Profile

Cover photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
5,461 followers|1,007,788 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
False Analogies et al.

«Rational People: Use data and reason to arrive at truth. (This group is mostly imaginary.)

Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking. This group is 99% of the world.

Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves. This group is about 1% of the population and effectively control the word-thinkers of the world.

If you’re a trained scientist, engineer, or other technical person, you might use data and reason sometimes, especially while others are watching and checking your work. But off-duty – and when it comes to anything important – we’re all irrational creatures who believe we are rational. At least that’s how trained persuaders see the world.

You can easily spot word-thinkers when they talk about politics. Their go-to strategy involves identifying enemies and fitting them into whatever category matches their biases and cognitive dissonance. »

« The most annoying strategy of the word-thinkers and their master persuaders involves defining a group by its worst members. »

— Scott Adams. How Persuaders See the World. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). July 18, 2016.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021/how-persuaders-see-the-world


False analogy, definitions y examples:

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/181/Weak-Analogy
http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/examples-of-false-analogy.html
http://www.fallacydetective.com/news/read/false-analogy
http://www.toolkitforthinking.com/critical-thinking/anatomy-of-an-argument/irrelevant-arguments/false-analogy
http://www.mometrix.com/academy/false-analogy
https://mediationchannel.com/2009/08/03/fallacious-argument-of-the-month-the-false-analogy
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/false_analogy
http://thenonsequitur.com/?cat=23
http://thor.clark.edu/smitgm/102/Falsean.htm


On the nature and purpose of false analogies:

• Scott Adams. The Belgium Analogy. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert. com). March 22, 2016.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/141490448161/the-belgium-analogy

• Scott Adams. "Bumper Sticker Thinking." Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert. com). March 19, 2016.
http:// blog.dilbert. com/post/141310196656/bumper-sticker-thinking

• Scott Adams. Let’s Talk About Hitler. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert. com). March 10, 2016.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/140800778006/lets-talk-about-hitler

• Scott Adams. A Voter’s Guide to Thinking. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert. com). December 14, 2015.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/135197159371/a-voters-guide-to-thinking
1
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
I've been running barefoot (really barefoot, that is, with nothing covering my feet) intermittently since early 2011 (more than 1000 km, most of it during 2011).

I've been running mostly on agglomerate pavement and concrete sidewalks, but also part of my runs were along mountain paths made of whatever there's there.

A number of my barefoot runs were beyond 30 km and several hours each, mostly mountain roads combined with a few kms of dirt-and-gravel paths.

Most road pavements and sidewalks are by far the easiest surfaces. Only the rougher asphalts (the ones with protruding gravel) are hard to step.

In my view, the hardest surfaces are those of the very steep mountain paths covered with pointy rocks. The dirt tracks with loose gravel all around aren't very comfortable either, but you can learn how to minimise the pressure against the gravel.

The most serious toil doesn't affect to your soles but rather your ankles and metatarsals of your feet. I had to give up running for a very long period precisely because of a chronic injury in one of my ankles (a tendon in the inner side of it). Fortunately, I eventually recovered from it.

The trick to run for a long distance and time without blisters is to control the temperature of your soles (apart from some adaptation of your skin). The faster you run, the easier will be to get blisters because of the added friction. Likewise, cooler days (or nights) will allow you to run at a faster pace, at least for relative short distances (6-8 km). Step on puddles from time to time can also help cool your soles.

Very rarely you will pierce your skin by stepping on something pointy. First of al because you rarely step on very pointy things. the visible pieces of glass aren't really a serious issue, even if you step on them (although they're quite visible since they shine). They won't pierce your soles.

The problem comes from the very thin, needle-like glass (or sometimes of other materials, plant thorns and the like) that you can't even see from a few inches away that will get stuck inside your skin. It may take you a big effort to get them out. I used to run with a sewing needle just in case I needed to rummage inside my skin.

Occasionally, you may also rip your skin but not by stepping on something pointy, just from repetitive abrasion to a particular hotspot. For instance, the part of the skin where one of your toes touches the ground 8this will most commonly happen running on rough agglomerate pavement). It isn't common, though, but is not very pleasant to have to run back home with bleeding foot.

From my experience I recommend relatively short barefoot runs (less than an hour or 10 km) mixed with other longer runs with shoes (you may introduce minimalist shoes but gradually to prevent the risk of stress fractures in your metatarsals). If you try running over longer distances and routinely (as I did), you'll at risk of injuring some joint due to the overload. with shorter, faster runs you won't overload those joints. Stepping softly makes some of your joints work harder.

FWIW, sand is not a particular good surface to improve your running gait, although it may be very physically demanding. I can't personally say much about grass because where I live there's no grass. From other runners' experience, I remember that they didn't recommend it because you can't really spot what may be there, hidden among the grass. besides, since it's a soft surface you won't probably learn proper running technique if that's your goal.


https://plus.google.com/+WardPlunet/posts/2twbwwBbCwv
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2016-07-barefoot-optimize-technique-injury.html
Study indicates running barefoot helps optimize technique and reduces risk of injury In light of the results, Soto points out: "Training based on… - Ward Plunet: Google+
1
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photoSteve Lolyouwish's profile photo
5 comments
 
Interesting. I've always been a very fast, natural sprinter and my heels never touch the ground when I'm sprinting. If I'm running a few miles it's different, but it's one thing I noticed I do. I've been intrigued by CrossFit, which my wife also did for a bit -- not that I'll end up doing it, but the CrossFit models intermediate grip might be nice since I would primarily be running on concrete or asphalt pavement, maybe a bit of dirt/hiking.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Percentage of blacks over that period: ~12%
Percentage of non-Hispanic whites over that period: ~66%
US population over that period: ~2.95e8 pop.

Rate of non-hispanic whites killed by police:
2151*1e5 / (2.95e8*0.66) ≈ 1.10 per 100,000 pop.

Rate of blacks killed by police:
1130*1e5 / (2.95e8*0.12) ≈ 3.19 per 100,000 pop.

3.19 per 100,000 pop. > 1.10 per 100,000 pop.

Rate of non-hispanic whites victims of black violence:
320,082*1e5 / (2.95e8*0.66) ≈ 164 per 100,000 pop.

Rate of blacks victims of white violence:
62,593*1e5 / (2.95e8*0.12) ≈ 177 per 100,000 pop.

177 per 100,000 pop. > 164 per 100,000 pop.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_African-American_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_non-Hispanic_white_population
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_the_United_States
1
Duncan Panthera (Shurroth)'s profile photo
 
The way it's spun is by dividing the number of victims by the population of their demographic to achieve a percentage of said demographics in order to demonstrate a supposed "likeliness" that a black person will be a victim compared to whites.
Victim stats above are 0.1% of the US white population vs 0.4% of US black population. When these numbers are twisted in this manner, it presents a claim that a black person is 4 times more "likely" to be a victim of racially motivated violence.
Nevermind http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bvvc.pdf page five where a black person is SEVEN times more likely to be a victim of violent crime from another black person than a white person.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
How to Cook a Government. Step 1: Get to Know Its Smoke Point

«The primary goal of government is its own credibility.»

«no matter what the government is trying to accomplish, its macro-responsibility is to maintain its own credibility. Governments without credibility devolve into chaos. Credibility has to be job one.

Consider all the different government systems around the world, and all the different laws they created. The Chinese government is different from the United States government, which is different from Jordan’s government, which is different from Great Britain. But each of those governments is credible to its own people, and that’s the key. The specific laws and the specific forms of government don’t matter too much, so long as the public views its own local system as credible.»

«This gets me to FBI Director James Comey’s decision to drop the case against Hillary Clinton for her e-mail security lapses. To the great puzzlement of everyone in America, and around the world, Comey announced two things:

1. Hillary Clinton is 100% guilty of crimes of negligence.

2. The FBI recommends dropping the case.

From a legal standpoint, that’s absurd. And that’s how the media seems to be reacting. The folks who support Clinton are sheepishly relieved and keeping their heads down. But the anti-Clinton people think the government is totally broken and the system is rigged. That’s an enormous credibility problem.

But what was the alternative?

The alternative was the head of the FBI deciding for the people of the United States who would be their next president. A criminal indictment against Clinton probably would have cost her the election.

How credible would a future President Trump be if he won the election by the FBI’s actions instead of the vote of the public? That would be the worst case scenario even if you are a Trump supporter. The public would never accept the result as credible.

That was the choice for FBI Director Comey. He could either do his job by the letter of the law – and personally determine who would be the next president – or he could take a bullet in the chest for the good of the American public.»

«Thanks to Comey, the American voting public will get to decide how much they care about Clinton’s e-mail situation. And that means whoever gets elected president will have enough credibility to govern effectively.

Comey might have saved the country. He sacrificed his reputation and his career to keep the nation’s government credible.»

— Scott Adams. The FBI, Credibility, and Government. Scot Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). July 7, 2016.
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147045002381/the-fbi-credibility-and-government

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
http://www.seriouseats.com/2014/05/cooking-fats-101-whats-a-smoke-point-and-why-does-it-matter.html
3
alias inkhorn's profile photo
 
I'm aghast at this guy's reasoning.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
State Worship Is Religion

«Takeaways
The reason Statism doesn't fit into the definitions of race, ethnicity, or culture cleanly is because it's a lie. Statism is just a religion trying to make itself out of more than it is, just like other religions do.
I am NOT suggesting to leave your country. But recognize that you are not Americans, you are atheist, descendants of nationalists from a specific area, who share a culture from that area, which includes public/concerted schooling and other indoctrinations.
I AM stating that it is wrong to call yourself American. This is just Statism taking credit for things it doesn't deserve, and using guilt to perpetuate the myth.
America is not "our country" - that's just marketing. There is no need to support it blindly, just because their state religion is American patriotism.
You are not hurting your family, disgracing your heritage, or helping the Nazis by telling the truth. You are NOT enabling another Holocaust. These are lies meant to manipulate you into lying.
Honesty, to oneself and others, is a mitzvah.» (1:36:25)

— Adapted from a Dave Silverman's speech.
https://youtu.be/4NQOnjswuFI?t=5785 (102 min)

Excerpt from YouTube comment thread:

Soundcomplex Shared publicly - Jun 30, 2016
Atheism doesn't mean to be left. But you may have noticed that you can't Reach a high conservative Position without being a believer.
You might want to have a chat with David Silverman on the topic.
You might want to rethink your Position.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 2, 2016 1:28 PM [UTC]
David Silverman is still an American nationalist.
______

Soundcomplex Jul 2, 2016 1:43 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Exactly. He is not a leftist at all.
And he is an outspoken atheist.
So the premise that atheist=leftist is simply untrue.
If the political right in the Us would not tie themselves so much to christianity, far more atheist would be conservative.

But as it is now, the us would rather vote a muslim to be their president, than an outspoken atheist.

Thats exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent.
Conservative does not mean christian, and leftist does not mean atheist.
Its a false premise.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 2, 2016 3:33 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex, I didn't claim that David Silverman was a leftist. I said that Siverman is a nationalist, and therefore, a statist. Apparently, Molyneux's criticism against "atheists" seems to be at least partially aimed at them being pro-government rather than leftists. Someone could be leftist and still against government (e.g., left anarchists). On the other hand, you can be conservative and at the same time statist (e.g., Winston Churchill, Charles de Gaulle, Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger, Ronald Reagan).

+Soundcomplex: "Thats exactly what the founding fathers wanted to prevent."

— The so called "Founding Fathers" didn't found any state, the US budded from the British Empire. The so called "American Revolution" was actually a war of secession. A smaller piece of state became independent (sort of) from a bigger state.

