Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Is Civilization Evil?

This post has 444 Replies | 17 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310

This thread has reached interesting levels, but I have two question for F4M:

1. Why do you think that agriculture always means the birth of state? There have been many stateless societies(*gasp*), example in Iceland. Agriculture isn't same as state.

2. I have asked this question at least two or three times and you have never responded, but lets try again. You really love to talk about Free State Project. Do you understand, that you have made more harm to FSP than good? Before you started to flood FSP-videos and "New Hampshire is libertarian heaven"-stuff to these forums, people were pretty neutral on FSP. After you did that, only comments I have seen about FSP have been negative. If you are trying to promote Free State Project, congratulations, you have made people to hate FSP on this forum. So if you want to make your part for sucession of FSP, please stop "promoting" it.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Sun, May 6 2012 11:39 AM

Ok, so here's what I've learned from this thread so far;

Civilization is less violent and thus less evil than h/g

and

Agriculture is more productive per m^2 of 'producing'/homesteaded land and thus more sustainable than h/g

 

If we put these together, do we come to the conclusion that civ is more or less likely than h/g to collapse?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sun, May 6 2012 11:48 AM

@Chydenius: Good point. I don't think that F4M is actually representative of the FSP - here's someone I respect (Lew Rockwell) endorsing FSP:

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Sun, May 6 2012 12:11 PM

Oh good lord, I just read that 14-point article... The mayan 2012 apocalypse is more believable.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,899
Points 37,230

mustang19:

Freedom4Me73986 wrote the following post at 05-04-2012 1:02 AM:

 

That's really innaccurate, or at least overly general.

The hunter gatherer societies we know today have tons of free time.

 

 

Notice the "MD," not "PhD" before his name.

In States a fresh law is looked upon as a remedy for evil. Instead of themselves altering what is bad, people begin by demanding a law to alter it. ... In short, a law everywhere and for everything!

~Peter Kropotkin

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

1. Why do you think that agriculture always means the birth of state? There have been many stateless societies(*gasp*), example in Iceland. Agriculture isn't same as state.

Iceland wasn't stateless. iceland had tribes. Tribes are just the state in a different form.

2. I have asked this question at least two or three times and you have never responded, but lets try again. You really love to talk about Free State Project. Do you understand, that you have made more harm to FSP than good? Before you started to flood FSP-videos and "New Hampshire is libertarian heaven"-stuff to these forums, people were pretty neutral on FSP. After you did that, only comments I have seen about FSP have been negative. If you are trying to promote Free State Project, congratulations, you have made people to hate FSP on this forum. So if you want to make your part for sucession of FSP, please stop "promoting" it.

Why should I stop? Theres way less violence here in NH then all the other places I've lived. I want to live in the least violent place on earth which is here.

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 80
Points 1,520

think i found what inspired F4Me...

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310

Iceland wasn't stateless. iceland had tribes. Tribes are just the state in a different form.

OK, would you say that a private property area which I own is state, if some people live there voluntarily?

Why should I stop? Theres way less violence here in NH then all the other places I've lived. I want to live in the least violent place on earth which is here.

You did it again, you just skipped the whole question. You have done to Free State Project more harm than good, that's my point. Not how free NH is.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, May 7 2012 1:46 AM

F4M, I have a lecture recommendation for you.... it's a little long but definitely worth listening to all the way through:

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 8
Points 145

I'm really not sure what you don't understand about the fact that people do not watch these videos and will not respond to them. Articulate your points using your own words. I would like to be able to tell you that by doing so everyone will take you more seriously, but we're far beyond that point.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

I'm really not sure what you don't understand about the fact that people do not watch these videos and will not respond to them. Articulate your points using your own words. I would like to be able to tell you that by doing so everyone will take you more seriously, but we're far beyond that point.

Ag lead to:

- Poor human health

- Overpopulation (women had more babies)

- The state

- Wars of conquest

- The mess the world is in now

The only way to have a 100% non-aggressive world is to get rid of ag and revert to hunting and gathering (preferably gathering.) The root of statism and cultures of aggression is ag.

