah. You’re trying to break a continuum into a dichotomy.
        What about guys who enjoy threesomes (two guys and a girl)?

        An anecdote from an esteemed man of letters

        “We’re all gay, buddy. It’s just to what extent are you gay.” He says, “That’s bullshit, man, I ain’t gay at all!” I said, “Yes, you are and I’ll prove it.” He says, “Fine, prove it.” I said to him, “All right- do you like porn?” He says, “Yeah, I love porn, you know that.” I said, “Do you only watch two women together?” He said, “Naw, I watch a man and a woman make love.” I said, “OK, do you want the guy to have a tiny, half-flaccid penis?” He said, “Naw, man, I like big, hard, throbbing co- (stunned pause) …I did not know that about myself.”

        -Ron White-

        1. Sexuality has a distribution but the terms gay and straight are pretty clear cut.

          Sexual acts performed between two people of the same sex are gay. The extent to which a particular person may or may not be into this is where the distribution lies.

        2. dichotomy

          heh heh, heh

      6. Fluffy, I am tired of having to post this wikipedia link…

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_scale

        Very few people are either pure hetero or pure homo. The reason that chicks experiment more is because it’s more acceptable in our culture.

        Hell, I had a buddy in college who slept with 2 guys and 4 chicks. He was bisexual. For christ sakes Fluffy, people who sleep primarily with one gender but make the occasional exception do exist.

        1. I had a buddy in college who slept with 2 guys and 4 chicks.

          I. was. told. there. would. be. NO. MATH!

        2. I had a buddy in college who slept with 2 guys and 4 chicks.

          That must have been one hell of a party.

    8. You’ll be hearing from our attorney.

    9. I think it’s also called ‘gender queer’… if you see me struggling with a growler in the women’s restroom today, and in the men’s room tomorrow, don’t judge me, gender is just a social construct created so that the Man can keep you down.

      1. I’d say you’re an awkward electrician.

  29. The Huffington Post finally admits that well maybe there might be something to the ATF gun runnner scandle. But the coverup is the story not the fact that the ATF allowed Mexican drug gangs to purchase hundreds of AK 47s.

    http://thetruthaboutguns.com/2…..the-crime/

    1. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…..17104.html

      Here is the HUFFPO article. The comments are interesting. Not one Huffpo liberal to be found on them. “Gun scandal? What gun scandal?

  30. http://www.washingtontimes.com…..#pagebreak

    Huge rare earth deposit found in Nebraska. I am sure Obama and the EPA are burning the midnight oil working to ensure it is never exploited.

    1. Let’s use up all the Chinese sources first.

      1. I like this idea. Plus, by the time the Chinese source is depleted, the US will have split inot Red and Blue, and Nebraska can mine thie shit out of it while Chicago seethes.

    2. That’s actually pretty exciting.
      On the other hand, it’s a Canadian company (explains how polite and nice they’ve been to the locals) who’re doing the mining. We might trade one foreign Rare Earth Monopoly for another.

      1. At least they’re not mining “Unobtanium”.

  31. “It is imperative that Timothy Geithner stay on.”

    I’m not sure why; maybe they think the economy might revive if he leaves.

    1. If he is no longer a cabinet member the cops might actually start nosing around his finances and tax returns.

      1. I told him he should run for Senator.

    2. The real question is who’s going to the first administration member to throw themselves on their sword in advance of the 2012 election? Somebody is going to have to take the blame for Barry.

      1. I can’t see anyone in the rougues gallary taking the fall.

        1. Maybe they’ll get Mullet Joe to do it.

  32. Does anyone else feel like they’ve fallen into Fahrenheit 451 when the BATFE is providing guns and cigarettes to criminals, and the DEA is giving drug syndicates a clear path?

    1. Actually, the bigscreen TV filled with inane “reality” programming is what gives me 9th grade flashbacks.

    2. It’s too farcical to be a dystopia played straight. Maybe Brazil or a Philip K. Dick novel.

  33. The New Yorker’s incredible account of the hit on Osama bin Laden may contain some fabrications, but will still probably win lots of awards.

    O rly?

  34. Two year Treasury yield drops to a record low.

    “The yield on the two-year Treasury note fell to 0.26 percent, a record low.”

    Folks, this is truly getting insane. Who in their right mind would want to buy a two year Treasury note at 0.26 percent interest? It’s at the point where you might as well just stuff your money in a mattress.

    1. If the Fed gives you the money at 0%, if you just borrow a shitload, you do all right.

      1. I’m glad some people get it.

    2. Somebody who thinks that it’s better than a money market that might break the buck or everything else that is headed down, down, down……….

      1. I’ll bet I could go to my local bank right now and negotiate a frggin’ two-year CD at a better interest rate than 0.26 percent.

        1. Probably can. I’ve heard of 3 year CD’s at close to 3%. Just not liquid enough for me right now. ETF treasury funds look better for security and liquidity.

    3. Beats negative interest. Thieves, rats and fire can all get in your mattress. Inflation just shakes you down for “protection”

  35. http://washingtonexaminer.com/…..on-parents

    Teachers union disavows memo instructing teachers how to lie to angry parents.

    1. Let me be clear.

      Linky to the memo?

    2. We don’t pay them to lie to parents! Only the kids!

    3. Reason needs to do a full piece on this story.

  36. Is today “Ignore Stupid Matt Damon Day Prank Day” or is that next week?

  37. Just through pure, dumb luck, my 401k from my previous job was paid out to my rollover IRA in late July, just after the selloff began. It looks like it was only a few percent off the peak.

    I only found this out yesterday and saw it sitting in the cash portion of my IRA, completely cut off from the shitty market, earning nothing, but losing nothing either. ::fist pump::

    Now, it’s just a question of when to buy back in. I’m not sure if today is the day or not, but I can’t see the market rising 10-12% in the next week.

    1. I’m guessing rally until 3:30pm today, followed by continued selling. Long-term, we’re probably headed to 7,000 again, the major players are out of the market or short at this point.

      1. The markets may yo-yo up and and down for quite a while, but there is virtually no chance of the west getting back to sustained economic growth until two things happen: the European Union dissolves, and Obama is safely out of office.

        1. Like I said, 7000. Deflation is back baby. Time for debt liquidation that should have occurred years ago.

          1. Roger that on the debt liquidation.

  38. Which one of you libertoids successfully trolled the WaPo?

    “In the coming fights over the next budget, unemployment benefits and payroll tax cuts, I want Obama to show the Republican Party in general and the Tea Party in particular that he isn’t afraid to out-crazy the crazies. If that means vetoing bills, taking the fight to individual districts, shutting down the government, so be it. “

    1. I only wish that were me. I can only imagine the wailing and gnashing of teeth in response to that.

      1. As Ezra Klein correctly points out, “[t]o govern responsibly, Democrats cannot simply raise taxes on the rich and call it a day.”