+Soundcomplex: "Conservative does not mean christian, and leftist does not mean atheist."

— Conservative does not mean anti-state. It's worth to remember than all known states in history have been created and expanded by religious people, and that from the beginning governments have always sought legitimacy in religion (e.g., in Ancient Egypt).

I recommend you to have a loo to the following book to see the link between the State and religion:

• James C Scott. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale Agrarian Studies; Yale University Press (2009)
(amazon.com/dp/0300169175)
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed)
kat.cr/the-art-of-not-being-governed-an-anarchist-history-of-upland-southeast-asia-yale-agrarian-studies-james-c-scott-2009-pdf-t7423482.html

Today, the priests of Ancient Egypt has been just replaced by the caste of scientists, a new sort of infallible and incontestable authority:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/5guXUiXUVSX
______

Soundcomplex Jul 2, 2016 6:58 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Today, the priests of Ancient Egypt has been just replaced by the caste of scientists, a new sort of infallible and incontestable authority:"
Are you really serious?
Science is a process, and a method. It changes following the evidence. Its the opposite of a religious dogma.
And where do you think that atheism comes into play?
On one side you claim that atheists are "pro state", on the other hand you claim that "It's worth to remember than all known states in history have been created and expanded by religious people, and that from the beginning governments have always sought legitimacy in religion (e.g., in Ancient Egypt)."
Which would mean that the opposition would be that Atheists are "anti-state" which is of course equally ridiculous.

So i wonder where you are going with this.

I appreciate your correction concerning the founding fathers though, although i think that everybody understood what i meant with that sentence. And i do not even start with some of them being atheists, which would be a counter argument to the claim that all states were founded on religion.
Moste european states are not, and in fact, most states (not all) which were founded on religion, were very oppressive against minorities, or other religious groups.
ie. the slaughtering of Hindus by the millions in the time of the islamic expansion (mogul era).

But thats the kind of discussion i would love to hear between Stefan and David Silverman.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 2, 2016 10:23 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex: "Are you really serious?
Science is a process, and a method."

1- Straw man argument. I clearly said "scientists", not "[s]cience".
2. Science is neither a process nor a method. Science means knowledge, and that's what it is. I'm aware that certain people want to restrict the term to a particular kind of knowledge, but I find utterly unnecessary.

+Soundcomplex: "Its the opposite of a religious dogma."

— Except for scientific dogma, right? For instance, that the laws of nature are constant over time.

+Soundcomplex: "On one side you claim that atheists are "pro state", on the other hand you claim that . . . Which would mean that the opposition would be that Atheists are "anti-state" which is of course equally ridiculous."

— You may have noticed that I wrote "atheists" between quotation marks. That is because I was specifically referring to the so called "atheists" that Molyneux is talking about. In my view, those self-proclaimed "atheists" who dogmatically defend the State are not truly atheists since for them Statism is a religion and the State their god, as Thomas Hobbes would refer to it: "a mortal god".

On the other hand, there's nothing "ridiculous" nor contradictory about those "atheists" being pro-State and the State having been created by religious people. Many of those "atheists" also probably take a day off on Christmas Day, a celebration of religious creation (be it Christian or pagan festivity).

+Soundcomplex: "Science is a process, and a method. It changes following the evidence."

— I bet that the ancient Egyptian priests also had very persuasive arguments (for the people of their time) to support that their knowledge was intrinsically superior to everybody else's knowledge, because… shit. Three thousand years from now, what you call "Science" will be essentially perceived as sheer priestcraft.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 2, 2016 10:38 PM [UTC]
More about scientific dogmatism:

• Susan Haack. Peer review and publication: lessons for lawyers. Stetson L. Rev. (2006) vol. 36 pp. 789
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1089072
http://www.stetson.edu/law/lawreview/media/peer-review-and-publication-lessons-for-lawyers.pdf

• Susan Haack. Trial and error: The Supreme Court's philosophy of science. American Journal of Public Health, Forthcoming (2003)
http://128.40.111.250/evidence/content/haack.pdf

• Susan Haack. Science, Scientism, and Anti-Science in the Age of Preposterism. Skeptical Enquirer vol. 21.6 (Nov/Dec 1997)
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/science_scientism_and_anti-science_in_the_age_of_preposterism

• Susan Haack. Six Signs of Scientism. 2009
http://www.uta.edu/philosophy/faculty/burgess-jackson/Haack,%20Six%20Signs%20of%20Scientism.pdf

• Susan Haack. Defending Science Within Reason: Between Scientism and Cynicism. Amherst, NY: Prometheus. A critical assessment by a logician and philosopher of science (2003)

Talks:

• Susan Haack. Six Signs of Scientism. Rotman Institute of Philosophy at the University of Western Ontario. January 7, 2011.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0QmS783Kmw (96 min)

• Susan Haack. The Integrity of Science: What It Means, Why It Matters. Institute for the Study of Western Civilization and Department of Philosophy at Texas Tech University. April 30, 2013.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?vCQ1N_NKqFjU (64 min)
______

Soundcomplex Jul 3, 2016 7:46 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla "— Except for scientific dogma, right? For instance, that the laws of nature are constant over time."

When any counter evidence arises, the scientific community will follow the evidence.
Until now, they are constant.
I am sorry, thats the only point i found thats worth responding too.

Your source for scientific dogmatism all come from a single person, your idea that "self proclaimed atheists" are no real atheists, is just.... well crap. Its like saying that muslims are no real muslims if they are not peaceful, or that self proclaimed homosexuals are no real gays.
Who else decides if I am an atheist if not myself?
And Stefan is dead wrong in this video, thats what my comment was all about, thats why its ridiculous to cite HIM as an authority if the comment thread is full with people claiming him to be dead wrong, dont you think?
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jul 3, 2016 4:08 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex: "the scientific community will follow the evidence.
Until now, they are constant."

— That's what any rational person would call a dogma. There's absolute no evidence that the laws of nature remain constant over a long period off time. Cosmologists would rather believe in the existence of something they've coined "dark energy" than consider that the laws of nature may change over time. The "scientific community" isn't following any evidence on that matter.

+Soundcomplex: "I am sorry, thats the only point i found thats worth responding too."

— The expected emotional reaction of a dogmatist.

+Soundcomplex: "Your source for scientific dogmatism all come from a single person,"

— Even assuming that the above statement were accurate, you'd be committing a basic logical fallacy. The correctness of an statement isn't a matter of popularity or consensus.

+Soundcomplex: «your idea that "self proclaimed atheists" are no real atheists, is just.... well crap.»

— Not an argument.

+Soundcomplex: "Its like saying that muslims are no real muslims if they are not peaceful, or that self proclaimed homosexuals are no real gays."

— And that's a false/weak/bad analogy:

«Description: When an analogy is used to prove or disprove an argument, but the analogy is too dissimilar to be effective, that is, it is unlike the argument more than it is like the argument.»
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/181/Weak-Analogy

More about the manipulative use of analogies:

• Scott Adams. The Belgium Analogy. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). March 22, 2016.
blog.dilbert.com/post/141490448161/the-belgium-analogy

• Scott Adams. Bumper Sticker Thinking. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). March 19, 2016.
blog.dilbert.com/post/141310196656/bumper-sticker-thinking

• Scott Adams. Let’s Talk About Hitler. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). March 10, 2016.
blog.dilbert.com/post/140800778006/lets-talk-about-hitler

• Scott Adams. A Voter’s Guide to Thinking. Scott Adams' Blog (Dilbert.com). December 14, 2015.
blog.dilbert.com/post/135197159371/a-voters-guide-to-thinking

+Soundcomplex: "Who else decides if I am an atheist if not myself?"

— How about learning first what atheism is from a reputed source such as Encyclopaedia Britannica? In the following article you'll find a full transcript of the Britannica article on atheism:

On the Definition of the Words Atheism and Atheist. EvilBible.com.
evilbible.com/definition-of-atheism
exminister.org/Nielsens-definition-atheism.html
americanatheism.wordpress.com/2011/11/01/541

• Kai E Nielsen. Atheism. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
global.britannica.com/topic/atheism

About the author:
Kai Nielsen (philosopher). Wikipedia.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Nielsen_(philosopher)

+Soundcomplex: "Stefan is dead wrong in this video, thats what my comment was all about, thats why its ridiculous to cite HIM as an authority"

— A further fallacy, a straw-man argument. I never cited him as an authority. I simply refer to him to specify the kind of "atheists" Molyneux was referring in his video. Namely, those who believe in the existence of the state and/or dogmatically defend it:

+Zephyr López Cervilla: «You may have noticed that I wrote "atheists" between quotation marks. That is because I was specifically referring to the so called "atheists" that Molyneux is talking about. In my view, those self-proclaimed "atheists" who dogmatically defend the State are not truly atheists»

On the other hand, even if Molyneux is "dead wrong" on some issues it doesn't necessarily mean that he must be wrong in everything else. Either way, I never cited "HIM" as an authority to support any of the conclusions of my arguments.
______

Soundcomplex Jul 3, 2016 4:38 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla What the heck is your point?
______

Zephyr López Cervilla 7:55 PM [UTC]
+Soundcomplex, dude, I told you already in my first comment: David Silverman wouldn't be a good replica to counter Molyneux because Silverman is a nationalist who believes that he must defend the state he calls "America". In the following speech you can hear David Silverman when suggesting such thing (from 38:40 to 39:30):

• Dave Silverman. "I'm an Atheist (And So Are You); Why I've Changed My Mind on Jewish Atheism". FreeThought Arizona. Tucson, October 2013.
https://youtu.be/4NQOnjswuFI?t=2320 (102 min)

To counter Molyneux's arguments, you would need an atheist anarchist or some atheist who doesn't believe in the State but is willing to perpetuate the myth of the State for self interest. Someone like a civil servant or a politician who rationally thinks that he or she is better off with a widely held belief in the State even though he or she is a non-believer in the State.
______

URL source YouTube comment thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqQdc0mX1_c&google_comment_id=z12avrmqmqqienjhw04cd5zhsmf5udpo43g
______________

Larken Rose explains more articulately this same argument in the following video:

• Larken Rose, Harvey Lester (video editor). Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion. Liberty or Death Media. September 25, 2014.
youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0 (13 min)

As for the State being a god for those who defend it, this idea isn't actually particularly new. It was already formulated by Thomas Hobbes in the 17th century:

«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

(p. 7) «At a time when the state seems pervasive and inescapable, it is easy to forget that for much of history, living within or outside the state—or in an intermediate zone—was a choice, one that might be revised as the circumstances warranted. A wealthy and peaceful state center might attract a growing population that found its advantages rewarding. This, of course, fits the standard civilizational narrative of rude barbarians mesmerized by the prosperity made possible by the king’s peace and justice—a narrative shared by most of the world’s salvational religions, not to mention Thomas Hobbes.

This narrative ignores two capital facts. First, as we have noted, it appears that much, if not most, of the population of the early states was unfree; they were subjects under duress. The second fact, most inconvenient for the standard narrative of civilization, is that it was very common for state subjects to run away. Living within the state meant, virtually by definition, taxes, conscription, corvée labor, and, for most, a condition of servitude; these conditions were at the core of the state’s strategic and military advantages.»