  • | Post Points: 65
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,679
Points 45,110

The only way to have a 100% non-aggressive world

There is no way to have a 100% non-aggressive world.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310

Why did people choose to use agriculture in the first place, if it's so horrible choice? And I still don't see any nececcary correlation between agriculture and state.

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, May 8 2012 3:31 PM

I still don't see any nececcary correlation between agriculture and state.

Agriculture can be argued to be a necessary condition for the existence of the State (but it does not necessarily entail the State, which is what you are saying). The State is organized plunder of capital stocks. The State couldn't exist prior to the Agricultural Revolution because there was no capital to plunder. Instead, at that time, most plundering was of the only valuable thing that tribes had: fertile females.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800

Guys, I've solved the problem.  If we want to have an aggression free world we just need.....to kill all living organisms.  If there's nothing alive to commit aggression then there can't be any aggression.

I'm brilliant I know.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, May 8 2012 9:08 PM

@bloomj

 

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Wed, May 9 2012 4:03 AM

Freedom4Me73986:

 The root of statism and cultures of aggression is ag.

But the root of ag is foraging and h/g!
Oh noes! h/g leads to statism and  aggression!

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

Civilization will peak by 2030

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, May 10 2012 2:39 AM

Freedom4Me73986:

In the meantime, H/G society peaked more than 10.000 years ago.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 8
Points 145
Zephyr420 replied on Thu, May 10 2012 6:40 AM

I'm really not sure what you don't understand about the fact that people do not watch these videos and will not respond to them. Articulate your points using your own words. I would like to be able to tell you that by doing so everyone will take you more seriously, but we're far beyond that point.

Ag lead to:

- Poor human health

- Overpopulation (women had more babies)

- The state

- Wars of conquest

- The mess the world is in now

The only way to have a 100% non-aggressive world is to get rid of ag and revert to hunting and gathering (preferably gathering.) The root of statism and cultures of aggression is ag

 

-Elaborate please. I don't see how having an abundance of food, which prevents starvation, scurvy, weak immune response, etc. . ., can be considered a terrible thing for health; this is particularly true when you consider the advancements that medicine has been allowed to make as a result of civilization. I need you to take me through each step in your reasoning while explaining this connection. Act like you're explaining it to a child and be precise as possible. Take special care to refute the points I've made.

-Wrong, advancements in medicine allowed more people to live into older ages. If anything, advanced, industrial civilization leads people to have fewer children. This also isn't such a frightening prosepect when you consider the fact that world population will peak at around 9 billion and then begin to decline.

-Agriculture also lead to all the people I know today as well as all the entertainment I enjoy as well. Far more good than bad. As several people have pointed out, it has also lead to the computer that you're using right now. We can work towards a stateless future without destroying all the good that has happened to develop in spite of the state.

-Some people are inherently violent, I don't know why you think that's going to go away. I also don't know why you believe that people living a couple of days away from starvation won't fight.

-As compared to when? When has the world ever been completely tranquil?

You're changing your position and allowing hunting now? How does this fit into your 100% non-aggresive world (which will never exist)?

You're doing the video thing again. . . Articulate, articulate, articulate.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

Freedom4Me73986:

In the meantime, H/G society peaked more than 10.000 years ago.

100% wrong. Most H/Gs only became ag societies after societies w/ ag (states) conquered them and forced them out of their sustainable lifestyles. There are millions of H/Gs today who are happy and healthy all while people trapped in civ suffer massive aggression.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

When I tell people I'm an anarcho-capitalist and they ask me about the roads I ask them why do we NEED roads in the first place? In a society where everyone is self-sufficient we don't need to be traveling long distances to get what we need. We'd provide everything we need right here. Thats why civ has lead to statism: dependence on ag for food makes us unable to be self-sufficient. I also blame government education but I mainly blame the growth of cities for this.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,956
Points 56,800
bloomj31 replied on Thu, May 10 2012 3:40 PM

So in your ideal world there are billions of people just living out in the wild hunting and gathering all day?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

bloomj31:

So in your ideal world there are billions of people just living out in the wild hunting and gathering all day?

