_ap_ufes{"success":true,"siteUrl":"freetheanimal.com","urls":{"Home":"http://freetheanimal.com","Category":"http://freetheanimal.com/blog-admin","Archive":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07","Post":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07/revisiting-resistant-nutritional.html","Page":"http://freetheanimal.com/advertising-product-service","Nav_menu_item":"http://freetheanimal.com/2014/07/subscribe.html","Content_ad_widget":"http://freetheanimal.com/?content_ad_widget=widget-2-5x118"}}_ap_ufee

Anarchism Really Does Begin at Home: The Short Version (and why Agorism gets the most right)

So I went from having my finger on the delete button for this post on Social Anthropology, to dropping another comment on the subject blog post, instead. Call me crazy, silly man, or whatever gives you a sense of affirmation. I ultimately got ready to just delete and be done because some crazy bitch simply refuses to leave me alone, and in this case, seems to have had to mark her territory (Blogger is AWEFUL at comment permalinks, so the comment is 17 April 2013 07:00....incidentally, I just got done walking the dogs).

Guess wooo?

...Then I saw a tiny bit in the comment that gave me hope (and a subsequent reply to the proceeding comment, even more). I'm a helpless sucker for the Dialectic (that's what most of you are doing when commenting on blogs, you Hegelians), so we'll see if there's a future synthesis to be had. Here's the comment (19 April 2013 01:28) to the post. I was replying to this (18 April 2013 20:46). I've edited tidbits for typos, style & such, added emphasis here & there, as well as some links.

~~~

Ironically, the opinions you hold on the subject of rape reveal your political grounding – not in current 'anarchic' theory at all – but to be embedded quite predictably in patriarchal principles derived from a history of ‘domination’, which you state to be opposed to.

Once you explicitly outline the "opinions [I] hold on the subject of rape," I'll more easily be able to explicate how you're wrong.

Conversely, the parameters of the ‘anarchy’ you espouse appear to be confused, and not well formulated. I suggest you explore Deleuze and Guattari who stress a process of “becoming minoritarian” as a way to challenge hegemony.

Well let's see. I began my study of anarchism while living in the south of France, October of 1990, nearly 23 years ago. It's quite a few books and essays over the years. Quite a lot of thinking and writing as well. In the mid-90s I was active on just about every anarchism BBS, Listserve and USENET newsgroup you could name. There's no argument for or against anarchism I haven't heard or discussed a million times.

And guess what? Everybody is wrong. Not all-inclusive, but here's most of the main forms of anarchism (to the extent various factions advocate "statelessness"):

  • The communists were deadly wrong (ref: U of Hawaii's R.J. Rummel and his long work on "Democide".
  • The syndicalists are wrong (it's basically just socialism / communism).
  • The capitalists (including corporatists and "free marketeers," etc.) are wrong...it's basically just fascism, i.e., a state-corporatist alliance a-la the good 'ol USA and they just want to tip the balance in favor of corps over state.
  • The mutualists (Proudhon, et al) are wrong because the Labor Theory of Value is wrong, among other things; i.e., technology (including food for large numbers, even real food) is impossible without private property (The Ukrainians, Chinese and other massively starved people found this out the hard way).
  • The collectivists are wrong (basically communists).
  • The individualists, Randians, libertarians, egoists, greens, feminists, pacifists, primitivists and a few other anarchic branches (in that context) are wrong, but each have important pieces of the overall puzzle—but ultimately wrong because it comes from a top-down approach.
  • Agorism gets the most right more of the time in my view—because it's more of a bottom-up approach.

