11 votes

Defense Language School 'Ethicist' / 'Philosopher': We have "Moral OBLIGATION" to murder via Drones!

Meet the psychotic academic statist murder enabler: Prof. Bradley Strawser, USAF (Ret) who now landed a cushy job at the US Navy's Defense Language School in Monterey, CA, primarily because:

His forceful defence of the military use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), as drones are also called, is largely the reason he has landed a tenure-track post as assistant professor of philosophy at Monterey's Naval Postgraduate School, an elite college which gives master's and PhD courses to military officers, academics and policymakers.

The philosopher making the moral case for US drones: 'There's no downside'
It's one of the US's most controversial policies; one that resulted in large numbers of civilian deaths overseas. So why does Bradley Strawser see targeted killing as a moral obligation?

Rory Carroll in Monterey
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 2 August 2012 11.02 EDT

At first sight, Bradley Strawser resembles a humanities professor from central casting. He has a beard, wears jeans, quotes Augustine and calls himself, only half in jest, a hippie. He opposes capital punishment and Guantánamo Bay, calls the Iraq invasion unjust and scorns neo-conservative foreign policy hawks. "Whatever a neocon is, I'm the opposite."

His office overlooks a placid campus in Monterey, an oasis of California sun and Pacific zephyrs, and he lives up the road in Carmel, a forested beauty spot with an arts colony aura. Strawser has published works on metaphysics and Plato and is especially fond of Immanuel Kant.

Strawser is also, it turns out, an outspoken and unique advocate for what is becoming arguably the US's single most controversial policy: drone strikes. Strawser has plunged into the churning, anguished debate by arguing the US is not only entitled but morally obliged to use drones.

"It's all upside. There's no downside. Both ethically and normatively, there's a tremendous value," he says. "You're not risking the pilot. The pilot is safe. And all the empirical evidence shows that drones tend to be more accurate. We need to shift the burden of the argument to the other side. Why not do this? The positive reasons are overwhelming at this point. This is the future of all air warfare. At least for the US."

**************************************************************

Like all neoCon scums, Stawser also loves twisting Plato and Kant's works to suit his Machiavellian views.

For those who are geolpolitcally aware, it's no secret that US Navy's Defense Language School in Monterey, CA, is the home of foreign mercenary terrorist network training HQ.

Strawser is a prime example why some 'academics' are far more dangerous to humanity than any 'insurgent' with an AK47 or a Russian RPG7.

May the name "Bradley Strawser" live in infamy, like John Yoo, the torture apologist; look for BOTH of their names, at the upcoming Nuremberg Tribunals, 2.0.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We know what comes next...

the miltarized police force picking off targets like a duck shoot at the county fair!
Why have beat cops when you can have drones policing the neighborhood? We wouldn' want our 'boys in blue' to come to any harm, now would we?
Officer Crumpky: But from my screen it looked like he had a shiny AK47 tucked under his arm. I saw it shine under the lampost.
Commissioner NothingStickstoMe: What you saw was a reflection off the cellophane wrapped around the roses he was taking home to his wife.
Officer Crumpky: But at least it was a clean shoot.
Commissioner NothingStickstoMe: But you left rose petals all over the sidewalk and we got fined $200 for littering!

I shouldn't be joking about this, but it's what's coming if the neocons keep their hold over the population.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

A scary, bleak future

That's an image of a scary, bleak future. We best end this spark before it becomes a wildfire. No drones now. No drones ever.

except for Taco Copters! .o)

http://tacocopter.com/

dang it, Ingot, they got me to ponder accepting tyranny, even for a nanosec, over the convenience of satisfying my corn and beans epicurean fix!

yikes!

lol

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Haha

Hilarious. Thanks for posting. I guess if the worst they can do is barrage me with tacos...

In the clip from the article,

In the clip from the article, Bradley Strawser is talking about using drones instead of planes to drop bombs. He's not talking about the act of whether or not to bomb someone. He's just saying IF we bomb something, we should use drones instead of jets or missiles. They are more accurate and there are no pilot risks. He says at the beginning of the article that he was against the invasions, dislikes neo-con positions, ect. I agree with him. I also think the bombing overseas has to stop now, we're making a lot of enemies.

Update: here's an academic WITH conscience, who 'gets' it:

Drone race will ultimately lead to a sanitised factory of slaughter
The rise in use of drone attacks and the technology that goes with them is the final step in the industrial revolution of war

Noel Sharkey
guardian.co.uk, Friday 3 August 2012 10.27 EDT

The CIA has killed more than 200 children in drone strikes outside of legitimate war zones since 2004, it is alleged. In Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia an estimated total of between 451 and 1,035 civilians were killed in at least 373 strikes according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, the most accurate source of "kill statistics".

Who in their right mind would give a powerful unmanned air force to a covert organisation with such a track record for unaccountable and illegal killing? The number of strikes in Pakistan has dramatically increased from 52 under George W Bush during his five years of conflict to 282 during Obama's three and a half-year watch. Obama is establishing a dangerous precedent that is, at best, legally questionable in a world where more than 50 countries are acquiring the technology.

This is big business with billions of dollars at stake. Israeli companies are pursuing new drone markets in Asia and Latin America. The US has restricted drone sales to its allies but now, with defence budgets shrinking, companies such as Northrop Grumman and General Atomics are lobbying their government to loosen export restrictions and open foreign markets in South America and the Middle East. Other countries such as India and Pakistan are also hungry for the technology. Russia has unveiled its MiG Skat combat drone with on-board cruise missiles for strikes on air defences as well as ground and naval targets, while Iran demonstrated an armed rocket launched drone, the Karrar, in 2010.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

ah... only if there were no "collateral murders."

The question isn't HOW to bomb.

The REAL question is whether anyone should be bombed at all, in undeclared, illegal, UnConstitutional wars, and bombings.

That's equivalent to asking 'should the following murder be planned and committed with a blade or a Glock?'

Murder is Murder, is Murder.

That's the real point here.

What Strawser does is a typical statist NLP; for public consumption, they present their BS PR by presently assuming as IF the 'unsavory' aspect of the question raised in regard to their illegal actions are 'already settled,' thus they go on to posit the next step: like a taxi driver selling his fare to a prospective customer that he/she shouldn't worry about the obviously missing rear wheel.

Strawser's response is "Exhibit A)" in Propaganda 101. A classic tool of sophistry and manufactured consent.

Too obvious, it's almost hilarious.

Also, consider the Austrian argument: No Risk = Moral Hazard.

When there is lack of perceived risk, people to stupid things (as if illegal wars and murder aren't 'stupid' enough). Drones are widely deployed now, specifically so that the Military Industrial Complex can now more easily rationalize to the sheeple populace that wars are 'cheap and safe.'

Though, considering how callous and little respect for life that the Sheeple ALREADY widely display now, more "normalization" of drone murders are even a scarier thought.

And notice, how the commissars still have to rationalize their illegalities to the citizenry, however superficial, precisely because everything that corporatist govt does, depends on the people's consent, and faith in govt.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

Helicopter Pilots are pretty accurate

They just cant tell children from freedom fighters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html/

November 6th 2012 I voted for Dr.Ron Paul
"We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects." ~ Ron Paul

As usual Bob Marley comes to mind :)

Babylon system is the vampire, yea! (vampire)
Suckin' the children day by day, yeah!
Me say: de Babylon system is the vampire, falling empire,
Suckin' the blood of the sufferers, yea-ea-ea-ea-e-ah!
Building church and university, wo-o-ooh, yeah! -
Deceiving the people continually, yea-ea!
Me say them graduatin' thieves and murderers;
Look out now: they suckin' the blood of the sufferers (sufferers).
Yea-ea-ea! (sufferers)

Freedom is not: doing everything you want to.
Freedom is: not having to do what you don't want to do.
~ Joyce Meyer

reedr3v's picture

Good post AnCap. May this hypocritical,

elitist, "intellectual" mercenary-for-hire be excoriated by his entire profession, or at least a significant ethical faction of them. How I wish we in the Liberty movement were strong enough to take down such vile handmaidens to warmongers and see them reviled and outcast.

I simply do not know just how many 'reality alerts' like

this one the R3d Pill citizenry can take...

It's one insane news after another, 24/7.

Before, merely researching NWO prior to their 'beta test' during Katrina NOLA to see just how 'resistant' the American populace would be, it was all still more or less 'academic.'

but sh*T is so mind-numbingly real, they've literally opened a spigot of evil that is gushing out daily, as if to see just when the citizenry will break, so they can move all of this onto their next predictable phase in "Problem, Reaction, Solution."

regardless, you KNOW other Brookings Inst./CFR whores in the Left 'academia' are probably making the SAME EXACT insane rationale for all of oBUSHma the NWO Wall St. puppet, continuing and expanding all of GWB's warcrimes abroad and policestate at home.

it's getting so nutty, so fast...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

And besides, what is a

And besides, what is a Defense Language School? Is that where they learn to call civilians fighting for their freedom 'insurgents' and killing 'dispatching'. That kind of stuff?

lol, yeah tell me about it.

some of these DoD terms sound as weird/occultish as their operation names: Operation Northwoods, Vigilant Guardian, Amalgam Virgo, etc.

My take? It's their euphemism for: 'let us 'learn' your language, so we can teach you 'our' language.'

The 'language' of death, murder, mayhem, and false flag; use you as a bunch of useful idiot patsies, in turn we can convince the moron sheeple Amerikans to give up more of their 'rights' so we can lord over the planet,' that is.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

yeah with every war the

yeah with every war the euphemisms have to be more euphemistic so I guess there's plenty of work in that field for people that lack any connection to reality.

the worst part?

upon reading those articles, I was expecting myself to react with far more shock...

guess the world's gone so crazy, nothing shocks me anymore.

perhaps that's when it's truly a sign that things are about to get just a wee bit rougher...

talk about an understatement of the century...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

hippies are dangerous.

hippies are dangerous.

hate to generalize, but from all the hippies I've met, at least

in my own personal experience, I'd have to agree.

The self-professed hippies I've personally met have been some of the most 'selfish' people I've ever met; odd, and ironic, as they accuse the rest of the population of being "selfish," even as they leech/mooch off of others, and have no problem doing it, as if that's the way it's supposed to be.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

There was a fair bit of

There was a fair bit of sarcasm in there, but also a core of truth to what you see. I think after the social liberation of the 60s didn't work they became much self-absorbed in the 70s. That's where it went wrong.

Another thing about the hippies I don't like is that they turned consumption into a form of self-expression. You know, lifestyle and all that nonsense. They played right into the hands of the big corporations then and now they run them.

I have nothing against hippies themselves. But the guys like Steve Jobs and this one. They dropped acid once and now they're hippie for life. Right.

well, it's always been my contention that the

'make love, not war' anti-war leftists and hippies ultimately failed, specifically because they lacked an economic component, to their belief system, if it can even be called that.

also, here's been my personal take on much of what started out as a libertarian revolution: the Silicon Valley.

it's true that many tech billionaires were hippies and dropouts, and all around geniuses. but also, libertarians started and built the tech revolution.

for those that weren't, it's like an entire generation of slackers suddenly found they needed economic means. but unlike their parents generations, as often as those 'without' tend to do, they seek extremes. They had absolutely no 'money,' so suddenly when they realized they 'needed' it, it's as if collectively as a generation, the Summer of Love hippies went on a monetary binge, and became insanely greedy, without the temperament of their WWII generation.

for the more libertarian generation, I think the reason why they became so litigious, and protectionist, I see the same parallel with the 'Robber Barons.'

Now, the whole NWO/Rothschild family nexus aside, Henry Ford, Andrew Carnegie, and John D. Rockefeller were all self-made man. They literally went from rags to riches, because our Founders started a system that allowed for it. Yet, instead of inspiring a whole new generation to do the same, they used govt to stifle competition.

And frankly the libertarian tech generation would go on to do the same.

Now, the "Robber Barons" were still from the brick and mortar era, where info was slow, manufacturing was even harder.

With the tech generation, it didn't take years to become a billionaire, it came 'overnight,' well... relatively speaking.

My feeling is that precisely because it came so fast, and can come so fast, the new techie billionaires probably subconsciously noticed how fragile their world have become: if they can become a billionaire overnight, so can anyone else with an idea. So knowing this, they did what the previous rags to riches did: use govt to protect themselves, in a very un-libertarian manner.

Just look at all the endless feckless BS lawsuits over "software patent-violations."

I see what they're doing as the same as the Robber Baron era: protectionism, protectionism, protectionism, govt-protected monopolies, govt-protected monopolies, govt-protected monopolies.

Sad really.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

I would have to disagree with

I would have to disagree with your assessment of Silicon Valley originally being anything close to libertarians. I would contend that being pro-business and working hard to make money isn't solely reserved for libertarians.

A lot of them did indentify

A lot of them did indentify with libertarianism or Ayn Rand. Now whether that makes them libertarian is another story.

actually, I'm merely citing what many from the "Tech Gen."

described themselves to be.

Along with the fact that even currently, there are disproportionately high number of libertarian computer scientists/coders in general, in Silicon Valley as well as other high-tech locales. There's no secret to this fact.

It's the whole 'logic' thing; have yet to see any 'movement' political hacks 'win' a factual argument with a libertarian.o)

Of course, while I never made a generalization specifically in that regard, but you are absolutely right: "being pro-business and working hard to make money isn't solely reserved for libertarians."

Who can disagree with that: wanting to succeed in life, financially?

That's what most humans tend to want, in my experience, though obviously not always the "pro-business" part, however that has come to be seen in this corporatist age where most mainstream politicos are utterly clueless of the difference between capitalism vs. corporatism.

But, I'd submit that your latter part, "working hard to make money"? That's almost rhetorical, more so, if you have loved ones to support.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

"Working hard to make money,"

"Working hard to make money," is not rhetorical, and it is not necessary to support oneself or ones family. There is a difference between supporting ones family with what is needed and providing that which is wanted or desired. It appears that the majority of people are misconstruing what is a need to live and what is a desired need to be content. Food, water, shelter, and security are needed to live, iPhones, iPads, Internet, electricity and many other amenities of modern life are not necessities; therefore to slave one-self's life to provide that which is not necessarily required to live, seem quite moronic.

When 'money' itself becomes a necessity to live, then we will always have a corrupt system to take advantage of the people; to be able to provide for those who are unable to make 'money' for themselves. Since most AnCaps and even Agorists are more-so pushing the idea of 'making money' as apposed to being self-sustaining -in part or in whole- then even if the ideal libertarian society were to magically happen, the people would find themselves in nearly the same predicament that the majority of people find themselves in now. The only major difference would be that with a government there is an illusion that regular people could change the system, whereas, under a libertarian system it would be corporations which will control the show -with no illusion that the regular people would ever be able to change it by any other means than violence.

I believe you're

making an errant distinction, about which I made no such philosophical counter to your own personally understood realities and views on modern life, as you clearly seem to be asserting here:

"Working hard to make money," is not rhetorical, and it is not necessary to support oneself or ones family.

But, for the sake of discussion, I shall bite:

Well, it IS "rhetorical" in the current fiat monetary paradigm, that a Joe citizen indeed 'HAS to' "work hard to make money," to even afford bare necessities for a bare minimum survivable living, even if he/she wishes to exit 'modernity' toward a more personally amenable 'sustainable' living outside the currently mandated NWO Wall St. Mil.Ind.Complex bankster instituted fiat monetary system/paradigm.

I agree with your opinion:

There is a difference between supporting ones family with what is needed and providing that which is wanted or desired.

In my own personally observed, though limited and generalized anecdotal assessment it maybe, yes, I agree that 'most' sheeple tend to conflate bare necessity, with what would've been considered luxuries in the past; perhaps in the world of conscious souls, what are still considered luxuries:

It appears that the majority of people are misconstruing what is a need to live and what is a desired need to be content. Food, water, shelter, and security are needed to live, iPhones, iPads, Internet, electricity and many other amenities of modern life are not necessities; therefore to slave one-self's life to provide that which is not necessarily required to live, seem quite moronic.

And still, all of which are "rhetorical" to this lad, as I do not disagree with that assessment; as far as I'm concerned, your stated observations 'should be' common sense, in an ideal world. But we all know what maybe 'common sense' to some, maybe a rare observation to others.

Which now brings us to, 'how "differential advantage"-diffusing Peter Joseph-ish ZeitGeistMovement' of you:

When 'money' itself becomes a necessity to live, then we will always have a corrupt system to take advantage of the people; to be able to provide for those who are unable to make 'money' for themselves.

Which now also brings into focus our obvious disagreements in understanding of the more fundamental issue: what is or is not "money," how current monetary paradigm works doesn't work, vs. what the evolving 'vision' of how post-FED monetary paradigm MAY or may not look like, among Agorists/AnCaps/Voluntaryists.

I disagree with your assessment that the following:

Since most AnCaps and even Agorists are more-so pushing the idea of 'making money' as apposed to being self-sustaining -in part or in whole-

is what "most AnCaps and even Agorists are more-so pushing," or 'want,' as you, nor I speak for them all.

Either that, or you're clearly misunderstanding who or what a self-identified agorist/AnCap believes.

For definition sakes, I'd assume that you'd agree that the only qualifier for the true definition of who or what a libertarian/minarchist/agorist/AnCap/voluntaryist is the belief and practice of the Non-Agression Principle/Axiom, aka NAP/NAA.

And, assuming we're NOT referring to 'Socialist Commune Anarchists'/syndicalists, but market anarchist (Anarcho-Capitalist, aka AnCap) voluntaryists, the only other definition qualifier for the self-identifying "agorist," is that one believes in working outside of the current political and econ paradigm, as long as it's voluntary.

Now with that established, beyond NAA/NAP and 'parallel econ system and organizational structures,' what AnCaps/agorists 'should agree to or want' in terms of what "real sustainability" is, or is not, is a moot point.

What you're factually only discussing is what YOUR idea of what "true sustainability" is, which frankly, NO ONE outside of yourself can, or will satisfy.

Also, there's no way in hell you or anyone can qualify this:

then even if the ideal libertarian society were to magically happen, the people would find themselves in nearly the same predicament that the majority of people find themselves in now.

Now, if you were to posit that, that maybe ONE plausible possibility? Sure.

But, more than that, if you and I both agree to the actual definition of who or what an agorist is, and how their systems are evolving, and if one truly understands economics of voluntaryism, your assertion becomes even more unrealistically qualifiable, let alone quantifiable.

As, I'd submit that in its core essence, ancap agorism would naturally yield a spontaneous order of sustainable parallel economy and voluntary organizational structures.

Because by definition, a functional agorist system has to be sustainable, as REAL agorists seek to establish a working system to exist or simply forge their own paradigm that evolves parallel to the current, fraudulent FED-fiat monetary and political paradigm: it won't survive, unless it IS "sustainable."

All of which leads me to believe that either you don't understand the definition of what an agorist is, or disagree philosophically with how or what such agorist 'system'/method/paradigm/society, may yield:

The only major difference would be that with a government there is an illusion that regular people could change the system, whereas, under a libertarian system it would be corporations which will control the show -with no illusion that the regular people would ever be able to change it by any other means than violence.

as made self-evident, above.

The persistence of the Leftist vestige of the notion that "corporations will control the show," is a mind-numbingly strange propagation, every time I come across it within an intra-r3VOL discussion.

Under the current fraudulent, evil, fiat-FED debt monetary/fractional reserve system where a corporatist cartel rules the entire world medium of exchange, of course, corporatist monopolies "control the show," precisely because it was founded to do just that.

Why is the whole 'democratic' market vote via voluntary patronage of a business' absent in this discussion? Isn't that like Austrian 101??

OF course, we're talking a hypothetical extrapolation, but as you know, at least I hope you do, in an agorist society, corporatist monopolies don't control sh*t. It can't, as govt is rendered moot, and there is no such thing as a corporatist monopoly without them being able to have a govt TO HIJACK, to begin with.

Frankly, even now, corporatist monopolies cannot function, without the tacit approval of the sheeple who do not organize against it, who psychotically continue to prop up the current political pigsty in delusional hopes of 'reining in' those coporatists without realizing that the very 'govt' they think is there to 'control' those very corporatists, are manned by the functionaries of those corporatists.

I would've assumed this would be a given to most here at DailyPaul.

Now, I'm not naive enough to assume, that some won't believe that a direction toward a more voluntaryist society is possible without your aforementioned "-with no illusion that the regular people would ever be able to change it by any other means than violence."

That said, how is working peacefully toward a more voluntaryist society, any different than knowing that we live in a policestate, within a murderous and fraudulent political paradigm, yet enough of us have chosen to engage via the political process within the slightly marginally more corrupt of the two party monopoly, aka the GOP, regardless??

Also, there's a world of difference between money, and "money," aka, currency.

We're currently living under a fiat monetary system of debt slavery based on currency, NOT money. I maybe speaking to the choir here, but for the sake of discussion, I believe what you're really referring to is, "working for CURRENCY."

But, econ-consciously speaking, you NEVER want to "work FOR money," even if we were to switch things around and our medium of exchange became real money, again.

You always want to have "money work FOR you."

Also, a corporation, as an operative 'legal' entity as is stands today, cannot exist without govt.

I 'get' what you're saying about the nature of modern survival in the currency paradigm. Yes, everyday common man/woman is 'forced' to "work for money" because they live in a fiat monetary mandated paradigm established long before they were born into it, nor had any say in agreeing to it, or escaping it.

The whole basis behind economics, whether perceived or real, is based on the notion of scarcity of something. If everything were plentiful, there would be no need for a price structure.

Now, in an era where former neoCons but ever still the statists Bob Barr and Wayne Allen Root, to the comically definition-imbecilic Bill Maher AND Glenn Beck are self-described "libertarians," the term "libertarian" itself in context of how r3VOLuionaries understand it to be, maybe moot.

But frankly, your expounding upon your own personal view of what is 'necessary' and 'sustainable' is really not how this discussion began. I was merely pointing out what those who have researched the nature of Silicon Valley already know all too well: there's no debate to the fact that many who began the tech revolution since late 1950's to the more specific 'start' of Silicon Valley as we know it today, the now famous 'Hewlett Packard Garage,' were and are self-described "libertarians."

This is how our conversation began, with a very general point:

I would have to disagree with your assessment of Silicon Valley originally being anything close to libertarians. I would contend that being pro-business and working hard to make money isn't solely reserved for libertarians.

and the only relevant portion out of my reply to the above:

Of course, while I never made a generalization specifically in that regard, but you are absolutely right: "being pro-business and working hard to make money isn't solely reserved for libertarians."

Who can disagree with that: wanting to succeed in life, financially?

That's what most humans tend to want, in my experience, though obviously not always the "pro-business" part, however that has come to be seen in this corporatist age where most mainstream politicos are utterly clueless of the difference between capitalism vs. corporatism.

Now all that aside, yes, of course, there is a world of difference between having 'forced' to "work for money" under the current FED-system vs. having 'money work for you,' something even within the currently operative fraudulent 'monetary' structure, someone who 'gets' the fiat monetary system know all too well about how to leverage paper 'assets' for passive as well as active streams of income. And yes, it's all artificial, and you're sh*t out of luck, if you don't understand how currency works, which, frankly is about 90% of the population.

But here's the real issue: the origins of corporations.

A corporation as we know it today came only into existence since the tail end of Renaissance, by Venetian/Florentine merchant class, aka Venetian 'Black Nobility.'

It is the last vestige of European feudal system in which since the rise of the Merchant class who did not have the 'cache' of the self-declared 'divine right to rule-aristocracy,' a compact of sorts were agreed upon: the 'royals' had the cache but lacked money, the merchant class lacked cache, but had money. So the corporate charters were enacted as a monopoly to the most 'giving' of the merchant class. Thus came the 'king's favorite watchmaker, coachbuilder, blacksmith, etc.' Oh, and let us not forget the conquistadors in which each ship were incorporated as a separate corporate entity to reduce liability for the 'investors.'

Corporations were originated as the king's/aristocracies monopolies to the growing merchant class of the day; please look up "Douglas Rushkoff," a liberal techie author, while has horrible understanding of econ, overcomes the partisan divide, as his research on the origins of "corporations" is spot on.

In closing, I believe we both agree on the current nature of what corporations are, along with the fraudulent FED-banksters mandated paradigm.

Where we do part ways is what I believe your expressed understanding of what an agorist is, and what an agorist system MAY yield.

I happen to believe parallel systems making current one moot is the way to go. And even in such system, whether as you've expressed, corporations are gonna take over? I say no, precisely because of what I described above. But then again, no one knows the future.

Now, my own personal understanding of where the evolution of 'legal' entities of common interests founded to lessen liability of investors on given project may yield? Unless a legitimate arbitration entity evolves outside of the current statist govt 'judicial system,' that remains to be seen. But factually speaking, there is NO SUCH THING as a 'govt,' as govts themselves are corporate entities. Google Maywood, CA. That should prove to you beyond the shadow of a doubt what govts are: their very existence depend on what their insurance company thinks of them, and their willingness to continue to underwrite them.

So, to me, knowing this, this whole issue of govt vs. corp, is a moot point. Because for anyone who actually understands the reality of the matter, govts are not "de facto" corporations.

They ARE corporations.

So the only question remains is what best voluntary system can humans live with.

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

absolutely. You can't ignore

absolutely. You can't ignore the economy. I know this myself, because libertarianism only started to click for me when the economic component came into play. And before that I never had much faith in 'let's change the world' type movements because they all seemed to operate in a naive fantasy world. "If only we could get along..." Yeah, well can't so show me the f'in money.

Another thing they do is place themselves outside history. Like if they go to Africa to bring their enlightened ideas to the natives and uplift them into a better life.. it's all good and the good Africans are supposed to forget about 500 years of history.

Interesting perspective on the Silicon Valley 'rebels'. I agree. I like how say that about them finding out about the fragility of the world through their own success. That rings very true. I've seen it happen in people, and they were nowhere near as powerful or rich. I don't think they even see the change.. because in their minds they're still pursuing their original wonderful vision and probably see it as protecting their idea. They have a version of the future and decided it's the best one for everyone. You can see how you can still delude yourself to be a hippie idealist.

brilliant observation, Dutch!

Another thing they do is place themselves outside history. Like if they go to Africa to bring their enlightened ideas to the natives and uplift them into a better life.. it's all good and the good Africans are supposed to forget about 500 years of history.

so right.

Tyranny of good intentions always presumes that those offering 'new ideas' are social hierarchically 'above' the 'lessers' that they're imparting their 'knowledge' to.

A 'liberal' version of the classic "Whitemen's Burden," if you will.

Same reason why they believe in govt aid/welfare here, as well as abroad, as an 'agent of good.'

Or, as I like to call it: cargo cultists deluding that they too are not cargo cultists, either.

lol.

"I like how say that about them finding out about the fragility of the world through their own success." - SOOOOO poignantly true.

They simply found it's easier to keep the Ring of Sauron, on, forever.

well, here's hoping that none of us ever become such paleocon/Constitutionalist/libertarian/minarchist/agorist/ancap/voluntaryist 'idealists'; no Ring for me.0)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

well, here's hoping that none

well, here's hoping that none of us ever become such paleocon/Constitutionalist/libertarian/minarchist/agorist/ancap/voluntaryist 'idealists'; no Ring for me.0)

Don't attain power then.. I don't think we can handle that. The best thing we can hope for in my mind is for the next generation to overthrow us when we become too fat and complacent. Wait, did I just sound like Mao there? It's happening..

"Don't attain power then... "

Oh you KNOW you want some...My Precious!

Muahahaha!

Sure. I can handle it, er... maybe.o)

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

the fact that a self-proclaimed "Hippie Professor" would

actually delusionally, psychotically/sociopathically make the case FOR drone murders, should explain to all, WHY most liberals can rationalize oBUSHma's drone murders, but not GWB's.

He is a prime example of a living cognitive dissonance, if not, a most effective propagandist of the liberally satiable meme.

Seriously? a "hippie," 'against capital punishment, GitMo, Iraq Invasion, neoCon chickensh*ts.'

At first sight, Bradley Strawser resembles a humanities professor from central casting. He has a beard, wears jeans, quotes Augustine and calls himself, only half in jest, a hippie. He opposes capital punishment and Guantánamo Bay, calls the Iraq invasion unjust and scorns neo-conservative foreign policy hawks. "Whatever a neocon is, I'm the opposite."

Yet, somehow he finds it no moral conflict in calling drone murders, a "moral obligation?"

How does one become such a lunatic degenerate?? Sane people would like to know...

Predictions in due Time...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGDisyWkIBM

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul

moral obligation

If that is the case, wouldn't the pilots get medals for their "bravery"? If they ever do, I expect one for all the hours I spent killing prostitutes playing GTA because I was "fighting crime".