Profile

Cover photo
Zephyr López Cervilla
5,406 followers|1,096,304 views
AboutPostsCollectionsPhotosYouTube

Stream

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
"No nation can survive treason from within."
~Paraphrasing Millard F Caldwell's "Cicero's Prognosis",
http://www.aapsonline.org/brochures/cicero.htm
~Paraphrasing Marcus Tullius Cicero's "Oratio in Catilinam Secunda Habita ad Populum" [The 2nd Oration against Lucius Catalina. Addressed to the People]
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Cicero#Misattributed
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Cic.+Catil.+2
"Good." ~Grumpy Cat's "imgflip.com/i/1hzc3p Meme".

Related article (see comments section):

• Eileen F Toplansky. "Cicero and Obama." American Thinker (February 18, 2015)
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/cicero_and_obama.html
Comments: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/02/cicero_and_obama_comments.html

URL related G+ post:
plus.google.com/+Thefreethoughtprojectcom/posts/cD5jrBYC7AS
3
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
On "Woman Suffrage"

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

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

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

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Relation of the State to the Individual." Liberty (November 15, 1890) vol. 7 no. 15 (whole no. 171) pp. 5-7 [document no. 1197-1199]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relation-of-the-state-to-the-individual
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n41/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2866

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Tu-Whit! Tu-Whoo!" Liberty (October 24, 1885) vol. 3 no. 16 (whole no. 68) p. 4 [document no. 378]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/tu-whit-tu-whoo
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n75/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2769

• Clara Dixon Davidson. "Relations Between Parents and Children." Liberty (September 3, 1892) vol. 9 no. 1 (whole no. 235) pp. 2-4 [document no. 1522-1524]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relations-between-parents-and-children
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n157/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2922

• Wendy McElroy. "I the Person versus We the People." Mises Daily (July 20, 2011)
https://mises.org/library/i-person-versus-we-people

• Carl Watner. "Spooner vs. Liberty." The Libertarian Forum (March 1975) vol. 7 no. 3
http://voluntaryist.com/journal/spoonervsliberty.html
http://mises.org/library/complete-libertarian-forum-1969-1984

• Frédéric Bastiat. "L'État." Journal des Débats (no. du 25 septembre 1848) p. 1 col. 5
Fr: http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html
Fr: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56881118
En: http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html
En: http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
En: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html
Es: http://bastiat.org/es/El_Estado.html

• Frédéric Bastiat. "Ce qu’on voit et Ce qu’on ne voit pas." (1850)
Fr: http://bastiat.org/fr/cqovecqonvp.html
Fr: http://panarchy.org/bastiat/nevoitpas.1850.html
Fr: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k202319m/f339
En: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
En: http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwins.html
Es: http://bastiat.org/es/lqsvylqnsv.html

"Parable of the broken window." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

"Opportunity cost." Wikipedia
En: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost
Es: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coste_de_oportunidad

"Democracy is the pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance."
~H. L. Mencken.

«This brings us to Anarchism, which may be described as the doctrine that all the affairs of men should be managed by individuals or voluntary associations, and that the State should be abolished.»

— Benjamin R Tucker. "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ." Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 no. 16 (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [document no. 790, 791, 794]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/state-socialism-and-anarchism
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n28/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2821

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

• Brett Veinotte. "Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous." School Sucks Podcast (April 22, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg [13 min]

URL G+ post source comment:
plus.google.com/105473622219622697310/posts/VxfrzYyrUAc

Further reading:

• Benjamin R Tucker. "A Sound Criticism." Liberty (June 29, 1895) vol. 11 no. 4 (whole no. 316) pp. 3-4 [document no. 2033-2034]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/06/29/a-sound-criticism
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/lenfant-terrible
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/07/on-picket-duty
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/what-is-property
http://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]
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/12/14/rights-and-contract
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3016

• Murray N Rothbard. "Chapter 14. Children and Rights." "The Ethics of Liberty." New York University Press (1982)
https://www.goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983
https://mises.org/library/ethics-liberty