In more recent years, bits and pieces of the social anthropology (a lot of it coming indirectly via various musings about the various practices of various HG tribes in a food context) have helped quite a lot. Most of my study has been in the area of various works of philosophy and economics. For a decent treatment of how "informal" law has arisen historically in a bottom-up fashion (communities & customs), see Benson, The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without the State .

Minoritarianism is an interesting line of thought that I can find some right with, the ultimate minority being the individual—but that answers no questions, because anarchism applies to human animals qua social animal. I'd like to see if there is any critique of democracy along that line of thought...because I still have never been able to find any better critiques than good 'ol Lysander Spooner. I'll probably have to wait.

...There are many others, including the classic "No Treason," but I like this, especially because of the title, and how it's completely not what you think: "Against Woman Suffrage," 1877.

"Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL. No human being, nor any number of human beings, have any right to make laws, and compel other human beings to obey them. To say that they have is to say that they are the masters and owners of those of whom they require such obedience."

...and so on.

In the end, Anarchy Begins at Home because (here's the 9-part blog series / here's the 18-minute summary presentation at AHS12 at Harvard):

  1. The individual has no ruler but himself, so anarchy is N/A.
  2. Small social circles (30-60 people in in HG tribe, for example) are inter-dependent, with individuals being integral to the whole: valuable, influential, persuasive when essential to get the tribe to change direction for its survival.
  3. We evolved to account for the values and actions of 30-60 other individuals.
  4. Does not scale to 100,000, 100 million, or a billion.
  5. Paleo is equator ro arctic, sea level to 16,000 feet elevation, everything in-between, and just as there are different sources of food in each distinct environment, there will be need of having different social structures, customs, character of human relationships.

The Food Pyramid, LC, Low Fat, Veganism, et al, is wrong and always will be, because it seeks to apply to all what is only relevant to an individual (what works for you). Similarly—in the context of ethics and politics—democracy, socialism, fascism, statism of all forms is wrong because we didn't evolve that way. It does not scale and it never will, no more than we will be better off eating crap in a bag or box. The human animal always wants to be close to and importantly influence the social milieu in which that individual finds herself—and while we can quibble endlessly about what the ideal or maximum number of individuals that is, it's never, ever going to be a large number.

I took this up primarily because I saw the last three paragraphs I quoted in my post as a strong, competent critique of DOMINATION...logical, anthropologically valid. So I am a bit disappointed to find, after all, that you're really not against top-down domination. You appear to only be against who's being dominated now, in favor of having other people dominated. Whether it's some "affirmative action" scheme you have in mind or not, is irrelevant.

There is no top-down solution. There are only bottom-up solutions, and the first step is swearing off all forms of domination for everyone, at all times, zero exceptions ever. Conversely, self, familial and tribal defense against initiation or preemptive domination, force, coercion should be brutal, preferably lethal.

Regarding anarchy, it is solely the anarchic spirit that I would advocate

That is the only reason I ended up going to the trouble with this comment. I'm holding out hope for you. So, yea, I'm ending with condescension, just as you did.

