The simple answer is – because they can’t. 
Cloverism is a one-way street.
Libertarians, anarchists and others who hew to the philosophy of live – and let live – aren’t the least bit interested in controlling other people. It does not occur to them. In fact, it goes against their nature. It’s an affront to their very core because, after all, if you wish to be left in peace you must also wish that others be left in peace, too. And more, you must accept this as just – as the right and proper order of things. The liberty of others must be as sacred to you as your own liberty – and require a defense (when necessary) every bit as vigorous.
Otherwise, you’re not just a hypocrite – you’re a narcissist and possibly, a psychopath.
The freedom philosophy is an outgrowth of empathy. Of a gut awareness of the other as a mirror image of oneself. It therefore deeply troubles the Libertarian and the anarchist to think about someone else, anyone else, being bullied – a more honest term than merely controlling someone else. It is literally nauseating to contemplate. It makes one physically ill – then angry – to witness blue-shirted TSA goons degrading old ladies and children (and adult males, too). It is enraging to hear about people who are harming no one being thrown into cages as a result of having offended against some manufactured statute. It is depressing to look about one and see a world in which men feed on men – via the ballot box, via the bureaucracy. In which all it takes to take your neighbor’s property – perhaps even his life – is a voting majority in the next election. 
The Libertarian and the anarchist do not want anything from others that isn’t the result of peaceful, free consent. The Libertarian and the anarchist proceed from the old common law idea that for their to be a crime there must be a victim – and that absent a victim, any harassment or prosecution is itself a crime. Where we, as individuals, personally disagree with the choices made by others is insufficient cause for forcible interference. It does not mean approval. It can even mean avoidance – or censure. But it can never mean force in the absence of a victim. The “greatest good” is liberty – free will, free choice – and can never flow from the barrel of a gun.
We accept that we must live – and let live.
Even when it chafes.
Even when we see it as foolhardy.
And even when there will be negative consequences – because we know that it is better for individuals to face the negative consequences of their individual actions than it it is to impose negative consequences wholesale on others who have given no cause to warrant it. We know there is no justice in this – and much tyranny.
Clover is the dark matter opposite of this at the core of his being. Though he will speak in terms of “cooperation” and “helping” others, his voluntarism ends when the volunteering does. Decline – and you will face force. Clovers cannot abide agreeing to disagree. If you do not agree to “help” – you will be forced to help. If you are not interested in “cooperating,” you will be compelled to cooperate. 
It is the Clover’s way – or much worse than merely the highway.
There is no yours. Only ours. The collective, with Clover as its arbiter. “Society,” “our children.” The relentless We.
The Clover is like a suffocating parent in being suffused with the desire to control – and to control for the “good” of the “child.” There is the always-present self-righteousness, the moralizing, that accompanies Cloverism. The Clover is possessed of superior knowledge in all things. He knows it. He feels it.
And he will make you do it.
But he is worse than a suffocating parent because one cannot quit him, ever. A child may have to endure while he is a child, but emancipation is always there on the horizon, a beacon of hope in the midst of temporary oppression. He knows that, come 18, he will be free. That his parents will no longer be able to oppress him – unless he freely consents to be oppressed. He may leave – and be done with them. The worst they can do to him is rant and rave, or withhold affection. But they are powerless to control him.
Yet he is not free. 
The impotent rage of his parents against his willfulness, his determination to live his life as he sees fit is replaced by the potent rage of the Clovers all around him. The ones who, like the parents he has left behind, know best about what he must believe, with whom to associate (and not), under what conditions he shall live his life – and so on – and are determined to compel his compliance to a degree beyond the most hysterical rantings of Mommy Dearest.
And who, unlike Mommy Dearest, have an enforcement mechanism at their disposal. Not merely the apparatus of the state, but millions of little helpers. The small-fry Clovers who suffer from the same defect of mind and soul. Who are prepared to man the checkpoints, the cubicles, the squad cars and the prison cells. Who are ready – and more than willing – to do their job.
There is no reprieve, no escape – no light at the end of the tunnel.
Cloverism is eternal, because it is congenital. 
A defect in the human genome.
Until this cancer can be excised, liberty will be imperfect – and ephemeral. Brief respites, temporary beacons of light – invariably snuffed by the urge to control, the incapacity to live – and let live.
Throw it in the Woods?
99% of people in daily life really dont care what you do within reason. But these same people vote for psychopathic politicians who want to extend state control over every aspect of our life. This is all due to media conditioning which is also run by the same psychopaths. Women and the young are more susceptible to this conditioning hence their voting patterns. The original right to vote in the US Constitution was reserved for the male productive class. Should have stayed that way. Women are great at a lot of things but theyre too emotional and not logical enough to really think about the government policies theyre voting on. My girlfriend is a brainwashed liberal that cant argue a single point. And she really doesnt care to boot. Universal suffrage led to the centralized police state we have today
“The original right to vote in the US Constitution was reserved for the male productive class. ”
More accurately, the constitution didn’t recognize voting as a right. Voting is a privilege of citizenship, and may be made conditional by the states. The 15th amendment which failed ratification but was enacted anyway, refers to a right to vote. There is no such thing. If voting was a right, then anyone who happens to be near a polling place could claim that it’s his natural, God given right to vote even though he’s a citizen of Estonia.
I can agree with most of what’s been said in the last posts by Eric and Benjamin, with the following caveat: Conditions, attitudes and even personalities are so influenced by the State that any opinions of those conditions must be held open ended (subject to change). Without the State and religion acting as external authorities everyone must become self-reliant and determine their own path in life. In a stateless society human growth will spiral beyond our current imagination. Everything will be different and hopefully considerably better. So, opinions held today won’t be valid in the future.
My contention that Men and Women are equal “as humans” does not mean that women can perform the role of men in society on an equal basis. But, by the same token men are not likely to perform the role of women either. Each provides benefits to the other which when joined in a partnership synergistically outperforms that of each individually. So, each owes their success to the other in partnership.
The problem with women in American society, as I see it, is that they learn at an early age that statism provides them with many advantages over men. When women take advantage statist laws to rob and cheat men out of their earned values and rights as fathers, they lose the respect of men.
Agreed, Jaesun – but with the caveat that everything you noted applies equally to men.
For instance:
“When women take advantage statist laws to rob and cheat men out of their earned values and rights as fathers, they lose the respect of men.”
Just replace “women” with “men.”
Not just rhetorically, either.
Alexander Hamilton was a man; he sowed the seeds (more than anyone) for the Fed and a fiat currency driven economy, which has impoverished all but the elites.
John Dewey and Horace Mann were men. They conspired to cripple the minds of generations of Americans via “public” (that is, government schools).
Abe Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson (and his “wife,” Col. House) FDR, Hoover, LBJ, Carter, Clintigula, The Chimp… men.
Fixating on sex organs is tilting at windmills. Men can be just as collectivist and coercive as women; though each in different ways.
I don’t care what the sex of my abuser is. The issue is – I am being abused.
Jaesun, I agree largely with what you wrote; but not entirely, since I believe you over-simplified it.
I agree with you that a man, with an excellent woman working on his team, does much better than he could do alone. (The synergy you describe is the ideal case, and is certainly possible.)
Of course, a man with a common woman (along with the state’s meddling) is much worse off, for having her in his life, than he is alone. (And then when she leaves, whoa nelly!) Even 3,000 years ago, a wise man wrote “It is better to live on a corner of the roof, than inside the house with a quarrelsome woman.” Cheaper to rent, maybe.
But, they don’t each owe their success to the partnership. The man would have thrived on his own… just not as much as he could with a good team behind him. The woman, generally speaking, would not have been able to maintain a reasonable lifestyle in a world of: man-woman teams, and men alone, and women alone… the vast majority of such women would become something like a beggar, or would be dependent on their fathers.
The woman in your example certainly does owe her success to being on her husband’s team. He is sometimes better off for it, too.
But, Eric’s point is really off-target. He shows us a very few men (TPTB) who use the state to rob, essentially all men. Then he compares that to nearly all women, who use the state to rob and defraud essentially all men, too. (Both of these situations are brought about through the work of TPTB.)
The woman who is not party to these crimes is rare, indeed. Exceeding rare.
The man who is not party to these crimes passes you on every street corner. (Not including cops and “public” employees, etc.)
It is OK, at a simple level, to say things like “I don’t care who…”, or “regardless who…”, or “gender notwithstanding…”. But you must get past that very quickly, if you want to see what is really going on, and decide on where your goal is for escaping this mess.
Fixating on “sex organs”? Come on. We all know the present setup (the Matrix) is bad, and must be scrapped or improved. But, it really helps to know where you/it need to go. I continue to bring to your attention, with all kindness and due respect intended, that creating something great, and then bolting women’s lib onto it, as an addition, will quickly bring you back to what you have today.
Men who do not have self-enforced and community-enforced exclusivity over the sex of their women and the fidelity of their women in other areas of life too, will not work, will not move society forward, will not defend the community, etc. They will defect to a society/community where their rights as men and husbands and fathers are respected and enforced. The men who remain in the perverse society will, by and large, become couch potatoes or gangsters or slaves. That society will fall.
The resulting conquest will not be good for the children (you people who think that that is the big criterion). It will not be good for the women. And, it will be very very bad for the men.
Genuinely,
Hi Ben,
You write:
“But, Eric’s point is really off-target. He shows us a very few men (TPTB) who use the state to rob, essentially all men.”
I only mentioned a few, but I could easily mention many more. Is that really necessary to make the point?
Next:
” Then he compares that to nearly all women, who use the state to rob and defraud essentially all men, too. (Both of these situations are brought about through the work of TPTB.)”
So, women are exempt from things like taxation, inflation, shyster banks, the TSA, roadside “safety” checkpoints? And only men are defrauded?
I need to get a sex change!
Hi, Eric.
While I am quite sure that a sex change would certainly reduce your risk of abuse in a number of those cases; but that wasn’t what I was driving at.
I’ll state it again, in different words, if I may.
You will meet many men, in a given day, who are not party to these crimes. They are nearly all victims of those crimes, yes.
And, you are very unlikely to meet a woman who is not party to those crimes. But, every woman you meet is a victim of them, too (not as often nor as severely as a man, since many many statist thefts are transfers of wealth from the men who produce it, to women. (And, very few men are able to get out of criminal responsibility through crying or showing a little leg).
So, almost all women are certainly victims of statist crimes (not nearly as severely as men). And, so are all men victims of them.
But, many men don’t participate in state-proxied violence/theft/fraud against their neighbours, voluntarily. Nearly all women do.
Victims=> nearly everybody.
Perpetrators => nearly all women and a minority of men.
So, that being the case, your sex change would not keep you from being a victim.
In a concentration camp or a prison, all inmates are abused, but not all abuse. Some become kapo’s, and abuse their fellows on behalf of the “officers” who are abusing them…
Who have been designated as our kapo’s?
@Benjam from:
Benjamin on September 17, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Congratulations! I believe you’ve surpassed my defensive-aggression-to-prevent-abortion unpopularity post by exactly two orders of magnitude.
Prepare for pariah-dom.
Before I launch the imprecatory declamation I feel brewing in me at your post, let’s clarify terms.
If a man who already owns a house invites his girlfriend to live with him, he’s within his rights to tell her to leave at his discretion–TRUE.
If a man who already owns a house invites his fiancee to live with him, he’s within his rights to tell her to leave at his discretion–TRUE.
If a man who already owns a house invites his wife to live with him, he’s within his rights to tell her to leave at his discretion–TRUE. Or at least, in common law states. His name is the only one on the deed; it’s his. If he does this without good cause, he’s an asshole and deserves the scorn of his community.
If a man and a woman, regardless of marriage, buy a house together then by common law it’s theirs in joint ownership, and he can’t kick her out.
So that seems simple enough; it all comes down to private property, a core tenet of liberty and libertarian theory.
You then venture into some truly bizarre territory:
And in the next sentence deny women the ability to ever earn property, because they do so under the protection of men? Monday, Tuesday, WTF?
The first quote leads me to think some woman has taken exception to your philosophy…and taken you to the cleaners in divorce court.
As for the application of individualism to smaller and smaller units–I call bullshit. Children are not capable of making their own judgments yet; so we guide them, cajole them, and punish them when necessary. But always, always, mindful that they are nascent sovereigns in their own right. If I don’t model that respect, how will they come into their sovereignty? If I’m a “benign dictator” at home, when they emerge from home they’ll seek another “benign dictator”.
How do you fail to see that? Model for children that which you wish them to become. For mine, that’s an independent, free sovereign.
Hi Methyl. 🙂
Kicks his wife out… except for good cause… scorn of his community.
Ahh… I see you’re aware of some of the social responsibilities of men, simply because they are men. Now, remember (think way back), and find out what the responsibilities of women are.
Also, you make a distinction among girlfriend, fiancee, and wife. However, you don’t carry along the rest of the qualities that those distinctions convey.
“Girlfriend” living with you is the commonly understood term “loose woman”. “Fiancee” means “promised/pledged”. That is a woman whose father has pledged her to you. “Wife” is an old english word that, shockingly, means “female genitals”. When you say “this is my wife”, you’re not saying words that mean “this is my partner”; the words mean “this is MY female genitals, keep off, spoken for”.
I didn’t make up the language, but that is what the words mean. If you think that men should carry the old obligations into a marriage arrangement, then you ought to believe that the women also carry theirs. If you want to re-engineer the women’s place away, then you need to get rid of the men’s responsibilities, too. But, it seems that so far, you don’t.
That is funny, what you wrote about monday tuesday wtf. I’ve never seen that, before. That’s very funny.
But, no, I didn’t deny women the ability to earn their own property… I simply pointed out that those who do so have done it in the protective shelter of the men (a point most are too polite to mention, or even face).
Also, your several appeals to common law fall flat, as they are simply appeals to an earlier statist situation… even if that one was better than the present one, in your estimation. English common law did not come into existence from the void, as a standard of goodness. And, if you want to appeal to common law (which I’d deny anyone as a standard), you ought again to be consistent, and remember a husband’s rights, regarding his wife, in common law.
Aha… you say that “we” (I suppose) musn’t extend freedom to children, because children are not capable of making their own judgments, yet. What a crock of BS, though, my friend Methyl. Children are very capable of making their own judgments, and you know it. It’s just that they will not make the RIGHT judgments.
Children left to their own judgments will cause havoc… this is especially true of teenage boys, in terms of the destruction of they will cause to “all of us” (men and boys, women and girls of their own families and of the neighbours).
But, aha…. you’re starting to catch on. You recognize that children are not “sovereigns”. There is no need to take away their self-rule… they don’t have it to start with. No one is denying it to them.
I wonder who else, when artificially empowered, causes havoc for the whole populace, and all families? Hmmm… I’m trying to think who it may be… Present-day and historic examples… it’s on the tip of my tongue.
Oh, no, I’m not raising my children as nascent sovereigns. I’m raising my sons to be good men; and I’m raising my girls to be good women/wives (same word). My son will have to assume responsibilities of a leader (even against his will), when his Papa is no longer around. He will have gained some practice, however (hopefully), while managing the small-scale example of his nuclear family. Before he must take over responsibility for his extended family.
Shalom, y’all,
Eric – with all due respect, we may not live long enough to reach “critical mass” on the libertarian live and let live way of life. I’ve been to war and I’ve seen the passion with which enemies of that philosophy fight to kill anyone that doesn’t agree with them. So, yes, I believe that self-defense is not optional, and being willing to fight for freedom is not optional. Liberty is a tenuous proposition in the face of so many hate-filled extremists.
It’s the story of the sheep, the wolves, and the sheepdogs. Sheep don’t like to see teeth-baring critters – so both the wolves and the sheepdogs scare them and irritate them. Yet it’s the sheepdogs who will lay down their lives to protect the sheep from the wolves. Nevertheless, the sheep keep trying to hold the sheepdogs back and hamper their ability to keep the wolves at bay – gun control comes to mind.
Battles for personal liberty go back to the beginning of recorded human history. The Druids were perhaps one of the most intelligent and egalitarian societies that ever existed. (Don’t believe all you read about them. Their history was written by their conquerors.) They couldn’t survive in the face of the marauding hordes. Our world would be much different if they had. And they didn’t. It’s as much a fantasy as “let’s all hold hands and sing kumbaya and unicorns will fall from the sky.”
It’s an unfortunate truth that there are a LOT of effed up people in the world. I live near our southern border. What I see and hear would knock fantasies of libertarian consensus right out of your head. Slavery, torture, gratuitous killings, beheadings — all just south of the US border in plain view of the world. Yet our press doesn’t cover any of it. It’s just too unpleasant. Truth and Reality often are.
My apologies for the clover slam. I was searching for a way to say what I just said above. And it was late… ;-D
It’s just very disheartening to see all this misogynist claptrap from supposedly liberty-loving people. How did *I* lose my right to Liberty due to the shape of my skin? This is dark-ages thinking and very disturbing. In fact, currently in the US more than 50% of all females over the age of 50 live alone. Many women under the age of 50 are heads of households. We are already fending for ourselves. And we are learning how to defend ourselves. I never said I was a ninja, but I CAN take care of myself. That’s already been tested.
Benjamin — First of all, I’m already on a “team” and not a loner. I’m well aware of what we have ahead of us and am more prepared than most.
What you’re failing to take into consideration is the fact that your “we” (meaning you males) DIDN’T “allow” women to vote. In the beginning years of this Republic, only White Land Owning Males could vote. In other words – the elitests — because few males owned land as well. No non-white males were allowed to vote, even if they owned land. So when you want to go back to the “good ol’ days” – exactly how far back do you want to go? I’m sure right now the political elite are lamenting that they let any of us vote! (Thus the electoral college!) Not exactly a libertarian world-view.
And if you want to talk about horrible things one gender or the other gave to us: Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao, Ceausescu, Pol Pot, Khmer Rouge… Any of those ring a bell? Those aren’t women. Women are a civilizing force on men, yes. But many conservative women and midwestern women have a practical sensibility that includes learning how to take care of yourself, being accountable and responsible for yourself, keeping your word, and operating with ethics and integrity. I am not alone in holding those views. And I’m not as much of an outlier as you think I am. Perhaps in your little corner of America. Come to the Southwest. There are plenty of us.