— James C Scott. The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia. Yale Agrarian Studies; Yale University Press (2009)
(amazon.com/dp/0300169175)
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed)
kickass.to/the-art-of-not-being-governed-an-anarchist-history-of-upland-southeast-asia-yale-agrarian-studies-james-c-scott-2009-pdf-t7423482.html


I noticed an equivocation with the meaning of "government", a term that is used with different meanings in different cultures and languages. What many Americans call "government" quite often corresponds to what other people call the "state". For instance, the title of the work by Frédéric Bastiat "L'état" ("The State") quite often is translated as "Government". E.g.,

«"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."»
http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

Original in French:

«L’État, c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.»
http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html

Translation into Spanish:

«El Estado es la gran ficción a través de la cual todo el mundo se esfuerza en vivir a expensas de todo el mundo.»
http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html

But not always:

«The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.»
http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html

«The State
is the great fiction
through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.»
http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html

— Frédéric Bastiat. The State [L'État]. Journal des Débats (1848) vol. 4 (September 25, 1848) p. 332
http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html
http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
French: http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html
English: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
Spanish: http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html

Clearly what is tangible is not the State, but rather the people who represent it and work for it, what in French and Spanish would be called the government of the administration of the state. That's the equivalent to the Church or its clergy, whereas the intangible State would be the worshiped god (as Thomas Hobbes rightfully referred to it in Leviathan, see above), and Statism (the belief and worship in the State) the religion.
______

URL source comments G+ posts:
plus.google.com/109211348423783563895/posts/AQ7BA4Wi8o3
plus.google.com/109211348423783563895/posts/5X3CA89Mmxk
______________

URL related G+ posts:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/XzKeko4tb3p
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Xk3Q6kCTC6r
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/etRpPcFbH3s

plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/fkwuszusZ9b
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/CcV6rqc2mbr
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/Ywg1DhGHGyz
______________
2
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
 
«Tras algo menos de medio año sin gobierno y con el verano a la vuelta de la esquina, la falta de un ejecutivo en nuestro país tan solo preocupaba a un 4,8% de los españoles según el CIS.»
http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2016-07-06/el-cis-explica-por-que-gano-el-pp-1276577888

— El mejor gobierno es aquel que gobierna menos, y aquel que gobierna menos es ningún gobierno en absoluto:

«THE BEST GOVERNMENT IS THAT WHICH GOVERNS LEAST.»

— Motto of "The United States Magazine, and Democratic Review." (1837-1859)
https://books.google.com/books?id=vulAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR1

«The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly on the industry and property of the community. Such power must be perpetually liable to the most pernicious abuse, from the natural imperfection, both in wisdom of judgment and purity of purpose, of all human legislation, exposed constantly to the pressure of partial interests; interests which, at the same time that they are essentially selfish and tyrannical, are ever vigilant, persevering, and subtle in all the arts of deception and corruption. In fact, the whole history of human society and government may be safely appealed to, in evidence that the abuse of such power a thousandfold more than overbalances its beneficial use. Legislation has been the fruitful parent of nine-tenths of all the evil, moral and physical, by which mankind has been afflicted since the creation of the world, and by which human nature has been self-degraded, fettered, and oppressed. Government should have as little as possible to do with the general business and interests of the people.»

— John L O'Sullivan. The Democratic Review: An Introductory Statement of the Democratic Principle. (1837)
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/jackson/demo.htm

«Hence, the less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man, of whom the existing government, is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation.»

— Ralph Waldo Emerson. Politics. (1844)
http://www.emersoncentral.com/politics.htm
http://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/politics.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(essay)

«I heart­ily accept the motto, — “That gov­ern­ment is best which gov­erns least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rap­idly and sys­tem­at­i­cally. Car­ried out, it fi­nally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That gov­ern­ment is best which gov­erns not at all;” and when men are pre­pared for it, that will be the kind of gov­ern­ment which they will have.»

— Henry David Thoreau. Civil Disobedience. (1849)
https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=rtcg
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=DEVJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA215

«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.»

— 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 [doc. no. 790, 791, 794]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n33/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism

Incorrectly attributed to Thomas Jefferson in 1853:

• April Hunt. So says Thomas Jefferson? You might reconsider. Politifact. September 3, 2014.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2014/sep/03/jody-hice/so-says-thomas-jefferson-you-might-reconsider

«L’État, c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.»
http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html

«El Estado es la gran ficción a través de la cual todo el mundo se esfuerza en vivir a expensas de todo el mundo.»
http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html

«The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.»
http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html

«The State
is the great fiction
through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.»
http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html

«"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."»
http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

— Frédéric Bastiat. L'État. Journal des Débats (1848) vol. 4 (September 25, 1848) p. 332
http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html
http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
Fr: http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html
En: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
Es: http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Carol Davis Jun 26, 2016 6:39 PM [UTC]
Trump is so ignorant and clueless has zero experience in politics, governmental laws, international affairs, foreign policy and lacks the ability to use diplomatic dialog.

Censored reply:
+Carol Davis, "political experience" is synonymous of being a professional criminal:

• Larken Rose, Harvey Lester (video editor). Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion. Liberty or Death Media. September 25, 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6uVV2Dcqt0 (13 min)

Examples:

• Lemnitzer LL (Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff). Justification for US Military Intervention in Cuba (TS). The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense. March 13, 1962.
• Blouin FJ and Ingelido MJ (Joint Secretariat). Note by the Secretaries to the Joint Chiefs of Staff on Northwoods (S). The Joint Chiefs of Staff, Department of Defense. JCS 1969/321. March 12, 1962.
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/index.html
PDF: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

Operation Northwoods. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Reading of the declassified document:

• Larken Rose. Wacky Conspiracy Theories! May 19, 2014.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KbCfRE3JQwA (14 min)

Gulf of Tonkin incident. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_Resolution

Hillary Clinton Email Archive. WikiLeaks.
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails

Extra scenes:

#1: Cops murdering an individual in the streets of NYC, accused of having been selling "loosies."
Highlights (3 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfXqYwyzQpM
Full recording (11 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpGxagKOkv8
Version with comments (13 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-xHqf1BVE4
Verdict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Eric_Garner
About the verdict (4 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov4nrS_TqU0

#2: Cops murdering a customer in a Walmart in Beavercreek, Ohio.
Recording from the surveillance cameras (2 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XYNOTUWfHE
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/25/father-ohio-man-walmart-killed-police-john-crawford
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/30/police-officer-shot-john-crawford-walmart-lied-victims-mother-says
Verdict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_John_Crawford_III
About the verdict (6 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ratDCTm3LQ
About the verdict (19 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUcFFxC87Y0

#3: Cops murdering an individual in front of his wife and daughter at the exit of a cinema theatre in Moore, Oklahoma.
Video (6 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6ptuQfV4q0
Video plus commentary (8 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PbI5HHz7fJU
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/26/justice/oklahoma-arrest-death-video
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/horror-five-cops-beat-innocent-unarmed-father-death-outside-cinemas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States,_February_2014

#4: cops killing a dog in front of the owner in the streets of Los Angeles.
Highlights (4 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKXIjQA1e30
Video plus commentary (12 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9fCK6Y0bu4
Cops fabricating the facts (7 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mi2l1ujefRA
Recording from several cameras plus commentary (13 min): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkC_fJ9vft8

#5: cop throwing a police dog to attack a man to arrest him for riding a bicycle with no lights, letting the dog maul the man in Punta Gorda, Florida.
photographyisnotacrime.com/2016/06/florida-cop-allows-dog-maul-man-riding-bicycle-no-lights
Highlights (8 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6W_ZMZK3Mo
Full recording (18 min): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWN_eW_ruuk


Anne-Marie Clark Jun 26, 2016 7:20 AM [UTC]
Elaborate conspiracy-theory laundry list deleted. Comments now closed.

Reply:
Fascist, the bare facts are too nasty for you to keep your cognitive dissonance at a tolerable level, so you had to resort to the use of censorship and delete them.

URL source comment G+ post (censored reply):
plus.google.com/+AnneMarieClark/posts/BxauQtzApYf
URL re-shared G+ post (2nd reply):
plus.google.com/+YonatanZunger/posts/ZiT9uJhKvPk
1
Rebecca's profile photo
Rebecca
 
I don't think Trump is a big government guy. Hillary on the other hand is another satan like Obama.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Christian Zionism
The military and economic support that the US Government provides to the State of Israel has a religious Christian motivation:

«Researchers found evangelicals see a close tie between God and Israel. About 7 in 10 (69 percent) say the modern nation of Israel was formed as result of biblical prophecy. A similar number (70 percent) say God has a special relationship with the modern nation of Israel. And nearly three-fourths of evangelicals (73 percent) say events in Israel are part of the prophecies in the Book of Revelation.»

— Ed Stetzer. NEW RESEARCH: Should Christians Support Israel? Most Pastors Think So. The Exchange, ChristianityToday.com. July 14, 2015.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/edstetzer/2015/july/new-research-should-christians-support-israel-most-think-so.html

«There are some 50 million Evangelicals in the US who believe in the literal truth of Bible prophecy. You can argue theological accuracy all you want. This massive block of citizens possesses unshakable belief that the end of the world will be heralded by a series of prophetic events some of which have occurred (e.g. 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina) some of which are ongoing (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan).»

«Millions of Evangelicals share one political belief even more sacred perhaps than opposition to abortion or same-sex marriage: The belief that Israel must remain a Jewish state forever.

If that sounds unfamiliar or contradictory, then you’ve never spent much time listening to Evangelicals. End Times theology declares that the Jewish people must maintain control of Israel and Jerusalem, and retake the Al-Aqsa Mosque (a/k/a the Dome of the Rock), or Jesus won’t return. Period. Understand, they are talking about mankind’s ultimate salvation. And if that means embracing foretold disasters and wars including the Battle of Armageddon, so be it.»

«This is no small sect. Evangelicals control some 60,000 US radio stations. They meet in 25,000-member megachurches and sit on school boards and legislatures across the country. As the Rev. Mel White, former ghostwriter for Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham and Pat Robertson puts it, “They are everywhere and they are not going away.”»

— David Heilbroner. Evangelicals, Israel, and the End of the World. The Huffington Post. March 18, 2010; updated May 25, 2011.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-heilbroner/evangelicals-israel-and-t_b_391351.html

«Second, the world's Christians ask that you do not give away the treasured symbols of your spiritual patrimony.

I read recently in The Wall Street Journal an article written by an American Jewish commentator who remarked that the Temple Mount and what is termed the "Wailing Wall" are "sacred stones and sites," but hardly worth bloodshed.

Just think -- the place where the Patriarch Abraham took Isaac to offer him to God. The place bought by King David from Araunah where the Angel of the Lord stood with drawn sword. The place of Solomon's temple. The place of the Holy of Holies. The place where Jesus Christ walked and taught. The very spiritual center of the Jewish worship of the one true God -- nothing but a pile of sacred stones -- unworthy of sacrifice? What an incredible assertion!

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake -- the entire world is being convulsed by a religious struggle. The fight is not about money or territory; it is not about poverty versus wealth; it is not about ancient customs versus modernity. No. The struggle is whether Hubal, the Moon God of Mecca, known as Allah, is supreme, or whether the Judeo-Christian Jehovah God of the Bible is Supreme.

If God's chosen people turn over to Allah control of their most sacred sites-if they surrender to Muslim vandals the tombs of Rachel, of Joseph, of the Patriarchs, of the ancient prophets-if they believe their claim to the Holy Land comes only from Lord Balfour of England and the ever fickle United Nations rather than the promises of Almighty God-then in that event, Islam will have won the battle. Throughout the Muslim world the message will go forth-"Allah is greater than Jehovah. The promises of Jehovah to the Jews are meaningless.

"We can now, in the name of Allah, move to crush the Jews and drive them out of the land that belongs to Allah."