~~~

Now I'll head over and reply to the brief comment Anna has posted in response, so far.

Comments

  1. LeonRover says:

    Richard,
    There’s no fool like an old fool.

    I was surprised that you advocated Anna & her blog as somehow having a similar view of social relations as you.

    If you had read her first blogpost you would have noted:

    she is anti-tuber; her training is in Post-Modern Social Science, as evidenced by use of the terms narrative and discourse.

    You were already known as Tater-lovin’ Paternal Misogonist. Thus no argument you present has any value: you tarred yourself in your previous brushes (the mixed metaphor and pun is intentional).

    Like the proverbial Irishman, you do not use a spade: instead you use a fuckin’ shovel.

  2. “I was surprised that you advocated Anna & her blog as somehow having a similar view of social relations as you.”

    What I quoted was pretty much spot on, so it must be that her views diverge from what she writes, which is actually quite common (especially if you see her response to this and mine to her). People have been trying to have their cake and eat it too since the advent of the Neolithic. Prior to that, it was bone marrow, I’m pretty sure.

  3. LeonRover says:

    Mmm, yeah.

    “What’s bred in the bone will come out in the flesh” – and in the marrow!!

    I wonder will PD take it on??

  4. Yep, I’d agree, agorism is about as right as anyone can be on this issue. There’s no truly “right” answer though, as everything depends on perspective and goals. If you want the safest society, a certain governmental structure might work best, if you wanted the most rapidly evolving, other policies would be better, and so on. Everyone wants different things, some are nostalgic for the 1950′s, some are nostalgic for the vision of the 2150′s they imagine, some want the country to be religiously focused, other vehemently don’t

    One thing I come back to when people say “politics don’t matter,” just look at the extreme differences between North and South Korea. There’s no real difference in climate or population genetics, but massive societal differences, and they mostly come from the top down. Being an agorist in NK would probably only work for around a month before you were shot or starved, so agorism can have it’s limits too.

  5. Galina L. says:

    Ha, it is amazing how differently the same thing could look for different people. Richard feels like Wooo can’t leave him alone, for me it looks likes she shrugs shoulders and doesn’t give a shit replying on his comments within VERY friendly to her blog. It is her territory indeed in the illusive web-universe. In that virtual world Anna is a member of the group whose leader is Wooo.

  6. Yea, 360 comments here is certainly shrugging her shoulders. And then more after.

    Wooo is Anna’s leader? Her characterization, or yours?

  7. Galina L. says:

    It is what I think. I don’t represent Anna or anyone. I think so because the group of LCarbers which formed around Wooo’s blog considers Wooo the leader , and Anna is the member of that group.(Of course, it is mainly a joke and game of adult people who play as they are being a diet opposition, however in reality we indeed are better off eating fewer carbs) Me and other LCarbers are looking forward for more posts on Anna’s new paleo blog not being centered around safe starches.

    I safely guess Wooo didn’t place her 360 comments after you burned your bridges.

  8. Galina L. says:

    I have read it . I don’t represent anyone, and comment on only how I see things. For me it looks like you underestimated how much people got infuriated during that rape discussion, Wooo snapped on you big deal on her blog, you decided to take it as a mortal offense. My opinion on that (I also felt infuriated, but when I feel very strongly, I usually have trouble finding words and just shut up) is , that it is unreasonable to ignore your opponents reaction on your words, continue to infuriate that person/people, and react on avoidable verbal explosion exactly the same way as all was said to you out of blue. Like most people with strong emotions, Wooo cooled down almost to a basic level very quickly . She is not a grudge holder, and so she went to put another comment on your blog. Not because she is a crazy bitch who couldn’t leave you alone, but because that heated exchange was not the declaration of a personal war on her part, but just the product of her anger and frustration which you decided to take personally.
    I am not doing any mending business right now, just trying to explain to you why I didn’t think you acted reasonably.

  9. [plonk]

  10. Galina:
    “In that virtual world Anna is a member of the group whose leader is Wooo.”
    Richard:
    “Wooo is Anna’s leader? Her characterization, or yours?”

    I’m surprised that you would make that leap Richard. Maybe I’ve misunderstood, but based on your past writings, it seemed to me that you were passionate about the concept that we are all members of various subgroups. Does membership in a group necessarily confer a leader-follower relationship between a member of that group and the leader of that group?

    I am a member of the “FTA commenter group”, of which you are the leader. I would not call you my leader.

    In my personal life/groups of friends, I am a member of many groups. I am the leader of some of them, and merely a participant in others.

  11. Galina L. says:

    Sorry, something strange happened with my last comment. It suppose to look like that

    @ Joshua,
    Groups are more or less tight, and also short or long-termed. People who are joined together by participation in some discussion are members of a short-lived non-tight group, so the lieder of such group is not a real lieder, more likely a host and a moderator who has upper hand only while such conversation /discussion is taking place. When a group is based on a friendship and shared points of view , the leader became more permanent. In that particular case, Wooo and Anna are very good friends, and it is not that one person leads another and tell what to think (however Wooo encouraged Anna to get her blog), more likely they share a lot of opinions and like and respect each other, and members of the same long-termed sub-group.

