-6 votes

The Robinson Crusoe Version of Anarchy, or, Advice to the Anarchists

Hey now!

Story time with Bill3.

God was getting crowded and all those naked people were cramping his style, so he said you know what, ye shall labor by the sweat of thy brow and eat by the fruit of thy plow, be gone with Ye!

So now you got a hundred people that just got booted from Eden, and hence facing scarcity of means to satisfy their needs.

You now have a state of natural anarchy.

As it happens, some of these hundred exiles try to bully the others around and take as much as they can get their hands on. So some others maybe try to persuade the bullies to chill out and take their fair share, or cooperate and work together to get stuff.

Well that don't work, so a few of them gang up to tie up and bludgeon the bully with a club. He flees into the hinterland and joins up with some other billy badas_ses that had been chased off. They say F it lets team up and go crack some skulls, grab some fermented berry drink, some women and have a good old time.

Four of em descend on the peaceful social organization forming among the others. They lose 10 people before driving off the gang. They gather round tending their wounds, and decide they need 10 or 15 on guard at all times to watch for and repel or capture this gang of thugs.

The people standing around on guard aren't working so they have to get paid to stand around and be cops, so they can eat too.

Now you have government.

That's the Robinson Crusoe version anyway.

Now for the harangue and advice.

You guys can argue speculatively that after 10,000 years of using coercion to create order, and a common system of law and markets that extends over hundreds of millions of people cooperating peacefully according to the known rules of the game, NOW we can try to privatize everything and hope for the best, hope it doesn't descend into feudalism, chaos, gang warfare.

Hope the economic output that depends on a predictable, standardized legal order with courts, contracts, a common currency, freedom of movement and trade, standardized political forms, does not collapse in disorder.

Hope it does not send us back to having 10,000 law codes, and 50,000 walled off territories governed by neo-feudal lords armed with modern surveillance and military technology. Hope that 90% of the population doesn't starve due to a f sck up in the theory or schematics you conjured up.

Hope that you can redesign society from scratch according to vague, experimental notions scribbled by academic intellectuals, based on paper models of human nature and how society should be because that's how human beings OUGHT to be behave.

Well, you geniuses, social reformers, and improvers of society...

At least test this shyt out on an island somewhere before you try it in real life!

Before you try to persuade people to adopt it for 350,000,000 people who need to eat and be provided for through the system of social cooperation in a market economy operating on a legal basis.

How's that for a compromise?




Comment viewing options

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

"Well, you geniuses, social

"Well, you geniuses, social reformers, and improvers of society..."

Out of the whole rant this is what popped out to me the most. Just the whole way you are attacking anarchists tells me that you might have a strong personal distaste for the people that share these ideologies. And the way you referred to the others as a "peaceful social organization"(which i'm guessing is supposed to be you and the conservatives?), going on to say they get attacked by voluntrayists.. LOL Warped....

It sounds like you have some deep-rooted pro Authoritarianistic ideals and just a completely negative mental picture of Anarchism.
Why can't you just accept that not everyone wants to live under someone else's rules. Some of us want to make our own decisions in life. Be individuals.

You can have YOUR constitution, flag, bill of rights, street light laws, soda regulations and all of that in a Voluntary society.. But we can't have our own personal freedom in your system... Sounds like you're the one that needs to think about some compromise.

Oh and btw.. In Spain they had an Anarcho society for 3 years, during the 1936-39 Spanish Civil War. They say it went beautifully. You know who killed innocent people and destroyed their way of life?? The newly formed fascist Franco government...
But aye, don't take my word for it, just listen to the people who were actually there: http://youtu.be/qH43YHaUGyQ

Wow, they sound like just complete freaks. Such chaotic anarchists :o

.....Be afraid, be very afraid of a life without daddy government lol

you totally misunderstood the

you totally misunderstood the little parable. the "peaceful social organization" was just being attacked by criminals lol not anarchists. jeez..

