Profile

Cover photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
5,459 followers|1,019,469 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Voting Does Not Imply Consent

• Tom Woods (guest) and Kal Molinet (host). Champion of Liberty Tom Woods. Kal Molinet's YouTube channel. August 9, 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCA8TgIuig (10 min)
Comments:

corradoslc7 Aug 9, 2016 8:55 PM [UTC]
Not a champion of liberty, he still advocates voting and limited government. Better title: Champion of limited statism Tom Woods.
_______

Kal Molinet Aug 9, 2016 9:06 PM [UTC]
Does he? You'll have to send me your sources at operations@LiberateRVA.com. The Mises Institute was founded as a non-political organization, Ludvig von Mises himself never voted according to Gary North, which would lead one then to presume that it would follow through the professors that represent the school.
_______

Mark Efreet Aug 9, 2016 9:21 PM [UTC]
voting does not necessarily make one a statist, but either way Woods doesn't vote, and he has made it very clear that he is for zero government.
_______

corradoslc7 Aug 9, 2016 9:25 PM [UTC]
"voting does not necessarily make one a statist,"

Yes it does. You are continuing the state system of enslavement. This absolutely makes you a statist, don't lie to yourself.

"and he has made it very clear that he is for zero government."

He waffles back and forth as most libertarians do. I'm just not a fan boy for him or austrian economics.
_______

Mark Efreet Aug 9, 2016 9:26 PM [UTC]
funny coming from a guy who listens to rebel media, advocates of involuntary vaccination.
_______

corradoslc7 Aug 9, 2016 9:30 PM [UTC]
+Mark Efreet "funny coming from a guy who listens to rebel media,"

 I listen to everything, it doesn't mean I subscribe to their ideology. I also follow the TYT. Nice straw man argument.

"advocates of involuntary vaccination."

I've never said anything of the sort. Please provide arguments to the original topic of voting.
_______

corradoslc7 Aug 9, 2016 11:13 PM [UTC]
+Mark Efreet Mark, you may want to listen to the video below of Tom Woods. The entire video he argues against Anarchy and Voluntarism. At 18:20 mins, he literally argues that no change can occur without the political system. The man is NOT an anarchist and this is a very recent video.
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla * Aug 10, 2016 1:20 AM [UTC]
+corradoslc7: "He waffles back and forth as most libertarians do."

— Tom Woods defines himself not only as a libertarian but also as an anarchist. Clearly, you haven't listened to much of his podcast:
http://tomwoods.com/search/keyword/anarchism/type/post

+corradoslc7: "Yes it does. You are continuing the state system of enslavement."

— This is bullshit. Tom Woods doesn't recognize any legitimacy to statist democracy. He has admitted to have voted for Ron Paul but for other reasons. Woods discusses with Michael Malice (who does not vote) his personal reasons to vote in the following episode of his podcast:

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

+corradoslc7: "he literally argues that no change can occur without the political system."

— Further bullshit:

• Robin Koerner (guest) and Tom Woods (host). The Art of Political Persuasion: Winning Supporters, Not Arguments. The Tom Woods' Show (July 10, 2016) ep. 693
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-693-the-art-of-political-persuasion-winning-supporters-not-arguments
_______

corradoslc7 Aug 10, 2016 1:19 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla  "— Tom Woods defines himself not only as a libertarian but also as an anarchist."

I don't care what people describe themselves as. Only the words that come out of their mouths.

Like I said previously: "At 18:20 mins, he literally argues that no change can occur without the political system." This is not an anarchist argument. Tom Woods is not an anarchist by his own views, regardless of what he calls himself. I defy you to argue that the comment he makes at 18:20 and on is an anarchist argument.

See video below.
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-679-voting-yes-or-no

"He has admitted to have voted for Ron Paul but for other reasons."

There is no reason to vote for a slave master that makes it suddenly moral. Sorry you have no case. Why are you trying so hard to defend Tom so much? In the podcast he clearly lays out that libertarians need to vote, I don't know why you are lying to yourself.
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla Aug 10, 2016 1:50 AM [UTC]
+corradoslc7: «Like I said previously: "At 18:20 mins, he literally argues that no change can occur without the political system."»

— No, that's not what Tom Woods LITERALLY argues:

Tom Woods (18:10): «Part of the problem that I have with the "don't vote" people is this:
Yes, I understand, politics is terrible, and it's terrible people, and all that, I get that. But I don't see how things ever change…
It's fun to say,
'Oh, we'll do it without politics.'
'Oh, really? How? How are you going to confront this thing without actually confronting this thing?'
'Oh, well we'll have Agorism.'
'What? You're going to build heavy industry, secretly? I just don't see that.'
So I don't understand if we're not in the game, or we're not encouraging people to be in the game, or we're actively and openly disdaining the idea of participating in, or at least getting our ideas heard, we're missing an opportunity to be heard. But secondly, how can things ever change? What is the model of social change that does not involve politics?»