    Richard, please, remove the wrong comment, if you don’t mind.

  12. Done. Wondered for a minute what they hey you were up to. :)

  13. Joshua, I was merely asking whose characterization that was. Moreover, I don’t think in such terms. I’m a proprietor of a blog. I have readers. They come and they go. Some are are fans, a few are miscreants. Simple.

  14. When you hear something like this ‘Ironically, the opinions you hold on the subject of rape reveal your political grounding – not in current ‘anarchic’ theory at all – but to be embedded quite predictably in patriarchal principles derived from a history of ‘domination’, which you state to be opposed to.’ just smile, nod and walk away.

    I love debating the feminism principles. Patriachal principles are the major tenet of feminism like evolution if the major tenet of biology of paleo. I don’t disagree that it was a patriachal system, and I certainly don’t disagree with woman’s rights. What I do disagree with is this ‘domination/oppression’ argument. That is not to say that woman were not oppressed but many cases exists where woman who held positions of power were quite happy with the status quo of ‘oppression’. In fact, in 19th century France high class woman held high positions of power, never worked, but ran charities for social and culture. Yet despite all their power and ability to implement change they didn’t. In this case woman were happy with the system and it was more a case of oppressing the poor than men oppressing women. Because certainly 99% of men were lower class and were as oppressed as woman. I don’t think that after working 16 hr days in a coalmine, or hard farming work (not today standard HARD farming work) they would have felt that they had it easy compared to the woman at home looking after the kids.
    When people claim that man oppressed woman in such a blanket statement it is reductionist, black and white and pays no heed to the complexity of society and cultural and biological pressures that form that society. The fact is many examples exist where men were oppressed, and woman were oppressors. I am not saying woman had it easy, I am saying that this is not black and white, and to make it sound that way is absurd. As crass as this sounds society at the time needed woman to stay home to raise the kids and the man needed to work to provide for those kids. As much pressure was on the man to conform and work. as on the woman to stay at home and raise the kids. I’m sure a man couldn’t have turned around and said “I want to stay home and look after the kids”. So men were forced into their roles too. But it was a necessity as many children died, raising kids was hard work and required a lot of resources. It required both partners taking on each role. When that societal need broke down with modernity woman became more free to not choose to stay at home and the womans rights quickly took a hold. I don’t think one can just easily say that it was all men, I think both sexes played a role. I mean it’s hard enough subjugating a minority race for any length of time, so how the hell is this going to happen for 2 million years against half the population. With all the rebellions and uprisings it never happened with oppressed woman….ever…..in 2 million years! Anyway my two cents. But hopefully this shows how her statement, whoever it is, is simply just talking rhetoric and using an emotional blackmail game of trying to guilt you into silence by accusing you of been a rape apologist. it’s not cool, and it’s actually sexist.

  15. See Richard, I always write long and loving comments in your columns:)

  16. Galina, “it is amazing how differently the same thing could look for different people” – yes, exactly.
    It doesn’t look the same from my perspective as a bystander, for example.
    Your original comment seems addressed broadly, so I thought I’d respond with another view too.

    You’ve just explained how it looks to you, despite how distressing the original incidents must have been for you – that’s incredible, and also incredibly useful in case, just in case, there is after all some mending possible.

    Due to what you say, maybe others can see where the latest misunderstanding happened – because I have to say, looking in from the outside, the whole sorry mess seems one misunderstanding after another.

    Of course, given that Woo has been using some incredibly loaded terms in her accusations, I can also see how some other commenters will react to anything she says rather dismissively.

    I agree with you that Richard looks to have misunderstood any intent by Woo in her last comment here and taken it personally – but even IF that’s true, that is exactly because it did not come ‘out of the blue’.
    It came after he had apologized publicly, which followed her comment here in response to a couple of commenters (me included) and more importantly, after she had rejected his repeated attempts to explain to her about the original rape comments mess and tried to correct it by deleting.
    In other words, after real effort.

