Profile

Cover photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
Attended University of Barcelona
Lives in Spain
5,438 followers|788,661 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Bastard Bee ( Apis assholifera, Z)

Video (28 s): youtube.com/watch?v=yFfnp1jG3eQ 
Description:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megachile_rotundata 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfalfa#Alfalfa_and_bees 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cestrum_nocturnum 

entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/misc/bees/leafcutting_bees.htm 
fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/pollinator-of-the-month/megachile_bees.shtml 
www.ext.colostate.edu/pubs/insect/05576.html 
eol.org/pages/1046632/details 
animaldiversity.org/accounts/Megachile_rotundata 
buzzaboutbees.net/leafcutter-bee.html 
www.discoverlife.org/20/q?search=Megachile+rotundata 
entomology.museums.ualberta.ca/searching_species_details.php?s=5849 

pollinator.ca/bestpractices/alfalfa_lcb.html 
pollination.com/publications-and-research/current-status-of-the-alfalfa-leafcutting-bee-megachile-rotundata-as-a-pollinator-of-alfalfa-seed 
umaine.edu/blueberries/factsheets/bees/300-how-to-manage-alfalfa-leafcutting-bees-for-wild-blueberry-production 
crownbees.com/learn-leafcutter-bees 
beeinformed.org/2014/07/alfalfa-leafcutter-bee-megachile-rotundata 

voices.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/20/leaf-cutter-bees-in-action 
gardeningknowhow.com/plant-problems/pests/insects/leaf-cutter-bees.htm 
permaculturenews.org/2014/09/02/lets-invite-leaf-cutter-bees-gardens/ 
tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/30434 
ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=18358 
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20809804 

Megachile rotundata (Fabricius, 1787)
Cestrum nocturnum (Linnaeus, 1753)

Leaf-cutter Bee, Leaf-cutting Bee,
Leafcutter Bee, Leafcutting Bee.
Lady of the Night, Queen of the Night, 
Night-blooming Jasmine, Night-blooming Jessamine, 
Night-blooming Cestrum, Dama de Noche.
3
Seppo Alaruikka's profile photoGeorge Panagiotakopoulos's profile photo
2 comments
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
A Unique Elliptical Pool Table and 'Loop' Game Designed by a Mathematician
In a recent episode of Numberphile, mathematician Alex Bellos demonstrates his custom-built elliptical pool table. The table can be used to demonstrate some interesting mathematical properties. In ...
View original post
8
1
Nikolai Varankine's profile photo
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
MSNBC Host “We Have To Break Through The Idea That Kids Belong To Parents”
americasfreedomfighters.com/2015/07/17/msnbc-host-we-have-to-break-through-the-idea-that-kids-belong-to-parents-video 

Excerpt from comments of source G+ post:

Jason B Jul 18, 2015 3:23 AM [UTC]
Parents don't own their children. You can't do with them anything what you want.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 18, 2015 9:20 AM [UTC]
+Jason B, you've been brainwashed.
__________ 

Jason B Jul 18, 2015 11:35 AM [UTC] +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla​​ if you feel like you can do whatever you want with your children, then you are the brainwashed one.

You can't kill them. You can't deny them medical attention. You can't torture them. You can't cage them. You can't leave them to fend for themselves in the woods etc...

They are not your property. They are humans. No one owns them.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 18, 2015 9:27 PM [UTC]
+Jason B: "if you feel like you can do whatever you want with your children, then you are the brainwashed one."

— I can hardly be brainwashed when nobody has used all sorts of means available to try to persuade me with such ideas. Quite the opposite, I've been subject of Humanist/collectivist indoctrination for many years. Even my mother was brainwashed with the collectivist idea that a mother should not be free to neglect or kill her child if that's her wish.

In the present world, as a result of the ideological control of the masses by the indoctrination machinery (the media, the compulsory schooling system, the intellectuals), my opinion is in the minority. As a result of its ostracism and censoring in the public debate I wasn't exposed to it, so i it took me a very long time to figure by myself.
Not until recently I discovered by sheer chance that others had reached the same conclusion more than a century ago by simply applying logic and reason:

«The question over land ownership and the homesteading principle was not the only controversy carried on in the pages of LIBERTY. Equally interesting is the letter and editorial writing concerning the self-ownership axiom which took place under the guise of discussing the rights of parents and children. Originally the question began as whether parents should be legally responsible for abuse and neglect of their children. Tuckers initial conclusion was that we must not interfere to prevent neglect of the child, but only to repress positive invasion.

However, Tucker, having reconsidered his opinion, resolved that ". . . the change then which my opinion has undergone consists simply in the substitution of certainty for doubt as to the non-invasive character of parental cruelty — a substitution which involves the conclusion that parental cruelty is not to be prohibited. . ."[13] Tucker's opinion is grounded on the fact that he views the child as the property of the mother. Children, in Tucker's estimation, belong in the category of things to be owned, rather than as being owners of themselves. However he does note that the "child differs from all other parts of that category (of things to be owned) in the fact that there is steadily developing within him the power of self-emancipation, which at a certain point enables him to become an owner instead of remaining part of the owned."[14]  Tucker saw ". . . no clearer property title in the world than that of the mother to the fruit of her womb, unless she has otherwise disposed of it by contract. Certainly the mother's title to the child while it remains in her womb will not be denied by any Anarchist. To deny this would be to deny the right of the mother to commit suicide during pregnancy, and I never knew an Anarchist to deny the right of suicide. If, then, the child is the mother's while in the womb, by what consideration does title to it become vested in another than the mother on its emergence from the womb pending the day of its emancipation?"[15]

Tucker clearly refused to invoke the self-ownership axiom towards children, at least until they had reached the age of being able to contract and provide for themselves. In the meantime, he recognized the right of the mother to throw her property into the fire. "I answer that it is highly probable that I would interfere in such a case (as a mother throwing her infant into the flames). My interference no more invalidates the mother's property right in the child than if I prevent the owner of a Titian painting from destroying it. If I interfere in either case, it is only as an invader and I would have to be prepared to suffer the consequences."[16] According to his logic "the outsider who uses force upon the child invades, not the child, but its mother, and may be rightfully punished for doing so. The mother who uses force upon her child invades nobody. . . To be consistent, I must convict a man of murder in the first degree who kills a father in the act of killing his child."[17]»

«For Tucker, rights only begin as a social convention. Rights are liberties created by mutual agreement and contract. He defended his concept of self-emancipation by stating that “any child capable of declaring to the association's (an anarchistic enforcement agency) officers its desire for release from its owner that it may thereafter either care for itself or entrust itself to the care of persons more agreeable to it thereby proves the presence in its mind of the idea of contract. . . From the moment that a child makes a deliberate declaration of this character it should cease to be property and should pass into the category of owners."[20] Tucker refused to see any alternative to his own position. "If we take the other course and admitting, that the child has the possibilities of the man, declare that therefore it cannot be property, then we must also for the same reason, say that the ovum in the woman's body is not her property, . . ." and thus being made to conceive when she is raped, she thereby loses her right to commit suicide.[21] Tucker failed to realize that no human "being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person's body[22]  He refused to view the fetus as a possible invader of the mother's body, since it was already her property to do with as she pleased. Consequently any invasive treatment of the child was not wrong since it was the mother's property.»

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 


+Jason B: "You can't kill them. You can't deny them medical attention. You can't torture them. You can't cage them. You can't leave them to fend for themselves in the woods etc..."

— You're just parroting the crap with which you've been indoctrinated. Notice that you've failed to provide a single rational argument to support your ingrained beliefs. In a discussion about any other topic your stance would be qualified as dogmatic typical of a fanatic.

+Jason B: "They are not your property. They are humans. No one owns them."

— Ditto.
__________ 

Jason B Jul 18, 2015 23:20 PM
+Zephyr López Cervilla​ is there a version of this post where you actually reply to what I said, or is this copy and paste version that I entirely skipped over the only one I get?

Because of you can't be bothered to form your own response, I can't be bothered to read what you post.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 19, 2015 0:08 AM [UTC]
+Jason B: "is there a version of this post where you actually reply to what I said, or is this copy and paste version that I entirely skipped over the only one I get?"

— I'm going to make a last effort to refute the dogmatic claims that you had previously spouted, even though you offered no falsifiable argument to support them. Either way, I'll show your claims are nonsensical and in opposed to reality:

+Jason B: "They are not your property. They are humans. No one owns them."

— Had the children no owners, they would be free to do whatever they wish and had the ability to do. Are they free? I don't think so:

They have no freedom of movement, they are forced to stay in daycare centres or inside schools, they can't walk the streets on their own, they can't stay outside during the night, they aren't allowed to travel on their own, they can do business, they aren't allowed to work, they aren't allowed to have sex, they aren't allowed to do drugs, they can't freely acquire or transfer real estate, they can't exert control over their capital (assuming they have obtained or inherited any capital), et cetera, et cetera.

Therefore, children are not free individuals. Any individual who is unfree is owned by somebody else. So the question here is not whether they are property or not but rather, who should be their owners and exert control over them: their parents (their mothers with preference for the reasons explained above) or some violent criminal organisation.
__________ 

Jason B Jul 19, 2015 2:34 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Oh, how nice it is to live in a black and white world like you do.

I reject your false dichotomy that completely free and owned by another are the only statuses one can have.

You've listed off a lot of rights a child doesn't have. Amazing. You don't seem to understand that children have reduced rights because we, as a society, have deemed them incapable of making legal decisions. We, as a society, have set their status as being reduced rights citizens for their protection. We have not done so because we honoring some sort of parental claim of ownership. We have, however, as a society, agreed to follow very old customs that establish parents as legal guardians, giving them the rights that the children have relinquished. Again, this is done for their protection, and not for establishing ownership.

You are confusing ownership with guardianship. You should probably look up the legal definition of both. You will see nowhere in the legal definition of guardian any mention of ownership or property.

"Children... aren't allowed to do drugs...Therefore, children are not free individuals. Any individual who is unfree is owned by somebody else."

Love the non-sequitur. An 18 year old is unable to drink alcohol. By your logic, they are owned. Tell me, who owns them, exactly?
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 20, 2015 7:59 AM [UTC]
+Jason B: "children have reduced rights because
[1] we, as a society, have deemed them incapable of making legal decisions.
[2] We, as a society, have set their status as being reduced rights citizens for their protection.
[3] We have, however, as a society, agreed to follow very old customs that establish parents as legal guardians, giving them the rights that the children have relinquished."

1. There's no such thing as "society".[a, b] Arguments [1], [2] and [3] are invalid.
2. Assuming there were such thing as "society" you wouldn't be qualified to speak in its name.
3. Citizens' "rights" are set by governments. Governments impose their criteria by means of force and coercion. Citizens "rights" aren't the result of voluntary agreements between equally free individuals. Therefore, they aren't rights at all.

[4] "this is done for their protection, and not for establishing ownership. You will see nowhere in the legal definition of guardian any mention of ownership or property."

4. The reasons that may explain why children are unfree don't make them any less unfree.
5. Ownership is not an end but a means. Therefore, [4] is a false dichotomy/dilema.

[5] "You are confusing ownership with guardianship. You should probably look up the legal definition of both."

6. The legal definitions are written by governments and quite often made with the specific intention to deceive. They call kidnap detention, extortion taxes, torture interrogatory, and murder execution.

[6] "An 18 year old is unable to drink alcohol. By your logic, they are owned. Tell me, who owns them, exactly?"

7. The Government.
8. Themselves if they are "able" to break the Law.


References:

a. «I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first.»

«But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.»

— Margaret Thatcher, Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society"), 1987 Sep 23.
margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 

b. «Who is this person that you call "All"? – It is "society"! – But is it corporeal, then? – We are its body! – You? Why, you are not a body yourselves – you, sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, but you all together are only bodies, not a body. Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the "nation of the politicians, it will turn out to be nothing but a "spirit," its body only semblance.»

«Our freedom from another’s person still lacks the freedom from what the other’s person can command, from what he has in his personal power – in short, from "personal property." Let us then do away with personal property. Let no one have anything any longer, let every one be a – ragamuffin. Let property be impersonal, let it belong to – society.»

«The beautiful dream of a "social duty" still continues to be dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are under obligations to it on that account, owe it everything.[82] They are still at the point of wanting to serve a "supreme giver of all good." That society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but solely interests for the pursuance of which society must serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves – of this the Socialists do not think, because they – as liberals – are imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire after – a sacred society, e. g. the State was hitherto.

Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new "supreme being," which "takes us into its service and allegiance!" »

«A "sense of right" and "law-abiding mind" of such a sort is so firmly planted in people’s heads that the most revolutionary persons of our days want to subject us to a new "sacred law," the "law of society," the law of mankind, the "right of all," and the like.»

«But the social reformers preach to us a "law of society". There the individual becomes society’s slave, and is in the right only when society makes him out in the right, i.e. when he lives according to society’s statutes and so is – loyal.»

«When the Revolution stamped equality as a "right," it took flight into the religious domain, into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable rights of man."»

«He who refuses to spend his powers for such limited societies as family, party, nation, is still always longing for a worthier society, and thinks he has found the true object of love, perhaps, in "human society" or "mankind," to sacrifice himself to which constitutes his honor; from now on he "lives for and serves mankind."

People is the name of the body, State of the spirit, of that ruling person that has hitherto suppressed me. Some have wanted to transfigure peoples and States by broadening them out to "mankind" and "general reason"; but servitude would only become still more intense with this widening, and philanthropists and humanitarians are as absolute masters as politicians and diplomats.»

« The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality. And these individuals as a collective mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily than an isolated individual or so-called propriétaire. Even so, therefore, property remains standing, and that as "exclusive" too, in that humanity, this great society, excludes the individual from its property (perhaps only leases to him, gives his as a fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that is not humanity, e. g. does not allow animals to have property. – So too it will remain, and will grow to be. That in which all want to have a share will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone: it is made a common estate. As a common estate every one has his share in it, and this share is his property. »

«Instead of this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible right; against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves (La propriété c’est le vol); if it now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its imprescriptible right. – So far one comes with the spook of society as a moral person. On the contrary, what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Do you say anything else by your opposite proposition? "The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 

URL source G+ post with excerpts: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/8EkQwUApQ1u 
__________ 

Jason B Jul 20, 2015 12:10 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla​ 

1 actually there is a such thing as society, and writing a person's opinion doesn't change this. My arguments stand. Please exit your fantasy and try to refute an argument with reality based logic.

2 I'm not speaking for society, I am issuing observations and forming conclusions. At no point am I claiming to be the voice of society.

3 oh, here we go, force and coercion. We agree to live in societies. No one is forcing you to live where you live. If you don't like the agreed upon rules, leave. Absolutely no is stopping you. 

4 this is a side step and doesn't actually refute anything.

5 another side step. I've presented no false dilemmas.

6 legal definitions are written by people, not governments. If you claim there is no society, for the same reasons you must claim there is no government.

7 so your logic is if you can't do anything you absolutely you want to your are owned? Again, a childish false dichotomy. Sorry we don't allow you to murder others. If you don't like it, again, move. 

I hope you find a place that lets you murder whoever you want for the sake of expressing your freedoms. I hope when you find that place someone is already there and wanting to express that same freedom. Then you might understand why people form laws.

Until then, you sit in your house peacefully in establishment of peace and comfort, ironically afforded to you because of government and law, whining about the very thing that keeps you safe enough to whine about it.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 20, 2015 4:10 PM [UTC]
+Jason B: "1 actually there is a such thing as society,"

— 1. Show a physical evidence of its existence or shut up.

+Jason B: "writing a person's opinion doesn't change this."

— 2. It was the opinion of two people, Margaret Thatcher and Max Stirner, which is much more than what you have provided, i.e., you own particular opinion.

+Jason B: "2 I'm not speaking for society, I am issuing observations and forming conclusions. At no point am I claiming to be the voice of society."

— 3. Yes, you are:

" we, as a society, have deemed them incapable of making legal decisions."
" We, as a society, have set their status as being reduced rights citizens for their protection."
" We have, however, *as a society, agreed to follow very old customs that establish parents as legal guardians, giving them the rights that the children have relinquished."

+Jason B: "We agree to live in societies."

— 4. For whom are you speaking now, for you and your mother?
5. "societies" are not a place, you can't "live in societies". You may want to choose your words more wisely. E.g.,
community "a group of people living in the same place"

+Jason B: "No one is forcing you to live where you live. If you don't like the agreed upon rules, leave. Absolutely no is stopping you."

— 6. I have no problem with the (geographical) place where I live, why should I have to leave?
7. What agreed rules? To be agreed someone has to propose and someone has to agree. Who did it? Not me.
8. Assuming that someone had agreed upon certain rules, why should I leave instead of those who had agreed the rules?
9. Nobody is stopping you either. If you like your rules, you are free to leave and take your fucking rules with you.
10. The opinion of a third person:

«The gist of his position—in fact, the whole of his argument—is contained in his second paragraph, and is based on the assumption that the State is precisely »…« a voluntary association of contracting individuals. Were it really such, I should have no quarrel with it, and I should admit the truth of Mr. Perrine’s remarks. For certainly such voluntary association would be entitled to enforce whatever regulations the contracting parties might agree upon within the limits of whatever territory, or divisions of territory, had been brought into the association by these parties as individual occupiers thereof, and no non-contracting party would have a right to enter or remain in this domain except upon such terms as the association might impose. But if, somewhere between these divisions of territory, had lived, prior to the formation of the association, some individual on his homestead, who, for any reason, wise or foolish, had declined to join in forming the association, the contracting parties would have had no right to evict him, compel him to join, make him pay for any incidental benefits that he might derive from proximity to their association, or restrict him in the exercise of any previously-enjoyed right to prevent him from reaping these benefits. Now, voluntary association necessarily involving the right of secession, any seceding member would naturally fall back into the position and upon the rights of the individual above described, who refused to join at all. So much, then, for the attitude of the individual toward any voluntary association surrounding him, his support thereof evidently depending upon his approval or disapproval of its objects, his view of its efficiency in attaining them, and his estimate of the advantages and disadvantages involved in joining, seceding, or abstaining. But no individual to-day finds himself under any such circumstances. The States in the midst of which he lives cover all the ground there is, affording him no escape, and are not voluntary associations, but gigantic usurpations. There is not one of them which did not result from the agreement of a larger or smaller number of individuals, inspired sometimes no doubt by kindly, but oftener by malevolent, designs, to declare all the territory and persons within certain boundaries a nation which every one of these persons must support, and to whose will, expressed through its sovereign legislators and administrators no matter how chosen, every one of them must submit. Such an institution is sheer tyranny, and has no rights which any individual is bound to respect; on the contrary, every individual who understands his rights and values his liberties will do his best to overthrow it. I think it must now be plain to Mr. Perrine why I do not feel bound either to pay taxes or to emigrate. Whether I will pay them or not is another question,—one of expediency. My object in refusing has been, as Mr. Perrine suggests, propagandism, and in the receipt of Mr. Perrine’s letter I find evidence of the adaptation of this policy to that end. Propagandism is the only motive that I can urge for isolated individual resistance to taxation. But out of propagandism by this and many other methods I expect there ultimately will develop the organization of a determined body of men and women who will effectively, though passively, resist taxation, not simply for propagandism, but to directly cripple their oppressors. This is the extent of the only "violent substitution of end for beginning" which I can plead guilty of advocating, and, if the end can be "better and more easily obtained" in any other way, I should like to have it pointed out. The "grand race experience" which Mr. Perrine thinks I neglect is a very imposing phrase, on hearing which one is moved to lie down in prostrate submission; but whoever first chances to take a closer look will see that it is but one of those spooks of which Tak Kak[4] tells us. Nearly all the evils with which mankind was ever afflicted were products of this "grand race experience," and I am not aware that any were ever abolished by showing it any unnecessary reverence. We will bow to it when we must; we will "compromise with existing circumstances" when we have to; but at all other times we will follow our reason and the plumb-line.»

— Benjamin R. Tucker. Resistance to Taxation. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 (18) [whole no. 96] p. 1. [document no. 597]
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n63/mode/2up 
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/resistance-to-taxation 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 


You see, your rhetoric is more than a century old. You are just parroting Mr. Perrine's suggestions.


+Jason B: "4 this is a side step and doesn't actually refute anything."

— 11. It refutes your red herring: 

[4] "this is done for their protection, and not for establishing ownership."

— The alleged motives of the children's lack of freedom doesn't prove or disprove the ownership of the children.


+Jason B: "5 another side step. I've presented no false dilemmas."

— 12. It refutes your false dichotomy:

[4] "this is done for their protection, and not for establishing ownership."

Ownership and protection are perfectly compatible. The farmer keeps his herd indoors, he won't let them go to the pastures whenever there's a thunderstorm coming. The restriction of the freedom of his herd "is done for their protection".


+Jason B: "6 legal definitions are written by people, not governments."

— 13. False dichotomy. A government is an organisation made by a group of people:

government
• "the group of people in office at a particular time; administration."
google.com/search?q=define+government 

Granted, laws are written by people. By people who either belong to the Government or have been hired by Government for that purpose. In either situation, to be passed those laws have to be ratified by the members of the government in charge of such task.


+Jason B: "If you claim there is no society, for the same reasons you must claim there is no government."

— 14. Unlike "society", "government" refers to a specific collective of identifiable individuals. In contrast, "society" is an abstraction, therefore, non-existing in the real world. Unlike "government", the concept of "society" has no definite boundaries, unlike "government", the concept of "society" has undefined structure.
15. A forth and fifth opinion:

«Ludwig von Mises offered a description of "the principle of methodological individualism":

"First we must realize that all actions are performed by individuals.… If we scrutinize the meaning of the various actions performed by individuals we must necessarily learn everything about the actions of the collective whole. For a social collective has no existence and reality outside of the individual members' actions."

In short, there is no flesh-and-blood entity known as "society" that has an existence independent of its individual members. "Society" is an abstraction that arises from the massive interaction of individuals who function within a specific context. In terms of forming the abstraction "society," the required context may be nothing more than individuals living within certain geographical boundaries. »

«Admittedly, without social interaction, major potentialities within the person would not develop or be expressed. For example, there would have no reason to develop language skills. Were the isolated individual to be rescued, however, his unexpressed potentials might well emerge. But whatever emerged would come from his own inherent human potential and would result from the individual interactions he experienced, not from the abstraction known as "society." "Society" could not define an individual's humanity into existence. »

— Wendy McElroy. I the Person versus We the People. Mises Daily. July 20, 2011.
mises.org/library/i-person-versus-we-people 


+Jason B: "7 so your logic is if you can't do anything you absolutely you want to your are owned? Again, a childish false dichotomy."

— 16. Straw man argument, I never stated such thing. You are committing a false generalisation. I specifically referred to question [6]:

[6] "An 18 year old is unable to drink alcohol. By your logic, they are owned. Tell me, who owns them, exactly?"

If you are not allowed to drink alcohol and you are forced to obey you don't own yourself.
Drinking alcohol is not "anything", hence your straw man.


+Jason B: "Sorry we don't allow you to murder others."

— 17. Who is "we"? For whom are you speaking now (for the third time), your mother? Your government? How do you pretend to stop me?


+Jason B: "If you don't like it, again, move."

— 18. Move you, slave! As you like the rules, the territory of North Korea is a great place for people like you. Alternatively, you can join the army, a fitting organisation for those who long to be ruled by other people and their rules.


+Jason B: "I hope you find a place that lets you murder whoever you want"

— 19. A further straw man argument. I specifically stated that it were the mothers who are in their right to kill their children if that is what they wish (what in fact many of them do and have done over the course of history) without having to be exposed to aggression or kidnap, spurred by the self-righteousness of meddlers.

«"The man who is crying chestnuts before my window has a personal interest in a brisk sale, and if his wife or anybody else wishes as much for him, this as well is a personal interest. If, on the other hand, a thief were to take away his basket, there would at once arise an interest of many, of the whole city, of the entire country, or, in one word, of all who abominate theft: an interest wherein the person of the chestnut-vender would be indifferent, and in its place the category of 'one who is robbed' would appear in the forefront. But here, too, it might still all be resolved into a personal interest, each participant reflecting that he must aid in the punishment of the thief because, otherwise, unpunished stealing would become general and he also would lose his possessions. There are many, however, from whom such a calculation is not to be presumed. Rather, the cry will be heard that the thief is a 'criminal.' Here we have a judgment before us, the act of the thief receiving its expression in the conception 'crime.' Now the matter presents itself in this way: If a crime should work not the slightest damage either to me or to any of those for whom I take concern, yet nevertheless I should be zealous against it. Why? Because I am enthused for morality, filled with the idea of morality. I run down what is hostile to it. . . . Here personal interest comes to an end. This particular person who has stolen the basket is quite indifferent to my person. I take an interest only in the thief, this idea, of which that person presents an example. Thief and man are in my mind irreconcilable terms, for one who is a thief is not truly man. He dishonors man, or humanity, in himself when he steals.»

— James L Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 


+Jason B: "I hope when you find that place someone is already there and wanting to express that same freedom."

— 21. I don't have to find any place, I'm already at home. If you don't like it, you are free to move to North Korea.


+Jason B: "Then you might understand why people form laws."

— 22. The only reason why governments (a very specific subset of people) enact laws is to keep their power and expand it wherever possible.

«Yeah… sooner or later the people in this country gotta realize the government does not give a fuck about them. The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety, it certainly doesn’t give a fuck about you. It’s interested in its own power, that’s the only thing, keeping it and expanding it wherever possible.»

— George Carlin. It's Bad for Ya. (2008)
1/2. youtube.com/watch?v=iw0MripVxss (10 min)
2/2. youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8 (9 min)


+Jason B: "Until then, you sit in your house peacefully in establishment of peace and comfort, ironically afforded to you because of government and law, whining about the very thing that keeps you safe enough to whine about it."

— 23. My home is the fruit of the free market. It was built by private citizens and paid by private "citizens" who made a living working on their own. 

24. The Government doesn't keep safe anyone, other than themselves, that is. What's more, the members of the Government have the habit to periodically start civil wars, thus turning the life conditions of other people in something pretty unsafe.