        Wha?

    2. The Successful Troll? Didn’t Libertarians write the book on that?

  39. Former Student Sues Over ‘Wigger Day’

    http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/s…..4-17-16-43

    1. What up, yo? What up, money? Yo, G.

    2. Remember kids, only blacks can sag their pants and throw up gang signs. Anyone else doing so is a racist.

    3. I heard about this. Some former student suing because “Wigger day” was supposedly making fun of black culture and it hurt her feelings. Seems to me that wigger day would be more about making fun of stupid white kids who try to act like they are black.

      1. stupid white kids doing anything make whatever they’re doing look bad, in this case, “black culture”.

        (quotes because, cmon, all that saggy pants, ghetto style bullshit was co-opted by every other race occupying urban or suburban areas over 20 years ago. )

    1. Did someone say target rich environment?

    2. Did anything else happen?

  40. Since there has been any discussion of Matt Damon’s appearance on Reason.tv…

    http://crookedtimber.org/2011/…..ional-man/

    1. Wait, you’re trying to persuade us with a Cory Doctrow quote?

      Was Morgan Spurlock unavailable for quotable lefty douchebag?

      1. For 30 days I ate nothing but Matt Damon.

    2. Anyone who approvingly cites Cory Doctorow is suspect at best and an idiot at worst. So let’s see what we can find to pick apart.

      Education doesn’t respond well to market forces because many of the social goods that arise from education?socialization, a grounding in civics, historical context, rational and systematic reasoning?are not goods or services demanded by a market

      Yup, Cory talking out his ass about things he doesn’t understand yet again. Maybe he needs to demonstrate how the current publci education system is providing those goods, ’cause I sure don’t see it. Next, he needs to explain why those ‘social goods’ wouldn’t be valued or provided by an education market. I sure as hell see those results coming out of private schools, which people presumably pay for. Once again, Cory the Closet Socialst bitches because not everybody shares his values. Fuck him.

      Goddamn, but Cory Doctorow makes my ass itch.

      1. Funny how the market works fine* for the secondary education market, but my guess is that he’d claim that the primary education market is “too different” for market forces to work. How it works fairly well for a higher cost and specialized product but supposedly can’t for a less expensive and largely undifferentiated and generic product is a real head scratcher to me.

        *when the gummint isn’t distorting the cost into the stratosphere.

        1. I tried to bate that discussion, but I fear my comment will never make it out of moderation…

          1. Go away. Batin’.

            1. lol I corrected that from masturbate to be less of a dick and didn’t change it to bait. Imatard.

              1. Well, if the market valued social goods you might not be such a failure.

      2. the social goods that arise from education?

        socialization: ok

        a grounding in civics: not really

        historical context: Ha!

        rational and systematic reasoning: oh, you’re serious, let me laugh even harder!

      3. Does that fucking dumbass have children? Is he saying that if there were no public education, he wouldn’t bother to teach them civics, reasons, and basic skills, or see to it that someone else did?

    3. I wonder how long I have to wait for moderation… lol

      hmm 08.05.11 at 2:09 pm

      Your comment is awaiting moderation.

      Wait a second. “Education doesn’t respond well to market forces because” education promotes the “underlying substrate that allows people to intelligently conduct transactions in a marketplace?” I guess the market for journalists may not place any importance on, “socialization, a grounding in civics, historical context, rational and systematic reasoning?” I have to assume this position is supported purely by anecdote and not empirical data, since the most desirable US colleges are private institutions subject to market forces and they still draw students from around the world.

      1. I wonder how long I have to wait for moderation… lol

        Can’t imagine that one won’t get through. They aren’t usually very quick with the moderation, but I have never noticed them shying away from opposing opinions.

        1. There are 4 through after me already. 🙁

          1. that’s what happens when you don’t pick a number, fuck around in line, and THEN DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO ORDER WHEN YOU GET TO THE COUNTER.

            you uneducated troglodyte.

          2. I see your comment in the thread, FYI.

    4. Education is a public good. It is best supplied and paid for by the group as a whole, because no individual or small collective can produce the overall social benefit that the nation can provision collectively.

      Doctorow’s argument is only valid if you accept this as axiomatic. He provides no proof for this, doesn’t even try to argue the conclusions it rests on.

      Yes, “education” in the broad strokes he paints with is an unqualified good compared to his definition of “uneducated.” But he puts the cart about a mile before the horse by claiming that education must be a collective effort.

      And he doesn’t even attempt to argue the real point… is the political-charged, rigid, top-down, administrative-heavy, union-polluted, non-meritocracy we have now the only way it can be done?

      1. Doctorow’s argument is only valid if you accept this as axiomatic. He provides no proof for this, doesn’t even try to argue the conclusions it rests on.

        One of the reasons people with different political slants have such a hard time talking to each other is the unexamined (and often incompatible) axioms their positions rest upon.

        And he doesn’t even attempt to argue the real point… is the political-charged, rigid, top-down, administrative-heavy, union-polluted, non-meritocracy we have now the only way it can be done?

        I don’t think “we” (as a nation) do it this way. Education is still very much a local issue and the variability from community to community is significant.

        1. I agree, but the argument against reforming anything–teaching, government, police, what have you–rests on thinking that the situation we have now is the best of all possible worlds. I think the video and the question was silly and poorly posed, but using it as an argument that the status quo is the only one possible is silly too.

          The choice Doctorow (and most of that drecky original comment thread) poses is “public education as it is” or “no public education at all.” That is the sort of false choice you normally savage, not champion.

          1. The choice Doctorow (and most of that drecky original comment thread) poses is “public education as it is” or “no public education at all.” That is the sort of false choice you normally savage, not champion.

            It is certainly a false choice, but “as it is” is not a well defined construct in most debates. And to be fair, I don’t see most people who defend public education fighting against reform as a concept…but against specific species of reform.

            My broader point,however, was that people too often treat education as a national issue when it is not. Effective education reform happens at the school level or the district level, (perhaps the state level, but I am skeptical). Certainly not at the national level (c.f., no child left behind).

            1. So you’re with us on the dismantling of the Department of Education, right?

            2. I’d be fine leaving it as a local issue. But that pesky DOE won’t leave it alone, Congress won’t, the President won’t.

              Saying it is a local issue when your opponents want to fight it out on a national stage is a surrender. Unilateral disarmament gains us nothing.