    All of which he did in the face of her very personal, buzz-term loaded and insulting lashing-out. Yes, I can see your point there too, of course it’s obvious she was lashing-out….but surely she can see how that has an effect too.

    The thing is, to someone like me looking in, Richard must have realized where she was coming from originally, or why would he stoically try to explain, correct the problem and even apologize (of course, she keeps accusing him of outrageous ulterior motives and that part has gotten funny, now supposedly he’s swooning over Anna’s picture, That’s why he’s taking her blog seriously – oh my!).
    So I can see how in the whole context, when her only acknowledgment of his earlier attempts to correct the problem and of his direct apology is an aggressive comment on a post devoted to reasonableness, yah, he might take it personally and respond by burning bridges. I would too, frankly, and I don’t even have much of a temper.

    Then she goes and attacks personally again on another blog, her friend’s no less – now why would she bring this mess to her friend’s new blog? I couldn’t fathom that until I read your comments above. Still, it just spreads ugliness and at best feeds the prurient interest of some readers (the kind who come to a complete stop to look at car accidents).

    It seems a real shame that this is happening and it’s distressing even to an onlooker. Besides, burning bridges always seemed like an iffy concept to me, they’re a human construction in the first place so could always be rebuilt.

  17. Och, another long loving comment – I claim it’s Dan’s *fault* of course!:)

  18. Galina L. says:

    @marie,
    I think that regardless of the history of the conflict development it is better for bridges to stay burned in that particular case.

  19. Galina, perhaps. I’m more concerned about the continuing propagation, that’s just not good for anyone, participants or readers.

  20. Don’t try to oppress me Marie.

  21. Oops I was on my work computer ‘working’. DB = Dan

  22. Marie:

    What’s going on here is that Wooo has to make absolutely sure that Anna can not possibly see any value in any perspective of social anarchy I have to offer her. See her very first comment on that thread.

    It’s a warning. Choose your side and do it quickly.

  23. Dan, dahling, only lovingly, I promise.

  24. …I think it’s what Galena calls “leadership.”

  25. ….The oppression is too oppressive…

  26. Richard, yes, I can see the pushing of taking sides.
    Meh, sometimes communication just doesn’t work, plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose…

  27. Galina L. says:

    According to what I read for a while, Wooo doesn’t manipulate Anna , they have similar points of view on several subjects, and is the reason Anna is in the same group as Wooo. Anna is not in a process of choosing sides .
    I tryed to define a leadership?

  28. LeonRover says:
  29. Dan, Richard, “don’t oppress me” ;) : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

  30. LeonRover says:

    All

    “symbolic of his struggle against reality” Triple + YYEESS

  31. LeonRover, laf! O.k..

  32. LeonRover, my laf was to your own video post. Ha, we’re posting concurrently now ;)

  33. LeonRover says:

    Like coming together.

  34. Richard, yes, that’s it.

  35. LeonRover, always, chéri.

  36. Leon, Marie, those two videos, back-to-back…

    Smart people, I say.

    Now Im motivated to go write a post to oppress morons (feminism is the subject–dot connecting).

  37. I still haven’t got round to reading your 9 parter yet, but your synopsis above still doesn’t seem simple, maybe a different perspective will help.

  38. LeonRover says:

    Marie,

    That Python should be sent to every humourless Oppressed TransGendered.

  39. I’ve chosen a side! My side.

    There are no other sides as far as I’m concerned.

  40. Richard, smart-mouthing again? ;)
    But groan, no one, absolutely no one, has the same definition of ‘feminism’. All discussions these days end-up as cross-talk, why bother?

  41. LeonRover, ahahaha, ouch! – and this one perhaps to every repressed anarcho-syndicalist? : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxGqcCeV3qk

  42. Gary, I should have perhaps said “brief” instead. No real need to concern yourself with all those schools of thought. I did, out of interest in the study of it. Suggest you watch the 18 minute presentation at AHS. If you find that interesting, go through the 9-part series.