PS: Notice that at no point he  mentions "the political system". He talks about politics, which is quite a different thing.
_______

corradoslc7 Aug 10, 2016 1:36 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla  "— Tom Woods defines himself not only as a libertarian but also as an anarchist. Clearly, you haven't listened to much of his podcast."

I already answered this, I don't care what he calls himself. He's a libertarian, not an anarchist.

"This is bullshit. Tom Woods doesn't recognize any legitimacy to statist democracy. He has admitted to have voted for Ron Paul but for other reasons. Woods discusses with Michael Malice (who doesn't vote) his personal reasons to vote"

Saying something is bullshit isn't an argument. Voting and advocating voting for a slave master is giving legitimacy to a statist democracy STOP LYING TO YOURSELF.

"Further bullshit:"

Again not an argument.

Also, I see from your history that you are definitely a political person and are most likely emotionally invested in voting. But from a logical, intellectual and moral stance, voting and government are immoral ideas period. Hopefully you will realize that you are being logically inconsistent in your application of the NAP by voting.

BTW, are you a TRUMP supporter???
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla Aug 10, 2016 2:18 AM [UTC]
+corradoslc7: "Voting and advocating voting for a slave master is giving legitimacy to a statist democracy"

— Do you have a rational argument to support such claim?
Perhaps such legitimacy magically appears out of nowhere?
Saying voting "is giving legitimacy" "isn't an argument." It's just a statement.
The mere act of voting is not a proof of consent. "STOP LYING TO YOURSELF."

+corradoslc7: "you are definitely a political person"

—I didn't vote in the last election.

+corradoslc7: "emotionally invested in voting."

— Nope, I didn't even find any of the possible candidate lists appealing at all.

+corradoslc7: "from a logical, intellectual and moral stance, voting and government are immoral ideas"

— I'm not an anarchist for moral reasons. I'm an egoist anarchist. I try to think as amorally as possible, especially in matters that transcend the sphere of my private life.

+corradoslc7: "you are being logically inconsistent in your application of the NAP"

— Again, by voting you are not giving any legitimacy to the elected people to represent you, let alone giving your support to the aggression they may authorize.

PS:
By the way, the NAP isn't even moral compass for people like N Stephan Kinsella or David D Friedman.

According to Kinsella and others (e.g., Douglas B Rasmussen), 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
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 aggression 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)
_______

URL source YouTube comment thread:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCA8TgIuig&google_comment_id=z133fzhwomfscd55w04cdfajekqscxqippg0k
________________
1
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
 
Tom Woods (7:08): "I have to admit there are cases where I know that the seceding people are seceding because once they secede their intention is to do great physical harm to a particular minority within their borders, it's hard for me to just say, 'Oh, this is morally very clear, of course we always favored secession.' I'm still working that one out."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCA8TgIuig

— Tom Woods gave me the perfect argument to oppose the secession of Catalonia from Spain promoted by the Catalan separatist movement. Their regional government is already harming the Castilian minority. The Catalan nationalists are sectarian to the bone, and also very authoritarian. They've been more than willing to impose the Catalan language to all children as the only and exclusive language that they can use in the compulsory schooling system, both in state-run schools as well as in most private schools (there's one very elitist school in which most classes are given in German). Catalan nationalists quite often discriminate against anyone of Castilian ancestry in schools and universities, and in any other institution run by the regional government, which are pretty much all of them present in the region. Likewise, the regional parliament has also enacted discriminatory laws against those who don't use Catalan in their everyday life (e.g., private businesses, stores, restaurants, transportation, etc.). The only branch of government that hasn't been yet fully transferred to the regional administration is the court system (the police was already fully transferred about a decade ago). They've lobbied hard over the last years to make the regional court also the highest court you 'll be able appeal (mostly to hide the corruption of their political leaders), thus replacing the Supreme Court at Madrid. Finally, Catalan separatists treat those Catalans of Catalan ancestry who don't agree with their political agenda as traitors, and such treatment can even include acts of aggression against their property and their physical integrity.