25. While I'm "whining", you're going to enjoy yourself and get aroused at the idea of the next tax payment that you'll willingly and voluntarily make; so voluntarily as any consensual rape has ever been.
Meanwhile I'll be evading taxes, thank you.
__________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/105371241937819350275/posts/NwPhQFiPQbS 
______________________ 
Seriously? O.o - Matt F: Google+
6
Tyler Durden's profile photoRace Vanderdecken's profile photoTimothy W's profile photo
3 comments
 
She's nothing more than a symptom that the US has lost it's marbles.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Nature Worship: Neo-Religious Garbage

Excerpt from comments of source G+ post
from the "Discussion" section of the "Atheism" G+ community
(plus.google.com/communities/111179822253566656576):

Gennady Seliutin - Jul 15, 2015  7:18 PM [UTC]
I hope you understand that I don't take "Created" in the literal sense.
________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 15, 2015 8:45 PM [UTC]
Nature worship: pseudo-religious nonsense.
________ 

Gennady Seliutin Jul 15, 2015 9:49 PM [UTC] +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla I am an atheist, and as an atheist I see all life on earth as equal, unlike the religious folks that believe the entire Universe was created for them. It's not nonsense, we live in co-dependent ecological system. Don't think of yourself above the animal kingdom, there are bacteria that survived 5 mass extinctions, they don't live in our world, we live in theirs.
________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 15, 2015 11:51 PM [UTC]
+Gennady Seliutin: "I see all life on earth as equal,"

— Your first dogma of faith (see below).

+Gennady Seliutin: "we live in co-dependent ecological system."

— Red herring, possible appeal to emotion.

+Gennady Seliutin: "Don't think of yourself above the animal kingdom, there are bacteria that survived 5 mass extinctions,"

— I would invite you to refrain from taking antibiotics to treat any bacterial infection, to consume unpasteurised dairy or other unpasteurised food, and never wash your hands or any raw food. Otherwise you would be killing many of those precious bacteria and other microorganisms that have managed to survive at least 5 mass extinctions.

On the other hand, I can see here a possible appeal to nature or naturalistic fallacy. Because something is "unnatural", it must be undesirable. Or because something is "natural" is desirable. In this case, because certain life forms have existed in nature for a long period (BTW, for as long as any other extant life form) their wellbeing is desirable and are deserving of particular respect and veneration.

I'm going to quote a few passages from Max Stirner's "The Ego and His Own" which I find quite fitting once we extend the notion of equality as a "right" to every living being:


« Communism, which assumes that men "have equal rights by nature," contradicts its own proposition till it comes to this, that men have no right at all by nature. For it is not willing to recognize, e. g., that parents have "by nature" rights as against their children, or the children as against the parents: it abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, brothers, etc., no right at all. Altogether, this entire revolutionary or Babouvist principle [130] rests on a religious, i. e., false, view of things. Who can ask after "right" if he does not occupy the religious standpoint himself? Is not "right" a religious concept, i.e. something sacred? Why, "equality of rights", as the Revolution propounded it, is only another name for "Christian equality," the "equality of the brethren," "of God’s children," "of Christians"; in short, fraternité. Each and every inquiry after right deserves to be lashed with Schiller’s words:

Many a year I’ve used my nose
To smell the onion and the rose;
Is there any proof which shows
That I’ve a right to that same nose?

When the Revolution stamped equality as a "right," it took flight into the religious domain, into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable rights of man." Against the "eternal rights of man" the "well-earned rights of the established order" are quite naturally, and with equal right, brought to bear: right against right, where of course one is decried by the other as "wrong." This has been the contest of rights[131] since the Revolution.»

«"The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.»

«Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticises.»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 


The following excerpt from a commentary on the book is also very fitting (replacing man with life):

«Departing from personal concern, we glide into philanthropy, which is usually misunderstood as if it were a love toward men, to each individual, whereas it is nothing but a love of man, of the unreal conception, of the spook. The philanthropist bears in his heart, not tous anthropous, men, but ton anthropon, man. Of course he cares for each individual, but merely for the reason that he would like to see his darling ideal realized everywhere.

"Thus there is no idea here of care for me, for you, or for us. That would be personal interest and belong in the chapter of 'earthly love.' Philanthropy is a heavenly, a spiritual, a priestly love. Man must be established in us, though we poor devils be brought to destruction in the process. It is the same priestly principle as that famous fiat justitia, pereat mundus. Man and justice are ideas, phantoms, for love of which everything is sacrificed: therefore the priestly minds are the ones that do sacrifice. . . .

"The most multiform things can belong and be accounted to man. Is his chief requisite deemed to be piety, religious priestcraft arises. Is it conceived to lie in morality, the priestcraft of morals raises its head. Hence the priestly minds of our time want to make a religion of everything; a religion of freedom, religion of equality, etc., and they make of every idea a 'sacred cause,' for instance, even citizenship, politics, publicity, freedom of the press, the jury, etc.»

— James L. Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 


PS: FWIW, bacteria don't even belong to the animal kingdom.
________ 

Sebastian Paquin Jul 16, 2015 0:30 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Why do you cite authors from a century ago?  More to the point, why do you foist this intellectual garbage onto someone who is moved by an injustice. In my book he gets an "A" for effort (that monkey really pulls at the heart strings),  you're just citing precedent. By deconstructing his comment it paints you as a cynic. He's on our team so save it for the churchie trolls.
________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 16, 2015 3:05 AM [UTC]
+Sebastian Paquin: "Why do you cite authors from a century ago?"

— For the same reason as while talking about musical composition I'd rather cite Beethoven than Paul McCartney (or Chuck Berry). I go to the original sources whenever possible (and convenient).

Congratulations, you reached DH1:
commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg 

+Sebastian Paquin: "why do you foist this intellectual garbage onto someone who is moved by an injustice."

— Here we go again, making the same misstep as described in one of the above quotes. Talking about "injustice" without having a fucking idea of what injustice is, just taking it out of the contemporary neo-pagan culture and egalitarian brain vomit that thrives today:

« The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. »…« taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc.»…«this truth has been established»…«by the dogmatist, and the critic »…« believes in this truth, this article of faith.»…« and possessed by this faith, he criticises. »
~Max Stirner.

BTW, just because you are an uncultured individual it doesn't mean that philosophy is garbage.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner#Influence 

+Sebastian Paquin: "In my book he gets an "A" for effort"

— You must be kidding me. I strongly doubt you've ever written a book.
kevinspear.com/cartoon/cartoon-a-for-effort 
cartoonstock.com/cartoonview.asp?catref=mbcn2595 

+Sebastian Paquin: "that monkey really pulls at the heart strings"

« Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones is a logical fallacy characterized by the manipulation of the recipient's emotions in order to win an argument, especially in the absence of factual evidence. [1] This kind of appeal to emotion is a type of red herring [so apparently I was right] and encompasses several logical fallacies, including appeal to consequences, appeal to fear, appeal to flattery, appeal to pity, appeal to ridicule, appeal to spite, and wishful thinking.

Instead of facts, persuasive language is used to develop the foundation of an appeal to emotion-based argument. Thus, the validity of the premises that establish such an argument does not prove to be verifiable.[2]

Appeals to emotion are intended to draw visceral feelings from the acquirer of the information. And in turn, the acquirer of the information is intended to be convinced that the statements that were presented in the fallacious argument are true; solely on the basis that the statements may induce emotional stimulation such as fear, pity and joy. Though these emotions may be provoked by an appeal to emotion fallacy, effectively winning the argument, substantial proof of the argument is not offered, and the argument's premises remain invalid.[3][4][5]»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion 

Can you see why philosophy is important? Without it you're just an agitprop agent.

+Sebastian Paquin: "By deconstructing his comment it paints you as a cynic."

— Good.
I've always felt identified with some of Diogenes' ideas.
Notice that I'm also "deconstructing" your comment. It'd be "unjust" any other way.

+Sebastian Paquin: "He's on our team so save it for the churchie trolls."

tribalism
«the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.»
google.com/search?q=define+tribalism 

« Groupthink is a psychological phenomenon that occurs within a group of people, in which the desire for harmony or conformity in the group results in an irrational or dysfunctional decision-making outcome.»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink 

— Have you ever felt a droplet of intellectual honesty in your brain?

«• One's personal beliefs do not interfere with the pursuit of truth;»

«• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;
• Facts are presented in an unbiased manner, and not twisted to give misleading impressions or to support one view over another;
• References, or earlier work, are acknowledged where possible, and plagiarism is avoided.»

«Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the "kernel" of intellectual honesty to be "a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception."[1]
Intentionally committed fallacies in debates and reasoning are called intellectual dishonesty.»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_honesty 
________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 16, 2015 10:50 PM [UTC]
+Gennady Seliutin: "I congratulate you, on your ability to copy and paste!"

— A common recourse of the ignorant, devoid of any valuable references. Since the ignorant is unable to counter others' arguments, they opt for belittling them for quoting "too much", as if the value of any argument were dependant on its authorship.


+Gennady Seliutin: "because I am tired of talking to assholes who don't use the dictionary as the standard for language."

— Another common recourse. Your vulgar language does not make you appear any more righteous or truthful, but rather like a cocky brat.


+Gennady Seliutin: «"dog·ma
ˈdôɡmə/
noun
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true."
When I used the word "I" in the sentence "I see all life on earth as equal." This entails that I was talking about MY opinion and not an authoritative principle. I am just stating a principle by which I abide.
Next.»

— Not so quick, smartass:

« dogma
: a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by the members of a group without being questioned or doubted
: a belief or set of beliefs that is taught by a religious organization

plural dog·mas also dog·ma·ta \-mə-tə\

Full Definition of DOGMA
1
a : something held as an established opinion; especially :  a definite authoritative tenet
b : a code of such tenets <pedagogical dogma>
c : a point of view or tenet put forth as authoritative without adequate grounds »

Dogma. Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dogma 

A sign of intellectual dishonesty:
«• Relevant facts and information are not purposefully omitted even when such things may contradict one's hypothesis;»

Although in this case I doubt you even bothered to go any further from the simplistic definition provided by Google Search, by no means an authoritative resource. You simply picked the first definition it fitted your particular agenda.

You see, according to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary you can be motu proprio a dogmatic, i.e., on your own free will.

On the other hand, you don't think you'll persuade many that "YOUR" opinion is your original opinion, that you didn't take it out of somewhere, more so considering that all this Biocentric Egalitarianism and Deep Ecology crap has infiltrated Western culture over the last decades:


«1. The well-being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent value). These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for human purposes.
2. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these values and are also values in themselves.»
3. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital human needs.
4. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease of the human population. The flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease.
5. Present human interference with the nonhuman world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies affect basic economic, technological, and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will be deeply different from the present.
7. The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality (dwelling in situations of inherent value) rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness of the difference between big and great.»

Deep Ecology. Principles. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology#Principles 

«Some critics, particularly social ecologist Murray Bookchin, have interpreted deep ecology as being hateful toward humanity, due in part to the characterization of humanity by some deep ecologists, such as David Foreman of Earth First!, as a pathological infestation on the Earth.[8]»

Deep Ecology. Bookchin's criticisms. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_ecology#Bookchin.27s_criticisms 


«The distinction between biocentrism and ecocentrism is ill-defined. Ecocentrism recognizes Earth's interactive living and non-living systems rather than just the Earth's organisms (biocentrism) as central in importance.[15] The term has been used by those advocating "left biocentrism", combining deep ecology with an "anti-industrial and anti-capitalist" position (David Orton et al.).»

Ecocentrism. Biocentrism. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecocentrism#Biocentrism 


«• One: Humans are nonprivileged members of the earth's community of life. (This perspective, acknowledge differences, but focuses on similarities.)

- Humans as contingent, biological beings: Humans share with other organisms biological requirements for life that are not completelly under our control. We, as they, are vulnerable. We share with them an inability to guarantee the fundamental conditions of our existence. In many respects, humans are importantly creatures of forces we do not control.

- Kinship: We share the same origin as other creatures and so have ties of kinship with them. The earth's life processes (evolution) brought all of us into existence; knowing how they came to be is knowing how we came to exist as well.

- Newcomers: One difference is that we are recent arrivals. The earth was "teeming with life" long before we arrived and when we did, we entered a place others had resided for hundreds of millions of years.

- Humans are not the ultimate purpose: The idea that humans are the final goal of the evolutionary process is absurd; as if the rest of nature was waiting on our arrival and applauded when we finally appeared.

- We depend on them: Humans are absolutely dependent on other forms of life; without them we would cease to exist. We are needy dependents on the fabric of life around us. (E.O. Wilson thinks that without invertebrates, humans--and other vertebrates--have a couple of months to live.)

- They don't depend on us: Life on this planet is not dependent on us; in fact, it would do much better without us.

«• Four: The belief in human superiority is an unjustified bias; we should be species impartial and egalitarian.»

— Group Work. Paul Taylor - Biocentric Egalitarianism. Theory, Proposition and Place. Manchester School of Architecture. October 20, 2011.
msaobsolescence.blogspot.com/2011/10/paul-taylor-biocentric-egalitarianism.html 

«The ethics of biocentrism, in particular, stipulates that all life forms are moral agents—entities that must be accorded moral consideration. An early proponent of this notion, Albert Schweitzer, for example, argued in 1923 that “all living beings have the will to live, and all beings with the will to live are sacred, interrelated and of equal value.”»

— Fanny Thornton. Biocentric Egalitarianism. Green Ethics and Philosophy: An A-to-Z Guide. Julie Newman (editor). SAGE. May 3, 2011.
knowledge.sagepub.com/view/greenethics/n9.xml 


In the present time the most inane ideologies are those that tend to be more readily spread and become mainstream or popular by effect of the tyranny of the common denominator. Nonetheless, this sort of crap, while having become fashionable in recent times is by no means anything new:

«In Islam: In Islam, biocentric ethics stem from the belief that all of creation belongs to Allah (God), not humans, and to assume that non-human animals and plants exist merely to benefit humankind leads to environmental destruction and misuse.[22] As all living organisms exist to praise God, human destruction of other living things prevents the earth's natural and subtle means of praising God. The Qu'ran acknowledges that humans are not the only all-important creatures and emphasizes a respect for nature.»

«In Hinduism:»…«However, while Hinduism does not give the same direct authority over nature that the Judeo-Christian God grants, they are subject to a "higher and more authoritative responsiblity for creation."[22]»

«In Buddhism:»…«Although this holistic approach is more ecocentric than biocentric, it is also biocentric, as it maintains that all living things are important and that humans are not above other creatures or nature. Buddhism teaches that "once we treat nature as our friend, to cherish it, then we can see the need to change from the attitude of dominating nature to an attitude of working with nature—we are an intrinsic part of all existence rather than seeing ourselves as in control of it."[26]»

Biocentrism (ethics). Biocentrism in religion. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biocentrism_(ethics)#Biocentrism_in_religion 


+Gennady Seliutin: «"+Gennady Seliutin: "we live in co-dependent ecological system."
— Red herring, possible appeal to emotion."_
This is a definition of ECOSYSTEM:»

«I don't know which part of this definition you want to argue. When I used the word "co-dependent", I meant to say that we depend on other organisms and the environment to survive. Unless you eat rocks you are part of this system.
Next.»

— You have no fucking idea of what a red herring argument is, right?

«A red herring is something that misleads or distracts from a relevant or important issue. [1] It may be either a logical fallacy or a literary device that leads readers or audiences towards a false conclusion. A red herring might be intentionally used, such as in mystery fiction or as part of a rhetorical strategies (e.g. in politics), or it could be inadvertently used during argumentation.»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring 

The fact that humans live in ecosystems is irrelevant to the thesis "all life on earth as equal", rather a distraction, and even a tacit appeal to emotion (by trying to instil fear to consequences, pity for those creatures who share the world with us, or who knows what else). The fact that different organisms are part of the same ecosystem doesn't automatically make them all equal. Hosts and parasites, preys and predators also share a same ecosystem and yet, don't hold a reciprocal relation between them. Therefore, they are unequal actors in those ecosystems.


+Gennady Seliutin: "In this sentence I was addressing the popular notion that homo sapiens are the superior species."

— The opposite to equal is not superior, so in such case your argument was another red herring (or a straw man argument, if you prefer).


+Gennady Seliutin: "This in fact is not true. By the LAW of evolution the superior species are the ones that survived the longest."

— First of all, there isn't such thing called the "LAW of evolution", and second, evolution says nothing about superiority. Your assumption that the populations that survive for the longest are superior is totally unfounded. At most, those populations may be (although not necessarily always) better fitted or adapted to their environment under the particular conditions at the period in which they live. Does this mean they are "superior"? By no means. As it's often said (with a certain abuse of language), "evolution" is opportunistic:

• Wynne Parry (Quanta Magazine). Evolution Is an Opportunist. Scientific American. September 5, 2013.
scientificamerican.com/article/evolution-as-opportunist 

Is perhaps opportunism a trait of superiority?
The theory of evolution by natural selection (and other processes) says nothing about who is superior to whom. It's not a judgemental theory. It's morally and ethically blind.


+Gennady Seliutin: "Which in this case is bacteria and multi cell organisms like Tardigrade (which is part of Animalia kingdom)."

— Sure, you can now also include hippos.

FWIW, you are falling into the same equivocation fallacy as Paul Taylor and other Biocentric Egalitarians do: 

«Newcomers: One difference is that we are recent arrivals. The earth was "teeming with life" long before we arrived and when we did, we entered a place others had resided for hundreds of millions of years.»

There are no more recent arrivals than others. For all what is currently known, the lineage of humans is as ancient as the lineage of any other extant living organism. The fact that some organisms have retained more primitive traits than others at a superficial level doesn't mean they have existed for longer, but simply that their lineage may have changed less over the course of their evolution, at least superficially.


+Gennady Seliutin: "And now, If you want to start a dialogue about the definition of "Superior" go ahead. Again I am going to use a dictionary for that."

— I won't fall in the same equivocation fallacy to confuse the meaning of non-equal or non-Egalitarian with hierarchical relations of superiority and inferiority.

The reason for which your dogma of faith ("all life on earth as equal") is wrong has nothing to do with the assumption that some living beings are superior to others.

All life on earth is non-equal because living forms on earth show a great variability, and more importantly for this subject, most of the relations that those living beings establish between them are unequal. So the notion that "all life on earth as equal" is groundless.

That's apparently your only premise to assume that all living beings "deserve" equal rights. And that's another equivocation, the assumption that rights are something that the individual deserves, instead of the simple result of a contract or agreement. Contracts can be agreed between equal and unequal parties. Likewise, equal parties may not have settled any agreement.

Humans and non-human animals or other living organisms don't generally assume contracts between them, therefore it's far fetched to assume that either of them (humans or non-humans) have acquired any rights or duties.


+Gennady Seliutin: "My final point is this, unless humans will learn to live and thrive outside our current ecosystem, we will always be dependents, just another living organism processing food and air, and decomposing. None of our achievements would matter if we go extinct. And we will go extinct if we destroy our oceans, lakes and rivers we will destroy our primary source of oxygen. If we destroy insects, especially bees, we will destroy farming and plant life because there will be no one left to pollinate them."

— Red herring with an obvious appeal to fear coupled to an equivocation fallacy or a straw man argument. Those who oppose treating "all life on earth as equal" don't necessarily pretend to wipe out all other living beings on earth.
________ 

Gennady Seliutin Jul 17, 2015 5:32 AM [UTC]
+Iain Wood no, you see this is a person under dellusion, he will cling on other people's words to justify it. Fox news should hire him. Because only reliogus person would twist the logic in such a way that it would excuse the the atrocities committed by the human species towards the only planet that can sustain our lives. In his response he actually was talking about a contract that we are supposed to make with the animals in order for the equality to be legitimate. I am not going to respond to him, I think that he can eat rocks, because he really does not care about the ecosystem that he evolved into.
________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 17, 2015 7:15 AM [UTC]
+Iain Wood, there's nothing to understand. Biocentric egalitarianism is a religious philosophy, i.e., no reason- or logic-based.
________ 

Gennady Seliutin Jul 17, 2015 7:42 AM [UTC]
I know this is crazy:
Egalitarianism is a trend of thought in political philosophy. An egalitarian favors equality of some sort: People should get the same, or be treated the same, or be treated as equals, in some respect
And Biocentric ideology has nothing to do with this debate. Because BIO means life, and CENTRIC means focused around 1 subject. Which means if you don't care that LIFE is the CENTER of existence, you must consider yourself above life, and therefore by this definition you are mentally ill. 
________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/112757185524584052343/posts/gGmNcuMk7t6 
__________________ 
8
John Jainschigg's profile photoMartin Lewitt's profile photo
6 comments
 
We have cock fighting and dog fighting subcultures in the US, bull fighting in Mexico and Spain, consumption of "bush meat" in Africa, including monkeys and chimpanzees.  But beyond animals, we have cultures where hating jews is not only socially acceptable but praiseworthy, and families of suicide bombers are honored.  Judeo/Christian western culture doesn't necessarily get the last word on which emotions are "positive" or healthy or result in the best societies.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Natural Rights"

«Morality is faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Belief without evidence cannot be shared. Faith is a feeling.»…«Faith claims knowledge of a world we share but without evidence we can share. Feeling love is beautiful. Feeling natural rights exist is stupid.
Morality is often just tribalism: pride in a group one was born into, a group that is often believed to have “Natural rights” on its side.»

— Modified quote taken in its unmodified form from: 

• Penn Jillette. Atheism Should End Religion, Not Replace It. The New York Times. January 22, 2013; updated March 19, 2013
nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/22/is-atheism-a-religion/atheism-should-end-religion-not-replace-it 

Excerpt from comments of source G+ post: 

+Theodore Minick: "Rights exist in the same sense as a mathematical equation exists. 2+2=4 remains valid and useful regardless of its intangible nature."

• Jason Rosenhouse. In What Sense Do Mathematical Objects Exist? ScienceBlogs. December 13, 2013.
scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2013/12/13/in-what-sense-do-mathematical-objects-exist 

Is Math a Feature of the Universe or a Feature of Human Creation? Idea Channel, PBS. June 3, 2013.
youtube.com/watch?v=TbNymweHW4E (9 min)

Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. University of Tennessee.
iep.utm.edu/mathfict 

Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. April 22, 2008; substantive revision September 16, 2011.
plato.stanford.edu/entries/fictionalism-mathematics 

• Rafal Urbaniak (University of Ghent, University of Gdansk). Mathematical Fictionalism. PhilPapers.com.
philpapers.org/browse/mathematical-fictionalism

Mathematical fictionalism. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics#Fictionalism 

«Fictionalism in the philosophy of mathematics is the view that mathematical statements, such as ‘8+5=13’ and ‘π is irrational’, are to be interpreted at face value and, thus interpreted, are false. Fictionalists are typically driven to reject the truth of such mathematical statements because these statements imply the existence of mathematical entities, and according to fictionalists there are no such entities. Fictionalism is a nominalist (or anti-realist) account of mathematics in that it denies the existence of a realm of abstract mathematical entities. It should be contrasted with mathematical realism (or Platonism) where mathematical statements are taken to be true, and, moreover, are taken to be truths about mathematical entities. Fictionalism should also be contrasted with other nominalist philosophical accounts of mathematics that propose a reinterpretation of mathematical statements, according to which the statements in question are true but no longer about mathematical entities. Fictionalism is thus an error theory of mathematical discourse: at face value mathematical discourse commits us to mathematical entities and although we normally take many of the statements of this discourse to be true, in doing so we are in error (cf. error theories in ethics).»

— Mark Colyvan. Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011.
Freely available copy: colyvan.com/papers/fictionalism.pdf 
rep.routledge.com/articles/fictionalism-in-the-philosophy-of-mathematics 

Interestingly, there's also a moral fictionalism:

• Mark Eli Kalderon. Moral Fictionalism. Oxford University Press. 2005. ISBN: 978-0-19-927597-7 ; 0199275971
(books.google.com/books?id=UfibQKCJht8C)
ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199275977.do 
(philpapers.org/rec/KALMF)
(ucl.academia.edu/MarkEliKalderon)

Reviews:
• Tristram McPherson. Reviewed Work: Moral Fictionalism by Mark Eli Kalderon. The Philosophical Review vol. 117 (3) (Jul 2008) pp. 445-448
jstor.org/stable/40606034 

• Andrew Fisher. Reviewed Work: Moral Fictionalism by Mark Eli Kalderon. The Philosophical Quarterly vol. 57 (226) (Jan 2007) pp. 145-148
jstor.org/stable/4543215 
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9213.2007.476_6.x/abstract 

• Daniel Demetriou , Graham Oddie. Reviewed Work: Moral Fictionalism by Mark Eli Kalderon. Mind New Series vol. 116 (462) (Apr 2007) pp. 439-446
jstor.org/stable/30164117 

• Stephen Finlay (University of Southern California). Reviewed Work: Moral Fictionalism by Mark Eli Kalderon. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. April 10, 2006.
ndpr.nd.edu/news/25004-moral-fictionalism 

• Matti Eklund (Cornell University). The Frege-Geach Problem and Kalderon's Moral Fictionalism. Penultimate draft. Final version forthcoming in Philosophical Quarterly.
courses.cit.cornell.edu/me72/fgmf.pdf 
_________ 

"Natural rights" are 18th/19th-century bullshit, directly derived form Christian religious dogma:

«Then in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, natural-law theory came under sustained and derisive attack from individualists. The situation was especially contentious in the United States, where individualists who espoused what Benjamin Tucker called “society by contract” began to deride natural rights as being patently absurd.[1] The leading wedge of ridicule was Tucker’s individualist-anarchist periodical Liberty (1881–1907), which was key in transmitting and preserving individualist ideas in post-Civil War America. Liberty, for example, was one of the main conduits of Herbert Spencer’s thought to America.

Unfortunately for natural-law advocates, contributors to Liberty also translated into English the thought of Johann Kasper Schmidt—more popularly known as Max Stirner—who believed natural rights were “ghosts” in men’s minds. The spread of Stirnerite egoism within American individualist ranks emanated from Stirner’s pivotal work on law, property, and the state, The Ego and His Own. The debate that ensued centered on two issues: first, whether egoism or natural rights formed the proper basis of radical individualist theory, and second, whether those who advocated rights were mad.

By contrast, many contemporary individualists find it possible to disagree with natural rights without declaring them to be nonsensical. For example, David Friedman’s latest book, Hidden Order: The Economics of Everyday Life, argues for freedom on purely economic, rather than moral or natural-law grounds. Rather than causing a schism, however, Friedman’s different approach offers valuable insights into the tradition. In Human Action, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises goes one step farther and explicitly argues against natural law. But he presents a reasoned argument. Although he is a staunch opponent, he is not a detractor—a difference that may explain why so many natural-rights advocates consider themselves Misesians.»