  43. Joshua

    You don’t get it. Sides are always external. It’s just like altruistic sacrifice. You must sacrifice for others. It’s very impolite to ask who those others are sacrificing for.

  44. You know Richard I just read the comments on life extension, and I remember you coming to my blog and commenting to me all those years ago. Acting all interested and all.

    Were you hitting on me too!!! Because it seems you been interested means you are hitting on people.

    I suddenly feel oppressed.

  45. I dont really feel oppressed – I feel like the prettiest girl at the prom!

  46. Marie

    It’s only going to become more prescient in its death.

    I’m just being the guy who shows up at your house with gallons of acid to dissolve, dispose of and cleanup the mess.

    But that’s bullshit. This will be fun. I predict a lot of fun. There will be surprising element of truly powerful women who laugh at feminists.

    It’s for the greater good. Just the kinda guy I am.

  47. @Dan

    “Were you hitting on me too!!! Because it seems you been interested means you are hitting on people.”

    Dan, what most people don’t know is I have a completely spare room. In that room is. 4×8 sheet of plywood and on its surface is laid out the whole war scheme of blogging antagonism.

    Sorry, but I pulled off your pins & yearns long ago, ever since you cam under my spell.

  48. What if I play hard to get?

  49. Makes perfect sense to me. I am only ever selfishly altruistic.

    I’ve never minded people who sacrifice themselves for others, even when they beat their breasts and proclaim their virtue. It’s the people who think it’s their duty to sacrifice others for others that burn my britches.

  50. Richard :
    I don’t want to rain on some well-deserved fun at the expense of out-of-touch post-modern so-called ‘feminists’, but do keep in mind how it might Not be fun depending on how one understands ‘feminism’ ?
    In other words, that word is so damn splintered and corrupted, it pays anyone to define what they mean when they use it.

    Real feminism, the support of the basic concept that men and women have equal rights and responsibilities before the law, still has a great deal of work to do when you look at the global problem of death, violence and subjugation of women and how it’s reaching into ‘western’ countries.

    Of course at that point the opposing mind-set may be called something other than feminism. Humanism comes to mind…maybe… (by which, eventually, one can also expand away from the statist/authoritarian/legal mind-set, to which the current reality constrains the arguments).

    By work, I don’t mean bullying, silencing and intimidating, which goes against the very grain of what feminists historically argued for, but I do mean alerting, informing and persuading.

    This ex-muslim woman author and atheist does some heavy-lifting in the persuading department here : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vrEZI5zCDk
    I seem to recall Hitchens quoting her on “cultural relativism” and there’s also a great debate with Hirsi Ali, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins on youtube, though even longer and broader around violence and religion.

  51. Thanks Marie.

    Takes a lot to get e to watch a 30-min video. I’d give it a 7.5 / 10, but that’s only really because she advocates for force and affirmative action in some areas. Her scathing critique of multiculturalism that begins at 21m is spot on.

  52. Yeah, and that’s the shortest one that came to mind.
    I tend to agree with you here, I don’t go for a few of the things she celebrates either. However I appreciated the stark contrast she draws to what’s happening in the rest of the world and the real danger of moral relativism in modern multiculturalism.

  53. Quote just in via Sean Abbott on Twitter:

    “Misogynist – a man who hates women as much as women hate one another.” HL Mencken (1930′s, for perspective)

  54. Agorism. I like that, too. I think conversations online would go over better if people realized that most folk on the other end of the computer screen are not in fact angry villains determined to screw them over every way possible.

    I don’t condone the rape of anyone. Sigh.

  55. Richard (and Sean) ,
    Pfft, beaten to the punch centuries ago by :
    “Nothing is as peevish and pedantic as men’s judgments of one another.”
    (Erasmus, ca.1500′s)
    :D

  56. LeonRover says:

    I like “peevish & pedantic”.