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

URL related G+ posts:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/6reo1K55d5K
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/LBqmycSgND4
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/c7Qtrf3yLK3
The Women’s Suffrage March of 1913: The Parade That Overshadowed Another Presidential Inauguration a Century Ago… - Jennifer Ouellette: Google+
1
1
Scentisky Fortenine's profile photo
 
A massive library of info. Thanks for the collection.
#NoNationalBorder
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
American barbarian medical practice:
• Non-therapeutic circumcision (to "fix" dirty penis syndrome and dad's penis envy complex) (58.3% in 2010);
• Sympathectomy (to "fix" sweating);
• Non-therapeutic appendectomy (e.g., during a hysterectomy);
• Non-therapeutic C-section (to "fix" labour) (1 out of every 3);
• Tonsillectomy (to "fix" sore throats) (1 out of every 4);
• Lifetime footwear (to "fix" healthy feet) (>99%).

• Dennis Thompson (HealthDay). "Should more kids have their tonsils out?" Medical Xpress (January 17, 2017)
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-01-kids-tonsils.html

URL G+ post source comment:
plus.google.com/+Medicalxpress/posts/TsUaCHghNzD

URL related G+ posts:
plus.google.com/+LyndaGiddens/posts/B7Fd8s3Uoe1
plus.google.com/+RebeccaWatsonSkepchick/posts/WsKFkJwPkaU
plus.google.com/+LyndaGiddens/posts/TqwvewxSiZt
plus.google.com/117938162994588165735/posts/4Uy5TvPFF1A
plus.google.com/+AbleLawrence/posts/JCgQZTaW8nA
(HealthDay)—Because of stringent tonsillectomy guidelines, some kids who could benefit from tonsil removal surgery aren't getting it, two new reviews suggest.
1
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Articles & Essays  - 
 
Egoist Anarchism
The only form of anarchism that neither resorts to the appeal to emotion nor to any religious moral principles.
 
Egoism

If you've never read Max Stirner's work, I recommend you to do so. He explains the fundamentals of some of the most influential political ideologies (e.g., the different flavors of liberalism that existed when he wrote his work, communism) in a way you probably have never seen. It's no wonder that his work hasn't enjoyed much diffusion, it'd be considered subversive, extremely dangerous for the political establishment, bureaucrats and political organizations regardless of its color (liberal, conservative, socialist, progressive, christian-democrat, social-democrat, nationalist, globalist, monarchist, minarchist, whatever). This one is considered the most influential of his works:

• Max Stirner. "The Ego and His Own." (1845) English edition of "Der Einzige und Sein Eigenthum." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (1st English edition, 1907)
http://gutenberg.org/ebooks/34580
http://df.lth.se/~triad/stirner/theego/theego.pdf
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/max-stirner-the-ego-and-his-own
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Ego_and_Its_Own/Ownness

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

Decades after, his work was "rediscovered" and influenced several political theorists, among them perhaps the most prolific and whose work enjoyed greatest diffusion was Benjamin R Tucker. Tucker tried to apply some of the central points of Stirner's political philosophy to practical social and political situations. Sometimes, Tucker wouldn't be entirely consistent in his discourse with Stirner's views, yet, his work is still worth of attention. Tucker was primary a columnist and the editor and publisher of his own political magazine. Over the years, Tucker would also publish a couple of books with selected articles previously appeared in his magazine. Unfortunately, none of the two books included any of the articles published over the last eighteen years of the magazine. This means that much of the relevant work most influenced by Stirner's philosophy mus be either directly gathered from the magazine (which is available online) or from secondary sources. this is Tucker's first compilation:

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Instead of a Book by a Man Too Busy to Write One: A Fragmentary Exposition of Philosophical Anarchism." Benj. R. Tucker, Publisher (1893, 2nd ed. 1897)
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book
http://archive.org/details/cu31924030333052

• Benjamin R Tucker (editor and publisher). "Liberty." (1881–1908)
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/browse?collection=12
Links sorted out in chronological order:
http://travellinginliberty.blogspot.com/2007/08/index-of-liberty-site.html