If the perfect non-women-voting world you espouse is true, why are there men on the Left? And since this is one of the few countries in the developed world that hasn’t had a female President, how can the women be all that influential? Wouldn’t it hold true that women would vote in a woman president if we are ALL on the same wavelength? Just goes to show you don’t understand women.
Onward.
have a great week.
You’re right about the sheepdogs, Vickie. Men are the sheepdogs. Some other men are the wolves.
The men have manufactured some teeth for the sheep (the women and children) to use, too. Doesn’t make a sheep a dog.
Vickie, you write that you are already on a team. In that case, your team has a leader/commander… or else it is no team at all.
Also, no… no women under 50 are heads of households. (I was raised from age 5 in a single-mom situation… so I know it as well as anyone here.) Those are headless households, being bouyed up by our socialist/feminist government. When allowed to return to their natural levels (when socialist government goes broke), all of those headless households will rapidly ask permission to meld into households that do have heads.
Oh, and you didn’t lose your liberty/freedom by being born with a certain shape of skin. You never had liberty. You were born naked and helpless (like everyone else). You weren’t autonomous, and the presumption that you one day become an independent constellation of some sort is un-proven and untrue.
You beg the question.
Next, as has been discussed at length, yes Mao and Stalin were men… all powerful bad guys are men, almost exclusively. No one argues about that!(?) Of course, they couldn’t be women.
But, no, absolutely not, women are not a civilizing force on men. Men are the civilizing force on women. Men demand that their women be feminine and womanly and stay out of some things (like fights among men). People say that societies eventually fail when their women go bad, so women must be the civilizing factor. But, that’s false. Societies fail when men become so corrupt, and stop caring so much about goodness, that they no longer even force their women to be good (or at least maintain the appearance.) Women are the least civil creatures I know of… but when men stop demanding they act like ladies, then their civilization is too-far gone to be likely to come back.
Oh, and Vickie… I was born and raised in the Midwest, and later moved to San Tan Valley, AZ. So, I think I’ve already come and seen what Midwestern and Southwestern women are all about. Most southwestern women (New Mexico, Arizona) seem to think that they are Hollywood starlets. (However, I will give credit where due, that I have met some very feminine young women, far outside the big cities (an hour or more into the country/deserts).
Vickie, your last remark just goes to show that I do understand women. But, no woman will ever understand what it is to be a man. She can only feel it from the outside. Just like when you hear a woman say to a man “if you were a real man…”. Amazing. No woman will ever know what it is to be a real man, nor could she mold a boy into one. But, she can certainly learn to recognize one. (These days, as soon as they do recognize one, they hate him for being one.)
Vickie, no woman has yet been voted President, because there is still a significant number of women voters who realize how asinine and self-destructive that would be. (One of them has already posted a comment on this thread.) Men and women are all born knowing what the natural, good, beneficial order of human family and community are. They have to be “educated” much further to forget that and start railing for the dissolution of our people/society.
Peace,
One thing I’ve recently learned is to realize that in order to allow for change to higher levels of consciousness I need to let go of some staunchly held beliefs. And, admit that there is the possibility that my beliefs may be inaccurate or at least moot or irrelevant to the progress I seek.
Applying this new attitude to the discussion on women and men, here’s my take: Men and women are both equal. Due to their obvious physical differences each has its own nature. And, both men and women are quite capable of benevolent change. Rather than locking each gender into a stereo- typical generalized description, I prefer to have an open ended opinion to allow for improvement. And, such improvement will be sorely needed during the coming chaos and beyond.
@Jaesun,
Your point is very well put, and respectfully so, that we must “admit that there is the possibility that my beliefs may be inaccurate or at least moot or irrelevant to the progress I seek.”
I continue to interject in this discussion the fact that the old, worn-out, staunchly-held belief of almost everyone is: “Men and women are both equal. Due to their obvious physical differences each has its own nature. And, both men and women are quite capable of benevolent change.”
To discuss those thoughts, one is not applying a new attitude to the discussion on men and women; instead one is re-iterating the old 20th-century staunchly held belief. Those who think that they are looking forward, these days, are usually just re-hashing the generally accepted wisdom. The very wisdom which all statists condition us to accept.
Trying to shoe-horn women into a workable agreement to live-and-let-live, as though they were like men, is by this day and age a moot and irrelevant proposal. Another proposition like it, is to suggest that the differences between men and women are basically physical; men and women are actually different on a holistic level.
Jaesun, I for one appreciate your respectful, non-confrontational choice of words, while you make your disagreement (and even your perception of my being way behind your level of consciousness) so apparent.
Regards,
@ Benjamin
My opinion is not a result of “statist conditioning”, but rather my honest and objective opinion. Woman is man with womb. Despite their differences man and woman are equal as humans. And, my understanding of the word “human” is that it equates to “god-man” (possessing the capabilities of much higher levels of consciousness).
This is “my” new attitude and in no way do I claim superiority to you or any other human. Without this open ended attitude the creative flow of expansion and human progress would be preempted. And, I think that could be the reason why so many people are “asleep” and unaware of Big Brother’s evil intentions.
I think anyone, especially the salient members of this forum, is quite capable of seeing the benefit of this new attitude.
Dang, I can’t wait ’til I’m salient!
One day, maybe my opinions will also be objective. (But, I really don’t know.) Although, I am quite sure that they’re honest, like yours.
Seeing the benefit… yes. In real life (I mean, not on-line), I often speak with people about this common habit: for things we like, we do a benefit analysis. For things we don’t like, we do a cost analysis. Most of the time, what we really need to do is, not to understand the benefits, and not to understand the costs… but to understand both: a cost-benefit analysis.
However, and more importantly, we must make the bulk of our decisions based on neither. We must first ask (before considering cost-benefit) which choice is right. Not which one we imagine, in our very limited understanding, will create the most desirable outcome.
Asking about the outcomes first is the “ends justify the means” approach. It is a good and useful one, for those decisions of no right/wrong consequence. However, for those issues which can be decided, first, by asking what is right… we ought never to decide those based on the perceived benefits nor costs.
Peace,
This article and the comments were pretty good until it went off the rails with all the BS chauvenist remarks about women. How the HELL can any of you consider yourselves fans of Liberty if you wish NO LIBERTY for females? One idiotic statement was that women are not dangerous!? Tell that to the Mossad. Their women are some of the most dangerous of all their soldiers. Indeed – there’s an old saying, “Females of all species are most dangerous when they appear to retreat.” Trust me, Benjamin, you try to take my liberty away or try to cause me harm and your DNA will learn a new lesson about women! And I don’t need a MAN to deliver that message to you.
Another stupid comment, “Women are all natural communists.” What a bunch of Bull. SOME women are, not all. Women in their breeding phases will naturally want community around them to protect the young. That doesn’t make them communists! It’s a natural way to protect the next generation from harm. I belong to a very feminine, yet powerful group of women who are all armed, shoot competitively, and can probably kick some of your pantywaist asses. And no, I’m not a lesbian.
The biggest problem I have with the Libertarian philosophy is that all you guys do is sit around and debate. “The deeper philosophical implications of…. are…blah blah blah.” How’s that working in the real world? If you want Liberty, you really DO have to fight for it. You can’t sit around and wish for it or lament that it isn’t there. That makes you a Clover as well! How is sitting around debating while enjoying the fruits of other’s labors NOT cloverism?
The only way anyone can have the luxury of being a Pacifist and Philosopher is because there are others out there who AREN’T!
I’m a baby boomer. I agree in part that the feminist movement threw us under the bus. There are important things that were lost in that battle. And I tire of the Left wing attacks on men that are trying to turn men into hairy women. I hate the whole manscaping thing, and the metrosexual movement. Yuck! and I worry that Alan-Aldism has destroyed the cojones of most older males I know. Yeah, I want a man to be tender — in bed — but I don’t want all that mewling and puking about sensitivity training and feeling white liberal guilt over their successes that seems to be the norm, especially on the Left side of the aisle.
I still want a man to be a real man. But I draw the line at his ability (as Benjamin stated) to hit his woman if he sees fit!? What the hell? Women and men should be partners in their relationships – working together to achieve mutual goals and to improve their lot in life. A woman and man in relationship should be free to set up whatever works for them. I respect men who respect me. If one tries to hit me, well, once he gets out of the hospital, he’ll either respect me or be gone.
Hitting a woman or treating her like property is most assuredly NOT LIBERTARIAN! Or pro-Liberty! Have you READ your statements over again? What you advocate is Totalitarianism against women! Only Fascists and Totalitarians believe that other people are property. When did women stop being PEOPLE to you, Benjamin? Why all this pompous posturing about being Libertarian and you have left out half the population? Why do you hate women so much? What did your mama do to you that made you this way? When you have these misogynist thoughts, keep them to yourself and don’t sully the Libertarian conversation!
If you do not want Liberty for all without regard to race, gender, religion or political persuasion, then all of you are hypocrites!
Perfectly said, except for the standard right wing mantra of blame the ‘so called…liberals’ for all of societies ills.
Yes, perfectly said with lovely, appropriate nuancing… Had me on the floor LMAoff!
Thanks for the treat Vickie
Regards..Tre
Vikie, I lose over four months a year of my labor to government. How losing that much of my income a year is cloverism, I’ll be dammed to know. My productivity loss is even higher since the vast profits made on my labor that I don’t get are also taxed.
As to women. Some of the language I have seen here is rather clumsy, however I understand what it is getting at. There are natural tendencies of the human social order that allow people to be manipulated by those who understand them. Much of the political manipulation we see rose out of early 20th century advertising methods. These methods don’t work on everyone but they seem to work on everybody within at least two standard deviations of the mean best I can tell. That’s male or female however manipulations are often targeted to one or the other. Those targeted at women are often with the knowledge that men will go along with it because they won’t be socially acceptable to women if they do not.
One such advertising was to convince women of the diamond engagement ring. Marketing aimed to manipulate women via the way humans behave socially. Well it’s getting on to about a century now… what do most women expect men to buy them? The political manipulation works much the same way.
It does not matter that you and your friends are outliers any more than Eric or anyone else here is. Outliers don’t matter much. Eventually they’ll deal with us in other ways. It’s about manipulating the heard.
If just one or two standard deviations around the mean of women can be successfully manipulated to vote the government new power that’s huge. This is why voting blocks get added. They understand who for the most part will vote for the pieces of their agenda or who can be manipulated to do so, without of course knowing the overall agenda.
So you are saying MEN aren’t manipulated as well? What a crock THAT is! Fast cars, Muscle cars, AXE cologne for men, the list goes on and on. This misogynist rant putting all the blame on women is disingenuous BS. It sounds to me like there are a lot of guys who just broke up with their lady friends. And you’re gonna tell me the ads about it lasting longer than four hours don’t get your attention? Right.
As for the rings – When I was married we went in and bought our rings together and stayed within our budget. To us the rings were personal symbols of continuity, a symbol respected in many cultures for thousands of years.
And yes, we are all manipulated by marketing. Numerous studies over the years on subliminal advertising have proven that… not just rings – but entire ways of living our lives. And your point is…?
BTW – I wasn’t using standard “blame the left for everything” — but the advertising and movies that have come out of Hollywood (a very Left wing culture) have numbed and desensitized males to their true manhood. It’s very depressing and distressing to real women… we can’t find many men who are still in possession of their cojones.
Besides, there are HUGE blocks of Conservative Women and Libertarian women who are actually thinking before they vote! And the Conservative women are, by and large, way better looking than the Liberals… right? Check it out. Anne Coulter vs. Hillary, Nancy Pelosi vs. Michelle Bachman, Madeleine Albright vs. well, my chihuahua… (Hey, in some states my chihuahua can vote! “We don’t need no stinking birth certificate to register you!”)
And Tre – Thanks for getting me… ;-D
So you are saying MEN aren’t manipulated as well?
WTF? I explicitly stated the exact opposite. They are. Often the easiest way being through women. Want to manipulate a man into doing something he wouldn’t do? Get a woman he’s interested in to demand he do it. More times than not he’ll do it. Notice the list of manipulations of men you listed, how many of them are related to female attention? You’ve agreed with me without even noticing you did.
A manipulation of a man is to get him to go kill those brown people over there because they are a threat to america. A manipulation of woman is to say support drunk driving checkpoints for our safety. (MAAD, for instance)
Anne Coulter is regime, as is H. Clinton and all the rest. All exist within a very narrow band of thought and principle. They differ only in detail and priority, not on principle.
Dear BrentP,
I think that you will agree, though, that Anne Coulter was more attractive 10-15 years ago than Hillary was at any time during her maidenhood.
So, we can agree that many more clover men would have committed atrocities willingly for Anne, than could have been drafted into doing so for Hillary.
Men who love their freedom pay no attention to the speech of women: Anne nor Hillary.
I myself am guilty sometimes of agreeing to engage women in discussion… when I know that nothing good can come from it. Please, I do ask you to excuse this destructive flaw in my character… I am genuinely working on it.
I once went to hear Lady (not yet the Baroness) Thatcher speak. I was about 14 or 15 at the time. I was genuinely shocked.
At that audience, I realized for the first time in my life, that whenever women speak I have a co-processor running in my mind, to parse their speech into something almost coherent or meaningful, prior to pushing the information through my mind (thus avoiding too much damage from lunacy/ GIGO). As I sat there, barely more than a lad, I thought, “her speech is so logical, so LUCID… it’s almost like… like listening to a man speaking!”.
This is a true story! It happened in about 1989 at the Front Row auditorium in Ohio (now demolished). I only became aware that I had subconsciously had to develop this femme-speech pre-processor, when it kept outputting the same data that had gone in (for Lady Thatcher’s speech). It became apparent that I was just wasting brain effort, and could just process the information directly.
I was so absolutely impressed with Thatcher, and thought, “maybe there really are a very few women who can operate at something approaching the level of men”. It was only years later that I realized that politicians have professional speech-writers, and that hers may well have been men.
Warm regards,
Coulter always struck me as mannish. A bug-eyed, Adam’s appled butterface who thinks she’s a lot hotter than she is….
Control freaks are ugly to me. I suppose there might be a time before both started becoming social climbing control freaks, at such a point they may have been attractive.
As to the rest I see things in statistical form. As far as men and women thinking/speaking goes I see two overlapping bell curves.
Good stuff, Vicki!
Thanks for an excellent post – one I agree with in every respect except one. You appear to suggest that if we’re not literally fighting – physically resisting – the burgeoning tyranny all around us, then we’re Clovers too. I’m not certain this was your intention, so if I’m off base, apologies for my interpretation. If it was your intention, however, I’d counter that physical resistance at this point is literally suicidal and thus, pointless. And it will remain pointless until we reach an intellectual/moral/philosophical critical mass – until enough people share the ideals we discuss here. That’s what has to happen for any paradigm shift to occur. For good – or ill. The paradigm we’re in the midst of now enveloped us because so many people wanted it to. Most Americans are authoritarians of one type or another. Democrats – or Republicans. Liberals – or conservatives. Both accept collectivism and its corollary – authoritarianism.
Until that changes, nothing will change.
When I was very young, I read about the “remnant” – a coin termed by a little-known Libertarian writer back in the 1930s, just as American-style democratic collectivism was really picking up momentum. He meant, people who are not authoritarians; people who still believed in individual rights and so, liberty. He wrote that it might take generations for these concepts to be more than the “oddball” view of a handful of “kooks.”
We may live to see this day, some of us. I hope I to be among them!
Good morning.
Vickie, in order to be caring and kind, I’ll just let you know… your threatening to give a lesson to my “DNA”, or whatever, is simply bombastic machismo, but coming from a girl. It may hurt you to admit it to yourself (or maybe not, I dunno); but you are very much less capable of hurting a man that he is of hurting you. You’re not going to teach men any lessons through violence. G.I.Jane is a myth.
However, co-operation (getting on a man’s team) will work out better for you.
As BrentP has already explained, if you think you’re a ninja… that’s fine; but, it would only make you an outlier. On the grand scale, it doesn’t change anything.
Women presently dominate men, in the west, through the deployment of other violent men (cops, prison guards, and the like). This is one of the most necessary conditions for implementing a heavy-handed government that steals away the Rights of Man. It’s made possible by the constant influx of money to the gubmint, through the (presently) elevated dollar in our system of world trade.
Soon, when that ceases to be the case, the situation in the west will de-stabilize, and things will of necessity return to their most stable and natural configuration.
The negotiation of disputes and rights, etc, will take place among men/heads-of-households. Women and children and hired-men will not have individual standing (a voice in the process, and certainly not a vote in it)… but will instead be part of a household.
I’m not making this up. This is the historical norm/fact. Even then, there will be outliers… but it is not important to speak about those few cases, but to understand the 97% of how things must go. Otherwise, nobody will make it.
Whether you want to say so out loud, or not, everything you have, and your very life, came from the work of a man. Not men AND women. Men. Farming and mining and manufacturing activity of men. Not AND women. And, back to the topic of this freedom-minded blog… governments (or most importantly, courts) were not established to handle the terrible disputes between women.
They exist to help men settle disputes non-violently. A violent dispute among women is known as a “cat fight”. There is a reason we use that diminutive term. You’re really not a threat/problem worth spending a lot of time handling.
To make the point: the most freedom possible in the real world; the most happiness possible; the most freedom desirable; is achieved when political power is the most distributed (not centralized), out to the household level… out to the level of the man. Diluting it further (to his women and children, as we do today) will only cause destruction and disaster and tyranny (by a few bad men), and eventually overthrow from an outside force (an outside group that is willing to stick with the stable and strong natural configuration, that works).
—————————————————–
And, Mossad?! Vickie, how many times per year do you go to Israel? How many Tzahal members do you have in your mobile phone’s address book? I’m sorry Vickie, but something tells me you might be bluffing on your intimate knowledge of Israeli special forces/intelligence services. You’re invoking a myth, just like the myth of the Amazon women, and the myth of ancient matriarchies.
So then, Vickie, I encourage you to get on a team, and give your best efforts and best attitude to it. Loners probably aren’t going to make it. Even your precious Mossad gals are well-versed in the use of the words, “yes, sir”.