+Kal Molinet, I tell you this because if I remember correctly, you've given political support in the past to that bunch of Nazis (ethnic-centered nationalists, collectivists and authoritarians). You'd better get your facts right about the abuses those folks have committed before considering giving your support to any political movement.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkCA8TgIuig&lc=z120vdiqhs24ztfwo04cc1aabyyxhhxogdo
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Captain Humayun Khan Was a Thug
Comments:

Captain Humayun Khan was a thug who went to Iraq to kill innocent people. There's nothing to feel proud of his actions regardless of the number of posthumous medals and decorations they gave to his corpse.
________

+Maier Amsden: "What evidence do you have to support such a claim?"
________

+Maier Amsden, his biography:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humayun_Khan_(soldier)
________

+Maier Amsden: «First of all, Wikipedia does not really constitute serious evidence. Second, there is absolutely nothing in the wiki article to support your claim that he was a "thug" who "went to Iraq to kill innocent people."»
________

+Maier Amsden, anyone who decides to work for the Armed Forces is a thug, especially those who will invade other countries to subjugate and slaughter their local population. The fact that they resort to hide behind a uniform to have impunity for their crimes is an aggravating circumstance.
________

+Maier Amsden: "That's a pretty narrow and mostly ignorant view. People join the armed forces for many reasons. Some people actually want to serve their country and contribute to the greater good. Some people want to defend their country against its enemies (like those who joined after 9/11)Some simply can't afford college. Soldiers do the bidding of their government. They don't get to choose their assignment, but they are held to certain standards that other fighting forces are not held to. They are not legally allowed to target civilians, which undermines your claim. You clearly don't know anyone in the military, or you know the wrong people."
________

+Maier Amsden: "People join the armed forces for many reasons."

— You may have heard of this before:

+Maier Amsden: "The ends do not justify the means."

Whatever the reasons that Humayun Khan had to join the armed forces (going to college, becoming a military lawyer, "serve" his country), those are no valid argument to justify the slaughtering of innocent people, destroying the homes of millions and ruining their livelihood. All thugs have their personal reasons to engage in thuggery. they don't make them any less of a thug.

Aggression (i.e., the initiation of force) is never justified. The only legitimate use of force are self-defense and the defense of innocent victims against their aggressors.

The Iraq War had none of those purposes. The attack and military invasion of Iraq by the US troops wasn't in self-defense. The troops weren't sent to defend innocent victims from their aggressors either. In fact, the aggressor in the Iraq War were the US Armed Forces. The primary purpose of the invasion of Iraq was to execute the US imperialist plans on the region, hardly a legitimate use of force.

Anyone who voluntarily chose to join the US troops in such invasion also voluntarily accepted to share the responsibility for their aggressive actuation. By doing so they became thugs.

+Maier Amsden: "Soldiers do the bidding of their government."

— They willingly do so. They weren't forced to join the armed forces. Therefore, that does not exonerate them from their personal responsibility.

+Maier Amsden: "They don't get to choose their assignment,"

— Decisions have consequences.
US:
1. http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/happens-troop-refuses-go-war
2. http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/85577:another-soldier-refuses-afghanistan-deployment
3. http://www.alternet.org/story/59733/when_a_u.s._soldier_in_iraq_refuses_to_kill
UK:
4. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255732/AWOL-soldier-jailed-refusing-o-Afghanistan.html

+Maier Amsden: "They are not legally allowed to target civilians,"

— Irrelevant, for two reasons:

1. Every US military invasion has caused civilian casualties in the past, regardless of whether they target "civilians" or not.

2. The casualties among the Iraqi military as a result of the attack and invasion by the US armed forces were for the most part innocent victims.

2.1. Unlike the US troops, most of the Iraqi soldiers who were killed or injured during the air attacks and invasion had been conscripted against their will.

2.2. Unlike the US troops, the Iraqi soldiers who were killed or injured during the air attacks and invasion hadn't attacked anyone. On the contrary, they became the victims of the aggressive force of the US.
________

+Maier Amsden: "You're still missing the point. The people who join the armed forces don't share your opinion. They just want to serve their country. They do not do it for the express purpose of killing innocent civilians. They don't get to decide if the ends justify the means. That is up to the people in the government whose job it is to gather and analyze top secret intelligence.

You paint them as blood thirsty killers, when that is simply untrue. Their crime is ignorance, not malice. They had been led to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, therefore making his ousting an act of self defense. They believed that the Iraqi government was brutally killing and torturing its own citizens, including committing genocide against the Kurdish minority (which is undeniable). That means they thought they were protecting innocent victims against brutal aggressors (the Iraqi government). Intent is important. There are people who join the military for the express purpose of killing with impunity, but to attribute that to all members of the armed forces is prejudice, plain and simple."
________

+Maier Amsden: "You're still missing the point."

— Dude, I'm missing nothing.

+Maier Amsden: "The people who join the armed forces don't share your opinion."

— I don't care their opinion. I judge their actions. Everyone has an opinion. Everybody justifies their own actions. Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Lincoln also had an opinion, and a "reason" to slaughter millions of people.

+Maier Amsden: "They just want to serve their country."

— This doesn't make them less thugs. The Islamist terrorists also want to "serve" their God by killing infidels. Everyone acts with a purpose, including the thugs.

+Maier Amsden: "They don't get to decide if the ends justify the means."

— Bullshit.