« The egoists and natural-rights advocates in Liberty agreed on more than they realized or, at least, on more than they were willing to admit. They agreed, for instance, on a key theoretical point: namely, human beings act in their own self-interest. (Oddly, the Stirnerite egoists never considered that statement of fact to be a “fixed idea.”) Even John F. Kelly acknowledged the primacy of self-interest when he wrote in Liberty, “If we regard . . . all forces pushing us to action as pleasures,—relief from pain being classed as a pleasure,—and all those tending to make us abstain as pains,—deprivation of pleasure being counted a pain,—then it is evident that we act egoistically . . . since we only act because the pleasures exceed the pains.”

With the natural-law side making such concessions, it is difficult to believe that both sides could not have come to a common understanding. Consider one issue: the role of rights in the act of contracting. The egoists believed they were reducing the concept of rights to its proper place as an artificial, but useful, construct with which to organize society. Tucker continued to believe in what he called “society by contract,” but he came to view rights as the byproducts of contracts between individuals, not as entities existing on their own. Writing in his newspaper, he suggested that rights were “a tacit agreement or understanding between human beings . . . not to trespass upon each other’s individualism, the motive of this agreement being the purely egoist desire of each for the peaceful preservation of his own individuality.” »

— Wendy McElroy. The Non-Absurdity of Natural Law: One Can Disagree with Natural Rights without Declaring the Concept Nonsensical. Foundation for Economic Education. February 1, 1998.
fee.org/freeman/detail/the-non-absurdity-of-natural-law 


«The furor that raged over egoism in the next volume of Liberty revolved around the egoists' rejection of natural rights as unfounded abstractions; Walker referred to such ideas as “right,” “wrong,” and “justice” as “merely words with vague, chimerical meanings.” [62] The natural rights advocates, most of whom were influenced by Herbert Spencer responded by insisting that egoism destroyed the very foundation of libertarianism and removed all moral objection to the initiation of force. Gertrude Kelly well expressed this position in writing: “My friends, my friends, have you completely lost your heads? Cannot you see that without morality, without the recognition of others' rights, Anarchy, in any other than the vulgar sense, could not last a single day?”[63] Although the egoists agreed that there could be no moral objection to force, they maintained that egoism was a more solid foundation for freedom and so would strengthen the movement. This controversy polarized libertarianism prompting many of the natural rights advocates to withdraw from the pages of Liberty.»

— Wendy McElroy. Bibliographical Essay: Benjamin Tucker, Individualism, & Liberty: Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order. Literature of Liberty (Autumn 1981) vol. 4, No. 3
oll.libertyfund.org/pages/benjamin-tucker-and-liberty-a-bibliographical-essay-by-wendy-mcelroy 
(oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1300)


«The ensuing debate centered on whether egoism or natural rights formed the proper basis of radical individualist theory.

The March 6, 1886, issue of Liberty printed an article by Walker, who often wrote for Tucker under the pseudonym of Tak Kak. This article, “What Is Justice?” initiated the debate. Walker referred to such ideas as “right,” “wrong,” and “justice” as “merely words with vague, chimerical meanings.” [18] Previously, natural law had been widely assumed to be the foundation of individualism, radical or not. Now egoism rejected the concept of “ought” as a proper factor in governing man’s emotions or behavior and claimed instead that enlightened self-interest provided the only realistic basis for human conduct.

Natural-rights theorists—John F. Kelly, Gertrude Kelly, Sidney H. Morse, William J. Lloyd—claimed there was an objective right and wrong to human behavior based on the nature of man and reality. Only by having an objective standard of values could people have a benchmark against which to judge whether government laws were just.

The Stirnerite egoists were no less antigovernment than their natural-rights counterparts. They merely constructed anarchism along different lines. They rejected the state because it sought to chain the individual to the general will. This argument was not a rejection of society or its value, which Stirner called “union by advantage.” Society provided true and invaluable benefits to the individual, benefits the state disrupted. But the egoists rejected more than natural rights: they abandoned the concept of “principles” itself. Tak Kak declared that “the devotee of a fixed idea is mad. He either runs amuck, or cowers as mesmerized by the idea” (Walker 1887).

In early 1887, John Kelly, who was a staunch Spencerian, accurately assessed Tak Kak as saying “that the idea of right is a foolish phantasy, or that there are no rights but mine,—that is to say, that there are not rights, only mights” (Kelly, 1887b, 7). The natural-rights side of the debate accused the egoists (Tak Kak, Tucker, Schumm) of destroying not only natural rights but also individualist anarchism.

The egoists argued that they were merely reducing the concept of rights to its proper place as an artificial, useful construct with which to organize society. Converted to egoism, Tucker continued to believe in what he called “society by contract,” but he came to view rights as by-products of contracts between individuals, not as existing on their own. Tucker suggested that rights were

"a tacit agreement or understanding between human beings ...as individuals living in daily contact and dependent upon some sort of cooperation with each other for the satisfaction of their daily wants, not to trespass upon each other’s individualism, the motive of this agreement being the purely egoist desire of each for the peaceful preservation of his own individuality." (Walker 1886, 8)»

— Wendy McElroy. Benjamin Tucker, Liberty And Individualist Anarchism. The Independent Review, v.II, n. 3, Winter 1998, ISSN 1086-1653, (1997) pp. 421–434
independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_02_3_mcelroy.pdf 
Alternative source: 
wendymcelroy.com/tir1.htm 
wendymcelroy.com/tir2.htm 
URL source G+ posts: 
plus.google.com/100077735019772811067/posts/QCCMJZJW4rg 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/bm3tYLN5cxX 


(pp. 244-248 / pp. 101-102 / pp. 146-158)
«In the meantime let us take the matter yet another way. I am to reverence sultanic law in the sultanate, popular law in republics, canon law in Catholic communities. To these laws I am to subordinate myself; I am to regard them as sacred. A "sense of right" and "law-abiding mind" of such a sort is so firmly planted in people’s heads that the most revolutionary persons of our days want to subject us to a new "sacred law," the "law of society," the law of mankind, the "right of all," and the like. The right of "all" is to go before my right. As a right of all it would indeed be my right among the rest, since I, with the rest, am included in all; but that it is at the same time a right of others, or even of all others, does not move me to its upholding. Not as a right of all will I defend it, but as my right; and then every other may see to it how he shall likewise maintain it for himself. The right of all (e. g., to eat) is a right of every individual. Let each keep this right unabridged for himself, then all exercise it spontaneously; let him not take care for all though – let him not grow zealous for it as for a right of all.

But the social reformers preach to us a "law of society". There the individual becomes society’s slave, and is in the right only when society makes him out in the right, i.e. when he lives according to society’s statutes and so is – loyal. Whether I am loyal under a despotism or in a "society" àla Weitling, it is the same absence of right in so far as in both cases I have not my right but foreign right.

In consideration of right the question is always asked, "What or who gives me the right to it?" Answer: God, love, reason, nature, humanity, etc. No, only your might, your power gives you the right (your reason, e. g.,, may give it to you).

Communism, which assumes that men "have equal rights by nature," contradicts its own proposition till it comes to this, that men have no right at all by nature. For it is not willing to recognize, e. g., that parents have "by nature" rights as against their children, or the children as against the parents: it abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, brothers, etc., no right at all. Altogether, this entire revolutionary or Babouvist principle [130] rests on a religious, i. e., false, view of things. Who can ask after "right" if he does not occupy the religious standpoint himself? Is not "right" a religious concept, i.e. something sacred? Why, "equality of rights", as the Revolution propounded it, is only another name for "Christian equality," the "equality of the brethren," "of God’s children," "of Christians"; in short, fraternité. Each and every inquiry after right deserves to be lashed with Schiller’s words:

Many a year I’ve used my nose
To smell the onion and the rose;
Is there any proof which shows
That I’ve a right to that same nose?

When the Revolution stamped equality as a "right," it took flight into the religious domain, into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable rights of man." Against the "eternal rights of man" the "well-earned rights of the established order" are quite naturally, and with equal right, brought to bear: right against right, where of course one is decried by the other as "wrong." This has been the contest of rights[131] since the Revolution.

You want to be "in the right" as against the rest. That you cannot; as against them you remain forever "in the wrong"; for they surely would not be your opponents if they were not in "their right" too; they will always make you out "in the wrong." But, as against the right of the rest, yours is a higher, greater, more powerful right, is it not? No such thing! Your right is not more powerful if you are not more powerful. Have Chinese subjects a right to freedom? Just bestow it on them, and then look how far you have gone wrong in your attempt: because they do not know how to use freedom they have no right to it, or, in clearer terms, because they have not freedom they have not the right to it. Children have no right to the condition of majority because they are not of age, i.e. because they are children. Peoples that let themselves be kept in nonage have no rights to the condition of majority; if they ceased to be in nonage, then only would they have the right to be of age. This means nothing else than "What you have the power to be you have the right to." I derive all right and all warrant from me ; I am entitled to everything that I have in my power. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus, Jehovah, God, etc., if I can ; if I cannot, then these gods will always remain in the right and in power as against me, and what I do will be to fear their right and their power in impotent "god-fearingness," to keep their commandments and believe that I do right in everything that I do according to their right, about as the Russian boundary-sentinels think themselves rightfully entitled to shoot dead the suspicious persons who are escaping, since they murder "by superior authority," i.e. "with right." But I am entitled by myself to murder if I myself do not forbid it to myself, if I myself do not fear murder as a "wrong." This view of things lies at the foundation of Chamisso’s poem, "The Valley of Murder," where the gray-haired Indian murderer compels reverence from the white man whose brethren he has murdered. The only thing I am not entitled to is what I do not do with a free cheer, i. e. what I do not entitle myself to. »

(pp. 412-413 / pp. 154-155 / pp. 236-237)
«If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of – society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such – law-giver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; e. g., the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego’s exclusive god, but always a society’s or community’s, be it of the society, "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").

Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates society and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become common for the establishment of – "equality." If this "equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But whose liberty? Society’s! Society is then all in all, and men are only "for each other." It would be the glory of the – love-State.»

(pp. 415-417 / pp. 155-156 / pp. 238-239)
«Neither a natural ligature nor a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural, not a spiritual league. It is not brought about by one blood, not by one faith (spirit). In a natural league – like a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind – the individuals have only the value of specimens of the same species or genus; in a spiritual league – like a commune, a church – the individual signifies only a member of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a unique person must be – suppressed. Only in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.

Property is recognized in the union, and only in the union, because one no longer holds what is his as a fief from any being. The Communists are only consistently carrying further what had already been long present during religious evolution, and especially in the State; to wit, propertylessness, the feudal system.»

«You bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a "member in the body of this Lord"; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are – possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further. If a society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force; the union exists for you and through you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without you, in short, the society is sacred, the union your own; consumes you, you consume the union.»

«To come back to property, the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society shall be! On this depends whether you are to be an owner or a ragamuffin! The egoist is owner, the Socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal system which since the last century has only changed its overlord, putting "Man" in the place of God, and accepting as a fief from Man what had before been a fief from the grace of God. That the ragamuffinism of Communism is carried out by the humane principle into the absolute or most ragamuffinly ragamuffinism has been shown above; but at the same time also, how ragamuffinism can only thus swing around into ownness. The old feudal system was so thoroughly trampled into the ground in the Revolution that since then all reactionary craft has remained fruitless, and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is – dead; but the resurrection too had to prove itself a truth in Christian history, and has so proved itself: for in another world feudalism is risen again with a glorified body, the new feudalism under the suzerainty of "Man."»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 
URL G+ post with excerpts: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/8EkQwUApQ1u 


Quoting Austin Petersen (1:21): "Any society aimed at protecting natural rights must use some type of force to guarantee those rights."

Kal Molinet (1:27): "No, again, all rights are mutual agreements you have with one another. Now, I respect that you can do whatever you want with your body and with your property to grant me the same courtesy to do the same, right? with my own body and with my own property. You have a lot of these rights in community agreements, in contracts that you signed, in the community of free society that caters to lifestyle preference,… and that's pretty much what rights are, you know? You don't have any rights, you have private property, and in there you have the rules that you give consent to. You can call those your rights but within competing societies there would be an underlying respect for self-ownership, for respect for voluntary change."

— Kal Molinet. Enemy Of Liberty: Austin Petersen. Liberate RVA. May 13, 2015.
youtube.com/watch?v=EwKN-GuBRUY (29 min)
URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+LiberateRVA/posts/ahGcmGZhrqZ 
URL comments thread:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/2LmeC54meEs 


Further reading:

• Benjamin R. Tucker. Relation of the State to the Individual. Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 (15) (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual 
(pp. 23-25)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866 

• Benjamin R. Tucker. Liberty and Property. Liberty (December 31, 1892) vol. 9 (18) [whole no. 252] pp. 3-4. [document no. 1591-1592]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/liberty-and-property 
(p. 350)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n367/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2939 

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006 (ePub edition).
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 
URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Ma5vMdWAhUN 

• James L. Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
_________ 

• Richard Dawkins. Nice Guys Finish First.
Excerpt, between parts 4th and 5th:
youtube.com/watch?v=48EWLj3gIJ8 (13 min)
Full episode:
youtube.com/watch?v=I71mjZefg8g (46 min)
Excerpt, part 4th:
youtube.com/watch?v=ajbw4ilXbBU (11 min)

Tit for tat. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat 
_________ 

+Tom de Lorenzo: "Great, Zephyr. So if someone mugs you, you will have no feelings one way or the other about it."

— Feelings are a lousy guide. Impulsive people tend to end badly. If human conduct were driven by feelings, vendettas (blood feuds) would be the norm to "solve" conflicts.

plus.google.com/105727606327475388628/posts/RgHPnSsuSZc 
plus.google.com/+AlanLovejoy/posts/BRKMNTnkeDU 
_________ 

+Cheesy Mac: "Tuckerism and Stirnerism seems more and more like a religion to me every day."

— To the priestly minds everything looks like a religion:

• Daniel Smartt. Is Atheism a religion? Creation.com. May 4, 2010
creation.com/atheism-a-religion 

• Johnnie Moore. Atheism is a religion, too. Fox News. March 17, 2013
foxnews.com/opinion/2013/03/17/sorry-but-atheism-is-religion.html 

• Kennedy. Atheism Is a Religion. Reason.com. March 10, 2013
reason.com/archives/2012/03/10/atheism-is-a-religion 

• Jim Mulholland. Is Atheism A Religion? Leaving Your Religion. May 27, 2015
leavingyourreligion.com/2015/05/is-atheism-a-religion 

• Austin Cline. Atheism Myths: Atheism is just another religion. About.com; Agnosticism/Atheism.
atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm 

« Religion is faith. Faith is belief without evidence. Belief without evidence cannot be shared. Faith is a feeling. »…« Faith claims knowledge of a world we share but without evidence we can share. Feeling love is beautiful. Feeling the earth is 6,000 years old is stupid.
Religion is often just tribalism: pride in a group one was born into, a group that is often believed to have “God” on its side.»

— Penn Jillette. Atheism Should End Religion, Not Replace It. The New York Times. January 22, 2013; updated March 19, 2013
nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/01/22/is-atheism-a-religion/atheism-should-end-religion-not-replace-it 

"If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
_________ 

+Cheesy Mac: "Apparently egoism is that religion that believes all other perspectives are religions, and that religions should be rejected."

— Your natural-rights doctrine is religion because it lies on the belief that somewhere there is something you call "Natural rights" (hence their "natural" qualifier) but about it you have no evidence of their existence, just like God.

You often refer to them as some sort of "principle" or "law" of nature, but unlike principles and laws of nature you fail to provide evidence of its validity testing or verifying those "Natural rights" through experimentation and/or observation.

Even the laws and principles of economics are more testable or verifiable than your f***ing rights.

In contrast, according to Egoists rights are

«artificial, useful construct with which to organize society.»

«by-products of contracts between individuals, not as entities existing on their own.»

«“a tacit agreement or understanding between human beings . . . not to trespass upon each other’s individualism, the motive of this agreement being the purely egoist desire of each for the peaceful preservation of his own individuality.”»

And natural rights are

«“ghosts” in men’s minds.»

«unfounded abstractions;»

«“merely words with vague, chimerical meanings.”»

«a religious concept, i.e. something sacred»

How do you prove that Natural rights don't exist? The same way you prove that God doesn't exist: You don't have to. The burden of proof is on the other side.

How do you prove that rights are artificial, created by humans, by-products of contracts, etc?
Going to their source. All right we know have been expressed by humans. Where did they get those rights? (Except for the claims of a few messiahs) apparently from their minds. Some claim to have discovered them, but discovered from where? From their own minds?

What were they investigating when they discovered those rights? Perhaps were they trying to figure a way to satisfy more or less everyone under the possibility of a conflict, to make everyone as happy as possible, to find am arrangement which everyone potentially involved would be willing to agree because everyone would be better off respecting it, that is, as a by-product of a contract?

Incidentally, this would explain why those rights ("Natural" or otherwise) generally only apply to individual who have the capacity and ability to contract. Every time you kill a chicken, where is its natural right to life? Apparently they don't have any, even though chicken are as natural as any human being.
May it be related to their inability to enforce those rights or to retaliate in case they are violated?

Another indication that rights are simply the result of contracts is the existence or arbitrary criteria that everyone accepts even when they are apparently contradictory with those supposedly _"sacred, inalienable rights of man" "eternal rights of man", "well-earned rights of the established order".

For instance, if everyone has the right (of property) of their own body, why by default the family inherits the properties and corpse when someone dies? Why those inanimate objects don't automatically turn into an unowned state? What natural right does the family members have over their relatives?
If the deceased person was the exclusive owner of his body and property, the family had no right whatsoever over those, right?

Similarly, what Natural right obliges people to respect/accept the last will and testament of the deceased? If the deceased is no longer alive he has no rights, right? On the basis of which and whose rights should the living have to accept the conditions laid down by the deceased person?

Imagine that the deceased laid down in his last will that if the heir ever sells or rents the family house, all his inherited fortune must be burned to ashes. Whose natural rights are being protected forcing the heir to respect the will of a deceased person?

Are those evident rights of nature or simply the result of enforcing a contract with arbitrary conditions? Where did it go the "natural right" to property of the heir, who can't even dispose of his own property as he sees fit?

To resume my line of argumentation, what you have is rights that come up from the mind of people, and that often are not consistent with each other. As George Carlin would say on rights,

«Doesn’t sound like divine planning to me. Sounds more like human planning. Sounds more like one group trying to control another group. In other words, business as usual in America.»

— George Carlin. It's Bad for Ya. (2008)
George Carlin - You have no rights 
youtube.com/watch?v=m9-R8T1SuG4 (5 min)
1/2. George Carlin on national pride like "God bless America"
youtube.com/watch?v=iw0MripVxss (10 min)
2/2. George Carlin -Rights and Privileges 
youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8 (9 min)


+Cheesy Mac: "Running around calling everything you disagree with a religion while simultaneously quoting Tucker like the Bible is hilariously ironic."

— On this subject I also quoted Max Stirner, Wendy McElroy (whose quotes also quote other authors such as James L Walker), Mark Colyvan, Austin Petersen, and Kal Molinet.
Interestingly, many of them hold a similar opinion about the nature of rights (in spite that not all of them are egoists).
_________ 

+Tom de Lorenzo: "The number 2 does not exist.
Am I doing it right?"

«A: {0,1,2,3} and a + function - I leave the multiplication for the moment - defined as x,y in A and x+y = (x+y) mod 4, then the article is true. 2+2=0, and 4 does not exist.»
businessinsider.com/2--2-doesnt-always-equal-4-2014-6 

Other possible answers:
(Saulius Grazulis response) 
askamathematician.com/2009/10/q-how-can-we-prove-that-22-always-equals-4 
math.stackexchange.com/questions/847352/is-22-always-4 
virgil.azwestern.edu/~dag/lol/TwoPlusTwo.html 
oilf.blogspot.com/2009/09/postmodern-math-does-2-2-always-4.html 
_________ 

+Tom de Lorenzo: "Show me a 2. You can't do it because it doesn't exist. Don't make it more complicated. If 2 does not exist, then worrying about 2 + 2 makes no sense.
Your point is that natural rights do not exist and my point is 2 does not exist. So what have we accomplished?"

— I didn't claim that 2 was a "Natural" object.
In fact, in one of my previous posts there is a reference of an article in which it describes how scientific theories "might be constructed without quantifying over mathematical items", that is, mathematics might be dispensed to describe the physical world, therefore, there's nothing "natural" about the use of mathematics (including the concept that represents the number 2):


«According to all varieties of mathematical fictionalism, most of accepted mathematics is strictly-speaking false, but is true in the fictional story of mathematics. But Field recognises that the fictionalist account cannot stop there. After all, why should this particular fiction—the fiction of standard mathematics—prove to be in such demand in science? Field’s answer to this question is ingenious. He simultaneously suggests how mathematics might be dispensed with and how, despite its dispensability, it could be used so fruitfully in science.

The first part of Field’s project—showing the dispensability of mathematics—begins by showing how a typical scientific theory such as Newtonian gravitational theory might be constructed without quantifying over mathematical items. The basic idea is to be a substantivalist about space-time (see SPACETIME) and then work directly with space-time points/regions. Instead of talking of the gravitational potential, for example, of some space-time point, Field compares space-time points with respect to their gravitational potential. The former standard way of talking (in terms of gravitational potential of space time points) involves a gravitational potential function which is a map from the space-time manifold to real numbers and this seems to commit one to realism about space, time, functions, and the real numbers. But Field, following a suggestion of the mathematician David Hilbert, notices that one can do all one wants merely by comparing space-time points with respect to their gravitational potential. This relational approach does away with the nominalistically unacceptable mathematical machinery (functions and real numbers) in the theory itself. But Field also proves a representation theorem (Field 1980, 55–91) that shows that in the meta-theory one can recover all the relevant numerical claims. In particular, in the space-time theory Field considers (a fragment of Newtonian gravitational theory), there are no gravitational potential functions, mass-density functions or spatio-temporal coordinate functions, but the representation theorem guarantees that these are recoverable in the meta-theory. So, in a sense, nothing is lost.

It is important to note that Field does not advocate doing science without mathematics; it is just that science can be done without mathematics. And the latter is enough to suggest that mathematics is dispensable to science. But now the question arises as to why invoking the fiction of mathematics does not lead to trouble. After all, combining a scientific theory with a work of fiction would generally lead to all sorts of false and perhaps even contradictory results. What is so special about mathematics and why is it acceptable to continue using the fiction of mathematics? Field’s answer is that mathematics is conservative. This means that a mathematical theory, when combined with any nominalistic scientific theory, does not yield nominalistic consequences that could not have been derived from the nominalsitic theory alone. The mathematics allows for easier derivations and the like, but enlisting it in the services of science does not yield anything new about the world. Put figuratively, the falsity of the mathematics does not infect the science that employs it. So if mathematics is conservative, we can continue using it and no damage will be done. The conservativeness claim is thus crucial in maintaining Field’s contention that his fictionalism does not result in any change to scientific practice.»

— Mark Colyvan. Fictionalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics. Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2011.
Freely available copy: colyvan.com/papers/fictionalism.pdf 
rep.routledge.com/articles/fictionalism-in-the-philosophy-of-mathematics 
_________ 

+Tom de Lorenzo: "A person who claims natural rights don't exist can't really criticize the government's arbitrary list of positive rights."

— Why not? You can criticise it to persuade as many people as people to stop giving their support. Not because it violate their "rights" but because the Government acts against the interest of those people.


+Tom de Lorenzo: "Law is either arbitrary mandates or it is based on something that is not random, not arbitrary, not subjective.
Now what could that thing be?"

— How about personal interest/convenience. The (free) market works that way. In most occasions people take decisions in the market driven by their personal interest, and it works.
A polycentric legal system in which people could opt for those laws that better fitted their needs and interests. What Benjamin Tucker called (and Kal Molinet would agree) “society by contract”, which coincidentally, is also the way by which the free market operates.

Polycentric law. Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polycentric_law 

• David Friedman. The Machinery of Freedom. Guide to a Radical Capitalism. 1st ed, 1973; 1st ed rev, 1978; 2nd ed, 1989; 3rd ed, 2014.
Free PDF copy (2nd edition, 1989): 
daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf 
(amazon.com/dp/0812690699)
(amazon.com/dp/B00LNDWWMW)

Lectures by David Friedman on this subject:

• David Friedman. Law Without the State. Adam Smith Institute. January 17, 2013.
youtu.be/vSrf9j2pvmU (59 min)

• David Friedman. The Market for Law. (2012)
youtube.com/watch?v=SINdTmy29cE (36 min)

• David Friedman. Anarchy and efficient law. Seminar on the Austrian School of Economics. April 11-12, 2010.
youtu.be/YmXDrm5Q-eQ (40 min)

• David Friedman. Should We Abolish Criminal Law? 1997.
youtu.be/6KsMZbuGNj8 (43 min)

• David Friedman. Problems with Libertarianism. The Economics of Principle. Austin TX, 1981.
1. youtu.be/GuYt6X2g0cY (59 min)
Following debate:
2. youtu.be/j9YVqZN9LJk (115 min)


The following is a passage about the way by which "society" (i.e., the "union of egoists") could organise "by contract" taken from an article that I cited above but that I hadn't quoted (and presumably nobody bothered to read):


«Now comes the question proper: What relations should exist between the State and the individual? The general method of determining these is to apply some theory of ethics involving a basis of moral obligation. In this method the Anarchists have no confidence. The idea of moral obligation, of inherent rights and duties, they totally discard. They look upon all obligations, not as moral, but as social, and even then not really as obligations except as these have been consciously and voluntarily assumed. If a man makes an agreement with men, the latter may combine to hold him to his agreement; but, in the absence of such agreement, no man, so far as the Anarchists are aware, has made any agreement with God or with any other power of any order whatsoever. The Anarchists are not only utilitarians, but egoists in the farthest and fullest sense. So far as inherent right is concerned, might is its only measure. Any man, be his name Bill Sykes or Alexander Romanoff, and any set of men, whether the Chinese highbinders or the Congress of the United States, have the right, if they have the power, to kill or coerce other men and to make the entire world subservient to their ends. Society's right to enslave the individual and the individual's right to enslave society are unequal only because their powers are unequal. This position being subversive of all systems of religion and morality, of course I cannot expect to win immediate assent thereto from the audience which I am addressing today; nor does the time at my disposal allow me to sustain it by an elaborate, or even a summary, examination of the foundations of ethics. Those who desire a greater familiarity with this particular phase of the subject should read a, profound German work, "Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum" written years ago by a comparatively unknown author, Dr. Caspar Schmidt, whose nom de plume was Max Stirner. Read only by a few scholars, the book is buried in obscurity, "but is destined to a resurrection that perhaps will mark an epoch.