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

Hmmm

In the words of a great prophet, stupid is, as stupid does. Billy boy, i'm one of them and guess what, I do not care if you want to participate in my life choices, i'm not trying to force you to live according to my beliefs, how about you and the rest of your government worshipers try to do the same? You want your government, you can have it, and I mean ALL OF IT, Just don't FORCE me to participate in it, in any form shape or fashion. Do you see the difference yet?

Hmmm

In the words of a great prophet, stupid is, as stupid does. Billy boy, i'm one of them and guess what, I do not care if you want to participate in my life choices, i'm not trying to force you to live according to my beliefs, how about you and the rest of your government worshipers try to do the same? You want your government, you can have it, and I mean ALL OF IT, Just don't FORCE me to participate in it, in any form shape or fashion. Do you see the difference yet?

Bump

to illuminate the idiocy.

BILL3 is confused

He's hung up on the word "anarchy." The free market argument is that what is provided by what we call government could be provided more efficiently and sanely by organizations that emerged through market processes.

There are no limits in the market. If what is desired by civilized people are protections and stability that traditionally have been provided (supposedly) by governments, entrepreneurs would set out to provide same. No reason I couldn't acquire and develop 10 square miles and offer laws and security as part of the lease agreement for my 5,000 or 10,000 lots....No reason myself and 10,000 other developers couldn't work together to create a cooperative system that provides the defenses and cohesiveness that traditional governments have provided, without the unaccountable power that is the primary failing (from a humanitarian standpoint) of the state.

Also, without traditional government, almost all threats to security and stability would likely evaporate. All wars and social ills are direct effects or unintended consequences of the policies of traditional governments. I'm sure even BILL3 can see that.

The job of government, in economic terms, is to allocate resources to produce the best outcomes for the greatest number. The market, under this definition, is just another system of government. Unlike traditional government, however, the market must adjust to reality, minute to minute, region to region, instead of creating endless catastrophes by trying to force reality to conform to the guesses of a few well-connected "experts."

The market as a system of organization is a relatively new concept, so deep thinkers like old BILL3 fail to grasp the extent to which markets can solve problems. Mr. Bill is stuck studying primitive man to try to make predictions about a situation in which people can organize with complex investment schemes, access unlimited instant information, utilize instant communication, etc.

you sound pretty much exactly

you sound pretty much exactly like the new and innovative socialists who decided, on paper, that history and experience of human nature aren't relevant, and that destroying the existing arrangement of society (property relations, in the case of the marxists) and replacing them with a new arrangement designed by theorists on paper was a wise move. in your case, destroying the legal arrangements of society that have evolved over centuries. you don't even have the modesty or good sense to suggest trying them out on a limited level in a voluntary way (like the socialists have done over the centuries in communes).

perhaps an anarchocap community of participants self selected to see how it plays out. not exactly a perfect mirror for society at large, since the self selected participants would be more prone toward peaceful cooperation. the real test would be participants chosen at random via a lottery. that would be both innovative, interesting and sensible, if you set up an experimental community and provided incentives for participation. see if you can make it work. compete with societies organized in other ways. show us the results. hell, make a reality tv show of anarchism...

but no, you guys probably aren't interested in practical steps toward your goals. probably on some level you know they are absurd and serve merely as a form of intellectual masturbation and vanity.

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

Very well put. Intellectual

Very well put. Intellectual masurbation and vanity is exactly it.

Ventura 2012

You're still confused.

All that's being suggested is to apply *already proven* principles to a broader area of resource management.

The experiment you daydream about has already been performed to the extent that resources are now, or have been in the past, managed by market forces.

The late 19th/early 20th century US turned over practical matters on many levels to the workings of "anarchy" and, as you probably know, the modern world was created.

Taking into account the many spectacular successes of the free enterprise system, it's asinine for you to pretend to know with any certainty that market forces couldn't satisfy a need for long-term, large-scale security and stability.

Especially when you know that large-scale, man-made disasters, such as wars, depressions, chronic poverty, organized crime, etc., are always, or nearly always, traceable to government corruption and/or miscalculation.