Peace,
And it all boils down to the fact that throughout history, thieves, gangs of thieves, rulers, wars, coercion, collectivism, and the taxes to fund it all, have been the work of men. The modern fathers of collectivism were men; Marx and Engels, for example. Where was any woman included or consulted in drawing up and ratifying the formal documents at the heart of government in this country? And Lincoln certainly was no feminized bleeding-heart liberal — especially in the word’s original and classical sense. Hitler wouldn’t even marry “his” woman, but the Nazis made life-or-death laws against adultery and homosexuality (which their PTB of course did not observe). Lenin; Stalin; Pol Pot; Mao; Hirohito; Churchill; J.P. Morgan, the Rothschilds and Rockefellers; Carnegie. Men. Throughout history, in both the Western world and the Eastern world; in both North and South American ancient and native tribes; in Australian Aboriginal societies; New Guinea . . .. Where are the women initiating this coercion, violence and thievery? (Two Western women could be cited, the British queens Elizabeth I and Victoria, but they were products of the male-dominated and controlled monarchies they were by chance born into, and were not exactly “chosen” to be on the throne, rather men’s laws of succession forced the issue, in that “legitimate” men did not exist within the “royal” line, and those women faced great odds in even the slight advances in liberty they made. They were aberrations — and would be even in our time.)
TPTB are men; marketing is to control men.
It’s all about men controlling and ruling and robbing other men by whatever means works.
So it seems that libertarian independence is really a girl thing — objecting to the violence and criminal rule of men. As historical objects of men’s lust for power and to rule, women generally aren’t really great fans of stealing, robbing, killing, and enslaving. They’ve been part of the “spoils of victory” through the centuries, merely because they aren’t men.
NAP is certainly not a “natural” tendency of men, observationally and historically speaking. “Libertarianism” probably wouldn’t even be an issue if it weren’t for the coercion and violence involved in every other form of political society.
And that is the pity.
It’s garbage in and out to scapegoat women as favoring political collectivism maintained by violent totalitarianism — carried out and headed by men — out of their tendency to favor non-violence demonstrated in risk aversion and desiring a safe and secure environment to rear their children.
Violence, stealing, robbing, controlling, ruling others is a guy thing, plain and simple. Even among chimps, whose males organize gangs deliberately to satiate a bloodlust through malevolent hunting of (usually isolated individuals, though sometimes going after other neighbor established family groups) peaceful neighbors, both males and females, evidently just for the fun of it. But not among gorillas, where females choose to stay under a male who will protect them and their offspring, but not go “seeking monsters to destroy.”
And any woman who adopts those means in order to see herself as “independent” has joined those who would rule her. It’s the nature of the beast.
There is only one truly human and humane basis for civilized and peaceful, safe, society, and that is the Non-Aggression Principle of libertarianism.
I believe it is something that enlightened women teach their children. But there aren’t enough who have escaped the male propaganda who do. “The hand that rocks the cradle” is the key to attaining the intellectual critical mass capable of finally peacefully ostracizing authoritarianism and establishing freedom for all, without over-arching rulers.
To those who can’t imagine life without rulers of one stripe or the other, please read Rothbard and Michael Rozeff. There’s a term for the micro-societies people can and should be free to voluntarily and mutually organize themselves into: panarchism. You can read his excellent introduction to this subject here:
Essentials of Panarchism
http://lewrockwell.com/rozeff/rozeff300.html
Also see:
The Voluntaryist
http://voluntaryist.com/fundamentals/introduction.php
There’s no real reason we can’t all be free individuals without imposing rulers over each other, except the “majority” (of whatever gender!) of people are very fond of dominating their neighbors, and don’t want to relinquish all the goodies they delude themselves they’re getting by so doing.
Rulers are merely human beings. Why should any human being(s) rule their fellows? There is no qualification to rule others; no one is qualified to rule others. You’d think that obvious lesson would have been apparent far earlier in history than now.
“Why won’t they leave us alone?” Because they choose not to; ill-gotten gain and status is too lucrative. Violence is all they know.
If we really would be free, the cradle is where it must be taught, and the household must live it every day. Children learn what they live. It’s why government schools as vital centers of indoctrination are so important to the rulers.
Powerful stuff, GrayCat!
Especially:
It’s a delusion I see gradually trending away in history.
Ultimately my dream is that humanity undergoes a phase-change and domination becomes as anarchic as divine right…a laughable concept, scorned by everyone.
There’s another problem GrayCat, people often want to be ruled. It’s easier than thinking, being self motivated and controlling themselves. It has been my experience over the years, that in most settings, if you will step up, take charge and give out assignments, most folks are happy to let you do it. When evil people do this at the national level, then hire and promote other people like them, you have the kind of mess you see now.
And I don’t think it’s as gender based as you propose either; about six percent of the population at large, male and female, are evil and gravitate to positons of authority. About 27% will go along with them to get along; men and women. Much of the time men are out doing what they think it will take to please and impress women, whether it be right or wrong. And on many occasions I’ve seen women whispering in men’s ears like Wormwood to inspire them to do evil to accomplish something she wants. So don’t pin the so much of the blame on men because the desire to get something for nothing and to inflict pain on those one despises is not gender specific by any stretch of the imagination.
Hi Gray Cat,
This is an exceptional post; I’d like to use it as a feature article, in fact. I’ll post it this morning. If you’d prefer I not do that, please advise and I will take it down. Hopefully, you’ll be ok with this – as the points you’ve made deserve a wider audience.
Top drawer!
Eric, you flatter me. Your article is excellent, in the first place. And that you open it up to us for comments and chewing on and coming together freely for mutual association is the affirmation of everything you say and believe, and many of us can stand with you. Thank you!
But the issue is contentious, and deserves more research. I skimmed to cover the basics on this testosterone vs. estrogen war. I implied some things that maybe go too far, though I don’t think in point of historical fact they’re too far afield.
I grieve to cause a wider gulf between men and women. I merely hope to clear the brush to see where we can mutually build a better bridge. We need each other, but no one needs rulers.
I just don’t see the point in all the warring and killing, and the vast majority of the six or seven billion people on this earth evidently don’t, either, whatever their culture, religion, or government. For the most part, we live peaceably with each other.
I see no reason we MUST uphold the “tradition” of rulers, robbers, and killers. I do not dispute that there are bad people among us, who will always try to dominate the rest of us. What I do dispute is that we should just shrug and accept it, because it’s our “nature.”
If we’re merely the evolutionary product of more sophisticated chemical reactions seeking to propagate genes to carry on into whatever future random chance may bring, then of course we have no choice but to accept our biological destiny; we’re nothing but a bunch of atoms banging around with no purpose.
(But then, how could we possibly know this, much less what our “nature” is?)
I do not believe we’re just a sack of chemical reactions, however “sophisticated.” (Again, if we were, how would we know?)
I believe we are more than the physical sum of our parts, and therefore there is no obligation to accept any fixed or inevitable “nature” or destiny. We think, we reason, we deal generally peaceably with our immediate neighbor. I see no reason this cannot be deliberately extended to any neighbor anywhere in the world.
Individuals do not wage killing wars. It takes lawless groups of willing participants to wage wars. Without willing participants, there are no rulers, no over-arching governments. I see no reason we must continue this obvious failure of a cultural and political paradigm. I see no reason we must be beastly.
Myriad families all over the world throughout history have demonstrated conclusively that we can peaceably channel testosterone through reason.
That’s “all” I’m proposing.
The only obstacle is those who refuse to do it — those who will not leave us alone.
But the fact we’re having this conversation indicates this is changing. And they are desperately threatened.
Oh, well.
Thank you for an excellent place to learn and know we who love freedom and self-government are not alone.
(Um, so yes, you can use what you want from my post. And no credit is due; I’m not the first to observe these things or learn about them from others. ;-))
Boothe hits the nail a little more on the head; but GrayCat(?) seems to be missing the point entirely.
There is no doubt that totalitariansm and tyranny are created and led by men, almost every time.
The important thing for people to see, in this matter we’ve been discussing, is that one of the most important tools that such tyrants have learned in recent centuries is that political dominance (violence) will be easiest achieved, if first the would-be tyrants will bring women (their voices and their votes, their influence) into the political picture.
It would be sophomoric for anyone to suggest that there could be a time/system wherein there is no political/judicial system at all. There will be discussion and dispute-reolution, or there will inevitably be violence.
No one has said that all men abhor violence and power over others (and the fruit of others’ labor). And, everyone can see that historic tyrants were men, almost always. (…of course, it could never possibly be any other way).
The real gist is that we will never need “a wise Latina” on the supreme court. (Although there is an absolute need for courts.) And if men ever need to decide a dispute that they cannot seem to resolve otherwise, by taking a vote, there will never be a benefit (for those who desire a continued, stable, least-conflict future) to pretending that women ought to have a voice or a vote in that meeting.
One of today’s favorite arguments is “regardless of…”. That is a child’s fantasy escape. If you adopt it, you are exactly like the 3 monkeys who see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil. The word “regardless” literally means, “not to look at/see it”. (Some people are getting huffy with me, because I am willing to see the evil, and to speak of it.)
When someone says “regadless of gender”, they’re putting forth a favorite fantasy. In the real world of people interacting, there is not, and never will be, a “regardless of gender”.
In your life, you have met a lot of men. And, you’ve met a lot of women.
You’ve never met a “human”.
Separate point entirely from my post above… I simply must call “bulllsh-t” on this portion of GrayCat’s rant: “women generally aren’t really great fans of stealing, robbing, killing, and enslaving”.
That is simply a lie. Nothing more subtle to say about it.
Women historically, from ancient times through the present, are very much fans of stealing, robbing (a redundance that GrayCat put in for effect), killing, and enslaving.
They love it, and they always have. They simply send their men to do it. Their pursuit is much less honorable, in that they love to risk the lives and bodies of others, but wish to reap the spoils themselves.
They intentionally mate with the man who shows the most capacity to do those things, and once he’s proven that he can and will do them, then the rest of the gals will throw themselves at him, too… and she’ll ask him for two slaves for herself, when her next birthday comes around.
With that part of your post, you simply go too far, GrayCAT. To have an opinion (well- or poorly-informed) or to have an idea, is one thing. But, this part of your post was simply propoganda, and a lie.
Women do not prefer non-violence, by and large. They do, though, prefer not to be involved with violence themselves, since they have little capacity for it.
And, it is the men who desire peace, so that they can raise THEIR children, not the women’s children.
The world over, there are men who literally continue living so that they can make everything OK for their children. Many men get life to the point where their children look to be established and alright, and the men say “Now I am ready to go (die)”.
Likewise, the world over, women are shielding and protecting the children they carried, so that when the old man finally dies and stops paying for her expenses, she’ll be able to get her children to keep her comfortable and pay for her living. Women don’t see the children comfortably set-up, and then say “I’m ready to die”. Oh, no. Women are survivors… they intend to live. No matter how much of other people’s resources it takes.
I didn’t make it that way, folks. Are you interested in what is, or what you wish was true?
The hand that rocks the cradle is the one that I hear (really, in my own life) teaching 2-year-old boys always to hold a door for females. It is just a start, right there at the cradle.
Another point you mentioned, if a family lived with individual freedom, so the children would learn that, then that family would certainly cease to be a family very quickly (children cannot mature to responsible adulthood in a libertine setting, and women do not stay loyal to the family/man, when she is in an “individual freedom” setting… look out your window for the proof); and such a family will certainly be soon replaced by another family, that lives and works as a team… not in individual freedom. A team with a leader.
The idea that no one is the leader in a household is really just the idea that everyone is a leader (commonly called “too many chiefs, and not enough indians”).
That system works between men (as in another proverb: “good fences make good neighbours”). It doesn’t work at any smaller a level than that.
The man/household is the ATOMIC level. That’s what I hope you folks may realize. If you split an atom, you release it’s energy into chaos (nuclear explosion). The atom is the stable form. Anything less is unstable and will seek a stable form right away. Any headless human group, led by a woman, is the same as a radioactive element… it slowly decays until its characteristics are lost, or it binds into another stable unit.
Women alone in a state of freedom are “free radicals”, to continue to very fitting chemical analogy. They damage, and steal energy, from everyone they come in contact with.
We should ask “Why can’t all sub-atomic particles be free, regardless of their type?” I’m just warning you that you’re shooting for a goal you don’t want. Be careful what you wish for… because you’re arguing for a solution that is really just the gestation of tyranny.
I think the confusion for you, Benjamin, is “libertine,” which you used to characterize my advocacy of a family teaching and living the idea of freedom, and “libertarianism.”
While there certainly are libertines who espouse libertarianism with an eye to exercising their perversion of libertarianism, libertarianism is not libertinism.
And there’s the crux: A libertarian family will be characterized as each adult and when attained, young adult, member having mutually-agreed to roles pertaining to their specific place in the family, but no family member will dominate — rule without question — the others.
It’s simply a fallacy to contend that this is not possible. There are families all around us who have lived it. It takes work and commitment to deliberately curb one’s own harmful tendencies, and gently, firmly, reasonably correct a growing child’s to emotional maturity, but it’s worth it.
What you argue — that it’s just our nature to be violent and authoritarian and in fact it’s vital and indispensable for family and hence civilization to cohere and continue, is false.
What you argue — that “behind the scenes” it’s really power-hungry women who cause all this violent, authoritarian harm, is false. While it’s true women are attracted to men who seem to be “the top of the heap,” the vast majority are simply seeking the man who will honor and respect her, and is her ideal of the best protector and provider who will keep her and any offspring safe and sheltered and fed. That this arrangement for creating a family for the production, care, and nurturing of children has been perverted through uncontrolled testosterone is surely not the likely fault of women, is it? It may be a favored wife or concubine has the alpha’s ear, but the other bought or captured women of his household do not, and that is not their choice.
I see the 20th century “women’s equality” movement as a backlash to at least 50,000 years of brutal dominance by men, who historically have treated women as just another cow in the herd. The cliche that children learn what they live is certainly true; women, as men, are generally the product of their homelife and culture. What is so hard to understand about that? The point is to change and weed out the bad parts and nurture good and better ones. That doesn’t mean to scrap the nuclear family. What it simply means is to remove from family life the image of the domineering, authoritarian male — and female. Why not? Mutual respect and teamwork, voluntary roles within a framework of inviolate autonomy for adults is not impossible or strange.
In this last century, to gain a stronger grip on the power they lust for, TPTB have held out the carrot of autonomy to women, who, themselves corrupted by their “traditional” servitude to men, chase it. To their detriment for the most part, I’m afraid.
(Surely you wouldn’t argue that it was their women who originated and pushed TPTB to think up this scheme and attain their power goals, would you?)
But, as with life, as long as there’s a glimmer of true freedom, for both men and women, there’s hope for positive, mutual growth. And this is all I’m advocating.
It’s hard to change eons of what is Machiavellian political philosophy, but it’s happening. And the place to birth and nurture it is in the home. With both philosophies, dominance/authoritarianism and self-government/live-and-let-live, the cliche is correct: children learn what they live.
And some of them, with intelligence and integrity, learn to rise above an authoritarian home environment.
The issue isn’t really biology-determines-destiny traditional dominance — although that’s a lurid siren song to avoid giving up rulership, illegitimate power and control over others. The issue really is whether one is willing to let others live his or her own life.
There’s nothing in that to preclude a traditional marriage arrangement. It’s just that there is no such thing as acceptable “rule of thumb” for either man or woman.
What really is wrong with this?
Benjamin, please at the very least read the pieces I linked to.
Please.
@GrayCat,
This latest post of yours (6:49 PM) is shockingly better (IMO) than the previous one. Are there two of you? 🙂
GrayCat, I respectfully disagree with you about our ability to look around and see families who have “lived it”–mutually agreed roles, etc. All the families in the USA (my present reference point) live under a rule-without-question husband and father. His name is “the state”. He claims for himself the role of final arbiter of all questions. All the families whom you reference are probably examples of the family I just described.
I assure you, without hesitation, that no man in a family is working within an agreed role. And, no divorced man is, that’s for sure. The role of the man is imposed by his father/husband, the state, and his state-appointed supervisor, the woman.
I will also contend that young adults also do not attain to freedom at their “maturity”, but simply begin to report directly to the father (state), rather than to his nanny (dad and mom). (This is critical also in creating central power.)
I suggest that the perspective that you’ve expressed may be reflective of fallacy, rather than mine.
Next, I do not exactly contend that “it’s just our nature to be violent and authoritarian and in fact it’s vital and indispensable for family”. What I do contend is that there is competition in the world, and that there is evil in the world. And, when the time comes when I tell my women and children, “Run over to the shed, and duck behind the hill!!”… if the group stands there and waits until a woman or young man says “Well, I think the better course of action would be…” Oops, too late; everybody is dead.
Such co-ordinated survival responses are only attained by “living it”, as you have mentioned. But, you do understand me correctly that the family is an authoritarian arrangement, and that it can be no other way. We do owe loyalty and honor to our fathers(or husbands) and to our mothers, in that order.
The same practiced abilities to work as a team with those who “begat” you and love you, enable a very efficient teamwork, even even during the non-critical, non-life-threatening moments. Indeed, those are the only times when such skills can be practiced. They lead to increased success, prosperity, survival, enjoyment. No team of any sort is without a leader… military, athletic, business, etc.
Only difference is that in the household, you’ve teamed up with people who are your kith and kin. It is the best possible authoritarian situation. Blood is thicker than water. Communism among citizens is terrible… but every household practices communism, and must.
Also, by the way, to remind, I never ever argued that “it’s really power-hungry women who cause all this violent, authoritarian harm”. I have written at least twice previously in this discussion, that it is a small group of men who are the primary source of feminism and statism. Femi-nazism/communism is the feminine nazism (the motherland of Russia versus the fatherland of Germany).
Next, the vast majority of women (outside our statist socialist feminist countries, do not seek at all “the man who will honor and respect her”, as you wrote. Women do not care about those things at all, in the light of their more important considerations, which you correctly pointed out: “the best protector and provider who will keep her and any offspring safe and sheltered and fed”, That’s what women want, in their natural, “free” state.