If this, then, were a question of right, it would be, according to the Anarchists, purely a question of strength. But, fortunately, it is not a question of right: it is a question of expediency, of knowledge, of science,—the science of living together, the science of society. The history of humanity has been largely one long and gradual discovery of the fact that the individual is the gainer by society exactly in proportion as society is free, and of the law that the condition of a permanent and harmonious society is the greatest amount of individual liberty compatible with equality of liberty. The average man of each new generation has said to himself more clearly and consciously than his predecessor: "My neighbor is not my enemy, but my friend, and I am his, if we would but mutually recognize the fact. We help each other to a better, fuller, happier living; and this service might be greatly increased if we would cease to restrict, hamper, and oppress each other. Why can we not agree to let each live his own life, neither of us transgressing the limit that separates our individualities?" It is by this reasoning that mankind is approaching the real social contract, which is not, as Rousseau thought, the origin of society, but rather the outcome of a long social experience, the fruit of its follies and disasters. It is obvious that this contract, this social law, developed to its perfection, excludes all aggression, all violation of equality of liberty, all invasion of every kind. Considering this contract in connection with the Anarchistic definition of the State as the embodiment of the principle of invasion, we see that the State is antagonistic to society; and, society being essential to individual life and development, the conclusion leaps to the eyes that the relation of the State to the individual and of the individual to the State must be one of hostility, enduring till the State shall perish.

But, "it will be asked of the Anarchists at this point in the argument, what shall be done with those individuals who undoubtedly will persist in violating the social law by invading their neighbors?" The Anarchists answer that the abolition of the State will leave in existence a defensive association, resting no longer on a compulsory but on a voluntary basis, which will restrain invaders by any means that may prove necessary. "But that is what we have now," is the rejoinder. "You really want, then, only a change of name?" Not so fast, please. Can it be soberly pretended for a moment that the State, even as it exists here in America, is purely a defensive institution? Surely not, save by those who see of the State only its most palpable manifestation,—the policeman on the street-corner. And one would not have to watch him very closely to see the error of this claim. Why, the very first act of the State, the compulsory assessment and collection of taxes, is itself an aggression, a violation of equal liberty, and, as such, vitiates every subsequent act, even those acts which would be purely defensive if paid for out of a treasury filled by voluntary contributions. How is it possible to sanction, under the law of equal liberty, the confiscation of a man’s earnings to pay for protection which he has not sought and does not desire? And, if this is an outrage, what name shall we give to such confiscation when the victim is given, instead of bread, a stone, instead of protection, oppression? To force a man to pay for the violation of his own liberty is indeed an addition of insult to injury. But that is exactly what the State is doing. Read the "Congressional Record;" follow the proceedings of the State legislatures; examine our statute-books; test each act separately by the law of equal liberty,—you will find that a good nine-tenths of existing legislation serves, not to enforce that fundamental social law, but either to prescribe the individual’s personal habits, or, worse still, to create and sustain commercial, industrial, financial, and proprietary monopolies which deprive labor of a large part of the reward that it would receive in a perfectly free market. "To be governed," says Proudhon, "is to be watched, inspected, spied, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, commanded, by beings who have neither title nor knowledge nor virtue. To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, indorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, corrected. To be governed is, under pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest, to be laid under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, exhausted, hoaxed, robbed; then, upon the slightest resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, annoyed, hunted down, pulled about, beaten, disarmed, bound, imprisoned, shot, mitrailleused, judged, condemned, banished, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and, to crown all, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored." And I am sure I do not need to point out to you the existing laws that correspond to and justify nearly every count in Proudhon’s long indictment. How thoughtless, then, to assert that the existing political order is of a purely defensive character instead of the aggressive State which the Anarchists aim to abolish!

This leads to another consideration that bears powerfully upon the problem of the invasive individual, who is such a bugbear to the opponents of Anarchism. Is it not such treatment as has just been described that is largely responsible for his existence? I have heard or read somewhere of an inscription written for a certain charitable institution:

This hospital a pious person built,
But first he made the poor wherewith to fill’t.

And so, it seems to me, it is with our prisons. They are filled with criminals which our virtuous State has made what they are by its iniquitous laws, its grinding monopolies, and the horrible social conditions that result from them. We enact many laws that manufacture criminals, and then a few that punish them. Is it too much to expect that the new social conditions which must follow the abolition of all interference with the production and distribution of wealth will in the end so change the habits and propensities of men that our jails and prisons, our policemen and our soldiers, —in a word, our whole machinery and outfit of defence,— will be superfluous? That, at least, is the Anarchists’ belief. It sounds Utopian, but it really rests on severely economic grounds.»

— Benjamin R. Tucker. Relation of the State to the Individual. Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 (15) (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual 
(pp. 23-27)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866 
_________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/100208878626967378609/posts/fzV4JG65Lh2 

URL related G+ posts:
plus.google.com/+JaclynGlenn/posts/iSg6Pj75s4c 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/JqgHTVcTbf1 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/YdiJh2hPJMP 
____________________ 
8
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
 
+Christopher Cantwell, after listening to your views on sexuality, reproduction, the way parents should raise their children (your eagerness, alone or with others, to dictate how other people should raise their children is far from libertarian and near the social liberalism), it's clear to me that you've become a sort of slave or worshipper of a new master or "supreme being" which you call "society". The following are some selected excerpts of what Max Stirner wrote about this cult or religious "priestcraft":

Ǥ2. Social Liberalism

We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too! Heaven forbid! We want rather to make egoists impossible! We want to make them all "ragamuffins"; all of us must have nothing, that "all may have."

So say the Socialists.

Who is this person that you call "All"? – It is "society"! – But is it corporeal, then? – We are its body! – You? Why, you are not a body yourselves – you, sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, but you all together are only bodies, not a body. Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the "nation of the politicians, it will turn out to be nothing but a "spirit," its body only semblance.»

«Our freedom from another’s person still lacks the freedom from what the other’s person can command, from what he has in his personal power – in short, from "personal property." Let us then do away with personal property. Let no one have anything any longer, let every one be a – ragamuffin. Let property be impersonal, let it belong to – society.»

«The beautiful dream of a "social duty" still continues to be dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are under obligations to it on that account, owe it everything.[82] They are still at the point of wanting to serve a "supreme giver of all good." That society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but solely interests for the pursuance of which society must serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves – of this the Socialists do not think, because they – as liberals – are imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire after – a sacred society, e. g. the State was hitherto.

Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new "supreme being," which "takes us into its service and allegiance!" »

«A "sense of right" and "law-abiding mind" of such a sort is so firmly planted in people’s heads that the most revolutionary persons of our days want to subject us to a new "sacred law," the "law of society," the law of mankind, the "right of all," and the like.»

«But the social reformers preach to us a "law of society". There the individual becomes society’s slave, and is in the right only when society makes him out in the right, i.e. when he lives according to society’s statutes and so is – loyal.»

«When the Revolution stamped equality as a "right," it took flight into the religious domain, into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable rights of man."»

«He who refuses to spend his powers for such limited societies as family, party, nation, is still always longing for a worthier society, and thinks he has found the true object of love, perhaps, in "human society" or "mankind," to sacrifice himself to which constitutes his honor; from now on he "lives for and serves mankind."

People is the name of the body, State of the spirit, of that ruling person that has hitherto suppressed me. Some have wanted to transfigure peoples and States by broadening them out to "mankind" and "general reason"; but servitude would only become still more intense with this widening, and philanthropists and humanitarians are as absolute masters as politicians and diplomats.»

«The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality. And these individuals as a collective mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily than an isolated individual or so-called propriétaire. Even so, therefore, property remains standing, and that as "exclusive" too, in that humanity, this great society, excludes the individual from its property (perhaps only leases to him, gives his as a fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that is not humanity, e. g. does not allow animals to have property. – So too it will remain, and will grow to be. That in which all want to have a share will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone: it is made a common estate. As a common estate every one has his share in it, and this share is his property.»

«Instead of this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible right; against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves (La propriété c’est le vol); if it now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its imprescriptible right. – So far one comes with the spook of society as a moral person. On the contrary, what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Do you say anything else by your opposite proposition? "The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.»

«Proudhon, like the Communists, fights against egoism. Therefore they are continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien.»

«The Communists make this clearer, transferring that imperium to the "society of all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are on that account – Christians, or, more generally speaking, religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of some generality (God, society, etc.). In this too Proudhon is like the Christians, that he ascribes to God that which he denies to men. He names him (e. g. page 90) the Propriétaire of the earth. Herewith he proves that he cannot think away the proprietor as such; he comes to a proprietor at last, but removes him to the other world.»

«If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of – society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such – law-giver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; e. g., the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego’s exclusive god, but always a society’s or community’s, be it of the society, "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").

Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates society and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become common for the establishment of – "equality." If this "equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But whose liberty? Society’s! Society is then all in all, and men are only "for each other." It would be the glory of the – love-State.»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 
URL source G+ post with excerpts: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/8EkQwUApQ1u 

And this is the voluntary association that Max Stirner proposed instead (the union of egoists):

(pp. 415-417 / pp. 155-156 / pp. 238-239)
«Neither a natural ligature nor a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural, not a spiritual league. It is not brought about by one blood, not by one faith (spirit). In a natural league – like a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind – the individuals have only the value of specimens of the same species or genus; in a spiritual league – like a commune, a church – the individual signifies only a member of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a unique person must be – suppressed. Only in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.

Property is recognized in the union, and only in the union, because one no longer holds what is his as a fief from any being. The Communists are only consistently carrying further what had already been long present during religious evolution, and especially in the State; to wit, propertylessness, the feudal system.»

«You bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a "member in the body of this Lord"; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are – possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further. If a society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force; the union exists for you and through you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without you, in short, the society is sacred, the union your own; consumes you, you consume the union.»

«To come back to property, the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society shall be! On this depends whether you are to be an owner or a ragamuffin! The egoist is owner, the Socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal system which since the last century has only changed its overlord, putting "Man" in the place of God, and accepting as a fief from Man what had before been a fief from the grace of God. That the ragamuffinism of Communism is carried out by the humane principle into the absolute or most ragamuffinly ragamuffinism has been shown above; but at the same time also, how ragamuffinism can only thus swing around into ownness. The old feudal system was so thoroughly trampled into the ground in the Revolution that since then all reactionary craft has remained fruitless, and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is – dead; but the resurrection too had to prove itself a truth in Christian history, and has so proved itself: for in another world feudalism is risen again with a glorified body, the new feudalism under the suzerainty of "Man."»
~Max Stirner.

Further reading:

• James L Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 

The two paragraphs beginning from "Now comes the question proper:" :

• Benjamin R Tucker. Relation of the State to the Individual. Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 (15) (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual 
(pp. 23-25)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866 

• Wendy McElroy. The Non-Absurdity of Natural Law: One Can Disagree with Natural Rights without Declaring the Concept Nonsensical. Foundation for Economic Education. February 1, 1998.
fee.org/freeman/detail/the-non-absurdity-of-natural-law 

The seven paragraphs beginning from "Stirner, whose real name was Johann Kaspar Schmidt," :

• Wendy McElroy. Benjamin Tucker, Liberty And Individualist Anarchism. The Independent Review, v.II, n. 3, Winter 1998, ISSN 1086-1653, (1997) pp. 421–434
independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_02_3_mcelroy.pdf 
Alternative source: 
wendymcelroy.com/tir1.htm 
wendymcelroy.com/tir2.htm 

The section titled "Egoism" :

• Wendy McElroy. Bibliographical Essay: Benjamin Tucker, Individualism, & Liberty: Not the Daughter but the Mother of Order. Literature of Liberty (Autumn 1981) vol. 4, No. 3
oll.libertyfund.org/pages/benjamin-tucker-and-liberty-a-bibliographical-essay-by-wendy-mcelroy 
(oll.libertyfund.org/titles/1300)

The second half of the article, beginning from "The question over land ownership and the homesteading principle" :

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute (2006)
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 

• Richard Dawkins. Nice Guys Finish First.
Excerpt, between parts 4th and 5th:
youtube.com/watch?v=48EWLj3gIJ8 (13 min)
Full episode:
youtube.com/watch?v=I71mjZefg8g (46 min)
Excerpt, part 4th:
youtube.com/watch?v=ajbw4ilXbBU (11 min)
_________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+ChristopherCantwell/posts/Wp1VfbKsXeW 
____________________ 
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Society vs. Union of Egoists
From Max Stirner's "The Ego and His Own" (1845)

(pp. 152-155 / p. 68 / pp. 95-96)
« §2. Social Liberalism

We are freeborn men, and wherever we look we see ourselves made servants of egoists! Are we therefore to become egoists too! Heaven forbid! We want rather to make egoists impossible! We want to make them all "ragamuffins"; all of us must have nothing, that "all may have."

So say the Socialists.

Who is this person that you call "All"? – It is "society"! – But is it corporeal, then? – We are its body! – You? Why, you are not a body yourselves – you, sir, are corporeal to be sure, you too, and you, but you all together are only bodies, not a body. Accordingly the united society may indeed have bodies at its service, but no one body of its own. Like the "nation of the politicians, it will turn out to be nothing but a "spirit," its body only semblance.

The freedom of man is, in political liberalism, freedom from persons, from personal dominion, from the master; the securing of each individual person against other persons, personal freedom.

No one has any orders to give; the law alone gives orders.

But, even if the persons have become equal, yet their possessions have not. And yet the poor man needs the rich, the rich the poor, the former the rich man’s money, the latter the poor man’s labor. So no one needs another as a person, but needs him as a giver, and thus as one who has something to give, as holder or possessor. So what he has makes the man. And in having, or in "possessions," people are unequal.

Consequently, social liberalism concludes, no one must have, as according to political liberalism no one was to give orders; i.e. as in that case the State alone obtained the command, so now society alone obtains the possessions. »

«He now asks himself further, are we to let what we rightly buried come to life again? Are we to let this circuitously restored inequality of persons pass? No; on the contrary, we must bring quite to an end what was only half accomplished. Our freedom from another’s person still lacks the freedom from what the other’s person can command, from what he has in his personal power – in short, from "personal property." Let us then do away with personal property. Let no one have anything any longer, let every one be a – ragamuffin. Let property be impersonal, let it belong to – society. »

« When the proletarian shall really have founded his purposed "society" in which the interval between rich and poor is to be removed, then he will be a ragamuffin, for then he will feel that it amounts to something to be a ragamuffin, and might lift "Ragamuffin" to be an honourable form of address, just as the Revolution did with the word "Citizen." Ragamuffin is his ideal; we are all to become ragamuffins.

This is the second robbery of the "personal" in the interest of "humanity." Neither command nor property is left to the individual; the State took the former, society the latter.

Because in society the most oppressive evils make themselves felt, therefore the oppressed especially, and consequently the members of the lower regions of society, think they found the fault in society, and make it their task to discover the right society. This is only the old phenomenon – that one looks for the fault first in everything but himself, and consequently in the State, in the self-seeking of the rich, etc., which yet have precisely our fault to thank for their existence.»

(pp. 159-160 / p. 70 / p. 99)
«The Socialists want to put a stop to this activity of chance, and to form a society in which men are no longer dependent on fortune, but free.

In the most natural way in the world this endeavor first utters itself as hatred of the "unfortunate" against the "fortunate," i.e., of those for whom fortune has done little or nothing, against those for whom it has done everything. But properly the ill- feeling is not directed against the fortunate, but against fortune, this rotten spot of the commonalty.

As the Communists first declare free activity to be man’s essence, they, like all work-day dispositions, need a Sunday; like all material endeavors, they need a God, an uplifting and edification alongside their witless "labor."

That the Communist sees in you the man, the brother, is only the Sunday side of Communism. According to the work-day side he does not by any means take you as man simply, but as human laborer or laboring man. The first view has in it the liberal principle; in the second, illiberality is concealed. If you were a "lazy-bones," he would not indeed fail to recognize the man in you, but would endeavor to cleanse him as a "lazy man" from laziness and to convert you to the faith that labor is man’s "destiny and calling."»

(p. 162 / p. 71 / p. 100)
«By the principle of labor that of fortune or competition is certainly outdone. But at the same time the laborer, in his consciousness that the essential thing in him is "the laborer," holds himself aloof from egoism and subjects himself to the supremacy of a society of laborers, as the commoner clung with self-abandonment to the competition-State. The beautiful dream of a "social duty" still continues to be dreamed. People think again that society gives what we need, and we are under obligations to it on that account, owe it everything.[82] They are still at the point of wanting to serve a "supreme giver of all good." That society is no ego at all, which could give, bestow, or grant, but an instrument or means, from which we may derive benefit; that we have no social duties, but solely interests for the pursuance of which society must serve us; that we owe society no sacrifice, but, if we sacrifice anything, sacrifice it to ourselves – of this the Socialists do not think, because they – as liberals – are imprisoned in the religious principle, and zealously aspire after – a sacred society, e. g. the State was hitherto.

Society, from which we have everything, is a new master, a new spook, a new "supreme being," which "takes us into its service and allegiance!" »

(p. 169 / p. 73 / p. 104)
«The politicians, thinking to abolish personal will, self-will or arbitrariness, did not observe that through property[86] our self-will[87] gained a secure place of refuge.

The Socialists, taking away property too, do not notice that this secures itself a continued existence in self- ownership. Is it only money and goods, then, that are a property. or is every opinion something of mine, something of my own?

So every opinion must be abolished or made impersonal. The person is entitled to no opinion, but, as self-will was transferred to the State, property to society, so opinion too must be transferred to something general, "Man," and thereby become a general human opinion.»

«As self-will and property become powerless, so must self-ownership or egoism in general.

In this supreme development of "free man" egoism, self-ownership, is combated on principle, and such subordinate ends as the social "welfare" of the Socialists, etc., vanish before the lofty "idea of humanity." Everything that is not a "general human" entity is something separate, satisfies only some or one; or, if it satisfies all, it does this to them only as individuals, not as men, and is therefore called "egoistic." »

(p. 185 / p. 78 / p. 113)
«Liberalism as a whole has a deadly enemy, an invincible opposite, as God has the devil: by the side of man stands always the un-man, the individual, the egoist. State, society, humanity, do not master this devil.

Humane liberalism has undertaken the task of showing the other liberals that they still do not want "freedom."»

(pp. 186-187 / pp. 78-79 / pp. 113-114)
« Criticism and the masses pursue the same goal, freedom from egoism, and wrangle only over which of them approaches nearest to the goal or even attains it.

The Jews, the Christians, the absolutists, the men of darkness and men of light, politicians, Communists – all, in short – hold the reproach of egoism far from them; and, as criticism brings against them this reproach in plain terms and in the most extended sense, all justify themselves against the accusation of egoism, and combat – egoism, the same enemy with whom criticism wages war.

Both, criticism and masses, are enemies of egoists, and both seek to liberate themselves from egoism, as well by clearing or whitewashing themselves as by ascribing it to the opposite party.

The critic is the true "spokesman of the masses" who gives them the "simple concept and the phrase" of egoism, while the spokesmen to whom the triumph is denied were only bunglers. He is their prince and general in the war against egoism for freedom; what he fights against they fight against. But at the same time he is their enemy too, only not the enemy before them, but the friendly enemy who wields the knout behind the timorous to force courage into them.

Hereby the opposition of criticism and the masses is reduced to the following contradiction: "You are egoists!" "No, we are not!" "I will prove it to you!" "You shall have our justification!"

Let us then take both for what they give themselves out for, non-egoists, and what they take each other for, egoists. They are egoists and are not.»

(p. 189 / p. 79 / p. 115)
«Political liberalism abolished the inequality of masters and servants: it made people masterless, anarchic. The master was now removed from the individual, the "egoist," to become a ghost – the law or the State. Social liberalism abolishes the inequality of possession, of the poor and rich, and makes people possessionless or propertyless. Property is withdrawn from the individual and surrendered to ghostly society. »

(pp. 244-248 / pp. 101-102 / pp. 146-158)
«In the meantime let us take the matter yet another way. I am to reverence sultanic law in the sultanate, popular law in republics, canon law in Catholic communities. To these laws I am to subordinate myself; I am to regard them as sacred. A "sense of right" and "law-abiding mind" of such a sort is so firmly planted in people’s heads that the most revolutionary persons of our days want to subject us to a new "sacred law," the "law of society," the law of mankind, the "right of all," and the like. The right of "all" is to go before my right. As a right of all it would indeed be my right among the rest, since I, with the rest, am included in all; but that it is at the same time a right of others, or even of all others, does not move me to its upholding. Not as a right of all will I defend it, but as my right; and then every other may see to it how he shall likewise maintain it for himself. The right of all (e. g., to eat) is a right of every individual. Let each keep this right unabridged for himself, then all exercise it spontaneously; let him not take care for all though – let him not grow zealous for it as for a right of all.

But the social reformers preach to us a "law of society". There the individual becomes society’s slave, and is in the right only when society makes him out in the right, i.e. when he lives according to society’s statutes and so is – loyal. Whether I am loyal under a despotism or in a "society" àla Weitling, it is the same absence of right in so far as in both cases I have not my right but foreign right.

In consideration of right the question is always asked, "What or who gives me the right to it?" Answer: God, love, reason, nature, humanity, etc. No, only your might, your power gives you the right (your reason, e. g.,, may give it to you).

Communism, which assumes that men "have equal rights by nature," contradicts its own proposition till it comes to this, that men have no right at all by nature. For it is not willing to recognize, e. g., that parents have "by nature" rights as against their children, or the children as against the parents: it abolishes the family. Nature gives parents, brothers, etc., no right at all. Altogether, this entire revolutionary or Babouvist principle [130] rests on a religious, i. e., false, view of things. Who can ask after "right" if he does not occupy the religious standpoint himself? Is not "right" a religious concept, i.e. something sacred? Why, "equality of rights", as the Revolution propounded it, is only another name for "Christian equality," the "equality of the brethren," "of God’s children," "of Christians"; in short, fraternité. Each and every inquiry after right deserves to be lashed with Schiller’s words:

Many a year I’ve used my nose
To smell the onion and the rose;
Is there any proof which shows
That I’ve a right to that same nose?

When the Revolution stamped equality as a "right," it took flight into the religious domain, into the region of the sacred, of the ideal. Hence, since then, the fight for the "sacred, inalienable rights of man." Against the "eternal rights of man" the "well-earned rights of the established order" are quite naturally, and with equal right, brought to bear: right against right, where of course one is decried by the other as "wrong." This has been the contest of rights[131] since the Revolution.

You want to be "in the right" as against the rest. That you cannot; as against them you remain forever "in the wrong"; for they surely would not be your opponents if they were not in "their right" too; they will always make you out "in the wrong." But, as against the right of the rest, yours is a higher, greater, more powerful right, is it not? No such thing! Your right is not more powerful if you are not more powerful. Have Chinese subjects a right to freedom? Just bestow it on them, and then look how far you have gone wrong in your attempt: because they do not know how to use freedom they have no right to it, or, in clearer terms, because they have not freedom they have not the right to it. Children have no right to the condition of majority because they are not of age, i.e. because they are children. Peoples that let themselves be kept in nonage have no rights to the condition of majority; if they ceased to be in nonage, then only would they have the right to be of age. This means nothing else than "What you have the power to be you have the right to." I derive all right and all warrant from me ; I am entitled to everything that I have in my power. I am entitled to overthrow Zeus, Jehovah, God, etc., if I can ; if I cannot, then these gods will always remain in the right and in power as against me, and what I do will be to fear their right and their power in impotent "god-fearingness," to keep their commandments and believe that I do right in everything that I do according to their right, about as the Russian boundary-sentinels think themselves rightfully entitled to shoot dead the suspicious persons who are escaping, since they murder "by superior authority," i.e. "with right." But I am entitled by myself to murder if I myself do not forbid it to myself, if I myself do not fear murder as a "wrong." This view of things lies at the foundation of Chamisso’s poem, "The Valley of Murder," where the gray-haired Indian murderer compels reverence from the white man whose brethren he has murdered. The only thing I am not entitled to is what I do not do with a free cheer, i. e. what I do not entitle myself to. »

(p. 319 / p. 125 / p. 186)
« He who refuses to spend his powers for such limited societies as family, party, nation, is still always longing for a worthier society, and thinks he has found the true object of love, perhaps, in "human society" or "mankind," to sacrifice himself to which constitutes his honor; from now on he "lives for and serves mankind."

People is the name of the body, State of the spirit, of that ruling person that has hitherto suppressed me. Some have wanted to transfigure peoples and States by broadening them out to "mankind" and "general reason"; but servitude would only become still more intense with this widening, and philanthropists and humanitarians are as absolute masters as politicians and diplomats. »

(pp. 329-331 / pp. 128-129 / pp. 192-193)
« The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality. And these individuals as a collective mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily than an isolated individual or so-called propriétaire. Even so, therefore, property remains standing, and that as "exclusive" too, in that humanity, this great society, excludes the individual from its property (perhaps only leases to him, gives his as a fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that is not humanity, e. g. does not allow animals to have property. – So too it will remain, and will grow to be. That in which all want to have a share will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone: it is made a common estate. As a common estate every one has his share in it, and this share is his property. »

«Proudhon might spare his prolix pathos if he said: "There are some things that belong only to a few, and to which we others will from now on lay claim or – siege. Let us take them, because one comes to property by taking, and the property of which for the present we are still deprived came to the proprietors likewise only by taking. It can be utilized better if it is in the hands of us all than if the few control it. Let us therefore associate ourselves for the purpose of this robbery (vol)." – Instead of this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible right; against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves (La propriété c’est le vol); if it now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its imprescriptible right. – So far one comes with the spook of society as a moral person. On the contrary, what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Do you say anything else by your opposite proposition? "The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.

Proudhon, like the Communists, fights against egoism. Therefore they are continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien. They complete in property, e. g., only what has long been extant as a matter of fact – to wit, the propertylessness of the individual. When the laws says, Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, this means: The king is proprietor, for he alone can control and dispose of "everything," he has potestas and imperium over it. The Communists make this clearer, transferring that imperium to the "society of all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are on that account – Christians, or, more generally speaking, religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of some generality (God, society, etc.). In this too Proudhon is like the Christians, that he ascribes to God that which he denies to men. He names him (e. g. page 90) the Propriétaire of the earth. Herewith he proves that he cannot think away the proprietor as such; he comes to a proprietor at last, but removes him to the other world.