              1. I think that education is an important enough concern at the national level that there should be national policies that address it, so the existence of a DOE doesn’t bother me. But the DOE shouldn’t be involved in attempts to standardize practices on a national level (Hayek’s knowledge problem certainly applies, and the current set up is more distributed than centralized). It can provide an important service in disseminating information about effective programs, providing research, etc…

                1. So, you just want them to give away money, not to concern themselves with how it’s used, does that about cover it?

      2. Can I just say it always irks me when they use the ‘public good’ argument? Yes, it’s good for society when everybody is educated, but that’s not a public good. Education is rivalrous and excludable. They never use this argument with food or shelter.

  41. why should a man like George Washington have his good named sullied by a douchebag city like Washington D.C.? Rename that place Obamatown so that its name matches its loser status.

  42. Racially charged mob attacks fair goers in Wisconsin

    http://www.todaystmj4.com/news…..25018.html

    1. Very nice, a mass spontaneous “polar bear hunt”.

      Look for a rise in concealed-carry permits in that area.

  43. Jesus Zambada’s American lawyers said U.S. agents clearly knew what Zambada was doing when they first agreed to a supposed verbal deal for immunity from past and future crimes.

    Bruce Bagley, who studies narcotics trafficking at the University of Miami, said the allegations call into question the sincerity of U.S. efforts to dismantle Mexico’s cartels. Fallout will be felt from Mexico to Washington, he said.

    “This is completely unacceptable. You are giving cover to lethal members, deeply involved in the drug trade that is fueling violence in Mexico and the United States,” he said “It looks to me that where there is smoke, there is fire and there was some sort of a deal.”

    Would you like some sausage with that omelette?

    1. Sure. And as long as we’re leaving our footprints all over Mexico, you might as well put some capsaicin in there.

      1. Great. Now i need a sausage and hot pepper omelet. Thanks a lot. *shaken fist*

        1. I took a dry shit in a hot pepper omelet once.

    2. As someone in our government once said, they can’t end the drug war — there’s too much money in it.

  44. Mexican town’s police force quits, due to cartel assassinations.

  45. The New Yorker’s incredible account of the hit on Osama bin Laden may contain some fabrications, but will still probably win lots of awards.

    A bit overkill in the analysis of an obvious fluff piece. I saw the guy interviewed before I read the piece and it was obvious from the first moment that he had written a fictionalization of the event and was trying to pass it off as truth.

    1. This guy is full of shit! I know because I WAS THERE.

      It’ll all be in the movie, don’t worry.

      1. “Some fabrications” = journalistic flexibility for the sake of profitable entertainment.

        I mean, if anyone makes shittier salary than teachers; it’s journalists.

        Am I right?

  46. Just a reminder, in a chart so easy to read that even our resident trolls, and maybe even Paulie Krugnutz, can understand it, that the stimulus was a COLOSSAL FAILURE.

    1. It just wasn’t big enough! World War III! China!

      1. I like cats

        1. just not when they’re sleeping with dogs. THAT is totally unacceptable.

          1. Wylie is a funny cat’s name.

  47. http://www.theonion.com/articl…..hoo,21059/

    “Ben Bernanke Gets Drunk, Tells Everyone in Bar How Screwed Economy Is”

  48. In the Rick Scott Poll –

    ? The race to pass a so-called “Caylee’s law,” which would make it a felony offense if a parent failed to report a missing child in a timely manner, has support from 83 percent of voters.From July 27 – August 2, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,417 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.6 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

    argh!

  49. people too often treat education as a national issue when it is not.

    People in Washington? Fetishists of centralized control? People who believe the good intentions of the few outweigh the damage to the many?

  50. It should be obvious that this little girl would still be alive if this was a law at the time. To argue otherwise is silly. I might be drunk.

  51. I am tired of running. Tired of you threatening my friends. I will run no more.

  52. And after a brief bout of giddiness over nothing early this morning, it’s looking like it may be another bloodbath in the markets today.

  53. Threadjack:

    http://www.newser.com/story/12…..fight.html

    These fucking people are embarrassing themselves mightily. And I wouldn’t care, but they’re taking me down with them.

  54. I am Libertarian BORN AGAIN.

    Arguing here has made me see my ways of empirical evidence sin, and I shall take faith in the holy canon of Mises, Rothbard, etal.

    Just like Love and roasting people in Hell are not contradictory, I shall no longer claim that Rothbard’s “unleashing cops,” or any other dogma in the holy scriptures, is contradictory to the Love of NAP.

    Praise, Glory!

    1. I backslid into inductive thinking again. Do I get kicked out of church?

      1. No church here. We argue points constantly. We just do it in a far more entertaining fashion than you.

        1. Sour grapes.

          1. Rotten apples. Gee this is fun. I never realized I could have a debate without even bothering to think.

    2. By the way, you are simplifying the hell out of the NAP. The initiation of violence is amoral. Violence in self-defense is not only morally acceptable, it’s a moral imperative.

      1. Jeeesh, do they give you guys flash cards in Sunday School to parrot all this?

        So exactly how did I “simplify the hell out of the NAP?”

        1. Pot, meet kettle.

        2. And you STILL have(in your mind) evaded all my valid points upthread. Wheee!

          1. “NAP.” That’s a hell of a simplification, I guess.

  55. And THAT’S how you de-troll the furniture.

  56. Only took 2.5 hours. I’ve heard it can take weeks to get rid of bedbugs.

  57. Damn, it’s back. I need to use more Troll-A-Way.

    Rather than a snark-a-thon, how about you address my points?

    1. Did stronger/larger Indian tribes act in an aggressive and territorial manner, putting pressure on weaker tribes to dislocate to less prime lands, in a domino fashion, or not?

    2. If so, would this not account for your “post-apocalyptic” Plains Indians meme?

    3. Also, would this not be an argument that territoriality/aggression is a HUMAN condition, regardless of political system? I.E., did “capitalism” have anything to do with their behavior?

    4. Do you subscribe to the theory of original sin?

    5. If not, what does something that happened hundreds of years ago have to do with me?

    6. While expressing (for the 5th or 6th time) your meme about cops acting in a Rothbardian “unleashed” manner, the subject of Kelly Thomas came up. PIRS noted that they were “beating up a guy who was not initiating force.”

    You replied: “Burglarizing cars isn’t initiating force? Geeesh, a new Libertarian take.” I commented that: “The police were called to complaints of car owners who found their cars vandalized (window broken). Kelly had the misfortune of merely being in the area when the cops arrived.”

    You completely ignored this point, and went right back to the snark. Address it now, please.

  58. Why don’t you take your own advice and address my responses above you apparently haven’t even read. I’ve already provided a ocregister link that states cars were being “burglarized.” I never said Kelly Thomas was burglarizing, just that he was suspected of it. Can you keep things at least a little honest?

  59. 4. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals ? robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error.