Your concern that so-called anarchists are failing to conduct proper experiments is also asinine. I've never heard anybody call for destruction of the existing order by morning. People are advocating for the acceptance of two key principles. The first being that traditional government always leads to disaster because it invites large-scale miscalculation and corruption. The second being that mankind has recently discovered a system that by all indicators can do everything old fashioned governments claim to do, but a thousand times more efficiently.

tasmlab's picture

Magic Powers

I've noticed when people start talking about politics, there's always sort of an assumption that both people debating have magic powers to put their view into place shortly after the conversation ends.

Like talking about a flat tax system or a $12 minimum wage or whatever and every body gets crazy upset, like the victor of the conversation gets to have his way in the world after the talk is done.

But even the most moderate libertarian here, say whose only anti-government stance is to reduce gasoline tax by 10%, is really just as powerless and delusional in terms of getting their way as an anarchist.

But to take your advice, I will try it out on an island first before using my powers to inflict it upon the 300,000,000 of us.

Currently consuming: Harry Browne, Free Domain Radio; JT Gatto and Holt; Wii U

Seriously flawed

_______________________________quote
Now you have government.

That's the Robinson Crusoe version anyway.

Now for the harangue and advice.
_______________________________end quote

I read up to that point above and to me there is a very serous flaw in the message being offered to the so called anarchists. There are at least 2 types of anarchists.

1.
Genuine people whose goal is to do no harm to anyone.

2.
False people who claim to be anarchists but they genuinely seek to do harm to other people for fun and profit.

There are in the words preceding the quote above where 2 types of government, not one, worked in that fireside chat, or story.

1.
People cooperating with a shared goal to do no harm to each other.

2.
People cooperating with a shared goal to do harm to targeted innocent victims.

The speaker who spoke the story line appears to have both forms of government confused as if only one form of government exists.

Having that foundation of confusion my guess is that the rest of the story is going to be awfully useless.

Before reading further, and before commenting on what is offered after the quote I took out of the story above, I think it is important to rewrite the story in a way that accurately identifies the two versions of government.

_____________________________________
As it happens, some of these hundred exiles try to bully the others around and take as much as they can get their hands on. So some others maybe try to persuade the bullies to chill out and take their fair share, or cooperate and work together to get stuff.
_____________________________________

Taking your fair share was, perhaps, a lie told by the LONE GUNMAN THEORY. Perhaps, I can't say, that is my guess. So rewriting that to express a cooperative effort among honest productive people earning whatever they can under those conditions of "natural anarchy," whereby no one, at least not yet, is endeavoring to "take" "something for nothing" or "their fair share" or any other false advertizement that intends to transfer earning from those who earn as those earnings flow to those who steal by way of lies, threats, or aggressive violence. Note the plural use of the word "those."

Those acting alone are governed by their one, exclusive, power of will. Those acting alone to perpetrate a crime upon any innocent people are those acting alone to perpetrate a crime upon any innocent people according to their own self government, as they volunteer to be criminals: ALONE.

That is a single individual person, becoming a criminal, on their own, for some reason, and if no other person, anywhere, ever, invents another crime, of any kind, then there is only one LONE GUNMAN.

1.
Defense against crime (individual or collective)

2.
Crime (individual or collective)

The best defense against crime, the best government, is self-government, which is to avoid being a criminal, to avoid any impulse to act out a crime yourself.

The best defense against crime is to avoid volunteering to be a criminal.

If there are other particulars as to how to earn a better defense against crime, competitive ideas, real working examples, then those competitive ideas can be shared among the non-criminals, as the non-criminals share better, competitive, ideas as to how best to earn good, non-criminal, government, as a workable, cooperative, honest, productive, method of defending against crime.

Confusing cooperative people earning their living in Liberty with criminals being criminals is not a good idea, not a competitive method of defending against crime, since the innocent victims, if confused, have no idea as to who is, and who is not, a criminal.

So the story line has so far offered 1 criminal acting alone and every other person alive is a potential target.

1. The group of honest productive people.

2. The one criminal.

Two governments working at that point, in that story line.