In short, those political initiatives that some have asserted will guarantee peace, will in truth guarantee unending struggle and ultimate failure. Those political leaders who only understand the secular dimension of Israel's existence and who cavalierly dismiss the spiritual dimension will find that they receive the mess of pottage of Esau rather than the inheritance of Jacob.»

— Pat Robertson. Why Evangelical Christians Support Israel. PatRobertson.com.
http://www.patrobertson.com/Speeches/IsraelLauder.asp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Robertson

Christian Zionism. Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Zionism

Christian terrorism. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

• Ewen MacAskill. George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'. The Guardian. October 7, 2005.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

•  "G.W. Bush talks about God and War"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzjCHlRA_Yc ( 2 min)

GW Bush admits that the motive of the so called Islamist terrorists isn't religious buy to achieve a political goal (minutes 4 and 5):

Does God Talk to Bush? The Young Turks. December 9, 2008.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dFTpJCEn8A (9 min)

«Israel is generally portrayed by the U.S. mass media as the victim of terrorism, a characterization that is in part correct. Its own role as a major perpetrator of state terrorism is consistently downplayed or ignored, in accordance with the general principle, discussed earlier, that violence employed by ourselves or by our friends is excluded from the category of terrorism, by definition. The record of Israeli terrorism, however, is substantial, far too extensive even to attempt to sample here.»
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/terrorism.html

Jewish terrorist organizations:
• Israel Defense Forces / Tsva ha-Hagana le-Yisra'el ("The Army of Defense for Israel")
• The Mossad / HaMossad leModiʿin uleTafkidim Meyuḥadim (""Institute for Intelligence and Special Operations"")
• Irgun
• Lehi
• Haganah
• Palmach
• Brit HaKanaim
• "Kingdom of Israel" / Malchut Yisrael, o "Tzrifin Underground"
• Gush Emunim Underground
• Keshet (Kvutza Shelo Titpasher)
• Lehava
• Sikrikim
• "Terror Against Terror" / "Terror Neged Terror" ("TNT")
• "The Revolt terror group" ("Revolt")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence

Some Jewish terrorist attacks:
http://www.rense.com/general21/pastzionist.htm
1
Add a comment...
Have them in circles
5,461 people
Babul Chatterjee's profile photo
Adista mote's profile photo
Viney Varughese's profile photo
KELVIN ABRAHAM's profile photo
Thung Mew Choo's profile photo
Shay Johnson's profile photo
David Barrow's profile photo
Keith Blunt's profile photo
‫احمد *‬‎'s profile photo

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
A Racist and Statist Definition for "Traitor"

Adrian Azzopardi: «There's nothing more pathetic than an anti-white White.
(or she just might be jewish?)»

Adrian Azzopardi: «Maybe this one will answer your question: "If I had but one bullet and were faced by both an enemy and a traitor, I would let the traitor have it."
- Corneliu Codreanu»


— She's not a traitor since she's never voluntarily joined a coalition with all the other white people in the world.

«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.»

— Max Stirner. The Ego and His Own. (1845), English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (1st English edition, 1907)
(pp. 415-417) gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
(pp. 155-156) df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
(pp. 238-239) theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own


Adrian Azzopardi: «That would only be relevant to a Libertarian fantasy world. Max Stirner's quote is far-removed from reality. One is automatically assumes an ally, if he/she is afforded the luxury to coexist unmolested within a given community. A citizen's consent is understood to be in tact without the need of having to sign a contractual agreement. If still unsure, select any conflict in human history and research the meaning of the term 'traitor'.»


+Adrian Azzopardi: "One is automatically assumes an ally, if he/she is afforded the luxury to coexist unmolested within a given community."

— That sounds to me like Statist bullshit. Statists also make that sort of false assumptions. They also claim that the individual owes allegiance to their government because it protects them with cops, armies and a court system (and roads).

I don't owe you anything for the fact that you didn't attack me. The only thing that has guaranteed this woman protection from the attacks of a given community (a white community or otherwise) is their fear of retaliation (from herself or her close relatives and friends).

To live "unmolested" is not a "luxury", it's simply the result of one's might.

+Adrian Azzopardi: "A citizen's consent is understood to be in tact without the need of having to sign a contractual agreement."

— More Statist bullshit. It reminds me of the so called "Social Contract" that nobody has ever signed.

+Adrian Azzopardi: "select any conflict in human history and research the meaning of the term 'traitor'."

— I don't care your Statist History. Your "human history" is the history of unfree individuals, parasitic religious castes and tyrants. The history of ruling classes indoctrinating the populace to follow their commands and be willing to sacrifice for the sake of their leaders. That history stinks.


+Adrian Azzopardi: «If reality sounds like bullshit, there's nothing I can do for you.

The logical choice before us, is not between The State and Statelessness, but between a corrupt nation state and a righteous nation state. Case in point, the Weimar Republic and The Third Reich.

The luxury of coexisting unmolested pertains to the security awarded simply for being recognised as a national of a particular nation. Though, should you choose to turn against the nation, as traitors often do, then the nation shall take the necessary measures to neutralize the threat and, hence, safeguard all nationals and their cultural heritage. It is through the nation's age-old legal framework that helps decides whether one's a traitor, not the traitor himself.

I implore you, please come down to earth.»


+Adrian Azzopardi: "The logical choice before us, is . . . between a corrupt nation state and a righteous nation state."

— A "righteous nation state" is an oxymoron. Can a rapist or a murderer be righteous? The State can never be "righteous" since it is built on a great usurpation (bold fonts mine for emphasis):

«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]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2797
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n63/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/resistance-to-taxation

+Adrian Azzopardi: "Case in point, the Weimar Republic and The Third Reich."

— As for goodies of the Weimar Republic (not to mention the hyperinflation period):

«By the time of Weimar, German doctors had become accustomed to cooperating with the government in the provision of medical care. The reforms of the Weimar Republic following the medical crises of World War I included government policies to provide health care services to all citizens. Socially minded physicians placed great hope in a new health care system, calling for a single state agency to overcome fragmentation and the lack of influence of individual practitioners and local services. The focus of medicine shifted from private practice to public health and from treating disease to preventable health care.»

«After 1933, the connection between the theory and practice of politicized medicine advocated by many in Weimar Germany became actual in Nazi Germany.»

«The sterilization law had been drafted earlier under the Weimar Republic as part of progressive health reform, and as late as 1961 was defended by an expert at the Max Planck Institute on the basis that “every cultured nation needs eugenics, and in the atomic age, more so than ever before.”»

— Marc S Micozzi MD. National Health Care: Medicine in Germany, 1918-1945. The Freeman (November 1, 1993) vol 43 (11)
thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/
fee.org/articles/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945
files.meetup.com/214224/National%20Health%20Care%20-%20Medicine%20in%20Germany%201918-1945.doc

+Adrian Azzopardi: "The luxury of coexisting unmolested pertains to the security awarded simply for being recognised as a national of a particular nation."

— Statist Buuuuuul Shiiiiiit !
You might learn something by reading Max Stirner instead of parroting the Statist dogma with which you were indoctrinated.

«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).»

«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.»

– Max Stirner, 1845.

Stirner may be many things, but one thing is sure, his work will never be used by any government to brainwash the simple-minded populace.

You also might learn something from the writings of a mature Benjamin Tucker, one of the Stirner's postumous disciples:

«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.»

«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.»

— 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]
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n39/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866

+Adrian Azzopardi: "should you choose to turn against the nation, as traitors often do, then the nation shall take the necessary measures to neutralize the threat and, hence, safeguard all nationals and their cultural heritage."

— When your moment comes, your "nation" won't save you. You are but a dispensable pawn to those whom you've pledged allegiance by assuming their discourse, Mr. tick.
_________

URL G+ post source comments:
plus.google.com/110074735955196489718/posts/CuBCwMCAmSa

URL related G+ post:
plus.google.com/110074735955196489718/posts/Zjt7kRjZFFn
____________________
There's nothing more pathetic than an anti-white White. (or she just might be jewish?) - Adrian Azzopardi: Google+
1
1
Joshua Schmidlkofer's profile photoZephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
2 comments
 
Both are racist. She's racist because of her prejudices against white people, and "Corto Maltese" is racist because he expects, or even demands from her some sort of racial loyalty toward those of her same race, to the point that he considers her a "traitor".
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
The Non-Aggression Principle (NAP) According to N Stephan Kinsella

According to +Stephan Kinsella and others (e.g., apparently, Douglas B Rasmussen, I think that's the author that Kinsella actually meant to mention), the Non-Aggression Principle isn't a moral principle but just a rule to be applied in case of disputes (Kinsella explicitly explains such argument from minute 60 to 63):

• Stephan Kinsella and Todd Lewis (debaters), Keith Preston (moderator). Debate: Is the NAP and Self-Ownership True? 'Praise of Folly Podcast' ep. 21 & 'Kinsella on Liberty' (July 8, 2016) ep. 213 [68 min]
http://www.stephankinsella.com/paf-podcast/kol213-praise-of-folly-podcast-episode-21-debate-with-todd-lewis-is-the-nap-and-self-ownership-principle-true
Audible here (since the YouTube video won't play):
http://www.stitcher.com/podcast/stephan-kinsella/kinsella-on-liberty/e/kol213-praise-of-folly-podcast-episode-21-debate-with-todd-45256045
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/kinsella-on-liberty/id595093254

Kinsella says that libertarian principles (including the NAP) aren't moral principles, nor a proper subset of ethics, nor a guide to human action, but a guide to what laws are justified, a guide to what institutional responses are justified.

There are certain actions that can be considered immoral that may not constitute aggression, and conversely, there may be certain actions that may be considered aggressions but not necessarily immoral. Kinsella gives some example of each.

David Friedman mentions a few more examples here:

[From 9:00 to 14:00]
• David D Friedman (guest) and Jeff Berwick (host). David Friedman: The Machinery of Freedom! Anarchast (July 28, 2015) ep. 231 [45 min]
anarchast.com/anarchast-ep-231-david-friedman-the-machinery-of-freedom
youtube.com/watch?v=hggDncmTfMw?t=540 (45min)

Comment:
I don't agree with Kinsella on a couple of issues.

I think Kinsella is wrong when he says that the pregnant woman has invited the "child" into his womb, so it isn't a trespasser. The woman didn't invite it because it's been always her property: The ovum was produced by her body, therefore her property; the fertilised egg cell was still her property; the growing embryo still remained her property and developed using the nutrients of her body, which were also her property. Her "better claim" over her body and its resulting byproducts has never been interrupted over all that period of time.

On the other hand, Kinsella claims that at some point in early pregnancy the child becomes "self-owner" (i.e., owner of its body), yet, over the course o the debate he doesn't give a single argument to justify it.

The second argument I disagree with is the criterion that Kinsella uses to justify who the owner of a body is, which seems to me an ad hoc argument. Kinsella claims that a person is the owner of their body because they have a better claim over it, since they have a more intimate control over such body than anyone else.

First of all, his claim isn't necessarily true. A medical doctor who is passing electric currents through electrodes inserted in your brain or who is administering intravenously to your body a cocktail of drugs may have more intimate control of your body than even yourself. A patient who is attached to a machine on life support is more intimately controlled by that machine than by his will.

Second, such criterion would make other animals, plants and other living organisms owners of their bodies as well. Kinsella might argue that those other living organisms aren't making any claim over their bodies (what in the case of certain animals may be debatable).

In such case, I'd respond that human embryos, newborns and infants aren't making any claim either. So where's the dispute? Why to apply any criterion to settle disputes when there's no dispute or conflict between the "child" and the "mother"?