    5. Take Back the Streets: Get Rid of the Bums. Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear, that is, move from the ranks of the petted and cosseted bum class to the ranks of the productive members of society.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

    Kelly Thomas is a victim of Rothbardian “street justice.”

  60. Ah, perfect! The witness is dismissed.

    Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury: Point # 6 was left as bait for the defendant to prey upon, if his goal was to be duplicitous, and to continue evading any or all of my first 5 points, especially my point about the “noble red man”.

    You all bore witness to his reaction. You may judge for yourselves what it meant.

    Fuck you, and good night.

    1. Kaptain Kangaroo’s Court after he gets his ass handed to him elsewhere.

      Why is libertarianism such a parody of itself?

      1. And STILL you evade….

        1. I haven’t evaded a thing. You need to think that of me, because otherwise you might have to think about what I’ve said. It’s your way of dismissing, evading.

          I’ve quite well answered your questions in the melee far above. If you honestly wanted clarification, instead of holding trickster Kangaroo Kourt, you could behave differently.

          But thanks for the compliment when you brought up your perception of my “intellectual superiority,” as you call it.

          That made my day; put a smile on my face.

          1. You’re gonna fit right in. Everyone in here is innocent, you know that? Heywood, what you in here for?

            “Didn’t do it. Lawyer fucked me.”

          2. You want to file an appeal? Fine, but appeals are based on evidence already presented. Using cut and paste only, show where you answered my points about the “noble and peaceful red man”.

            Otherwise, return to your subterranean lair.

            1. Noble and peaceful red man is a term you’ve made up. I never wrote that.

              Where did you get it? Is it one of those pre-made Libertarian strawmen you can buy at the corner market for ritual abuse?

              1. You are a fair semantician, as all chickenshit evaders tend to be. Perhaps we can take up a 100 comment thread on what the meaning of the word “is” is next. If you were a friend or a regular commenter, I would have just snorted in derision long ago. But since you came here specifically looking for trouble, I will accomodate you.

                Let’s see if I can work in terms that aren’t “made up”:

                You came on here railing about Rothbard and “racialist science”. An obvious trolling expedition, as was pointed out far upthread, that quote being for some reason the talking point of the day.

                “Property rights” were mentioned several times, as if that was an offensive term.

                Then you dropped this gem: “It takes initiation of violence to hold property. Ask the dead on the Trail of Tears.” And this: “The Trail of Tears occurred because agricultural civilization is aggressive and occupational, and its farmers want more PROPERTY.”

                Your implication was clearly that agricultural civiliation, and specifically capitalism (being a defender of property rights), was inherently violent. As if pre-agricultural societies all led an idyllic and non-aggressive existence.

                Mike Laursen pointed out that: “You don’t need a libertarian society to have large swaths of forest. Right now, White Indian could walk away from his keyboard and be living out in the middle of some Alaskan forest within a few days. The forest is there and nobody’s stopping him.”

                To which you replied: “Yeah, that’s what agricultural civilization does. Invades and occupies and then pushes the free families making a natural living on the land to the marginal hinterlands…Maybe your ancestors did all the bloody killing, but you’re still a part of the occupation….

                At this point, I asked a simple question: “Native Americans weren’t territorial? I wonder what all those wars they had were over?”

                You came back with some something you obviously picked up at the feet of your revisionist anthropology profs: “If you’ve studied anthropology, instead of Libertarian deductive bullshit, you’d know that the “warlike” Plains tribes were a post-apocalyptic culture, living a new lifestyle on introduced horses, after their families had been decimated by the invasion of civilization.” In your world, apparently Sitting Bull was actually Mad Maxx in drag.

                I responded with: “Right, because the Cheyenne didn’t get pushed clear from the Great Lakes Region to west of the Rockies by the Souix. Who were pushed from east of the Great Lakes region to the eastern rockies and northern great plains by….anybody?”
                (the correct answer, BTW, is the Anishinaabe tribes)

                and: “As you conveniently evade my point about Native American tribes constantly pushing against and dislocating weaker North American tribes. Why, it’s almost like territoriality and aggression are HUMAN conditions rather than being artificially induced by teh evul capitalizms.”

                At this point, you devolved into a marathon poo-flinging exercise, and NEVER touched on my point again. 117 (are you fucking kidding me?) comments later, you are still being a chickenshit.

                So, I ask you one more time to address the following points:

                1. Did stronger/larger Indian tribes frequently act in an aggressive and territorial manner, putting pressure on weaker tribes to dislocate to less prime lands, in a domino fashion, or did they not?

                2. If so, would this not account for your “post-apocalyptic” Plains Indians meme?

                3. Also, would this not be an argument that territoriality/aggression is a HUMAN condition, regardless of political/civilizational system?
                I.E., did “capitalism” have anything to do with their behavior?

                4. Based on this comment: “Maybe your ancestors did all the bloody killing, but you’re still a part of the occupation”, one could surmise that you subscribe to the theory of original sin. Do you, or do you not?

                5. If not, what does something that happened hundreds of years ago have to do with me?

                You mendaciously responded just upthread that you had “quite well” answered my questions “in the melee far above”. That is a complete fabrication, unless comments you made have been inexplicably deleted.

                Now, respond to the points, and to the points only, or take your medicine like a good little noid.

                1. Also, are you claiming that territoriality among the tribes did not exist prior to Europeans coming to North America? They just went wherever they liked, and intermingled?

                  Then why were there tribes in the first place? Why are tribal artifacts found within geographic ranges?

                  And why did many tribes monikers for themselves translate to “human beings”? Why did the monikers for adjoining tribes translate to “enemy”?

                  Warlike behavior, and racism, certainly predates “agricultural civilization”. And you know that.

                  1. Losers who announce they are going always come back, like Ahnold himself.

                    You’re good at constructing strawmen, or at least parroting the strawmen in libertarian literature.

                    Indians didn’t have abstract ownership of the land, or “private property” to deprive and disestablish their fellow humans off the land.

                    And you know that.

                    Of course there was violence in Paleolithic societies. However, it has dramatically increased with civilization.

                    The difference is a black eye from brawl at a bar compared to roasting thousands at a time at Dresden. Today it’s total annihilation for whole populations.

                    And you know that too.