+Maier Amsden: "That is up to the people in the government whose job it is to gather and analyze top secret intelligence."

— More of that same bullshit. Your delusional beliefs don't override your personal responsibility.

Even the so called "International Law" (which I don't consider to be moral guidelines but perhaps you do) is on my side:

«The Nuremberg principles were a set of guidelines for determining what constitutes a war crime. The document was created by the International Law Commission of the United Nations to codify the legal principles underlying the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi party members following World War II.»

«Principle IV

"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him".

This principle could be paraphrased as follows: "It is not an acceptable excuse to say 'I was just following my superior's orders'".

Previous to the time of the Nuremberg Trials, this excuse was known in common parlance as "Superior Orders". After the prominent, high profile event of the Nuremberg Trials, that excuse is now referred to by many as the "Nuremberg Defense". In recent times, a third term, "lawful orders" has become common parlance for some people. All three terms are in use today, and they all have slightly different nuances of meaning, depending on the context in which they are used.»

Nuremberg principles. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_principles

+Maier Amsden: "They had been led to believe that Saddam was responsible for 9/11, therefore making his ousting an act of self defense."

— This is again bullshit. The official pretext to invade Iraq was the alleged presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraqi soil. On the other hand, no retaliation against a suspected criminal by no means justifies the invasion of a country, the slaughtering of hundreds of thousands of innocent victims, and the destruction of the homes and livelihood of millions.

+Maier Amsden: "They believed that the Iraqi government was brutally killing and torturing its own citizens, including committing genocide against the Kurdish minority (which is undeniable)."

— Once again, that's bullshit, (post-)war propaganda aimed at whitewash the war crimes committed by the US in Iraq, an illegal military invasion according to International Law.

It's also worth to point out that more than a decade had passed since the Iraqi regime at Baghdad lost all control over the north of the country. So the argument of the use of force to defend Kurd victims from aggressive force doesn't hold water.

It's also worth to remember that the US government have repeatedly used "brutal" force against its own citizens (e.g.,  in Waco, TX, 1993), as well as the citizens of foreign nations in their own homeland (e.g., Panama, 1989-1990) so they have little moral high ground to meddle in other countries affairs on that matter.

+Maier Amsden: "That means they thought they were protecting innocent victims against brutal aggressors"

— Nope, they knew they were killing innocent Iraqis because that's what they were doing (including conscripted Iraqi soldiers slaughtered in their own homeland while trying to defend it from a foreign invasion).

+Maier Amsden: "Intent is important."

"Ignorantia juris non excusat"

«Ignorantia juris non excusat[1] or ignorantia legis neminem excusat[2] (Latin for "ignorance of the law excuses not"[1] and "ignorance of law excuses no one"[2] respectively) is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.»

Ignorantia juris non excusat. Wikipedia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

And on the other hand, as I showed above, they were still responsible under International Law, and according to International Law:

«the criteria for lawful war under the UN Charter, which says that member nations who joined the UN, as did the US, should give up war forever, aside from two exceptions: that the war is in self-defense and that the use of force was authorized by the UN Security Council. The nation . . . did not attack the United States. . . . the nation and people . . . did not. And under US law, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, any treaty enacted by the US is now the 'supreme law of the land.' So when the United States signed the UN Charter, we made that our law as well."»

— Dahr Jamail. Another Soldier Refuses Afghanistan Deployment. Truthout.com. August 12, 2009.
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/85577:another-soldier-refuses-afghanistan-deployment

+Maier Amsden: "There are people who join the military for the express purpose of killing with impunity, but to attribute that to all members of the armed forces is prejudice, plain and simple."

— Those who were no thugs were those who refused to go to war, plain and simple:

• Blake Stilwell. Here’s what happened when this Marine refused to go to war. We Are the Mighty.  October 6, 2015.
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/happens-troop-refuses-go-war

• Dahr Jamail. Another Soldier Refuses Afghanistan Deployment. Truthout.com. August 12, 2009.
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/85577:another-soldier-refuses-afghanistan-deployment

• Mary Wiltenburg (Christian Science Monitor). War on Iraq: When a U.S. Soldier in Iraq Refuses to Kill. Alternet. August 15, 2007.
http://www.alternet.org/story/59733/when_a_u.s._soldier_in_iraq_refuses_to_kill

• Christian Gysin. AWOL soldier jailed for refusing to go back to Afghanistan. Daily Mail. March 6, 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255732/AWOL-soldier-jailed-refusing-o-Afghanistan.html
________

+Maier Amsden: "No matter how you rationalize it, saying that anyone who goes to fight what you consider an unjust war (even if you have good reasons for deeming it thus) is there for the purpose of killing innocent civilians is inaccurate and irresponsible. Do you really think all American soldiers who fought in all the unjust wars specifically sought to kill innocent civilians? The position is indefensible."
________

URL G+ post source comments:
https://plus.google.com/+reasonmagazine/posts/axnautmEf4c
__________________

Further reading:

«Funk enlisted in the Marines at age 19, right after high school and the attacks of 9-11, to go to Afghanistan. His father served, so did his grandfather. In boot camp, he qualified as an expert rifleman, but something about it bothered him. When his instructor told him he wouldn’t shoot as well in combat, Funk told the instructor he was right, because he thought killing was wrong.