Perhaps didn't Kinsella claim that the libertarian property allocation rules were meant to decide in cases of disputes among "people"? well, there are no such disputes among "mothers" and immature "children", since those "children" are unable to make any claim that challenges the claim of their "mothers". And who else in better position to claim the property of the child's body than the person whose body the child's body derives from?

Other genuine libertarians like Benjamin Tucker or even Murray Rothbard use a "slightly" different criterion to assign the owner of a body. To them, the criterion of assigning ownership to the individual with more intimate control over a body doesn't mean much if it doesn't come with the capacity to express the will of that individual to have exclusive control over it.

That's why they don't recognise self-ownership (in the case of Rothbard, only full self-ownership) until the moment of the child's emancipation. For Rohbard, the "mother" is the exclusive owner of the "child" until its birth, whereas for Tucker, the "mother" is the exclusive owner of the child's body until the child's emancipation.

References:

• Benjamin R Tucker. A Sound Criticism. Liberty (June 29, 1895) vol. 11 no. 4 (whole no. 316) pp. 3-4 [document no. 2033-2034]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/06/29/a-sound-criticism library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3004

• Benjamin R Tucker. L’Enfant Terrible. Liberty (August 24, 1895) vol. 11 no. 8 (whole no. 320) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2070-2071]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/lenfant-terrible library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3008

• Benjamin R Tucker. On Picket Duty. Liberty (September 7, 1895) vol. 11 no. 9 (whole no. 321) p. 1 [document no. 2075]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/07/on-picket-duty library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3009

• Benjamin R Tucker. What Is Property? Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) pp. 4-5, 8 [document no. 2086-2087, 2090]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/what-is-property library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010

• Benjamin R Tucker. Defence of Whom and by Whom? Liberty (November 2, 1895) vol. 11 no. 13 (whole no. 325) p. 3-5 [document no. 2109-2111]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3013

• Benjamin R Tucker. Rights and Contract. Liberty (December 14, 1895) vol. 11 no. 16 (whole no. 328) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2134-2135]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/12/14/rights-and-contract library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3016

Commentary about the work on this question with some quotes (second half of the article):

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) vol. 7 (3)
Reproduced by the author here:
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html

• Carl Watner. "Spooner vs. Liberty." The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984. Mises Institute (2006)
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984

• Murray N Rothbard. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. (1973, 1978). Ludwig von Mises Institute (2006) [p. 132]
mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto

• Murray N Rothbard. "Chapter 14. Children and Rights." The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press (1982)
goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983?doc=31040

Further reading:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_B._Rasmussen

https://nicomaque.com/2013/04/30/is-the-non-aggression-principle-still-relevant

Interview to Douglas B Rasmussen (9 min):
https://nicomaque.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/prof-rasmussen-on-liberalism.mp3

• Kinsella NS. A Libertarian Theory of Punishment and Rights. Loy LA L Rev (1997) vol. 30 pp. 607-646
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol30/iss2/4
https://www.scribd.com/document/58749777/Stephan-Kinsella-A-Libertarian-Theory-of-Punishment-and-Rights
Discussion:
http://www.stephankinsella.com/2014/10/answers-to-questions-about-libertarian-punishment

Other suggested readings:

• Anthony de Jasay. Justice and Its Surroundings.
• Lon L Fuller. The Morality of Law.
_______

URL G+ post source comments:
https://plus.google.com/+ArthurBrownleeIV/posts/5XsXF8Fw8WX
URL related G+ post:
https://plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/RXbQ4GfU4jv
________________
1
1
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
 
I consider moral arguments as some sort of religious dogma, and the need to rely on morals in order to support a certain principle as a sign of the weakness of it. My only valid compass is my self interest, any other goal in my view is a sacred cause, a religious priestcraft.

I also find some merit to the juridical approach used by Kinsella and others. At least he tries to be consistent with his ideas, and doesn't try to make them sacred, they have a functional purpose.

However, I've seen that people who use that approach often rely on criteria applied in previous jurisprudence, or they start from a proposition that they have accepted without further ceremony (e.g., that slavery must be avoided at all costs, or that all human beings deserve equal treatment). In this it reminds me of Max Stirner's words about the critics:

«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 (1st English edition, 1907)
(pp. 466-467) http:// gutenberg. org/ebooks/34580
(pp. 171-172) http:// df. lth. se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
(pp. 195-196) http:// theanarchistlibrary. org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

As for Todd Lewis, I agree with what you said. As Kinsella stated near the end of the debate, religion poisons the minds of those who believe.
On the other hand, what use is to say that your body belongs to God? He isn't going to come and tell you what to do with it.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
«Tras algo menos de medio año sin gobierno y con el verano a la vuelta de la esquina, la falta de un ejecutivo en nuestro país tan solo preocupaba a un 4,8% de los españoles según el CIS.»

— El mejor gobierno es aquel que gobierna menos, y aquel que gobierna menos es ningún gobierno en absoluto:

«THE BEST GOVERNMENT IS THAT WHICH GOVERNS LEAST.»

— Motto of "The United States Magazine, and Democratic Review." (1837-1859)
https://books.google.com/books?id=vulAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_United_States_Magazine_and_Democratic_Review

«The best government is that which governs least. No human depositories can, with safety, be trusted with the power of legislation upon the general interests of society so as to operate directly or indirectly on the industry and property of the community. Such power must be perpetually liable to the most pernicious abuse, from the natural imperfection, both in wisdom of judgment and purity of purpose, of all human legislation, exposed constantly to the pressure of partial interests; interests which, at the same time that they are essentially selfish and tyrannical, are ever vigilant, persevering, and subtle in all the arts of deception and corruption. In fact, the whole history of human society and government may be safely appealed to, in evidence that the abuse of such power a thousandfold more than overbalances its beneficial use. Legislation has been the fruitful parent of nine-tenths of all the evil, moral and physical, by which mankind has been afflicted since the creation of the world, and by which human nature has been self-degraded, fettered, and oppressed. Government should have as little as possible to do with the general business and interests of the people.»

— John L O'Sullivan. The Democratic Review: An Introductory Statement of the Democratic Principle. (1837)
http://xroads.virginia.edu/~cap/jackson/demo.htm

«Hence, the less government we have, the better, — the fewer laws, and the less confided power. The antidote to this abuse of formal Government, is, the influence of private character, the growth of the Individual; the appearance of the principal to supersede the proxy; the appearance of the wise man, of whom the existing government, is, it must be owned, but a shabby imitation.»

— Ralph Waldo Emerson. Politics. (1844)
http://www.emersoncentral.com/politics.htm
http://archive.vcu.edu/english/engweb/transcendentalism/authors/emerson/essays/politics.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_(essay)

«I heart­ily accept the motto, — “That gov­ern­ment is best which gov­erns least;” and I should like to see it acted up to more rap­idly and sys­tem­at­i­cally. Car­ried out, it fi­nally amounts to this, which also I believe, — “That gov­ern­ment is best which gov­erns not at all;” and when men are pre­pared for it, that will be the kind of gov­ern­ment which they will have.»

— Henry David Thoreau. Civil Disobedience. (1849)
https://sniggle.net/TPL/index5.php?entry=rtcg
http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html
https://books.google.com/books?id=DEVJAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA215

«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.»

— 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 [doc. no. 790, 791, 794]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n33/mode/2up
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism

Incorrectly attributed to Thomas Jefferson in 1853:

• April Hunt. So says Thomas Jefferson? You might reconsider. Politifact. September 3, 2014.
http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2014/sep/03/jody-hice/so-says-thomas-jefferson-you-might-reconsider

«L’État, c’est la grande fiction à travers laquelle tout le monde s’efforce de vivre aux dépens de tout le monde.»
http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html

«El Estado es la gran ficción a través de la cual todo el mundo se esfuerza en vivir a expensas de todo el mundo.»
http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html

«The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else.»
http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html

«The State
is the great fiction
through which everybody
endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else.»
http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html

«"Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."»
http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

— Frédéric Bastiat. L'État. Journal des Débats (1848) vol. 4 (September 25, 1848) p. 332
http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html
http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
Fr: http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html
En: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
Es: http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html

URL source above excerpt:
http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2016-07-06/el-cis-explica-por-que-gano-el-pp-1276577888
La falta de un ejecutivo en nuestro país tan solo preocupa a un 4,8% de los españoles y la preocupación por la corrupción baja.
1
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Immanuel Kant and the Universalizability Principle

Razvan Fodor commented on a video on YouTube. Jun 25, 2016 8:20 AM [UTC]
It amazes me that the guy speaking at 33:00 who is obviously an immigrant/comes from a family of immigrants says he doesn't want more immigrants because it would lower his standard of living. What if no one gave him a chance long ago? This world is full of hypocrisy I swear.
______

potatoengineer Jun 25, 2016 10:38 PM [UTC]
It's hypocritical to not want so many immigrants to enter your country and lower the standards of living? No one moves to the west in order to turn it into the hell hole they came from.
______

Razvan Fodor Jun 26, 2016 7:20 AM [UTC]
+potatoengineer It is in a sense to expect a sort of treatment for yourself, yet you are opposed for others to receive that same treatment. Maybe it's hypocrisy, maybe it is something else, anyway that guy is scum for saying something like that.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2016 3:03 PM [UTC]
Apparently, you have no clue of what hypocrisy means. That guy is simply explaining his stance which is based on his self interest, and he's honest about it (regardless of whether his arguments are sound or aren't). Honesty and hypocrisy are more or less the opposite.
In contrast, condemning those who are not willing to sacrifice their standard of living for the sake of the immigrant newcomers and from an alleged high moral ground, while you live in a posh neighborhood with no new poor immigrants living in it, far away from any coexistence clash with them, and when you may be even economically benefiting directly or indirectly from the coming of those immigrants (e.g., more immigrants means more bureaucrats to manage welfare programs, if you or your family are bureaucrats or work in the healthcare system or are seeking a job like that, more immigrants is good news, more immigrants also means cheaper workforce for services such as restaurants, stores, housing building and rehabilitation and maintenance staff), then that's hypocrisy.
______

Razvan Fodor Jun 29, 2016 3:12 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Let me put it this way: it's hypocritical to want a good treatment for immigrants (when they are your family) and a bad treatment for all that came after you. Is it not obvious what I mean? It's like a priest that commits adultery.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2016 7:10 PM [UTC]
You're making several fallacious assumptions:

First, you are placing this guy and his family, who already reside in the UK, at the same level as potential immigrants who are not yet in the country. The ones who would contribute lower the living standards of other workers of the country are not him or his family but the newcomers.

Second, you have no information on the way he wanted to be treated or how they were treated when he or his family came into the UK. They might have been subject to strict immigration laws. It's also worth to mention that that in the past immigrants didn't enjoy most of the benefits that newcomers enjoy nowadays.

Likewise, you don't know whether he or his family contributed to lower the living standards of other workers when they came. Such effect has only been detected over the last decade. Yet, you put all him and his family and any other potential future immigrants in the same bag.

Third, and more importantly, he's not basing his arguments on some kind of universal egalitarian ideal, but rather on his self interest. On the other hand, those potential immigrants who might come into the UK in the future are driven by their self interest as well. Why should he sacrifice the living standard of him and his family, put the self interest of him and of his family aside, all to favour those who are driven by their own self interest? Why should his self interest be considered less worthy than that of the potential future immigrants?

Finally, I will illustrate your flawed moralistic argument with an analogy. The Icelandic government doesn't allow fishing boats from other countries to fish in Iceland's exclusive economic zone. According to your logic, those fishermen should have the same access to the fisheries of Iceland's exclusive economic zone as the fishermen settled in Iceland enjoy. After all, the ancestors of the Icelandic fishermen were also once immigrants. Were such policy applied, nobody would catch any fish because the fisheries would become exhausted, or otherwise, nobody would fish enough to make their activity profitable.

Your flawed logic comes from your appeal to the universality principle. What may be beneficial when applied to an individual may become a disaster when extended to all the human population in the world.
______

Razvan Fodor Jun 29, 2016 7:21 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla Yeah I am making assumptions. So what? The guy is obviously not of anglo-saxon origin. He is a hypocrite, just my opinion. Let's leave it at that.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 29, 2016 8:21 PM [UTC]
So what you mean is that you're a dogmatist, right?
______________

URL source YouTube comments:
youtube.com/watch?v=baCwRZ7Fbvc&google_comment_id=z13ehnlajmituzmsd231ud5r2mubf13lu

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baCwRZ7Fbvc (50 min)
______

• Michael Malice (guest) and Tom woods (host). Ep. 679 Voting: Yes or No? The Tom Woods Show. June 10, 2016.
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-679-voting-yes-or-no

The Formula of the Universal Law of Nature.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kantian_ethics#Universalizability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_First_Formulation

http://www.iep.utm.edu/kantmeta/#H8
http://www.csus.edu/indiv/g/gaskilld/ethics/kantian%20ethics.htm
http://sevenpillarsinstitute.org/morality-101/kantian-duty-based-deontological-ethics
______________
1
BupSahn Sunim's profile photoZephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
2 comments
 
Immanuel Kant never read Max Stirner.

«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 (1st English edition, 1907)
(pp. 466-467)
gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
(pp. 171-172) df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
(pp. 195-196)
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

"Es kritisiert jeder, aber das Kriterium ist verschieden. Man jagt dem »rechten« Kriterium nach. Dies rechte Kriterium ist die erste Voraussetzung. Der Kritiker geht von einem Satze, einer Wahrheit, einem Glauben aus. Dieser ist nicht eine Schöpfung des Kritikers, sondern des Dogmatikers, ja er wird sogar gewöhnlich aus der Zeitbildung ohne Weiteres aufgenommen, wie z.B. »die Freiheit«, »die Menschlichkeit« usw. Der Kritiker hat nicht »den Menschen gefunden«, sondern als »der Mensch« ist diese Wahrheit vom Dogmatiker festgestellt worden, und der Kritiker, der übrigens mit jenem dieselbe Person sein kann, glaubt an diese Wahrheit, diesen Glaubenssatz. In diesem Glauben und besessen von diesem Glauben kritisiert er."

— Max Stirner. Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. Leipzig: Otto Wigand 1845 [Oktober 1844]; Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. 1972 (Universalbibliothek Nr. 3057-62)
(S. 393) lsr-projekt.de/msee.html
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Children under the Machinery of Freedom

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 18, 2016 5:34 AM [UTC]
+Daniel Hatfield: "that is the job a parent signed up for by having their child"
— Show me the contract, please.
+Daniel Hatfield: "It is a cash cow that two US states have thrived on in the past year. I'm shocked that nations around the world have ignored the tax opportunities here for so long."
— So are you campaigning to make governments even wealthier and more powerful?
________

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 18, 2016 23:56 PM [UTC]
+Daniel Hatfield: "so the two individuals involved owe no responsibility for the consequences of having sex unless it's written down?"

— Certainly, they are not committing to any kind of contract:

+Daniel Hatfield: "the job a parent signed up"

As for their responsibility, that's why nobody else should pay for the expense of an abortion or for whatever else they decide to do with their children (medical fees, daycare centers, schooling). Apparently, it's impossible to wipe out the notion that you or everybody else have some authority over the offspring of third persons. That's a communistic notion. Children don't belong to "the community" but solely to those who have created them (unless they stipulate otherwise by contract).

+Daniel Hatfield: "By such logic it's perfectly acceptable to leave unborn babies in a dumpster,"

— That's right. Apparently you are prone to commit the common logical fallacy known as appeal to consequences (Argumentum ad Consequentiam):

«Definition: The author points to the disagreeable consequences of holding a particular belief in order to show that this belief is false.»
http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/conseq.htm

«2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.»
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-consequences.html

«Description: Concluding that an idea or proposition is true or false because the consequences of it being true or false are desirable or undesirable.  The fallacy lies in the fact that the desirability is not related to the truth value of the idea or proposition.»
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/26/Appeal_to_Consequences

«Appeal to consequences, also known as argumentum ad consequentiam (Latin for "argument to the consequences"), is an argument that concludes a hypothesis (typically a belief) to be either true or false based on whether the premise leads to desirable or undesirable consequences. This is based on an appeal to emotion and is a type of informal fallacy, since the desirability of a premise's consequence does not make the premise true. Moreover, in categorizing consequences as either desirable or undesirable, such arguments inherently contain subjective points of view. »
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

«An appeal to consequences (also argumentum ad consequentiam), is a logical fallacy that the perceived outcomes of a proposition can determine its veracity. However, the utility of a belief is independent of its truth-value.
The fallacy is an emotional appeal and an informal fallacy.»
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences

«Exposition:
Arguing that a proposition is true because belief in it has good consequences, or that it is false because belief in it has bad consequences is often an irrelevancy. For instance, a child's belief in Santa Claus may have good consequences in making the child happy and well-behaved, but these facts have nothing to do with whether there really is a Santa Claus.
Beliefs have many consequences, both good and bad. For instance, belief that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer may have such bad consequences as frightening cigarette smokers or making them depressed, but it may also have such good consequences as motivating people to stop smoking, thus lowering their risk of cancer. However, the most important consequences of the belief, or lack thereof, that smoking causes lung cancer are affected by the fact that it does so. In other words, we cannot determine the truth-value of a belief from its consequences alone, since many of those consequences are dependent upon its truth-value. If smoking didn't cause disease, then the bad consequences of believing it does would greatly outweigh the benefits; but since it does, the situation is reversed.»
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

«Appeal to Bad Consequences:
(1’) If you don’t believe in God then you’ll be miserable, thinking that life doesn’t have any meaning.
Therefore:
(2) God exists.»
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-consequences

«Rhinos are fat unicorns» [video]
https://prezi.com/ao8cpmotbcmz/appeal-to-consequences

«Appeal to consequences is an attempt to motivate belief with an appeal either to the good consequences of believing or the bad consequences of disbelieving, without respect to the quality of the evidence supporting such an argument.»
http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/logical-fallacies/appeal-to-consequences-logical-fallacies

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Appeal_to_consequences


+Daniel Hatfield: "the actions of the girl in this clip wouldn't be something to frown upon:"

— Apparently you resort now to the appeal to emotion (frowning is an emotional reaction):

«Description: This is the general category of many fallacies that use emotion in place of reason in order to attempt to win the argument.  It is a type of manipulation used in place of valid logic.»
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/29/Appeal_to_Emotion

«You attempted to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Appeals to emotion include appeals to fear, envy, hatred, pity, pride, and more.»
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

«When something is associated with good feelings, then it is desirable and must be true. The converse is also true: when something is associated with negative feelings, then it must be wrong and bad.»
http://changingminds.org/disciplines/argument/fallacies/appeal_emotion.htm

«This fallacy is committed when someone manipulates peoples' emotions in order to get them to accept a claim as being true. More formally, this sort of "reasoning" involves the substitution of various means of producing strong emotions in place of evidence for a claim. If the favorable emotions associated with X influence the person to accept X as true because they "feel good about X," then he has fallen prey to the fallacy. »
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

«Appeal to emotion or argumentum ad passiones or appeal to feels 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 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]»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

«An emotional appeal is a logical fallacy that occurs when a debater attempts to win an argument by trying to get an emotional reaction from the opponent(s) and/or audience, e.g. eliciting fear or outrage. It is generally characterized by the use of loaded language and concepts (God, country, and apple pie being good concepts, homosexuality, drugs, and crime common bad ones). In debating terms, it is often effective as a rhetorical device, but is dishonest as a logical argument, since it often appeals to listeners' prejudices instead of being a sober assessment of a situation.
Emotional appeal overlaps with other fallacies such as argumentum ad populum, appeal to consequences, appeal to shame, appeal to force, appeal to fear, and poisoning the well.»
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Emotional_appeal

«So, one distinction between relevant and fallacious appeals to emotion is based on the distinction between arguments which aim to motivate us to action, and those which are intended to convince us to believe something. Appeals to emotion are always fallacious when intended to influence our beliefs, but they are sometimes reasonable when they aim to motivate us to act. The fact that we desire something to be true gives not the slightest reason to believe it, and the fact that we fear something being true is no reason to think it false; but the desire for something is often a good reason to pursue it, and fear of something else a good reason to flee.
Even when appeals to emotion aim at motivating us, there is still a way that they may fail to be rational, namely, when what we are being persuaded to do has insufficient connection with what is arousing our emotion. For instance, a familiar type of emotional appeal is the appeal to pity or sympathy, which is used by many charities. Photographs of crippled or hungry children are shown in order to arouse one's desire to help them, with the charity trying to motivate you to write a check. »
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/emotiona.html


+Daniel Hatfield: "I'm highlighting the fact they missed a trick to benefit a few actors everyone else is fed up with (police, private prisons, etc), and deliberately ignoring an opportunity I'm surprised they missed."

— That behavior is perfectly consistent with the fact that governments also engage in wars, despite the fact that wars often are also unpopular, and that wars hinder economic growth (at least that's what any economist of the Austrian school would tell you).

Likewise, the resulting unemployment from minimum-wage laws, and from the regulation of the labor market don't help to improve tax collection either. There are other reasons, more powerful than those of economic ones, to resort to those policies.
________

BupSahn Sunim Jun 19, 2016 8:27 AM [UTC]
"By such logic it's perfectly acceptable to leave unborn babies in a dumpster,"
—_ That's right.

That's not right at all.  That's a 'false equivalence' if ever there was one.  In one case you are allowing your children to choice for themselves and in the second case you are purposefully letting someone with no choice die (basically murder).  That is not equivalent in the slightest. 
________

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 19, 2016 7:13 PM [UTC]
+BupSahn Sunim, dude, you didn't make a single rational argument, just a series of appeals to emotion (pity, outrage, whatever), plus a veiled appeal to common belief (argumentum ad populum), normality, popularity, tradition, etc.:

«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)
(pp. 466-467) gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
(pp. 171-172) df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
(pp. 195-196)
theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own

"Es kritisiert jeder, aber das Kriterium ist verschieden. Man jagt dem »rechten« Kriterium nach. Dies rechte Kriterium ist die erste Voraussetzung. Der Kritiker geht von einem Satze, einer Wahrheit, einem Glauben aus. Dieser ist nicht eine Schöpfung des Kritikers, sondern des Dogmatikers, ja er wird sogar gewöhnlich aus der Zeitbildung ohne Weiteres aufgenommen, wie z.B. »die Freiheit«, »die Menschlichkeit« usw. Der Kritiker hat nicht »den Menschen gefunden«, sondern als »der Mensch« ist diese Wahrheit vom Dogmatiker festgestellt worden, und der Kritiker, der übrigens mit jenem dieselbe Person sein kann, glaubt an diese Wahrheit, diesen Glaubenssatz. In diesem Glauben und besessen von diesem Glauben kritisiert er."

— Max Stirner. Der Einzige und sein Eigenthum. Leipzig: Otto Wigand 1845 [Oktober 1844]; Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun. 1972 (Universalbibliothek Nr. 3057-62)
[393] lsr-projekt.de/msee.html

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/29/Appeal_to_Emotion
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/20/Appeal_to_Anger
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/39/Appeal_to_Pity

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/24/Appeal_to_Common_Belief
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/37/Appeal_to_Normality
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/40/Appeal_to_Popularity
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/44/Appeal_to_Tradition
________

BupSahn Sunim Jun 20, 2016 8:51 AM [UTC]
It's a false equivalence +Zephyr López Cervilla plain and simple.  Letting your children smoke weed and leaving them in a dumpster to die have virtually nothing in common.  I didn't make a rational argument but merely pointed out your argument was based on a false equivalence.   Sigh!
________

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 20, 11:53 PM [UTC]
+BupSahn Sunim: "I didn't make a rational argument but merely pointed out your argument was based on a false equivalence."

— That wasn't any equivalence (neither false nor true) but a logical consequence or a corollary:

Daniel Hatfield: "so the two individuals involved owe no responsibility for the consequences of having sex unless it's written down? Intriguing premise. By such logic it's perfectly acceptable to leave unborn babies in a dumpster,"

Premise:
Parents haven't signed up for any job by having their child.
Logical consequence:
It's perfectly acceptable to leave unborn babies in a dumpster.

By having a child the parent does not acquire any responsibility with the child. Similarly, by planting a tree you acquire no responsibility with the tree.

This logical conclusion was rightfully pointed out by Murray Rothbard in his work "Ethics of Liberty", albeit in that book Rothbard isn't always fully consistent with his argument:

[p. 97] «There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner. But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?

First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent’s, or rather the mother’s, property right in the fetus?»

[p. 98] «The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus.»

«It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly, as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.

Another argument of the anti-abortionists is that the fetus is a living human being, and is therefore entitled to all of the rights of human beings. Very good; let us concede, for purposes of the discussion, that fetuses are human beings—or, more broadly, potential human beings—and are therefore entitled to full human rights. But what humans, we may ask, have the right to be coercive parasites within the body of an unwilling human host? Clearly, noborn humans have such a right, and therefore, a fortiori, the fetus can have no such right either.

[p. 99] The anti-abortionists generally couch the preceding argument in terms of the fetus’s, as well as the born human’s, “right to life.” We have not used this concept in this volume because of its ambiguity and because any proper rights implied by its advocates are included in the concept of the “right to self-ownership”—the right to have one’s person free from aggression. Even Professor Judith Thomson, who, in her discussion of the abortion question, attempts inconsistently to retain the concept of “right to life” along with the right to own one’s own body, lucidly demonstrates the pitfalls and errors of the “right to life” doctrine:

"In some views, having a right to life includes having a right to be given at least the bare minimum one needs for continued life. But suppose that what in fact is the bare minimum a man needs for continued life is something he has no right at all to be given? If I am sick unto death, and the only thing that will save my life is the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow, then all the same, I have no right to be given the touch of Henry Fonda’s cool hand on my fevered brow. It would be frightfully nice of him to fly in from the West Coast to provide it. . . . But I have no right at all against anybody that he should do this for me."

In short, it is impermissible to interpret the term “right to life,” to give one an enforceable claim to the action of someone else to sustain that life. In our terminology, such a claim would be an impermissible violation of the other person’s right of self-ownership. Or, as Professor Thomson cogently puts it, “having a right to life does not guarantee having either a right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body—even if one needs it for life itself.”[3]

Suppose now that the baby has been born. Then what? First, we may say that the parents—or rather the mother, who is the only certain and visible parent—as the creators of the baby become its owners. A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense. Therefore, either the mother or some other party or parties may be the baby’s owner, but to assert that a third party can claim his “ownership” over the baby would give that person the right to seize the baby by force from its natural or “homesteading” owner, its mother. The mother, then, is the natural and rightful owner of the baby, and any attempt to seize the baby by force is an invasion of her property right.

[p. 100] But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children.»

«In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.»

«On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

[pp. 100-101] Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.»

«Let us examine the implications of the doctrine that parents should have a legally enforceable obligation to keep their children alive. The argument for this obligation contains two components: that the parents created the child by a freely-chosen, purposive act; and that the child is temporarily helpless and not a self-owner.[7] If we consider first the argument from helplessness, then first, we may make the general point that it is a philosophical fallacy to maintain that A's needs properly impose coercive obligations on B to satisfy these needs. For one thing, B's rights are then violated. Secondly, if a helpless child may be said to impose legal obligations on someone else, why specifically on its parents, and not on other people? What do the parents have to do with it? The answer, of course, is that they are the creators of the child, but this brings us to the second argument, the argument from creation.»

[p. 102] «Considering, then, the creation argument, this immediately rules out any obligation of a mother to keep a child alive who was the result of an act of rape, since this was not a freely-undertaken act. It also rules out any such obligation by a step-parent, foster parent, or guardian, who didn't participate at all in creating the child.

Furthermore, if creation engenders an obligation to maintain the child, why should it stop when the child becomes an adult? As Evers states:

"The parents are still the creators of the child, why aren't they obliged to support the child forever? It is true that the child is no longer helpless; but helplessness (as pointed out above) is not in and of itself a cause of binding obligation. If the condition of being the creator of another is the source of the obligation, and this condition persists, why doesn't the obligation?"»

[p. 103] «A common argument holds that the voluntary act of the parents has created a "contract" by which the parents are obligated to maintain the child. But (a) this would also entail the alleged "contract" with the fetus that would prohibit abortion, and (b) this falls into all the difficulties with the contract theory as analyzed above.

Finally as Evers points out, suppose that we consider the case of a person who voluntarily rescues a child from a flaming wreck that kills the child's parents. In a very real sense, the rescuer has brought life to the child; does the rescuer, then, have a binding legal obligation to keep the child alive from then on? Wouldn't this be a "monstrous involuntary servitude that is being foisted upon a rescuer?"[11]»

«The mother, then, becomes at the birth of her child its "trustee-owner," legally obliged only not to aggress against the child's person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership. Apart from that, so long as the child lives at home, it must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of its parents, since it is living on property owned by those parents. Certainly the parents have the right to set down rules for the use of their home and property for all persons (whether children or not) living in that home.

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has hisfull rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature-in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to runaway and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.»

Footnotes:

«3. Judith Jarvis Thornson, "A Defense of Abortion," Philosophy and Public Aflairs (Fall 1971):55-56.

4. On the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, see Philippa R. Foot, Virtues and Vices (Berkeley:University of California Press, 1978), pp. 50ff.

5. Cf. the view of the individualist anarchist theorist Benjamin R. Tucker: "Under equal freedom, as it [the child] develops individuality and independence, it is entitled to immunity from assault or invasion, and that is all. If the parent neglects to support it, he does not thereby oblige anyone else to support it." Benjamin R. Tucker, "Instead of a Book" (New York: B.R.Tucker, 1893), p. 144.

6. The original program of the Euthanasia Society of America included the right of parents to allow monstrous babies to die. It has also been a common and growing practice for midwives and obstetricians to allow monstrous babies to die at birth by simply not taking positive acts to keep them alive. See John A. Robertson, "Involuntary Euthanasia of Defective Newborns: A Legal Analysis," Stanford Law Review (January 1975): 214-15.

7. The argument of this and succeeding paragraphs relies heavily on Williamson M. Evers, "Political Theory and the Legal Rights of Children," (unpublished manuscript),pp. 13-17. Also see Evers, "The Law of Omissions and Neglect of Children," Journal of Libertarian Studies 2 (Winter 1978): 1-10.

8. Evers, "Political Theory," p. 17.»

«11. Ibid., pp. 15-16.»

— Murray N Rothbard. "Chapter 14. Children and Rights." The Ethics of Liberty. New York University Press (1982)
goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983?doc=31040


[p. 132] «Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.

The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.»

— Murray N Rothbard. For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. (1973, 1978). Ludwig von Mises Institute (2006)
mises.org/library/new-liberty-libertarian-manifesto


Rothbard was probably influenced by the previous theoretical work made by Benjamin Tucker and other Stirnerite individualist anarchists on this question, and which Rothbard at least had partially read (which I consider to be more logically consistent than the same reasoning of Rothbard):

• Benjamin R Tucker. A Sound Criticism. Liberty (June 29, 1895) vol. 11 no. 4 (whole no. 316) pp. 3-4 [document no. 2033-2034]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/06/29/a-sound-criticism library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3004

• Benjamin R Tucker. L’Enfant Terrible. Liberty (August 24, 1895) vol. 11 no. 8 (whole no. 320) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2070-2071]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/lenfant-terrible library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3008

• Benjamin R Tucker. On Picket Duty. Liberty (September 7, 1895) vol. 11 no. 9 (whole no. 321) p. 1 [document no. 2075]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/07/on-picket-duty library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3009

• Benjamin R Tucker. What Is Property? Liberty (September 21, 1895) vol. 11 no. 10 (whole no. 322) pp. 4-5, 8 [document no. 2086-2087, 2090]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/what-is-property library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010

• Benjamin R Tucker. Defence of Whom and by Whom? Liberty (November 2, 1895) vol. 11 no. 13 (whole no. 325) p. 3-5 [document no. 2109-2111]
library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3013

• Benjamin R Tucker. Rights and Contract. Liberty (December 14, 1895) vol. 11 no. 16 (whole no. 328) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2134-2135]
fair-use.org/liberty/1895/12/14/rights-and-contract library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3016

Commentary about the work on this question with some quotes (second half of the article):

• Carl Watner. Spooner vs. Liberty. The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) vol. 7 (3)
Reproduced by the author here:
voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html

• Carl Watner. "Spooner vs. Liberty." The Complete Libertarian Forum 1969–1984. Mises Institute (2006)
mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984
________

Zephyr López Cervilla Jun 21, 2016 7:01 AM [UTC]
+Daniel Hatfield: "I do, however, have the option of choosing not to associate at all with those who refuse to accept that the risks of sex include children, and an inherent ethical responsibility to them exists for parents."

— I presume you're using the term "ethical" interchangeably with "moral":

«Morals are the principles on which one’s judgments of right and wrong are based. Ethics are principles of right conduct. So the two nouns are closely related and are often interchangeable. The main difference is that morals are more abstract, subjective, and often personal or religion-based, while ethics are more practical, conceived as shared principles promoting fairness in social and business interactions.»
Source:
grammarist.com/usage/ethics-morals

«Comparison chart

What are they?
Ethics: The rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group or culture.
Morals: Principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct. While morals also prescribe dos and don'ts, morality is ultimately a personal compass of right and wrong.

Where do they come from?
Ethics: Social system - External
Morals: Individual - Internal

«Why we do it?
Ethics: Because society says it is the right thing to do.
Morals: Because we believe in something being right or wrong.»

Flexibility
Ethics: Ethics are dependent on others for definition. They tend to be consistent within a certain context, but can vary between contexts.
Morals: Usually consistent, although can change if an individual’s beliefs change.

The "Gray"
Ethics: A person strictly following Ethical Principles may not have any Morals at all. Likewise, one could violate Ethical Principles within a given system of rules in order to maintain Moral integrity.
Morals: A Moral Person although perhaps bound by a higher covenant, may choose to follow a code of ethics as it would apply to a system. "Make it fit."

Origin
Ethics: Greek word "ethos" meaning "character"
Morals: Latin word "mos" meaning "custom"

Acceptability
Ethics: Ethics are governed by professional and legal guidelines within a particular time and place.
Morals: Morality transcends cultural norms.»

«Source of Principles
Ethics are external standards that are provided by institutions, groups, or culture to which an individual belongs. For example, lawyers, policemen, and doctors all have to follow an ethical code laid down by their profession, regardless of their own feelings or preferences. Ethics can also be considered a social system or a framework for acceptable behavior.
Morals are also influenced by culture or society, but they are personal principles created and upheld by individuals themselves.

Consistency and Flexibility
Ethics are very consistent within a certain context, but can vary greatly between contexts. For example, the ethics of the medical profession in the 21st century are generally consistent and do not change from hospital to hospital, but they are different from the ethics of the 21st century legal profession.
An individual’s moral code is usually unchanging and consistent across all contexts, but it is also possible for certain events to radically change an individual's personal beliefs and values.

Conflicts Between Ethics and Morals
One professional example of ethics conflicting with morals is the work of a defense attorney. A lawyer’s morals may tell her that murder is reprehensible and that murderers should be punished, but her ethics as a professional lawyer, require her to defend her client to the best of her abilities, even if she knows that the client is guilty.
Another example can be found in the medical field. In most parts of the world, a doctor may not euthanize a patient, even at the patient's request, as per ethical standards for health professionals. However, the same doctor may personally believe in a patient's right to die, as per the doctor's own morality.»
Source:
diffen.com/difference/Ethics_vs_Morals


I invite you to prove that there is anything "inherent" about either of them, i.e., that there is a common "universal" trait present in every ethical or moral code.

After that, you may inform David Friedman of such argument, since he's been unable to find any:

[From 9:00 to 14:00]
«Utilitarian is a misstatement. If you look up in the index of the second edition of "Machinery [of Freedom]" under "utilitarian" the entry is "utilitarian, why I am not". But consequentialist I think is a fair statement. In particular, I think that consequentialist arguments are a better way of defending libertarian conclusions than moral or natural-rights arguments.

And that's true for a couple of reasons: One of them is that I don't believe that anybody yet has come up with a demonstration that his moral views are correct. Ayn Rand in some sense claimed to do that, I've got a chapter in the third edition of "Machinery [of Freedom]" in which I think I show that her argument doesn't work. And I basically go along with Hume's claim that you can't derive "ought" from "is".

So I have moral beliefs. I have some reasons for holding those beliefs, which I also discuss in one of the chapters of the new edition, but I don't think that I have any way of showing someone who disagrees with me that he's wrong. And given that, basing my attempt to persuade him on my moral beliefs doesn't seem like a very plausible strategy.

On the other hand, if you look what people do believe, you observe that although people disagree about what things are morally right and morally wrong, they disagree about a lot of details. There's a pretty high correlation about what people think is good: There are very few people who think that it would be a better thing that more people were in pain. There are very few people who don't think it would be a better thing if more people had good medical care.

If you run though consequences of that sort, I think that you find not a perfect correlation but a very high correlation. Therefore, if I can show that the institutions that I support will be better by the standards people already have, I have a convincing argument to show that they should agree with this institutions that doesn't depend on changing their morals. And that's my basic approach to how I think you persuade people.

A different of putting it is that economics is a much better developed science than moral philosophy. I think it's telling that philosophers still read Aristotle and economists and physicists don't. That reflects the fact that progress in moral philosophy has been a great deal slower over the last few millennia than in some other fields, so I'm not really expecting anybody to come up with proof of what moral beliefs are right and wrong anytime soon.

Now, a further problem is that if you look at the moral beliefs that natural-rights libertarians tend to proclaim, they generally lead you to conclusions that nobody believes in.

And I guess my standard example of that is to imagine a situation where you have a very small cost in natural rights versus a very large benefit and consequences. And I think that one of the ones I have somewhere is imagine an asteroid is heading for earth and if it hits everybody will die, and by some bizarre set of circumstances you can stop the asteroid, but doing so requires stealing something with a nickel from a man who was its rightful owner. If you look at libertarian rhetoric it seems to imply you shouldn't do it, that's a violation of rights. And yet, I'm not sure there any libertarians who in fact wouldn't do it under those imagined circumstances. So that's one way of making the point.

Now, I don't think that moral arguments are irrelevant. I would say that part of the reason that I'm not a utilitarian is that I wouldn't be willing to say anytime that violating people's rights provides desirable consequences you should do it. I think that consequences matter, and I think that the stronger versions of the sort of natural-rights claims are probably not defensible.

A further set of problems are discussed in again, a chapter of "Machinery [of Freedom]", I think it's in the second edition, is that at least the usual statements of libertarian rights don't answer a lot of important questions: If you think about where to draw lines. How much interference with my property is or isn't something that I can forbid. Can I forbid you from broadcasting radio signals on the grounds they cross my property? Can I forbid my neighbor turning on his lights on the ground the his photons are trespassing?

And I don't see, maybe I'm wrong and there are other people may have thought about it harder and better, but I don't think any good way using natural-rights arguments to answer those questions, whereas I think there are approaches from a consequentialist standpoint, basically in the economic analysis of law, which is what's been my specially for a while, in which you can figure out what the rules ought to be and how to draw such lines.»

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem
philosophynow.org/issues/83/Hume_on_Is_and_Ought
youtube.com/watch?v=eT7yXG2aJdY (1 min)

— David D Friedman (guest) and Jeff Berwick (host). David Friedman: The Machinery of Freedom! Anarchast (July 28, 2015) ep. 231 [45 min]
anarchast.com/anarchast-ep-231-david-friedman-the-machinery-of-freedom
https://youtu.be/hggDncmTfMw?t=540
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hggDncmTfMw?t=540 (45min)


+Daniel Hatfield: "Is a verbal contract binding in your view? Two people agreeing to have sex verbally is a binding agreement on both individuals for the consequences of said action, or it is to me."

— The question of the alleged contract is refuted by Murray Rothbard in the excerpt that I quoted above:

«It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly, as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.»
~Murray N Rothbard, 1982.


+Daniel Hatfield: "Also, I don't see what this has to do with mere belief alone, and as such isn't an appeal to either consequences or emotion."

— Where did I mention the term "mere belief"? If it's a quote from yourself:

+Daniel Hatfield: "Those consequences are factual, and not based on beliefs, but ethics."

Ethical codes, or more accurately, moral codes are directly linked to personal beliefs, whereas ethical codes would be linked to consensus beliefs that specific groups of people hold (cultural groups, professional groups).

Since there is no universal ethics you can't derive what is acceptable from the ethical code to which you may be subject.

Either way, you would be still resorting to an appeal to consequences instead of offering any argument that denied the premise, namely, that free individuals don't contract any obligation with third persons to take care of their offspring by the mere fact of having procreated  (third persons such as yourself or their offspring).

The fact that you may feel sorry for their offspring is no valid argument from a rational standpoint to justify meddling in the lives of other free individuals (hence the appeal to emotion or pity).


+Daniel Hatfield: "Pregnancy is a known and factual risk of sex, so it's not a belief that such a consequence exists, like that "not believing in God makes you miserable" fallacy example. It is an actual consequence."

— Non sequitur.


+Daniel Hatfield: "Leaving a newborn to die because the people who created it are unwilling to take responsibility for their creation"

— A further non sequitur. "[Leaving] unborn babies in a dumpster" isn't equivalent to not taking responsibility for their creation. Leaving unborn babies inside control panels of a nuclear rector and causing an accident would be not taking responsibility. Their responsibility for their creation doesn't cover their own creation.


+Daniel Hatfield: "is not just a subjectively immoral act for me personally, it is also an unethical one with respect to the child, and as you probably know ethics is an objective measurement."

— Ethics is not objective (see above). At most, ethical codes are intersubjective or subject to a consensus of the subjective opinions within a particular group. Again, there's no universal ethics of any kind.


+Daniel Hatfield: "An infant has no ability to look after itself, and claiming that leaving a baby in a dumpster is in anyway ethical"

— The argument that because the infant is temporarily helpless its parents have a contracted obligation to take care of it was also refuted by Murray Rothbard (see above).
On the other hand, as I stated above, what is ethical and what is not varies from an ethical code to another (see above).


+Daniel Hatfield: "Otherwise, you are using a fallacy fallacy to discredit me,"

— I'm not resorting to a fallacy fallacy since you haven't made any rational argument to object to my previous argument. Instead, you just resorted to an appeal to consequences to show that at times the expected consequences might clash with the particular ethical code that apparently you feel bound to abide.


+Daniel Hatfield: "If you feel it is appealing to emotion to highlight how something unethical can play out, it doesn't change the fact it can play out that way. Nor does it challenge the argument being made, namely that people giving existence to a new member of the human race have personal responsibility for & to it because they agreed to have sex, verbally or otherwise."

— Here it goes the religious bullshit. Or as Stirner would call, the proposition(s) of the dogmatist.


+Daniel Hatfield: "but that is too subjective for me personally"

— Then, don't personally abort. But refrain from meddling in the lives of other free individuals.


+Daniel Hatfield: "After having given birth to the child, however, there are no circumstances I can think of which would ethically absolve the parents from their responsibilities to it,"

— In such case you should read Rothbard (or Benjamin Tucker). Once you have read them, try to counter their stance.


+Daniel Hatfield: "there are numerous precautions they could have taken and chose not to."

— That's their business, not yours.


+Daniel Hatfield: "Also, at no such time have I made any statement which implies at all that it is society's responsibility for that child."

— In such case, what is your relation with the child of third persons? Why do you feel entitled to meddle in their lives?


+Daniel Hatfield: "I don't quite know why you keep adding such inferences to my comments as if I'm advocating for a statist solution to this problem, either."

— The only way by which you can stop third persons from doing whatever they see fit with own their children is with the force of offense, the force of the State. Just like communism. Just replace "private property" with "parental control over their children" and you'll get the argument:

«As I expected, Herr Most, in his controversy with me upon private property, Communism, and the State, is as reluctant as ever to come to close quarters in any attempt to destroy my main position, and, for sole response to my challenge to do so, crouches behind the name of Marx, not daring even to attempt upon his own account the use of the weapons with which Marx has assailed it. Herr Most had promised to accept private property if I would show him that it is compatible with production on the large scale without the exploitation of labor.»

«But Herr Most asks me, if respect for private property is conceivable without a State, why is not Communism so conceivable? Simply because the only force ever necessary to secure respect for private property is the force of defence,—the force which protects the laborer in the possession of his product or in the free exchange thereof,—while the force required to secure Communism is the force of offence,—the force which compels the laborer to pool his product with the products of all and forbids him to sell his labor or his product. Now, force of offence is the principle of the State, while force of defence is one aspect of the principle of liberty. This is the reason why private property does not imply a State, while Communism does. Herr Most seems to be as ignorant of the real nature of the State as he is of Proudhon’s banking system. In opposing it he acts, not as an intelligent foe of Authority, but simply as a rebel against the powers that be.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. Still Avoiding the Issue. Liberty (May 12, 1888) vol. 5 (20) (whole no. 124) p.4 [document no. 824]
fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/still-avoiding-the-issue
archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n415/mode/2up library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2825 
________

URL source comments G+ post:
plus.google.com/+DanielHatfield_the_Wolf_of_Anarchy/posts/fr65ttp1GCR
__________________
1
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photoKimani White's profile photoDaniel Hatfield's profile photoPELÍCULAS Y TRAILERS's profile photo
25 comments
 
It is confirmed end of the world Why The World Will End Surely on 29 July 2016 ? Shocking Facts end time prophecy 2016 this week https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8MbwpJkDI8

Add a comment...
Zephyr's Collections
People
Have them in circles
5,461 people
Babul Chatterjee's profile photo
Adista mote's profile photo
Viney Varughese's profile photo
KELVIN ABRAHAM's profile photo
Thung Mew Choo's profile photo
Shay Johnson's profile photo
David Barrow's profile photo
Keith Blunt's profile photo
‫احمد *‬‎'s profile photo