                    As Jason Godesky states:

                    “Primitive societies did engage in violence, and without a permanent class of professional killers, it fell to primitive peoples themselves to execute what violence became necessary. Perhaps that is in part why such societies also did so much to limit violence. Contemporary charges against primitive warriors rely on observations of a “post-apocalyptic” society decimated by European contact, ignoring the evidence that violence in these societies has been increased significantly because of the overwhelming impact of European contact. What we do see, however, is ample evidence of means to limit violence?emphasis placed on bravery and intimidation to avoid violence from breaking out, ritual approaches aimed at reconciling enemies, and alternative forms of contesting differences, such as song duels or counting coup. To properly compare the effectiveness of such approaches to our own, we need to take an honest accounting of violence in our own society?wars, murder, violent crime, incarceration, police brutality, and the full impact of our professional violence class. We need to look also to the ubiquitous violence inherent in our social system: the threat of violence that lies behind paying your rent, obtaining your food, and every other aspect of civilized existence. Primitive societies were not devoid of violence, but they did limit it, and it was a much rarer thing. Among them, violence was something that happened. For us, it’s a way of life.”

                    Noble or Savage? Both. (Part 1)
                    by Jason Godesky
                    11 January 2008
                    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2…..index.html

                2. You keep trying to equate the violence in Paleolithic society with the violence in civilized society.

                  It isn’t so by a long shot, as anthropology and archeology demonstrates.

                  Jason Godesky trounces your equivocation in the following essay, with a good summarizing excerpt as follows:

                  “Primitive societies did engage in violence, and without a permanent class of professional killers, it fell to primitive peoples themselves to execute what violence became necessary. Perhaps that is in part why such societies also did so much to limit violence. Contemporary charges against primitive warriors rely on observations of a “post-apocalyptic” society decimated by European contact, ignoring the evidence that violence in these societies has been increased significantly because of the overwhelming impact of European contact. What we do see, however, is ample evidence of means to limit violence?emphasis placed on bravery and intimidation to avoid violence from breaking out, ritual approaches aimed at reconciling enemies, and alternative forms of contesting differences, such as song duels or counting coup. To properly compare the effectiveness of such approaches to our own, we need to take an honest accounting of violence in our own society?wars, murder, violent crime, incarceration, police brutality, and the full impact of our professional violence class. We need to look also to the ubiquitous violence inherent in our social system: the threat of violence that lies behind paying your rent, obtaining your food, and every other aspect of civilized existence. Primitive societies were not devoid of violence, but they did limit it, and it was a much rarer thing. Among them, violence was something that happened. For us, it’s a way of life.”

                  Noble or Savage? Both. (Part 1)
                  by Jason Godesky
                  11 January 2008
                  http://rewild.info/anthropik/2…..th-part-1/

  61. “The Plains Indians are a particularly ironic choice, given the evidence Peter Farb gathers in Man’s Rise to Civilization, As Shown by the Indians of North America from Primeval Times to the Coming of the Industrial State. There, Farb shows that the Plains Indians we know did not exist prior to European contact. They descended from refugees from other Native groups destroyed by the various European epidemics that wiped out 90% or more of North America’s population in the years after 1492, with a new culture assembled around two important European introductions: the re-introduction of the horse as wild herds profligated and filled up the Americas, and guns traded from French fur trappers. The Plains Indians had a post-apocalyptic culture.”

    “The Savages are Truly Noble”
    by Jason Godesky
    10 May 2007
    http://rewild.info/anthropik/2…..index.html

    1. The Caddo peoples were pushed from their original (gasp!) territory into East TX, AR, OK, and LA by the Souix, Circa 1200. Try and blame that on the encroachment of the white man, dipstick.

      1. I think you enjoy making things up. Is that a Libertarian fetish?

        “The Caddo lived in several tribal groups in southwest Arkansas and nearby areas of Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma from A.D. 1000 to about A.D. 1800.”
        http://arkarcheology.uark.edu/…..geName=The Caddo Indians

        “By 1000 years ago, Caddo society can be said to have entered its heyday, an era of unprecedented wealth, population, and prestige that lasted over 600 years and was still underway in A.D. 1542 when Caddo peoples were first encountered by Europeans.”
        http://www.texasbeyondhistory……eline.html

        By 1000 CE a society that is defined as “Caddoan” had emerged. By 1200 the numerous villages, hamlets, and farmsteads established throughout the Caddo world had begun extensive maize agriculture.[8] Their artistic skills and earthwork mound-building flourished during the 12h and 13th centuries.[9]
        en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caddo

        Not to say that there were no conficts among the “noble savages,” which is merely a racist strawman used by people like you, but it seems you can’t even get your facts straight.

        Can you tell me the main differences between Paleolithic conflict and civilized conflict?

        Think about that.

        1. OK, your source has them in the region 200 years earlier, but where did they come from, and why did they move there? Because the Souix DROVE them there. And it had nothing to do with white encroachment.

          And you STILL evade my questions above this comment. I’m through with you. You’re a piece of shit, and I have more than adequately demonstrated that. Nothing left to do here.

          1. You’re through because you’re stepping on your dick with facts. Be gone. LOL I love it when losers like you have to announce you’re going, because there is nothing in your brain.

  62. Pretty interesting tradition that Libertarians keep going…

    “The term “Noble Savage,” as we have it today, was a straw man concocted by white supremacists in order to take over the British Ethnological Society, in order to end its opposition to slavery, colonialism, and other imperial atrocities, and instead use it as a vehicle to advance their own racist views.” ~Jason Godesky

    …in light of Rothbard’s advocacy “racialist science” and magical abilities to sense “aggressors” against property by their skin color…

    “In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.” ~Murray Rothbard

    1. Jason Godesky That’s you, blogwhoring, right?

      Quoting yourself is not a support to an argument that you are making.

      Software engineer and amateur anthropologist.

      Far left economically – Now we know your real problem with private property – you’d just love to eliminate the right to defend it by re-labeling the defense as an act of aggression. Why would an economic leftist want to eliminate others’ right to defend their property?

      Can’t let that freedom thing get in the way of your confiscatory plans, right?

      You also have a definite need to tie libertarians to the far right – despite the content of the articles at this site. Why the dishonesty?

      All that talk about agricultural civilization is just a projection of your own desire to ‘righteously’ confiscate other people’s wealth.

      1. Amateur is an understatement.

  63. Jason Godesky graduated with a bachelors degree in anthropology, and, no, I’m not JG. And you’re as wrong on the rest.

    It’s like debating Fundamentalist Christians. Pretty dim light around here.

    1. And you’re as wrong on the rest…It’s like debating Fundamentalist Christians.

      Apogee|8.6.11 @ 9:57PM|#
      You also have a definite need to tie libertarians to the far right –

      Nice refutation.

  64. My estimation of Libertarians in general has gone down considerably in the last few days.

    They’re like the Pentecostals and Jehovah’s Witnesses on the religious socioeconomic scale.*

    It would be nice to debate somebody with an IQ above Koko the chimp, instead of these halfwits.

    My hypothesis is that libertarians are on the low end, and basically the managed opposition of white poor wannabe Randian supermen dissent, kept in line and their nose to the bosses’ grindstone by the preachings of the economic priesthood funded Koch Brothers.