“Throughout the training,  all the conditioning is trying to make you think its okay to kill and go to war,” Funk says.  “But the whole time it felt wrong to me. At the end of it, I ended up not wanting to go anywhere to fight at all. I didn’t want to be a part of it.” Funk would soon gain international notoriety for becoming the first U.S. troop to refuse to fight in the Iraq War.»

«He applied for conscientious objector status. There were many other conscientious objectors Funk knew of, but none served time in jail. Funk was sentenced to six months confinement (he served five), a demotion to E-1, forfeiture of pay, a fine, and a bad conduct discharge. The crime: Unauthorized Absence.

“Unauthorized Absence is really common,” Funk explains. “Anytime you’re not where you’re supposed to be, that’s unauthorized absence. As a reservist, if you miss a weekend, that’s unauthorized absence, but they’re not going to put you in the brig for that. They might make you come in on an off-weekend to make up for it, but they’re not gonna send you to jail.”

Funk felt the level of punishment didn’t fit the crime. He felt the Corps was making an example of him. The 27 other conscientious objectors with Funk who applied (16 were granted CO status). The Marines’ stance was the other objectors avoided prosecution because they reported for duty on time.»

«People still remember Stephen Funk. Every once in a while, someone looks him up and reaches out. After 13 years, many wonder if he would do it all over again.

“If placed in the same position, I probably wouldn’t join in the first place,” Funk says.»

— Blake Stilwell. Here’s what happened when this Marine refused to go to war. We Are the Mighty.  October 6, 2015.
http://www.wearethemighty.com/articles/happens-troop-refuses-go-war
________

«"Victor is approaching this from the standpoint of law and ethics," Branum explained, "It's his own personal ethics and principles of the Nuremberg Principles, that the war in Afghanistan does not meet the criteria for lawful war under the UN Charter, which says that member nations who joined the UN, as did the US, should give up war forever, aside from two exceptions: that the war is in self-defense and that the use of force was authorized by the UN Security Council. The nation of Afghanistan did not attack the United States. The Taliban may have, but the nation and people of Afghanistan did not. And under US law, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, any treaty enacted by the US is now the 'supreme law of the land.' So when the United States signed the UN Charter, we made that our law as well."»

— Dahr Jamail. Another Soldier Refuses Afghanistan Deployment. Truthout.com. August 12, 2009.
http://truth-out.org/archive/component/k2/item/85577:another-soldier-refuses-afghanistan-deployment
________

«On the way to renew his driver's license, Aguayo saw a recruiting station and stopped in. "No, you don't want the Army Reserve," he recalls the recruiter saying, "have a seat." Two weeks later, Aguayo joined the active-duty Army. His wife didn't want him to - the Afghan war had subsided and the Iraq invasion was imminent. "But he was so excited and so sure that the future would hold great things," Helga Aguayo says, that she supported his decision. She recalls asking him what he'd do if he had to go to war. "He kind of laughed and said, 'They train you for that. I'll be a different person.' "

But in basic training at Fort Benning, Ga., Aguayo couldn't adjust like other recruits did. It pained him to march to "Left, right, kill!" and to chant "We are not men. We are beasts." He stumbled out of gas-mask training crying, and wrote to Helga that the sting of the gas made him think of Nazi gas chambers. "The point is for you to learn how to use the mask," he says, "but [the gas] hurts, and I'd never want to hurt anyone like that." He hoped his qualms were normal, that he'd master them.

In August 2003, five months after the US invaded Iraq, Aguayo's unit was sent to a base in Schweinfurt, Germany. There they received orders to deploy to Iraq in the new year. His roommate assured Aguayo that the war was over and they would be peacekeepers. Aguayo, who rarely followed the news, felt better.

Then their training changed. "It wasn't targets anymore. It wasn't about me getting a badge. It wasn't about me getting a pat on the back," he says, "It was about me getting ready to take someone down."

In February 2004, on the eve of his Iraq deployment, Aguayo confided to Helga, who had joined him in Germany with their 8-year-old daughters, that he wasn't willing to kill, even in self-defense. She was alarmed. She searched for help online, and found a story about a marine who had refused to serve in Iraq. They read it together; some of the words were new to them.»

