Friday, October 15, 2010
Obama says that Chamber of Commerce using foreign funds to influence US Races.
Bill Clinton and the Democrats were doing this 15 years ago -
Dan Carlin's latest podcast -
Dan Carlin, in his latest podcast, points out that that the REASON the GOP shied away from pursuing the "Chinagate" scandal because THEY wanted to be able to slup up Chinese money. They attacked on the Monica Lewiski angle because they figured the salacious details would keep the public tuned in.
Money, money, money, money. You're Going to need piles of it to get elected. If the GOP or Democratic ruling commities have bags of money, then they pick who gets the money, and who gets seen to be chosen in the election.
This system is so incredibly corrupt that just voting in a new spokes model will never change anything.
He who ppays the piper calls the tune.
"I'd sell out in a second, if anyone was buying." - Tagline, 1994
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
There's no mass constituency for liberty, because it's not a widely understood concept. what "everyone knows" is against us.
We're like people in 1700 who realized that Slavery was awful, vile and wrong. Too few people agree with us to put the realization into action.
In time enough people realized it was wrong so that the institution died.
Mahatma Ghandi was spectacularly successful at offering his ideas as an alternative - in time India shrugged off the British occupation.
So there's grounds for hope.
But when you're in a long term project, you take it one day at a time and do the next right thing. Have faith that doing the right thing, saying the right thing are steps in the right direction.
You can't fix a culutural maladjustment easily. In time someone will climb the mound we have built shovel-full by shovel-full and say "Hey! Wait! using coercion is wrong!"
He'll be lionized as a great liberator and revolutionary.
So. Take a deep breath. Understand that once you see the truth, you can't really un-see it. Get ready for the long haul.
I can't make any promises, except that it feels better inside to do the right thing, even when most folks who don't know any better call you a clown or an idiot about it.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Saturday, August 21, 2010
I am cat people. I like cats. A lot.
Once I was dancing around the house with my Cat in my arms (She thought it was as weird as you do, and dissapproved). I was also babbling happily about something or other.
"And what do you think about that, Kitty?" I asked.
She seemed to look at me with cold derision and say "What do you *think* I Think? Meow!"
As I let her down I realized that life can't be all that easy when all you have is one word to express yourself with. My Cat manages quite fine, spinning her one word into fanciful stories and even vile lies - "I've never been fed in *my whoooollleee Liiiiifffffeee*!"
Then I realized that no matter how intelligent I think I am, how pithy or deep anything I say is, To my cat it is essentially one long, overly complicated "meow!"
So I added ~Meow!~ to my signatures to say
A) I like cats
B) Hello! (Pet me, feed me, etc) As any friendly cat might
C) Remember, from a certain point of view, all of this is overly complicated mouth noises. Don't take it too seriously.
Friday, August 20, 2010
One day a City Slicker happened upon two good ol' boys down on the farm. The City Slicker showed them a bottle of brown pills "Boys, these are smart pills, guaranteed to increase your brain power and raise your IQ."
"How much are they?" One of the good ol' boys asks.
"Three dollars per bottle. Results guaranteed or your money back!"
The good old boys scrounged through their pockets and cobbled together three dollars.
Making the excange the Good ol' boys each took one of the brown, flaky pills out of the bottle and swallowed them down.
The taste was horrible
Grimancing one of the good ol' boys said "Mister, those things taste like goat turds!"
the City Slicker smiled "See? They're Working!"
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
[Jay Hailey] @Tim - most of the chaos and violence of a transition to anarchy is premised on the idea that a sizable proportion of people would behave violently unless there was the force of law to deter them.
Most people feel this way - so most of the violence of a sudden transition to Anarchy would be from people trying to identify and elminate these "Stupid... See More/Violent Others"
However - this fear of our neighbors and community members is... just that. It's prejudice - it's one of those things that "everyone knows" without having good evidence for.
It's also a major tool for oppression - people put up with totaliatarianism and oppression because they're afraid of what would happen without it.
Anarchy as a political philsoophy is not about not having laws - it's about having laws and social orders that we agree to of our own free will. I don't want to wind up with an S&M biker gang burning down my home any more than anyone else does.
"But... THAT'S anarchy!"
Nope. That's the Fear. That's the Imaginary Picture that keeps you in the corral, and not running free.
There will never be a suddden transition to anarchy except by disaster. History shows that when people are thrown into anarchy, instead of using the tools appropriate to anarchy - Respect for each other, negotation and presuasion - people rebuild a state. They want the security it provides.
So the transition to Anarchy will be a slow evolution of what "Everyone knows" - because in this case, like when people thought the world was flat - what "Everyone knows" is just dead wrong.
People use the state as a tool to try and achieve security. When deprived of it, they make one up.
