You are now logged in.
At first, there were problems with the ruling class. Those familiar with Austria’s critique of the central economic plan will be familiar: rulers do not know what they need to know to do what they want to do. Societies, even seemingly primitive societies, are complex networks, connected by self-evident (and basically self-evident) know-how (m?tis). This creates a huge obstacle to centralization rules, which requires
From the ruling whether to endure.
However, the ruler is not without recourse. If they can't do it
They want to rule the society, they can (try)
They become their thing
know. To use the term James C. Scott used in his book
, They can work hard to make society "clear" to make it controllable.
Scott understood this when he was researching "why the country always seems to be the'enemy of people walking around'." He found that “herders, herders (such as Berbers and Bedouins), gypsies, homeless people, homeless people, homeless people, out-of-control slaves and serfs have always been a thorny issue in the states, permanent The job of settling these displaced persons (permanent) seems to be a long-term state project, which is to a certain extent long-term because it rarely succeeds." He added:
The more I study these efforts in isolation, the more I can see them as an attempt by a country to make society clear and understandable to simplify the traditional functions of national taxation, conscription, and anti-insurgency. . . . I began to see legibility as the core issue of governing the country.
The problems facing the rulers are profound: "In many key aspects, the premodern state is blind to some extent; it knows very little about its subjects, wealth, land and output, location, identity, etc. Its topography and The "map" of the people. To a large extent, it lacks a measurement and metric, so it cannot "transform" the information it understands into the general standard necessary for a summary view."
Understanding this problem is like illuminating a phenomenon that has been concealed by shadows so far. "Suddenly, the process is related to the establishment of permanent surnames, the standardization of trade-offs and metrics, the establishment of cadastral surveys and population registries, the invention of freehold rights, the standardization of language and legal discourse, the design of cities, and simplified legibility and simplicity The attempt seems to understand the organization of transportation."
He compared these devices designed to improve readability and simplification (which he called "high modernism") with scientific forestry, where resource management strictly depends on income requirements. His list will draw attention among the classical liberals of our spontaneous social process. Do we believe that rulers impose surnames, freehold rights and weights, metrics, language, and legal discourse on society for their own convenience?
The story is not so simple, but very close. Scott acknowledged that business growth has helped the promotion of some of these devices. But his historical evidence shows that we tend to view things as the spontaneous product of liberal progress, which actually benefits the ruler. This is not to say that these institutions themselves are bad, or that none of them will develop spontaneously. This seems unlikely. But there are reasons to think they will evolve
In important respects, they are not mainly for the pursuit of social control. Contrasting process-spontaneous order and what FA Hayek said
It seems that this can be guaranteed. Unfortunately, these institutions were born with tyranny, which caused resistance from ordinary people imposed by the rulers.
Let us stop and appreciate the severity of the ruler problem. What we learned from Scott is similar to what we learned from
, A Nobel Prize winner, he studied innovative methods for managing public pool resources in public places without government assistance. With their own equipment, people collectively found clever ways to overcome obstacles to effective management of land and other resources. This type of solution shows that a simple one person/one package is not the only solution
Substitute state ownership of resources. Moreover, the number of potential solutions is practically unlimited. Therefore, how a given community will respond to a given situation is inherently unpredictable. Inspired by Mises, Israel is indeed a creative entrepreneur operating in an open world.
This is what makes the work of rulers so difficult, because they form nation states, drive them to adopt measures aimed at simplifying the society they wish to control, and to establish a national market. Scott wrote:
[L] Ocal's surveying and land management habits are "incomprehensible" to the country in their original form. The diversity and complexity they exhibit reflects a variety of purely local interests, not national interests. In other words, if they are not converted or simplified into convenient (partially fictitious) shorthands, they cannot be assimilated into administrative grids. . . . With the support of state power, through records, courts and ultimate coercive means, these national novels changed the reality they assumed to observe, although never so thoroughly accurate to the extent that they could adapt to the power grid. . . . Instead of an incomparable small community familiar to residents but mysterious to outsiders, a single national society can be clearly seen from the center.
The great classical liberal
Scott quoted (1767-1830) for a good understanding of this:
The conquerors, people or princes of our time all want their empire to have a unified surface, on which the eye of extraordinary power can wander without encountering any inequality that damages or restricts their views. If the same laws and regulations, the same measures, and the same rules can be realized gradually, the same language shall be used; that is the so-called perfection of social organization... The greatest slogan today is unity.
There is no clearer process than the process of land ownership. Native customary rights on the land make taxation based on income and ownership almost impossible. It is difficult (if possible) to know who owns what. According to his research, Scott assumes a village in which families have multiple rights and responsibilities for arable land, pastures, trees, and fallen fruits and branches. Customs handles various situations, including what should be done during shortages. Action and famine. However, customs are not static. They "are better understood as a lively, negotiated organization of practice, constantly adapting to new ecological and social environments, including power relations, of course." (Scott does not want to romanticize this arrangement: "[T] Hey, there are usually inequalities based on gender, status and ancestry.")
Which ruler wants to increase taxes on his field? Although people in the community understand their customs, outsiders don't.
They are quite confused about terms, sub-terms, and sub-terms that reduce these practices to a set of rules (not necessarily enforced) that administrators may understand. . . . [E] Even if these conventions can be sorted out, the generated code will inevitably sacrifice its plasticity and subtle adaptability. There are too many situations that may cause new adaptations to be unforeseen (not to mention specified in regulations). The code will actually freeze a survival process.
Village, the village after that?
Obviously, the ruling class cannot tolerate such "softly speaking local property regulations." An alternative solution needs to be found, and that is the case. Scott wrote: "In fact, the concept of the modern state is premised on a greatly simplified and unified property system, which is clearly identifiable and can therefore be manipulated from the center."
The answer is "personal freehold." Scott wrote: "Modern freehold ownership is mediated by the state, so only those who have received sufficient training and master the laws of the state can easily understand it."
Customary complex tenure arrangements are reduced to freehold, transferable ownership. In an agricultural environment, the administrative landscape is covered by uniform land, and each land has a legal person as the owner, so it is a taxpayer. It is much easier to assess the property and its owner based on its area, soil type, crops normally grown and assumed yields, compared to unraveling the mixed forms of shrubs and tenure of common property.
The equipment to achieve this goal is
. Scott wrote: "Cadastral maps and property registers are taxes on land, just like scientific foresters' maps and tables are for financial exploitation of forests." "Just like scientific foresters need a list of trees to realize forests. Like the commercial potential of the country, fiscal reformers also need detailed land ownership inventories to achieve maximum, sustainable benefits."
In order for the map to be useful, the physical object must match the map. In other words, in order to satisfy the ruler’s demand for income, it will destroy the lives of residents.
This type of community production is completely inconsistent with the assumption of personal freehold ownership implicit in the cadastral map. . . . However, the state’s argument against land use rights in public form is based on the correct observation that it is financially illegible and therefore financially less productive. . . . Historical resolutions are usually based on the state imposing a property system based on its fiscal system.
This is not to say that everything went according to plan. Scott pointed out that people in the community often continued to use their land as before, ignoring the plans that the rulers tried to impose. But the rulers were not frustrated by this. They continue
Their model reflects the nature of reality-just like today's macroeconomists do. Of course, their tax laws had unintended consequences. For example, the taxes collected by France on doors and windows in the eighteenth century were used as agents for determining the size of houses, which encouraged the construction of houses with few doors and windows.
However, the people’s ability to work around the ruler is limited. Social life is destroyed, resources are deprived, and communities cannot develop spontaneously. One can only guess what the world would look like without a ruling class.
Yes executive edit
Chairman of the Board
. He is blogging
And wrote several books, including recent
We invite comments and ask them to be folklore and topical. We do not take any responsibility for comments owned by readers who have posted a comment. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment at any time for any reason.
Agriculture creates government. ~ Richard Manning (Richard Manning)
There are many varieties of flowering begonias, and identification is often difficult. ~ Hessayon (DG Hessayon)
Indoor Plant Expert
Government is only synonymous with capitalism, and the main capital of agricultural urban countries is land. Government power is needed to protect the "rights" of capitalism.
"A society accepts memes
Ownership can surpass one's exclusive needs for survival. (For ownership, please read Jason Goldsky.) Abstract ownership begins when society accepts the idea of symbolic control over something without the need for immediate, direct and personal use.
It stands for symbol
Form the basis of all layers. "
Online "Power Theory"
Chapter 9-Advance to the rhizome
Leave me alone, don't fuck me.
At least once a day
To some politicians
Maid? It sounds weird.
Now, I am curious:
So, when you (through any means) realize primitive society and certain people are engaged in agricultural activities, how do you stop them?
I don't think you can get unlimited population growth through individual hunters/party. Once the food/water population limit is reached, how will you deal with other people? If someone is actually trying to maintain reproduction and support population growth by approaching modern agriculture, what should you do? Persuade them? Force them to stop? Or is it just a sigh?
Don't bother every one of us tried it. It has no debate, no sincere arguing, or even a coherent response, it just messes up the thread, and then moves on.
"Ownership can transcend the abstract concept of a person's exclusive needs for survival."
what! what! what! .
The concept of ownership is one less "abstract" than the concept you have been chasing.
Moreover, you are not incapable of proving this case.
Sheldon Richman sprouted typical liberal nonsense. The ruling class exists because human beings are born with a desire to be ruled. They don't want to think for themselves. They want holy books like the Bible or the Constitution to ease their thinking about themselves.
I let Adam do it.
Hi, Mr. Gingrich!
So why can't the dictator rule those people and leave the rest of us alone?
It causes people to eat babies.
Eat their babies
All of you who gave up hope, everyone who entered here. In other words, don't waste your time on this thread. Come again tomorrow. This is just the ones and zeros wasted by Troll/anti-Troll.
Thank you threadcop!
Get out now.
In fact, smart people might start to avoid weekend vacations altogether. They really waste time. Read the article, skip the comments, and go back to Monday when the bastard is wasting the weekend.
In fact, smart people might start to avoid weekend vacations altogether.
Therefore, we can look forward to you on the weekend.
good idea. Starting last night, I plan to completely ignore the comment section soon. I like to hear the opinions of many commenters, but scrolling and wasting time is really not worth it.
God, it's already started...
Since being active, I don’t think the trolls have missed a single Sheldon Richman post.
...Support Sheldon's article at least to some extent.
A copy that the White Indians did own
"Yale University Farming Research Series" written by Professor James C. Scott.
Hardcover even! (I told you that I used to be a liberal, and I am sure I am not poor.)
In any case, I commend Sheldon's efforts to study the country from the perspective of empirical data, rather than the market fundamentalist "axial theory" advocated by liberal scriptures, which proved to be overwhelming.
Your argument doesn't make any sense, Richman has already mentioned the state that hinders market efficiency.
The original market, the slave market, was promoted by the rulers of the agricultural city state.
Really, fiber, read your nonsense
By Jack Weatherford.
Go back to your cave, residents.
There is archaeological evidence that the trading network is more than 50,000 years old. Trade (market)-Like words, it is a fundamental aspect of human nature.
Speech is a tool for agricultural city statisticians!
No farm = no christfags!
Monkeys exchange sex for food. They don't grow food.
I was surprised by WI's post that they seemed to have half of Scott's information and then completely missed his point of view. I don’t know if there are other pages in the WI copy that have been torn off or something, because it
Very thoroughly debunked many of WI’s claims about him/him/it (can be abbreviated as
To save time? ) Repeated ads are disgusting.
Perhaps the rulers are also forced to develop these standard systems to ensure that those they rule think that the rulers are "fair." In other words, they treat similar situations in a similar way, instead of ruling in an arbitrary and capricious way. When people see that they are unable to predict the outcome of an event or situation, their likelihood of participating in the event will be reduced, and their support for the ruler will also be weakened. It is not easy to discern which phenomenon is dominant.
Adblock is Kittys today!
Google Maps has
Everything seems to blend well together.
Try Street View?
No topic, but Richard Branson announced his
Humans emit more carbon dioxide than all volcanoes on earth
Carbon dioxide is good. There are things that plants desire.
What a poor book. Typical reductionist.
It is ridiculous not to allow them to marry in our backward society.
Lobster girl vs raccoon girl. Let the photos appear.
For me, a few seconds of sloppy, buddy?
RXC is correct.
At least in the oldest state I know, the standard ruler and the metric (even the law, even the statutory law) are set by the ruler based on the violent demands of the ruled, not the other way around.
In the case of (for example) Republican Rome, the standard weights and metrics are the responsibility of the elf, which is part of the same blatant revolution that created the civilian forum. This revolution is a popular movement launched
The ruling class of those who think the traditional way of ruling is unfair. Tired of being deprived of suppliers, Pleb created an office and assigned it the task of fixing standard weights and metrics.
Does anyone think about the child? ! ? ! ? ! ? !
The statute is the same. Roman law has always been unwritten, and the ruling nobles will take advantage of this by making themselves the institutional guardians of the "memory" of the law. Written law was originally
It is literally pointed at the finger, because once the law is written down, the ruler cannot come up with the law when needed to win a specific case.
I think standardization and simplification are as easy to be tools used by the ruled as the ruled to make their ruler accountable.
Oops, the constitution is a profound simplification.
Even if rules and laws are written down, it does not mean that the ruler will obey them.
Take the constitution as an example...
correct. It's totally true.
But now think about it, how bad the situation would be if the constitution were not even written.
If the first or second amendment is "habitual", how safe is the protection?
are you serious? are you serious?
This is why, as a controlled population, we must
Formally elected governance should follow its laws.
What I am not sure about is whether it is really necessary if the government has made it clear how to use written rules to exempt itself from the laws it enacts. Or at least make it almost impossible to hold them accountable at the point of violation.
Take TEAM RED and (I believe there are still) TEAM BLUE as examples...
"The statutory law is based on the requirements of public opinion, the statutory law..."
The picture still did not happen.
I call this an april fools day prank
I feel sorry for breaking John's brain, but he assured us that Registration is coming and anarchy will be defeated once and for all in Hit & Run.
I have already said it.
At that time, [KOCH Minion] issued a decree to conduct a census of the entire [right-wing] world. Everyone goes to their own town
~ "St. Luke's Gospel" Chapter 1 verses 1 and 3
[KOCH] will be written in
A member of the people: "This man was born in Zion."
~Psalm 87: 6
This is the era of bureaucracy. As Proudhon said, to live now is to "perform every action, every transaction, every movement,
Inventory, grading, stamping, measurement, numbering, evaluation, permission, denial, authorization, endorsement, warning, prevention, reform, correction, correction............ payable, drilling, fleeing, exploitation, monopoly, extortion, exhaustion , Lied, and was robbed. "
Dominating the six hexagrams of the Book of Changes is 47, Kun
I know you will be back, Bob! At the same time, we have been letting the white fish fly.
Richman does not seem to use "local organic customs" as a basis for property or law.
Almost always "organic local customs" means "some nonsense made locally for the sake of the matter or for the benefit of others, and falsely claiming to be an ancient tradition."
This article refers to (for example) Medieval France. Well, medieval France was built on the ruins of Roman Gaul. Roman Gaul has a unified language, weight and measurement, laws, land use rights, and a system of state agencies. For centuries, the variegated medieval system was imposed on it. This process happened at the same time that local elites gradually polished civilians into serfdom, and it was no better than chattel slavery.
Fluffy| 4.1.12 @ 11:13 AM|#
Some nonsense local super agents formed on the spot...
The first person who surrounded a piece of land said: "This is mine" and found that people naively believed him, he was the true founder of civil society. From how many crimes, wars and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes, no one can save mankind by pulling high piles or filling ditches and crying to his companions. If you ever forget that the fruits of the earth belong to all of us, and the earth itself belongs to anyone, then you will be destroyed.
Unequal Discourse (1754)
No, this is not the custom type I am talking about.
I'm talking about the types of land use rights. The local lord will exchange six weeks of labor a year for the lease of a piece of land.
Because these arrangements are habitual and informal, the range of duties owed by tenants tends to increase over time, as the owner will only "remember" new "traditional" duties when needed.
This is the type of non-ownership "ownership" that Richman appreciates here.
A plot/an owner/no obligation to other levels of ownership may be less “organic” and easier to tax, but this is irrelevant compared to the fact that all other types of ownership end in slavery.
The market fundamentalist "ownership society" is all about slavery, owning and controlling slavery.
Even so-called liberal societies use slavery and
"He wants me to be the boss most, and then
Whenever I am upset with him.
…If voluntary slavery is legal, we can perfect this financial arrangement to realize our common interests. If not, it won't cause a huge loss to both of us. Rafe, the slave owner, will never take out this cold money. If he pays, I can drag him into court when he is beaten and beaten.
I. Then, without this
Voluntary slave contract
Author: Walter Block [Austrian economist, liberal Mises Inst. partner]
No, depending on the ownership of group participation ends in slavery.
The key is to avoid restrictions on the use of the property to any extent, as well as the conditions set by the continued enjoyment of the property once the property is owned.
The key to preventing slavery is to do everything we can to make the property owner irresponsible to his compatriots. It's just the opposite of what you want to do.
That's exactly what you want
So the owner can
The property they own and control, the ultimate property, will never be brought to justice.
Jesus answered. ~Matthew 26:64
You are a slave to a sickly fucking agricultural city country, fluffy.
FTFY, Primmie douche.
By the way, Rousseau is an idiot, morally nihilistic, even a cursory reading of the last clause will reveal it.
...There is also a kind of moral nihility, even a cursory reading of his last article can reveal this.
This is very simple, because the fruits on the earth are not just voluntarily eaten and jumped into our mouths.
Even in the case of hunting and gathering, someone must go on hunting and gathering.
If I managed to catch a rabbit while hunting, and you climbed up and told me that you were going to eat that rabbit instead of me, then the correct response would be –
Response-I am going to kill you. Because fuck you, that's why.
In view of this irrefutable moral fact, talking about "fruits on the earth that belong to all of us" is childish nonsense.
And, if I can mix labor with rabbits and make that food my food correctly, then I can also use produce to do this. Any herder who skimmed my face and tried to harvest the crops I had worked so hard to plant should be the bright spot in the damn stain.
~Richard Manning, "Anti-Grain", p. 243. twenty four
Marshall Sahlins (Marshall Sahlins),
Wandering on the plains and forests, hunting and living on land are fun.
Need to quote. In my experience, hunting and foraging are hard work, especially in winter and dry periods.
Farming is not
I don't farm, so it doesn't matter.
Hunting blow. I remember my father dragged me into the woods. When he was fighting, I was there with beer for him. Sometimes, he would let me shoot, and I would miss Jesus because I was worried about the woodland animals.
I remember one time when I was wandering on the plain, leisurely playing a game of collecting roots and berries, when a group of wild hedgehogs tore up half of my face.
I just wandered to a group of companion tribes, they were engaged in a large-scale facial reconstruction movement, and they fixed me.
I remember that during the dry season, my tribe was racing across the plain... Many pumpkins disappeared and Papua was empty. Our stomachs are roaring and our waists are dry.
We sniff out Old among the ancient Indian tribes, where food is plentiful and pumpkins are flooded. We asked. You oppose us more. Now we have your food, belly and more shelter. Our stomachs are full, our waists are full, and there are plenty of shelters.
Soon we will occupy the pulp and we will celebrate your waving scalp in the wind.
It is indeed a good time.
These days, what they can do with organic punk technology is amazing.
Where you go asshole. I moved to Australia and ran around with the bush dwellers.
Or what we call part-time work today.
Great, fluffy! You know, when it repeats and fails to respond, it is defeated.
Eat rabbits instead of you, fluffy? I do not know. How does your taste compare to rabbit?
Rape tastes better when it is strained and soft. Rabbits, not so many.
Know how to punctuate. The uppercase letters have been saved to TTY.
If for some reason, you think it is necessary to reply to WI in the future, please link directly to Fluffy's comment here instead of repeating it, because Fluffy has already said everything that needs to be explained.
The thing is... it's the same process. "Localized" laws and customs enable local elites to enslave the surrounding elites. They put them in a net of habitual obligations and make themselves those who "remember" those customs.
"How to think like the ruling class"
If you want to think like the ruling class, you have to look up as much as possible...I have never been interested in this.
An interesting point about the state’s hostility towards gypsies and other gamblers. Of course, there is no reason to believe that pre-agricultural societies are not hostile to the nomadic peoples raging on its territory.
Even gypsies, tramps and other gamblers still recognize the concept of "landmines".
Try to fill up the shopping cart of a wanderer who might be regarded as trash, and you will get an angry wanderer. Even free-range people have a sense of ownership in what they think of as "their stuff"
The same as these nomad hunters/gatherers nomads: they may think that the land and the land may be public, but try to take away their spoils. If they are smart nomads, they will be prepared to defend their property.
FIBertard's desire to spray agricultural cities-STATIST nonsense is indeed endless. At the same time, hard-won science has shown us...
"Although territoriality is part of the forager-hunter activity, there is no evidence that it led to war. Domestication established strict boundaries between surplus property and private property, accompanied by possessiveness, hostility, and competition for ownership. Even decree The consciousness mechanism that eases the new reality cannot eliminate its ever-present dynamic force.
Moss portrays exchange as a peacefully resolved war, which is the result of a failed transaction; he sees what is in the pot as a sublimated war.  Before domestication, the boundaries were uncertain. "
The origin of the war
Hey, White Anklegrabber, you love John Zerzan, right? Maybe you should listen to his advice and communicate only through telepathy.
Good point, Groovus. When of course I was talking about citing personal violence, Wisconsin might offer a rebuttal by removing the goal post and citing some nonsense anthropologists about war and national issues. Even if we all know that territoriality is a basic survival adaptation method of the animal kingdom, this or that kind of form will not be portrayed in any form on historical relics. Therefore, some nonsense anthropologists can even claim that there has never been, even It never happened, not even possible.
Move the goal post.
Very good, I will meet too.
In the second half of the 20th century, this pessimistic view of human nature began to change. According to archaeological evidence, civilized human beings live without violence, especially organized violence, which has become the purpose of mainstream academics. Eibl-Eibesfeldt mentioned! Ko-Bushmen are not belligerent: "Their cultural ideal is peaceful coexistence. They achieve this goal by avoiding conflict, by dividing, emphasizing and encouraging multiple ways of contact."
Mike, try again, more nonsense about statistics
To make men peaceful.
Regulation holiday celebration!
One will not buy
By John Zerzan
I saw a sadness in the eyes of Ted Kaczynski, a reflection of all we have lost. Huge losses include increasing personal desolation, the disappearance of communities, and the destruction of the natural world. This is truly devastating, and it is getting worse every day.
Kaczynski's betrayal under the betrayal of his own brother (of course, his "guilt" has not been confirmed) reminds us that pacifism, although self-righteous, is always the foundation of the defense of peace.
However, Megamachine has not yet eliminated all resistance, the ability to resist technical nightmares. At least, we have seen the courage and honor of a man who is unwilling to succumb to this deceitful society, who fights the brave new world with pen and sword.
Objection 5. Primitives are fanatics of genocide, and their planned "utopia" requires them to plan mass murder of 99% of the population!
5 common objections to primitivism and their wrong reasons
Jason Godesky | October 26, 2005
Hasan said: "Systematic warfare, the emergence of fortifications and destructive weapons, follow the agricultural road."
Domestication involves the beginning of production, the massive increase in the division of labor, and the complete foundation of social stratification. This is tantamount to a sudden change in the characteristics of human existence and its development, making the latter full of more violence and work. By the way, contrary to the myths of violence and aggressiveness of hunter-gatherers, recent evidence shows that...
Agriculture: The Demon Engine of Civilization
This is contrary to the traditional Rosbard and Landian views of property. For Ayn/Murray, property rights do not originate from the government or social consensus, but are inherently inflexible and specific privileges.
Indeed, one package/one owner seems to be almost axiomatic about objectivism/Nazi capitalism.
…Checked their house.
"Agriculture creates government." ~Richard Manning, "Anti-Grain", p. 73
Both Rand and Rothbard overestimated their talents. Among those who like to be philosophers, this seems to be a common failure. They shifted from having some good insights to constructing some shaky logical systems to explain everything.
Maybe you should explain exactly what your opposition to the system is, instead of participating in baroque self-deception.
Of course, let's start with Rothbard and his simple formulation of the principle of non-aggression:
"No one may threaten or commit violence against another person’s personal or property ('aggression'). Violent acts can only be committed against those who have committed such acts of violence; in other words, they can only be defended against aggressive violence by others In short, violence must not be imposed on non-aggressors. This is the basic rule from which the entire corpus of liberal theories can be derived."
It does not state that a person’s response to aggression is limited to a suitably limited level of force.
It did not provide guidance on how to deal with quagmirs like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, where there is a long history of aggression, and launching this aggression is no longer helpful.
(Continue due to 900 word limit...)
No talk about how to deal with parent/child relationships, children or mentally incapacitated people.
Not providing a preemptive strike is usually the best way to prevent perceived threats. (It continues the Western television worldview. In this kind of observation, only after one person lets the other draw first, can there be reasons to fight back.)
Well, it's Ain Rand now. Let's start with all her claims about rational aesthetics. It can be concluded from the first principle that Cyrano de Bergerac is better than "Waiting for Godot".
If your view of anarchic capitalism relies on a certain theory of rights that prescribes a plot, an owner, it goes without saying.
The weird ownership arrangement fits well in David Friedman's non-capitalist society.
That's why i specified
Brand anarchy capitalism.
I do not agree with the anarchist socialists, but when they claim that property rights are a fictional work of the state, they are not 100% wrong.
It is interesting how these state things keep growing organically, and they tend to develop in a similar way.
How to think "not crazy" like Mary:
Mat Drunksky wrote on Saturday, March 31, 2012 at 7:56 pm:
Hey, I conveyed all your efforts to solve the rectal disease and the subsequent harassment of Mary Stark. After you started to think she was a rectal disease, you encouraged to do so.
I sincerely hope that you do not use school packages or internet connections because you have seriously violated the Code of Conduct.
Honestly, how stupid are you to harass your school address?
Oh, and I'm also considering emailing it to everyone in the debate team.
Haha! ! !
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, at 8:15 PM, you wrote:
Mary, as interesting as your gossip, I think I should correct you on a few points:
1. Even if you send anything to Brandeis, why do they listen to mentally ill bitters? And why would they care that I stepped on your ass on the Internet?
2. Just because I am on their email list does not mean I am on the debate team. You can tell them whatever you want. They don't know who I am.
If you are not Mary Stack, then why do you care so much about me "harassing" her?
Mat Drunksky wrote on Saturday, March 31, 2012, at 8:28 PM:
Indeed, your excuse should be left to them to call you.
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, at 8:37 PM, you wrote:
I think you are stupid to believe in such obvious and absurd counterfeiting, which offends me.
Mat Drunksky wrote on Saturday, March 31, 2012, at 8:40 PM:
Believe in what you like.
Please stop replying to me, our business has ended.
On Saturday, March 31, 2012, at 8:44 PM, you wrote:
Oh come on Mary, you won't even try to explain why a random stranger would defend Mary Stark?
Understand the difference between corrections and stupid excuses.
"Saturday, March 31, 2012,
In the afternoon, Mat Drunksky wrote:
, Our business is over.
On Saturday, March 31, 2012
Oh come on Mary, you won't even try to explain why a random stranger would defend Mary Stark? "
So after someone asked you to stop, you harassed him via email, which is bad.
Why do you publicly admit this?
On March 31, 2012, Saturday, 8:40 PM,
Who is Mat Drunksky?
The name seems to only appear on one poker website. At the risk of deepening the conspiracy theory, Dunphy was called a poker player.
Hell, I won't say that Mat Drunksky's email is "fair competition", but if you accidentally post it here, I don't think I will shed tears.
It won't do you any good, it's a one-time thing, it's gone now.
However, you will keep trying and one day you will know enough about the technology that you will no longer feel embarrassed
I hope you are really proud of yourself. No, really, the excitement and sowed sadness is damn pride.
"It's really proud of him to anger and sow sadness."
You will know.
I like that you are so angry because you don’t have to drag the email to "incitement and spread sorrow."
This is where you lie and say you are not angry, is it?
Oh no, I am definitely not upset that you won't get your dessert. I don't mind saying that I want to avenge you-you launched this special brand of nonsense. I just want to end it.
"You initiated this particular brand of nonsense."
No, it's a sad person. Anyone outing is immoral. This is the Internet; there is nothing private here.
"No, it's a sad person."
You think i am
Jesus, you are so stupid.
Hell, you are fucking crazy, like you thought she was
Report anti-social behavior to
I do not understand
Why do we report to Brandeis about the rather/white Indian trolls in "Hit and Run"?
The people around here have encountered some social/psychological problems, which is not terrible.
"The people around here have some social/psychological problems, which is not annoying."
After staying for a few hours in the last hour of hell, he might desperately fabricate any lie he might think of, no matter how stupid, so as not to cause him harm to Stack.
So, if I understand correctly, you mean Mary Stark is definitely?
"So, if I understand correctly"
There is no evidence for what you said
"You mean it's definitely Mary Stark?"
I don't know anything about it, but if your reading ability is better, you will find that I never mentioned it.
That's you trolling.
It turns out that you don’t have
Go back and read until you realize that you are wrong.
We know Ken, we know.
Agree, I found that one troll smearing stains everywhere is no different from another.
The troll trollin charges the troll.
"If there is no ruling class, people can only guess what the world will be like."
The Commonwealth of Iceland, an early colony of Pennsylvania?
Two examples of a society with government
Paris Commune, leveller, digger?
It is hard to say that the situation in Somalia shows in any way what our society looks like in a post-government world.
The American colonists used to have no government. Instead of looking like Somalia, it looks like Pennsylvania.
I think our government is a function of what is happening in the whole society, not the problems we have in the whole society due to the lack of government.
If this is the case, then you are looking back. You want to project a top-down model on a bottom-up world.
I like the smell of purge in the morning.
A bigger cage! Longer chains!
I don't see any difference between liberals and feudal society. In any case, personal freedom in the United States has increased substantially
From the federal government? Why is it so difficult for liberals to see only restricting the power of the government (the people)
Strength cannot eliminate it. Humans live with each other; unless prevented by powerful, compulsory, and often complicated rules, they will assert each other's power.
There are quite a few constitutionalists among you... If not the original central planner, what was the founder? Liberals’ full attention to government power betrays people’s profound ignorance of how power actually operates. Putting down the power of the government and taking over by others, there are no checks and balances, and there is no legitimacy provided by democratic elections. Modern corporate feudal system.
"In any case, doesn't the freedom of American individuals come from the federal government?"
So you are asking a question seriously, the answer is both well-known and obvious?
Do you want others to hate what you say?
So provide an example.
Do you believe in everything I have written here?
I realized that it would be difficult for those whose political beliefs were based solely on the simplest slogans to think about them.
"I realized that it is hard work for those whose political beliefs are based solely on the most superficial slogans to think about them."
Most of you admit this, it is difficult to admit your shortcomings, especially in public.
"So give an example."
For what purpose? You rarely engage in things similar to honest debates, so what kind of masochistic idiot would do anything, instead of self-paying/ignoring you?
You are dishonest and I am not one of those people who pretend that you are just trying to get you to participate in meaningless debates that will make you run counter to the first time you were refuted.
To prove that my claim is wrong, instead of wasting your time not to write anything and imply that I was right?
"To prove that my claim is wrong"
I don't need it, you are dishonest. I am not one of those people who pretend that you are just trying to get you to participate in meaningless debates that will make you run counter to the first time you were refuted.
So, instead, you involved me in something more meaningful?
I want to remind everyone that I am dishonest, and it does not make sense to waste time in your debate.
"To remind everyone of your dishonesty and debate, I find it meaningless. It's a waste of time."
And you must like the primary importance of this exaggeration: look at me, I am an honest neighbor in the chat room! Dishonest posters, beware!
I guess it’s the ordinary George Zimmerman of H&R...
"Moreover, you must like the primary importance of this exaggeration: look at me, I am an honest neighborhood watcher in the chat room! Dishonest posters, beware!
I guess it’s the ordinary George Zimmerman from H&R..."
So, does the fact that you sniff at it makes you our Al Sharpton?
You must fall in love with the primary importance of this exaggeration: look at me, I am an important neighbor watch in the chat room! All posters, beware!
"you are not honest."
This may be one of the stupidest things we have heard here. "You are dishonest" usually means "you do not accept my arguments, axioms, etc.! They are so beautiful and self-evident, only dishonest people will do this!"
Tony has been here for a long time. I am not opposed to everything he said, and I know most people here agree with it. But his views are consistent and express their views eloquently.
Most people are not liberals. They believe in positive rights and do not think that coercion is the worst thing in any situation. Do you really travel the world and think that it is dishonest for all human beings not to consider their actions? Jesus, Adolkson sometimes has to end.
Don't waste time on this idiot Tony.
I thought MNG was married, but it turns out that there is a boyfriend next to him. who knows?
Free white knight rescued!
"Liberated White Knight!"
In this case, it is very obvious that MNG deceived Tony.
You are right – the patterns match.
MNG = Leftist John Lott (John Lott).
Yes, I am Tony and NM, as well as joe and every liberal.
It's up to you, buddy.
Do I think the pastor made me angry? interesting…
No, MNG, I usually ignore you. But now I want to laugh at you.
You think I must always be correct, or you will "win" in some way because I no longer ignore you. You are wrong in two ways. You just deserve the ridicule. Now, your boyfriend will be taken apart-are you going to slap in the face?
Dishonest behavior is dishonest.
Mine, all capitals. Is my lover a pastor? He seems to have indeed accepted the hardships and frustrations accused by racists...
Wow, two tl: dr, MNG has been lost.
This is not "dishonest" as people call it. What they mean is, "You understand my argument, but you pretend to be my argument is another matter." (See my post below, 1:27 pm.)
I mean, you and Tony
Stayed here long enough to understand the basis of liberalism. But I have no doubt that if we are really caught in a debate about the appropriateness of "social security", then when you tell me that I "don't care" about the elderly, something will come up.
But he is not honest. He might think that the core of liberal philosophy is insufficient attention to the consequences of inaction.
Maybe he was wrong. But he was not "dishonest" because of this.
Of course, "he" is "your sock puppet". Just need the label of "dishonest" to make you give it up.
Okay, it doesn't matter. This person has served as TAO for many years, and has some toss in the board of directors, and finally returned to the leadership of Rev. Blue.
I am MNG and have been posting here for many years, but I am not Tony, he has been posting here for many years. It's not that there are so many liberals, but in your opinion, only one person may show the views of liberals...Jesus, grown up.
There is no "dogfight". I feel like I changed my handle. what are you saying?
Go to the White Knight, call your icon, little one.
Let me be blunt: people have been staring at Tony all the time, as he mentioned, they are constantly deceiving him and attacking him here, in some cases, I think he is arguing with a demon fighter, I defend him , And you are angry at all of this. mouth?
Fuck you back to your CPAC agreement.
Oops, his little string got hurt! Sorry, Tony won't call you back, even if your behavior is indeed like his "armor guardian".
Considering your behavior when I "call you a racist", this is very rich
I just said that you are not worthy to engage in intellectually honest topics, because you end up calling all opponents racists.
This still holds.
Don't be so harsh on yourself.
MLK did not work for the government. Moreover, if the government takes any measures to enhance personal freedom, the reason is not what the government did. This is because of what non-governmental entities like MLK do.
Why does den ruin the advocates of personal freedom? MLK did not happen because the government gave him freedom. The government gave us more freedom because of people like MLK.
In addition, there you have some circular logic for yourself. When the government oppresses the people, freedom naturally comes from the government.
Because liberals oppose the government restricting our freedom, this means that freedom comes from the government. Do we need the government to ensure our freedom?
Tight circle, there.
In this article, my view is that government power will always exist, so the only option is to check it and guide it to achieve good goals. Abuse of power is inevitable; we all agree on this. It is indeed an interesting case to do so, maybe my conviction is naive. However, this attitude immediately makes libertarianism stand out, because people inevitably rely on the government to claim the right to rule over others.
This is why people say you are "dishonest" to Tony. You know that liberals = / = Anarchists are a damn good thing, but you continue to say that.
How cute... Tony thinks that beasts can be tamed.
There is no doubt that the ideas about freedom and the struggle for freedom do not come from the government, but from the individual, and the government is the means to realize these new ideas about freedom. In this country, it is usually the federal government. Countries can do better and go faster, but often they become slower and worse. I'm talking about a massive increase in personal freedom. I can't think of a case in this country or any other that does not require the government to do something.
Hypothetical conclusion, Tony. Your premise depends on the notion that because the government is there, it must do something for whimsical requirements. Therefore, under the guise of having to guarantee favorable results, the government can enforce policies without restriction.
Yes, all Tony has to do is show how we can fight the government that restricts our freedom-without government intervention. …Using a non-circular logical structure?
Tell us Tony, how do you make someone our boots without letting his boots take off our faces? Thank God for helping the mob, because without them, wouldn't anyone take their boots from our faces?
When he finishes explaining, maybe he can explain how to swim without getting wet, or how to draw a quadrilateral triangle.
I think Tony’s argument is likely that the federal government is important in checking state governments (please note that he is talking about federalism), or that the government can create from things like scarcity or economic inequality. free. The concept of "freedom from scarcity or economic inequality" is coherent.
He asked the government to provide a single example so that we can enjoy more freedom without government intervention.
What I want to point out is things like entrepreneurs who invent, fund and build the Internet, but before we talk about things like that, we need to figure out this idea-you can’t protest against the government in some way Of the suppression.
As I said before, according to him, the civil rights struggle was not carried out by MLK, Rosa Parks, Freelancers, etc. al .; Is the civil rights struggle fought in the Congress Hall?
This is ridiculous.
"He asked the government to provide a single example so that we can enjoy more freedom without government intervention."
Well, that's ridiculous. To be honest, I think this is exaggerated.
I can think of many ways to get us out of non-government efforts. To be honest, there are fewer ways for the government to make me more free. I think this is something that some people might deny.
When the United States' personal freedom increased substantially, didn't it come from the federal government? "
He said "any".
of course can! Look, that's the neat part: when someone lies but he is by your side, you call it "exaggeration"! Why pay attention to actual words-MNG has TEAMMATE and lovers to defend!
"The civil rights struggle was not carried out by MLK, Rosa Parks, Freedom Riders, etc. al.; The civil rights struggle was carried out in the Congress Hall?"
Also, Ken, I think it can be argued that MLK is doing everything it can to get Congress’s attention and get them to take action...
You are right. In a series of events leading to more freedom, the government will always be the last of the political parties.
This is why politicians are voted for to achieve change. You can express people's thoughts like MLK, Gandhi and Jesus of Nazareth, and then hold on to the lever of power, and they will see the light.
In this way, Jesus took over the Roman Empire. It doesn't matter who the emperor is-he will eventually have to become a Christian.
MLK got rid of isolation in this way. In this way, Gandhi got rid of the British rule. That is how they got rid of Gaddafi, Egypt got rid of Mubarak and so on. Does anyone think that the government will act first, and then freedom will come? Is a victim of propaganda.
"You are right. In a series of events leading to more freedom, the government will always be the last of the political parties."
I understand what you mean, but I think the opposite is that the goal is to get the government to intervene. MLK has always supported the "Civil Rights Act", in fact, he asked them to do so in his speech. He wants to change his mind to pass the law. He knows that even if not many people change their minds in the way you said, without the intervention of the Fed, he would still feel oppressed.
I will care what you think when generating 24 links and names.
Until then, you are an excuse for a liar.
MNG is correct because MLK is an arrogant statistician. He not only believes that the government should intervene in all possible types of personal transactions to ensure fair treatment of blacks, but also believes that the state should receive compensation from whites, whether they are white or white. Contact with the ancestors of slavery or their personal treatment of black people. This reminds me of an important point: the entire dialogue is false, because the Civil Rights Act advocated by MLK does not expand freedom. In fact, it greatly limits it to achieve the desired social results. Ken, your generalization point is correct, but this example is terrible.
You may not like this realization, but if you think that what MLK does makes today's black people less free, then you are crazy.
Well, look at how homosexuality today gets along with history. And we haven't seen Jack Rush of the federal government in this regard.
As the name suggests, every time the government changes a bad law, it acts. Sometimes this violates one's own historical rules, but it works.
I am happy to debate the merits of liberalism, but whatever your views, these are not room for debate. You are asserting something meaningless (even if their hands are forced to cancel their own laws, the Fed will take action), or it is untrue (the federal government is
You're right. I mean, without the government, how can we get rid of the Fugitive Slavery Act? Without the Democrats and Republicans, how would we get rid of the "Alien Act" and "Sedition Act"? I can’t wait to hope that the federal government will expand our freedom by getting rid of its own cannabis laws. Prohibition, thank the government for helping us out of trouble!
This is not difficult at all. I mean, if you define "coming from the federal government" to mean "the federal government has changed something" (considering that we have not yet carried out a successful revolution), then you are saying something true but completely meaningless .
"There are no checks and balances, or democratic elections provide legitimacy for people"
In the dumbest comment ever made by shithead, this means *many*.
Tony: why don't you
Make such an argument? I do not agree with this view, and I am sure that many people will be happy to refute it. But this is at least a related argument.
In other words, you seem to understand that your real dispute with liberalism lies in the basic premise. However, you spend a lot of time here and take a few steps on the argument-for example, we don’t like nationalized healthcare because we don’t really care about patients, or we don’t like social programs because "I have mine." .
Here, you have proven that you really have the real difference. So why is it dishonest to motives everywhere else?
Maybe you have been attracted by some of the endless deceivers who think I am making moral character judgments. FTR I think everyone is basic and selfish.
I did make the argument that libertarianism is fundamentally incoherent because it provides reasons why it cannot accept things such as social welfare programs (that is, the transfer of wealth is wrong) does not apply to the same Other programs and market distortions that require the transfer of wealth (such as property rights enforcement).
The only thing to say is that you must defend your policy stance instead of resorting to the constitutional authority you imagine in your mind, such as natural rights and other nonsense or other equivalents to "because I say so." I think freedom Doctrine collapsed because of this, but I would like to know if anyone can meet the challenge.
Explain the meaning of "advantages".
Why do they produce better results for humans than alternatives?
I just think that there are some acts of stealing the foundation in the whole framework of "the advantages of policy stance". The default view of liberals is that they do not hold a policy position. This is not a "policy position."
You are a person trying to exert government power on this. Therefore, the responsibility lies
Sell this "policy." The responsibility does not lie with us, just because we are sitting here quietly, in the default position of "no government". How burden
quarrel? We don’t want to do anything. You are the one who must convince people that society should pull out guns to solve the problem.
Here, you become a victim of criticism. You are a philosophical utilitarian. If we refuse to presuppose that the best policy is to create the best results for the majority of people, then your entire logical order will collapse, just as the logical order of a libertarian collapses when you reject its basic claims. This is a universal truth that applies to all political philosophy. You just assume that your opponents do so by assuming that your basic proposition is self-evidently correct, and accept each argument in your own words instead of your own, and then in the case that does not meet your premise Declare it as defective.
"FTR I think everyone is basic and selfish."
Each of us sees others from our own perspective.
All people are despicable and selfish, which is why we need a government of despicable and selfish top people.
It is one thing to take money from everyone to provide a common defense (used to pay the property tax and business tax of the police; or to pay the income tax of the federal courts and the army), and to collect money from a group of people is completely different. Things. To another.
I guess you are viewing property rights enforcement as a prejudice against the rich. You shouldn’t get bored with this, because we have been constantly opposing things like the war on drugs and court rulings like Kailo, which have a particularly serious impact on the poor and the middle class.
"Because we continue to oppose the drug war and court decisions like Kellogg, this has a particularly serious impact on the poor and the middle class."
This is your credit. In fact, I have argued with Tony that when he confuses you with conservatives, he tends to ignore such things.
But I think his views have yet to be defended. See, the organization that aims to protect property rights actually includes drawing money from X and Y to Z to help A. You taxed me to pay the police to protect your house.
Now you can say: "But if you need to protect your house, he will do it." But you can say the same to most liberal programs (if you need benefits, you will also get...), can't you?
Doesn’t the freedom of individuals in the United States come from the federal government?
Unless you expand the meaning of "from" to cover everything involved, it will be difficult for you to claim that it "from" the federal government, especially because there are no previous activities of the federal government.
Is there any situation where the US federal government has not increased personal freedom on a large scale?
Sailing on the Mayflower.
Tony doesn't need to understand the source of the problem. He is born, just like a dog is born to lick to.
Why is your liberal "utopia" better than the theoretical "liberal"?
Oh wait...you can't.
Piercing monkey scream
Shit thrown around
I thought you majored in international relations or a similar major, Brooksey.
When did you bring poetry?
"Who killed this place?"
After all, it is you and me.
I did notice one thing about statisticians messing around, that Plato, Moore, Bentham, etc. all designed societies that suit their personal ideas about symmetry, scale, and organization. When reading these guys, I feel very strange and obsessed. They want to control the population size, house design, food, clothing, and even the distance between towns. Richman’s statement is correct because these designs are designed to make society the most clear and understandable to the ruler, and thus the easiest to control.
What makes them feel strange is that they want to control the size of the city, the location and distance from others, house design, road routes, etc. to adapt to their ideas about the city. In fact, all these things are determined by geographical location, climate and other factors (real conditions determine them). How nationalism inevitably leads to disaster, ignoring this fact, and supporting their illusions about how the world should be (imagine lysinko).
The reason, I really hate the 900 character limit.
1500 is correct.
You can learn how to write.
When thinking about the origin of the state, I think it might highlight the differences between liberals and nationalists. People not only created states to protect their "negative rights" ("" because the enforcement of these negative rights usually meant forcing the transfer of wealth to create institutions to perform the same actions as the "positive rights"), they also created governments to provide useful What they think is difficult to do without these things, not only to protect them from robbers, but also to protect them from natural disasters or economic disasters...
In other words, they looked around, saw people around, and decided to enlist these people to provide them with safety.
Liberals looked around, saw other people around, and said, “I have no requirements for their lives. I hope or even believe that if a shit incident occurs, people will be good for me. But I still don’t have theirs. life."
This is the view summarized by Andrew Koppelman:
"If the government makes you pay for health insurance before you get sick and require treatment, it will be a violent violation of your freedom! But if millions of people die from preventable diseases or go bankrupt due to medical expenses, then No problem. Liberals focus too much on the country’s threat to freedom, but there are many other things that threaten your ability to live. For example, you have cancer and cannot afford the cost of chemotherapy."
Do you have the right to aim a gun at my head and let me invite you?
MNG did say that if he does not treat a dying child, you have the right to punch in front of a doctor, so...MNG also agrees.
He did it. I never,
Forgot that post.
He must have seen or re-watched
When he posted that.
I couldn't find the ATM on file, but the famous quote in my mind was: "...If someone is dying in the street, I will kick your ass until you treat him..."
It may not be accurate, but I will continue to search. IIRC, that was in 2009.
Yes, I said so, but