    * see Is Your Religion Your Financial Destiny? By DAVID LEONHARDT, New York Times, Published: May 11, 2011

    1. This is a new one. The accusation had always been that the Koch Brothers are bankrolling everything evil in this agricultural city-state. You’re saying someone’s funding them?

      1. I believe there’s a missing “by the” in that last sentence. White Indian is intentionally obtuse, and a liar, but even he isn’t that retarded.

        1. Either way, he’s claiming superior intelligence invite same post where he tries out tired old Koch Brothers nonsense.

          Pathetic. He wouldn’t last three days as a hunter gatherer.

          1. Go ahead and crow like a damned rapist.

            Of course I wouldn’t last 3 days. Agricultural Civilization is aggressively invasive and occupational and has taken over and dominated nearly every square meter of good land on this earth.

            1. Funny that we in Western Agricultural Civilization getall our Thou shalt not steal and Thou shalt not covet other’s property laws from the holy books of a bunch of nomadic people.

        2. I’ve met sweeter grammar nazis than you, but you’re correct, I missed “by.”

          1. Please address the larger point of how anyone who repeats Koch Brothers nonsense can claim intellectual prowess.

            1. That libertarian think tanks are funded by Koch Brothers is pretty well documented, and I’ve noted that you don’t like me bringing it up. I think there’s a reason why.

              1. That’s idiotic. It’s been addressed. They provide. some funding, yes. There’s no secret about it; they’re donors has been acknowledged on easily available donor lists. Furthermore, they have given way more to the arts, as well as a global warming study at Berkeley.

                1. The real owners of this country support the libertarian economic priesthood, because libertarian evangelism is mostly a great defense of the current system as it is, even if they think they’re dissenting.

                  1. Yawn. Whatever. I can assure you nobody in power supports anything close to my political beliefs.

      2. Libertarians are just a small part of everything evil in this agricultural City State, but their message is mainly one of supporting the agricultural City State.

        Libertarians are no better than Democrat and Republican government-lovers.

        Libertarians love the primary function of government, that is, to dePRIVE people.

        That’s what PRIVate land property is all about: dePRIVation. Ask the Indians on the Trail of Tears. Some were even dePRIVed of life itself to make PRIVate property.

        Land TITLE that deprives whole peoples of land so a few can own PRIVate property is the primary government enTITLEment program.

        Oh, how “libertarians” love that enTITLEment program that dePRIVes.

        1. Why do you go on and on about this? I, and many other libertarians, are fully aware of the conundrum of property and how it has been abused historically. We’re also aware of the tremendous practical benefits. It’s just another human invention, with benefits and flaws.

          1. Going mutualist on me?

            1. Not interested in being an anything-its, thank you.

              1. Most “Libertarians” equate Property as valuable as Life itself. If you don’t, you’ve deviated from the typical Lockean dogma.

                But bleeding-heart left-libertarians don’t make that mistake.

                The mistake they make is not critiquing the aggressive, invasive, and occupational nature of agricultural civilization.

                Mutualist, etal other leftist-libertarians want to make a naturally aggressive system into a kumbaya egalitarian paradise. It won’t work anymore than making a naturally aggressive system into a kumbaya free-market.

                1. Unless you’ve been conducting polls you have no idea what most libertarians believe.

                  1. It’s widely recognized that “Life, Liberty, and Property” is an extremely common Libertarian catechism.

                    1. “Property” in such an expression can have different exact meanings to various libertarians.

                    2. Which one of ’em wouldn’t include the property that is the government’s primary enTitlement program – land Title?

    2. The worm wiggles mightily, but it can’t escape the hook.

      1. Yeah, it was fun watching you wiggle when you can’t get simple American history right by a factor of at least 200 years. Pierced through by facts, you say? LOL

        Thing is, you wouldn’t have to make such an ass of yourself if you weren’t as dogmatic as a Fundamentalist Creationist.

        While you wiggle, I’ll just listen to some Bob Jones, or is it Ayn Rand approved music?
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oavMtUWDBTM

        1. Yet you still evade my questions. Perhaps because we both already know the answers.

        2. Fasten onto one minor mistake I made, and just beat the hell out of it. Be my guest. But, there is nothing you can do to distract me from the fact that you REFUSE to address my points.

          Do you think you are some kind of warlock? Fuckstick.

          1. Oh, now I get it. You’re a Star Wars geek, and you fancy yourself Obi-Wan.

          2. I addressed you point of equivocating Paleolithic violence with civilized violence. It’s simply not true; civilization is steeped in violence as Jason Godesky’s essay observes.

            No, I don’t believe in original sin, since you asked that crap too. Like John Galt, I was born without guilt.

  65. Regarding the idiot’s comment that claims I want to “confiscate” his property, which is not true (I despise Marxism, progressivism, leftism more purely than libertarians,) I retort thusly:

    Libertarians are no better than Democrat and Republican government-lovers.

    Libertarians love the primary function of government, that is, to dePRIVE people.

    That’s what PRIVate land property is all about: dePRIVation. Ask the Indians on the Trail of Tears. Some were even dePRIVed of life itself to make PRIVate property.

    Land TITLE that deprives whole peoples of land so a few can own PRIVate property is the primary government enTITLEment program.

    “Libertarians,” really better named “Propertarians,” love that government enTITLEment program that dePRIVed and disestablished the First Families from the land.

    1. Enlighten us lesser intellects. What’s your prescription for fixing the.damage done by agricultural civilization?

      1. What’s the prescription for a 40 year chain smoker with emphysema, asthma, bronchitis, and lung cancer with metastasis to the liver and brain?

        I honestly don’t know. But I can accurately identify the disease and cause.

        And I can tell you that the cancer isn’t a wonderful libertarian growth phenomenon that the rest of the collectivist body hates because cancer is so successful.

        Still, everybody wants a solution anyway. OK, here is attorney Jeff Vail’s solution. Maybe it’ll work.

        What is Rhizome?
        by Jeff Vail
        January 28, 2008
        http://www.jeffvail.net/2007/0…..izome.html

        His solution moves up the freedom scale with how people get food – horticulture.

        Oh, here’s my FOOD-FREEDOM SCALE:

        MORE FREE
        Forager bands and tribes (hunt-gather)
        Horticulture (sometimes called “small scale permaculture farming”, which is what Vail advocates)
        Pastoralism (a more free fringe society nearly always associated with a civilization)
        Agricultural (the City-State’s large scale mono-cultured soil rape)
        LESS FREE

        1. So, what are you DOING about it, besides trolling? Where do to live? Where do you work? What do you eat?

          1. What would you suggest regarding the cancer of agricultural civilization that has invaded and occupied nearly every square meter of the earth?

