Autolykos: Isn't all ownership inherently private (i.e. restricted in some sense)? Or are you using the word "private" here to mean the same thing as "individual"?
Isn't all ownership inherently private (i.e. restricted in some sense)? Or are you using the word "private" here to mean the same thing as "individual"?
Yes, all ownership is inherently private as a consequense of all action being inherently individualist. But the categories of "private" and "public" ownership in the economic sense are still distinct from one another as the former requires an individual's explicit investment in the property wheras the latter does not.
Autolykos: The capital of tribal societies mainly consisted of land, buildings, crops, livestock, and tools. Apparently even the Sumerians were acquainted with wage labor.
The capital of tribal societies mainly consisted of land, buildings, crops, livestock, and tools.
Apparently even the Sumerians were acquainted with wage labor.
It's news to me that Sumer is considered tribalist.
banned:Yes, all ownership is inherently private as a consequense of all action being inherently individualist. But the categories of "private" and "public" ownership in the economic sense are still distinct from one another as the former requires an individual's explicit investment in the property wheras the latter does not.
What I meant is that all ownership is inherently exclusive to one or more individuals. Even "public ownership" is exclusive to the citizenry of a state or other polity (at least in theory). But you bring up another useful distinction between "public" and "private" ownership. I don't think this is the route you wanted to go down, but it seems to me that the sense of "public ownership" you give above also constitutes a form of fraud.
banned:It's news to me that Sumer is considered tribalist.
I was actually responding to this:
banned:I don't know much about pre-civilization history, but it seems unlikely there would have been any measurable capital goods market and even more unlikely that there would have been a labor market. Calling this type of economy "Capitalist" is pretty strange. [Emphasis added.]
Sumer is the first attested civilization. If even Sumerians were acquainted with wage labor, I'd say it preceded the development of written language. Whether Sumer is considered tribalist seems to be irrelevant here. As an aside, I'd argue that the Sumerian city-states actually were (largely) tribal in character, just as the much more recent Greek poleis were.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
There's so much wrong here I don't know where to start. To the guy who's a real life version of Dale Gribble, you should probably read about actual tribes and "hunter-gatherers" and not from an elementary school text book. Civilization is collectivist? Probably, and if that's the case so is culture and religion, and a sense of national identity, but does that mean it's negative? No. Without civilization or a heirarchical structure you probably wouldn't be sitting at a computer right now. As far as I know about the Germanic tribes of NW Europe from around 100 B.C. to 1,000 C.E., they were tribes, yes, and they had social structures and forms of law and government with chieftains and kings. Maybe you should read this.
There's so much wrong here I don't know where to start.
To the guy who's a real life version of Dale Gribble, you should probably read about actual tribes and "hunter-gatherers" and not from an elementary school text book. Civilization is collectivist? Probably, and if that's the case so is culture and religion, and a sense of national identity, but does that mean it's negative? No. Without civilization or a heirarchical structure you probably wouldn't be sitting at a computer right now.
As far as I know about the Germanic tribes of NW Europe from around 100 B.C. to 1,000 C.E., they were tribes, yes, and they had social structures and forms of law and government with chieftains and kings. Maybe you should read this.
Germanic tribes had law codes. So what? I don't need civ to survive. Learn the proper survivalist skills and you can too.
Freedom4Me73986:I don't need civ to survive. Learn the proper survivalist skills and you can too.
Then what the hell are you still doing here?
Uh, I rather live with "civilization" instead of like a bunch of nighgaunts wandering in the woods without purpose except to "survive" in the wilderness without looking for material advancement. I can understand a few people living without "civilization", but how would you explain civilization itself living without civilization in the wilderness? Imagine it, a million people "surviving" in the wilderness...you'd think at one point in time they'd form community...
I don't care what happens to others. I'm not enslaved by the community when I'm in the woods gathering food and living off the land.
But you bring up another useful distinction between "public" and "private" ownership. I don't think this is the route you wanted to go down, but it seems to me that the sense of "public ownership" you give above also constitutes a form of fraud.
I agree there is exclusivity in all forms of ownership. The economic distinction I was trying to make between private and public ownership is that private ownership is decentralized and voluntary while public ownership is centralized and may or may not be voluntary.