«Aguayo never got used to the routine cruelties of war: The men in US uniform he heard speak lewdly to veiled women, the American squads that cut clotheslines on Fridays while families were at prayer. "When someone sees me on a corner, then sees this guy next to me," he says of these soldiers, "he thinks we're the same."»

— Mary Wiltenburg (Christian Science Monitor). War on Iraq: When a U.S. Soldier in Iraq Refuses to Kill. Alternet. August 15, 2007.
http://www.alternet.org/story/59733/when_a_u.s._soldier_in_iraq_refuses_to_kill
________

«On his return, he was ordered to go back to the conflict zone after just nine months despite military guidelines suggesting soldiers should not be deployed again within 18 months.

Lawyer Nick Wrack told the court that Glenton suffered Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and when he had spoken of his concerns about going back he was 'bullied and intimidated' by his staff sergeant.

Mr Wrack said: 'He was called a coward and a malingerer. When this information was brought to his commanding officer, the sergeant was spoken to, but this reinforced the bullying.

'More and more, he began to see that the conflict in Afghanistan was wrong.

'He spoke out about it, perhaps in a bold fashion and questioned the morality and legality of the war.'

Glenton, from York, took part in an anti-war protest in October last year and finally returned to his barracks on June 16, 2009, when he was charged.

Consultant psychiatrist Lars Davidsson told the court that Glenton may have been reacting to PTSD.»

— Christian Gysin. AWOL soldier jailed for refusing to go back to Afghanistan. Daily Mail. March 6, 2010.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255732/AWOL-soldier-jailed-refusing-o-Afghanistan.html
__________________
Although Khizr Khan "has no right" to question Trump's constitutional fidelity, Trump has "a right to defend himself."
6
Merréll's profile photo
 
Don't Back Down! Double Down! Amen!! No more Orlando Shooter's families allowed in the US!! 
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
"Venimus, vidimus, mortuus est", Hilaria dixit.

+Devin Kime: "she certainly has a LOT more foreign affairs experience than Trump does, and she would do a much better job of it that he would"

— Experience in "foreign affairs"? You may mean that she's a tested war criminal, with her hands stained with the blood of thousands of innocent victims.

I have no doubt that "she would do a much better job" escalating minor disputes into wars and creating conflicts just for the sake of it. She's a psychopath.

Did you see how she laughed while recalling her involvement in the slaying of Muammar Gaddafi?:

Hillary Rodham Clinton (at 2:00): "We came, we saw, he died." (Followed by laughs of self-satisfaction)

[Parodying Julius Caesar's quote "Veni, vidi, vici." ("I came; I saw; I conquered.")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni,_vidi,_vici ]

— James Corbett. Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity. Corbett Report. July 25, 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EGBOMvBrZw (12 min)

I guess she thinks that war is like playing a video game. She got a high score because all the casualties fell on the other side. So frivolous in her thinking she can be.

Further reading:

• John Pilger. Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump. New Matilda. March 23, 2016.
https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-more-dangerous-than-donald-trump

URL G+ post source comment:
https://plus.google.com/112670191737051309427/posts/BtpGfXMXrRe
2
tareem heath's profile photoZephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
3 comments
 
Apparently someone deleted my comment. What I said was that regardless of what Trump might be, I have little doubt that Hillary (his alternative with greatest support) is a dangerous psychopath. The following interview, in which she brags about her part in the slaying of Muammar Gaddafi, is just a piece of the evidence from which I infer her psychopathic tendencies:

Hillary Rodham Clinton (at 2:00): "We came, we saw, he died." (Followed by loud laughter)

[Parodying Julius Caesar's quote "Veni, vidi, vici." ("I came; I saw; I conquered.")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni,_vidi,_vici ]

— James Corbett. Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity. Corbett Report. July 25, 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EGBOMvBrZw (12 min)

We also have the following e-mail sent to her, which reveals some of the true intentions of the US government under her command in the involvement in that war:

• sbwhoeop. H: France's Cliet & Q's gold. Sid. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc no. C05779612 Date: 12/31/2015
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/Clinton_Email_December_Release/C05779612.pdf
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110402-France-client-gold-State-Dept.pdf

This other e-mail is less revealing, but it's evidence that the Western powers involved in the Libyan War violated International Law and the UN resolution that NATO was supposed to enforce:

• sbwhoeop. H: Lots of new intel; possible Libyan collapse. Sid. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc no. C05782401 Date: 12/31/2015
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110327-new-intel-State-Dept.pdf

PS: I gather that somebody must have a vested interest in silencing any evidence of Hillary's misdeeds.