    There ought to be a Python with the dialogue:

    A: You’re being “peevish & pedantic”

    B: No, I’m not: YOU’RE the one whose “peevish & pedantic”.

    etc.

    But, it more stylish than same dialogue in which “FUCKIN’ MORON” is substituted for “peevish & pedantic”.

  57. Marie, I don’t mean to oppress you but you nailed it….

    “Of course at that point the opposing mind-set may be called something other than feminism. Humanism comes to mind…maybe… ”

    Womans rights is not feminism it is an umbrella under which feminism falls, or at least used too. The basis of feminism is patriachal oppression and one can still believe in womans rights, hell human rights, and think this is bullshit (the oppression part that is). But patriachal oppression is to feminism, as evolution is to biology.

  58. LeonRover,
    Oh dear, watch you don’t burn out that lamp if you keep looking for a Good argument (which must have been Diogenes’ ulterior motive, evidenced by his cynical peevishness. ;)
    Your tangential python for the day : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkzjBfTDH20

  59. Dan, yes, for us in the west at this stage of human social development we can recognize that we are actually thinking in terms of human rights……because we’ve Already defined all human beings, irrespective of sex or race, as having the same human rights. We’ve accepted women as fully, equally Human.
    That was not so in our history, where the very word “Human” had a different meaning to today and where women in Europe were property until just a couple of centuries ago (you see, no wife could whip her coalminer husband in the public square if he went to drink his pay at the pub).

    It’s still a life and death problem for large swaths of the world today, it’s not just a matter of roles.

    Equal rights is what feminism at it’s basis argued, recognizing women as equally human. Given the abysmal state of women in certain cultures, some people can well argue that feminism is quite necessary.
    Do you see what I mean about definitions? – to you when you think of feminism, patriarchal oppression comes to mind and the comparative value of different roles. To others, it’s about equal rights to life and liberty (and of course there’s more instant identifications with that word too).

  60. Richard you might like the (short and to the point) works of agorism precursor Anselme Bellegarrigue. Years after discovering about him I still refer to him more than to Konkin.

  61. Richard,

    Anymore, I just have to scroll through blog comments – maybe skim one or two, in hopes of some rarity – yet continually disappointed….I observe so much flaw, folly and insecurity. It is very easy to observe a comment or any expression that contains substance, worthwhile and critical aspect….This is .0000000001% of all exchange. (Please feel free to add however many zeros you wish).

    So many folks want to be heard, they want to be validated, they want to enjoy their sacred aspect or entire belief set….They spend time attempting to show you just how wrong you are – never dawning on them – it is their own insecurities, their own wounds that perpetuate their behavior. They would rather be right – or seen as right – than reaching a sincere solution to the subject at hand…..Such confusion reigns.

    Worthwhile, value-added exchanges have two things in common: (1) Critical elements are highlighted; (2) Focus and intent of exchange is solution-oriented….

    Anything else is a mere waste of everyone’s time – There aren’t many folks who really give a shit about anyone else’s point of view – most-to-nearly-all folks’ primary driver is to seek validation even if that means polarizes the audience….And rest assured – their narrative will adapt to securely place their first-person character as the hero and righteous savior of the exchange….

    I proclaim these folks to be grand time and resource wasters.

  62. Almost forgot…..Yes, Argoism is very close to sound balance… I very much enjoy the philosophy of Arogism.

    If people would just merely abandon ideology and their static frames of reference for philosophy and dynamic/evolving wisdom….We’d all be irie irie…..4/20

  63. LeonRover says:

    Hey Marc, I think you should appoint yourself Jason of Argoism.

  64. No no, Marc’s already Proclaimed himself phil-arogist…….where the ‘plow master’ sows Both peevish and pedantic judgments in one pass (sorry Marc, couldn’t resist, it’s the Frankish in me ;))

  65. Marie,

    If you could, please highlight for me – where I exalt the unimportant – and/or – where I am narrowly unimaginative?