What I fear is disaster and social trauma - history shows that cultures under stress geek for dictators and totalitarians - they want security HARDER, and some lunatic shows up to give it to 'em.
Saturday, June 26, 2010
I have been pursuing medical care at the maximum
rate the system allows - dead, dead slow.
Wheel of Diagnosis turn, turn, turn, tell which entry in the DSM III that we should learn.
I briefly decided trying to retire from politics/philosophy/current events.
This is due to having rampaging asshole attacks while discussing them
As I write this I just antagonized anti-war activist and heroine Cindy
Sheehan by having a poorly formatted opinion.
I was miserable and felt like I had just cut loose a huge part of me in order
to try and satisfy everyone.
So I decided to go ahead an have opinions and look at my favorite websites
and listen to my favorite podcasts, I just wouldn't discuss them with anyone.
I am working on that.
I hope that I can ... make some progress. I'll keep you updated.
What I am working on. This varies. The problem is this - Over the last 15 months
I have been wrestling with bad depression.
(As opposed to good depression?) I mean occasionally suicidal depression, and
often the really bleak stuff where life is a hopeless death march to oblivion.
One of the symptoms of a bout of depression is that whatever I am working on
at the time looks shallow, retarded and like a total waste of time. "There
is no way any one sane is interested in [Foo]."
When I recover from the episode (As much as I ever do these days), what
I was working on still retains that mental image of being retarded bullcrap.
The only way I know if a project is valid or is really retarded bullcrap is
when I get outside feed back.
So, if something I was doing worked for you, please let me know. It all looks
like brain damaged crap to me, right now. I could be wrong. Way wrong. But I'll
never know it by myself.
Please keep in touch and we'll see you next time.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
because the Obama administration is a terrorist organization, New York City is declared to be under blockade. No one can enter or leave without Giving Big Louie and his Machine gun toting thugs the secret sign.
So why is this an astounding crime spree when the Genobino Crime Fanily does it to the U.S. but Okay when the U.S. does it for 20 years to Iraq?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
I didn't really think that people would by the idiotic propaganda about Iran having nukes and missiles (They have no nukes and won't for a long, long time, and they have no missiles that could reach us and they won't for a long, long time.)
There are no terrorists under your bed or in your community. There is no boogie man overseas who could possibly threaten the United States.
It's propaganda. It's all lies. Does anyone really believe all that crap? Is anyone really that scared?
Don't be afraid. don't trust anyone who makes mass money reading a teleprompter on TeeVee
Don't be afraid. Don't trust anyone who makes mass money reading a teleprompter on TeeVee. It's all lies. Iran isn't going to nuke anyone. There are no terrorists under your bed or in your community. The Biggest threat to Liberty are the people waving the biggest flags and telling you not to think.
Our lives are filled with deception and lies - but we don't have to buy the lie. We can wake up and see the truth.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
I discover two things
Michael Franti and Spearhead - Say Hey (I love you)
A cute and catchy pop song
But wait, What's that below it?
Michael Franti Hey world
Ooo, that's socially conscious...
Michael Franti Bomb the World
"Tell me the reason for the colors that you fly"
Time to go home
Ooo, wait, what's that link?
The Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy - Hipocracy is the greatest luxury
Michael Franti is behind "The Disposable Heroes Of Hiphoprisy" Holy crap!
They did "Television the drug of the nation" way back when!
I discover that I like Michael Ranti more than I thought and I have done so for longer than I thought.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
In it, I feel he makes the fallacy of the undistributed Middle -
If I am a voluntaryist, I take the use of coercive force off the table. So if Mr. Mann has a piece of property and wants to set up "The White's Only Diner" - excluding non-white people from his business, I will not use coercion or force to stop him from doing so.
That does NOT mean I approve of such behavior. That does NOT mean I find it "acceptable". It means that as a matter of my own ethical foundation, I eschew coercion or force, so I may not use those means to oppose him.
That leaves advocation, persuasion, ridicule, verbal abuse and certain forms of economic opposition and competition as tools I have to oppose Mister Mann and his racist, retarded business.
Just because I will not use coercion or force to oppose voluntary interactions between free individuals, that doesn't automatically mean I approve of annything they do.
I haven't listened to the responses or video responses to Brainpolice2's statement. Betcha it comes up and he covers the concepts more clearly than I do.
I am listening to Gary Chartier's videos at C4SS "Introduction to Anarchy"
In lecture 1c we're kicking off with the source book's description of human motivations. The Tannehills derive their theory of human liberty and self ownership from being alive.
Chartier goes into other human movtivations. "A Sense of Wonder", a need to conect with other human beings, an so on.
I'd reached a similar conclusion to the Tannehills myself without realizing it. I said "Don't kill me," is essentially a universal human value.
That idea was shot down by Dennnis Washburn who pointed out that some people do want to be killed. There was even a case where a man sold his body to another person on E-Bay, in order for the buyer to eat it.