I was making a statement about societies that are not considered civilizations. IIRC Sumer had centralized irrigation and ended up forming into centralized and walled cities. They were agrarian rather than hunter/gatherer. I'll admit I'm in over my head here though, I haven't studied ancient societies outside of highschool.
Capital innovation is what brings about civilization. Civilization is simply an aggregation of capital and economic activity. That is why I am saying it is strange to call an economy capitalist when it isn't a civilization. I suppose this might be because I'm contextualizing "civilization" differently than those arguing that it is oppressive.
Freedom4Me73986:I don't care what happens to others. I'm not enslaved by the community when I'm in the woods gathering food and living off the land.
But you are when you come back to "civ" to litter our forums with anti-"civ" propaganda, right? So again, why are you here?
How am I supposed to live outside of civ if I lack the necessary skills? The only reason I haven't left is b/c I want to learn survivalist methods before I go.
Learn survivalist skills in civilization to learn how to not live with civilization.
Use capitalist methods to acquire supplies and means to protest capitalist methods.
Use internet to tell others you won't use internet.
We have found logic.
Freedom4Me73986:I don't need civ to survive.
Freedom4Me73986:How am I supposed to live outside of civ if I lack the necessary skills? The only reason I haven't left is b/c I want to learn survivalist methods before I go.
Bert: Learn survivalist skills in civilization to learn how to not live with civilization. Use capitalist methods to acquire supplies and means to protest capitalist methods. Use internet to tell others you won't use internet. We have found logic.
I think we've found the irony, but that still doesn't explain why the hell you're here constantly posting videos trying to propagandize people to move to some other state. What the hell does that have to do with learning these "skills" from a civilization you don't need to survive so that you might be able to survive without the civilization you don't need to survive?
You need to do some research on civ and ag and understand why neither are sustainable.
Freedom4Me73986:I don't need civ to survive. Learn the proper survivalist skills and you can too. Then what the hell are you still doing here?
Haha, good one. Why should we move to the woods when we have better life here in Civ?
Freedom4Me73986:You need to do some research on civ and ag and understand why neither are sustainable.
You need to quit dancing around and answer the simple question that is asked of you. Why are you still here? This is not a survivalist website. You're not going to learn any survivalist skills (which you apparently need, because you think you're going to live in the woods by yourself, and yet don't know how, which according to you is the reason you're still on the Internet bothering all of us, and not in the woods already.)
You're not even asking anyone to teach you anything. The only thing you've done here is create a bunch of single threads featuring nothing but a bunch of lame FSP propaganda. What the hell does all this talk about median income in the state of New Hampshire have to do with learning survivalist skills?
Why are you even here?
banned:I agree there is exclusivity in all forms of ownership. The economic distinction I was trying to make between private and public ownership is that private ownership is decentralized and voluntary while public ownership is centralized and may or may not be voluntary.
Right, I understand. I was agreeing with you that it's a useful distinction to make.
banned:I was making a statement about societies that are not considered civilizations. IIRC Sumer had centralized irrigation and ended up forming into centralized and walled cities. They were agrarian rather than hunter/gatherer. I'll admit I'm in over my head here though, I haven't studied ancient societies outside of highschool.
Agrarian societies emerged/developed from hunter-gatherer societies, didn't they? For some odd reason, many/most historians consider written language to be the distinctive feature of "civilization". But I see no reason why division of labor and the payment of wages for work depend on written language.
There's a theory that the Ancient Greek poleis developed as a result of blood feuds between various genea (singular genos) during the Greek Dark Age. In this theory, the fact that (nearly) every polis centered on a high point - the akropolis - is indicative of it originally having been treated as a place of common refuge and defense. Although I'm not as familiar with Sumer, I see no reason why the same sort of thing couldn't have led to the development of the Sumerian city-states.
banned:Capital innovation is what brings about civilization. Civilization is simply an aggregation of capital and economic activity. That is why I am saying it is strange to call an economy capitalist when it isn't a civilization. I suppose this might be because I'm contextualizing "civilization" differently than those arguing that it is oppressive.