 

That's what I've been trying to get at: Is division of labor allowed in F4M's gatherer society?

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

How does self-sufficiency equate to ending the DoL?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 208
Points 3,410

I think what he's saying, at least partially, is that the state actually causes people and families to spread further and further apart. Look at the national highway system as an example.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, May 10 2012 4:51 PM

Freedom4Me73986:

100% wrong. Most H/Gs only became ag societies after societies w/ ag (states) conquered them and forced them out of their sustainable lifestyles. There are millions of H/Gs today who are happy and healthy all while people trapped in civ suffer massive aggression.

 
Only a few millions? (First off, of those millions of H/Gs you mention, the vast majority are pastoralists, in that they travel with their flocks of animals from one 'pasture' to the next. Sure sounds like animal husbandry to me. When it comes to subsistence foraging and hunting you're pretty much left with the arctic and deep jungles, which is at most a few thousand people.) There are BILLIONS of AGs today who are happy, healthy and living above subsistence while the people trapped in the bushes are suffering constant tribal warfare or killing anyone who moves onto their land, while dealing with subsistence living. And somehow, CIV has peaked but HG hasn't?
If you're truly going to claim that H/G is superior because of the numbers, then you've conceded the argument to the superior numbers of AG.
If you're going to claim that CIV is peaking because a 'mere' 99% of human beings practice it, then you've conceded the argument since a mere <0.1% of human beings practice subsistence H/G.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, May 10 2012 4:53 PM

Freedom4Me73986:

How does self-sufficiency equate to ending the DoL?

You mean except for one of the H/G tribal lifestyle most defining features is the total lack of a DoL aside from specific gender roles? (Ie, everyone hunts and everyone forages.)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Thu, May 10 2012 5:05 PM

Porco Rosso:

I think what he's saying, at least partially, is that the state actually causes people and families to spread further and further apart. Look at the national highway system as an example.

No. F4M is against the concept of a family, since it implies tribe -> which implies civ -> which is evil.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

Game over for civ

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Fri, May 11 2012 2:24 AM

Freedom4Me73986:
 
Game over for H/G.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

Freedom4Me73986:
 
Game over for H/G.

Wrong.

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 247
Points 4,055
excel replied on Fri, May 11 2012 3:11 AM

Freedom4Me73986:

Wrong.

Wrong.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 312
Points 4,310
Chyd3nius replied on Fri, May 11 2012 5:44 AM

When I tell people I'm an anarcho-capitalist and they ask me about the roads I ask them why do we NEED roads in the first place?

Oh no, Jesus Christ...

-- --- English I not so well sorry I will. I'm not native speaker.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

How can anyone enjoy living inside civ over living freely out of civ?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator
DanielMuff replied on Sat, May 12 2012 12:36 AM

You guys seriously broke the Internet with this thread.

 

To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process.
Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!"
Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

There are BILLIONS of AGs today who are happy, healthy and living above subsistence while the people trapped in the bushes are suffering constant tribal warfare or killing anyone who moves onto their land, while dealing with subsistence living. And somehow, CIV has peaked but HG hasn't?

K first of all your forgetting that ag is NOT sustainable. Agriculture destroys the soil after years and years. This means ag societies need to keep expanding their territory to find fresh soil to keep growing food. Soon enough all the soil will no longer be able grow our food, so we'll HAVE to default to an H/G way of living.

Your using ONE H/G group and applying it to every H/G. Fail.

Civ will peak. It's crashing now b/c of tragedy of the commons, state monopolization and a ton of other factors.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,149
Points 23,875

 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Previous | Next
Page 8 of 12 (445 items) « First ... < Previous 6 7 8 9 10 Next > ... Last » | RSS