Now, in Physics, if there's so much as a single exception to your theory, it means your theory is incomplete, or flat out wrong. When the apple falls up into the sky, it means your whole "gravity" idea goes into the garbage and you start over.
I don't think you can hold human behavior to that sort of all-or-nothing standard, because humans are very complex critters. There are more interconnections in the neurons of your brain than there are Stars in the Milky Way Galaxy - that means simulating your mind is more complicated than simulating 400 billion stars, planets and what-not all elese orbiting each other.
Looked at that way, the exceptions aren't surprising. The fact that we're so similar in mind set is absolutely stunning.
I think that the sense of wonder is of a different CLASS of human thought, emotion and action than "Don't commit aggression"
"Don't Commit Aggression" is a negative right - it defines something YOU have, by defining an action I might take as wrong. You have a right to remain intact, unmolested, unassaulted and so-on. You belong to you. Our language is set up so that "Don't Commit Aggression." is an easier formmulation of that idea.
That idea is a fundamental restriction on my actions. That idea is the foundation of millions of specific cases and development.
Your sense of wonder is not capable of violating any of my ownership of me. If your sense of wonder motivates you to aggress against me (Hard to imagine) then the sense of wonder is not the primary driver - your sense of wonder informs your desires, your desires frame a goal - and if that goal is across my boundaries - then you must decide. Will you agress to acquire your goal?
Maybe if I owned mountain top property, and you trespassed to get to a good place for viewing with a telescope...
See the sense of wonder cannot trespass - your awareness that your goal is blocked by my rights puts you in the position to chose or eschew agression.
(BTW, if I ever do get mountain top property with good astronomy viewing, talk to me. I'm not a dick. Maybe, if you and your astronomy club are willing, we can flatten out a space and put a BBQ there, make it a more comfortable place)
My point is this, there's the aggression/no-aggression point of choice - and then there's EVERYTHING else.
All other human motivations and experiences are. IMHO, of a different class of thing.
So if discussing ethical behavior - "Don't Commit Aggression" becomes the root. "Because no one wants to be killed, beaten or ganked." is the motivation behind that root.
Nothing else needs to be there.
If I tell you a funnny story for free, it's beccause You are amused by the story, and I enjoy having an audience. We are making an exchange outside of money or the calulation of marginal utility.
"Don't commit aggression" does NOT limit all human behavior to a economic calculations. It simply sets a bar, a limit at one end of human interaction. That still leaves about anything else we can invent as reasons for and products of our interactions.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Brainpolice2 made a video here - where he describes a problem with the non-aggression principle.
As I listened I found myself agreeing with him. I still do. I'd prefer to have proportional, measured responses to everything in life.
However, as I thought I discovered my objection to his statements - and I have just discovered another.
Walden walks onto Wubzy's property, and is now trespassing (Walden, Wubzy, Widget and Daizy are friends - this is just hypothetical)
Wubzy, seeing that his rights are being violated grabs his weapon and blows Walden away.
This is a gross over reaction to Trespassing.
BP2 asserts that, While Wubzy has a right to his property, a right to remain trespass free, that Walden has a right to continue living, and that death is not suitable restitution for minor trespass.
I agreed. I see the above case as a conflict between Wubzy's right to remain un-trespassed and Walden's right to remain un-shot.
But - how do we resolve the conflict in rights there?
Well, in Libertopia, Wubzy would approach Walden and say "we have a conflict, let's call an arbitration service and resolve this conflict."
Walden may say "I see the conflict, and I agree." Walden may say "I see no conflict, go away." Or Walden may say "What are you going to do about it, Wubzy, bounce me to death with your bouncy tail?"
Why would anyone agree to submit to arbitration in the case of a conflict?
They’d agree because the alternative is uglier, more painful and more costly.
If Walden chooses option three and says "Go bounce yourself." then it's important that Wubzy can turn then response dial up to the disproportional 11.
If Wubzy's response dial is locked down to a 2, then this invites a miscreant to injure Wubzy up to 1.9. Wubzy can go so far and no further in deterring aggression against himself.
Now - BP2's hidden assumption -
Wubzy comes out onto his porch and finds Walden trespassing - Wubzy may go inside and get his "Make-my-Day-inator 3000" and blow Walden to kingdom come.
But because he MAY do this, that doesn't mean he necessarily will. We trust Wubzy to own a weapon and use it responsibly to defend himself. That means we're generically trusting Wubzy to exercise good judgment while holding lethal force in his hand.
(Given Wubzy's history of playing kickety-kick ball in the house, my examples are growing more hypothetical as we go!)
If Walden knows that Wubzy may just up and blow him away, this gives Walden motivation to avoid such an ugly scene by being more careful of Wubzy's right and to be more open to a non-explosive form of dispute resolution.