            The first thing to do is recognize the agricultural City-State for what is is: a system of dePRIVation (the etymological root of PRIVate.)

            But there are a few practical “DO” choices that people who accurately identify the problem of the City-STATE are doing:

            1. Rewild, or “break the bonds domestication has laid on us, to stop being dogs, and become wolves again,” as Jason Godesky puts it in his essay “Wolves & Dogs” http://rewild.info/anthropik/2006/11/wolves-dogs/

            2. Move up the FOOD-FREEDOM SCALE, at least partly. “Rhizome,” as Jeff Vail puts it, or “Resilient Communities” as John Robb at Global Guerrillas puts it, or “Permaculture” as Bill Mollison and David Holmgren put it.

            Pick your medicine; maybe it’ll work. Or maybe humans will commit suicide and go extinct in the anthropogenic Sixth Great Holocene Extinction. There might not be a solution.

            1. I asked what YOU are doing. I don’t perceive the problems that you perceive, so I don’t feel the need “rewild” or “move up the FOOD-FREEDOM SCALE”.

              My advice to you is to get off the Internet, buy a few weeks worth of supplies, and hike out into the Alaskan wilderness and have at it. Maybe see if you can convince some woman to go with you. Maybe live in an old school bus you find sitting around out there.

            2. ?And the sign said “Anybody caught trespassin’ will be shot on sight”
              So I jumped on the fence and I yelled at the house, “hey what gives you the right?
              To put up a fence to keep me out, or to keep mother nature in?
              If God were here to tell it to your face.
              Man, you’re some kind of sinner.?

              Have some Granola…..dude.

              1. I’ve got a 1952 Gibson; ready to head to Nashville and get famous? (I suppose that’s as bullshit as being rich.)

                I piss on granola. I’ll have steak and eggs for breakfast this morning, all from within, oh, 500 yards of my house.

              2. I’ve got a 1952 Gibson; ready to head to Nashville and get famous? (I suppose that’s as bullshit as being rich.)

                I piss on granola. I’ll have steak and eggs for breakfast this morning, all from within, oh, 500 yards of my house.

                1. Of course, it might be this one, though a war or two. LOL http://cgi.ebay.com/VINTAGE-19…..?pt=Guitar

    2. (I despise Marxism, progressivism, leftism more purely than libertarians,)

      Followed by:

      Land TITLE that deprives whole peoples of land so a few can own PRIVate property is the primary government enTITLEment program.

      From each according to his ability, to each according to his need?

      Funny, but the elimination of any property ownership (straight down the line Marxist) would necessarily mean that there can be no private enterprise – unless you can explain where someone would house their infrastructure to actually produce anything, less invest in said infrastructure with the premise that they can’t defend it.

      Of course, people need to eat, and nobody is going to want to invest the time to plant, forage or harvest anything without the ability to defend that investment of their time, especially since the loss of that investment means the possibility of starvation.

      Humans won’t plant a garden if anyone can come along and eat out of it at their leisure, leaving nothing. They’ll simply forage for others’ gardens, or what grows in the wild.

      Until the starvation starts.

      Then they’ll band together, and kill people like you who don’t want them to have an organized method to feed their children.

      So your problem with property ownership is really just a problem with investment and profit, because the ability to reap the rewards of investment is only possible if the investor has the capability of collecting on that investment.

      And it highlights what you don’t really understand about libertarian thought. You can’t be free to choose anything if your choice has nothing to do with the outcome or consequences of that choice. Your ideas are anti-freedom.

      You’re just another stupid leftist, angry that others invest and prosper – all the while championing some idiotic “return to hunter-gatherer” bullshit that poorly masks your envy at those who can flourish in this world.

      Oh, and you typing on an electronic device made in a giant factory, that communicates over a system run by power plants and attended by thousands – all while blabbing about ‘hunter gatherers’ is just about perfect.

      1. You know, White Indian? If you’re an anarcho-syndicalist with an especial hard-on for land-ownership, just come out and say so. I wouldn’t judge you. I have quite a few friends with views along that line.

        But, you could have made a case for that without your neener-neener all libertarians are retards meme.

        Hell, I don’t even label myself a libertarian. This people on this site just come closer to my values than anything else I can find on the web that isn’t a terribly cloistered echo chamber.

        1. I can give as good as I get on the neener-neener retard meme, and I’m no Jesus Christ to slap around.

          I’m not Leftist or a syndicalist.

          The biggest mistake the anarcho-syndicalists make is not understanding Dunbar’s Number, work done by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar.

          Basically, any human society above roughly 150 is going to be hierarchical instead of egalitarian.

          If people want a Non-State society, it’s no mystery how to have one. Non-State societies are what humans have had for millions of years, as depicted in Elman Service’s sociopolitical typology work. Here it is here, summarized in a sweet little essay faculty.smu.edu/rkemper/cf_3333/Non_State_and_State_Societies.pdf

          The second mistake the syndicalists make is misunderstanding – and worshiping – work. We don’t need to work hard at all to survive. The Protestant Work Ethic is a slave master’s whip, albeit of the psychological kind that Southern Plantation slave owner’s admired over their own physical whips. Marshal Sahlins in his Stone Age Economics shows how people in Non-State societies work only a couple or so hours per day.

          Full employment? To hell with that slavery, I want full unemployment.

      2. Who knows? Maybe we could have a rollicking good time debating the nuts and bolts of the Commons.

        1. Only with the aide of Courvoisier.

          Dolphins and whales don’t have a tragedy of the commons, nor a squabble of the commons. They live a life that humans travel far and wide to stare at and sigh in awe. Are they smarter than humans?

      3. Marx and Mises are the left-right Axis of Stupidity. Both blindly support the agricultural City-State while bellyaching about the State part of it. Both end up being the State’s most ardent supporters.

        The single most important change to human society that the agricultural City-State makes is owning all the human food and putting it under lock and key.

        Marx and Mises (left and right) are merely squabbling over the key-ring of power.

        HELL no, I’m no goddam Leftist and I’m certainly not jealous of anybody else’s station in life. Personally, I’ve been one of the most successful examples in the hierarchy of civilization and have been lucky enough to live the Vegas-Vail-Acapulco private-bizjet lifestyle, for what that bullshit is worth. More often than not, others are highly envious of me – and then even more envious for shoving it all a couple years ago.

        You’d be so envious of me I’d have to bookslap you with Professor Schoeck’s “Envy: A Theory of Social Behaviour” I’ve got in my house library.

        Of course, right beside all that Libertarian shit in my library, I’ve now got my expensive books on Forest Gardens.

        I haven’t worn one of my silk power ties and silk handkerchiefs or a watch in a couple years now. To hell with gold watches!