Some relevant articles (most of them don't appear in his compilation of articles):

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

• Clara Dixon Davidson. "Relations Between Parents and Children." Liberty (September 3, 1892) vol. 9 no. 1 (whole no. 235) pp. 2-4 [document no. 1522-1524]
http://fair-use.org/benjamin-tucker/instead-of-a-book/relations-between-parents-and-children
http://archive.org/stream/cu31924030333052#page/n157/mode/2up
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2922

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

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

• Benjamin R Tucker. "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, And Wherein They Differ." Liberty (March 10, 1888) vol. 5 no. 16 (whole no. 120) pp. 2, 3, 6 [document 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

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

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

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Land Monopoly and Literary Monopoly." Liberty (March 21, 1891) vol. 7 no. 24 (whole no. 180) p. 4 [document no. 1268]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/2874

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

• Benjamin R Tucker. "A Sound Criticism." Liberty (June 29, 1895) vol. 11 no. 4 (whole no. 316) pp. 3-4 [document no. 2033-2034]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/06/29/a-sound-criticism
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/08/24/lenfant-terrible
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/07/on-picket-duty
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/what-is-property
http://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]
http://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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/12/14/rights-and-contract
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3016

• Benjamin R Tucker. "Attacked Because We Do Not Know It All." Liberty (February 1997) vol. 12 no. 12 (whole no. 350) pp. 4-5 [document no. 2310-2311]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3039

You may also find enlightening this other article by Bastiat:

• Frédéric Bastiat. "L'État." Journal des Débats (no. du 25 septembre 1848) p. 1 col. 5
Fr: http://bastiat.org/fr/l_etat.html
Fr: http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k56881118
En: http://econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss5.html
En: http://panarchy.org/bastiat/state.1848.html
En: http://bastiat.org/en/government.html

Some spinoffs:

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

• Brett Veinotte. "Why Libertarianism Is So Dangerous." School Sucks Podcast (April 22, 2013)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbNFJK1ZpVg (13 min)

URL YouTube source of comment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27FxZY0TA4I&lc=z13bhxohjzetddjft220dllzrrffjh32h
3 comments on original post
1
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Government cheerleaders gonna state

mary Zeman Shared publicly Jan 8, 2017 2:06 PM [UTC]
:)
plus.google.com/109165227267542502403/posts/DhFBv5H7ch8
______

Gert Sønderby Jan 8, 2017 2:13 PM [UTC]
Ah, they got the headline right this time. :-) Lot of headlines floating around about her being the first African-American on the ISS, but there's been... five before her? At least two of them women. Just for short stints as part of a shuttle mission, rather than as station crew.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 3:51 PM [UTC]
Further evidence that ISS and NASA are instruments for political propaganda over anything else.
"First African-American to develop malaria vaccine"

• Ker Than. "Nobel Laureate Disses NASA's Manned Spaceflight." Space.com (September 18, 2007)
http://www.space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned-spaceflight.html

• Sam Dinkin. "An interview with Steven Weinberg." The Space Review (January 14, 2008)
http://thespacereview.com/article/1037/1

• Steven Weinberg. "The Crisis of Big Science." The New York Review of Books (May 10, 2012)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/05/10/crisis-big-science

• Patrick Collins et al. "How the West Wasn't Won (NAFA)." SpaceFuture.com
http://spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml

"Space Race." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

"Space propaganda." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_propaganda

"Space policy." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy

"Chinese exclusion policy of NASA." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NASA
______

Gert Sønderby Jan 9, 2017 3:53 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla What, are you saying that an international space station, built as a collaboration between multiple nations to explore space and do science is a bad thing? Because that... is not a very smart thing to say, IMO.
______

Gert Sønderby Jan 9, 2017 3:56 PM [UTC]
(Also, that NAFA piece is spectacularly wrongheaded re. what space exploration is re. what colonization of the American continent was. Exploring an infinite expanse and doing science is not quite the same as displacement and genocide through population movement...)
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 5:09 PM [UTC]
+Gert Sønderby: "Because that... is not a very smart thing to say, IMO."