URL G+ post source comment:
https://plus.google.com/+AbleLawrence/posts/i8BvZsbnMuy

Those alleged "policies" have absolute no value since you have no way to determine whether they would be implemented. The primary purpose of electoral programs is propaganda, a facade of eligibility to allure potential voters. In contrast, the previous actions of a candidate, their past record, is much more informative. Here you are some Hillary's past misdeeds (Trump's ones have been vented over the last year since they weren't protected by the National Security Act):

Hillary Rodham Clinton (at 2:00): "We came, we saw, he died." (Followed by loud laughter)

[Parodying Julius Caesar's quote "Veni, vidi, vici." ("I came; I saw; I conquered.")
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veni,_vidi,_vici ]

— James Corbett. Hillary Clinton Is A Threat To All Of Humanity. Corbett Report. July 25, 2016.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EGBOMvBrZw (12 min)

An e-mail sent to Hillary, which reveals some of the true intentions of the US government under her command and its allies in the involvement in the Libyan War:

• sbwhoeop. H: France's Cliet & Q's gold. Sid. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc no. C05779612 Date: 12/31/2015
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/Clinton_Email_December_Release/C05779612.pdf
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110402-France-client-gold-State-Dept.pdf

This other e-mail is less revealing, but it's evidence that the Western powers involved in the Libyan War violated International Law and the UN resolution that NATO was supposed to enforce:

• sbwhoeop. H: Lots of new intel; possible Libyan collapse. Sid. UNCLASSIFIED U.S. Department of State Case No. F-2014-20439 Doc no. C05782401 Date: 12/31/2015
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/110327-new-intel-State-Dept.pdf

URL G+ post source comment:
https://plus.google.com/103071893058653652013/posts/EVQLiJcezaM
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...
Have them in circles
5,459 people
Fresh Life246's profile photo
AJ Anderson's profile photo
Myung Sturtevant's profile photo
Slab Nab's profile photo
Bungsu Tunggal's profile photo
Sea Explorers Philippines | Scuba Diving, Island Hopping & Resorts's profile photo
Tito Pascual's profile photo
Teresa Dava's profile photo
Pearl Collins's profile photo

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
The Great Wall of China was actually built to keep its population inside

(p. 110) «What Lattimore calls the Chinese matrix of concentrated agriculture and state-making created, as a condition of its existence, an ecological and demographic frontier. In time this frontier became both a civilizational and an ethnic border where before there had been no sharp demarcation. The early Chinese state had ample strategic reasons to mark this new boundary with a sharply etched civilizational discourse and, in some cases, with physical barriers such as the Great Wall(s) and the Miao walls of the southwest. It is easy to forget that until roughly 1700, and later in frontier areas, the Chinese state itself faced the classical problem of Southeast Asian statecraft: sequestering a population in state space. Thus the walls and the rhetoric were calculated as much to keep a tax-shy Chinese peasantry from “going over to the barbarians” as to keep the barbarians at bay.[34]»

(p. 172) «Going over to the Barbarians

We know that some of the border Chinese began to follow the same line of divergent evolution [pastoral nomadism] and that it was to retain the Chinese within China as well as to keep the new style barbarians out of China that the Great Wall was built.

—Owen Lattimore, “The Frontier in History”»

(p. 173) «Because the shift to hill livelihoods was, in valley terms, always associated with a decline in status, it was inconceivable that it could have occurred voluntarily. Hill populations, by valley accounts, were either an aboriginal population that had never been civilized or, more sympathetically, a population driven from the lowlands by force. Constantly aware of the contempt in which they were held, many of the tribal peoples in their oral histories explain their current location and status by some combination of victimization, treachery, and negligence. Nevertheless, it is abundantly clear that all hill groups have incorporated large numbers of “defectors” from civilization by working them into their genealogies. A great many of these defectors were Han Chinese who found it convenient to leave civilization for the hills. As we have seen, there was no logical place for such counternarratives in the self-portrait of Han-Confucian statecraft. Thus the Great Wall(s) and the anti-Miao walls of Hunan were seen officially as a barrier to barbarians, whereas, in fact, they were built just as surely to hold a taxpaying, sedentary, cultivating population within the ambit of state power. As Magnus Fiskesjö shows, “many of the imagined barbarians of the past and many so-called ‘Miao rebels’ [of the mid-nineteenth century] were actually majority Chinese on the run from tax obligations or criminal liabilities in mainstream society.”[131] Trade, the search for land, and marriage were other reasons why Han and other migrants to the hills might find it advantageous to join hill society. Self-marginalization, or “self-barbarianization” in valley terms, might have been, at times, quite common. Civilizational discourse, however, made such conduct unthinkable.[132]»

(p. 362) «34. Lattimore, as noted, makes this point about the northern Great Wall(s). For the Miao walls, see the astute article by Magnus Fiskesjö, “On the ‘Raw’ and the ‘Cooked’ Barbarians of Imperial China,” Inner Asia 1 (1999): 139–68. Once again, it is crucial to recall that Han culture was itself a confection, an alloy of many cultural elements. Just as it was taken for granted that the Han changed nature while the barbarians “lived in it,” Mencius said that he had heard of Chinese changing barbarians but never of barbarians changing the Chinese. It is this last contention that Fiskesjö convincingly refutes (140).»