MEN, on the other hand, ARE looking for exactly what you wrote, women who will “honor and respect (him)”. These are the sine qua non of human mating relationships… and they are agreed-upon roles, to the extent that she agrees to be married to him. She could say “no, thanks”… but if she says, “I do”, then she has accepted those most basic of roles. Other minor questions like who changes the oil in the car, can be decided later.
Next, your point that “this arrangement for creating a family for the production, care, and nurturing of children has been perverted”. No, GrayCat… that IS the arrangement. It’s a two-way arrangement. He provides shelter and clothing and food and protection for her and those of his children that she carries for him… and she honors and respects him and follows his lead. That IS the “arrangement”.
It isn’t a one-way arrangement, whereby the woman gets those benefits, and does not honor and obey her husband. Nooo.
Next, you do a dishonest and slanderous injustice to the bulk of men, when you write of 50,000 years (a timespan based on no historic facts) of brutal dominance by men. Most men, when encountering a feminine gal who gets on his team and plays like a team-player (in olden days called “submission”, in the same way that the quarterback submits to the coach)… most men respond naturally to that girl with gentleness, kindness, tenderness, protectiveness. The male nature is extraordinarily good toward women, and men are not brutal (a few bad ones are). But, a woman who is an adulteress, or who tries to usurp a man… yes you’ll see those men change, to react appropriately to that woman, as well. Perhaps even brutally, but certainly appropriately.
Women were “treated as another cow in the herd”?! How blessed they were! Men were treated as another bull in the herd… and most bulls are slaughtered. Women were treated as cows in the herd by TPTB!!… not by real majority men. Maidens were taken from their husbands on their wedding nights in various Anglo-Germanic and also some Muslim cultures (at least), by TPTB! Not by their rightful husbands. You are confusing TPTB with the men, I think. (TPTB are also a few men, as I continue to admit/state.)
Next, I don’t “argue that it was their women who originated and pushed TPTB to think up this scheme and attain their power goals”. I’ve iterated several times that this was done largely by a few men. Some women were/are involved. But, it is a small group of men, basically.
Next, for me (and other men under the age of 50), there is no lurid siren call for us to maintain our traditional rulership. There is no such siren, because we’ve never known that rulership. Never seen it. Aren’t clinging to it. That argument is stale and irrelevant (no offense). I wasn’t raised when men had any influence in the family at all.
Lastly, you asked “What is really wrong with this?” And, I respond: wrong question. What is really RIGHT with it? What is really right about the state of affairs when men provide for women and children, while their end of the bargain is not being upheld? Men were not born to be the slaves in the society, but this idea of libertarianism, even within the family, means that men are slaves.
Men will always be protective and self-sacrificing. There is no progress from there. There is no new way / new deal/ new idea. That there could be is a lie and a bad joke.
Likewise, women are not going to become different, either. They can become better women… but they cannot become men or something else.
The kibbutz model failed, folks. Bulldyke lesbianism is a failure, too… have you not seen so? Every modern model in the west, every innovation, has led (is still leading) to destructive results. It is only mental m-sturbation to imagine something else.
No offense intended to anyone. I am just trying to call out to you that you musn’t get trapped in intellectualism, and these fanciful models of what could be, in the Dungeons & Dragons, invented world.
If you want to survive and thrive, you will have to take the way that works. Look to the ancient paths, because the survivors did (and shall) use it… not something else.
Peace,
Benjamin, you are presumptuous.
You still haven’t read the articles I linked to (and Eric kindly allowed me to). We can have a “shockingly better” discussion when you do.
What in “libertarianism” within the family means women rule and men are slaves?
You simply argue over and over again that you resent treating women as anything but chattel, and women have no right to be anything else.
I nowhere argue for one gender dominating another. I argue precisely the opposite.
You rail against the “Daddy” and “Mommy”/Nanny state, but you insist it is normal and right, from cradle to grave.
I rail against the state, too, but insist that beginning with the cradle, BOTH men and women can change “normal.” And either HAS to dominate the other. There is a huge difference between domination and authoritarianism and mutual agreement and cooperation, especially within the family.
I’m sorry you’ve never known rulership.
Not really.
My wife and I have had discussions along these lines for years, comparing us (and our relationship) with some others we know – and theirs.
Speaking just for me: I wanted a partner, not a subordinate. Someone I can talk with about substantive things.I would never have gotten married had I not found such a person. We each have our respective “spheres of influence,” but my wife isn’t someone I expect to abide by the three Ks: Kinder, Kuche, Kirche. That dynamic repels me.
Of course, each to his (and her) own – so long as it’s mutually beneficial and (most important of all) mutually agreeable.
Coercion – including psychological coercion – is the mark of the sociopath, irrespective of what’s between one’s legs.
@GrayCat…
I’m not presumptuous. lol
But, you are sarcastic. I think that may not be helpful (comments like “Not really”).
Perhaps you mis-read, or misunderstood what I wrote. (Perhaps I wrote it poorly, and hard to understand.)
Also, I had read both the external articles you mentioned… even though one was a broken hyperlink, I eventually figured out where it ought to have pointed. No, it is not important for me to respond to your external references (links)… that is not how conversations are held. If it were, then they would be only endless series of rabbit trails (they usually are with women), and folks who learned to use such diversions the best would obtain a sort of lawyer-like advantage in discussions.
Oh, no one argued for a cradle-to-grave nanny state; least of all me. Look it over again, if you like… you’ll find that point to be absent.
The part of “libertarian” marriage/family that implies that all men are slaves (about which you asked me) is something that I already stated, and which you and nearly all women take as granted, without need for reciprocity: Men will always be the providers, the protectors, the self-sacrificers, etc. This is not going to change. This isn’t an intellectual model, nor an opinion… this is what men are (born to act that way).
There is either a quid pro quo, or you cast men as slaves. Or else (third choice) women who don’t agree to the most basic human family structure must agree to live outside all benefit from men. And, as much as the Hunger Games and the G.I.Jane fantasy is extolled in our world, women really cannot do it.
You wrote that “we need each other”, didn’t you? You’re right… women do need men. Everything they have (even their guns) come from us. They cannot even feed themselves, especially in the real world where there is evil and danger out there. It is simply a matter of competitive advantage.
In truth, those who pretend to a “libertarian” idea, really are the ones who treat men as chattel/cattle (same word). Men to protect, men to provide, but let’s all pretend that they really don’t, and then we’ll start the “voluntary” negotiations from there.
If you want on this team, you’re going to follow the leader. You’re going to give your all. Marriage/family is not a two-way street… it is 2 one-way streets. It isn’t 50/50… it’s 100/100.
Men like to be good to women. Men like to adorn them with gifts, and you-name-what-else. But, if you want to enter the warm protective circle of the place where men live and work and fight off bad guys and wild animals, then you’ll have to find a team, and work within it, work for it. Otherwise, stay out in the freezing cold forest, and try not to starve. Our work isn’t free for you. (Oh, and there are wolves and also bad MEN out there… and our non-aggression principles don’t mean that we’ll protect you from them in exchange for nothing.)
The very basics of life are not granted, not free, not assumed. They are only provided through us, and both we and the women need them. Pretending otherwise is slavery. Pretending otherwise is theft.
Mis-calculating is an honest mistake (e.g., to think that women could produce more food and warmth than their survival requirements, while fending off competing groups). Mis-calculation may be honestly wrong.
But, trying to start “equal” “libertarian” “non-aggressive” negotiations for family roles, having already presumed (there’s that presumptuous thing again) the man’s contribution, is neither honest nor freedom-minded.
Let’s just stop pretending that all the roles and contributions in family and community are just up for grabs. You can’t (in the real world, regardless of what age you’re living in) put them all in a hat, and choose by drawing.
Additionally, aggression (and other physical work) is one of the huge strengths of men. If you really believe in forbidding their use, then you ought to believe in forbidding women the use of their sexual charms, their manipulative conversational powers, and all their other strengths. Then wouldn’t we just have a fun world?
In the final analysis (it seems apparent to me), men will rule their own families and hopefully maintain peace with other families, or else men will be enslaved, and the fruit of their labor consumed by women and the-powers-that-be, without recompense, as is the situation now.
(I don’t hear any women calling for their relatively helpless children to be able at will to disobey their mothers, who provide them with almost everything; but how difficult it is for them to confess, or even face, that they themselves are relatively helpless, in a world where a significant portion of the population is men. Yet, they want to rule themselves while being sustained by us.
Probably, men ought to rule the women in their families, whom they protect and provide for, just as you instructed, GrayCat, “gently, firmly, reasonably”.)
This is the heart of the divorce culture, too. Men work, women enjoy the fruits of it. No allegiance, no payback, no obligation, no obedience.
—————————————–
Some of this post was what is called “putting too fine a point on it”. Some of these things ought not to have to be said. They ought to be understood; but they have become an elephant in the room that no one wants to mention… but there that elephant is.
Truly,
It remains that you believe some adults — men — should rule other adults, beginning in the home. By right of physical might.
It doesn’t matter how “kind” and “generous” or “protective” a ruler is. What matters is the underlying threat: be and do what I want or I’ll kick you out or kill you.
But you resent being nannied and prevented from ruling by a government of fellow clovers — more well-placed and higher-up rulers than you are.
Yet you presume to rule, absolutely, even if it’s just in your marriage, as your right just because of an accident of your birth.
There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. Not even in the home.
How people want to live voluntarily in their own homes is their business. There is no ‘should’ or anything else. The key is voluntarily. That means being able to leave.
Wow! Then the state is voluntary – go get a plane ticket.
@GrayCat,
No, GrayCat, I don’t believe that some adults should rule other adults.
As I pointed out, earlier… there are no “adults”. The idea of an “adult” is an abstract fiction. You’ve never met an adult.
But, you have met men and you have met women.
I am sorry, for you and many others here, about the fact that some of you have not yet ventured beyond intellectualism. I used to live there, too.
But, academic models and intellectual constructs are not going to get you to where you need to go. As a well-respected epidemiology researcher at Case/WesternReserve taught a friend of mine, “All the models are wrong; some of them are useful”.
The model that says that men and women are really the same thing, with a few differences of styling, is a useful model to some extent. But, it is also wrong… that is to say, it isn’t true and is not reflective of reality.
The idea that liberty (as opposed to being rules by others) ought not to be centralized to only a few elite, but ought to be disperesed as wide as possible, is a model that has been stretched to its extreme. Pushing that model beyond its natural limit will result in a diminishing return, until the return is actually very negative.
The “sweet spot” for that model, after which it becomes a joke (except for being such a tragedy), is at the level of the man/head-of-household.
All your arguments for women to be elevated to that position (through the ongoing theft of men’s resources, which is required to maintain that silly situation), those arguments are equally applied to raising children to that level,and also cats. And also mosquitas.
There is a limit to the goodness of that model; and you want to push the line just a little beyond that limit… for your own temporary ill-gotten gain; and to the destruction of us all, in the medium- and long-term.
Back to your points, you wrote against the idea of “be and do what I want, or I will kick you out or kill you”. Whoops! I thought libertarians believed in private property! The statement you wrote is precisely the definition of private property: “be and do what I want (in my house) or I will kick you out. If you won’t be kicked out, I will kill you.”
Every one of you believes in the valididty of that statement, yet you throw it at me, as though it were an accusation.
The important thing to understand is that a man’s property does not become somehow “yours” when he takes you for his mate. If you’re going to live in my house, do and be what I say, or I’ll kick you out. Exactly. If you’ve been kicked out, and you won’t leave, I’ll have to get a little more aggresive.
And, don’t say any silliness about “women have their own homes/property”, or any of that rot. Nearly all real property, in the hands of women, was earned by men and then taken from them by the state, through divorce decisions against the men or probate (death/inheritance) decisions against the men. Add on “equal opportunity hiring” laws, etc.
Women who build wealth for themselves (in the protective environment created by men), may not usually seek a husband/master. No surprise there.
Also, you wrote that I presume to rule, absolutely, in my house… but that is not true. If I broke my wife’s bones, or knocked her teeth out, or knocked her eye out… something like that; she would have the right to leave me without fulfilling her obligation to me through a vow of marriage.
And, lastly, you dishonor your own great-grandfather and other forefathers, when you write that there are no benevolent dictators, not even in the home. You come from them, and you would not have ever been born, had it not been for the care of benevolent dictators of the home.
Much good there however… Women do things differently. The female control freak and/or criminal class exists. One classic method is to manipulate a man to do the work for them or for their benefit. This goes for just plain work all the way to criminal activity and ruling over others. Take away the attraction of women to power and I think we’ll find that many fewer (not zero, not even close to zero, just a good solid noticeable to a blind person fewer) men will desire power.
So let’s do it, yah?
It begins with us, now.
Get the government — the rulers, the busybodies, the “regulators,” the banksters, the “enforcers” — out of our lives. Withdraw consent to be enslaved.
The Indefensibility of Political Representation
http://mises.org/story/3383
The Evil that Men Do: Willful Submission to Illegitimate Authority
http://www.lewrockwell.com/buppert/buppert17.html
We have an excellent start.
State Totalitarianism Political and Economic is an Outrage
against Civilisation
Eric, that was some great writing. But what is with the 99er anarchists, they seem to be in bed with communists who wish to control every aspect of life, It seems those so called anarchists are for huge government. I guess I believe freedom comes with dues, and that makes sence, but the 99ers seem to say, the rich need to pay their fair share. Now with this I do not disagree, however what is their fair share. People who pay no taxes should not complain about what rates others are paying, however those who pay more (as a percentage) than any other have a right to bitch. It goes along the lines of your statement of not asking anything from others. So is it me, or are these modern day 99er so called anarchists really just big government stooges in disquise?
Thanks, BLZ –
Let me try to address your questions.
You write, “I guess I believe freedom comes with dues.” What do you mean by “dues”? I believe every human being is entitled to be free, period. That no one “owes” others anything except respect for their rights. That the only legitimate use of force is in self-defense against aggression.
You write that you agree “the rich need to pay their fair share.” What is your “fair share” of someone else’s property?
The 99ers are hard to pin down, but most appear to be leftists. Socialists of one kind or another. In other words, people who believe they have a right to take the property of others at gunpoint. Not my kind of people!
I probably come from the same side as you. Paying your dues, means paying your taxes. I am not speaking of things for wealth redistribution, that is not paying dues, that is paying for someone elses benefits. The dues are what you would owe for such things as defense, border security (which should be one and the same), and any basic service that allows you to live in a safe society, or in other words protects your freedoms. As far as the rich paying their fair share, I base it on a percentage they pay in taxes, but I believe that noone should be exempt for this percentage. I am not referring to any percentage in general, I guess I am more for a flat tax that no one gets out of. Like I said, someone who pays nothing should be careful about telling someone else to pay their fair share. Its like they say, freedom is not free, it never has been. As far as anarchy goes, I do not believe that you could depend on the psychology of millions of people to remain stable, in fact I do not think the history of humanity has ever shown a time of peace between all peoples on this planet. There needs to be some way to maintain order, and protect property rights. We Americans have always lived in a society where there were the haves and the have nots, unfortunately we seem to be becoming the haves and the give me what that guy gots. So to me I see it as a much better situation when if a person wants something, they must do something positive and productive to get it, and not to demand that the government supply it. My big problem with the so called anarchists in the occupy wall street, is that they are so opposite to that belief. They hang out with communists, and leftist movements, and all the time they demand that others bend to there will, and do as they say. Or in other words, they do not like any laws that tell them what to do, but they are OK with telling other people what they must do.
“Paying my taxes…” (italics mine)
Translation: Being forced at gunpoint to hand over my property to people who have no moral right to it. Your statement assumes taxes – the forcible taking of people’s property to be distributed by other people – are legitimate.
As I see it, they are not. No one has any right to take anyone else’s property for any reason, ever.
How are my freedoms protected by taking them away?
A safe society? That’s one in which people are secure in their person and property – quite the opposite of what we have. What we have is a society in which no one really owns anything; not their property – not even their own bodies. They are permitted conditional use – nothing more. This is a hard fact for most people to accept. But that does not make it any less factual.
You said that “I probably come from the same side as you.”
Well, if you believe in authoritarianism – left or right – then you’re on the opposite side!
I was wrong, we do not come from the same side. Apparently you have a different Idea. But Ill say this to you, we cannot all just get along, we do need the enforcement of order of some kind. Rules I am speaking of are the ones that assure others will respect other peoples rights. Believe me, once your right to life has been taking away, there is no return. I have plenty of guns, but that does not mean I will be safe from those who want to steal from me. Anything can happen. It seems to me that your view of freedom can only exist in a bubble. I do not have that much faith in our fellow man to believe that we will all sing together and just respect eachothers rights. So I guess I can only ask you, why do you think you would have an opportunity to live free and be successful and have your rights of property protected in a world where it is essentially every man for himself? I got news for you, it is pretty much lawless in many parts of Detroit, which I recently escaped from. You leave your house unguarded, and it gets robbed. The murder rate shows to have lowered, but thousands of people go missing every year and are never heard from again. That is an example of lawlessness. I mean there are laws, just so many people do not obey them.
Such “Cloverism” will never end until the evil nature of man is crucified. As Fellini said, “It is in his heart that the evil lies, and it is from his heart that it must be plucked out.”
Great stuff, thanks.
As for dangerous man/woman dialectic programming being scripted and disseminated by way of Cultural Marxism, try duck-ducking the Mothers Of Darkness (if you haven’t already) to learn about some of modern history’s vilest control freaks. Such research dovetails with things like the Dutroux Affair and Diana’s murder — plus a whole bunch of other ritualized criminality.
Of course, the NWO men have their own warlock-covens…
“Why won’t they leave us alone?”
It’s no mystery, just follow the money.
Back before I left the Communist-wealth of Virginia, I was listening to a radio show on WRVA out of Richmond. The host was asking callers whether or not and if so why they would vote to re-elect Slick Willie. More than one woman called in to say they would vote for him “because he’s cute.” When the host questioned one of these women about Clinton’s alleged marital infidelity, she responded that it “made him more real.” I am not suggesting that this is representative of “all” or even “most” women. What I am pointing out is there were a sufficient number of women in the Richmond, Virginia listening area that felt strongly enough about this superficial method of selecting the president to actually call in and expose their ignorance and misguided intentions to thousands of their fellow Virginians. Like it or not Isabella your voice is lost in this cacophony of ignorant emoting. Then you along with the rest of your gender get tarred with the stereotypical brush when women like these open their mouths and remove all doubt about whether or not they should be voting at all.