— As "smart" as Steven Weinberg's argument can be. On the other hand, how valuable is the biased opinion of a NASA apologist like you?
The fact that the ISS has been a budget sinkhole for over two decades doesn't make it any "better", other than to those who make their living with those funds.

+Gert Sønderby: "Also, that NAFA piece is spectacularly wrongheaded re. what space exploration is re. what colonization of the American continent was. Exploring an infinite expanse and doing science is not quite the same as displacement and genocide through population movement..."

— I don't think you even understand it since you're hallucinating what it conveys. Alternatively, you may have decided to make a literal interpretation of its allegorical content in order to have an easy target to attack.

«Another tell for brainwashing involves people hallucinating an opponent’s opinion and using sarcasm to mock their own hallucination. Example: “LOL. So you’re saying we should put all poor people in jail? Wow.”»

— Scott Adams. "How to Identify the Brainwashed." Scott Adams' Blog (August 9, 2016)
blog.dilbert.com/post/148692199141
______

mary Zeman Jan 9, 2017 5:16 PM [UTC]
for the love of god knock it off Zephyr. Scott Adams is hardly a credible source itself. 
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 5:24 PM [UTC]
+mary Zeman, "hardly a credible source" about what topic?
For starters, he isn't in the payroll of anybody or any government. Try to beat that.
______

mary Zeman Jan 9, 2017 5:36 PM [UTC]
Bye bye
______

Sordatos Cáceres Jan 9, 2017 7:32 PM [UTC]
+Gert Sønderby he is extreme Libertarian, so yes for him.

+mary Zeman​ I blocked Zephyr some days ago, we occasionally sparred, but I didn't block him because I thought he talked in good faith, even if he engaged in casual racism... But a week ago I realized he lives in his own world when he said there is sexism against man in Hollywood.... That was too much fantasy for me
______

URL G+ post source comments:
plus.google.com/+maryZeman/posts/A8g47WPznGt

On Gert Sønderby:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/FUHnQT6ruK6
plus.google.com/+JasonDavison/posts/NHcmwpsNVc7
plus.google.com/118403670377742639351/posts/DhMqvi4dZQJ
plus.google.com/110685273879923679231/posts/E17PYAHXW5z
plus.google.com/114096599366011465749/posts/TxaxwWyHG5N
plus.google.com/114096599366011465749/posts/K46TRehYq7j
plus.google.com/+DeryaUnutmaz/posts/Z6nzcxdhZhU
plus.google.com/+JasonDavison/posts/NHcmwpsNVc7
______________

Jane “Negress” Eyre Jan 9, 2017 7:19 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla I have no idea what you are doing but please stay away from my posts with your bullshit or I will block you. Go find someone else to lay your conspiracy theories on. Thank you and good day.
______

URL G+ post source comments:
plus.google.com/109165227267542502403/posts/DhFBv5H7ch8
______________
3
1
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photo
 
Clinton Hammond Jan 3, 2017
Rogue One should have been called Star Wars The Uncanny Valley
Tarkin looked awful.... Leia looked worse.....
Let dead actors stay dead 
_______

Sordatos Cáceres Jan 3, 2017
She already filmed E:VIII though.
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 3, 2017
The problem isn't the actors but the screenplay and plot. There's a clear ageist trend in Hollywood, and in recent years also identity sexism. In many recent movies there is at least a female character with a manly role, fighting person-to-person with her hands against males larger and apparently physically stronger than her and defeating them. Apparently, skinny females now can also outrun young athletic males.
_______

Robert Cooper Jan 3, 2017
It's Sad that Debbie Reynolds loved her only begotten daughter that she had the need to be with her
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 3, 2017
I don't think she had any "need" to die. Her cardiovascular system wasn't just in good condition and the stress made things worse. Not everyone is susceptible to suffer a stroke.
On the other hand, Debbie Reynolds isn't "with her" daughter, none of them exist anymore.
_______