Neither God nor Man ("human society") is proprietor, but the individual.»

(pp. 340-343/ pp. 131-132 /pp. 198-199)
« All attempts to enact rational laws about property have put out from the bay of love into a desolate sea of regulations. Even Socialism and Communism cannot be excepted from this. Every one is to be provided with adequate means, for which it is little to the point whether one socialistically finds them still in a personal property, or communistically draws them from the community of goods. The individual’s mind in this remains the same; it remains a mind of dependence. The distributing board of equity lets me have only what the sense of equity, its loving care for all, prescribes. For me, the individual, there lies no less of a check in collective wealth than in that of individual others; neither that is mine, nor this: whether the wealth belongs to the collectivity, which confers part of it on me, or to individual possessors, is for me the same constraint, as I cannot decide about either of the two. On the contrary, Communism, by the abolition of all personal property, only presses me back still more into dependence on another, viz., on the generality or collectivity; and, loudly as it always attacks the "State," what it intends is itself again a State, a status, a condition hindering my free movement, a sovereign power over me. Communism rightly revolts against the pressure that I experience from individual proprietors; but still more horrible is the might that it puts in the hands of the collectivity. »

«If men reach the point of losing respect for property, every one will have property, as all slaves become free men as soon as they no longer respect the master as master. Unions will then, in this matter too, multiply the individual’s means and secure his assailed property.

According to the Communists’ opinion the commune should be proprietor. On the contrary, I am proprietor, and I only come to an understanding with others about my property. If the commune does not do what suits me, I rise against it and defend my property. I am proprietor, but property is not sacred. I should be merely possessor? No, hitherto one was only possessor, secured in the possession of a parcel by leaving others also in possession of a parcel; but now everything belongs to me, I am proprietor of everything that I require and can get possession of. If it is said socialistically, society gives me what I require – then the egoist says, I take what I require. If the Communists conduct themselves as ragamuffins, the egoist behaves as proprietor.

All swan-fraternities,[182] and attempts at making the rabble happy, that spring from the principle of love, must miscarry. Only from egoism can the rabble get help, and this help it must give to itself and – will give to itself. If it does not let itself be coerced into fear, it is a power. "People would lose all respect if one did not coerce them into fear," says bugbear Law in Der gestiefelte Kater.

Property, therefore, should not and cannot be abolished; it must rather be torn from ghostly hands and become my property; then the erroneous consciousness, that I cannot entitle myself to as much as I require, will vanish. –»

(pp. 412-413 / pp. 154-155 / pp. 236-237)
«If community is once a need of man, and he finds himself furthered by it in his aims, then very soon, because it has become his principle, it prescribes to him its laws too, the laws of – society. The principle of men exalts itself into a sovereign power over them, becomes their supreme essence, their God, and, as such – law-giver. Communism gives this principle the strictest effect, and Christianity is the religion of society, for, as Feuerbach rightly says, although he does not mean it rightly, love is the essence of man; e. g., the essence of society or of societary (Communistic) man. All religion is a cult of society, this principle by which societary (cultivated) man is dominated; neither is any god an ego’s exclusive god, but always a society’s or community’s, be it of the society, "family" (Lar, Penates) or of a "people" ("national god") or of "all men" ("he is a Father of all men").

Consequently one has a prospect of extirpating religion down to the ground only when one antiquates society and everything that flows from this principle. But it is precisely in Communism that this principle seeks to culminate, as in it everything is to become common for the establishment of – "equality." If this "equality" is won, "liberty" too is not lacking. But whose liberty? Society’s! Society is then all in all, and men are only "for each other." It would be the glory of the – love-State. »

(pp. 415-417 / pp. 155-156 / pp. 238-239)
« Neither a natural ligature nor a spiritual one holds the union together, and it is not a natural, not a spiritual league. It is not brought about by one blood, not by one faith (spirit). In a natural league – like a family, a tribe, a nation, yes, mankind – the individuals have only the value of specimens of the same species or genus; in a spiritual league – like a commune, a church – the individual signifies only a member of the same spirit; what you are in both cases as a unique person must be – suppressed. Only in the union can you assert yourself as unique, because the union does not possess you, but you possess it or make it of use to you.

Property is recognized in the union, and only in the union, because one no longer holds what is his as a fief from any being. The Communists are only consistently carrying further what had already been long present during religious evolution, and especially in the State; to wit, propertylessness, the feudal system. »

« You bring into a union your whole power, your competence, and make yourself count; in a society you are employed, with your working power; in the former you live egoistically, in the latter humanly, i.e. religiously, as a "member in the body of this Lord"; to a society you owe what you have, and are in duty bound to it, are – possessed by "social duties"; a union you utilize, and give it up undutifully and unfaithfully when you see no way to use it further. If a society is more than you, then it is more to you than yourself; a union is only your instrument, or the sword with which you sharpen and increase your natural force; the union exists for you and through you, the society conversely lays claim to you for itself and exists even without you, in short, the society is sacred, the union your own; consumes you, you consume the union. »

« To come back to property, the lord is proprietor. Choose then whether you want to be lord, or whether society shall be! On this depends whether you are to be an owner or a ragamuffin! The egoist is owner, the Socialist a ragamuffin. But ragamuffinism or propertylessness is the sense of feudalism, of the feudal system which since the last century has only changed its overlord, putting "Man" in the place of God, and accepting as a fief from Man what had before been a fief from the grace of God. That the ragamuffinism of Communism is carried out by the humane principle into the absolute or most ragamuffinly ragamuffinism has been shown above; but at the same time also, how ragamuffinism can only thus swing around into ownness. The old feudal system was so thoroughly trampled into the ground in the Revolution that since then all reactionary craft has remained fruitless, and will always remain fruitless, because the dead is – dead; but the resurrection too had to prove itself a truth in Christian history, and has so proved itself: for in another world feudalism is risen again with a glorified body, the new feudalism under the suzerainty of "Man." »
•••

(p. 54 / p. 37 / p. 43)
«But it is not only man that "haunts"; so does everything. The higher essence, the spirit, that walks in everything, is at the same time bound to nothing, and only – "appears" in it. Ghosts in every corner!

Here would be the place to pass the haunting spirits in review, if they were not to come before us again further on in order to vanish before egoism. Hence let only a few of them be particularized by way of example, in order to bring us at once to our attitude toward them.

Sacred above all, e. g., is the "holy Spirit," sacred the truth, sacred are right, law, a good cause, majesty, marriage, the common good, order, the fatherland, etc.»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 

Further reading:

• James L. Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
__________ 
__________ 

It's evident that Max Stirmer was strongly opposed to the collectivist ideas of Proudhon. E.g.:


«Now the matter stands thus: even if a crime did not cause the slightest damage either to me or to any of those in whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless denounce it. Why? Because I am enthusiastic for morality, filled with the idea of morality; what is hostile to it I everywhere assail. Because in his mind theft ranks as abominable without any question, Proudhon, e. g., thinks that with the sentence "Property is theft" he has at once put a brand on property. In the sense of the priestly, theft is always a crime, or at least a misdeed. »
(p. 51)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

« Property as the civic liberals understand it deserves the attacks of the Communists and Proudhon: it is untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth nothing but a property-less man, one who is everywhere shut out. Instead of owning the world, as he might, he does not own even the paltry point on which he turns around.

Proudhon wants not the propriétaire but the possesseur or usufruitier. 179 What does that mean? He wants no one to own the land; but the benefit of it – even though one were allowed only the hundredth part of this benefit, this fruit – is at any rate one’s property, which he can dispose of at will. He who has only the benefit of a field is assuredly not the proprietor of it; still less he who, as Proudhon would have it, must give up so much of this benefit as is not required for his wants; but he is the proprietor of the share that is left him. Proudhon, therefore, denies only such and such property, not property itself. If we want no longer to leave the land to the landed proprietors, but to appropriate it to ourselves, we unite ourselves to this end, form a union, a société, that makes itself proprietor; if we have good luck in this, then those persons cease to be landed proprietors. And, as from the land, so we can drive them out of many another property yet, in order to make it our property, the property of the – conquerors. The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality. And these individuals as a collective mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily than an isolated individual or so-called propriétaire. Even so, therefore, property remains standing, and that as exclusive too, in that humanity, this great society, excludes the individual from its property (perhaps only leases to him, gives his as a fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that is not humanity, e. g. does not allow animals to have property. – So too it will remain, and will grow to be. That in which all want to have a share will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone: it is made a common estate. As a common estate every one has his share in it, and this share is his property. Why, so in our old relations a house which belongs to five heirs is their common estate; but the fifth part of the revenue is, each one’s property. Proudhon might spare his prolix pathos if he said: "There are some things that belong only to a few, and to which we others will from now on lay claim or – siege. Let us take them, because one comes to property by taking, and the property of which for the present we are still deprived came to the proprietors likewise only by taking. It can be utilized better if it is in the hands of us all than if the few control it. Let us therefore associate ourselves for the purpose of this robbery (vol)." – Instead of this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible right; against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves (La propriété c’est le vol); if it now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its imprescriptible right. – So far one comes with the spook of society as a moral person. On the contrary, what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Do you say anything else by your opposite proposition? "The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.

Proudhon, like the Communists, fights against egoism. Therefore they are continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien. They complete in property, e. g., only what has long been extant as a matter of fact – to wit, the propertylessness of the individual. When the laws says, Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, this means: The king is proprietor, for he alone can control and dispose of "everything," he has potestas and imperium over it. The Communists make this clearer, transferring that imperium to the "society of all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are on that account – Christians, or, more generally speaking, religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of some generality (God, society, etc.). In this too Proudhon is like the Christians, that he ascribes to God that which he denies to men. He names him (e. g. page 90) the Propriétaire of the earth. Herewith he proves that he cannot think away the proprietor as such; he comes to a proprietor at last, but removes him to the other world.

Neither God nor Man ("human society") is proprietor, but the individual. »
(pp. 128-129)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

« Proudhon (Weitling too) thinks he is telling the worst about property when he calls it theft (vol). Passing quite over the embarrassing question, what well-founded objection could be made against theft, we only ask: Is the concept "theft" at all possible unless one allows validity to the concept "property"? How can one steal if property is not already extant? What belongs to no one cannot be stolen; the water that one draws out of the sea he does not steal. Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property. Weitling has to come to this too, as he does regard everything as the property of all: if something is "the property of all," then indeed the individual who appropriates it to himself steals.

Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant – for possession is not yet property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the – law.»
(p. 129)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

« Proudhon calls property "robbery" (le vol). But alien property – and he is talking of this alone – is not less existent by renunciation, cession, and humility; it is a present. Why so sentimentally call for compassion as a poor victim of robbery, when one is just a foolish, cowardly giver of presents? Why here again put the fault on others as if they were robbing us, while we ourselves do bear the fault in leaving the others unrobbed? The poor are to blame for there being rich men.

Universally, no one grows indignant at his, but at alien property. They do not in truth attack property, but the alienation of property. They want to be able to call more, not less, theirs; they want to call everything theirs. They are fighting, therefore, against alienness, or, to form a word similar to property, against alienty. And how do they help themselves therein? Instead of transforming the alien into own, they play impartial and ask only that all property be left to a third party, e. g. human society. They revindicate the alien not in their own name but in a third party’s. Now the "egoistic" coloring is wiped off, and everything is so clean and – human! »
(pp. 156-157)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

«Thinking will as little cease as feeling. But the power of thoughts and ideas, the dominion of theories and principles, the sovereignty of the spirit, in short the – hierarchy, lasts as long as the parsons, i.e., theologians, philosophers, statesmen, philistines, liberals, schoolmasters, servants, parents, children, married couples, Proudhon, George Sand, Bluntschli, etc., etc., have the floor; the hierarchy will endure as long as people believe in, think of, or even criticize, principles; for even the most inexorable criticism, which undermines all current principles, still does finally believe in the principle.

Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticises. »
(pp. 171-172)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/100536221703581647283/posts/cYy5VL2tYWs 
______________________ 


Excerpt from comments of source G+ post:

Joshua Roy Shared publicly - Jun 29, 2015 2:54 PM
I think the economy that emerges from a situation of private property and personal responsibility is not a moral evil; however, the greed and corruption produced by absolute atomism and unfettered self-interest are morally wrong especially when the very mechanisms of government designed to protect the people are repurposed to deprive them of liberty and misuse their resources to enrich private individuals.

I think the most moral system of government would be a voluntary community of altruism wherein the people were motivated to work hard by a morality of personal responsibility and individualized incentives; however, their efforts would not be totally atomistic and competitive to the point of only having concern for themselves.

From a certain perspective, the duty of economic leaders is to create jobs for other people to give their life purpose and meaning. When we live in a world where people are paid less than they can survive off of, when they are paid better by government for being totally destitute than they are paid by employers for bettering the lives of others with their talents, we deincentivize individual effort, which leads all of society to moral decay.

Employers should be concerned for their own welfare, and they should earn more than their employees, but they should not value their own income or the economic competitiveness of their own institution over the utility they can deliver to society. Both of these concerns should be balanced so that way the company behaves socially responsibly, the employees are not just better off, but well off, and the employer is more profitable than he could be under any other moral set of behaviors. 

It is immoral to constantly be looking for a way to get wealthier at someone else's expense. It is immoral to reduce safety standards. It is immoral to pay poverty wages. it is immoral to manipulate the mechanisms of government to give yourself an unfair economic advantage over your competitors. It is immoral to destroy the environment needlessly. 

If people learned these simple truths and practiced them, it wouldn't matter what system of government we had, the world would be spectacular. Our system of government is just the machine we employ to get work done. It is the people who bestow upon that transaction meaning and goodness. A moral people can perfect the worst system of government while an evil people can destroy the very best.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2015 3:50 PM
+Jeffrey Hamby: "If your meaning in the meme is zero government them you should use the appropriate word... anarchy. Please stop pretending libertarianism is zero government."

— According to its genuine/original/international definition (and the one used by the early American Individualist anarchists), all libertarians are anarchists:

Libertaire
«Libertarian adj. 19th century. Derivative from liberty.
Who holds the ideal for a society in which there is no law nor any constituted power, in which no restraint would be imposed on individual freedom. Anarchists claim to embrace a libertarian doctrine. Noun, a libertarian.»

— Translation from the Dictionary of the French Academy, 9th Edition (ongoing publication, 1992- ).
atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/generic/affiche.exe?s=1119700920;d=1;f=1;r=3 
(search: atilf.atilf.fr/dendien/scripts/generic/form.exe?s=1119700920)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionnaire_de_l'Académie_française 

Libertario
«Who defends absolute freedom, and therefore, the suppression of all government and all law.»

— Translation from the Dictionary of the Spanish Language, 22nd Edition (last updated in 2012), produced, edited and published by the Royal Spanish Academy.
buscon.rae.es/drae/?val=libertario 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diccionario_de_la_lengua_española 

Further reading: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/aVqoh9CZV3t 
__________ 

Jeffrey Hamby Jun 29, 2015 4:41 PM +2
Fantastic +Zephyr López Cervilla I can practice confirmation bias too.  Except in my case, none of the definitions you posted were even on the first page of a "defintion libertarianism" search.

What was on the first page was this

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, "free") is a political philosophy that upholds liberty as its principal objective. Libertarians seek to maximize autonomy and freedom of choice, emphasizing political freedom, voluntary association and the primacy of individual judgement.

None of that, of course, speaks to the complete elimination of government.  It merely espouses freedom of choice.  But wait, there's more.

The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced[9][10] political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for either social or individualist anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism. In the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, libertarianism is defined as the moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things.[11] As individualist opponents of social liberalism embraced the label and distanced themselves from the word liberal, American writers, political parties and think tanks adopted the word libertarian to describe advocacy of capitalist free market economics and a night-watchman state.

So through all that, I'm not going to get into a "the definition I found on page 3 of my google search is the one I'm going to use to argue" discussion.  You've seen yourself the discussions where anarchists argue with libertarians over how much government is valid and that the anarchists believe libertarian thought eventually leads to anarchism because the amount of government considered valid eventually dwindles to nothing.  Which, of course, means the libertarians do tend to believe in some form of very limited government.
__________ 

Alan Lovejoy Jun 29, 2015 3:20 PM +9
"the greed and corruption produced by absolute atomism and unfettered self-interest are morally wrong especially when the very mechanisms of government designed to protect the people are repurposed to deprive them of liberty and misuse their resources to enrich private individuals."

Libertarianism is not atomism of any sort, absolute or otherwise. Nor is it any sort of advocacy of "unfettered" self interest. 

You and the meme are engaging in the strawman fallacy.

"Individualism has never been a creed of absolute independence, that every person ought be a hermit. There's a different word for that -- atomism. Rather, individualism as an ethical doctrine is profoundly social, promoting greater mutual interdependence. It is the doctrine that individual rights should be respected by banishing the aggressive use of force from our social interactions. 

It can also be called libertarianism -- advocacy of liberty." ~ Larken Rose, Sedition on the Installment Plan
__________ 

Joshua Roy Jun 29, 2015 3:34 PM
+Alan Lovejoy - The meme was using the word Libertarian in its most radical form, that of a totally anarchist society. That is what I was speaking out against, anarcho-capitalism in particular. The modern form of libertarianism as it exists in the United States is technically a statist philosophy, although it only seeks to utilize force in defense of the individual. It does not seek to utilize force to guide society towards moral decision making to any degree whatsoever. 

To the libertarian, the morality of the society does not ultimately matter so long as the people aren't engaging in violence against one another. They are willing to tolerate a society of drug users, gamblers, prostitutes, environmental destroyers, racists and greedy people so long as no one has been technically forced into anything.

I agree with libertarians to the extent that it is unwise to use government as a force for social change, especially in a democratic society where public opinion can shift so rapidly overnight, and I agree with them on a utilitarian perspective that drug use and prostitution should not technically be illegal, because they are going to happen anyway and it is costly trying to police the daily behavior of hundreds of millions of people, but I think there is a time and place for everything.

I would see nothing wrong with a government that said that certain behaviors were inappropriate in certain locations, but there are some "deregulated" zones where certain activities could be permissible. I'd see nothing wrong with a government fining a person for using drugs in public, although I think throwing a person in jail for using drugs in private is going way too far. 

I think the leaders of any civilization have a moral responsibility to try to shape the moral character of the people they govern, but they shouldn't be meddlesome to the point of becoming a petty tyrant, and the punishment should always fit the crime. If there is no victim to begin with, it is ultimately inappropriate for government to make the perpetrator the only true victim in the situation.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2015 5:57 PM
+Joshua Roy: "It does not seek to utilize force to guide society towards moral decision making to any degree whatsoever."

— This comment is utterly nonsense. First of all, there isn't such thing called "society":

«I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government's job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first. »

«But it went too far. If children have a problem, it is society that is at fault. There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.»

— Margaret Thatcher, Interview for Woman's Own ("no such thing as society"), 1987 Sep 23.
margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 

Second, who the heck has the nerve to claim for themselves the right to impose their morals on everybody else?

Third, what sort or moral decisions are the ones imposed by force? The morals of the tyrant? That's akin to loving rape, voluntary slavery, or consensual murder.


+Joshua Roy: "The meme was using the word Libertarian in its most radical form, that of a totally anarchist society. That is what I was speaking out against, anarcho-capitalism in particular."

— This is also nonsense. There are no more radical forms of anarchism than others, in the same way there aren't more radical forms of atheism than others. Beyond the complete abolition of governments and the cult to the State there's nothing more radical. That's the primary aspiration of every anarchist. We may disagree in other issues such as property, its definition, its boundaries, or in the way to deal with conflicts between individuals or to protect ourselves from aggression. But resorting to any kind of overseeing authority to settle that sort of questions is an option rejected by all anarchists of every sort.


+Joshua Roy: "They are willing to tolerate a society of drug users, gamblers, prostitutes, environmental destroyers, racists and greedy people so long as no one has been technically forced into anything."

— The use of the word "tolerate" is inappropriate. The fitting term here is "respect". Prostitutes (and their welcomed customers), drug users (and their honest suppliers), gamblers, "racists",  "greedy" people, are no scum to be tolerated but sovereign individuals who deserve as much respect as your beloved Noam Chomsky.

On profit:

«Profit is the signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve people whom we do not know. By pursuing profit, we are as altruistic as we can possibly be, because we extend our concern to people who are beyond our range of personal conception.»
— F.A. Hayek (1984).

• Ebenstein, Alan. Friedrich Hayek: A Biography. Palgrave Macmillan. 2001. ISBN-13: 978-0312233440
books.google.com/books?id=k0O3q5qzB7AC&pg=PA313 
amazon.com/dp/0312233442 

«I think the nicest form to put it in is to say that socialism, protesting against production for profit and not for use, objects to what makes the extended society possible. Production for use is only possible in a society that we all know all the facts. But to achieve this equation where we all are working for people who we do not know and we are supported by the work of people who we do not know is made possible because we work for economic profit. Profit is the signal which tells us what we must do in order to serve to people who we do not know.»
— F.A. Hayek (1985).
Source: youtu.be/LtCvJeRK3lE#t=624s (10:24 - 11:10)

The only drive of the (free) market is mutual interest. Therefore, its results are generally beneficial for all its participants. When someone trades something is because they are better off with the result than they were before. This phenomenon is summarily explained with an example in the following lecture, from minute 5 to minute 6:

(5:03) "What does exchange raise living standards? Well, the answer came from David Ricardo in 1817…" (6:00)

— Matt Ridley. Matt Ridley: When ideas have sex. TED Talks. July 2010.
ted.com/talks/matt_ridley_when_ideas_have_sex 
youtube.com/watch?v=OLHh9E5ilZ4 (17 min)

The "weaker", less skilled and less adapted individuals also benefit from the free market, and in a more effective way than from any well-fare measure. In the example presented by Matt Ridley "Adam" would be the poorly adapted individual, and "Oz" the better adapted. Yet, both benefit from free exchange.


As for the environmental "destroyers", claiming that libertarians are Ok with their surrounding environment being destroyed (and therefore) is disingenuous. There are numerous examples in history of groups of people who organised to exploit common resources in a sustainable way without intervention of any external authority. On the contrary, it was often the intervention of government what led to environmental catastrophes:

• Elinor Ostrom. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions). Cambridge University Press. 1990. ISBN-13: 978-0521405997
(amazon.com/dp/0521405998)
pp. 1-181: www.libertarianismo.org/livros/eogtc.pdf 
pp. 1-28: www.kuhlen.name/MATERIALIEN/eDok/governing_the_commons1.pdf 
pp. 1-29: classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Classes/V640/V640%20Readings/Ostrom_Governing%20the%20Commons_Ch.%201.pdf 
pp. 28-57: classwebs.spea.indiana.edu/kenricha/Classes/V640/V640%20Readings/Ostrom_Governing%20the%20Commons_Ch.%202.pdf 
pp. 58-103: www.pitt.edu/~vester/2230_ostrom.pdf 
pp. 192-211: are.berkeley.edu/~cmantinori/prclass/Ostrom.pdf 
pp 217-220: www.kuhlen.name/MATERIALIEN/eDok/governing_the_commons1.pdf 

URL source G+ posts (with excerpts and related references):
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/C4V2Kba9aD1 
plus.google.com/+AlanLovejoy/posts/QsSUkBusFnQ 

Unsurprisingly, the opposite discourse has ben fostered by governments and their shills.

"If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself."
— Misattributed to Joseph Goebbels by the Allies.


+Joshua Roy: "I'd see nothing wrong with a government fining a person for using drugs in public,"

— A prudish and puritanical worldview, cultural prejudice, a strong predisposition to be judgmental. You wouldn't expect that the years of religious fundamentalist indoctrination wouldn't have caused some permanent effect. All that hard work for nothing. "Conservative" from cradle to grave.


+Joshua Roy: "I think the leaders of any civilization have a moral responsibility to try to shape the moral character of the people they govern,"

« The fatal misstep of intellectuals is assuming that superior ability within a particular realm can be generalized to superior wisdom or morality overall. Chess grand masters, musical prodigies and others who are as remarkable within their respected specialties as intellectuals within theirs, seldom make that mistake.»
— Thomas Sowell in "Intellectuals and Society".

Reference:
• Thomas Sowell. Intellectuals and Society. (2009) Basic Books.  ISBN-13: 978-0465019489

• Video interview to Thomas Sowell on "Intellectuals and Society":
youtube.com/watch?v=ERj3QeGw9Ok (quote: 2:14 - 2:37)
• Transcript of the interview: media.hoover.org/sites/default/files/documents/Thomas-Sowell-12-11-09.pdf 
URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/CX7SdjVgKSZ 


Short clip from a lecture (in Spanish) given by Professor Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester, Chair of Political Economics at King Juan Carlos University, in which he explains why, according to Bertrand de Jouvenel, the immense majority of intellectuals hate capitalism:

• Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester. ¿Por qué los intelectuales odian el capitalismo? C. 2014.
youtube.com/watch?v=oDDghHKSz7U (7 min)

You may also find the following speech interesting: 

• Jesús Huerta de Soto Ballester. Liberalismo frente a anarcocapitalismo. Instituto Juan de Mariana. European Students for Liberty. Conferencia regional. 25 de Octubre de 2014, Madrid.
youtube.com/watch?v=g7pykiMzGes (60 min)
__________ 

Joshua Roy Jun 29, 2015 6:09 PM
+Zephyr López Cervilla There are formal and informal societies. I've belonged to many of both varieties. Denying the existence of society is like denying the existence of a forest saying there are only really individual trees. It is a reductionism to absurdity to the point that clear thinking is no longer even possible.
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2015 11:10 PM
+Joshua Roy: "Denying the existence of society is like denying the existence of a forest saying there are only really individual trees. It is a reductionism to absurdity to the point that clear thinking is no longer even possible."

— You may be familiar with the concept of reification: 

«to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing»
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reify 

«Reification, the treatment of something abstract as a material or concrete thing,»
britannica.com/topic/reification 

« Reification
(also known as: abstraction, concretism, fallacy of misplaced concreteness, hypostatization, pathetic fallacy [form of])
Definition: When an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event or physical entity -- when an idea is treated as if had a real existence.»

