Re: Armed Feds Prepare For Showdown With Nevada Cattle Rancher
Get your head out of your ass and read about the history Mindanao where I am now, and the tribes in the mountains of Luzon.
Mindanao? Patriarchy has been created 10'000 years ago. Anarchy died 10'000 years ago.
We were talking about tribal warfare. Don't change the topic.
I've never written such a thing. I said people are rising up because they don't feel represented. I never said I prefer to replace it with a representative government. Instead I've written that democracy is always a power vacuum and thus always ends up where we are now.
Anonymint, the collectivst wrote that there is nothing wrong with local governements and that the global one is the only problem.
I never wrote that. I said that given a choice between global and local government, I prefer return of control to local government. You can see from my last quote below that I understand any form of collectivist government is subject to the power vacuum of vested interests. However at least the tribal local government was within the human's Dunbar limit and thus it was nearly impossible to do corruption without everyone in the tribe knowing it on a personal basis.
Quote me exactly:
FWIW, I personally believe that it is generally better that states control most of the non privately owned land within their jurisdictions.
No it is better if local government controls it. And if you don't understand why, then you don't understand a god damn thing about fitness. Try clicking my blog on my signature and see if you can learn a little bit of math.
Unfortunately we have kooks on the other side of the equation who have had recent success in halting even reasonable use of the forests
You fucking insane environmentalists go fuck a tree. I haven't forgotten your asinine post upthread about respecting the need to obtain a timber cutting permit.
Local communities should compete on how to manage resources, then clearly the best management will win and then optimum fitness will spread like a wave.
Generally I agree with the principle of political localization and autonomy. There is a realistic limit to how much things can be localized since the resources available to a local government are limited. There are also situations where problems and issues are geographically broad so localized political structures are inefficient (at best) to deal with them. Certain ecological issues fit into this catagory for instance.
If for example, local communities can't form a pact on the shared use of a resource that binds them, e.g. a river, then they destroy each other and the more powerful one comes in and takes control over all.
Thus rational men will form pacts, while retaining autonomy on orthogonal issues, i.e. not marrying into one Federal fascist power corruption structure.
I'm fine with people doing more or less whatever they like on their own land. Nobody has convinced me yet that anyone in the U.S. should have some sort of dynastic entitlement to almost anything, and certainly not the likes of Cliven Bundy.
Who should work that land then? The whole point is we want that land returned back to the local governments and then the local people decide what to do with their land. They can auction it off or whatever. Many competing locales, means the best practices eventually get copied and adopted. The others fail and default.
Now here is the very key point. Pay close attention.
If the people can't win on a local level, then it means any proposed solution will be supporting loss of local sovereignty. You simply can't amass resources collectively and avoid the corruption of the power vacuum of democracy. Understanding Mancur Olson's (in his book The Logic Of Collective Action) thesis is fundamental to understanding where we are and are headed:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics)
Thus you see the ultimate outcome of this country-by-country uprising is to turn over control to those who have the levers of control (over the power vacuum) in the wider-scale collective, e.g. the USA, EU, Russian bloc, subservient Asia bloc (China).
And you can thus see it will culminate with war and then ending war with socialist "international cooperation".
If the people can't win on a local level, then it means any proposed solution will be supporting loss of local sovereignty. You simply can't amass resources collectively and avoid the corruption of the power vacuum of democracy. Understanding Mancur Olson's (in his book The Logic Of Collective Action) thesis is fundamental to understanding where we are and are headed:
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=984 (Some Iron Laws of Political Economics)
Thus you see the ultimate outcome of this country-by-country uprising is to turn over control to those who have the levers of control (over the power vacuum) in the wider-scale collective, e.g. the USA, EU, Russian bloc, subservient Asia bloc (China).
And you can thus see it will culminate with war and then ending war with socialist "international cooperation".
I'm aiming for a Knowledge Age, where each person is entirely free of governance and corporations.
That would be the first time in history, that such (labour dividing) perversion of the community would work. The communists also tried to pervert the community. The results of such hyper-collectivist experiments are well known.
Yeah because it would be first time we would own our knowledge and skills rather than being enslaved in stored capital and the manipulation of stored capital via the power vacuum of the collective.
And it will economically defeat your idea of burning all the books and returning to a subsistence existence (which btw was not resilient to Ice Ages, 7 year droughts, etc, which is one reason we were forced to increase our technology in order to survive).
My disagreement with you is you are conflating things. You think technology can only exist with governance and corporations. I think technology can exist and boost individual prosperity in an anarchistic manner.
You instead want everyone to remain a caveman without any technology. You better get rid of the hunting bow and discovery of fire too.
You instead want everyone to remain a caveman without any technology. You better get rid of the hunting bow and discovery of fire too.
Bullshit over and over again. Nomades never lived in caves. Neither in the past nor today.
Where they lived is irrelevant. 'Cavemen' is a metaphor for a very rudimentary standard-of-living.