The government working among the honest productive people is absent any crime until one criminal decides to resort to lies, threats, and aggressive violence, and that one criminal acts alone, at first, so there is a cooperative government of non-criminals, a glue connecting each honest producer, and then there is one individual acting alone, government by a criminal mindset, an individual criminal mindset.

Many people helping each other earn a higher standard of living and a lower cost of living, at first, and only 1 bad apple, at first.

Natural anarchy at first, and then one LONE GUNMAN, acting alone, all alone, by him, or her, self, begins a crime spree with the first criminal thought followed by the first crime, all alone, just one individual alone.

So that is the story so far in the story line.

Then:

_________________________________________________________
Well that don't work, so a few of them gang up to tie up and bludgeon the bully with a club.
_________________________________________________________

There are copy cats?

Criminals teaching criminals how to perpetrate crime?

Might makes right is the lie told, so as to create a culture of criminals?

Why don't the victims ask the one LONE GUNMAN to work at finding any other criminals who may be lurking in the dark, and in that way the one and only criminal, the first one, the first known one, the first one caught red handed, the first one presumed to be innocent one, the first one then found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a number of people randomly picked to judge guilt or innocence, and what happens if those people merely ask that first criminal to work at finding any other criminals, for pay, and for that pay that one ex-criminal becomes another honest earner, earning a higher quality of life, and earning a lower cost of life, doing what that criminal specializes in doing, which is to accurately identify criminals perpetrating crimes and alert the many victims as to such activity, so that the potential criminals can avoid any contact with the current criminals who have yet to be asked to join an effective fight against crime? Long question, but a vital one, to me.

1. Crime is the idea criminals use as a false method of fighting against crime, and the targeted victims fall for it every time?

2. Crime can be effectively fought without following the lie that to fight crime the crime fighters have to resort to crime, resort to lies, resort to threats of violence, and resort to aggressive violence upon the innocent.

The story offered goes on with the following:

_______________________________________
So some others maybe try to persuade the bullies to chill out and take their fair share, or cooperate and work together to get stuff.
______________________________________

There are words that suggest a possible cooperative POWER utilized by the criminals, but that may be my imagination working. Perhaps the speaker of the story is not actually identifying a POWER utilized by the criminals so as to afford the criminals a means of gaining more POWER, collectively, over their targeted victims.

Again, the LONE GUNMAN, or the first criminal, acting alone, is probably combined with several, isolated, disconnected, LONE GUNMAN, and the pool of victims, one or two working together, ask, politely, for the criminal to stop perpetrating crime. Perhaps there is not enough force of reason with only 2 defenders asking 1 criminal to please stop being a criminal, and perhaps the idea of actually hiring the criminal to work for pay, to specialize, to be on the side of the 2 defenders, against any more LONE GUNMAN is not an idea on the table at that time.

Who knows? I don't. I did not write the fictional account.

The story claims:

__________________________________________
Well that don't work, so a few of them gang up to tie up and bludgeon the bully with a club.
___________________________________________

Having insufficient POWER commanded by the defenders constitutes "Well that don't work,.." so the former victims become criminals themselves, in this story line, at least that is how it looks to me. I'm not a criminal. I am not a LONE criminal. In so far as I've been forced to pay Federal Income Taxes with Federal Reserve Notes, to that extent, I've been a member of a criminal gang, under duress.

I am, by that glue, by that connection, that legal counterfeit and extortion racket: glue, by that glue, I have been a paying member of a criminal gang that roams the earth "to tie up and bludgeon" people for fun and profit.

I don't get the fun. I don't get the profit. I get the bill.

So the idea to gang up and become criminals under the false flag of crime prevention is exposed for what it is, in this story line, if anyone cares to know better.