«Explanation: By reifying the street, we are attempting to establish a greater emotional connection, thus attempting to get the person to act more on emotion than reason. »
logicallyfallacious.com/index.php/logical-fallacies/155-reification 

« Reification
Anthropologists are often concerned to show that social and cultural phenomena are results of underlying processes that we have a tendency to overlook, and that they are thus "something other than what they seem to be". Reification stands for the opposite: that we take phenomena for given, as they appear to us. It is often claimed, for example, that the concept of culture is a reification, since we have a tendency to think of "a culture" as a completed object, a "thing" we can "touch and feel", which all members of the culture share - rather than a complex aggregate of processes, which different people participate in, to a greater or lesser extent. When we reify, we do not see the details, because they are overshadowed by the whole. We think, e.g. of "Norway" as if it were one thing, while in reality it is a near-infinite agglomeration of people, projects, actions, expressions and objects, in constant movement and conflict, within a landscape which is neither homogeneous, stable or geographically bounded. When I say "I am a Norwegian", this is a reification, which hides the countless other things I also am. Similarly, Marx claimed that money was a reification (a fetish) of the production processes - the labor - that creates the values that money measures.»

Reification. AnthroBase.com : Dictionary of anthropology.
anthrobase.com/Dic/eng/def/reification.htm 

« Reification (also known as concretism, hypostatization, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. [1][2] In other words, it is the error of treating something which is not concrete, such as an idea, as a concrete thing . A common case of reification is the confusion of a model with reality. Mathematical or simulation models may help understand a system or situation, but they model an abstract and simple mental image, not real life (which will also differ from the model): "the map is not the territory".»
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reification_(fallacy) 

« Description
The reification fallacy occurs where an abstract idea, concept or model is treated as if it were concrete and real.»

« Discussion
One of the skills of the human species is the ability to think in abstract terms, juggling ideas that help us understand and work with the real world. This is in some ways essential as the world is too complex for us to understand in infinite detail.

We naturally build inner mental models as a way of coping with this outer complexity. We then view the world through the models, treating the model as if it is the world, not just a representation.»

«Where the reification fallacy occurs in an important sense is where the assumption of idea as reality is too far from a better truth.»

«Reification may be deliberately used in the use of metaphor and other figures of speech. It becomes a fallacy when we forget that the representation is just that: a representation, and not reality. Extended metaphors can easily fail in this way.»
changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/reification.htm 

Example:

+Joshua Roy: "It does not seek to utilize force to guide society towards moral decision making "

To the best of my knowledge, the only entities capable to make decisions (moral or otherwise) are the individuals. Societies don't make decisions, societies don't have morals, individuals do:

(pp. 152-155 / p. 68 / pp. 95-96) … [continuation above]
__________ 

Theodore Minick Jun 29, 2015 11:24 PM +1
TL;DR: there really is no such thing as a forest. "Forest" is just a handy designation on a map for a group of trees.
__________ 

Joshua Roy Jun 30, 2015 12:15 AM
In any case, a normal person would say, "lets cure dutch elm disease for the health of the forest," and that communication would be meaningful even if it is an overly simplistic expression. 
__________ 

Theodore Minick Jun 30, 2015 12:53 AM
And I'd be perfectly fine with that, as long as the search for the cure didn't involve intentionally infecting stands of trees "for the good of the forest".

Because if you unpack that statement, what you get is a logical contradiction: "we have to kill some of you to save all of you."
__________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 30, 2015 1:45 AM
Let's burn down all the trees and plant new healthy seedlings to "cure" the forest!
__________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+JoshuaRoy83/posts/gihMUBFPQso 
______________________ 
7
1
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photoMartin Lewitt's profile photodavid muncey's profile photo
3 comments
 
Yes, Norway is a good example.  Have they found any source of wealth have they found that might sustain them once the oil runs out?  Unfortunately their schools are not performing well, barely better than the much more populous and culturally diverse US, so human capital seems unlikely to pay off for them.  Sweden is doing even worse.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Progressive Thought vs. Liberty

I'm in the minority who thinks that individual freedom must prevail over collective conformity and imposed consensus. I'm in good company with such standpoint, though. Some of the most prominent free thinkers of the 19th century did also oppose "marriage laws", branding them "as false to the principle of freedom":

« Whenever Liberty hears of any demand for a real increase in freedom, it is prompt to encourage and sustain it, no matter what its source. It marches with any wing of the army of freedom as far as that wing will go. But it sternly refuses to right about face. Liberty hates Catholicism and loves Free Thought; but, when it finds Catholicism advocating and Free Thought opposing the principle of voluntaryism in education, it sustains Catholicism against Free Thought. Likewise, when it finds Liberals and Socialists of all varieties favoring eight-hour laws, government monopoly of money, land nationalization, protection, prohibition, race proscription, State administration of railways, telegraphs, mines, and factories, woman suffrage, man suffrage, common schools, marriage laws, and compulsory taxation, it brands them one and all as false to the principle of freedom, refuses to follow them in their retrogressive course, and keeps its own eyes and steps carefully towards the front. It knows that the only way to achieve freedom is to begin to take it.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. Anarchy Necessarily Atheistic. Liberty (January 9, 1886) vol. 3 (21) (whole no. 79) p. 4 [document no. 418]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/anarchy-necessarily-atheistic 
(pp. 464-465)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n483/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2774 

«Their attitude on this is a key to their attitude on all other questions of a political or social nature. In religion they are atheistic as far as their own opinions are concerned, for they look upon divine authority and the religious sanction of morality as the chief pretexts put forward by the privileged classes for the exercise of human authority. "If God exists," said Proudhon, "he is man’s enemy." And in contrast to Voltaire’s famous epigram, "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him," the great Russian Nihilist, Mikhail Bakunin, placed this antithetical proposition: "If God existed, it would be necessary to abolish him." But although, viewing the divine hierarchy as a contradiction of Anarchy, they do not believe in it, the Anarchists none the less firmly believe in the liberty to believe in it. Any denial of religious freedom they squarely oppose. »

— Benjamin R Tucker. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ. Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 (16) (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [documents 790, 791, 794]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism 
(p. 14)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n33/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821 

PS: #"Freedom" :
plus.google.com/+Notbeinggoverned-dotcom/posts/5tBh7y89V5o 
________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/115485979219209097599/posts/1SHqGXRYKEg 
4
1
Jeffrey Duddles's profile photo
Add a comment...
In his circles
1,032 people
Have him in circles
5,438 people
Martijn Roelandse's profile photo
NOEL francess's profile photo
Kateryna Artyushkova's profile photo
David Jenkins's profile photo
Consumer Debt Counselors's profile photo
Environmental Issues / Impact's profile photo
Shawna Tregunna's profile photo
Jen Davison's profile photo
ABC Television Network's profile photo

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Intranspecific Competition
12
4
Richard Ricciardelli's profile photoAlan Lovejoy's profile photoTyler Durden's profile photoJeremiah Harding's profile photo
12 comments
 
What do you think is an appropriate monthly salary (given whatever working hours you want, but < 140 hrs/week) if you want to stay afloat in Spain ?
Of the countries with "no" minimum wages they all enforce trade unions. Of them only Germany and Finland had really low effective minimum wages, in the order of 350 euro for a workweek (~40 hours).
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
hoover.org - Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist
By Peter Schweizer (Hoover Digest). January 30, 2006
hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist 

+RAMONREVOLUTION PUNK,
Are you aware that Noam Chomsky makes a lot of money selling the copyright of his books and recorded speeches, that is, exploiting a Government-granted monopoly? What kind of anarchist does so? You would think that he would put his money where his mouth is, right? Well, you would think wrong: 

«One of the most persistent themes in Noam Chomsky's work has been class warfare. The iconic MIT linguist and left-wing activist frequently has lashed out against the "massive use of tax havens to shift the burden to the general population and away from the rich," and criticized the concentration of wealth in "trusts" by the wealthiest 1%. He says the U.S. tax code is rigged with "complicated devices for ensuring that the poor -- like 80% of the population -- pay off the rich."

But trusts can't be all bad. After all, Chomsky, with a net worth north of US$2-million, decided to create one for himself. A few years back he went to Boston's venerable white-shoe law firm, Palmer and Dodge, and, with the help of a tax attorney specializing in "income-tax planning," set up an irrevocable trust to protect his assets from Uncle Sam. He named his tax attorney (every socialist radical needs one!) and a daughter as trustees. To the Diane Chomsky Irrevocable Trust (named for another daughter) he has assigned the copyright of several of his books, including multiple international editions.

[Example 1: See 2nd page of this book (1996), the copyrighter is his trust:
books.google.com/books?id=Yzl1GRMJSRAC&pg=PA ]

[Example 2: The copyrighter of the English edition (1999) of this other book is himself rather than the trust he created with the name of his daughter:
books.google.com/books?id=PcZVBMvqunQC&pg=PA6 ]

[Example 3: See 2nd page of this book (1987), the copyrighter is himself:
books.google.com/books?id=Ot6pRjxv2ykC&pg=PA ]

Chomsky favours massive income redistribution -- just not the redistribution of his income. No reason to let radical politics get in the way of sound estate planning.

When I challenged Chomsky about his trust, he suddenly started to sound very bourgeois: "I don't apologize for putting aside money for my children and grandchildren," he wrote in one e-mail. Chomsky offered no explanation for why he condemns others who are equally proud of their provision for their children and who try to protect their assets from Uncle Sam. (However, Chomsky did say that his tax shelter is OK because he and his family are "trying to help suffering people.")

Indeed, Chomsky is rich precisely because he has been such an enormously successful capitalist. Despite his anti-profit rhetoric, like any other corporate capitalist Chomsky has turned himself into a brand name. As John Lloyd recently put it in the lefty New Statesman, Chomsky is among those "open to being "commodified" -- that is, to being simply one of the many wares of a capitalist media market place, in a way that the badly paid and overworked writers and journalists for the revolutionary parties could rarely be."

«Chomsky's business works something like this. He gives speeches on college campuses around the country at US$12,000 a pop, often dozens of times a year.

Can't go and hear him in person? No problem: You can go online and download clips from earlier speeches -- for a fee. You can hear Chomsky talk for one minute about "Property Rights"; it will cost you US79 cents. You can also buy a CD with clips from previous speeches for US$12.99.

But books are Chomsky's mainstay, and on the international market he has become a publishing phenomenon. The Chomsky brand means instant sales. As publicist Dana O'Hare of Pluto Press explains: "All we have to do is put Chomsky's name on a book and it sells out immediately!"

Putting his name on a book should not be confused with writing a book because his most recent volumes are mainly transcriptions of speeches, or interviews that he has conducted over the years, put between covers and sold to the general public. You might call it multi-level marketing for radicals. Chomsky has admitted as much: "If you look at the things I write -- articles for Z Magazine, or books for South End Press, or whatever -- they are mostly based on talks and meetings and that kind of thing. But I'm kind of a parasite. I mean, I'm living off the activism of others. I'm happy to do it."»

«Over the years, Chomsky has been particularly critical of private property rights, which he considers simply a tool of the rich, of no benefit to ordinary people. "When property rights are granted to power and privilege, it can be expected to be harmful to most," Chomsky wrote on a discussion board for the Washington Post. Intellectual property rights are equally despicable, apparently. According to Chomsky, for example, drug companies who have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing drugs shouldn't have ownership rights to patents. Intellectual property rights, he argues, "have to do with protectionism."

Protectionism is a bad thing -- especially when it relates to other people.

But when it comes to Chomsky's own published work, this advocate of open intellectual property suddenly becomes very selfish. It would not be advisable to download the audio from one of his speeches without paying the fee, warns his record company, Alternative Tentacles. (Did Andrei Sakharov have a licensing agreement with a record company?) And when it comes to his articles, you'd better keep your hands off. Go to the official Noam Chomsky Web site (www.chomsky.info) and the warning is clear: "Material on this site is copyrighted by Noam Chomsky and/or Noam Chomsky and his collaborators. No material on this site may be reprinted or posted on other web sites without written permission." (However, the Web site does give you the opportunity to "sublicense" the material if you are interested.)

Radicals used to think of their ideas as weapons; Chomsky sees them as a licensing opportunity.

Chomsky has even gone the extra mile to protect the copyright to some of his material by transferring ownership to his children. Profits from those works will thus be taxed at his children's lower rate. He also thereby extends the length of time that the family is able to hold onto the copyright and protect his intellectual assets.»


[This is also interesting]

«Corporate America is one of Chomsky's demons. It's hard to find anything positive he might say about American business. He paints an ominous vision of America suffering under the "unaccountable and deadly rule of corporations." He has called corporations "private tyrannies" and declared that they are "just as totalitarian as Bolshevism and fascism." Capitalism, in his words, is a "grotesque catastrophe."

But a funny thing happened on the way to the retirement portfolio.

Chomsky, for all of his moral dudgeon against American corporations, finds that they make a pretty good investment. When he made investment decisions for his retirement plan at MIT, he chose not to go with a money market fund or even a government bond fund. Instead, he threw the money into blue chips and invested in the TIAA-CREF stock fund. A look at the stock fund portfolio quickly reveals that it invests in all sorts of businesses that Chomsky says he finds abhorrent: oil companies, military contractors, pharmaceuticals, you name it.

When I asked Chomsky about his investment portfolio, he reverted to a "what else can I do?" defence: "Should I live in a cabin in Montana?" he asked. It was a clever rhetorical dodge. Chomsky was declaring that there is simply no way to avoid getting involved in the stock market short of complete withdrawal from the capitalist system. He certainly knows better. There are many alternative funds these days that allow you to invest your money in "green" or "socially responsible" enterprises.

They just don't yield the maximum available return.»

— Peter Schweizer. Noam Chomsky, Closet Capitalist. Hoover Digest. January 30, 2006 ; National Post. March 21, 2006.
hoover.org/research/noam-chomsky-closet-capitalist 
canada.com/nationalpost/news/issuesideas/story.html?id=1385b76d-6c34-4c22-942a-18b71f2c4a44 

(sourcewatch.org/index.php/Diane_Chomsky_Irrevocable_Trust)

Comments:

internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=267079 
albertmohler.com/2006/03/20/intellectual-hypocrisy-the-case-of-noam-chomsky 
gayandright.blogspot.com/2006/03/noam-chomsky-hypocrite.html 
news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2558163 

Left-wing linguist paid too much. The Massachusetts Daily Collegian. March 26, 2006.
dailycollegian.com/2006/03/26/left-wing-linguist-paid-too-much 

• James Joyner. Noam Chomsky: Money Grubbing Hypocrite? Outside the Belt Way. March 23, 2006.
outsidethebeltway.com/noam_chomsky_money_grubbing_hypocrite 


PS: FWIW, there have been numerous actual anarchists (unlike Chomsky) in favour of the property, including the property of the means of production, among them, Benjamin Tucker (a "propertarian"), who incidentally, opposed any granted monopoly, including patents and copyright:


« The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that the best government is that which governs least, and that that which governs least is no government at all. Even the simple police function of protecting person and property they deny to governments supported by compulsory taxation. Protection they look upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is necessary, by voluntary association and cooperation for self-defence, or as a commodity to be purchased, like any other commodity, of those who offer the best article at the lowest price. In their view it is in itself an invasion of the individual to compel him to pay for or suffer a protection against invasion that he has not asked for and does not desire. And they further claim that protection will become a drug in the market, after poverty and consequently crime have disappeared through the realization of their economic programme. Compulsory taxation is to them the life-principle of all the monopolies, and passive, but organized, resistance to the tax-collector they contemplate, when the proper time comes, as one of the most effective methods of accomplishing their purposes.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ. Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 (16) (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [documents 790, 791, 794]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821 
(p. 14)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n33/mode/2up 
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism 


«Intellectual property — as embodied in copyright and patent — was the subject of intense debate within Liberty. Benjamin Tucker flatly rejected the idea that legal copyright was compatible with anarchism. »

«As a topic of debate, intellectual property appeared in the July 7, 1888, issue of Liberty through a provocative article in which Benjamin Tucker declared, "there can rightfully be no such thing as the exclusive ownership of an idea." From this point, the twin issues of patent and copyright gradually blossomed into major debate through which the concept of "property" was finely honed.»

«Tucker refined Tak Kak's second point. In distinguishing between an idea within your mind (private) and an idea that had been communicated (public), Tucker claimed that the ownership of a private idea did not result from originating it. The ownership resulted from the fact that the idea was protected by other rights. You owned an idea in your mind simply because it was impossible for anyone to access it without your consent unless they used force, such as torture. Thus, the "ownership" of private ideas was merely a byproduct of self-ownership.

A public idea was not comparably protected by self-ownership. When an author or inventor publicized his idea, he relinquished what Tucker termed "a power which theretofore had been guarded by other rights — the right of inviolability of person, the right of privacy of domicile." Tucker was clear — by publishing his work, an author or inventor did not relinquish his right to it for there was no right to begin with. There had been a protective shield provided by self-ownership. Publication removed that protective shield. If an idea was in the public realm, an individual could access and use it without violating anyone else's "equal liberty."

Thus, Tak Kak and Tucker defined one boundary of the debate, the anti-intellectual property side (hereinafter AIP). You own private ideas. They can be protected either through silence or through contracts similar to those currently used by computer companies to "license" software packages. But there was no "natural" right to a public idea. In being communicated, it became the private property of anyone who held it in their minds thereafter. As J. William Lloyd expressed it, "You cannot cut an idea bodily out of a brain as you might transplant a strawberry from one garden to another. If I think the same thought as my neighbor, very well; it is plain that I have taken and received nothing from him, for he still has his thought as strong as ever."»

« What Is Property? »

«Tucker argued that the idea of property arose as a way to solve conflicts caused by scarcity. In the real universe, goods are scarce and this fact leads to inevitable competition among men for their use. For example, since one chair cannot be used in the same manner and at the same time by two individuals, it was necessary to determine who should use the chair. The concept of property resolved this problem. The one who could claim the chair as property should determine its use. "If it were possible," wrote Tucker, "and if it had always been possible, for an unlimited number of individuals to use to an unlimited extent and in an unlimited number of places the same concrete thing at the same time, there would never have been any such thing as the institution of property."

This argument had direct implications for copyright and patent. A public idea was not a scarce good, as it could be used by an unlimited number of individuals to an unlimited extent and in an unlimited number of places. According to Tucker, this meant means that intellectual property as a natural right ran counter to the very purpose for which the idea property evolved.

In fact, intellectual property would create a scarcity where none naturally existed. In short, it would create an unnatural monopoly. To claim all potential generators because you have built one yourself, Tucker argued, is comparable to "a claim on the part of a man who first struck oil to ownership of the entire oil region or petroleum product."»

«Anti-intellectual-property advocates claimed that copyright and patent contradicted not only the purpose for which the idea of property evolved but also the essential characteristics of property.

What were these characteristics? Two related ones were claimed: alienability and transferability. In other words, to qualify as natural property, it has to be possible to alienate it from one person and transfer it to another. Not all transfers had to be complete or final. For example, a homeowner might decide to rent out a room rather than sell the entire structure. But, in principle, it had to be possible to alienate and transfer a good in order to consider it "property."

Tak Kak applied this standard to ideas: "The giver or seller parts with it [property] in conveying it. This characteristic distinguishes property from skill and information. Bread is property." But the art of baking was not property; it was a skill that was not alienated in being transferred. "Monopoly consists in the attempt to make property of liberties, discoveries, sciences, and arts by a pretended or forced alienation."»

«The inalienability of ideas was a problem not only for the original owner, but also for anyone who received it. The recipient had no choice but to avail himself of the idea once it had been communicated to him — once he had heard or seen it. That is, the recipient had no means by which to pluck the information out of his head and return to a state of ignorance. Nevertheless, the enforcement of intellectual property prevented him from using what was in his own mind.

Along the theme of nonalienability, Lloyd postulated that an essential characteristic of property was the ability to destroy what you possess. He commented further, "the impossibility of destroying an idea, or withholding it from use … is excellent proof that there can be no property in ideas. What is an idea?"»

«Tucker could have added that he did not advocate stripping authors and inventors of protection. He merely wished that protection to be extended on a contractual basis. Elsewhere, he interjected the observation, "It must not be inferred that I wish to deprive the authors of reasonable rewards for their labor. On the contrary, I wish to help them to secure such, and I believe that there are Anarchistic methods of doing so" (emphasis in original).

Tucker's appeals to his own personal experiences as a writer, editor, and publisher were difficult to refute. He referred to an earlier book published under the imprint of B. Tucker, "Why … did two competing editions of the Kreutzer Sonata appear on the market before mine had had the field two months? Simply because money was pouring into my pockets with a rapidity that nearly took my breath away. And after my rivals took the field, it came in faster than ever…. Competition in the book world is not to be shunned but to be courted."

A latecomer in the debate, Joseph Labadie, supported Tucker's point: "The question of recompense is not necessarily involved in the denial of the right to property in ideas."»

«Tucker's opposition against property in ideas did not alter over the years, except perhaps to harden. He continued to view intellectual property as one of the four categories of usury through which monopolies were established by government. Although he considered the "banking (or money) monopoly" to be the most serious of the four, intellectual property — if carried to its logical conclusion — would be disastrous.»

«Tucker and the other contributors to Liberty who rejected intellectual property as a natural right were not hostile to copyright or patent enforced by contract. Nor did they deny a man's absolute right to exclusively use whatever ideas he privately held. The point at which this exclusivity was lost, however, came when the idea was communicated without the protection of contract. Tucker insisted that a man who wrote in the public realm abandoned all claim to his property just as a man who spoke publicly abandoned claim to his spoken words.»

«Perhaps the essence of Tucker's approach to intellectual property was best expressed when he exclaimed, "You want your invention to yourself? Then keep it to yourself."»

— Wendy McElroy. Copyright and Patent in Benjamin Tucker's Periodical. Mises Daily. July 10, 2010.
mises.org/library/copyright-and-patent-benjamin-tuckers-periodical 
_________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/115077963892552055766/posts/YuWzex5A4cP 

Noam Chomsky refutes right-libertarianism [full]
youtube.com/watch?v=NajQTN9qhXg (17 min)
____________________ 
1
1
Charles Filipponi's profile photoSebastian Reyes Espinosa's profile photo
 
Chomsky is brilliant in his specialty (linguistics) but a very typical example of the ivory tower types whose isolation from real world struggles and over-dependence on analytical modeling create a faux reality in their heads that leads to pathetic politics and economic thinking. And so many LoFos who want free stuff love it. 
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Homesteading Land

Comment: Homesteading land is an acceptable form to acquire property (or any derivative property of land that were transferred after being homesteaded) so long as it doesn't prevent others from doing the same. The freedom of anyone ends where the freedom of anyone else begins.

To put it with an analogy, if we were all trapped in an elevator nobody would have unlimited freedom to homestead all the air thus leaving everybody else without any. Your freedom to breathe air ends where the freedom to breathe of anybody else begins.

Land is a special kind of object too. Like the air that we breathe, land is essential for our survival. Humans require of some land under their feet, and directly or indirectly, need land to obtain their food, fresh water, and shelter (with a few exceptions  such as the people who live in houseboats, fishers and seafood gatherers, although only partially).

It's also worth to mention that unlike most other resources (oil wells, ground water, gold mines, workforce), and except for a few exceptions such as lost islands in the middle of the ocean, land isn't by itself a discoverable resource. Everybody knows that if you continue walking, you'll find more and more land or its boundary with some water mass. Unlike hidden resources, the land homesteader doesn't have a better claim over his "discovered" plot of land than anybody else.

Therefore, in order to preserve individual freedom the practice of homesteading land must be limited one way or another. The monopoly of land that would inexorably lead (as it has already occurred in the past) to the servitude, famine or death, and affect everybody saved to the land owners.

A different problem arises when the homesteader is occupying their land plot. In such case, their priority over the land plot that they are occupying responds to a need to solve a steric problem. This kind of priority to the access of land is also observed when people visit a crowded beach. The visitors of the beach are only entitled to occupy previously unoccupied spaces, thus respecting the "living space" already occupied by earlier visitors. Likewise, the occupied space is respected by later visitors during the temporary absence of the earlier occupants, particularly when their recent occupancy is apparent or can be proven in some way.