Would you say that agriculture is a capital innovation? It led to a higher and more stable food supply, didn't it? That is, didn't it lead to higher food productivity? And isn't higher productivity the point of capital innovation?
What's your point in living? Why lead your life separate from everyone else? What would be the purpose in that life? Will you simply sleep, eat, poop, and marvel at the autumn foliage?
Now, you are deliberately being obtuse.
John James: You have yet to name one thing we are "dependent" on that will not exist without a state forcing it into existence.
Bert: To Charles Anthony, let's say the state and it's corruption is removed from countries, such as 3rd world countries, and all land ownership handed over to it's native people with complete control and no coercion from 1st world countries, what would happen? When you look at something like US businesses going into Africa trying to get minerals to be used in electronics while there's child warfare going on there's a lot of risk investment. What do we know about prices and scarcity of resources? If or when prices go up those resources will be allocated to their most beneficial sector of industry by demand of consumers. Would prices go up? Maybe, but that's subjective and we can't determine that.
I think the people in third world countires would tend to go back to a simpler life if the affluent statists left them alone. That is just my guess. Like you said, nobody knows.
I could be wrong. I hope I am wrong. I hope they would take over the industries and keep shipping junk over to us. However, my honest opinion is that I doubt that will happen -- hence, that is partly why I am a primitivist. Nevertheless, I still think that too much of our modern technology enables the heinous aspects of human behavior which is beyond th scope of this discussion.
John James:Oxymoron
Bingo. He wants to destroy civilization / complex orginization/ the division of labor with....capitalism? Libertarians really need to back off the whole survivalist stuff, it's a red herring.
And, among other things, I can't even wrap my pretty little head around the whole "doing it alone", Subjective value theory, and buying gold.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
You have either been brainwashed an a casuality of ideological warfare, or it is possible you have some personal problems and are projecting them on to something else...or a combination of boh. A public forum is no way to address these issues, and it may be a bt embarrising to you for me to say that - but still get out of this whole survivalist, apocolyptic mode...in fact I want to suggest to get away from all political/ cultural thinking. There is a good chance It will do you a lot of harm.
There is nothing wrong with moving out to the country, being a farmer, and enjoying the open air - in fact that sounds like a pretty good life...however don't let this doom and gloom, or ideological warfare take you over - it will kill you.
Charles Anthony:You have yet to name one thing we are "dependent" on that will not exist without a state forcing it into existence. Yes, I did. We are dependent on the slave labor that brings us oil.
You have yet to name one thing we are "dependent" on that will not exist without a state forcing it into existence.
Okay we've established that you think oil would be a lot more expensive if not for "slave labor". Got it. Here is what you said: "I believe the state leads us to live with a dependence upon technology that would not otherwise be affordable without the state."
Please name this technology you speak of. (Unless you're actually saying it's "slave labor", in which case, you could confirm this.) Perhaps you should also define "dependent" while you're at it.
I'm sort of agnostic on the matter because we can't determine what would happen. I can't actually back anything I'd say up if I talked about corrupt corporations using local governments in different countries to get their way, because I don't know specifics, but I know vague details that it happens. I can watch documentaries or hear it in the news, and I hear people in their native land say they want the companies out, while at the same time they are getting industry (good and/or bad I suppose). The best I (or we) can do is make assumptions unless we have hard evidence. Other than that it's all theory.
Take a look at the fighting over diamonds as well as this.
Another look is this, "South Africa is reinvigorating its efforts to develop automotive lithium-ion batteries, with the government’s Industrial Development Corporation (IDC) now determining the commercial feasibility of battery manufacturing in the country."
Charles, you haven't responded to my post.
I think the people in third world countires would tend to go back to a simpler life if the affluent statists left them alone. That is just my guess.
Capitalism is a progressive force that is the enemy of stagnation. Maybe those nations would temporarily go back to some simpler lifestyle. Until the guy comes up who can profit off of technology. Then you get the bandwagon effect. And with all the innovation surrounding these third-world countries, I doubt that the spark would be far-off.