+Sordatos Cáceres: "+mary Zeman​ I blocked Zephyr some days ago, we occasionally sparred, but I didn't block him because I thought he talked in good faith, even if he engaged in casual racism... But a week ago I realized he lives in his own world when he said there is sexism against man in Hollywood.... That was too much fantasy for me"
Source: plus.google.com/+maryZeman/posts/A8g47WPznGt

— Apparently you also hallucinated +Zephyr López Cervilla's opinion:

«Another tell for brainwashing involves people hallucinating an opponent’s opinion and using sarcasm to mock their own hallucination. Example: “LOL. So you’re saying we should put all poor people in jail? Wow.”»

— Scott Adams. "How to Identify the Brainwashed." Scott Adams' Blog (August 9, 2016)
blog.dilbert.com/post/148692199141

Some examples of female characters with manly roles who fight person-to-person and defeat males larger and apparently physically stronger than them:
• Jaylah, "Star Trek Beyond." (2016)
• Rey, "Star Wars: The Force Awakens." (2015)
• Nadia, "Pandorum." (2009)

PS:
You liberals have such a thin skin. You feel entitled to resort to name-calling and insulting language whenever you want, but when you are reciprocated courteously you have a tantrum:

Gert Sønderby Jan 9, 2017 3:53 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla What, are you saying that an international space station, built as a collaboration between multiple nations to explore space and do science is a bad thing? Because that... is not a very smart thing to say, IMO.

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 5:09 PM [UTC]
+Gert Sønderby: "Because that... is not a very smart thing to say, IMO."

As "smart" as Steven Weinberg's argument can be. On the other hand, how valuable is the biased opinion of a NASA apologist like you?
The fact that the ISS has been a budget sinkhole for over two decades doesn't make it any "better", other than to those who make their living with those funds.

+Gert Sønderby: "Also, that NAFA piece is spectacularly wrongheaded re. what space exploration is re. what colonization of the American continent was. Exploring an infinite expanse and doing science is not quite the same as displacement and genocide through population movement..."

I don't think you even understand it since you're hallucinating what it conveys. Alternatively, you may have decided to make a literal interpretation of its allegorical content in order to have an easy target to attack.
___

mary Zeman Jan 9, 2017 5:16 PM [UTC]
for the love of god knock it off Zephyr. Scott Adams is hardly a credible source itself.
___

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 5:24 PM [UTC]
+mary Zeman, "hardly a credible source" about what topic?
For starters, he [Scott Adams] _isn't in the payroll of anybody or any government. Try to beat that._
___

mary Zeman Jan 9, 2017 5:36 PM [UTC]
Bye bye
___

Source:
plus.google.com/+maryZeman/posts/A8g47WPznGt
________

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 8:43 PM [UTC]
+Gert Sønderby: "I suppose you think you'd come out on top in the dog-eat-dog situation that invariably results from anarchy."

Even in the wild, dogs don't eat dogs:

«The motto “dog eat dog”—which is not applicable to capitalism nor to dogs—is applicable to the social theory of ethics. The exis­tential monuments to this theory are Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.»

— Ayn Rand. "1. The Objectivist Ethics." "The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism." Signet, Penguin Books (1964)
http://www.naturalthinker.net/trl/texts/Rand,Ayn/RAND,%20Ayn%20-%20The%20Virtue%20of%20Selfishness.htm
___

Gert Sønderby Jan 9, 2017 9:05 PM [UTC]
... You dug up a four year old post, just to bicker at me and quote discredited philosophers' nonsense at me? That's... Something. Nothing good, but something.
___

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 9:39 PM [UTC]
+Gert Sønderby, are you also going to argue that "Scott Adams [or Ayn Rand] is hardly a credible source"? Ever heard of the ad hominem fallacy?