The story goes on:

________________________________________
He flees into the hinterland and joins up with some other billy badas_ses that had been chased off. They say F it lets team up and go crack some skulls, grab some fermented berry drink, some women and have a good old time.
________________________________________

A.
Honest, cooperative, sharing of the idea of Liberty works for a number of people glued by that idea, avoiding crime, specializing, dividing labor, and becoming very productive as a result, this group in Liberty has the POWER to have much more at the end of the day compared to what was produced at the start of the day, because of this POWER of cooperative effort, this sharing of economic POWER, whereby no one turns to crime instead, in this group until the first criminal perpetrates the first crime.

B.
Then the criminals gang up and create a crime monopoly.

C.
Then a band of criminals form in competition with the crime monopoly.

So that is the A,B,C's of Legal Crime for ya'll to chew on, if you care to.

If you care not for more lies that cover up Legal Crime, then care enough to see past the lies - please.

___________________________________________
Four of em descend on the peaceful social organization forming among the others.
___________________________________________

The story teller fails to recognize 2 competitive groups of criminals? The story teller claims that the peaceful social organization forming is, by the story tellers own words, the same people who had resorted to this: "tie up and bludgeon"?

"tie up and bludgeon"
"tie up and bludgeon"

What is so hard about accurately identifying the criminals?

Do you have to be one to know one, according to a criminal?

I don't think so. Criminals are, if not nice, criminals are routinely predictable.

Criminals lie.

Criminals threaten.

Criminals aggressively attack innocent victims targeted by criminals for fun and profit.

Criminals routinely perpetrate crimes upon innocent people who have something that the criminal wants to get from the innocent targets.

Why is that difficult to see?

____________________________________________
Four of em descend on the peaceful social organization forming among the others. They lose 10 people before driving off the gang. They gather round tending their wounds, and decide they need 10 or 15 on guard at all times to watch for and repel or capture this gang of thugs.
____________________________________________

The story is one of criminal gangs in competition for their fair share of the booty, as far as the actual words in the story line mean anything to me. To me the logical, reasonable, obvious, effective methods of fighting crime can be categorized in many accurate ways from best ideas to worst ideas possible, and the door can be left open to better ideas as time goes by, but the idea that always fails to pay off is the idea that becoming the criminals is a way to fight crime.

In simple terms:

1.
Voluntary associations are crime free, by design, until a criminal, acting alone, creates an involuntary association as the first criminal perpetrates the first crime upon the one targeted innocent victim, and from that point on that one criminal can begin a crime spree if no POWER is employed by all the other victims to prevent any further crimes upon any further innocent victims.

Abandoning innocent victims is very bad for the rest of the innocent victims because the criminal earns a life of crime as a criminal gains POWER from each new victim.

2.
Involuntary associations are crimes in progress so criminals offer involuntary associations as a false method of fighting crime, so it may be a good idea to know that anyone offering an involuntary association is a criminal, so don't be fooled by that lie. If you are fooled by that lie you may be feeding the criminals by the process that starts with that lie, and then you will grow weaker, and the criminal will grow stronger by that lie.

Involuntary association is crime.

Voluntary association is liberty.

What is so tough about simple observations of accurately measurable facts?

_____________________________________________________
The people standing around on guard aren't working so they have to get paid to stand around and be cops, so they can eat too.

Now you have government.

That's the Robinson Crusoe version anyway.

Now for the harangue and advice.
______________________________________________________

I am just an average Joe. I am just an old worn out laborer. I smell a rat here, with this story. This is a false story. I'll read on, in case the story gets better.

______________________________________________________
n the theory or schematics you conjured up.
______________________________________________________

From my point of view, which is demonstrably accurate, the conjuring was done by the people who claim that becoming criminals is a way to fight crime, and that was demonstrated again, in this story line. So who is doing the conjuring?

_________________________________________________________
At least test this shyt out on an island somewhere before you try it in real life!
__________________________________________________________

What follows will be 2 of many.

2 examples offered, of many examples available, by which a person offers reasonable, actual, methods of taking away the profits from the criminals, so that crime no longer pays. It is known, obvious, and measurable that when the criminals take over the power of the government the first thing they do is raise their pay, and give themselves bonuses for their crimes that they claim to be just for them and not for anyone else. They, the criminals, monopolize what they do best, they monopolize crime.