This is an obviously touchy – and very difficult subject. It is of a piece with noting that blacks tend to be more inclined toward criminality (and have lower average intelligence). I have to admit that there is truth in this. Also in re women, generally, tending to be more emotional – and more risk-averse, which tends to make them more receptive (and arguably, vulnerable) to the security over liberty argument.
That said, both the above are generalizations and while it is useful and reasonable to generalize to an extent, it is also important not to fall into the trap of allowing a generalization to collectivize our thoughts – and our attitudes (and actions) toward others as individuals.
With regard to women and voting:
The problem here, as I see it, is not the franchise per se. If women (and men) could not vote to enslave their fellow men and women, or take their property, or their liberty, then voting is harmless. Take away the mechanism and the problem disappears.
Human rights – human liberty – should never be up for a vote.
This implies something pretty deep: Get rid of government. That entity which is inherently collectivist and coercive and which disposes of individual rights by necessity, because of the very nature of the thing.
Sexual equipment (and race) isn’t the problem.
Government is the problem.
Human rights – human liberty – should never be up for a vote.
Amen.
By some standards I am a White racist. However, I would never deny anyone the equal protection of the laws. An innocent of any race would be fortunate to have me on the jury deciding his fate.
tgsam
I do agree with this: The problem doesn’t lie in the IQ, thoughts, feelings, gender, race or any other thing of those who vote. It lies in the structure of polity, of the social grouping. As things are now, no-one with any integrity should vote for anyone.
In re the comments that “women in general” are more likely to be approached via their feelings, there is not only no evidence for this, but in fact some against. There is a huge data bank of MBTI types, over 2 million annually in USA alone. Of these, all four arms or aspects of personality are represented pretty closely 50% each, that is equally across the genders. there are as many male introverts as female, as many men who make feeling based decisions as women, as many men who measure data by details as big picture and so forth. I’ve spoken to many, many women who have indicated an unwillingness to go with a certain polly in spite of how much they like his/her appearance.
Here in Aus, our current Marxist Prime Minister is every bit as hated by women as men, believe me.
You are being driven by media representation, personal feelings about women, personal belief structures and myths and what you want to think. Not by evidence. Blaming women for everything is a typical lower socio-economic poor IQ driven reaction, like Muslims and ancient religieuses of the Western variety. Stop now, it’s very bad for your health.
By “you” I should make clear, I am adressing only those who have made such comments about women being naturally collectivist and such like.
Hi Isabella,
Here’s my take on this:
It seems (anecdotally and otherwise) to be the case that women are generally more inclined to favor “security” and “safety,” to be more risk-averse. I see this as a function of biology in that it’s women who give birth and who are by default the natural caregivers and who are also (again, in general) physically weaker and more vulnerable than men. Not all women. Not all the time. But, generally. I think this is a fair summation of the situation. One could make a similar point about men. The point being, there are probably some innate sex-0based differences. This isn’t to say these are necessarily deterministic or over-ride freewill. Nor should they become the pretext for collectivization – or any abrogation of any specific individual’s rights as a human being.
I think the critical thing is to insist on the NAP as the bedrock principle from which any discussion of human interaction proceeds. This eliminates any problems with regard to women or men (or ethnic/racial groups) having different tendencies, abilities, etc. If they all agree that no one has the right to initiate force against another person, ever – that everyone must coexist on the basis of peaceful cooperation (and agreeing to disagree) – then the collectivist monster is kicked in the balls and rendered powerless over anyone!
It lies in the structure of polity, of the social grouping…
…which is the sum total of…
…the IQ, thoughts, feelings, gender, race or any other thing of those who vote…
…because any “social grouping” is comprised of “voters.” These aren’t distinct groups of people. They are the same.
The Volsted Act was inevitable once womens’ suffrage gained traction, as there was practically no discernable difference between the suffrage and temperance movements. Tough to argue that this was not a punitive action against men.
The Volsted Act was inevitable once womens’ suffrage gained traction, as there was practically no discernable difference between the suffrage and temperance movements. Tough to argue that this was not a punitive action against men.
Exactly. I’ve been reading, off and on as time permits over the last few months, Daniel Okrent’s Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition. Try as I might (and Okrent goes to great lengths to try to explain this throughout the first half of the book), I simply cannot fathom how a tiny group of (mostly) women, along with an even tinier handful of supportive “men,” people utterly unrepresentative of most of America, managed to ram the Volsted Act through Congress and impose thirteen years of economic, legal, and social chaos upon the country. The only silver linings to the debacle were that 1) there was still enough respect for “that goddamned piece of paper” that the PTB actually followed the process for amending it, both to impose and repeal Volsted, no matter how wrongheaded the legislation, and 2) the country seemed to have learned lessons, at least for about four decades before forgetting them, about the costs of prohibition.
Sadly, George Santayana was of course correct. We’re going down the same road again, only this time the results won’t be as pleasant as last time.
Liberranter, I think prohibition or any type of social engineering comes back to a tireless minority running (and ruining) things in spite of the wishes of the majority. The Women’s Christian Temperance Union was largely responsible for this insanity. Francis Willard pushed for reforms, including suffrage, far broader than alcohol and tobacco prohibition because in her estimation women were the morally superior gender and they needed to act as “citizen-mothers” to protect their homes and cure the world’s moral ills.
One particularly glaring example of the stereotypical worldview (and apparently that of their “whipped” male camp followers as well) the American group of these Victorian female busy-bodies held was the erroneous belief that alcohol abuse afflicted German and Irish immigrants more than other groups. So rather than practicing what they preached (temperance in all “good” things), they were nothing more that a radical and revolutionary (if not directly violent) socio-religious group bent on changing human nature. They should have spent more time reading the Bible to gain wisdom and less time meddling in their neighbors’ affairs.
But I believe what really led to the 18th Amendment and consequently the Volsted Act was the same motivation that has given us “The War on Drugs”, “The War on Terror”, the Federal Reserve Bank, the Internal Revenue Service and the burgeoning total police / surveillance state we now suffer under. It’s a small group of power hungry sociopathic ruling elite channeling the mass energy of the “useful-idiot” Clovers for their own benefit. The real beneficiaries of prohibition are those people who have no ethical compunction against thwarting the law, taking property by force and even snuffing out the competition. And I’m not just talking about Gun-vernment functionaries either; there are usually some “legitimate” criminals like Al Capone involved in these fiascos too!
It comes down to this: the average person is not a very good chess player. Hence you can sell them a political bill of goods on the grounds that such-and-such is bad and “there ouhgta’ be a law.” Because they can’t or won’t think more than one or two moves ahead, the Clovers and Gils of this world can be swayed to support new legislation without ever considering the very real law of unintended consequences. Hence the “if it will save one life” mindset leads to thousands dead due to gangland violence. We should always remember Jefferson’s poignant observation “That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves.”
It doesn’t matter that you Isabella or any of the rest of us can see through the façade. For every one of us, there is not ten, not one hundred, but more on the order of 3000 of “them.” The elite know this very well and use it to their advantage. When I was in the military, we had two female technicians in our shop. When we deployed for training, all the males were assigned to Korean war era barracks and rode a school bus to and from the flightline every day. The two females were put up in a hotel and given a rental car. We were told this was “equality” and those of us that questioned it were branded “sexist.” It was in fact preferential treatment based on gender which created a division. I believe this was intentional. Most of the gender, race, economic and politically based division we see are born out of the PTB’s efforts to divide and conquer. It is easily accomplished through propaganda that evokes the desired emotional responses from the masses. As MoT points out below, the majority whether male or female appear to be making decisions with their glands and not their brains.
Boothe, what you see, and I’m sure many others do, are intellectual children thinking with what is between their legs rather than what’s between their ears.
Yep, and those are the majority – whether they’re male or female.
I enjoyed the article.
just a thought.
When Adam and Eve grew up, like any other children, and knew right from wrong they were forced out of the Garden of Eden, like your parents home. Your parents aren’t supposed to be your oppressors they are your teachers, till you are ready to be on your own and forced out of the Garden of Eden. 🙂
What does a vote say? It says that the voter is willing to be governed or ruled by the person being voted for. It also gives tacit approval to the overall function of government, which is to control the population of a certain area and enforce legislative opinions through threats of force or actual violent force.
The idea that the candidate with the most votes will win the election is delusional at best. See the following video clip from minute 1:48 to 4:30.
There are always exceptional members of any group, class, or gender. I have met a few exceptional women who I believe would be fully qualified to plan for and operate a nation as its chief executive. This in no way diminishes the arguments made here that, emotionally-based, somewhat soft-headed women have been exploited for their votes by a hostile PTB. That assessment is spot-on.
As to whether they should have been given the vote, or even taught to read, for that matter, there are good arguments to be made on both sides. I think I could go much further and say that the only meaningful votes would/should come from a voting base made up of those who have “skin in the game.” As in, property owners who are taxed by the state that results from voting. Giving votes to any biped with a pulse is how we’ve gotten in the mess we’re in.
As someone once said, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
I used to believe in the “property owner” line until it hit me between the eyes that even when I was a single man living in an apartment I was still paying property taxes, or income, if even only indirectly through the landlord. So, in essence, all of us pay property taxes one way or the other and are simply serfs on the Federal Plantation.
MoT, I have always preferred the primitive Swiss model of direct representation. Only those people who show up in person prepared to defend hearth and home with their own serviceable weapon(s) and sufficient kit to survive in the field for a least three days should be allowed to vote. Then only a very small and readily recalled delegation from each county should be allowed to represent them at the state level.
The federal level should essentially be tiny and impotent (as it was under the Articles of Confederation). No professional military men, police or bureaucratic functionaries should ever be allowed to vote (or promulgate regulations). Anyone not physically, emotionally or mentally able to participate in the common defense and especially those who are “on the dole” should clearly be denied any voice. Only those of us that have literal skin in the game (or did have when we were young enough) as members of the militia should be allowed to make the decisions as to how the country is run. This would weed out the vast majority of limp wristed liberals and chicken hawk neo-cons, because most of them don’t have the testicular fortitude to take up arms, camp out in the wet and cold and potentially get shot defending their homes and fellow countrymen. Citizen militias generally don’t go on foreign campaigns to take the neighbors’ stuff either, but professional armies do as we presently see.
Returning to the true intent and purpose of the 2nd Amendment and limiting the vote to those willing and able to be armed in the common defense would solve a whole host of problems. Unfortunately, this crop of Americans appears too fat, ignorant, lazy and dependent for a system like that to ever fly. And the PTB will do everything they can (and have) to prevent it from ever happening again.
The Swiss canton form of government would be infinitely preferable to what we have today. And as you mention the Articles of Confederation would as well. The sad thing is that the use of the word “confederation” would never be accepted today by the thoroughly ignorant masses. Emotion would override any sense. Yes, there are those who know the meaning of words but those have too often been corrupted. Take for example the words “anarchy, ignorant or niggardly” and you’ll see loosed a horde of fools unparalleled.
Isabella, in response to JungianINTP on September 1, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Bull. Complete utter total absolute BULL
Put forth some FACTS to support this contention, and we might give you the time of day.
You will find my facts elsewhere on this blog. I didn’t want to repeat myself INTP – from an INTJ
Assuming that you’re referring to your post of September 1 @ 10:51PM, I have a few observations and questions:
It’s amazing and truly depressing to read here of all places that people who seem to believe in the right of each individual person to control their own lives ends with whatever gender one was born with.
I don’t recall reading in anyone’s posts here advocating denial of the right of self-determination to anyone based on their gender. What some people here have observed is that, in the struggle between those who are determined to be free and those who are determined to control others “for their own/the greater good/’the children,'” etc., women, in general tend to favor conformity and control of others over freedom. Whether nor not this is due to some psychological or biological “hard-wiring” is up for debate. Exceptions to the stereotype? Quite obviously. But, as is often observed, stereotypes are based on characteristics that are observed frequently enough to warrant consideration as a general rule.
I’m a woman – believe me very much so – and have been stroppily independent of thought and action for as long as I can remember. About 3 yrs old I think. I’ve had my actions dictated by men all my life. Fought it and paid a high price.
Am I the only one who sees an obvious disconnect here? How can you be “independent of thought and action” and “stroppily independent,” yet have “had [your] actions dictated by men all [your]life?”
It’s one or the other. You’re either “stroppily independent,” your actions dictated by no one but yourself, or you’re not. Which is it?
Now you want woman denied a vote – in matters that affect them!!
You’re missing the point here. If you’ve been reading the posts of the owner of and regular contributors to this blog, you would realize that the majority of us consider voting to be another form of collectivist violence, a tyranny of the majority, mob rule, Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or whatever you choose to call it.
You speak of voting on “matters that affect [women].” Again, you’ll find that most of us here don’t believe that voting should involve matters that affect anyone at all, male or female. Again, we don’t believe that voting should be practiced at all. But, for argument’s sake, let’s turn it around: should women, hypothetically speaking, be allowed to vote on matters that affect mainly men? If so, why? If one believes in individual liberty and self-determination for all, no matter what their gender, it doesn’t matter how one votes. The fact that one votes at all is indicative of one’s disdain for the rights and property of the individual. Using the tyranny of a majority to coerce a minority –especially a minority of individuals, no matter what their gender– into doing something against their own best interests is immoral and unjust, no matter what one’s gender.
You want to blame all women for the current problems with mainly men have caused. No Women POTUS as yet, no? No women as head of armed forces? Head of the Fed?
Again, you’ve missed the point.
1. No one is “blaming” women for anything other than tending toward advocating coercion and conformity for the sake of … safety and security?
2. The positions you’ve named shouldn’t exist in any free society. As it is, whether they are occupied in reality by a human being whose body is dominated by testosterone or estrogen doesn’t matter one wit. Anyone who would occupy such positions is someone who believes in using force against others. If you are a woman who loves liberty, does it matter to you whether Hitlery Clinton or Barack Obombya occupies the White House? Would the oppressive police state violence be any more palatable to you if it were dispensed by a woman?
There are whole heaps of women more individualist, more libertarian, more free spirited than you are – because they don’t seek to prevent anyone, of any race, colour, creed or gender, from taking their part on equal basis with anyone else.
Once again, exactly who here is seeking to “prevent” you from exercising your right to freedom and self-determination, and how are they proposing to do that? Again, these people have made general observations, not called for you to put on a burka and be enslaved as sexual chattel.
Final observation: Your response, IMO, has done nothing but support the argument others have made here that women’s actions tend to be dictated more by emotion than by reason.
It’s amazing and truly depressing to read here of all places that people who seem to believe in the right of each individual person to control their own lives ends with whatever gender one was born with.
I’m a woman – believe me very much so – and have been stroppily independent of thought and action for as long as I can remember. About 3 yrs old I think. I’ve had my actions dictated by men all my life. Fought it and paid a high price. It’s a very lonely life, wanting to be left alone to make your own decisions, take the consequences and leave others equally alone, especially so if you are a woman.
Now you want woman denied a vote – in matters that affect them!! You want to blame all women for the current problems with mainly men have caused. No Women POTUS as yet, no? No women as head of armed forces? Head of the Fed?
There are whole heaps of women more individualist, more libertarian, more free spirited than you are – because they don’t seek to prevent anyone, of any race, colour, creed or gender, from taking their part on equal basis with anyone else.
Before you accuse others of cloverism, beware the three leaves in yourselfs.
The core of what was being discussed the way I saw it is with regards to how normal people feel their way through things. It’s how the power elite manipulate them. Women are a big part of that and understanding how normal men and women make decisions and how they do it differently is key for ever greater control over the society by stealth.
Some of the posts were not worded well or perhaps the authors do not haven’t learned how the power elite operate by manipulating people. How to manipulate the society to control it. It’s about how normal people feel their way through, how they behave, what motivates them. Their social behavior. Us outliers are problems dealt with separately by other means. One of those being violence.
Also I’ve learned that us outliers get nothing out of voting. It’s about normals looking to control us and others. We will never ever be left alone through voting. Irrespective of gender there are tens of normals to out vote us to control our lives.
@Isabella
I’d have to agree with BrentP that those comments were poorly worded, but were meant to drive home a point that he made regarding the power elite using the various traits of the sexes to obtain power. I think what those above were saying is that women, while more consistent with their votes, are more prone to the appeals to emotion made by the ruling elites. However, that being said, I believe the fear factor used by both parties, (e.g. – “they will attack us if we don’t attack them, because they hate us for our freedoms,” “they want to put y’all back in chains.”) that fear factor works equally for men and women. I have come to a conclusion recently that I believe those who base political decisions on emotion are the scourge of our times. Those who see poor people starving in the streets and say, out of sheer emotional response, “Government should do something!”. Those are the people causing the most harm in this world. They are not only acting on emotion, (which can be very dangerous in and of itself,) but don’t actually want to help the people themselves, just throw money at the problem via others taxes. They have the appeal of good intentions, but when scrutinized for lack of results, simply shrug and say out of the goodness of their hearts, “Well, we tried.” And yet they still walk away looking like the hero because they cared, even though the very act of them screaming caused government to get involved, which caused even more problems without even solving the initial problem. There is something to accurately describe this… “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.” Next stop… Hell.
Because libertarians adhere to the NAP both sides can live as they choose Isabella. There need be no central authority to pick a winner.
Look at Mexico. Lots of hardcore neanderthal men rule some areas. High culture metrosexual super egalitarian women and men rule other areas.
90% of our thoughts are tainted by clover irrelevance. 95% of you womens thoughts are cloverette emotionalism.
Neanderthals and metrosexuals should both wake up and throw off the shackles of collectivism.
Take clothes for instance. Mostly these are mandated to be worn by women. They are havens for pathogens and 99% of men have no interest in living under fashionism or making wearing clothes a law enforced by caging fines and nightsticreminder blows.
In a real sense male ingenuity has been hijacked by sexless and effeminate overlords. They aim to make creators serve them so its either serve or swerve. Its your limbic system versus their holocaust supertrap. Blame feelings and fairness postmortems are for after you and us reach safety. Right now its time to flee hide gird or cowgirl the fu*k up.
As a woman myself, and very much so, I will say, I do not like women anywhere near the threshold of power. How does that saying go…Behind every good man there is a good woman. I would never discourage a woman from following her dreams, but at the same time I would never discourage a woman from being just what she is, a woman.
Eric’s article has hit on the main difference between Them and Us, namely “control”. Freedom to choose is the opposite of control.
Ever wonder why the current generation seems dumber than previous generations? All children are educated (or indoctrinated into American society) at schools having government approved curriculum. Our bodies are under constant attack by poisoned water, prescription medicines, and processed foods; our minds are under constant attack by media fed propaganda; and many natural human behaviors are outlawed, along with business and tax regulations. Control, when extreme as it is today, can and does limit and even reverse human evolution. Government (NWO whores) and the Federal Reserve cretins have succeeded in preventing us from reaching higher levels of consciousness. They know that sick, dumb sheeple will not see the forest for the trees, and many will even defend government’s use of force to control them. Wake up time for sheeple is when they see foreign troops enforcing martial law here.
At this point I think the NWO is inevitable and things will get a lot worse before they get better. The trigger seems to be when the US dollar looses it darling status as the global reserve currency. No more creating money out of thin air and an end to forcing other nations to purchase oil with US dollars. The dollar get devalued devastating those owning FRNs or dollar based assets.
I think the term “New World Order” answers the question: “Why won’t they leave us alone?” NWO cretins want to reduce the population to a more manageable total by killing many of us. Survival will depend on self-responsibility and cooperation with your fellow man. Taking heart, survivors can look for ways to use NWO initiatives to the benefit of mankind. There is strength in numbers and uniting a large segment of world population to focus their efforts toward a common goal could be the way out of the coming chaos.
It be more easily argued that in the olden days you had to be alert. When growing up on the farm when a slight injury could kill you or leave you an amputee then you were more careful about what you did. When there was a time if you casually strolled through the fields you could be bitten by a deadly snake then you paid attention to where you walking as well as making sure there were no snakes hiding in a pile of wood. When there was no welfare to save your hide if you were indolent then you worked hard, paid your respects to others lest you be ostracised from gainful employment and become a half-starved vagrant.
Boy the way Glen Miller played guys like us we had it made. Didn’t need no welfare state. Everybody pulled his weight. Gee our old LaSalle ran great. Those were the days.
Good post Gil.
Since WWII we’ve been living in the President Truman Show.
Every shiny suburb is built with Federal Reserve loan shark money. Are you going to keep smiling like a G rated Disney dummy or are you going to get in your sailboat and get off their stage and be the captain of your own life.
Decide now because the Truman Show ain’t covering the juice on the loans and if you don’t follow the financiers script you’re gonna wind up with a broken leg or at the bottom of the river as a sacrificial fall guy.
Hey Gil,
Note that I did not “Clover” you for this post. It was factual and reasonable – so unlike most of your others!
Dawson’s Law from the Book of Common Misery: Government only does four things well: tell lies, waste money, start wars and keep secrets.
Dawson’s Law from the Book of Common Misery: Freud says, “If children had the power they would destroy the world.” Dawson says, “Adult-children do have the power and they are destroying the world.”
As Eric Hoffer said, the evil isms are just adult-children wanting all the toys.
Interesting article, but I think you’re being overly analytical. The answer to the question why “clovers” won’t leave us alone is the same as to why any parasite attaches to a host. There are enormous numbers of individuals in modern societies who are simply incapable of mastering the structural complexities of technologically advanced cultures. Meritocracies terrify the incompetent. “Clovers” drive to control others is simply a survival mechanism.
This is why “Clover” becomes murderously angry when men just want to be left alone…Just like any mugger. Clover is basically a bratty child that is too lazy and fearful to accept responsibility for its own survival in a voluntary/civil society. Clover is a weak and fearful Mugger and Rapist – that is so lazy and fearful it votes for psychopath statist terrorists to do their mugging and raping for them.
Or it’s more of a case of the Libertarian being the narcissistic young boy who is a mail clerk who wants to the CEO of the company right away as well the company’s competitors to leave “his” business alone.
“The liberty of others must be as sacred to you as your own liberty – and require a defense (when necessary) every bit as vigorous.
Otherwise, you’re not just a hypocrite – you’re a narcissist and possibly, a psychopath.”
Um, that does NOT sound very “libertarian” to me.
I’m absolutely fine with having a moral obligation to leave others alone….not to dictate to them in any way.
But your statement implies that if ANYONE does not have liberty, I have to go saddle up and go fight for their liberty just as hard as I would fight for my own.
And if I don’t, I’m not only a HYPOCRITE, but also a NARCISSIST, and possibly a PSYCHOPATH too.
That sounds just like telling me exactly what I have to do. That’s rather “clover like.”
I understand that pragmatically, if I allow others to be oppressed, that oppressor might eventually get around to oppressing me too. So maybe I better lend them a hand.
But pragmatism and Ultimate Moral Obligation are two Very Different Things.
If someone leaves others alone, and lives free himself, I respect him….a lot. Whether he chooses to become a “Freedom Fighter…….” or not.
I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it.
Eric, would not your theory on the genetics of cloverism be in direct opposition to the Rothbardian theory of populism? I get the general gist of what Rothbard was saying in regards to his views on populism and libertarianism, though I admit, I’m still an active student and still learning the concepts of Anarcho-capitalism.
JUST SAY KNOW
Libertarian types seem to believe that once everyone is in on it, everything with government versus the Individual will be OK. I simply do not share that belief. Without some kind of lawful Action, it just ain’t going to happen.
I don’t think you need to worry. As you said, given the world we live in, the idea that everyone will be “in on” something is too far-fetched to be taken seriously.
I count it sad that so many who discuss these important issues, do not mention that the world doesn’t only divide evenly among those who wish for men to be controlled and those who do not… it divides evenly along another line: men and women.
Cloverism is a natural and inevitable outgrowth of feminism (one of its natrual fertile soils). Women, by a vast majority, want men to be controlled. They don’t fear their own freedom… they fear that men around them may also become free.
Women feel. All the characteristics you’ve been discussing are attributes of what folks call the “nanny” state. They call it that for a reason. It is because those desires for collective stealing and dominance are characteristic of women.
Any group of men, who are meeting in a community-type session (town hall, for example), will consist largely of those who value their own freedoms and rights more than they wish to take rights and freedoms from away others. The men in the group who make rumblings toward collectivism will be shut down by the others (and many of them will be swayed to a right understanding, by reasoned appeals).
That dynamic will never occur, in a group that consists of women or even men and women.
Face this fact. Or continue to be conditioned.
Lastly, good governments do exist (in theory). Good governments are formed by the consent of those who otherwise might kill or maim each other, over their disputes. These governments are a peaceful mechanism for those who pose violent threat to one another, for settling their disputes. Those who don’t pose a major threat of violence are not given a vote in those meetings.
For example, the UN Security Council consists only of those countries who pose a real mortal threat to one another. Smallish countries with small militaries do not get a vote on the Security Council. (I am not defending the UN… I am only pointing out an obvious truth.)
Likewise, women are not a mortal threat to men, in any region of the world. Their suggestion that they get a seat at the table is absurd. And, once “chivalrous” or “feminist” fools give those women a seat and a vote, then those gals along with the minority of men who are clovers will always dominate. Until the real men resume dealing with them through violence. Which defeats the purpose of a good “government” (a place to meet and try to resolve disputes non-violently).
I mostly agree on the man-woman thing. But when it comes to reproduction women suddenly get very libertarian and natural rights based.
Then there are other manipulations of women that are done because men will often do as women demand of them. Diamond enagement rings are a good example. Marketing convinced women this is something a man has to buy them. So now many women demand a man do exactly that. For man not to go along with such nonsense means a very limited dating pool.
As to good governments, it’s actually the most hated by people, HoAs and condo associations. These are voluntary forms. Nobody is included who did not consent, one can leave any time they like with very little impact on their lives. Don’t like it? One can just move as little as next door or across the street.
As to women having a seat at the table, I find the concepts behind voting more and offensive as time goes by. Vote to steal and enslave is what it amounts to by and large. Thus it’s probably likely that women were allowed into the voting ranks because the ruling class knew it would serve their long term interests. Nothing ever seems to be done out of fairness. When I look at things I find things that are fair that do not serve the power structure go nowhere. Things that can be seen as fair but help the power structure are implemented. The key gate question seems to be ‘does it help the status-quo power structure?’ Yes- go ahead. No- kill it.
As to good governments, it’s actually the most hated by people, HoAs and condo associations. These are voluntary forms.
I’m inclined to disagree here due to the fact that the term “voluntary,” when applied to these particular pseudo-governmental organizations, represents yet another Orwellian corruption of the English language, not to mention legal terminology. More and more in recent decades, it has become almost IMPOSSIBLE to own a home without being automatically welded to one of these nannying, busybody, clover-dominated organizations. Unless you’re fortunate enough, like I was, to find a home in a rural area that is not part of a housing development, or find a home built decades before the concept of HoAs became widespread and popular, you can forget about home “ownership” (to the extent that any of us really “owns” property in Amerika) unless you’re willing to submit to another layer of dictatorial, petty, and arbitrary coercion that effectively strips away the illusion that “your” home is really yours.
Thanks, but no thanks. The first person who ever shows up on my doorstep with a petition to start anything even remotely resembling a community association or HOA will be lucky to be run off my property with nothing more than bruises and broken bones.
How they are run, handled etc is a different thing. Perhaps I don’t see a problem because other than condos and town homes where there are mutual interests to manage they don’t really exist here and most of the region was built before HoAs for single family homes.
So instead cloverman does it through local government here. That means force. Often not even with a written law. It also means impositions after moving in.
HoAs here are established with the development.
If elsewhere they are imposed, later, after the fact, then that’s something entirely different.
My vision may also be clouded by the fact I got to be president and thus could simply practice live and let live over objections of clovers.
My vision may also be clouded by the fact I got to be president and thus could simply practice live and let live over objections of clovers.
Reply
You lucked out, as did many of your neighbors who benefited from your LALL attitude (a VERY rare thing among presidents of clover clubs like HOAs).
In my old neighborhood in Fairfax County, VA, several of us actually started a petition to legally abolish our oppressive, bullying, out-of-control HOA. To our surprise, we found that there was a legal clause written into the contract under which the community was developed twenty years earlier stating that the HOA and the community development charter were legally intertwined. IOW, you couldn’t abolish the HOA without tearing down the neighborhood. How the hell such a clause was ever established in legal precedent I’ll never understand, but apparently it has been.
Again, I’ll live in a tent or a cardboard box out in the woods before I’ll ever again live in a community dominated by a HOA.
HOA’S are a bastion of rampant out of control Cloverism with no doubt – basically run by stupid people on a power trip.
I lived in my first and last HOA back in MD. Had a supposedly decorative cut-out in the concrete walk that bubbled dirt out everytime it rained.
Dug it out and put in nice white marble chips – looked better and solved the problem. Damn if they didn’t require me to dig it up and replace the dirt before I could ‘sell” the place. Morons!
It didn’t matter it was all about the “power” they had to control the sale of the home.
Never again with an HOA.
The only good thing about HOAs is that you do have a choice about submitting to their control.
We used to live in a community that had HOAs. It was suffocating. As you wrote, they micromanaged every last detail about what you could do with “your” property. We moved. No HOA here.
Much better!
So are HOAs private association or just small governments? After all, Eric, if HOAs were truly private and free then you’d be simply making a private transaction and not “submitting” or being “controlled”.
An HOA is fine in THEORY. After all, if you got full disclosure when buying the property, then if you’ve done your due dilligence you should know what you’re getting into. The problem is that there tends to be a great deal of lattitude in the administration thereof, hence, why often these things are dominated by self-interested and/or psychotic persons at the expense of the associcate members in general. Sort of a microcosm of what’s going on in Sacramento and/or Washington.
@BrentP, I agree with you whole-heartedly, that women were allowed to move into the voting class, because it would serve the interests of the power-grabbers. It wasn’t women who got women the vote… it was powerful men who wanted more power still(especially the fruit of productive men’s labor).
It’s important that folks have some sense of what setup would actually work. Libertarian individualism will not/ cannot. Power must not allowed to be stolen and centralized, that’s true… but centralized away from whom? From the individual? No… there are no individuals. The household is the least common denominator… not the individual.
Another way to say the same thing is: The man is the least common denominator of rights/power. Each man, and the women and children and ranch-hands/hired-men in his household… that is where the line is drawn properly. For example, a man has the right to hit his son or daughter… a man does not have the right to hit your son nor daugher.
We have, in the West, a tendency to try to model a system of freedoms, based on the individual, and then make exceptions such as minors or the incompetent. But, the truth is that freedom exists on the household level… you don’t come between me and my land, between me and my woman(women), between me and my children, etc. And, I don’t cross that line against you, either.
So only men are to be free? You have to be 18 before you can taste freedom if at all in your world?
Yes, @GIl… only men can be free.
If you suggested something else, then you’d mean that the labor of productive men would be stolen, to enforce the freedom of women. To elevate women to manhood.
Men can agree to respect each other’s freedom, and not initiate gross or deadly violence against one another. We can agree to settle our disputes (which are inevitable, even among well-meaning men) through a recognized judging authority.
Women cannot agree to this bargain, since they are not dangerous in the first place. There is no problem to solve, there is little or no risk to mitigate, regarding women’s murdering or maiming of men. The difference in power, between men and women is so overwhelming, that there is nothing to talk about.
Among men we need a peaceful and respectful way to solve disputes regarding property lines or what-have-you… else we might war with one another. Destructive, truly.
However, men and women need no such mechanism… a woman works as hard and as smart as she can to make her man happy and keep him that way, or she will be without shelter and food and clothing and protection. She could go into the world and attempt to make those things for herself; but she (along with the few things she made) will simply be dominated by some other man.
And, if she shacks up with that other man, without the first man’s having quit her willingly, then we’re back to homicidal violence again.
So, no… it is only those who wish for war and destruction who suggest that women can be “free”.
Today, they are “free radicals”… causing destruction and cancer in our civilizations.
Women are natural communists.
Men are natural capitalists.
Those differences are an organic-based reflection of the human brain: left-hemisphere THINKERS (men) and right-hemisphere EMOTERS (women).
Physicality doesn’t necessarily indicate the psychological sex of a person; ergo, we have “male” communists and “female” capitalists.
But, generally, the typing is sex-correspondent; that is, mostly capitalistic men and mostly communistic women–until one or the other opposing ideologies overthrows an entire society to make of all men – by coercive force – communists, or to make of all women – by survival necessity – capitalists.
For a better understanding, read my two posts at the bottom of this Andrew Gavin Marshall page:
http://andrewgavinmarshall.com/contact/#comment-2670
Yes, the capitalistic West was doomed from the time emotion-driven women got the vote (( keep in mind, it was the women’s vote that ushered Hitler into power; a tightly held secret in the West; and, by the way, women got the vote here in the U.S. because of one wet-behind-the-ears, politically/historically uninformed legislator–doomed by ONE VOTE! )).
Marxists needed to give NATURALLY COMMUNISTIC women the vote, in order to take down Western Civilization; for an eventual universal communism (( read the history of European-hatched Marxists employed by emotion-driven Abraham Lincoln to take the more individualist-oriented, states-rights protecting South )).
We owe the warfare/welfare state to emotion-driven “men” and women who seek to capture the productive energy of real men, in order to satisfy the consumption needs of women–TO BE FAIR (aka SOCIALISM/COMMUNISM).
Libertarianism is doomed – or, in Eric’s words, “There is no reprieve, no escape–no light at the end of the tunnel . . .” – because THINKING MAN is irremediably attached to EMOTING WOMAN–or as long as women have the vote..
Interesting!
The last two National-level Mommies (Klinton and Obombya) are both left-handed “Mommy Dearest” type terrorist parasites…Hmmm.
Have you read Julian Jaynes: “The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind”?
Bull. Complete utter total absolute BULL
What legal tools are available to resume pursuit of the American Ideal expressed so eloquently in the non-amendable Unanimous Declaration?
tgsam
“Cloverism is eternal, because it is congenital. A defect in the human genome”
No…It is a psychological problem – really a primitive and retarded little-bratty mind made possible mostly by public school and TV programming…Read Julian Jaynes’ work.
The problem with the Clover is that it is not an evolved conscious human…It is still basically a weak and lazy (and therefore always afraid of everything – including its own liberty) child-like (emotive) tribal monkey that can only survive by extracting values produced by others in a Borg-like collective – but it is not genetic.
I wish you were right, DD. I hope you are right. But I suspect you’re wrong. I believe it is congenital. A propensity, say. Or an incapacity. That can be psychological as well as physical. Temperament, for example, appears to have a strong genetic component. It is very hard for a natural extrovert to behave like an introvert – and vice versa.
Clovers believe they are in the right. You cannot sway them with appeals to reason or morality. Yet many of them are not stupid, in terms of IQ. Nor are they ignorant/misguided – having been presented with appeals to reason and morality and rejecting them.
Obama’s not an imbecile – or ignorant. Neither is Romney. Neither are the people who surround (and support) both of them.
I believe evolution – natural selection over time – is fact. Some humans – a small minority – have evolved to a higher state than others, perhaps. But the remainder – the majority – are collectivist apes by nature. Who desire above all else to control – or be controlled. Who reverence security (and conformity). Who reject individualism and liberty.
We – the people here (Clover excepted) are outliers. Genetic mutants, if you like.
I’ve come to accept that unless and until a way is found to completely divorce us from them, liberty will be a temporary and isolated aberration.
But I suspect you’re wrong. I believe it is congenital.
J.D. Tuccille blogged about this very thing back in March. I’m still on the fence as to whether I agree with the position of Jonathan Haidt that cites, a position which essentially says that people’s political beliefs are what they are because they are genetically predisposed toward holding them. However, in having violated one of the primary Confucian rules on several occasions (the rule that says, essentially, that the only person who tries to reason with a fool is an even bigger fool)and having seen the futility of doing so, the anecdotal evidence of this hypothesis is very convincing.