This is the basis for ALL society, not just our hypothetical Libertopia.
As Jose Ortega y Gasset said - "All civilization boils down to an attempt to reduce the use of force to the last resort."
And this is true. The inverse is also true. Unless the threat of violence is present, then no one has any motive to tolerate it when arbitration or a judgment goes against them.
Although I strongly suspect that 95% of humanity would agree with BP2 - that for Wubzy to execute Walden for trespassing is grossly unproportional.
I think that potential for disproportional response is an energy which drives reliance on more civilized forms of conflict resolution.
If Wubzy and Widget came to me to arbitrate a claim about the wrongful death of Walden, I’d find that Wubzy was out of bounds and ask him to pay restitution to the estate of Walden as if for murder, less the penalty for trespassing.
But unless Widget or myself has a valid threat of violence about us, Wubzy has no reason to adhere to the judgment.
If we post it to the Wuzzleburg times that Wubzy wiped out Walden and then blew off the arbitration - then Wubzy is going to have a hard time finding work, and buying supplies. He's going to be shunned.
But unless there is the possibility of being shot - then we might find Wubzy robbing Widget, myself or Daizy.
So - the application of force is something that has to be distributed and available to anyone - or else distributed push "Submit to civilized arbitration" is going to be absent - and then it'll be Mad Max time.
My second problem with BP2's video -
How many rights-points is Wubzy's yard worth? Specifically, the part that Walden took when he trespassed?
How many rights-points in Walden's life worth?
There's no good measurement for the proportionality of one violation versus the other.
I mean we could measure the two in relative terms - money bid on the open market.
But these are different transactions. If you rent me a square meter of your yard for 30 minutes - that's a voluntary exchange - and how much its worth depends on how badly I want to stand in your yard and what the benefit is to me.
It would be immoral to purchase someone's entire life, but we have a sort of market mechanism from murder restitutions - But murder is not a voluntary transaction on the part of the murdered, so the restitution amount is bound to be less than the murder victims presumed price of "don't murder me."
So setting a proportionality scale for judging rights transgressions against is subjective and difficult at best.
Surely such vagueness can't be considered a codified ethical principle, can it? That would make Google's "Don't be Evil" statement an entire code of ethics in and of itself.
Monday, March 22, 2010
I found this interesting guy on the Alliance of the Libertarian Left Wiki. His name (So far as I know) is "brainpolice2" - He has many, many thinkies. And large ones.
I listened to his Video "The problem with Noam Chomsky." and I agree with him
So I listened to his Video
So then I listened to his Video "PUtting the NAP into it's proper context."
Then I wanted to comment. The comment section on youtube is limited - 500 characters. It's also a playground for drooling, violently stupidd retards.
I am also discovering that I am going TL:DR on facebook, too often.
So I grabbed this area on blogspot - and I am posting my longer ideas here.
This post is phrased as a reply to Brainpolice2 about his NAP video. Maybe someday he'll see it.
I am seeing your example of the tressapser as a conflict of rights, on one side the right of the property owner to control who comes and goes from his property, and on the other side the right of the tresspasser to continue to be whole and alive.
Your point seems to be that tresspass and loitering require a proportional response - that there is a defense of land property rights that is proportional to a small insult. I agree. However defining these in any consistent way is sort of slippery. Me standing on your lawn as I watch another incident happening in your neighborhood is one insult, Me going into your house and making myself a sandwich from your supplies is another. Me going into your bedroom and watching you and your partner enjoy an intimate moment is a higher level of creepy.
Each of these is only really defined by how BAD they make you feel, and how threatened you feel.
In the last two, I imagine some battary, assault and physically removing me from your property is entirely justified, while in the first example "Hey! Get off my lawn!" seems like a properly proportional response...
How do I know that? What Standard do I use to judge it?
So, if you come into your house and find me eating a sandwich, we are in a conflict of property rights. You have rights to your home and your sandwich fixings. You "Capping" me would be a disproportionate response.
How do we resolve the conflict? What mechanisms and tools do we have to do so?
Then I have to question the temporal aspect. You come home to find your TeeVee missing and discover that it's in my possession (apparently in this example I am sort of a creep) - So there is an ex-post facto conflict of rights. You owned a thing. I ganked it. In the straight forward NAP/Property-Rights Scheme, you then come around to my house, weapon in hand and shoot me. I asked for it. I stole your TV.
Now - on the one hand, the THREAT of this sort of response is supposed to A) Incentivize me not to steal your TV and B) Motivate me to cooperate with peaceful conflict resolution mechanisms. Giving you back your TV and making some restitution is cheaper than having a shoot-out with you.
Do you have another frame work for resolving disputes that works in the case of me helping myself in your kitchen or helping myself to your TV?