The first offering is a so called anarchist named Lysander Spooner offering a history of Trial by Jury.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

It worked as designed even to the point of modern versions which are unfortunately confused and misunderstood and growing worse as anyone can see if anyone watches Television. Currently there is a very effective effort to discredit Trial by Jury with National Show Trials of dubious authenticity.

When the criminals are the authorities, the victims aught to question that version of authority.

Second of 2 offers, of many possible offers, is an offer from another so called anarchist, this anarchist supposedly being the First American Anarchist, an offer of concise explanation of what Free Money Markets mean, in reality, as Free Money Markets were tried out in a few villages in the early 19th Century here in America. People can claim that the idea does not work, but those are false claims because the idea is still working here and there as people use the idea to their advantage.

http://tmh.floonet.net/pdf/jwarren.pdf

Those who merely point and discredit, out of ignorance, are what they are, doing what they do, as if on cue.

Yes master.

Right away master.

Can I lick my blood and teeth off of your boots, Master, when you stop kicking me in the head, Master?

_________________________________________________
At least test this shyt out on an island somewhere before you try it in real life!
__________________________________________________

Real life is always current.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4SWuXncoKsM

http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-calif...

If we knew better we could all acquit each other of any so called "National Income Tax Liability" as I think was Henry Fords words here:

"It is well enough that people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."
Henry Ford

________________________________________________________
Before you try to persuade people to adopt it for 350,000,000 people who need to eat and be provided for through the system of social cooperation in a market economy operating on a legal basis.

How's that for a compromise?
_________________________________________________________

Offered are 2 of many examples of offers offered by Anarchists.

If the speaker of this story has a bone to pick with anarchists of some other definition, then a definition of that process in mind is demanded, or is there a reason for confusing 2 things as if only 1 thing existed?

Joe

your writings have inspired

your writings have inspired me to coin a new phrase. Awesometistic.

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

Stoics/Cynics/Anachists/Liberty lovers

If you have any reason to connect to me, other than to attack me personally, for some expected gain by you, at my expense, then that other reason could be known by some process such as accurate communication, or discussion.

If a discussion were to occur, the process of agreement as to what the definitions of words are, according to each speaker, would be a requirement, otherwise the medium of exchange here can be abused by a dictator dictating libel, and a defender exposing the lies for what they are in fact.

http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/17212.Marcus_Aurelius...

“Don't go on discussing what a good person should be. Just be one.”

The roots of the ideas of anarchism go back to the Cynics and the Stoics, as far as my viewpoint goes on this subject matter.

The use of the word Anarchism, as far as modern times are concerned, go back to at least Proudhon.

Here:
http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/theindex/1876-tucker-andrew...

_____________________________________________
Another of Proudhon's startling paradoxes, seemingly so at least, and I think we shall see really so, is the use of the term anarchy, to denote not chaos and confusion, but the basis of order in the freedom of the individual from the control of others.

Etymologically, this use of the term has a show of reason as it merely means absence of government, and a writer has the right, if he choose so to revert to etymological origins; and frequently there is a great advantage in so doing. There is a loss it is true in the temporary obfuscation of the mind of the reader, but, it may be, a more than compensating advantage in arousing deeper thought, or in furnishing a securer technicality. But in this ease the disadvantage is certainly incurred; and neither advantage is secured. There are two very different things covered by the term government: personal government by arbitrium, and the government of inherent laws and principles. Proudhon is denying the rightfulness of the former, and affirming the latter.

Now the Greek arche meant both of these things; but if either more peculiarly than the other, it meant the government of laws and principles, whence the negation of such rule by the prefix an has meant, and rightly means, chaos. Proudhon undertakes to make the Greek word mean exclusively the other idea, whereby he spoils one excellent technicality without getting for his other purpose a secure and good one in place of it.
_______________________________________________________

Mileage may vary.

Joe

your ideas are pretty well

your ideas are pretty well thought out and interesting. have you considered coming to daily paul chat to add to the discussion?