Is the higher political class really collectivist clovers? Some may be, but all? The people who fund them? I think many of them see things exactly for what they are. The problem is they are not moral people.
They or many of them are just as awake as we are. They see and understand how the masses behave. How they feel their way through things. How they form their views. Then instead of trying to educate, instead of trying to improve their knowledge and thinking capability like we do, these people exploit them. Manipulate them.
Emotional manipulation is par for the course in clover-man society, but it’s small things. It’s sleeping with the married neighbor woman and other interpersonal nonsense that really doesn’t effect anyone but the people immediately involved.
Could an uber-clover rise up in politics with social manipulation skills? Probably. But they will always be asleep and thus at a disadvantage to those without morals who see clover-man for what he is. They are exploitative by nature.
The language of the so-called elite and many in the higher political classes is that the people are essentially livestock, to be owned and manipulated. They put themselves outside clover-man. They, like us must understand the fundamental differences.
I guess I am just restating what I posed before, that the ruling class is more like us than the clovers. The ruling class is simply evil. We for some reason cannot exploit clovers, we even try to uplift them. The ruling class exploits the clovers and then works to dumb them down, to increase their cloverness to make them more exploitable.
As conscious humans we all have the same brain. Most all humans on Earth are now conscious which means we posses free will / free choice. Consciousness is separate from genetics. If you tell a child to “clean their room” and they refuse you against all logic and reason, do you think them genetically defective? A conscious being can choose – at any moment – to be a man or a weak bratty parasitic child (aka, Clover). The desire to steal from others in a by joining a political gang and voting for their chosen terrorists who promise to steal for them is a criminal act consciously chosen by Clover. Their mantra of “Live for me, or die” is the mind of a psychopath…their own defective brain wiring caused mostly by laziness and its desire for external authority to offload the responsibility for their own survival. People can change their own brain wiring just by changing their mind! choosing to be a man instead of a bratty parasitic child! Or what is referred to as “developing your character”.
Consciousness is separate from biological genetics.
I think you’re right. But I also think that most people make a mental calculation (often not explicit, but still present) that it’s to their advantage to join a gang and loot others, while putting on a pompous, self-righteous persona to rationalize doing so. To reach greater wisdom requires either superior intelligence or a life-changing experience. The latter comes to all too few, I’m afraid, and so Clovers will always be around in vast numbers.
I think it is due to laziness more than anything. Voluntary cooperation or civility becomes highly valued for productive reasons as well as not to be ostracized…Which makes survival difficult. Clover is basically a bratty mugger that justifies using government gang violence in order to steal from the productive..and to not be ostracized into poverty as would happen in a free society.
Back from retirement, must say this article struck a nerve!! Being one of the oppressed both growing up I spent most every day missing recess do to detention. At home I was grounded nearly 3 out of 4 weeks of every day of my life. Finally I spent 15 years working in a cubicle with synthetic lighting of a prison. I must say that I was always hated for wanting and dreaming adventures while teachers and parents lectured falsity. What I found though is the domestication cannot be held back, at some point you hear some intelligent person like Ron Paul or Eric Peters and the light just turns on and it never goes back off.
I love all this article is about. But on DNA, retards, and clovers I must say that I think its big fallacy to think DNA is constant. I repeat a study where they delayed the reproduction of female fruit flies to nearly the end of their life. and within two generations the fruit flies were living 3x as long as normal fruit flies. Here its obvious that environment stressors create dramatic changes in DNA. Hot Rod’s theory of genetics is that DNA is changed with the mind. Question if a child is really afraid of snakes without ever being taught, how else would the mental image have been stored in the kids mind but through the DNA? And because the image was in the brains of our predecessors this means at some point their brain was able to reprogram their offspring by nothing more than the brain feeding and changing the DNA in reproduction. Also, DNA being ummutable would without feedback would result in slow and dumb evolution, something that is not obvious in the strata of changes in life. Heck I’ve seen deer go from stupid and darting in front of every car to doing it a lot less in just a generation or two of exposure to automobiles. Nope I argue that selective elimination is the least of evolution, and the largest factor of DNA encoding changes is by predecessor thoughts. And hence why if your father is a real dope and doesn’t think or logically it more likely you’ll be a dope too. Sins and falsities of father paid by the son, just like the bible says. DNA is not a constant, not even in your lifespan. Want to know something that really will blow you away is that the DNA of the brain is actually the molecular memory and why your head is better than any supercomputer. The array of brain cells make up addressable molecular memory, DNA being encoded to store all those amazing memories and being recalled later. So according to Hot Rod’s theory the DNA in the brain is not constant but changing with every thought. Sexual cells are also being modified continously. You see if the mind was just a series of neural logic gates (summation and conditional gates) there is no way that enough of them would make up the brain power you possess. The only place to store this volume of information in the human body is the encoding of the cells themselves ( the instruction codes or DNA). But like a computer what people have misunderstood is they always thought DNA was a cellular instruction code, they never understood that it was always where data was being stored (i.e. data memory). The neural network part of it is just a address bus just like street adresses to decode and encode various location of DNA molecular memory in the brain. So yes if the brain can store information and logic in DNA memory, than the brain can also send instructions to reprogram reproductive DNA and hence change their offsprings knowledge without Darwin elimination. Think about it nature approves of efficiency, wouldn’t selective recoding using the central nervous system of reproductive memory be much more efficient at reorganizing life based on exposure to environment changes? Darwin evolution base on selective breeding (though true) is actually the weaker method of evolution. Given all of this it should be important to realize however that there are still critical phases for the human brain to develop. For example, a baby that does not open its eyes by a certain time of life will not develop the optic nerve. With a society of people who have been purged of essential and truthful feedback they will always be morons. Nothing can be done for them, but you see Eric that the best way to evolve will be by truth tellers. Yours and other peoples reality on these boards and news articles will change evolution much faster than who F’s who. Believe me DNA is not fixed it cannot be, life is too dynamic and efficient for that to be the case.
There’s a term for
your mostly correct
observations:
EPIGENETICS.
Hi and thanks for your intelligent input. Epigenetics insists that the DNA is not modified but rather emphasized. Though this would explain how thoughts could be transcribed to offspring, in my opinion it does not explain the correct model of the brain and cental nervous system. From an electrical engineeering perspective the brain must be composed of lots of neural networks or lots of memory and probably both. But, to me the most easy explanation of how the brain works is not by a majority of neural networks forming the memory, but rather the neural networks forming the address bus to the brains cells inner core of memory (DNA). This again would mean that every brain cell would have a molecular memory something we as engineers have not even approached. Epigenetics in my opinion does not explain the sheer volume needed to explain the brains power and memory. I’d be willing to bet that the DNA of brain cells not only being emphasized but rather the entire DNA sections is probably being re-written. The advantage of this is like a FPGA (field Programmable Gate Array), if you have memory (LUTS -look up table) you can create all logic from a look up table. Thus with molecular memory inside each nerve cell of the brain you have the most efficient and scalable logic and reprogrammable gate array ever fabricated. Man still has no way to store information at the molecular level, but DNA would be exactly capable of such a feat if one assumes that certain data segments (locations) could be re-written). The idea of the neural networks making addressable memory is that they would then decode and encode individuals cells DNA storage memory to be exploited for memory recall or adding more information. Again its merely my conjecture and theory of how the brain works, take it or leave it and I know most conventional people believe that DNA is fixed but can only be emphasized and demphasized as in epigenetics. I think a bit more liberal on the subject though.
@Hot Rod–
Interesting theories. I’m convinced we’ll discover that epigenetics are orders of magnitude more powerful than we think, both within an organism and across generations.
The links between the brain and body are only vaguely (pun on vagus nerve) understood; for example, the vast interconnections between the brain and the immune system, which communicates real-time to the brain and receives input from the brain. Prominent lymph nodes, where post-mortems of the immune system’s battles are conducted, are richly innervated with efferent and afferent fibers.
But I don’t think we’re using DNA as memory storage…at least, not in the sense of storing top-level knowledge. Perhaps “instinctive”, or more correctly “visceral”, knowledge.
The REAL horizon in neuroscience is in the microtubule scaffolding within each neuron. Every cell contains a cytoskeleton of microtubules–two-subunit proteins that forms a semi-rigid framework within the cell. Those microtubules are conductive, and their junctions appear to be switchable by a subtle quantum interaction.
If true, it implies that within each neuron is a miniscule but multiple qubit quantum computer.
And if THAT’S true, our mental capacity is many orders of magnitude greater than implied by merely counting neurons, multiplying by synapses, multiplying by clock frequency, and making simplistic reductionist estimations of our raw computing power by analogy to transistors, connections, and clock speed.
I scoff and Ray Kurzweil and his “singularity” in, what is it now, 2032?
Bullshit.
He counts transistors, multiplies by connections, and multiplies by clock speed to estimate when Moore’s law will bring computers to “human brain equivalence”. He ignores two factors:
1) we have no idea if what we see is truly the computational substrate, or if it’s deeper
2) software, Ray, software.
Give me all the raw computing power in the world–I still can’t organize it into self-awareness.
Will we one day? I suspect so. In fact I hope so. But there’s a deeper magic in the human brain that’s not subject to his reductionism.
And THAT, ladies and gentlemen, the Elite fear like nothing else. Because they WANT to be downloaded into Kurzweil’s singularities and, like the villian in “The Black Hole” (a weirdly accurate epistemology of Elite thinking), become like unto gods.
Guess what, assholes! No Singularity for you. We’re human, and we’re coming for you–with intellects unmatched by machines.
@methyl
“Interesting theories. I’m convinced we’ll discover that epigenetics are orders of magnitude more powerful than we think, both within an organism and across generations.”
I admit its not even a theory rather a hypothesis. But the problem with people is often they are too cautious to accept the liberty that complex systems can assume. DNA is absolutely a ROM (Read on memory). In CPU’s we have two major type memories…1) The Program Code and 2) the Data Code. These two memories can be in one of two forms volatile or nonvolatile. Read only memory is usually non-volatile. Program code is basically a statement of rules by (opcodes) what to do based on inputs in a sequence of order. Data Code is memory a place to put past values (store) of input and computation. See one cannot say there is no memory in DNA because the whole point of the DNA sequence is a m-ary (multiple level instead of binary) encoding of operation code. Why people can see that indeed the cell DNA is a microcontroller of opcodes but don’t buy that there is storage memory in the same mechanism I’m not sure why. Why would the DNA be unmmutable? Its not like the cells don’t replicate the DNA or look to it for instruction code, but most people just cannot imagine it being modified and therefore being used as the most power memory available in the universe (non-volatile molecular memory). Again its undeniable that DNA is a memory the question is whether its writable and not just readable. I see no reason why somebody would say this is impossible chemically or physically. And nobody can do an entire map of the genomes sequence of the same cell over time. If that were the case we could empirically eliminate the DNA memory as being a storage of information and not just readable (not contested) but writable. The point I want people to take from what I’m saying here is that Darwin selective evolution is a small part of evolution , whether by empahsis (epigenetics) of genes or by my belief that its more generically modifiable. Another point I’m trying to make here is that because the genomes are sequential and finite the m-ary possible permutations of DNA combination of such means that are not infinite possibilites of human beings. There is a finite number of permutation of DNA (thus individuals), big but not infinite thus we really are all brothers and sisters and the point of the bible that all of our seed was existent at time of the first human being is absolute truth (all possible combinations). This does not mean there is finite variation of individuals based on experience as the machine can be DNA identical as in twins but peoples experience still makes us infintely different. Yes every car may be the same model but the individuality comes in the various dings based on their own unique history. Same with our DNA machine. I’m trying here to explain and open people to the idea that things aren’t as straight forward as we’ve been taught in primary school about evolution. At the same time I’m trying to help people see how we are all cosmically connected mathematically. Its the godly thing to do is to try to understand ourselves from a higher intellectual point of view. Pure Darwinsim dehumanized people and explains them as dumb or stupid, prehistoric or advanced. It really isn’t that simple. At the same time like I said I could build a very powerful computer if I had nothing than an addressable array of molecular memory (basically
FPGA). I know because it was my job for a number of years designing FPGA circuits. Best Regards.
Obomney (because how different are they, really?) is two sides of the same coin. They exploit the ‘collective’ desires of special interest groups, be they races, ethnics, or other supposedly aggreived “hew-mons”, let alone all the various trade associations, etc., wanting Federal largesse for themselves at the expense of everyone one. The whole damned process has devolved from any semblance of statesmanship to a free-for-all scramble to get a prime teat at the Federal sow. No one wants to be the runt left out in the cold to starve.
Hence, the system can’t be fixed until the hearts and minds of the public at large can be fixed. That’s more for philosophers and religionists, and they’ve stunk at it thus far. Methinks the only hope is to let the Federal government collapse under its own weight, and let all the dependent folks either starve out and/or kill each other off. Oh, sure, there will be assaults and murders upon the productive and law-abiding, but largley, the latter will be better prepared and disciplined. Once the great die-off is complete, the survivors can rebuild on principles of freedom. Until then, hunker down, mofos!
It could be argued that it is in effect its own perpetual motion machine. It feeds off and generates its negative energy while seeking to pull everything into its orbit. Kind of a political and social “black hole”.
I am reminded of the great Enlightenment theologian & seer, Emanuel Swedenborg in the mid-1700s, who pointed out that those who want to be as God, and hate God / Deity / Higher Power / Lord, ‘have a love of dominion of others’.
They LOVE to have dominion. They DELIGHT. We love what we adore, and what we adore, we give our attention to. These sub-humans who have a love of dominion of you & me ENJOY it and ADORE it. It energizes them and motivates them.
It is foreign to us, we can’t grasp why they would want to quench others’ freedom. This I believe is why the Progressive mind is so energized by hatefulness, trickery, half truths, misrepresentations, gaining power. The spiritual warfare drains US because it is spiritual in nature. But they are ‘natural’ and don’t have an enlivened ‘spiritual dimension’. It is dead or dormant in them, and so what drains us delights them!
Hi Silver,
Swedenborg was on to something!
One of my favorite authors, Robert Heinlein, expressed similar sentiments – as others here have mentioned.
Good to have you with us!
Silver–that’s profound stuff, thank you. I’ll have to read the reference.
But it certainly resonates truth; it’s enlivening to them, yet draining to us.
Perhaps we should all focus more on the way OUT, after the collapse; building true economies, reveling in what WE love…joy, nature, family, friends, creativity, innovation, productivity.
It’s what attracts me so much to Agorism–withdraw consent, live well, dodge the falling edifices of collectivism.
1300 years before the “Enlightenment,” St. Augustine, in his book “The City of God,” described this phenomenon, calling it, “libido dominandi.” “The lust for rule.” He also said that without justice, a government is nothing but a gang of robbers. As Joe Sobran pointed out, he left doubt that any government could have justice.
I’ve often wondered why a collectivist can’t be happy. Being part of a collective isn’t enough. They must increase the size of the collective. To do so they must force individualists into the collective. They’re like the freakin’ Borg. “Resistance is Futile”.
Funny you should mention the Borg from Star Trek. What seems to often get lost in the Trekian mythos is that the Federation is nothing less than a collectivist Interstellar United Nations.
YES! As much as I love STNG, I can’t stand its collectivism. It’s so rigid and hierarchical–militaristic themes everywhere.
You’re right on target. It’s a utopian UN wet dream.
The irony of their fight against the Borg collective is lost on the average viewer I’m afraid.
Also,
note
that
the
authoritarian/totalitarian
ruler
of
the
collectivistic
BORG
is
female.
Word-search “Women are
natural communists,” and
study my analysis there.
I actually never clued into this for the original series. As a young boy I was only interested in the sexy babes! TNG put the politics front and center and since I’d matured, somewhat at least, what really shot red flags up was the psychoanalyst on board. Ye gods! Now not only were we to be slyly fed a diet of collectivist drivel we also had to endure this?
Never mind that Anakin Skywalker would kick the living shit out of ANY Enterprise captain in a “mano y mano” scenario, then go home and bang the beejeesus out of Padme!
Yeah, but the science sucks in Star Wars. Totally ignores relativity, the weapons are useless…and midi-chlorians…weak.
Though, the idea of the Force appeals to me. I don’t buy religions; aside from their deplorable histories, the basic set-up of priests lording it over the commoners is an all-to-common theme in this world.
But that there’s something numinous we’re not privy to, but still feel….tempting.
Anakin was a douche! What a whiny bitch.
I need to clarify… I was commenting about the character and not the one making the comment.
Eric. I wish we had editing capabilities. This sucks!
You are correct in much of what you say, Michael. However, in the case of the American people, I think it is possible that you are underestimating the spirit of the people who make up the core of true citizens.
We have some folks of noble purpose and some who think their purpose is noble, the misguided, misled, malicious, vicious, stupid, venal, some are just assholes and my brand-new word for today…hoplophobic people(www.thefreedictionary.com)who all have their particular axes to grind. In particular, though, anyone who was raised during the baby boomer and later ones too, were all raised in basically the same manner. We all got our dosage of guns, god, mom and apple pie. We were mostly raised with a love of country, freedom and individual liberty even though it was being rapidly stolen at the same time.
What this long ass rant is getting to is this: Not all of us are ready to go quietly into the night. There is going to be some bad times ahead of all of us. As I mentioned to a friend the other day, I am really not looking forward to the crap coming down the pike. Because like millions of other guys raised in those days, I am not going to let this continue indefinitely. And when it is all said and done, I will probably be unable to look back on the bad times since I probably won’t be around along with a bunch of others who, while maybe not all that noble, just can’t stand people who bully them and others. Having libertarian principles and beliefs doesn’t prevent libertarians from protecting themselves and their loved ones. In fact, it will probably be libertarians who are the first ants that are exterminated when the slave masters realize something is going down. Pray for peace, plan for war. Good luck, all.
PD wrote
“We have some folks of noble purpose and some who think their purpose is noble”
No disagreement here, but a general question to all…
So then short of genocide – how do these 2 opposing concepts get resolved on a level that is acceptable and conducive to co-existance for both extremes – Liberterians and Clovers, in this case….?
It seems to me that BOTH have to give something up to achieve equilibrium. Isn’t something better than nothing? (seriously, what is the solution?)
Regarding your last statement…
“Pray for peace, plan for war. Good luck, all.”