    I don’t proclaim myself to be anything – if you want to throw down a label to make thing easier on you – that’s your ball game….My sole concern is to exchange in a worthwhile manner – yet like the example before you now – often my time is spent in the wastelands.

    ** I am sure you were just having some fun – so please don’t take my above as dogma.

  66. LeonRover says:

    Marie,

    As I’m a bit of a phil-helline, I be-thought to provide a non-connected segway – simply as it tickleth my fancy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXZk8oqYQJE

  67. Marc, indeed fun, which is never a wasteland, unless one is unimaginative (natch).
    - using your own words in new associations again, while addressing your overall sentiment.
    But see, it can’t be helped, once you allow yourself to follow the word and thought associations wherever they lead, not proscribed or defined within ‘serious’ discourse, you just may find the unexpected consequences, as well as the delightful or the sublimely ironic. Not to mention, human minds revel in forming new connections, the process itself is enjoyable – aka irie irie, indeed ;)

  68. LeonRover,
    “Oh oh, it isn’t for the first time” ….mon trop cher légionnaire

  69. Marie,

    I can agree with that insight….especially the last line.

    Yes, irie, irie.

  70. LeonRover says:

    Marc & Marie – It not the Temptations!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2o-R6U6nzZE

  71. Marc and Leon, :D

  72. The mixed economy model is NOT capitalism it is socialism. The mixed economy model exists solely to farm up corruption fertilized with moral hazard. Communism is established by force. Socialism is established by vote. Their end result is identical and is despotism.

    Ego is ALWAYS dysfunctional. Collective ego collects dysfunction. Ego is never real, no amount of faith and denial can make it so. True self emerges as ego dies. One chooses peace or drama, true self or story (ego).

    quote:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)

    Altruism Ethics from Wiki:
    Altruism (also called the ethic of altruism, moralistic altruism, and ethical altruism) is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte’s version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others. One who holds to either of these ethics is known as an “altruist.”
    The word “altruism” (French, altruisme, from autrui: “other people”, derived from Latin alter: “other”) was coined by Auguste Comte, the French founder of positivism, in order to describe the ethical doctrine he supported. He believed that individuals had a moral obligation to renounce self-interest and live for others. Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste [1], that:
    [The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism. We are born under a load of obligations of every kind, to our predecessors, to our successors, to our contemporaries. After our birth these obligations increase or accumulate, for it is some time before we can return any service…. This ["to live for others"], the definitive formula of human morality, gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence, the common source of happiness and duty. [Man must serve] Humanity, whose we are entirely.”
    endquote.

    No valid philosophy can’t be practiced to the nth degree. Pragmatism is aversion to principle which exists in attempts to practice INVALID philosophy.

    Regarding: “Comte says, in his Catéchisme Positiviste [1], that:
    [The] social point of view cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such notion rests on individualism.”

    1) Altruism is the philosophy of death.

    2) A majority of one is still a majority. As civilization stereotypically corrupts the meaning of freedom and unalienable rights, a conscious individual realizes that anarchy is not a campaign.

    Woodchuck Pirate
    aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

    http://www.woodchuckpirate.com

  73. Snowdog says:

    To end the power of some over others, we need to replace our hierarchical structures of power with an inter-personal moral code, based on universality and equality. When people are treated as equals, then they can choose their form of governance as they choose from everything around them, those things which will enrich their lives.

  74. Snowdog

    I think such has always existed, just replaced or overshadowed by the state. This is why it’s bottom up and begins at home. All people need do, generally, is look more towards working out problems amongst themselves rather than always looking to big daddy.

    The only way the state is ever going to largely go away is to be ignored and laughed out of existence from the bottom up.

  75. Richard,

    Are you familiar with Hans-Hermann Hoppe?

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html

    He actually makes a solid case that people were more free under old-school monarchy than they are under modern democracy.