(pp. 366-367) «131. Magnus Fiskesjö, “Rescuing the Empire: Chinese Nation-Building in the 20th Century,” European Journal of East Asian Studies 5 (2006), 15–44, quotations from 38.

132. In his study of the “Miao Rebellion,” Robert D. Jenks concluded that Han representation was numerically greater than minority representation. It was in the interest of the authorities never to admit this because, while it was to be expected that barbarians would rebel no matter how well ruled, the only explanation for Han rebellion was misrule—a condition for which the provincial authorities would be held responsible. Insurgency and Social Disorder in Guizhou: The “Miao” Rebellion, 1854–1873 (Honolulu: University of Hawai’i Press, 1994), 4. For a perceptive account of Han participation in a “Miao” revolt in the late eighteenth century, see Daniel McMahon, “Identity and Conflict in a Chinese Borderland: Yan Ruyi and Recruitment of the Gelao during the 1795–97 Miao Revolt,” Late Imperial China 23 (2002): 53–86.»

— 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
2
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Cecilia - Un ramito de violetas (1974) [4 min]

Comment:
This is a good song, especially for those who understand spoken Spanish.

You may have noticed other songs of this same author reproduced today. In the early morning of an August 2nd 40 years ago, Evangelina Sobredo Galanes (aka "Cecilia") died in a road accident. She had several other successful songs but this one is probably her best.

I think you could rightfully consider Cecilia as the Spanish "Karen Carpenter" (with a shade of Joan Baez). Both Evangelina and Karen were born around the same period (1948 and 1950 respectively), had a rather successful artistic career thanks in part to their melodic voice (both were probably contralto), their singing skills and wide register, both died rather young (27 and 32 respectively), although unlike Karen Carpenter, Cecilia was the songwriter of most of the songs that she interpreted (whereas in the case of the Carpenters it was Karen's brother, Richard).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_(Spanish_singer)

Selection of popular songs:

• Cecilia. "Un ramito de violetas" (1974)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1UhzRO-S60 [4 min]
Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4_0FkGInMk [4 min]
Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_VDthBuihg

• Cecilia. "Dama, dama" (1972)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6zcry-jgoA [3 min]
Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6zcry-jgoA [4 min]
Live (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2G6bgcykIc [4 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNuT5UU2dVA [4 min]

• Cecilia. "Mi querida España" (1975)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s26LHhwFkmk [3 min]
Live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_VDthBuihg [From 5:17]

• Cecilia. "Amor de media noche" (1975)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1nLaowPH2c [4 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcPA3hJnym0 [7 min]
Live (1975): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8TjY84BcWM [4 min]

• Cecilia. "Me quedaré soltera" (1973)
Live (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HwVIgmWlkg [3 min]

• Cecilia. "Lluvia" (posthumously released in 1976)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjDTupCny9Q [2 min]

• Cecilia. "Soldadito de plomo" (posthumously released in 1983)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZ_VbplKaO4 [2 min]

• Cecilia. "Al son del clarín"
Live (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YdPL7YG6SI [3 min]

• Cecilia. "Equilibrista"
Live (1973): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BKyW6ao4u4 [2 min]

Compilations/Specials:

• TV music show: "Cecilia". A su aire. TVE (1973)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDo4elIZVUA [27 min]

• Enrique Martí Maqueda et al. TV music show: "Cecilia en Festival OTI 1975". TVE (1975)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQpmyLOITh0 [26 min]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQHnKgwRonI [26 min]

• TV show special: "20 años sin Cecilia". TVE (1996)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jUm4dK_WmA [53 min]

Interview:

• Juan Vives. Radio interview to Cecilia. Cadena SER (1976)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIwYuossAvM [9 min]

Documentaries:

"Cecilia" Regreso al futuro. Canal Sur (2008)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9Ivgk16Hdo [12 min]

• Blanca Flaquer et al. "La Vida de Cecilia - Cómo nació Un ramito de violetas". La mitad invisible. Imitve/TVE (2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nfOxRUVsqw [30 min]
 ·  Translate
1
Add a comment...

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  - 
 
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 aggression 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
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's Collections
People
Have them in circles
5,459 people
Fresh Life246's profile photo
AJ Anderson's profile photo
Myung Sturtevant's profile photo
Slab Nab's profile photo
Bungsu Tunggal's profile photo
Sea Explorers Philippines | Scuba Diving, Island Hopping & Resorts's profile photo
Tito Pascual's profile photo
Teresa Dava's profile photo
Pearl Collins's profile photo