Libertarians really need to back off the whole survivalist stuff
You mean the two guys on here?
corrupt corporations using local governments
If we're discussing a voluntary society, then you don't have a government (at least in the same sense as currently). And if you have these evil coercive corporations, then you would again have government (just by the corporation, now).
I thought it was obvious we were talking about, like, now, in modern times, not in a theoritical sense. Especially seeing how I linked 2 articles about warfare and diamond mining in Africa pertaining to current events.
John James:Oxymoron Bingo. He wants to destroy civilization / complex orginization/ the division of labor with....capitalism? Libertarians really need to back off the whole survivalist stuff, it's a red herring. And, among other things, I can't even wrap my pretty little head around the whole "doing it alone", Subjective value theory, and buying gold.
No, civ will collapse on its own. Watch the videos. I believe in the NAP and don't want to destroy anything.
I thought it was obvious we were talking about, like, now, in modern times, not in a theoritical sense
Hm, I thought we were talking in the theoretical sense. As in, "what if the US became a voluntary society?"
Well, currently we know it's not voluntary, if it was I can't really say how prices would be, BUT we know the government can't ever make things cheap and it always turns out more expensive somewhere down the line. Let's say things are "cheap" because of government interference in different sectors and countries, how do we know they are actually cost effecient if there's no one else to check them on the market? We assume the prices will go up because they aren't subsidized or something else, but we don't know if they are wasting money now either.
Freedom4Me73986,
You stated the only reason you are not living your primitive existence is because you do not possess the skills to survive without "civ". (Basically, without "civ", you would die.) You said you need to "learn skills before you go."
Why are you here?
That's not fair John. While I disagree with his AnCapPrim argument, I too want to live in the wilderness (the Alaskan one in my case) at some point in time. I'd like to live as a hermit for about 10 years in my life, crafting my epic novel.
What the hell is not fair about anything I said?
Because he does need to "learn the skills" before he goes. Which I entirely support as a fellow Libertarian that would like to retreat into the wilderness, at some point in my life. You also said that without civilization he would die, which is a logical fallacy.
Also, while I disagree with his "Prim" argument, you should keep that separate from his wilderness desire, like I said.
Without civ, that dude might die.
RothbardsDisciple:Because he does need to "learn the skills" before he goes.
Or else what?
He'll have a relatively tough time adapting. Sink or swim, in that case.
You mean like, live or die?
Sort of, but you did not seem to leave him any chance for the former. It's certainly a possibility he could live, even without proper preparation. Especially in those wussy lower 48.
I don't leave him any chance?
Call me crazy, but that doesn't sound like he's very confident in his current ability to live outside "civ". I didn't even pick on the totally irony of the fact that he needs "civ" to teach him how to live without "civ". Bert illustrated that for us. All I did was ask what the hell he's doing here posting FSP propaganda. Please show the logical fallacy.
Thing is, he's been here for months talking about that, and hasn't done it. Yet, people hike the Appalachian Trail all the time. Hell, I know train hoppers more productive than this guy.
Freedom4Me73986, You stated the only reason you are not living your primitive existence is because you do not possess the skills to survive without "civ". (Basically, without "civ", you would die.) You said you need to "learn skills before you go." Why are you here?
Because I like discussing the economy.
Civ is recent in human history. Humans lived w/o civ for centuries. It was elites who established civ.
I can learn the skills and I would advise you to as well. Watch the videos. Civ is bound to collapse. The state and things like the FED are only bringing it on sooner.
Citations and sources please.
Freedom4Me73986:Because I like discussing the economy.
You are not here discussing the economy. The only thing you have done here since the day you joined is post FSP propaganda and antagonize people about how great New Hampshire is and keep pestering everyone to move there. If the only reason you remain in "civ" is because you need it to survive, then go learn these "skills" and leave. Littering the forum with single post threads of crappy propaganda interviews, and useless median income data, and "100 reasons to live in New Hampshire" lists is not going to help you survive without "civ".
Quite frankly, I don't give a crap that New Hampshire is called "the live free or die state". But apparently some blowhard thinks that's a viable reason to pack up someone's life and move there.
You are not hear discussing the economy, you are here spreading propaganda and nonsense. What does this have to do with getting you to leave?