The issue of land ownership was frequently discussed by anarchist thinkers of the 19th century:


« Spooner defended unlimited private land ownership and grounded his support of this theory on the homesteading axiom: "The right of property in material wealth is acquired, . . .in one of these two ways, viz.: first, by simply taking possession of natural wealth, or the productions of nature; and, secondly by the artificial production of other wealth. . . The natural wealth of the world belongs to those who first take possession of it. . . There is no limit, fixed by the law of nature, to the amount of property one may acquire simply by taking possession of natural wealth, not already possessed, except the limit fixed by (a person's) power or ability to take such possession, without doing violence to the person or property of others." [3] Spooner would have definitely agreed with Rothbard, that ". .once a piece of land passes justly into Mr. A's ownership, he cannot be said to truly own that land unless he can conveyor sell the title to Mr . B, and to prevent B from exercising his title simply because he doesn't choose to use it himself but rather rents it out voluntarily to Mr. C, is an invasion of B's freedom of contract and of his right to his justly-acquired private property."[4]

Spooner had expressed his ideas on land ownership in his LAW OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (1855) and in his pamphlet, REVOLUTION: A REPLY TO 'DUNRAVEN' (1880). Tucker took him to task in LIBERTY: "I call Spooner's work on 'Intellectual Property' positively foolish because it is fundamentally foolish, --because, that is to say, its discussion of the acquisition of property starts with a basic proposition that must be looked upon by all consistent Anarchists as obvious nonsense. I quote this basic proposition. 'The natural wealth of the world belongs to those who first take possession of it. . . So much natural wealth, remaining unpossessed, as anyone can take possession of first, becomes absolutely his property.' "[5] Tucker charged Spooner with being a defender of unlimited land ownership since Spooner's proposition would allow that ". . .a man may go to a piece of vacant land and fence it off; that he may then go to a second piece and fence that off; then to a third, and fence that off; then to a fourth, a fifth, a hundredth, a thousandth, fencing them all off; that, unable to fence off himself as many as he wishes, he may hire other men to do fencing for him; and that then he may stand back and bar all other men from using these lands, or admit them as tenants at such rental as he may choose to exact." [6] In these circumstances, Tucker asked: "What becomes of the Anarchistic doctrine of occupancy and use as the basis and limit of land ownership'?”[7]

Tucker was a great critic of the land ownership system existing in the 19th Century. Absentee land ownership presented a serious problem in Ireland. Due to the agitation of the "No-Rent Movement" and the Irish Land League and the publicity of the ideas of Henry George, the subject of land ownership was very much a topic of public concern. Tucker believed that the occupancy and use theory of land holding solved the problem of justice in land ownership. The essence of the theory was that only actual users or possessors of the land (i.e., the Irish tenants) could be considered its owners. Occupancy and use as the basis for land ownership would free for use all land not actually being occupied by its owners. Thus landlords would cease to exist, as would all renting or leasing of real property, since the absentee landlord could claim no title or control over his unoccupied property. Spooner was quite critical of this doctrine: in fact he labeled it communism. The premise of any argument denying property rights in any form is communism. ". . .There is, therefore, no middle ground between absolute communism, on the one hand, which holds that a man has a right to lay his hands on any thing, which has no other man's hands upon it, no matter who may have been the producer; and the principle of individual property, on the other hand, which says that each man has an absolute dominion, as against all other men, over the products and acquisitions of his own labor, whether he retains them in his actual possession or not.”[8]

Tucker believed that "a man cannot be allowed, merely by putting labor, to the limit of his capacity and beyond the limit of his personal use, into material of which there is a limited supply and the use of which is essential to the existence of other men, to withhold that material from other men's uses; and any contract based upon or involving such withholding is as lacking in sanctity or legitimacy as a contract to deliver stolen goods."[9] Under Tucker's theory, if "a man exerts himself by erecting a building on land which afterward, by the principle of occupancy and use, rightfully becomes another's, he must, upon demand of the subsequent occupant, remove from this land, the results of his self-exertion, or, failing to do so, sacrifice his property rights therein. The man who persists in storing his property on another's premises is an invader and it is his crime that alienates control of this property. He is 'fined one house,' not for 'building a house and then letting another man live in it,' but for invading the premises of another."[10] Thus Tucker admitted that homesteading, in the form of original possession or self-exertion furnished no basis for a continuing claim to land ownership, after the homesteader left the land. To further illustrate his differences with Spooner, Tucker related a conversation that he had with Spooner concerning the rightfulness of the Irish rebellion against absentee landlords: "Mr. Spooner bases his opposition to Irish and English landlords on the sole ground that they or their ancestors took their lands by the sword from the original holders. This he plainly stated, -- so plainly that I took issue with Mr. Spooner on this point when he asked me to read the manuscript (REVOLUTION) before its publication, I then asked him whether if Dunraven (the absentee landlord) or his ancestors had found unoccupied the very lands that he now holds, and had fenced them off, he would have any objection to raise against Dunraven's title and to leasing of these lands. He declared emphatically that he would not. Whereupon I protested that his pamphlet, powerful as it was within its scope, did not go to the bottom of the land question."[11]

Much of Tucker's concern with the land problem was based on his apprehension of the monopoly problem. He is well known for his four-pronged attack on monopolies: land, banking, tariff, and copyright and patent. Tucker feared that the right of contract would be carried to an illogical extreme: ". . . It would be possible (under a regime of unfettered freedom of contract in land) for an individual to acquire, and hold simultaneously, virtual titles to innumerable parcels of land, by the merest show of labor performed thereon; . . . (and) . . . we should be forced to consider . . . the virtual ownership of nearly the entire earth by a small fraction of its inhabitants …"[12] Analogous to his position on land ownership, Tucker also attacked the literary monopolization of ideas based on copyright Spooner was a consistent defender of property in all forms and claimed for inventors and authors a perpetual copyright in their work. It is plain that neither could agree until their theories of ownership were harmonized, and both either adopted or rejected the homesteading principle.»

— Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) vol. 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

— Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 


«Second in importance comes the land monopoly, the evil effects of which are seen principally in exclusively agricultural countries, like Ireland. This monopoly consists in the enforcement by government of land titles which do not rest upon personal occupancy and cultivation. It was obvious to Warren and Proudhon that, as soon as individualists should no longer be protected by their fellows in anything but personal occupancy and cultivation of land, ground-rent would disappear, and so usury have one less leg to stand on. Their followers of to-day are disposed to modify this claim to the extent of admitting that the very small fraction of ground-rent which rests, not on monopoly, but on superiority of soil or site, will continue to exist for a time and perhaps forever, though tending constantly to a minimum under conditions of freedom. But the inequality of soils which gives rise to the economic rent of land, like the inequality of human skill which gives rise to the economic rent of ability, is not a cause for serious alarm even to the most thorough opponent of usury, as its nature is not that of a germ from which other and graver inequalities may spring, but rather that of a decaying branch which may finally wither and fall.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ. Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 (16) (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [document no. 790, 791, 794]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism 
(p. 12)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n31/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821 


«Mr. Byington's erroneous conclusions regarding the confiscation of economic rent are due, as I view it, to his confusion of liberties with rights, or, perhaps I might better say, to his foundation of equality of liberty upon a supposed equality of rights. I take issue with him at the very start by denying the dogma of equality of rights,—in fact, by denying rights altogether except those acquired by contract. In times past, when, though already an Egoist and knowing then as now that every man acts and always will act solely from an interest in self, I had not considered the bearing of Egoism upon the question of obligation, it was my habit to talk glibly and loosely of the right of man to the land. It was a bad habit, and I long ago sloughed it off. Man's only right over the land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's until the latter is dispossessed in turn by one mightier still. But while the danger of such dispossession continues there is no society, no security, no comfort. Hence men contract. They agree upon certain conditions of land ownership, and will protect no title in the absence of the conditions fixed upon. The object of this contract is not to enable all to benefit equally from the land, but to enable each to hold securely at his own disposal the results of his efforts expended upon such portion of the earth as he may possess under the conditions agreed upon. It is principally to secure this absolute control of the results of one's efforts that equality of liberty is instituted, not as a matter of right, but as a social convenience. I have always maintained that liberty is of greater importance than wealth,—in other words, that man derives more happiness from freedom than from luxury,—and this is true; but there is another sense in which wealth, or rather property, is of greater importance than liberty. Man has but little to gain from liberty unless that liberty includes the liberty to control what he produces. One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the régime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. Liberty and Property. Liberty (December 31, 1892) vol. 9 (18) (whole no. 252) pp. 3-4 [document no. 1591-1592]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/liberty-and-property 
(p. 350)
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n367/mode/2up 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2939 
_________ 


Max Stirner wrote a rebuttal to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's claim that all property is theft. You may be interested, it's quite convincing. For instance, the absurd notion that everything belongs to Man (aka, "human society", humankind):

«Now the matter stands thus: even if a crime did not cause the slightest damage either to me or to any of those in whom I take an interest, I should nevertheless denounce it. Why? Because I am enthusiastic for morality, filled with the idea of morality; what is hostile to it I everywhere assail. Because in his mind theft ranks as abominable without any question, Proudhon, e. g., thinks that with the sentence "Property is theft" he has at once put a brand on property. In the sense of the priestly, theft is always a crime, or at least a misdeed. »
(p. 51)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

« Property as the civic liberals understand it deserves the attacks of the Communists and Proudhon: it is untenable, because the civic proprietor is in truth nothing but a property-less man, one who is everywhere shut out. Instead of owning the world, as he might, he does not own even the paltry point on which he turns around.

Proudhon wants not the propriétaire but the possesseur or usufruitier. 179 What does that mean? He wants no one to own the land; but the benefit of it – even though one were allowed only the hundredth part of this benefit, this fruit – is at any rate one’s property, which he can dispose of at will. He who has only the benefit of a field is assuredly not the proprietor of it; still less he who, as Proudhon would have it, must give up so much of this benefit as is not required for his wants; but he is the proprietor of the share that is left him. Proudhon, therefore, denies only such and such property, not property itself. If we want no longer to leave the land to the landed proprietors, but to appropriate it to ourselves, we unite ourselves to this end, form a union, a société, that makes itself proprietor; if we have good luck in this, then those persons cease to be landed proprietors. And, as from the land, so we can drive them out of many another property yet, in order to make it our property, the property of the – conquerors. The conquerors form a society which one may imagine so great that it by degrees embraces all humanity; but so-called humanity too is as such only a thought (spook); the individuals are its reality. And these individuals as a collective mass will treat land and earth not less arbitrarily than an isolated individual or so-called propriétaire. Even so, therefore, property remains standing, and that as exclusive too, in that humanity, this great society, excludes the individual from its property (perhaps only leases to him, gives his as a fief, a piece of it) as it besides excludes everything that is not humanity, e. g. does not allow animals to have property. – So too it will remain, and will grow to be. That in which all want to have a share will be withdrawn from that individual who wants to have it for himself alone: it is made a common estate. As a common estate every one has his share in it, and this share is his property. Why, so in our old relations a house which belongs to five heirs is their common estate; but the fifth part of the revenue is, each one’s property. Proudhon might spare his prolix pathos if he said: "There are some things that belong only to a few, and to which we others will from now on lay claim or – siege. Let us take them, because one comes to property by taking, and the property of which for the present we are still deprived came to the proprietors likewise only by taking. It can be utilized better if it is in the hands of us all than if the few control it. Let us therefore associate ourselves for the purpose of this robbery (vol)." – Instead of this, he tries to get us to believe that society is the original possessor and the sole proprietor, of imprescriptible right; against it the so-called proprietors have become thieves (La propriété c’est le vol); if it now deprives of his property the present proprietor, it robs him of nothing, as it is only availing itself of its imprescriptible right. – So far one comes with the spook of society as a moral person. On the contrary, what man can obtain belongs to him: the world belongs to me. Do you say anything else by your opposite proposition? "The world belongs to all"? All are I and again I, etc. But you make out of the "all" a spook, and make it sacred, so that then the "all" become the individual’s fearful master. Then the ghost of "right" places itself on their side.

Proudhon, like the Communists, fights against egoism. Therefore they are continuations and consistent carryings-out of the Christian principle, the principle of love, of sacrifice for something general, something alien. They complete in property, e. g., only what has long been extant as a matter of fact – to wit, the propertylessness of the individual. When the laws says, Ad reges potestas omnium pertinet, ad singulos proprietas; omnia rex imperio possidet, singuli dominio, this means: The king is proprietor, for he alone can control and dispose of "everything," he has potestas and imperium over it. The Communists make this clearer, transferring that imperium to the "society of all." Therefore: Because enemies of egoism, they are on that account – Christians, or, more generally speaking, religious men, believers in ghosts, dependents, servants of some generality (God, society, etc.). In this too Proudhon is like the Christians, that he ascribes to God that which he denies to men. He names him (e. g. page 90) the Propriétaire of the earth. Herewith he proves that he cannot think away the proprietor as such; he comes to a proprietor at last, but removes him to the other world.

Neither God nor Man ("human society") is proprietor, but the individual. »
(pp. 128-129)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

« Proudhon (Weitling too) thinks he is telling the worst about property when he calls it theft (vol). Passing quite over the embarrassing question, what well-founded objection could be made against theft, we only ask: Is the concept "theft" at all possible unless one allows validity to the concept "property"? How can one steal if property is not already extant? What belongs to no one cannot be stolen; the water that one draws out of the sea he does not steal. Accordingly property is not theft, but a theft becomes possible only through property. Weitling has to come to this too, as he does regard everything as the property of all: if something is "the property of all," then indeed the individual who appropriates it to himself steals.

Private property lives by grace of the law. Only in the law has it its warrant – for possession is not yet property, it becomes "mine" only by assent of the law; it is not a fact, not un fait as Proudhon thinks, but a fiction, a thought. This is legal property, legitimate property, guarantied property. It is mine not through me but through the – law.»
(p. 129)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

« Proudhon calls property "robbery" (le vol). But alien property – and he is talking of this alone – is not less existent by renunciation, cession, and humility; it is a present. Why so sentimentally call for compassion as a poor victim of robbery, when one is just a foolish, cowardly giver of presents? Why here again put the fault on others as if they were robbing us, while we ourselves do bear the fault in leaving the others unrobbed? The poor are to blame for there being rich men.

Universally, no one grows indignant at his, but at alien property. They do not in truth attack property, but the alienation of property. They want to be able to call more, not less, theirs; they want to call everything theirs. They are fighting, therefore, against alienness, or, to form a word similar to property, against alienty. And how do they help themselves therein? Instead of transforming the alien into own, they play impartial and ask only that all property be left to a third party, e. g. human society. They revindicate the alien not in their own name but in a third party’s. Now the "egoistic" coloring is wiped off, and everything is so clean and – human! »
(pp. 156-157)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

«Thinking will as little cease as feeling. But the power of thoughts and ideas, the dominion of theories and principles, the sovereignty of the spirit, in short the – hierarchy, lasts as long as the parsons, i.e., theologians, philosophers, statesmen, philistines, liberals, schoolmasters, servants, parents, children, married couples, Proudhon, George Sand, Bluntschli, etc., etc., have the floor; the hierarchy will endure as long as people believe in, think of, or even criticize, principles; for even the most inexorable criticism, which undermines all current principles, still does finally believe in the principle.

Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticises. »
(pp. 171-172)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (First English edition, 1907).
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580 
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own 

URL related G+ post with excerpts:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/8EkQwUApQ1u 


A different question is whether individuals under any circumstances should respect property. The respect of private property has a very specific purpose. When such purpose is not met, it's absurd to stick to such respect. As I quoted above, 


«Man's only right over the land is his might over it. If his neighbor is mightier than he and takes the land from him, then the land is his neighbor's until the latter is dispossessed in turn by one mightier still. But while the danger of such dispossession continues there is no society, no security, no comfort. Hence men contract. They agree upon certain conditions of land ownership, and will protect no title in the absence of the conditions fixed upon. The object of this contract is not to enable all to benefit equally from the land, but to enable each to hold securely at his own disposal the results of his efforts expended upon such portion of the earth as he may possess under the conditions agreed upon. It is principally to secure this absolute control of the results of one's efforts that equality of liberty is instituted, not as a matter of right, but as a social convenience.»

« One of the chief purposes of equal liberty is to secure this fundamental necessity of property, and, if property is not thereby secured, the temptation is to abandon the régime of contract and return to the reign of the strongest. »
~Benjamin R Tucker.


It's useless to protect (or to respect) any land property title when you have no danger of dispossession because you've been already barred from having any property title.

In my view, these disputes originate as a result of the sacred nature that most people have endowed to the notions of justice and morality:


«"The man who is crying chestnuts before my window has a personal interest in a brisk sale, and if his wife or anybody else wishes as much for him, this as well is a personal interest. If, on the other hand, a thief were to take away his basket, there would at once arise an interest of many, of the whole city, of the entire country, or, in one word, of all who abominate theft: an interest wherein the person of the chestnut-vender would be indifferent, and in its place the category of 'one who is robbed' would appear in the forefront. But here, too, it might still all be resolved into a personal interest, each participant reflecting that he must aid in the punishment of the thief because, otherwise, unpunished stealing would become general and he also would lose his possessions. There are many, however, from whom such a calculation is not to be presumed. Rather, the cry will be heard that the thief is a 'criminal.' Here we have a judgment before us, the act of the thief receiving its expression in the conception 'crime.' Now the matter presents itself in this way: If a crime should work not the slightest damage either to me or to any of those for whom I take concern, yet nevertheless I should be zealous against it. Why? Because I am enthused for morality, filled with the idea of morality. I run down what is hostile to it. . . . Here personal interest comes to an end. This particular person who has stolen the basket is quite indifferent to my person. I take an interest only in the thief, this idea, of which that person presents an example. Thief and man are in my mind irreconcilable terms, for one who is a thief is not truly man. He dishonors man, or humanity, in himself when he steals. Departing from personal concern, we glide into philanthropy, which is usually misunderstood as if it were a love toward men, to each individual, whereas it is nothing but a love of man, of the unreal conception, of the spook. The philanthropist bears in his heart, not tous anthropous, men, but ton anthropon, man. Of course he cares for each individual, but merely for the reason that he would like to see his darling ideal realized everywhere.

"Thus there is no idea here of care for me, for you, or for us. That would be personal interest and belong in the chapter of 'earthly love.' Philanthropy is a heavenly, a spiritual, a priestly love. Man must be established in us, though we poor devils be brought to destruction in the process. It is the same priestly principle as that famous fiat justitia, pereat mundus. Man and justice are ideas, phantoms, for love of which everything is sacrificed: therefore the priestly minds are the ones that do sacrifice. . . .

"The most multiform things can belong and be accounted to man. Is his chief requisite deemed to be piety, religious priestcraft arises. Is it conceived to lie in morality, the priestcraft of morals raises its head. Hence the priestly minds of our time want to make a religion of everything; a religion of freedom, religion of equality, etc., and they make of every idea a 'sacred cause,' for instance, even citizenship, politics, publicity, freedom of the press, the jury, etc.»

— James L Walker (Tak Kak). Stirner on Justice. Liberty (March 26, 1887) vol. 4 no. 18 (whole no. 96) p. 7 [document 603]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2390 
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797 

URL related G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/8EkQwUApQ1u 
____________________ 

Excerpt from comments of source G+ post: 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
All private property is theft.
_________ 

Richardson Farrier Jul 12, 2015 +1
What?
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015 +1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

"Jean-Jacques Rousseau made the same general point when he wrote:

"The first man who, having enclosed a piece of ground, bethought himself of saying 'This is mine,' and found people simple enough to believe him, was the real founder of civil society.

From how many crimes, wars, and murders, from how many horrors and misfortunes might not any one have saved mankind, by pulling up the stakes, or filling up the ditch, and crying to his fellows:

 Beware of listening to this impostor; you are undone if you once forget that the fruits of the earth belong to us all, and the earth itself to nobody.""
_________ 

Aistis Raulinaitis Jul 12, 2015 +4
+Rodney Mulraney So when I mix my labor with the land, I'm stealing from whom?

Richardson Farrier Jul 12, 2015 +3
+Rodney Mulraney thanks for the clarification. However, if i cut a bit of stick off a tree and fiddled a bit of chipped flint onto the end of it then i believe that it would be my Fucking spear. It would be my private property, the fruits of my labour. Pretty hard to say that it isn't. I understand the land as property bit though.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 12, 2015 +4
+Rodney Mulraney

'Property is theft' stolen concept fallacy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRiCD9Cw80Y
3 min 39 sec
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
There are different concepts and levels of "ownership". Personal property and usage possesion, most people agree with, (within reason)... however the idea of fencing off regions and leaving "I own this" notes everywhere is theft.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 12, 2015 +3
+Rodney Mulraney "however the idea of fencing off regions and leaving "I own this" notes everywhere is theft."

No it isn't.

Libertarianism and Property Rights from First Principles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYloEOwKjjA
16 min
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
Well it was a shared resource, and then one person arbitrarily decided to claim it was just his/hers... in so doing he stole it from all other potential users in through all time...
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 12, 2015 +2
+Rodney Mulraney
If you didn't have a valid claim to something then it was never yours. Sorry. You aren't owed resources simply because you exist.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
Just arbitrarily claiming you owned land and resources is not itself valid. You have no right to claim the shared resources to yourself, that is theft.
_________ 

*Jon Thompson*Jul 12, 2015 +2
+Rodney Mulraney Who's claiming it's arbitrary?
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 12, 2015 +4
+Rodney Mulraney a shared resource is something owned in common by those who share it. Claiming a piece of such a shared resource would indeed be theft.

But saying that a piece of land that you've never used, never set foot on, never even seen, is your property, just because you exist, that's just hogwash. You've done nothing, provided nothing, to establish that claim. There is no objective link between you and the property in question. It's not yours, so claiming it cannot be theft.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
Anarchists... I am an Anarchist, you may hold to some other elitist view, but I do not.
If you read the book titled as the OPs handle here you will see how state theft of land, "private property" is one of the main ways states function... its part and parcel of state making...
Slavery, and property/land theft is how states are made.
If you had your "pure capilaistic" system and got rid of the state, you would just have corporate state-lets that expanded/merged etc... into the same system we have today... 
States generally only need forced slavery when populations are dispersed, with the population densities increasing they tend to switch to guarding land... 
_________ 

*Jon Thompson*Jul 12, 2015 +4
"...state theft of land, "private property" is one of the main ways states function."

The state is the antithesis of private property. Once the state steals land it's usually referred to as public property.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 12, 2015
States start off as a few people with evil ideas... 
Aka that people that claim resources that provide for all, so they can exploit others.
_________ 

Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 12, 2015 +3
States make arbitrary claims and try to own as much land as possible. Because the state is owned by the people, the more land the state owns, the less land can be owned privately, and the more land becomes a shared resource for the people. The state is communism/socialism-lite.
_________ 

* Rodney Mulraney* Jul 13, 2015 12:00 AM
States by any other name are still states, no matter how much you want a pure dictatorship to be called something else, it is still a "state"...
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:44 AM
+Rodney Mulraney

Ownership of land predates humanity. This is an objectively verifiable fact. Property rights can also be derived from first principles. They are perfectly rational.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:44 AM
+Jeremiah Mitchell Anarchists would say, if you live in it, then yes... we look at different types of "ownership" differently, and there is a broad ish spectrum.
I personally think "ownership" is a misleading word and wouldnt use it... 
We use stuff, we have stuff we have priority over to different extents for different reasons... 
But ownership... no, sorry... I do not see how any total ownership claim can be justified.
_________ 

Brian Boring* Jul 13, 2015 12:45 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney

Property is very simply a claim of moral jurisdiction. You have no right to arbitrarily limit what others can have a property in. Sorry.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:47 AM
+Brian Boring predates humanity ? hmm you make some strange assertions, but if you will not even outline a basic argument to support them, you might as well claim, you are tony blair so you are correct... 
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:48 AM
+Brian Boring The act of making a property claim is the act of limiting others rights to said property. You have no moral right to do that, and you provide no justification for it either.
_________ 

Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 12:48 AM +2
Well, no, anarchists would say yes, I do own it if I acquired it legitimately. Whether I lived in it or not, if it was acquired through voluntary means, then I own it according to anarchists. For a person to say I didn't own it and take it from me, would be for them to rule over me and my property, stealing from me the product of my labor. That person would not be an anarchist, but a statist who claims the right to the product of the labor of others.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:48 AM +2
+Rodney Mulraney

I've already provided you with the logical proof for property rights. Just scroll up and avail yourself of it.

If you don't believe that the concept of property exists in nature go into a bear's cave and tell it to stop stealing from the commons.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:49 AM
+Rodney Mulraney "The act of making a property claim is the act of limiting others rights to said property."

If I make a valid claim of property then no one else had one. Try again.

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:49 AM
+Jeremiah Mitchell Maybe you should find out what anarchy is actually about.. .instead of spouting such nonsense.
You are confused with the conflation of different types of possessive claims to things.
Anarchy is based on the rejection of "property" rights.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:50 AM +2
+Rodney Mulraney

Bubba over here wants to have sex with you. If you don't let him you are limiting his rights to your body.
_________ 

Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 12:50 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney Anarchy - No Rulers.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:50 AM +3
+Rodney Mulraney "Maybe you find out what anarchy is actually about.. .instead of spouting such nonsense."

Irony.

Anarchy means very simply no rulers. That's it. Stop trying to rule over other people and their property.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:51 AM
+Brian Boring Maybe you should find out what anarchy is actually about.. .instead of spouting such nonsense.
You are confused with the conflation of different types of possessive claims to things.
Anarchy is based on the rejection of "property" rights.
Also logic... 
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:51 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney "Also logic... "

You don't seem to know anything about logic. Feel free to try and refute the logical proof offered earlier though. I would love to hear that.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:52 AM
+Theodore Minick

What was that quote of Proudhon's you liked so much?
_________ 

Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 12:53 AM
+Rodney Mulraney Statism is based on the rejection of property rights, as the state exists by violating the property rights of its citizens. You keep describing characteristics of the State and calling it Anarchy.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 12:53 AM
The thing is that you want to make this idea of private property a core principle... 
I am saying we cannot do that, we need to justify use.
This means I can give arbitrary examples to show you are wrong, this proves your premise is actually false...
You need to prove it is universal, you cannot give arbitrary examples to do that, you can use a generic definition and then whenever someone gives an arbitrary example to counter that you have to either change your definition so it no longer falls for said example or admit your concept is false.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:55 AM +2
+Rodney Mulraney "The thing is that you want to make this idea of private property a core principle..."

No, self ownership is a core principle. Property rights extend from that. Do try to keep up.
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 12:57 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney hypocrisy invalidates any argument made from that hypocrisy.

If you did own a home, I'd assume you would let anyone who wants shit in your living room?

Otherwise you're limiting their rights to that property. And you wouldn't want to do that, would you?
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 12:58 AM +1
+Theodore Minick

You don't understand man. That's a totally different type of property, because... reasons!
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:11 AM
Look I'm interested in the issues and systems and stuff that people present, I am not interested in children's playground games.

The kind of free market libertarianism you are promoting is not taken seriously by many serious people anyway... 
A few people have tried to justify it in various ways, but it is clear they tend to fall at both ends and in the middle.
At the start you cannot justify the theft of the common resources, just by calling "dibs" on something... In the middle by mixing labour to get more for less, that cannot be justified it is just arbitrary and only means to the end of have everything owned as a private commodity for market trading... and at the end, since this just leads to dictatorships... 

Now this whole thing would work in the condition you already had an altruistic society, but we do not, and if we did they would freely trade in ways which seemed as if an invisible socialist hand was at work.
What we have at the moment is mixed societies where the attempt is often made to make a visible socialist hand to make the free market "workable"... 

Anarchy doesn't refer to the system you are promoting, it refers to libertarian socialism.

Your system opposes anarchist systems on the economic domination polarity, and you are literally opposite to anarchistic systems.
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 1:11 AM +1
" Nature, then, contains things that are economically scarce. My use of such a thing conflicts with (excludes) your use of it, and vice versa. The function of property rights is to prevent interpersonal conflict over scarce resources, by allocating exclusive ownership of resources to specified individuals (owners). To perform this function, property rights must be both visible and just. Clearly, in order for individuals to avoid using property owned by others, property borders and property rights must be objective (intersubjectively ascertainable); they must be visible. For this reason, property rights must be objective and unambiguous. In other words, “good fences make good neighbors.”
Property rights must be demonstrably just, as well as visible, because they cannot serve their function of preventing conflict unless they are acceptable as fair by those affected by the rules. If property rights are allocated unfairly, or simply grabbed by force, this is like having no property rights at all; it is merely might versus right again, i.e., the pre-property rights situation. But as libertarians recognize, following Locke, it is only the first occupier or user of such property that can be its natural owner. Only the first-occupier homesteading rule provides an objective, ethical, and non-arbitrary allocation of ownership in scarce resources. When property rights in scarce means are allocated in accordance with first-occupier homesteading rules, property borders are visible, and the allocation is demonstrably just. Conflict can be avoided with such property rights in place because third parties can see and, thus, sidestep the property borders, and be motivated to do so because the allocation is just and fair."
+Stephan Kinsella​​​, "Against Intellectual Property"

He then clears this up even further in "How We Come To Own Ourselves":

"However, the "first use" rule is merely the result of the application of the more general principle of objective link to the case of objects that may be homesteaded from an unowned state. Recall that the purpose of property rights is to permit conflicts over scarce (rivalrous) resources to be avoided. To fulfill this purpose, property titles to particular resources are assigned to particular owners. The assignment must not, however, be random, arbitrary, or biased, if it is to actually be a property norm and possibly help conflict to be avoided. What this means is that title has to be assigned to one of the competing claimants based on 'the existence of an objective, intersubjectively ascertainable link' between owner and the resource claimed.

Thus, it is the concept of objective link between claimants and a claimed resource that determines property ownership. First use is merely what constitutes the objective link in the case of previously unowned resources. In this case, the only objective link to the thing is that between the first user — the appropriator — and the thing. Any other supposed link is not objective, and is merely based on verbal decree, or on some type of formulation that violates the prior-later distinction. But the prior-later distinction is crucial if property rights are to actually establish rights, and to make conflict avoidable. Moreover, ownership claims cannot be based on mere verbal decree, as this also would not help to reduce conflict, since any number of people could simply decree their ownership of the thing.

So for homesteaded things — previously unowned resources — the objective link is first use. It has to be by the nature of the situation."
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:14 AM
+Theodore Minick Anyone can presuppose their position, there are lots of alternatives and we need to compare and contrast them... not just presuppose one, and then rationalize it to make us feel better... 
_________ 

Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 1:17 AM +3
+Rodney Mulraney Your system sets up rulers over the property of others. Your system is a different form of government that rules over others. Anarchy cannot mean what you say it does. Find a different word. I suspect "communism" would be a good one.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 1:19 AM
+Rodney Mulraney

I've provided you with the full logical case for property rights. You can either keep evading or actually provide the refutation you said was so easy.
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 1:20 AM
+Rodney Mulraney I didn't presuppose my position. The position is clearly reasoned out.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:20 AM
Mine doesn't +Jeremiah Mitchell .. I say we should reason about things depending on the situation, reason together and make decisions, based on valid justifications...
You claim people can rule vast areas... you should not use the word "anarchy" to represent what you believe, because that is actually being inconsistent.
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 1:20 AM
+Rodney Mulraney

Still waiting on that refutation~
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 13, 2015 1:21 AM
+Brian Boring To what ? please provide your argument ?
_________ 

Brian Boring Jul 13, 2015 1:28 AM +1
+Rodney Mulraney

Libertarianism and Property Rights from First Principles
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uYloEOwKjjA
16 min

The full logical proof of our position. Have fun trying to refute it.
_________ 

Jeremiah Mitchell Jul 13, 2015 1:45 AM +2
+Rodney Mulraney
I'm all for reasoning about things with valid justifications too. If I build a home on a piece of unowned land, the home is mine. What is invalid about this justification?

Ruling over property is far different than ruling over a person. I suppose my assumption about anarchy is that it is about interpersonal relationships, not that it applies to everything. I rule over food every time I eat it without guilt, so I suppose in that sense I am not an anarchist.
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 1:51 AM +2
+Rodney Mulraney 
Let's walk through the reasoning behind property rights, okay? You'll need to participate, though, because if I just data dump, you apparently shut down. So we'll go step by step. That way, you can point out a flaw in my logic, if there is one. Sound fun?

Let's begin with scarcity. This is, unfortunately, an undeniable fact of reality. TANSTAAFL. There's a finite amount of resources to use. You probably don't dispute this. Even air, as abundant as it is, is economically scarce. If all the plants stopped photosynthesis, we'd all die in rather short order.

So, that's the first step. The world is full of things which are economically scarce. Can you refute that?
_________ 

Nathan Myron Jul 13, 2015 2:53 AM +2
If I am the first to ever happen upon this land, I call it mine, build my home and use it to my will. If you wish to share in the bounty of this property, approach me and establish a contract acceptable to both sides, and we do business. Or find another parcel of land. Or make an offer I cannot refuse so that I part with my property rights for your offered items/services, and I will go find other land or seek to do as you have just done elsewhere. Seems the logical conclusion once you remove the state from the middle saying 'all unclaimed are belong to us'.
_________ 

Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 4:04 AM +1
I really don't want to wade all the way in on this one, but I would like to point out an issue I noticed:

In Mr. Killian's video, he begins by saying that axioms and propositions that are considered "first principles" do not have to be defended.

This is patently false. Axiomatic expressions are merely beginning points that must be accepted by the reader on good faith so that the argument the author wants to make can be expanded succinctly. It says nothing to the truthfulness of the assertion expressed by the axiom. The single most potent way of dismantling an argument is, in fact, to refute its axioms.

Conversely, if Mr. Killian means to say that because he considers some axiom a "first principle" that he has no personal obligation to defend it, whatever argument follows from it is a bare assertion and, therefore, fallacious [although it could still turn out that some or all of the following argument is true].

Kind regards! :D
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 4:09 AM +3
ax·i·o·mat·ic
adjective
self-evident or unquestionable.
_________ 

Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 4:15 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axiom
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/axiom
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 4:24 AM +2
"As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy."

ie: self-evident or unquestionable.
_________ 

Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 4:25 AM
And you read literally nothing else of it?
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 4:35 AM +3
And you watched literally nothing else of the video? The first principles he goes on to use are, indeed, so self-evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. Unless you have found something that is itself and it's antithesis simultaneously?
_________ 

Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 5:11 AM +1
You might notice that I did not critique the arguments presented in the video. That was intentional. It is because, as I said, I did not wish to wade into the content of the argument presented on this thread. My point had specifically to do with the style of argumentation presented in the video.

To make a philosophical claim predicated upon an axiom is to presuppose its truth (that is, the truth of the axiom). But that someone presupposes the truth of some assertion, the axiom of their argument, does not automatically make it, the axiom, true. It only indicates that they suppose it to be true and predicate their argument that follows upon it.

The way that the term "axiom" is applied in logical proofs is different. It is as I describe in my original comment, and that description is supported by both of the links I posted. I believe this is relevant to this discussion because Mr. Killian appears to be forming a logical proof: Libertarianism and Property Rights. If his intention is not to form such a logical proof than I clearly overshot, and I'll apologize and walk away.

Before we get too far along, let me point out that Mr. Killian explicitly states, and I quote, "...the only way for the conclusion to be wrong would be for these first principles to be wrong as well". So, clearly, in Mr. Killian's view, axiomatic expressions can indeed be wrong -- even though he insists, earlier, that axioms don't need to be defended.

This assertion is consistent with my critique.
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 5:33 AM +2
Given his earlier statement, I would interpret that as saying, "The conclusion cannot be wrong."
_________ 

Geoffrey Davis Jul 13, 2015 6:28 AM
If he means that first principles cannot be wrong, then yours would be the correct interpretation. He doesn't say that, precisely, though. In fact, I gave two possible interpretations I believed were consistent with his description -- I wasn't sure which he was actually asserting -- but you rejected both of those and proposed one I hadn't received at all. So I'm not sure we'll make any headway following this line of discussion.

Suppose we conduct this as a thought experiment instead.

Let us suppose we have a cosmology that asserts axiomatically that the Earth is the center of the universe, and other celestial bodies orbit it. This is historically factual. We know this was an axiom of ancient cosmology because it was presented as self-evident and treated as literally true and literally indisputable, even to the extent that dissenters were regarded as insane, and sometimes executed. [This is what "axiom" means in the context of philosophy: we simply assert something -- geocentric cosmology in our example -- is true.]

As a matter of logical proof we can say that some premise X follows from some axiom Y. But that premise X follows from axiom Y tells us nothing of whether Y is true, even though we have asserted it axiomatically. For example, we can assert that celestial bodies circle the Earth in a curlicue pattern based upon the geocentricity axiom and the observed paths of celestial bodies as viewed from Earth (and this is what early cosmologists believed). This must be true as long as the geocentricity axiom holds true and the curlicue paths are correctly observed. If we challenge this axiom and find it cannot stand up to reason or evidence, we must reject it and replace it with one that does. And, with regard to geocentricity, we have. [This is what "axiom" means in the context of logical proof. And this is what I was critiquing in Mr. Killian's video.]
_________ 

Theodore Minick Jul 13, 2015 6:51 AM +3
+Geoffrey Davis
Except the axioms presented are self-proving.

A is A is not something that can be disproved by a satellite. You'd literally need to find something that is itself and its antithesis simultaneously.

Given that matter and antimatter annihilate each other, I wish you luck.
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 14, 2015 5:58 AM
+Zephyr López Cervilla TLDR, (too long didn't read)... you need to do small summaries of idea and if needed link to fuller explanations... 
It is actually a form of "trolling" to post so much in a comment.. Try to be concise... 
I skimmed through it though, and it seemed to fail with the projection of its own misunderstanding... it is not the case that ;

If private property is wrong (with its criteria), then common property is right... 

It doesn't necessarily have to be property of anyone at all, or if so it can come with so many constraints as to "uncontrollable" by the "owners"

You essentially argue against a straw man, because you present a false dichotomy.

I haven't actually read the guy that came up with that quote, but from the commentaries I have read about it... it is clear that the idea of property and ownership is the thing that is contended... 
I mean it is obvious to a certain extent, we do not think of a lot of things as owned.. we merely accept responsibility for looking after them... like children, the idea of ownership there is fundamentally out of place. 
Some of us extend that principle to air, oceans, land, all life and ecology itself, as well.
_________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 14, 2015 7:53 AM
+Rodney Mulraney: "It is actually a form of "trolling" to post so much in a comment.. Try to be concise..."

— I don't care what others may think is "trolling". I make my comments in the form I see fit.

+Rodney Mulraney: "If private property is wrong(with its criteria), then common property is right..."

— There's no such thing you call "common property", i.e., owned by everyone (not to be confused with communal tenure/commons, a form of collective ownership).

+Rodney Mulraney: «It doesnt necessarily have to be property of anyone at all, or if so it can come with so many contraints as to "uncontrollable" by the "owners"»

— As Stirner points out, the "possesseur or usufruitier" is also an owner ("propriétaire"), since he is who benefits of the fruit of the land, therefore the fruit is his property.

On the other hand, your desire to abolish property, or to impose constraints over it is also a concealed way to conquer property (something on which you exert control) on behalf of some "noble cause" as a pretext.

+Rodney Mulraney: "You essentially argue against a strawman, because you present a false dichotomy."

— It's me who does, or Stirner?

+Rodney Mulraney: "I mean it is obvious to a certain extent, we do not think of a lot of things as owned.."

— Who is "we", the people who think like you?
On the other hand, it's irrelevant what they may "think" if their conduct shows otherwise.

+Rodney Mulraney: "we merely accept responsibility for looking after them..."

— Who is "we", a bunch of self-righteous environmentalists?

+Rodney Mulraney: "like children, the idea of ownership there is fundamentally out of place."

— No, it isn't:

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) 7 (3)
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html 

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984, vol. 1, pp. 2810–2820. Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006.
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984 

URL related G+ pots with excerpts:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Ma5vMdWAhUN 
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/HDSymtDL8uM 

+Rodney Mulraney: "Some of us extend that principle to air, oceans, land, all life and ecology itself, as well."

— I figured. Anyhow, notice that you claimed that "All private property is theft", not only property over certain objects or beings.
You may be interested in reading this passage (again?). I suspect you're committing the kind of intellectual misstep described here:

« Every one criticises, but the criterion is different. People run after the "right" criterion. The right criterion is the first presupposition. The critic starts from a proposition, a truth, a belief. This is not a creation of the critic, but of the dogmatist; nay, commonly it is actually taken up out of the culture of the time without further ceremony, like e. g. "liberty," "humanity," etc. The critic has not "discovered man," but this truth has been established as "man" by the dogmatist, and the critic (who, besides, may be the same person with him) believes in this truth, this article of faith. In this faith, and possessed by this faith, he criticises. »
~Max Stirner.
(pp. 171-172)
df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf 
_________ 

Rodney Mulraney Jul 14, 2015 8:10 AM +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla Well it is fairly easy to imagine scenarios where this idea of total ownership / private property becomes silly... so that is why we start to prescribe various conditions.. which limit the complete ownership of things... 
The extreme ends of the spectrum are no limits at all and total limitation - ie no real meaningful "ownership"
Since it is doubtful either of us is promoting such a total extreme view, maybe we should be discussing, where the lines are to be drawn and why...
Self consistent philosophical grounding of the extremes is easy, and largely purely academic and not actually of much practical concern except to the extent they can molded into more practical systems... even if they get unyielding complex... hence our current systems ... shrug.... 
_________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+Notbeinggoverned-dotcom/posts/Y3RofPS92kZ 
____________________ 
http://www.notbeinggoverned.com/on-morality/ ... - The Art of Not Being Governed: Google+
15
4
Hongry Jack's profile photoJerome Marshall's profile photo
Add a comment...
 
Comment deleted from Atheism community:

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 5, 2015 7:43 PM [UTC]
+Jesse Powell: "I can see replacing the word "Science" with "Reason" or "Humanism", but "Modern Religion"?"

— You seem ill informed. Humanism is a religion, you just have to read their manifestos and declaration:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_Manifesto#Humanist_Manifesto_II 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Declaration 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism#Manifestos_and_declarations 

They don't even refrain from proselytising. On the contrary, they encourage it: 

«I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level—preschool, daycare, or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new—the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent with its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy neighbor” will finally be achieved.»

— John J. Dunphy. A Religion for a New Age. The Humanist. January-February 1983
secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/3452 


+Jesse Powell: «"Modern Religion" is an oxymoron in my opinion.»

— In such case you must ignore the meaning of oxymoron:

oxymoron
«a figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true ).»
google.com/search?q=define+oxymoron 


+Jesse Powell: "your comment implied that the image on the left (a woman astronaut) was a natural outcome of modern religion"

— That's right. The image of Statist religion. Certainly not an image representative to science. The Manned Space Program has little to do with real science. This situation has been denounced by a few honest scientists (as opposed to mercenaries) who have dared to speak out, "sacred cows" who may not fear as much the possible retaliations such as Steven Weinberg:

«"The International Space Station is an orbital turkey," said Steven Weinberg, a particle physicist at the University of Texas at Austin and a co-recipient of the 1979 Nobel Prize in physics. "No important science has come out of it. I could almost say no science has come out of it. And I would go beyond that and say that the whole manned spaceflight program, which is so enormously expensive, has produced nothing of scientific value." »

« "Human beings don't serve any useful function in space," Weinberg told SPACE.com. "They radiate heat, they're very expensive to keep alive and unlike robotic missions, they have a natural desire to come back, so that anything involving human beings is enormously expensive."»

«"All the others have been put on the back burner," Weinberg said. "This is at the same time that NASA's budget is increasing, with the increase being driven by what I see on the part of the president and the administrators of NASA as an infantile fixation on putting people into space, which has little or no scientific value." »

— Ker Than. Nobel Laureate Disses NASA's Manned Spaceflight. Space.com. September 18, 2007
space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned-spaceflight.html 


«Sam Dinkin, The Space Review (TSR): You called the International Space Station (ISS) an “orbital turkey” and got the media’s attention. Do you think it’s a turkey shoot to pick on the ISS because they didn’t really even schedule any science for the first couple of decades of the project?

Professor Steven Weinberg: Yes, I think the ISS is just one example of NASA’s ridiculous overemphasis on manned spaceflight. It may originally have been intended to serve as a platform for going on to the Moon and Mars, but then the orbit was changed to make it accessible to Russian rockets. As a result it doesn’t even have that. There have been continual efforts to justify it in terms of science done on the ISS. It’s hard for any one scientist to judge work across a range of fields. I can say that in my own field, which is fundamental physics and astronomy, especially cosmology, it has produced nothing. I would have heard.»

— Sam Dinkin. An interview with Steven Weinberg. The Space Review. January 14, 2008
thespacereview.com/article/1037/1 

«Space-based astronomy has a special problem in the US. NASA, the government agency responsible for this work, has always devoted more of its resources to manned space flight, which contributes little to science. All of the space-based observatories that have contributed so much to astronomy in recent years have been unmanned. The International Space Station was sold in part as a scientific laboratory, but nothing of scientific importance has come from it. Last year a cosmic ray observatory was carried up to the Space Station (after NASA had tried to remove it from the schedule for shuttle flights), and for the first time significant science may be done on the Space Station, but astronauts will have no part in its operation, and it could have been developed more cheaply as an unmanned satellite. »

— Steven Weinberg. The Crisis of Big Science. The New York Review of Books. May 10, 2012
nybooks.com/articles/archives/2012/may/10/crisis-big-science 


The notion of the State as a god, and therefore, Statism, the worship and veneration of god the State, as a religion, is nothing new. That view was already advanced in the 17th century by Thomas Hobbes, already in the Modern era:

«But today, I want to talk about sovereignty. There are two great concepts that come out of Hobbes that you have to remember. One is the state of nature and the other is sovereignty. I spoke a bit about the first one yesterday or Monday rather. Today, I want to talk about Hobbes's theory of the sovereign state, the creation of the sovereign. Hobbes refers to the sovereign as a mortal god, as his answer to the problems of the state of nature, the state, the condition of life being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. And it is only the creation of the sovereign for Hobbes, endowed or possessed with absolute power, that is sufficient to put an end to the condition of perpetual uncertainty, anxiety and unrest that is the case of the natural condition. »

— Steven Smith. The Sovereign State: Hobbes, Leviathan [October 25, 2006] Chapter 1. Introduction: Hobbes's Theory of Sovereignty. PLSC-114: Introduction to Political Philosophy. Open Yale Courses
oyc.yale.edu/transcript/789/plsc-114 

«In such condition, there is no place for industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving, and removing, such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.»

— Thomas Hobbes. Leviathan. (1651-1668)
bartleby.com/34/5/13.html 
__________________ 

Excerpt from previous comments:

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 5, 2015 5:34 PM [UTC]
Modern Religion vs. Medieval Religion
________ 

Jesse Powell Jul 5, 2015 5:46 PM [UTC] +1
lol. "modern religion"
________ 

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 5, 2015 6:05 PM [UTC]
"Modern" from the modern period: 
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_history 
________ 

Jesse Powell Jul 5, 2015 6:24 PM [UTC] +1
+Zephyr López Cervilla your comment implied that the image on the left (a woman astronaut) was a natural outcome of modern religion vis-a-vis medieval religion which produces women in burkas. 

That seems nonsensical to me. I can see replacing the word "Science" with "Reason" or "Humanism", but "Modern Religion"? Not really. Not to mention, there seem to be no end of religious people in my country (USA) who seem bound and determined to undermine science, women, freedom, and drag us back to the middle ages.

"Modern Religion" is an oxymoron in my opinion.
________ 

brian james Jul 5, 2015 6:54 PM [UTC]
+Jesse Powell Modern Religion is not really a oxymoron but just the newest version of an old story. 
________ 

Jesse Powell Jul 5, 2015 8:42 PM [UTC]
+Atavistic By Nature did you happen to delete my last comment in reply to +Zephyr López Cervilla ? I mean the one where I define humanism. If so, I find that troublesome.
________ 

URL source G+ post: 
plus.google.com/+IntensitaliansDick/posts/UZMZMSe8AZJ 
__________________ 

URL Atheism community:
plus.google.com/communities/113720470105476954465 

About this community
Place to share anything and everything about Atheism.
This community will be moderated lightly and it is public.
In the interests of encouraging discussion, please do not disable comments on your posts here.
This is NOT a place to come if you are religious. We do not want to be 'saved' and are not interested in debate with you. There are other communities which encourage and want debate.
If you need privacy try our private community.
Posts by pages will be limited there.

Old pinned post on current moderation policy
plus.google.com/+AdrianTodd/posts/UsQ3JJ1BD1t 
__________________ 
37
2
Honest Ape's profile photoray salmon's profile photoLisa Short's profile photoMaksymilian Misiurski's profile photo
12 comments
 
+Zephyr López Cervilla that was interesting, nice to hear some common sense in a blog that's so lacking in it. 
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
 
The McNugget Conundrum
I want to write about Chicken McNuggets. When I added a fast food component to my business, I wondered about seemingly strange Chicken McNugget pricing.
6 comments on original post
3
1
arromazam pepe's profile photoAlex Kambas's profile photo
 
I did ask myself the same question, and my satisfying answer (to myself, that is) was that people will get the 20 pieces option for 2 people that will be under the impression that one of them will be getting their nuggets for free, when in reality they will be buying a second portion of fries and drink that will be lost to M for a single person dinner.
Add a comment...
Zephyr's Collections
People
In his circles
1,032 people
Have him in circles
5,438 people
Martijn Roelandse's profile photo
NOEL francess's profile photo
Kateryna Artyushkova's profile photo
David Jenkins's profile photo
Consumer Debt Counselors's profile photo
Environmental Issues / Impact's profile photo
Shawna Tregunna's profile photo
Jen Davison's profile photo
ABC Television Network's profile photo
Places
Map of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has livedMap of the places this user has lived
Currently
Spain
Previously
Melilla - Tarragona - Puigpelat - Valls - France - Hospitalet de Llobregat - Romania - Mexico - Belize - Guatemala - Munich - Brighton
Links
Other profiles
Story
Introduction
INTERESTS: 

1. Science: 
- Biology: Molec. Biol., Cell Biol., evo-devo, Palaeontology, Biol. of Aging, 
- Physics: Particle Phys., Quantum Phys., Astrophys., Phys. Cosmol., 
- Chemistry: Biochem., Phys. Chem., Nucl. Chem., Org. Chem., 
- Geology.  

2. Politics: Egoist Anarchism (Benjamin Tucker, Max Stirner), Individualist Anarchism, Anarcho-capitalism, libertarianism.
- Against Government, against democracy, against nationalism, against taxation, pro-NAP (based on self interest).
- Pro-free competition, pro-currency competition, pro-commodity money. 
- Pro-choice. Against child and animal rights, pro-liberty.
- Against compulsory healthcare, against compulsory retirement plan, pro-free association.

3. Economics: 
- Austrian School of economics (Hayek, Mises), 
- Pro-Market Liberalism, 
- Against intellectual property rights (patent rights, copyright), 
- Pro-commodity money.

4. Religion: None (old-fashioned atheist, anti-Humanist with a capital 'h'). 

5. Sports: 
- Barefoot running
- Trekking
- Free-diving
- Biking
- Rugby

5b. Sports Follower: 
- Formula One

6. Music: 
- Baroque: Selected works
- ClassicismSelected works
- RomanticismSelected works
- Late RomanticismSelected works
- 20th CenturySelected works

7. Popular Music: 
- Selected works

8. Literature:
- Selected works

9. Cinema 
- Selected works

10. TV Series 
- Selected works

11. Animation Series 
- Selected works

12. Comedians 
- Selected comedians (e.g., George Carlin, John Bird and John Fortune, Rory Bremner)

13. Foods & Drinks 
No salt, no oil, no butter, no smoked, no grilled, no canned, no meat, no eggs, no refined or processed foods (except for fermented and soy foods), mostly vegetarian.
No juices, no sodas, no alcohol, teas (Pu-erh, Oolong, Gunpowder, Matcha, Darjeeling, Ceylan, Sencha). 

My Google+ Timeline: 

All my Google+ posts and statistics: 
Bragging rights
I was blocked by the following individuals: Mike Elgan (plus.google.com/+MikeElgan), Karl Stevens (plus.google.com/+KarlStevens), Sarah Kavassalis (plus.google.com/+SarahKavassalis), Cheryl Ann MacDonald, Psy'D. (plus.google.com/+CherylAnnMacDonald), Douglas Blaack (plus.google.com/117074027161556621187), Preston McDonald (plus.google.com/118039299115248335651), Ed Towel (plus.google.com/102425623932443870720), Sara Del Valle (plus.google.com/+SaraDelValle), Joachim Wahl (plus.google.com/116291280885390060143), Jim Carver (plus.google.com/+JimCarver), Reo Cruz (plus.google.com/+ReoCruz), Will Hawkins (plus.google.com/+WillHawkins), Víktor Bautista i Roca (plus.google.com/+VíktorBautistaiRoca), Euro Crisis News Overview (plus.google.com/100895452069456400573), Peter Bromberg (plus.google.com/+PeterBromberg), Lacerant Plainer (plus.google.com/+LacerantPlainerWrites), Jennifer Isaacs (plus.google.com/112672803186037423528), Guy Kawasaki (plus.google.com/+GuyKawasaki), Filippo Salustri (plus.google.com/+FilippoSalustri), Mike Davey (plus.google.com/111317071041190612226), Paul T Morrison (plus.google.com/+PaulTMorrison), Homer Slated (plus.google.com/102946757503830834230), David Anders (prpplague) (plus.google.com/101339419642360856354), David Röll (plus.google.com/+DavidRöll), Johanna Maria (plus.google.com/+AntoinetteJanssenSpheresAndElements), Betsy McCall (plus.google.com/+BetsyMcCall), Ken MacMillan (plus.google.com/115234319467908018169), Marla Hughes (plus.google.com/+MarlaHughesFL), Jonathan Langdale (plus.google.com/+JonathanLangdale), Cod Codliness (plus.google.com/+CodCodliness), Ronald Stepp (plus.google.com/+RonaldStepp), Michael Ireland (plus.google.com/+MichaelIreland), Auggie Steyr (plus.google.com/115874288149385079815), Ryan Groe (plus.google.com/+RyanGroe), Jena Troelsgaard (plus.google.com/+JenaTroelsgaard), emma jones (plus.google.com/103246505645024560635), Daniel J Stern (plus.google.com/+DanielJStern), Furr Beard (plus.google.com/+FurrBeard), Justin Templer (plus.google.com/103483290565724825117), Luke Meiritz-Reid (plus.google.com/103092230275920982390), Tom Barron (plus.google.com/105947181714241031212), José Ignacio Mora (plus.google.com/101825433798019054266), Tonia Hall (Pashta) (plus.google.com/+ToniaAddisonHall), Mickey Blake (plus.google.com/114039590766519744909), RAMONREVOLUTION PUNK (plus.google.com/115077963892552055766), Cheesy Mac (plus.google.com/108473899331309681299), Brian Boring (plus.google.com/109523639475912314853). Interestingly, I have never even talked to some of these people. More details at plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/h88gY5vV2Ae
Education
  • University of Barcelona
    Licentiate Biology (Biomedical), 2004 - 2009
Basic Information
Gender
Male