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

I have an ability.

I can respond to specific topics.

I cannot sit and chit chat about things that are of no consequence.

Sometimes someone spams a collective invitation, apparently, sucking me into the vortex, and I sit, read some, and then find nothing but the same idle chit chat.

What is the point?

Joe

Believe it or not, there's

Believe it or not, there's often pretty deep intellectual discussions. Thought you might want to help raise the level of discourse.

Master Pretzel Twister
https://twitter.com/MenckensGhost

lmao

Yepper, .... Liberty is scary.

Have not most of your worries occurred under the current system?

Sounds like you are a fan of one world government

Or else explain to me how your post isn't an argument for a one world government.

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

Your way had its chance

and look what it led to. Mass genocide, corporatocracy, millions dependent on the system and growing, mass inflation, police state, prison planet, and total corruption on every level.

You are advocating for more of the same and the same has already failed to secure our liberty. You have proven to me that you fail to understand our laws. I cannot take you seriously anymore. You never offer any real solutions even though you attempt to. The criminal bureaucrats need to be tossed out on their butts. If they starve let them starve. If these criminals try to steal food then shoot them. It will be good riddance. Freedom and peace of innocent people is more important than feeding monsters.

Nature offers mass abundance to those who wish to put a little effort into tapping Nature's abundance. It is really not hard it just requires one to be living within the grace of Natural Law.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

lol

Nature offers mass abundance to those who wish to put a little effort into tapping Nature's abundance. It is really not hard it just requires one to be living within the grace of Natural Law.

And as we drink from rainbows and snuggle bunnies, what happens when the neighbor comes to kill us?

Everyone seems to forget, some people just want to take what you have, by force.

I found a good example of natural law for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xZRw0IYdf3g

Yes, it's a bit intense, but that's Natural Law for you.

Eric Hoffer

That's the world we live in now

You think that being responsible for your own safety and securing your own property is hard work.

Of course the problem is that you are already responsible for your own safety and securing your own property.

The state has decreed it owes you no protection and no secure property. If you get killed or robbed, too bad, says SCOTUS.

For this 'service' they steal half of your life in servitude to them.

The world you live in has you accepting, embracing, loving, and snuggle-bunnying up to your masters who steal from you every day of your life.

You say you're afraid of those who just want to take what you have by force?

You're not afraid. You love them. You dream of licking their boots. You worship and admire them and secretly you want to be them. Because you secretly wish to be worshiped, but know deep down you are only worthy to worship the man with the whip and gun.

You're the worm who loves his master because the other option is realize what you are. Anyone who tells you otherwise similarly must be destroyed, because their very existence is constant reminder of what you are.

You can feel it when you go to work, or when go to church or when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
What truth?
That you are a slave. Like everyone else, you were born into bondage, born inside a prison that you cannot smell, taste, or touch.

You are willing to accept slavery for the price of an occasional steak they throw you, like a good dog. Despite your work paid for the steak.

Nature's abundance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCmTJkZy0rM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYR9s6chrI0

Your example of natural law is one of a low-level beast that has no cognitive reasoning skills. I guess your video post is an example of where your brain is at. Mankind has many more options. But I guess tapping Nature's abundance is too far fetched for you.

As far as your neighbor coming to kill us again mankind has more options. Those of us who are really technologically savvy can really give a stupid neighbor a lesson in criminal activity against us if we wish to.

How about a phased array 1 MW pulsed microwave beam tuned to the resonant frequency of the proteins that make up human neurons set to focus and automatically vaporize neurons in the brain of intruders on demand? I'd like to see some mindless thief who can't feed themselves deal with this type of defense system. How's that for your snuggle bunnies? LOL!

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

What happens, now,

when the neighbor comes to kill us?

Give me competition in justice and currency or give me death!

I believe Mr. Henry would approve and second the motion.

I'm in! Where's the island?

I'm in! Where's the island? ;-)

Never trouble trouble til trouble troubles you. Fortune Cookie

it moves around

and you have to figure out a way for Jacob to notice you

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson