Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism

It is recently come to my attention that among the great many instinctive objections raised to a volunteer society and/or to a free-market, there are a few genuine questions from folks who want to learn how freedom could work in the real world.  Whereas I do not presume to have the only answers or to be the sole arbiter of which are best, I am an experienced voluntarist willing to share what I know about the challenges of putting the theory into practice.

Observation and common sense show that there are only two forms of social organization: voluntary and involuntary (i.e. tyranny).  If there is one point on which anarcho-capitalists agree, it is on the following definition of government:

a license to initiate force against others and to take others’ property without consent.

Although you will not find this definition in any "According to Hoyle" dictionary, it does accomplish two things.  First, it concentrates on the sole and essential difference between government and the rest of humanity.  Government is allowed to do what no individual, or even any group of individuals is allowed to do.  It has rights that people do not have, which it gets from people who do not, themselves, have those rights to give.  Second, it dispels the notion that government exists to serve people.  Government, in any and all of its forms, has always existed at the expense of people and only to serve a very select few ... namely its owners (who are not the same as its "constituents").  All others exist to be governed, and resist at their peril.

All this raises one basic question, which is if government is necessary at all.  Most people simply answer "YES" without a second thought, and they do so chiefly because they assume two things.  First, they assume that it has always existed and, second, that there is no alternative.  These assumptions are based in ignorance of history, lack of imagination and/or outright sociopathy, i.e. the drive to control others and use them for one’s own benefit, as property. The good news is that a quickly growing number of people worldwide can and do answer "NO" because they can and do see high quality alternatives to a monopoly of force.

Below are a few sample questions around which to build an introductory discussion, in no particular order.  They are provided merely to stimulate thought on the matter.  Of course, if you want to participate in such a discussion, then either you already have similar questions of your own or else you will need to formulate one or more of these in your own words in order to make them truly yours.  It is a difficult subject for many, and therefore it must be met halfway if you want to make progress with it.  All problems raised by these simple questions may be solved without abandoning the Nonaggression Principle.

• What is the difference between rulers and leaders?
• Who will build the roads?
• How can security be provided?
• What about national defense?
• Without voting, how are group decisions to be made?
• How are property rights established?
• How can disputes be resolved without courts?
• Who will educate the children?
• How can trade be settled without a national currency?
• How do we get there from here?
• Etcetera...

One final point remains to be made.  Anarchism is not a system without rules, but one without rulers.  There is no prohibition against rules so long as all affected parties voluntarily agree to them.  Those who don’t agree are not required to participate, and may opt out at will.

As a case in point, and in order to develop some practice, whatever discussion may proceed beneath this article will do so under one simple rule: If you wish to participate, you must do so with at least one relevant and specific question, which is to say that if your contribution lacks a question mark, then it may be deleted.  This is not the place to declare your opinion about free-markets or to complain about … whatever.  The sole purpose here is to discover practical, high quality alternatives to a monopoly of force.

So, given this preamble, what are your questions?

. .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

. .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

The Real Difference Between Communists and Capitalists

FOREWORD: I was recently recruited to write for a relatively new website that I am delighted to recommend, called WriterBeat. I can only guess that I came to its founder's attention because I have entrepreneurial tendencies, since she found me on LinkedIn. As I enjoy social media and I write well (according to some folks, anyway), the invitation was an easy one to accept. Anybody who knows me also knows how little I care for politics and/or politicians, which puts me in the minority at that site. Since my main interest is in freedom, politically motivated folks of any orientation - left, right or center - tend to find in me a dead end. For my part, I tend to find them almost uniformly frustrated and idealistic, which is a redundancy.

Anyway, as much as I enjoy the site - precisely because of the 'free-for-all' atmosphere and attitude of its founder - nevertheless I grow tired and bored of debate, which seems to be the great pasttime of the writers there. I chime in with relevant questions and comments, according to my iconoclastic nature, and yet I wish I could find a venue where intelligent people prefered investigation over verbal combat. Perhaps it is merely a sign of the times, tumultuous as they are ... but I doubt it. People are slow to change, like continental drift. Still, once in a while, there are gems to be found there, which is more than I can say of LinkedIn.

What follows is a transcription of one such gem.

If you have ever wondered what the essential difference between Communism and Capitalism is, without reference to Statism, then this exchange, below, is as good an introduction as any to these polar opposites. Out of respect for the participants (and love of humor), I have changed their names (and added photos), partly because I interact with some of them though mostly because you might, too, someday - at least if you follow my recommendation to visit the site. I have not changed the text except to add hyperlinks after the fact for your benefit - since there are many unfamiliar references worthy of further study - and remove a few words that might reveal the authors' identities.

As with another entry in this blog, I am sorry and amused to report that the original thread was deleted, as you will see if you read this all the way through. I am equally happy to report that there were some who wanted to read it and couldn't, since now they can. You are, of course, free to draw whatever conclusions from it that you can or will, and as always I welcome challenging questions on this, or any, subject. Enjoy...

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

:

I recently read David Graber's book, The Democracy Project, and he defines democracy as meaning direct democracy. That's obviously not the way most people use the word. By claiming that the Civil Rights and Feminist movements in the USA were successful, Graeber is able to claim that the Occupy movement was also successful. I'd sure hate to see what failure looks like. Statist is another interesting word. Just today I noticed that if you add "ic" to statist, you get statistic. Not much of an insight, but it's the only one I had today.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

I don't know anything about David Graeber, nor would I read any book entitled "The Democracy Project", and yet he is 100% correct about the success of both 1) the Feminist and 2) the Occupy "movements". Nevertheless, I suspect that his reasons are wrong, since neither had anything to do with what might be called "direct democracy".

Allow me to explain...

There are no grassroots movements, no authentic ones anyway. What folks mistake for grassroots movements are born in think-tanks and financed by smart, evil industrialists who know what their aim is and how to achieve it by surreptitious means. To wit:

1) Feminism was conceived by the Rockefellers and Carnegies, etc. in order to solve one very specific problem. As they saw it, the tax base in the USA was not broad enough since only about half the population was earning a wage, the men. The solution was to break up families. By convincing women to seek "independence", they willingly became wage slaves. It was a two-pronged attack, because there is always resistance to change. In short, the ancillary benefit of this breaking up families was to get tthe children into public schools earlier (since nobody was home to raise them), where they could be raised by the state and be, let us say, programmed that much easier. The rest, of course, is history.

2) Occupy was also conceived in a think-tank (OTPOR or an offshoot/copycat thereof). From the point of view of its financiers, the goal was/is to promote demand for martial law. Occupy was a dress rehearsal, you might say. It also helped to establish a database of "potential terrorists" who could later become "examples" - kinda the way cops harass prostitutes. Those arrested were even forced to submit to biometric scans in order to be released. As for the people on the street, you can see from their cryptic hand signs, and especially the "human mic", prima facie evidence of neurolinguistic programming on a massive scale. They were set up to fail, which is evidence of the financiers' success.

I could go on, but you get the idea. From this counter-subversive point of view, I'd like to see a lot more failure than success, regardless of what David Graeber opines. Meanwhile, the lesson is to stay away "movements" and collectivism in all its forms, as these are a mass suicide pact. Freedom does not result from political action - the only results of political action are debt and death.

  . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

David Graeber has a very interesting book entitled Debt. If you were a reader, I think you'd like it. The history of debt for the past 5,000 years is interesting.

The first wave of feminism in the US dates back to before the Civil War. There were no think tanks then. Women were not allowed to own property, and were legally considered property themselves--the property of their fathers or husbands. There wasn't much of a tax base back then, and very few schools, but women, being human, didn't want to be legally considered property. Feminism isn't some recent idea of think tanks, it is a very old idea and was the idea of women themselves. There's a book by Dale Spender called, Women of Ideas and What Men Have Done to Them, that traces the history of feminism back much further, before the United States even existed.

Feminism is as old as, and was a natural reaction to patriarchy, which was the subjugation of women. Patriachy and capitalism are inextricably linked by the ownership of land, animals, women, children, and slaves as property. The idea that some are better than others and are therefore meant to dominate, rule, and exploit. It's a sickness, a disease, posing as ideology.

Funny that those who oppose feminism didn't want to liberate men from wage slavery so that they could reduce the tax base by staying home and helping raise their kids. Why do you suppose that is?

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

RE your final question, the answer is that there's no money to be made by doing so.

As for the feminism of which you speak, it didn't get too far, did it? (Otherwise it would not have reared its ugly head two or three more times in the 20th century.) Meanwhile, there absolutely were think tanks before the civil war. Back then, they were called "Secret Societies" and included, among others, the Masonic Lodge whose evil influence saturated the "Founding Fathers". Names change - agendas don't.

Anyway, if there is one thing I'd have you grock about our discussions so far, it's that they delight me immensely and I am truly grateful for them, whether we agree or not on one point or another. I surely don't mean to be adversarial, at least not toward you. If anything, I look forward to more interaction and I come in peace.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

If it was just a question of making money, it wouldn't matter whether it was a man or a woman who worked, as long as they earned enough to support a familly. Advocating that women not work (that is, that they only do unpaid work, like housework), while men get paid for their work, kept women dependent upon men. And of course when women worked it was only with the permission of their owners, their fathers or husbands, and their wages belonged to their owners, not to the women. Even within my lifetime women weren't allowed to buy a house without their father's or husband's signature. It was all very cozy. Women were dependent upon men and men were dependent upon capitalists, so you had chattel slaves (women), wage slaves (men), and actual slaves (mostly black women and men). Nobody except the male capitalists was free.

Yes, there were the secret societies, and there still are. But feminists did make big gains. The Suffragettes, who were misled into campaigning for a worthless vote, had already gained literacy, something that patriarchal societies had denied to women for thousands of years for fear that if they were able to read religious texts, they'd learn of how they were originally subjugated through violence. It turned out to be an unfounded fear, as by the time women gained liteeracy, they had already identified with the patriarchal gender role assigned to them at birth on the baiss of sex in patriarchal societies, and mistook it for their basic identity, as do men.

As Dale Spender recounts at length in Women of Ideas, patriarchal societies took great pains to suppress not only female progress, but the knowledge of feminists who'd gone before them, so that each new generation of feminists had to reinvent the wheel. But feminism wasn't and coouldn't be stamped out because females, like males, get half their DNA from each of their parents, so if the father is an alpha male and the mother a submissive female, tthe daughters have as much chance of being alpha females as of being submissives.

I enjoy our discussions too. But peace is also incompatible with campitalism. When people are exploited, they will always, sooner or later, resist.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

I'd agree that the Suffragettes were misled into campaigning for a worthless vote, since voting is worthless (or worse), but the rest of what you've written ignores the fact that women have had done pretty well in "patriarchal societies" worldwide and for millennia. It is a truism that the men ruled in public and the women ruled at home. It is also true that there has historically been more voluntary cooperation between the sexes than there is now.

Anyway, I think you're missing the point, which is that "popular movements" do not benefit their nominal beneficiaries. I'll add that capitalism has nothing to do with exploiting people, since it is as neutral as capital itself - I Beams and Pork Bellies, for example, don't exploit people.

Capitalism in NOT a political system, after all. Politics is all about exploiting people, that much is true, but capitalism is simply commerce. Not all capitalists support the free market, which is a political choice they make.

The great thing about the free market is that unless someone produces that which others need and/or want, they don't survive - in short, the free market responds to consumer demand and is the only system that guarantees that consumers will not be and cannot be exploited. Once you start exploiting people (empirically speaking, not you literally), then you're no longer in a free market. It might be capitalist (such as fascism, for example) but it surely ain't free, not even close.

Without freedom, there is no peace. Free people want to produce and trade, not go to war and exploit people. If you think about it without resorting to theories or propaganda, you will see the simple truth of this. Free people don't benefit from exploiting each other; they prefer peaceful, voluntary interaction with one another and self-ownership. Pretty cool, eh?

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Anarcho-capitalist is an oxymoron. Capitalism, the privatization of the commons, the commodification and exploitation of labor and natural resources, and the funneling of money and property from the many poor to the few rich, is theft. Capitalism cannot exist without governments using violence to protect stolen property and protect the thieves from their victims. Capitalism really boils down to genocide and ecocide for profit. An anarchist cannot be a capitalist. I'm an anarchist. You're a libertarian.

I read. A lot. That's how I learned what anarchism is and that capitalism is incompatible with anarchism.

As for voluntarism, nobody sells or markets themself if they really have a choice. Nobody exchanges their labor for less than its full value if they really have a choice. Capitalism cannot exist unless some people have no choice but to sell themselves and to exchange their labor for less than its full value. Without that, capitalists cannot accumulate capital.

Have you ever read General Smedley Butler's "War is a Racket"? There's a video of it on YouTube if you google it. The way that capitalists obtain raw materials and cheap labor is by having government militaries go in and take them by force.

In other words, US taxpayers support a military that operates on behalf of private rather than public interests. Capitalists are racketeers and military troops are their enforcers and hitmen. Sometimes the violence necessary to sustain capitalism isn't obvious, but it is always there because capitalism can't exist without it.

Eventually you'll have to decide if you're an anarchist or a capitalist, because you can't be both.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Perhaps you mistake capitalism with a form of gov't, which it isn't. It is simply free trade. Where there is gov't (of any kind), there is no free trade. And yes, I know of Smedley Butler, and he is irrelevant (although mildly interesting).

Meanwhile, taxation is theft, which is also a violation of free trade. If it is not voluntary, then it is not free. Anarchism is simply a society without rulers, which is not a barrier to free trade ... quite the opposite.

The fundamental premise of anarcho-capitalism is that to initiate force against others and/or to take others' property without consent is immoral, and that government is a license to do exactly that. For all the evils of Statism and for all the supposed services it provides (which you have correctly noted are funded by theft and murder), there is a free market alternative that does not require a monopoly on the use of force nor coercion of any kind.

Although there are varieties of capitalism (such as the crony capitalism, or "crapitalism" that you describe), capital is simply capital. It is not a political system per se, nor incompatible with freedom and/or voluntarism.

In fact, there are thousands, literally thousands, of self-identified anarcho-capitalists. Although it is a comparatively small group, it is possibly the fastest growing, and not just in the USA.

Incidentally, a little know fact is that the reason why the Libertarian Party can't seem to grow is that most of its members defect to the "ancap" philosophy. A funny but true riddle asks:

Q: What is the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?

A: About six months.

Since you like YouTube and I don't like reading (which I can do in six languages, I simply like to hear people express their ideas better than listening to my own silent voice in my head), allow me to recommend a brief animated explanation of "What Anarchy Isn't" by Larken Rose.

I'd be delighted to read your feedback.

By the way, I am NOT a Libertarian - those bozos are ingenuous and self-deluding Statists.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Free trade would be an equal exchange of goods and labor, Nabokov. With an equal exchange of goods and labor, there could be no capital accumulation. Capitalism cannot exist without capital, so without an imposed system (nobody would voluntarily exchange their goods and labor for less than their full worth), there could be no accumulation of capital and thus no capitalism. Capitalism doesn't mean whatever libertarians say it means, it means what it says--like any other ism, remove the "ism" suffix and what you have left is what that "ism" believes in. Capitalists believe in capital.

I'm not going to read what anarchism isn't, because I have bookcases full of anarchist literature, so I already know what anarchism actually is. I'm not saying that there aren't people who call themselves anarcho-capitalists, because there are. Just that they are deluded about the nature of anarchism and of capitalism, both. We even had one in my city who ran for Mayor, something that is compatible with capitalism, but not at all compatible with anarchism. If you don't believe in government, you don't ask people to vote for you so that you can become part of government.

In the parts of Spain that were anarchist for a short while before Franco, everyone had to do their own work because nobody would work for wages, and there was no money, only equal exchanges of goods and labor. Anarchism is essentially anti-capitalist. An anarcho-capitalist is a person who doesn't know that they're a libertarian because they don't have sufficient knowledge of either anarchism or capitalism.

I don't like YouTube. I prefer books. I don't want someone's interpretation of what somebody else said, I want the original source material.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

I don't want someone else's interpretation either, which is why I like to see and hear people speak for themselves ... their own ideas. Me reading is just somebody's interpretation ... mine. That's why I prefer video over literature, when possible ... because IT IS the original source material.

Anyways, my question for you is this: if you are anti free trade, then how do you rationalize calling yourself an anarchist? I ask because the anarchists I know are all pro-freedom and yet you seem not to be.

Besides that, I never ran for Mayor and I don't vote. I'd never run for any elected office. Are you saying that someone self-styled anarchist ran for Mayor somewhere? If so, then s/he was simply a liar and therefore irrelevant. As for libertarians, they're statists and anarchists are not.

I just don't get why you assume that people cannot trade profitably and voluntarily in the absence of government when, in fact, they can and do. Would you care to enlighten me on how you got there?

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Hi Joe, Just a quick thought: the fruits of a tree are not provided free to anyone. As I'm sure you know, the tree is doing what it's doing for it's own gain.

Nothing is free, from what I have seen of the world. There's give and take, balance. If not in the moment, eventually. The rent always comes due, no such thing as a free lunch, all that. True stuff. Which is why I also tend to support a truly free market. Voluntary exchange between folks is a beautiful, mutually beneficial thing.

And to comment on the rest of it: It seems that profit, or at least accumulation of wealth, can certainly happen in a voluntary way. I mean, look at a simple community farmer's market.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Natasha, a tree in the wild makes no monetary gain. It is doing what it does because it is a tree, not because it can exploit others or make money. If your ancestors hadn't been conquered and domesticated, when you were hungry you could just go out and pluck some fruit from a tree and eat it, without having to first get a job and earn money to pay for it. People who haven't been conquered amd domesticated do not have to pay rent. A simple community farmers market is much better than a chain supermarket, but it is not a voluntary exchange. A voluntary exchange would be between two people exchanging things of equal value without landlords or government issued money extracting value from that exchange for the profit of banksters. My very first job, more than 55 years ago, was in a bank, and I noticed that not a penny went through the bank without the bank taking a portion of it. The accumulation of wealth at the expense of others is not voluntary for those who have no other possible way to survive than to work for minimum wage so that an employer can profit by exploiting their labor.

I just deleted a comment by another capitalist who I had warned. The comment was off-topic, disruptive, and just name-calling. I'm now warning you. Your next comment, if it doesn't respond directly to anything in my original article, will be deleted for being off topic.

It is theft to hijack a topic about not voting and use it to proselytize for capitalism, voluntaryism, libertarianism, or an oxymornic term like "anarcho-capitalism." I don't know how much you were paid to try to hijack this topic, but since you would only be doing it for profit, because you believe that everything is done for gain, that's all you're getting. Get lost.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Nabokov, I first heard your joke a couple of years ago when I was debating a leading Libertarian on the radio. He told it after I'd made a point he couldn't refute, as if to say that he admitted I was right but he just wasn't there yet.

I have books by and about anarchists like Kropotkin, Bakunin, Proudhon, Malatesta, Magon, Durruti, McHarg, Graeber, Zibechi, and many many more. I have books by anarchist publishers like AK Press, PM Press, and Little Black Cart, and I also have anarchist books published by university presses. I keep up with the current selection(s) of the Anarchist & Radical book club on Goodreads, and from time to time I post to an anarchist website that doesn't allow "anarcho-capitalists" because it is a contradiction in terms. You're asking me to distill things that took me years to learn into a few words, which is impossible, but I'll try anyway.

Anarchists believe that properety is theft. Capitalists, like libertarians, don't believe that property is theft.

In nature there are trees, people, animals, birds, and insects. In nature the fruits of a tree provides free food for people, animals, birds, and insects. When somebody declares a tree to be their private property, that they own the tree and that nobody can eat from that tree without paying them, it is an act of hubris and of theft. In order to have that tree as their private property when others need food, they need a system of government to protect their right to own property that should, by nature, belong to all. They want to be able to call the cops or the army if hungry people try to take the fruit from "their" tree. Libertarians want government to protect their private property, they just don't want to pay taxes for that protection. Food Not Bombs are anarchists who take food that they've grown, or that was donated or thrown away, and use it to feed people for free. They don't want to own the food or profit from the food, they think everyone has the right to eat. It was only during my lifetime that water, which was once considered something everyone had a right to, became polluted and privatized so that people had to buy water. City air is so heavily polluted that people whose health requires clean air have to pay for oxygen. What was once the commons, has now become private property, but it was stolen. Stolen from the commons. Stolen from everyone to become the property of the few.

Capitalists and libertarians believe that a person has the right to own as much property as they can obtain and want, and that government should protect that right, so that the excess property of the rich is protected from the needy from whom they or their ancestors originally stole it. Anarchists believe that we are part of nature and that nature belongs to nature, including people, animals, birtds, insects, and trees, not just to people. Nature is a balanced ecological system. Trees provide food, leaves, wood, and other useful things that people, animals, birds, and insects can use, and in turn, the beneficiaries pollinate and provide fertilizer for the trees. The exchange does not provide excess profit to any part of nature or deprive any part of nature of its share. That is a free exchange.

I once had a libertarian on Twitter tell me that everything and everyone is property, that he is property, and that the reason he is free is because he owns himself. To me, the idea of human property is abhorrent and even in the US it is technically illegal to own human property. Where that leads is to people saying that they demand that others respect their freedom to choose to be slaves. I think that all forms of slavery should be abolished and that people should be free. I don't think that anyone should have the right to choose to be a slave because they are therefore also claiming the right of people to own slaves.

I already tried to explain to you about free trade. For there to be genuine free trade, there must be no systemic coercion that causes people to need to exchange their goods or labor for less than their full value and allow others to profit thereby, and no system of protection for those who steal any part of the value of other people's goods or labor. Free trade today means that there are sweatshops where people work 12 hours a day in horrificly unsafe and inhuman conditions so that factory owners, contractors, and brand names can profit from their labor, selling a shirt or pair of sneakers that cost a dollar in raw materials and a few cents in labor, for hundreds of dollars in profit. There's nothing free about such an unequal exchange, as we've often seen in Bangladesh when owners refused to allow sweatshop workers to leave when buildings caught on fire and thousands died. Libertarian capitalists don't want government laws to protect such workers because it interferes with the rights of profiteers to profit.

You either trade freely, which if everyone was free, would mean that nobody got less than the full value of their labor, or you have capitalism where employers are entitled to profit by taking a share of the value of labor for themselves, forcing workers to exchange their labor for less than it is really worth. People can and do trade voluntarily in the absence of government, but not profitably, because if they were to profit at the expense of others without government to protect their right to do so, those being exploited would rebel. That often happens, and in this country there have been many times that the capitalists called out federal troops to kill workers who were striking for the right to be just a bit less exploited. People don't like to be exploited and if you are profiting from the labor of others, you are exploiting them, so you need government to protect you from them when they resist being exploited.

In nature there is no private property or personal profit. A tree doesn't sell tickets to eat its fruit. People, animals, birds, and insects don't have to buy tickets to eat fruit.

In anarchist communities, the land belongs to the community, not to landlords. The community makes communal decisions as to how to distribute and use the land so as to best supply the needs of the community without exploiting anyone. In primitive societies this has worked for tens of thousands of years, and in some places, despite constant attacks by corporations and governments, it still does.

Bring in profits, and some prosper while others starve. Libertarian capitalists want people to have the right to choose to profit, even if that means that others then have no choice but to starve, but anarchists believe that property is theft and that nobody should profit at the expense of anyone else.

You're not going to do your homework on capitalism and anarchism as I have. One of my definitions of a statist is someone who pays somebody else to do their homework for them and therefore never learns anything. Statists believe in government. They elect people to make their decisions for them, they elect people to rule them, and they elect people to tax them. Libertarian capitalists want to exploit others, and to be able to call on government to protect them if the exploited rebel, but they don't want to pay taxes for that service. Their freedom is the freedom to exploit others, something that no anarchist would call freedom.

When a video mentions Lysander Spooner or a book talks about anarchism, that is not the original source. The original source is the writing of Spooner himself and the writing of the anarchists cited. Interpretations of those writings are not the original source. The only way you can know what somebody actually thought and wrote is if you read their writings. If somebody else tells you that they read those writings, and gives you their interpretation, it is not the original source, it is their interpretation. If thaty person has an ideology, like capitalism or libertarianism, their interpretation of anarchist writings is not likely to be accurate and is very apt to be slanted to fit their ideology.

Let me explain what an original source is. If somebody here tells me what you said in one of your articles, the only way I can be certain that's what you really said is to go to the article and read it myself. Otherwise, I'm not going to the original source, but just taking somebody else's word for what they claim you said. Their interpretation of what you wrote might or might not be accurate, but either way, the original source is what you wrote, not what somebody said you wrote. If nothing else, I hope I was able to explain that simply enough for you to understand it. That would be a big step toward your ability to understand other things.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

That is a high word count for so little original or even new content. More importantly, much of it is just not true. I'll confine myself to one point in particular.

You write, in essence, "anarchists believe this; anarchists believe that; anarchists believe this; anarchists believe that ..."

In order to verify this, you'd have to ask every individual anarchist. And since many of them have conflicting beliefs, your proclamations will be wrong at least as often as they are right.

You can make sweeping generalizations about statists, but not about anarchists.

Anyway, I don't watch videos about people; I watch videos by people. With all due respect (and I mean that sincerely), I don't give a shit about the history of anarchism - it's the future that interests me.

Thus, I study those works produced by living anarchists, many of whom upload videos since that's where the audiences are these days.

Allow me to recommend a heavy-hitter of a conversation between Stefan Molyneux and James Corbett about the 'how-to' of anarcho-capitalism. It is not brief, but it is time very well spent. I hope you will give it a watch.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

So in order to know what Catholics, Jews, Buddhists, etc., believe, you'd have to ask each indivbidual Catholic, Jew, or Buddhist? You couldn't just read the books that form the basis of those systems of belief?

An "anarchist" book or video produced by a libertarian or a capitalist is not a way to find out what anarchists believe, it is a way to find out what libertarians and capitalists think of anarchism.

In most primitive societies, the spears are formed for hunting and the spoils of the hunt are shared with the entire community, including the young and the old who cannot hunt.

Anarchism doesn't mean without rules, it means without rulers. And the rules are no capitalism, no exploitation, no slavery in any form, and no privatization of nature. Even Creationists admit that the land was here before people were, so people belong to the land, not land to the people.

Apparently I was not able to explain the meaning of "original source" clearly enough for you to understand it, as you continue to cite secondary sources. If you can't distinguish between an original source and a secondary source, it is a waste of my time to try to discuss anything with you. I tried, I did my best, but as it turns out you are disrupting this topic with your proselytizing for anarcho-capitalism, which is actually anti-anarchism like all forms of capitalism, and I'm not going to allow you to continue.

You can't have both private property and freedom. If the bounties of the natural habitat that sustained life freely for tens of thousands of years are privatized, those who don't own property perish because there is no longer a commons to enable them to survive. Property, not instinct or nature, is the origin or war.

Where everything is shared freely by everyone, there is no conflict.

Fuck off, Nabokov. This topic is about delegitimizing government, not about property rights. Go sell your capitalism someplace else. I'll delete any further comments from you about so-called "anarcho-capitalism." All you do when you say that you're not doing what you're obviously doing, is proving that you don't know what you're doing. Do it in your own articles, not here.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

I was wondering how long it would take for you guys to find each other:) I'm loving this exchange so far. Nabokov, now you see what I meant when I said anarchists are hard to define. You don't even agree on the basic premise on what constitutes aggression/theft.

Political labels are imprecise at best and misleading at worst, but people do have some kind of constant desire to use and claim them.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Yeah, tell me about it. So far, as best I can tell, some anarchists are pro-freedom and others are, well, kinda cultish. I'm not saying that cults are intrinsically bad, mind you. They vary about as much as political theories do. For instance, the Amish peoples comprise a cult, and so does the so-called Illuminati. The differences are enormous.

Anyways, in my humble opinion, Joe has an impractical and unhealthy interest in theory. Any Indian who's ever fashioned a stick into a spear understands property rights. It takes some pretty sophisticated language in order to misunderstand the basics.

However, some folks arrive at anarchism via reactionary disgust against the State (which is understandable) rather than from first principles. What I find so odd (and do not share) is Joe's obstinate insistence, which, among things, smacks of collectivism.

Respecting self-ownership as I do, I cannot bring myself to speak for others. Instead, I rely on the Socratic Method.

The funny thing I run into is that folks are so threatened by questions and almost never think to ask any of their own. As a case in point, folks here essentially write like:

"This. Oh, and that, too. Next, this. And this. Which means that. And of course, this. Therefore, this, this and that."

I find that, well, pushy and, more importantly, boring. I strive to write with pull instead, which is less predictable and thus less boring, too. It also leads to more discoveries. For example:

"We've probably all seen this. But what if that? Or that? Where might that lead? And if this, does it also mean that? If not, then why not? And instead of what, or even why, shouldn't we be asking how?"

Alas, though, my hope is partially realized by your comment(s), here and elsewhere. Sometimes the writers here accuse me of - whatever - because I don't agree with them, and then they want me to go away. Me, I write for the benefit of the third-person readers, the witnesses, since there are more of them than there are of me and Joe ... right now, that's you, Selovanova. So I humbly thank you for chiming in regardless of your own subjective leanings, whatever they may be, since I now know that there is, in fact, at least one third person.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Anarchism is not political. Anarchists do not seek power the way that all political parties do.

Capitalists want to claim and own everything, not anarchists. But for capitalists to try to claim anarchism is disgusting. Once there is a right to own land as private property, there will be the right to own everything on that land, including trees, plants, rivers, lakes, animals, birds, insects, and even people as private property, and property does not have the right to life as it can be killed in what capitalists see as the necessary protection of "their" property--never mind that they never created anything and merely stole what was already here.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Capitalists ain't political either. And being an anarchist, let me tell you that I don't want to claim and own everything. With all due respect, Joe, you oughtta lighten up. Seriously, by what right to you claim to speak for me? The anarchists I know tend to reject authority ... but not you.

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Without theory, Nabokov, you are just a capitalist with a stick, a spear, an assault rifle, or a bomb, acquiring property through violence.

Since you are not interested in this topic and only interested in your own topics, please get the fuck out of here before I have to start deleting your comments to keep this section on topic.

Yes, I want you to go away. Not because you're writing for third parties, but because you are proselytizing for something off-topic, your so-called "anarcho-capitalism," which is a form of capitalism and is antithetical to anarchism. Third parties interested in promoting private property can learn about it in your own topics, not here.

If you found this topic boring, you'd never have posted here. Instead you found it threatening enough that you have tried to disrupt it with your proselytizing for capitalist property rights.

Your comments are shallow, meaningless, off topic, and disruptive. You have no concept of theory and no ability to reason. I(f some anarchists are a cult, then your so-called anarcho-capitalists would be a sub-cult. I explained things in my own words and you just ignored my explanations because you prefer secondary sources. Get the fuck out of here and take Selovanova with you, if you can.

If you want to comment on anything in the original topic here, or try to refute a single point, go right ahead. If all you want to do is talk about libertarians posing as anarchists, do it in your own articles.

. .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Geez, Joe, all I'm trying to do is to put government (any government, anywhere) out of business. I must say, you're unreasonably militant ... and militantly unreasonable.

I wonder why you don't just call yourself a communist, but not badly enough to start another thread with you. Me, I like prosperity as long as it harms nobody else and doesn't violate anybody's freedom. You people seem to enjoy privation and misery, which is cool for you but I want no part of it.

So go and do whatever it is you do. I came in peace and I go in peace. до свидания товарища...

 . .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

. .   . .   . .   . .   . .   . .

Mining Fear and Panic - The Case for 'Martial' Law

• • •

Terraforming Is For Sociopaths

FOREWORD: The following virtual round table discussion convinces me that nearly all 'progressive futurists' are proud Fascists. I have chosen to preserve a portion of it because I honestly wonder if my perception is inaccurate, or if challenging popular bias in social media can be more productive than fun. The starting point was a blog post entitled Our Human Behaviour Here on Earth is Perfectly Suited for Mars that had been forwarded into a LinkedIn discussion group - which one, I will not say.

Even the title gives me goosebumps, raising objections between my ears almost faster than I can articulate them.

I mentioned as much before the others launched into various and sundry proposals for terraforming the Red Planet. That's when I felt compelled to bring the conversation back down to Earth, as you will see. Ironically, my choice to cut and paste the thrusts and parries here was a good one because someone, it hardly matters who, made sure that my remarks were deleted.

I do not cry foul over loss of free speech on LinkedIn because I do not own it and do not feel entitled to any rights therein. When it comes to social media, if you are not paying for it, then you are not the customer, but the product. In the Matrix, you twist its rules at your own peril - I've played past any indignation long ago.

That being said, I've changed the names of the participants for the sake of anonymity (even though LinkedIn is public and you could figure out who's who if you were motivated), which is most likely unnecessary vis-a-vis surveillance, since mine appears to be the fringe position. As the odd-man-out, I've adopted the codename "Goofy". The other names are thematically consistent.

My tongue-in-cheek case for 'Martial' Law refers to the heinous prospect of Mars, the God of War, becoming presumptive government property. Oh yeah - I've inserted a few mood shots for contextual effect, too. I hope you enjoy the presentation.

Obviously, I do not require agreement in order to consider a conversation to be good. I do, however wonder who else shares my vision of common sense and basic ethics and/or how better to make these ideas more accessible to those who are not in search of them. I welcome constructive feedback...

F O R   T H E   B E N E F I T   O F   A L L   M A N K I N D

• • •

Terraforming is for sociopaths. • • •





Really? De-terraforming is something WE are doing to Earth right now because of the amount of carbon WE are putting into the atmosphere. I consider those who continue to ignore the consequences that come from polluting the environment to be more akin to sociopaths. [My Caps] • • •

Hi Donald. Thanks for asking. It's a simple argument, but an unpopular one. It begins with there being zero demand from the free market to go and plunder Mars. The reason is simple: Cost.

No customer wants to pay for Mars, even if one could afford it. History shows that there is an alternative way to finance colossal projects like the Great Pyramid or the Great Wall.

Big government and slave labor. Are you with me so far? Let's take it a step further.

Government is a license to initiate force and take others' property without permission. In short, a special class of otherwise normal people are endowed, as if by magic, with a right to do exactly what would get any of the rest of us imprisoned and/or killed were we to do it. When you take it to it's logical extreme, it is nothing more than a license for theft and murder - it doesn't matter who does it.

I hope we can agree that theft and murder are sociopathic behavior. Nowadays government hides the reality of slave labor by arcane tax codes and an unwritten Social Contract. What makes it sociopathic is its tyrannical monopoly of violence. Now if we were allowed to opt out of taxation, or out of unreasonable search and seizure, etc., then Mars would present a different possibility, but alas we are not.

If it's not voluntary, then it's tyranny. There are no other forms of social organization. Government is the fullest expression of sociopathy. When you fit these pieces together, you quickly see that there can be no free market where there is government.

So unless you can find a way to terraform Mars without government subsidies, then it is a de facto sociopathic and parasitic enterprise - the only kind that governments invest in. You gotta get there on your own steam, without tyranny, otherwise it is sociopathy. Some folks are okay with that and some are not - the ones to watch for are those who deny it.

As a side note, sociopaths are drawn to power, and many seek to work for or with the State for that reason. You can often spot them by their choice of words, especially WE. For example: "De-terraforming is something WE are doing to Earth right now because of the amount of carbon WE are putting into the atmosphere."

I don't know about YOU, but I am not putting much carbon into the atmosphere, which doesn't matter anyway since CARBON IS NOT A POLLUTANT. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. Listen carefully to sociopaths because when they say WE NEED, they really mean I WANT or YOU MUST.

Among their most favorite words is WE. By extension, collectivism is one of their favorite tactics, both to manipulate others and to hide from them. As a case in point, consider Anthropoogenic Global Warming - a hoax with two complementary aims.

The first is to promote Carbon Tax - a threat to individual sovereignty. The second is to invent a global spectre that can only be managed and/or defeated by a global government - a threat to national sovereignty. It's all a matter of convincing folks that they're the problem, and that population reduction is the solution.

The propaganda was working for awhile, but no self-respecting scientist believes the hoax - even though many a career depends upon not voicing disbelief. The edifice is cracking. As usual, there are two kinds of liars - those who invent the lies and those who spread them. The same is true of the so-called climate change debate.

Only whores sell Global Warming, whereas only fools and cowards buy it - for they are more easily parted from their money. It's a colorful analogy but not an inaccurate one.

Cheers. • • •

G L O B A L   W A R M I N G :  AN   I N C O N V E N I E N T   H O A X

If WE find native life on Mars then your comment may have validity. OUR moral obligation in such a case would be to leave the planet in as pristine a condition as possible to eliminate contamination from Earth. But then who is to say leadership will do the moral or ethical thing should WE make Earth inevitably untenable for OUR species and many others? [My Caps]

I wrote the Mars piece to illustrate OUR human condition to seek a solution elsewhere after soiling OUR OWN backyard. On the issue of carbon and your conclusions, I beg to differ. The problem is real whether you are a libertarian or a socialist. If you choose to ignore the consequences of our present behavior that is your "right" but it doesn't change the facts. [My Caps] • • •

Donald, I agree with you 100%. I hardly think advocating for the survival of the human species is sociopathic.

My grandfather was born prior to the first flight at Kittyhawk in 1903. Today WE have sent space probes outside OUR solar system. I don't see how it is unrealistic not to think that WE can explore and colonize Mars inside this century given the exponential growth of new technologies. [My Caps]

OUR species becoming Multi-Plantary is essential to the long term survival of man. Funding will come from the private sector if public sector funds are not available. See this article Billionaire space pioneer announces plan to colonise Mars with 80,000 people in two decades about Elon Musk.

Goofy, based on the tone and theme of your remarks, you strike me like a person with a neurological disorder and NOT Donald. Cheers • • •

P A T E N T L Y   A N T I - F R E E - M A R K E T

Since when is the exponential growth of new technologies a given?

The more I think on it, the less I see how unwavering respect for property rights or promoting a free market amounts to sociopathy. Any ideas?

Meanwhile, for more on mass theft, Elon Musk and outright Fascism, see Solar Subsidy Recipient Suing Treasury for More. • • •

Yes I do. A sociopath is someone with no sense of moral obligation to society or others, and no ability to emotionally connect to the suffering or needs of others. Because sociopaths cannot feel sympathy or empathy, they see themselves as the only "real" person, and other people are merely objects to be used to benefit themselves.

Instead of subjecting this forum to a debate on private property rights, which it was clearly not created for, you can create another group on the matter. May I suggest the virtues of "Ayn Rand or Ebenezer Scrooge: Hero or Villan?" • • •

O T H E R   P E O P L E   A R E   M E R E L Y   O B J E C T S   T O   B E   U S E D

Sociopaths would love your definition, Pluto, since it leaves them just the right back doors and wiggle room. Society is an abstraction. Sociopathy is an attitude toward concrete living individuals, not psuedo-Platonic constructs.

A 'moral obligation to society' is a slippery slope to sociopathy, and sociopaths will try to throw you down it everytime if you let them.

Sane folks do well to empathize with everyone they meet, and that is enough. They don't worry about everyone else whom they will never meet (nor should they, in my humble opinion). Society takes care itself best when sane people with a concrete interest in each other, and not in social theories, abound.

All social agendas, Pluto, are invented by sociopaths. I defy you to name an exception. Cheers. • • •

Goofy, CO2 can be a pollutant if carried to extreme as can anything, Oxygen, water kills hundreds of children. Actually plants of Earth are starving for CO2. A big reason greenhouses grow more food is because they burn and put it into the place. One reason we grow more food in the farms is we have increased the carbon dioxide levels slightly.

CO2 gives us a very minor greenhouse effect on Earth. Far greater components are clear water vapor, and other gasses. Warmer weather historically means more ocean evaporation and more rainfall. The famines come with very cold weather. Mars has about thirty times as much per square inch of the stuff as Earth but a much lower greenhouse effect. Venus has many times as much of an effect as Earth, but it has nearly three hundred thousand times as much per square inch as we have. Of course both plants have very little of other gasses. Venus does have quite a bit of acids it it atmosphere, but it is a minor component.

Who or with what reason would anyone call someone wanting to preserve humankind and bring life to a dead world a sociopath? • • •

B R I N G   L I F E   T O   A   D E A D   W O R L D

Seriously, Daffy: "Anything can be a pollutant"? That's your argument? To what end?

Perhaps WE should institute a Worldwide Beef Ban, since bullshit is the greatest vector of methane into the atmosphere. Central planners would be thrilled to devise an array of enforcements and punishments.

Too much water on the Earth? Maybe WE should build a pipeline to Mars and pump the excess there.

I dunno, Daffy, but you seem to be making my argument for me. Thanks for at least admitting that plants are starved for CO2 right here on the Green World. It makes one wonder, though, why the life giving gas is so demonized. Then again, who invented demons?

For someone who doesn't like others telling you what to think and how to live you seem to take great joy in it yourself. • • •




I presume your complaint is aimed at me, Pluto. Would you care for some cheese with your whine?

You mistake self defense for telling others how to live. Do the math, kiddo. I ain't the fella that's proposing to rob others in order to mind my own business. Consequently, when someone does come along doing that just that, it is the duty of all living things to put the interlopers in their place, to the degree possible.

I'll make it as simple as I can for you: Don't take my money and I won't tell you how to live. Get it?

Now take SpaceX, for example. There's a case study in Fascism. This is what you'd export to other planets?

Many are we who will refuse to go along with that. Elon Musk is hardly a free market, private sector entrepreneur. Without the merging of large corporations and the State, Elon Musk couldn't even change his oil, much less build a high performance electric vehicle.

He goes in search of government subsidies and builds businesses around them - that's Fascism.

If you wanna be free to be a Fascist, then grab it with both hands - but don't expect the world to go quietly into the night for you. It didn't work for too well for Hitler and it won't work for the Terraformistas, either. And since y'all describe the folks who 'soiled our own backyard' in the first person and not in the third, your fantasies on how to fix the problems of your own making are logically unwelcome to those of us who are not to blame for the mess in your own Fascist poopy pants.

You see, Pluto, I am no collectivist - I don't tell anyone how or what to do. Collectivism is sociopathy. It's no secret, either, that the mob is mediocre. I see no particular virtue in Mob Rule. Naturally I question your judgement if you do - yours or anyone's.

The reality is that the burden of proof is on you and your kind, not on me and mine. As long as your proposals require the support of others, then you will have two, and only two, options. The first is to create appealing proposals, appealing to others, that is. The second is to resort to theft and murder.

I deal in the first of these options exclusively, Pluto. How about you? • • •

I N   S E A R C H   O F   G O V ' T   S U B S I D I E S

At least SpaceX is showing ways to lower launch cost. They are even taking launch business away from Russia and China. • • •




Daffy, as long as SpaceX is being funded by US taxpayers, I'd rather see Russia and China getting more business than they are already.

I don't need all that Jingo Jazz. Nationalism does not impress me. Besides, competition is good for any industry. Why is the space cadet contingent so patently anti-free-market, anyway? • • •

N O T   E X A C T L Y   S T A R F L E E T   C R E D I T S

And SpaceX is the only one run like free market. Definitely not Russia or China. SpaceX is taking some US contracts, and is accepting some conference from NASA, but it is the closest to "Free Market" in the business, and is trying to improve the cost to the customer.

Yes there are incentive especially with this president for what is call "green" or "clean", but that is part of the industry. Mr. Musk put $100,000,000 of his own money into it which he made in the open free economy.

WE want to ship up to millions of people to Mars at far less than any one else can talk about. [My Caps] • • •

His own money? You mean Disney dollars? What free economy? Seriously, what free economy? Don't get me wrong. I wish there were a free economy, but I see no evidence for that. I hate taxes, too. It's just that Elon Musk is better at evading them than most of us, which he does by positioning himself to receive other people's tax money from the goverment.

Fascism is the opposite of a free ecomony - it's a captive slave economy. Don't you see?

I like Mars, too, but I don't get this group's fascination with vampirism. There is ZERO demand from any Free Market to go to Mars, nor are those who proudly claim to have ruined the Earth (if you read above, you'll note that Donald makes precisely that claim) the ones to manange the Mars project.

When you say: "WE want to ship up to millions of people to Mars", let us be clear on the difference between WE and EVERYONE. Cool? As long as EVERYONE does not have to pay for what a some itty bitty WE wants to do, there's no problem. That would be a free ecomony.

All this is obvious to any layperson smart enough to have ignored their school teachers.

I can only surmise that some folks here aren't getting out enough, perhaps because it's easier to confirm your bias online or in science fiction than it is to get anything worthy done in the real world. This discussion has convinced me that 99.9% of futurists are fascists.

By all means, stay at your desks and leave the rest of the world to those grownups among us who are skilled enough produce things ourselves, or to fix them. We have all that we need right here, more than enough and more than we earn.

If you're all convinced that you've destroyed the Earth with your industry, then please, for everyone's benefit, retire - just pick up your things and go home. Cheers. • • •

F A S C I S T    R E S E R V E    N O T E

Goofy, You mean when Elon Musk built and sold Zip Two, then built and sold PayPal, it was with Disney money? I am not sure what that is. One billion dollars buys a lot of money. Whether it is in PayPal or US dollars, as Elon received. The latter is the money he used to create SpaceX.

Yes he has had many contracts with the US government. That is the major players in it. Yes the money we all get is being destroyed by our fearless president, but that is the best WE have. I do not get your point.

I insist WE preserve Earth.

Tapping outer space resources is the cheapest way to protect Earth from many things. These include comets, asteroids, the sun getting hotter, many things getting harder to acquire, OUR growing need for energy, and many more.

Many people have worked hard and long giving their time, money, and hopes to see humans move to Mars and homestead there.

It is as if all humans were on a small Island, and some could see a great landmass far greater they WE had and wished to move there. Most people can see nothing there. But those that can truly see have worked out how to get there, and how to live there.

People like YOU say it is all foolish. Many great projects require collecting capital from many people so that almost everyone can benefit. These include roads, bridges, parks, libraries, the internet, and a host of other projects.

Developing outer space and especially Mars will benefit all of Mankind. [My Caps & Italics] • • •

Y E S  ,  W E   C A N

Daffy, the difference between your cozy analogy and the reality is staggering. Homesteaders rely on themselves, not other taxpayers. They're not collectivists, either.

I did not say your Mars vision was foolish, by the way, but sociopathic.

What don't you get about free market economics? What is so fascinating about theft? What is so shameful about living within your means? • • • 

Goofy, do not put words in my mouth. I have not claimed that the world is ruined. Nor did my piece propose WE go and terraform Mars. I stated that OUR current abuse of Earth's environment and the behaviors that we humans exhibit would be perfect on Mars. WE dump lots of pollutants into the environment, a perfect way to create a greenhouse effect on that planet. [My Caps]

What I would appreciate in this conversation is less vitriol. I don't know why Elon Musk is even part of the conversation. Yes he has aspirations of going to Mars but the Mars he will go to will be a very hostile environment for any Earth species.

If you don't like his politics it doesn't have to be a part of this debate. • • •

T O T A L L Y   U N T E N A B L E

Pipe down, Donald. I would never put anything in your mouth. Not even a word. But why do you CONTINUALLY refer to the destruction of the Earth IN THE FIRST PERSON? It's always WE WE WE with you. Me, when I speak of the evil that men do, I say THEY, not WE.

What's up with that?

Even your blog post ends with "I figure within five centuries WE could have Mars ready for Earth life just at the moment when WE have made OUR planet here totally untenable." (My caps) Whatever is in your mouth, Don, I didn't put it there. You make it sound like a done deal - which it isn't - which makes you a fear monger, even if you're trying to be humorous about it.

I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you believe the Global Warming Hoax in spite of the evidence, and take your argument to its logical extreme at face value. Correct me if I stray too far...

The more I try to make sense of your arguments, the more they sound like something straight out of Dr. Strangelove. Your position, if I may paraphrase it loosely, runs something like: "WE destroyed the planet, therefore WE are entitled to determine the future of any survivors and any resource allocation." Rearrange a few nouns, swap Mars for a mineshaft, and you're good to go...

Let me remind you that the film was a comedy, not a serious proposal but a character study of those who think this way and consider it normal (i.e. sociopathic parasites). If you persist in refering to such folks as WE, then you will draw fire from those whose resources you would thoughtlessly plunder to satisfy your adolescent dream.

As if to add insult to injury, you demonstrate sociopathy by insisting that debate be focused only on the points of agreement. Who taught you that trick, Tomás de Torquemada? Chairman Mao? Your modus operandi, to avoid contest, leads to a moral and intellectual atrophy unworthy of the rugged individuals who once ventured to new places to grow new communities.

Where I come from, debate tends to focus on points of disagreement. There's this thing called the Internet now, too, which exposes people to many points of view, some of them mutually exclusive. Your fear of cognitive dissonance is your problem, though, not mine. In the free market of ideas, the best ones can gracefully stand up to a threeway beating and go on about their business without showing any scuff marks.

If you cannot abide objections, then do not make objectionable assertions. Your blog ABSOLUTELY is a terraforming proposal, only in slow motion ... the 500 year plan. Your little whimsies would cost smarter and harder working folks than you a hefty sum for a negative ROI in the face of a fictional threat of industrial ecocide ... if they were implemented.

If you give no thought to the cost or the consequences, then I object and I promise you that am not alone.

Fortunately, the wheels are coming off of the Global Warming Hoax. Expect more debate on this point from informed individuals, not less. What more can I say? Mend your ways, Donald, or stand valid criticism like a man.

We cool, bro? • • •

T H E   W A V E   O F   T E R R O R   W H I C H   S W E P T   A C R O S S   A M E R I C A

Goofy, it's funny that you mentioned Dr Strangelove, because you kind of remind me of General Jack D. Ripper. Cheers • • •




As I recall, he was the hero. His idea was that strategy ought not be left to politicians, who for their part are happy to poison the water if it there's money to be made.  In the insane comedy that it was, his was the lone voice of reason.

The fluouride problem never went away, only now you have Monsanto to boot. I'll bet Monsanto wants to colonize Mars even more desperately than you do. After all, colonization is about agriculture, not society.

I'll take your remark as a compliment, Pluto. Like the general, I am careful about what I put in my body ... and women sense my power. The big difference, of course, is that I would never be foolish enough to get a government job. His disappointment is understandable, but I don't share it.

Perhaps someday the Wad will understand Kubrick's films. They're so multi-level, with so many subtle references. If you like documentaries, you might enjoy 'Room 237’. Cheers. • • •

"Even the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock had to get support from the King to settle. Columbus received royal help. Modern roads, and a host of other projects that help everyone need finance outside of normal commerce. I also believe WE waste way to much. I am nearly a libertarian, but this can benefit everyone. Since WE are paying so much to OUR government I want them to do at least one good thing with it. [My Caps] • • •

V O L U N T A R I S M ,  W H A T ' S   T H A T  ?

There you go again, Daffy. You're absolutely correct that the greatest case of mass theft and murder "had to get support form the King" and/or "received royal help". You'll get no argument from me on that score.

You couldn't be farther from the truth when it comes to the roads, though. The government doesn't build those; contractors do. Trust me, I'm a contractor. I know how things get done 'cuz I know how to do 'em, ya dig?  If you truly believe that mankind cannot build a road without a monopoly of violence, then I gotta question if you're really ready for Mars. It sounds like you got plenty of Deimos and Phobos down here at home to last you several generations hence.

In short, you're not cleared for take-off.

Regarding your conclusion, what can I say but "Be afraid; be very afraid"? The moment you start wanting the government "to do at least one good thing" is when they have you where they want to you. When you want NOTHING WHATSOEVER from government, then you begin to taste freedom, not before.

Libertarianism is as bogus as it gets, by the way. There's a very good reason why most Libertarians do not remain so for very long. The upshot is that it's a movement that will never grow - it'll be co-opted, of course, but it will never really grow.

Guess where most honest Libertarians find themselves before long...

And while you're at it, I humbly suggest you re-evaluate what you think you know about the "New World". A great place to start is 6 Ridiculous Lies You Believe About the Founding of America. The so-called futurists might learn a thing or two from history before going boldly... • • •

I never suggested any rape, murder, or theft that was something you started. There are no people to do that to on Mars. I did suggest that like roads and many building contractors produce need capital that only a government can come up with. WE need a transportation system to bring the first people and homestead there. It needs help as road did many places. WE are only asking for much less than one percent of what OUR government spend be to build the infrastructure to where some of us can move there for a few years. [My Caps & Italics] • • •

T H A N K S   B U T   I ' L L   S E T T L E   F O R   P R O P E R T Y   R I G H T S

"Only government can come up with needed capital to build roads,"Daffy? How helpless that must make us all! If so, then the last thing that Mars needs is government.

I do not see humanity as so pathetic and incapable as all that, of course.

Seriously, though, what good is it if the homesteaders cannot own what they settle? Did you know that an earlier draft of the Declaration of Indepedence spoke of "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property"? The parasites got rid of that PDQ, n'est-ce pas?

So if we rely on historical precedent to guess the what the morning after will smell like when the dust from the wagons settles and the tents are pitched, your proposal is to hand over ownership of Mars to a government? I promise you that unless steps are taken to prevent that, then that will be the result.

So, another Tax Farm, THAT is your best hope for humanity?

They'll even send you with a flag, by then maybe even one that says Monsanto on it. I can't imagine what rape you mean, but for humanity to colonize Mars, at its present level of adolescence, is impossible without taxation - and taxation is theft. I suppose they omitted that detail from your civics class, but I'm sure I mentioned it above.

Once again, the theft takes place on Earth, not on Mars. Get it?

Daffy, are you one of those pseudoscientists who believes the anthropogenic global warming hoax? Is that what has you so scared that only a trip to Mars will end the fear and panic? If so, your case for exodus is built on a very shaky premise. There are less costly cures for that condition, you know.

As for the assertion that "Developing outer space and especially Mars will benefit all of Mankind," you very conveniently ignore the demonstrable fact that it will only benefit a pathetically tiny few ... at the expense of all Mankind. The owners will benefit, which is why it's so important that the owners not be psychopathic parasites and/or slipshod slackers - you know, the types that naturally get weeded out of a free market?

Behind the fear mongering is a very clever marketing campaign called Agenda 21. Ever heard of it? Have things changed so much since the heyday of overt Nazism, when the biggest lies are the easiest to sell?

Since we've already broached the subject, I'd be more wary of fluouride than CO2.

Cheers. • • •

T H E   B I G G E S T   L I E S   A R E   T H E   E A S I E S T   T O   S E L L