        The clock is the worst slave controlling invention in the world. Ever read John Zerzan’s essay Time And its Discontents? http://www.primitivism.com/time.htm

        “No clock strikes for the happy one.”

        1. Smash the State? LOL

          Smash your gold watch. That’s what I did.

        2. Rrright. You are more successful and envy-worthy than we could imagine. You’ve moved beyond our measely lives. Yet you troll on some Internet chat thread, and hide behind an alias.

          1. Well, at least we’re off the I’m an envious tovarisch living in a dirt hovel bullshit. However, you wouldn’t be content with any description of my personal life. But ya’ll brought it up, not me.

            1. We’re not off that at all. There’s no reason for anyone to believe your not some kid writing b.s. from his dorm room or whatever.

              1. If it makes you feel better, think just that; I’m a virgin and have acne skin too.

                1. Then again, maybe I’m a famous billionaire. LOL I’m not really – but he’s following me. It’s a shame the news media* caricatures what he’s doing – they then you do too, for the same reason.

                  It’s actually more than just envy, it’s that you’re a pussy that lives in fear of the wilderness.

                  Like a squirrel living in a dark box, being fed dogfood to run a squirrel cage, afraid of the solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short lifestyle his ancestors lived in oak trees.

                  Mud oak tree hovels, that is. Horrible, horrible life. Squirrel cages are so good.

                  * http://postcards.blogs.fortune…..-he-kills/

      4. 2 million years of your ancestors’ history prove you wrong.

        And I’m not a leftist. Libertarians are like Fundamentalist Christians, who think anything unlike them is Satan. You do the same thing with “Socialism.”

        Leftists want to maintain the agricultural City-State just as much as you right wingers do; left and right merely squabble for the power that agriculture gives to a few people, that is, the food is put under lock and key.

        Left = kissing ass to a komisar to eat.

        Right = kissing ass to a boss to eat.

        It’s all kissing ass to eat.

        1. Hunter-gatherer = kissing the chief’s ass to survive

          How did you work up such a fantasy about how idealic the nomadic would be. Here’s some news for you — even in a tribe of much less than 150 people, there would be the more powerful and dominant members.

          Really, why aren’t you out there trying out the lifestyle you idealize?

          1. Hunter-gatherer’s didn’t have chiefs, and they didn’t kiss ass, nor work near as hard, like you have to do to eat.

            Really. Do you know the slightest about sociopolitical typology?

            I’m weary of stupid, ignorant caricatures of how yours and mine ancestors lived well in an Original Affluent Society for 2 million years.

            Get out there to the library to day and study some anthropology and quit sounding as fucking uneducated as a Fundamentalist Creationist trying to thump me with their goddam Bible.

            Chiefdoms, associated with domestication and the beginnings of agriculture, came right before the State developed.

            1. If you think that you can get at the whole truth of how ancient micro-societies operated through a bunch of books written by people who weren’t there, you are just looking for something distant to hang your daydream on.

              Differences in mental and physical abilities have always been around. Thus, there’s no reason to believe human tribes were not affected by a power structure. No matter how much you want to glamorize them.

          2. “Why aren’t you out there trying out the lifestyle you idealize?”

            Same reason a raped woman is bleeding and can barely walk – initiation of force. Remember what happened to the Indians on the Trail of Tears? They were trying to live a ideal life, and got killed for it.

            Cultured/Civilized people have invaded and occupied nearly every square meter of the earth, and violently keep anybody from living naturally with Statist dePRIVation via PRIVate property laws.

            1. Trail of Tears? You mean the Cherokee? That agricultural society? bwahahaha!!

              1. The Cherokee were not an agricultural civilization, but a horticultural tribe.*

                People within agricultural civilization often call any disturbing of the soil “agriculture.”

                What the Cherokee did, while sometimes called agriculture, was gardening, or as anthropologists classify it, horticulture.

                The difference between Cherokee gardening and agricultural civilization is like the difference between making love and rape.

                Also, the Amazon rainforest is largely a man-made artifact of horticulture, even though they used “slash and burn” in small “agricultural” plots, what they created was a wonderful garden.

                But rapists have a difficult time making the distinction between making love and rape, because it’s all the same act to them. Soil rapist have a hard time distinguishing between gardening/horticlture/permaculture and agriculture.
                __________
                * See wikipedia.org/wiki/Society#In_anthropology

                1. An essay on the difference between agriculture (RAPE) and horticulture-gardening-permaculture (MAKING LOVE WITH MOTHER EARTH.)

                  Agriculture or Permaculture: Why Words Matter
                  by Jason Godesky
                  13 June 2007
                  http://www.rewild.info/anthrop…..ds-matter/

                  And if you don’t think Rape is an accurate description of agriculture, consider the Greek mythology of Demeter and her daughter Persiphone.

                  Even the ancient agriculturalists knew what they were doing was RAPING mother earth.

                  1. Some Indians did do agriculture and had civilizations.

                    Guess what happened to them? How long did the longest civilization last? Think johnny-come-lately will last any longer?

                    Sometimes there are consequences for plowing a woman’s furrow and take-take-taking your pleasure without consent.

                    But there are always consequences for plowing mother earth and take-take-taking from her fertility in an evolutionarily unstable way without regard to the balance of life.

                    Agriculture civilization is anti-life.

                    1. “It is worth reflecting that prehistoric societies grew at an average of seven people per year. This startling estimate registers how close the hunter/gatherers actually came to extinction. Had the average annual number of humans per group who died before reaching sexual maturity been eight more, the human race would have died out around 900,000 years ago.”

                      Now there’s some unintended consequences for you. Or some fappery material, you Malthusian motherfucker.

                    2. But the human race didn’t die out, or do you suppose it did?

                      You are the one who advocates an anti-life, evolutionarily unstable system, where we actually may die out.

                      Like the Marxists, you squeal a little bit about the State function of the Agricultural City-State, but you love raping the soil as much as any collectivist farmer.

                      Domination and control is what rape, and agriculture, is all about.

                    3. I just ass-fucked Gaia last night, and she looooooved it. Kept calling me “daddy nature”.

                    4. By the way, once I figured out your game, I “outted” your ass. Good luck getting more than a sneer here ever again.

                    5. Nice catch KfP. Quite a bit in common with the totalitarians, this one.

                      Just a different excuse to try and run people’s lives.

                    6. Running lives is bad enough. Killing off 6.6 BB people to realize your personal paradise is on a completely different scale.

                    7. These types probably couldn’t even kill off themselves.

  66. “The life of an Indian is a continual holiday.” ~Thomas Paine

    Was Thomas Paine an evil anti-capitalist socialist?

    1. There are new Monday morning threads. If you wanna continue trolling, that’s the place to be. Peace out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.