AMEN!
Good question.
The fact that no human can ever be fully confined within the boundaries of ANY philosophical system is what allows coexistance. Though the most radical of the true-believing element in any given category will never admit this within the confines of a debate, the facts of their physical existance prove the point. The ever-blurred lines of the lives we live are an eternal torment to the perfectionist for whom everything should and therefore must be clearly defined and stand out from all else in stark relief.
One need look no further than the strife and discord within any marriage, family, partnership, group, club etc. to realize the contentious nature of the species and the fact that differences are prized and cultivated as much as harmony and yet for the most part the whole enterprise, most of the time, lurches forward.
All fundamentalist are ultimately bores [when they’re not committing mayhem] and it is fundamentalism itself posing the danger, not the categories.
Dog Eat Dog. There’s the better part of 5,000 years of history to demonstrate that. Doesn’t make it right however.
Except dogs don’t eat dogs. I have no idea where that phrase came from but it makes no sense.
“Except dogs don’t eat dogs.”
Yep, they normally don’t. The saying is used to describe an unnatural society (or market), where people are forced into conflict, a zero sum game, if you will.
Coming to this universal understanding is important, because it should begin to alert those who would “live and let live” that they will never be left alone to live. Unless they too associate (voluntarily) for their mutual protection and benefit, they will be easily put down, as many societies were in times past.
I was reflecting the other day about how much of history is not the story of prosperous societies, or advanced societies, but of societies who were the best at war. Many people who had more noble purposes have now vanished from the face of the earth, and those who thought only of killing have managed to stick around. Indeedn, we are living their legacy.
Michael wrote
“Coming to this universal understanding is important, because it should begin to alert those who would “live and let live” that they will never be left alone to live.”
Hence ALL arguments regarding politics and goverance (voluntary or involuntary)return to a theological argument concern God and the nature of man and one’s position on such.
Much like the structure of a large tree – as each argument is traced backwards from a leaf to a branch – we find that, we are still high up off the ground (far from reality)and there is yet a larger branch that must be addressed in the search for truth.
I hear good arguments and bad arguments on this website, but all of them are incomplete and only deal with parts of the whole.
There really is no answer that we (man) can agree upon, because we are limited by our vary nature.
The search for Truth continues, anyone who says they have the answer for others is sadly mistaken…
“There really is no answer that we (man) can agree upon, because we are limited by our vary nature.
The search for Truth continues, anyone who says they have the answer for others is sadly mistaken…”
Isn’t that the point made by many sentiments and comments on this website? How can one answer fit all? How can everyone have to live a particular way? That’s exactly the point of liberty; each person is unique, and has the right to peacefully explore themselves without interfering and being interfered upon.
no?
In theory – Yes! Agreed and desirable.
In reality, it ain’t going to happen.
Wasn’t really responding to anything specific you said, my iIntent was to continue a thread regarding the role of having some limited gov’t, which I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer to from those who just want to be left alone. Your post was an opportunity to fan the flames by playing Devil’s advocate, that’s all…..
PS see posted response to prince Draxx below in the same vein of truth search….
Bull! It’s the Libertarians who are the narcissistic thugs! It’s not your country, period! You might as well be arguing that you could immigrate to Canada, say you don’t believe in government and then proceed to ignore all the laws and refuse to pay taxes while stating the land you happen to be occupying is now “yours”. Or you could march into a Communist country, declare that anything owned by all is really owned by none and declare that the land you have cordoned is now yours via homesteading unowned land. Or best of all steal anything belonging to anyone else by declaring they didn’t obtain the item justly but through some government help or writ thereby annulling their ownership rights and you are merely relieving him of his ill-gotten gains.
You must think the Colonists in 1776 were real jerks then, eh? If not, please explain this apparent glaring contradiction in your views.
Really, do you seriously want to dignify Gilclover’s incoherent rant by responding with logic and reason?
Does twisting his tail count as dignifying?
durka-durka-durka
Beyond the usual level of incoherence. From an information analysis viewpoint, almost perfectly entropic logic.
Might as well be a random noise generator…just far less useful.
You’ve watched ‘Team America’ one too many times!
You’re leaving yourself open for legitimate criticism. You have neglected to include the FUNDAMENTAL factor of Libertarians – and Constitutional Americans – that what one does my not impact others and their rights of Liberty in exercising one’s own liberty! You simply served up a Nazi Statist position in which all Rights were restated as neutralized – Collectivised!!
About as far from Libertarian as Communist from Constitutionalist!
It’s a hell of a state of affairs when ‘selfishness’ is defined as the desire to be left out of the “Social Contract” and the hell alone. A “contract”, by definition, is a binding agreement FREELY made by two capable parties for a lawful purpose. Most of what “Gubmint” does fails on the “free” and the “lawful” parts.
I wonder if 1860 black men in Georgia who talked of escaping the slave plantation were called “Selfish” by the other slaves? I bet they were. It is a concept of primitive tribalism / collectivism which still exists in the minds of the 2012 weak brats.
Hi DD. Slaves in 1860 would do all they could to help other slaves escape, often at great risk to their own lives. The difference nowadays is that those slaves all knew they were enslaved, while the clovers of today don’t realize it. They are totally unable to understand why anyone would want to escape the gilded cage the PTB have constructed for us. They therefore conclude that we are selfish for not wanting to be subject to every whim of every Simon Legree in gummint.
Yeah…I suspect most weak mental retards today consider political terrorists as mommy and daddy and not their slavemasters.
I’m afraid I have to agree, DD.
It’s interesting, isn’t it?
Clover thinks he’s not enslaved by dint of the fact that so long as he obeys, he is not punished. Ergo, he is “free”!
When someone points out to Clover that even slight disobedience – any refusal to Submit and Obey – can very quickly escalate to lethal force being applied, thus amply demonstrating people are very far indeed from being free, Clover’s response is: Well, if they’d just obeyed the law that would never have happened!
Equally true of the persons under the whip of Simon Legree.
Indeed.
And their weakness makes them resentful toward those who are not weak. It’s the mentality of the house slave who rats out the field slave trying to escape.
Despicable.
In other words, you believe laws should be optional. Your or your ancestors came to a country with laws yet you want to disregard them.
On the other hand, any contract can bind others without their permission. When you buy a plot of land and a house you automatically contract everyone else to not be trespassers without everyone signing something. Or when a man marries a woman that implies other men are contracted from trying to court that women without other men signing anything. Or when you sign a deal whereby you buy a car you didn’t make everyone sign a form that it’s your car and no else can touch it without your permission.
Hence the simple thought experiment: should Libertarians be able to migrate to Canada and proceed to ignore all their laws and regulations because “I signed no stinking contract”?
No, Gil – as has been explained to you carefully and at length:
We believe no one should ever have violence exercised against him, except in reaction to aggression by them (i.e, in self-defense). That is the basis of moral law.
Any law that trespasses against any individual’s right to be left in peace, to keep in their entirety the fruits of his labor, to control his own body, to live his life as he sees fit – is by definition an immoral law.
You would have children bound by (alleged) contracts entered into by their parents (viz: “Your or your ancestors came to a country with laws yet you want to disregard them. “)
Ergo: The children of immigrant Jews in Nazi Germany had no cause to complain when “the law” decreed them to be a pariah caste and subject to mass gassing. After all, that’s the law – and their parents freely came to Germany…
You purvey absurd package deals and straw man arguments (viz: “On the other hand, any contract can bind others without their permission. When you buy a plot of land and a house you automatically contract everyone else to not be trespassers without everyone signing something.” )
No, Clover, it is never right to bind others without their free consent. And that fact does not mean – as in your absurd statement – that trespassing is ok unless everyone out there has signed an agreement with the landowner.
It’s childishly simple to parse legitimate from illegitimate law:
Have I caused you (or some other actual person) a demonstrable harm? If so, then I am guilty of a crime against your person or property. If on the other hand I have not caused you (or some other person) a provable harm, then “the law” has no business with me.
You and friend keep coming up with the fairy tale that a peaceful village made of Libertarians was put under control by Imperialists who then forced a bunch of laws and taxes onto the unwitting folks. Nope, instead Libertarians or their ancestors migrated to a pre-existing nation with a government, laws and taxes in place. Hence what Libertarians are really saying is that they don’t see why they have play by the rules when they fit. It’s just like a non-goalie in soccer who wants to use hands – where the harm? Yes your parents royally screwed you if they saw the U.S.A. as the land of dreams and forced you into citizenship via birth instead of a green card.
Yes it’s legitimate to say someone who buys something doesn’t have to get everyone to sign but there is a implied contract that the item is now his and is off-limits without his permission. Supposed Libertarians find an uninhabited island and create a new society. Anyone who moves there “signs” the contract while those born there get stuck with it.
Play the Nazi card? Technically legal but highly immoral versus technically illegal but highly moral? It’s tragic one larger group decides to kill or oust a smaller group. However the Nazis kept relaxing gun laws when they got into power so they couldn’t have been seen as a tyranny by the German people then.
Strange how you don’t want to answer the question of whether anyone can move to Canada and disregard their laws. I’m waiting for the honest “yes, we’re Libertarians, governments have no right to exist and therefore are invalid so wherever we go and we will ignore them.”
Gil, the answer is yes.
If one follows libertarianism to its logical conclusion then you will discover anarchy.
An anarchist simple believes that the “idea” of the State has lost all of its usefelness, and this idea should fade away into the sunset, as people become more enlightened in this regard.
“Canada” doesn’t really exist. “Canada” is an idea. The “government” of “Canada” is not real either, it is only an idea.
So therefore, all the “laws” that this fictional “Canadian government” has created are only as valid as a majority of the people keep believing the fictional story of “Canada”. If enough people wake up to the fiction, then all the laws will be ignored and the idea of “Canada” will cease to exist.
This is how the modern State will fade into history. Not with a violent revolution, but with massive nullification and disregard for the fairy tales and fiction tellers who spew them.
It sounds like you might be one of the last ones who holds dear to the fiction. Good luck.
“There is the always-present self-righteousness, the moralizing, that accompanies Cloverism. The Clover is possessed of superior knowledge in all things. He knows it. He feels it.”
Goddamn son get out of my head. :))) I was just having this conversation recently. They believe (feel) that not only is there a solution to every social issue, but they know the perfect solution no less AND the gov’t is needed to implement it.
For me that’s where the psychopathy shows. To be so naive, and as you put it, self-righteous is delusional on the Hitler scale.
Eric, where does the term clover come from? Is this a regional thing or something you came up with?
Eric came up with it. Our local troll’s user name is “clover.”
I wondered the same thing. I found the definition in the urban dictionary, so maybe Eric has started a new word:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=CLOVER
That definition is correct and yes Eric created it.
Right on target, Eric. I’m curious why you use an upper case for the word “Libertarian”? Do you mean to refer to a member of the Libertarian party?
Thanks, JDL!
It’s just the copy editor in me… style guide (not the actual book, but the imprint of it in my brain) says capitalize Libertarian … but probably ought to only do so when referencing the party rather than the ideas….
Great article! C.S. Lewis sums it up nicely:
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”
Somehow I just knew that this particular Lewis quote would show up in the comments section! It often shows up on libertarian leaning blogs and in the comment sections, but unfortunately it seems that many libertarians (who would like to claim him as one of their own) omit the all too important next four sentences. Which are: “They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. But to be punished, however severely, because we have deserved it, because we ‘ought to have known better’, is to be treated as a human person made in God’s image.” Without those four sentences the first part of the quote appears to be just another libertarian rant against faceless omnipotent government busybodies with no context or connection to anything. But if you keep them (even better read the complete essay “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment”) you get a real feel for where Lewis was coming from. I also think it really drives home the point Eric is making. I have often wondered why so many libertarians omit those four sentences. Could it be that the very mention of God is offensive to them? With the so called left-progressive libertarians this may be true since many of them proceed from an atheist/agnostic/neo-pagan (i.e. Humanitarian) worldview. It is a worldview that believes that Humanity can be improved upon and perfected by Politics or Science or Behavioral Psychology or what not. They do not realize that once they have their new improved, perfected Human Being, what they really will have is something that is not Human at all (the point Lewis was making in “The Abolition of Man” btw). This, of course, is in direct opposition to the worldview of the libertarians and anarchists who understand that Humanity really can’t be fixed; that the best you can hope for is to contain the more vile elements of it.
Hi Walt,
Excellent comments in re Lewis ( who was a superb writer/Christian apologist).
My own view on the subject is as follows:
I’m not hostile toward belief in the possibility of (for want of a better term) God. The world, the universe, nature, existence – are almost unimaginably complex and even the brightest of us probably capable of comprehending at most some portion of it. We are limited (and finite) beings attempting to grasp (and articulate) the infinite. I would like to believe – and am inclined to believe – that there is something behind at all, something only partially glimpsed and hinted at. Something it may not be possible for us – in our current state – to ever truly understand in the way we understand – in the way we know – that today is Sunday, the sky is blue and 2 + 2 = four.
What I am hostile toward is certainty with regard to religious systems and doctrines. To the suggestion that the Christian view is the right (and only) view. Or the Muslim view. Or any other view. That anyone “knows.”
We each have opinions – and some of us believe. We may have faith in these beliefs.
But I regard it as essential to the preservation of sanity (let alone reason) to concede that perhaps we may believe in error. And that certainly, we have no right to condemn others who believe differently.
It’s possible that the quotes are abbreviated for the reasons stated but more likely it’s that people can only remember so much and thus a few lines are easier to say than a paragraph.
Be good, or we’ll kill you.
I think Heinlein said something similar (paraphrase) ‘the world divides evenly into two camps, those who feel that men should be controlled and those who have no such desire’.
I would phrase this way in my opinion; “the world divides evenly into two camps, those who feel that men should be controlled and those who feel they should control men.
It’s also true that they would never even allow you to buy your own freedom. I could offer the state a billion dollars to be left alone and they wouldn’t take it. Why? Because one free man would incite others. It wouldn’t be considered fair by many. “How dare he be free, when I am not,”WE” need to do something about this and prove he isn’t happy being free, for his own good we must take away his freedom.”
Then there would be the even more dangerous group. The men and women that see that freedom and covet it. Just to see that one man living free would force them to confront the fact that they are slaves.
The entire system of governance relies on slavery. Of course many will claim they are not slaves. No, the clovers do not believe they are slaves because they “choose” the chains that they drag around.
If you ask an anti-war clover, why do you pay taxes for bombs? He will tell you that although under duress, he still chooses the lessor of two evils. He honestly believes that he is free to choose. How you can be forced to pay money under duress and still be free is beyond me. (money is time and time is money)
If spend 2 years or 5 years or 8 years working to pay the taxes for crap that I am 100% apposed to, am I not a slave for those years?
IME I found they believe in the invisible social contract. A contract that isn’t written or signed that is whatever the state says it is when they say it. That is they worship the state first, they are things like anti-war somewhere down the list.
However I am learning that people who still can think but are merely well conditioned have lines. A line where they will claim natural rights.
My newest method of debate is to argue natural rights and self ownership from the line they draw, that is agree that they are correct, that whatever natural right they picked to draw the line on is such but then tell them that sadly it is only a matter of opinion because of their social contract that lets the state decide what our rights are. That they cannot have the natural right they claim because they threw the other natural rights under the bus so to speak. They don’t believe in self ownership and thus they have no rights but what the state, the institution that runs the collective, grants.
So far it’s been effective. In a discussion regarding that Akin guy’s bizzaro comments that drifted into third rail areas of abortion, birth control, rape, etc I got silence. These were people who had argued at length to me about the social contract and living in a society and so forth and so on in the past. That I was owned by the collective. Dead silence when I told them that if our labor is owned, so are they and their views on the subject of reproduction are just matters of opinion. Not natural right of self ownership because they discarded that principle to get what they wanted elsewhere.
These are individuals who have never been silent towards my libertarian views in the past. They aren’t full out clovers, they can think, but their emotions and conditioning override their thinking. Silence I think means I finally cut through some of the conditioning. They had to realize they were intellectually pinned when they claimed a right to other people’s wealth and tried to say that they owned their bodies with regards to reproduction. I just kept pounding they can’t have both. I ended with Holdren’s book Ecoscience and a passage where they make the claim the state should have the power to force abortion or force birthing of children as it sees fit. Silence. End of discussion.
And yes, if one ant stands up, they all might stand up, and they can’t have that. This is what they fear. Not single men and small groups of people. They fear the tipping point where the ants stand up in mass.
I bothered to read Rousseau recently, The Social Contract (available online for free), and he mentions in the book about any deviation from his original principle “The clauses of this contract are so determined by the nature of the act that the slightest modification would make them vain and ineffective;” yet people want to say whatever they want to mean a social contract.
He also says “SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow, and force creates no right, we must conclude that conventions form the basis of all legitimate authority among men.”
But peeps like to toss around “social contract” to mean whatever it is they want it to mean, as if they somehow considered some sort of authentic reasoning on their own. It’s nonsense.
Nice way to argue that point. I will have to try it sometime.
@BrentP:
I like it! Very effective.
Pair that with the “do we both agree violence is no way to solve problems?”…”But what you’re advocating is violence by proxy…” sequence of arguments, and only the most hypocritical double-thinker could continue to object.
As you say, at that point you’ve pinned them logically. No escape; they either have to tap out or lie still.
Social contract? I don’t recall ever signing one.
Who says slavery in the u.s. Is no longer accepted. The government is the slaveholder of millions of people. We work and almost half of that work is confiscated by the governments in the form of taxes and fees (taxes by another name).
Hi JP,
Exactly so. I’ve long held that this is a reason why the original Matrix movie did so well. It resonates on some level; people intuitively get it. They know something’s wrong… they just need to be helped to see it.
…And their gun-n-jail backed political “Laws” that destroy freedom and opportunity…and counterfeit “money” inflation which robs everyone of everything over time.
The terrorists own everyone and everything.
Hence WHY the tyrant Abe Lincoln wanted to destroy the “Peculiar Institution” in the Confederacy (yet he’d have allowed it to remain if that would had ended the war)…the Government tolerates no competition! Why enslave a few miserable negroes when you can enslave us all? Equality? Sure…equally under the heel of the Federal Jackboot!