«When people want to add extra “oomph” to negative depictions of self-owners acting without coercion — that is, market competition under capitalism — they turn to name-calling. One of the most effective forms is describing such competition as dog-eat-dog. […] To begin with, dog-eat-dog is an odd way to characterize anything. I have never seen a dog eat another dog. I don’t know anyone who has. In fact, some trace the phrase’s origin back to the Latin, canis caninam not est, or “dog does not eat dog,” which says the opposite […] It is nonsensical to rely on an analogy to something that doesn’t actually happen in animal behavior as a central premise toward condemning market systems as ruthless and hard-hearted.»

— Gary Galles. «The "Dog-Eat-Dog" Delusion.» Mises Daily (January 3, 2015)
https://mises.org/library/dog-eat-dog-delusion
___

Gert Sønderby Jan 9, 2017 9:45 PM [UTC]
No. I have simpler means of dealing with fools.
___

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 10:24 PM [UTC]
+Gert Sønderby, if you're so smart, why do you feel the urge to resort to name-calling? Perhaps did your dad rape you when you were a kid?
___

Source:
plus.google.com/+ZephyrLópezCervilla/posts/FUHnQT6ruK6
________

You're so full of yourselves.
_______

URL G+ post source comments:
________________
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
"The Bullet Cluster as Evidence against Dark Matter"
— Sabine Hossenfelder. Back Reaction (January 3, 2017)

Excerpt:

«The theory of particle dark matter had become known as the “concordance model” (also: ΛCDM). It heavily relied on computer simulations which were optimized so as to match the observed structures in the universe. From these simulations, the scientists could tell the frequency by which galaxy clusters should collide and the typical relative speed at which that should happen.

From the X-ray observations, the scientists inferred that the collision speed of the galaxies in the Bullet Cluster must have taken place at approximately 3000 km/s. But such high collision speeds almost never occurred in the computer simulations based on particle dark matter. The scientists estimated the probability for a Bullet-Cluster-like collision to be about one in ten billion, and concluded: that we see such a collision is incompatible with the concordance model. And that’s how the Bullet Cluster became strong evidence in favor of modified gravity.

However, a few years later some inventive humanoids had optimized the dark-matter based computer simulations and arrived at a more optimistic estimate of a probability of 4.6×10^-4 for seeing something like the Bullet-Cluster. Briefly later they revised the probability again to 6.4×10^−6.

Either way, the Bullet Cluster remained a stunningly unlikely event to happen in the theory of particle dark matter. It was, in contrast, easy to accommodate in theories of modified gravity, in which collisions with high relative velocity occur much more frequently.

It might sound like a story from a parallel universe – but it’s true. The Bullet Cluster isn’t the incontrovertible evidence for particle dark matter that you have been told it is. It’s possible to explain the Bullet Cluster with models of modified gravity. And it’s difficult to explain it with particle dark matter.
[…]
No, the real challenge for modified gravity isn’t the Bullet Cluster. The real challenge is to get the early universe right, to explain the particle abundances and the temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background. The Bullet Cluster is merely a red-blue herring that circulates on social media as a shut-up argument. It’s a simple explanation. But simple explanations are almost always wrong.»

— Sabine Hossenfelder. "The Bullet Cluster as Evidence against Dark Matter." Back Reaction (January 3, 2017)
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html

Brace yourself, the Consensus Inquisition is here!

"Bullet Cluster." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_Cluster

"Dark matter. Observational evidence." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Observational_evidence

http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/2billion.html

• Chris Chatham. "Why The Simplest Theory Is Never The Right One: Occam’s Razor Has A Double Edge." ScienceBlogs (May 14, 2007)
http://scienceblogs.com/developingintelligence/2007/05/14/why-the-simplest-theory-is-alm

• Theo. «Name that Fallacy – Occam’s razor “debunked”.» The Skeptic's Field Guide (June 30, 2008)
http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2008/06/name-that-fallacy-ockhams-razor.html

Forums:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/occam-razor-fallacy.140438
http://sguforums.com/index.php?topic=13604.0
http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=94476.0
https://www.quora.com/Is-Occams-Razor-a-fallacy
https://www.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/18249f/how_is_occams_razor_not_a_fallacy

URL source G+ post:
plus.google.com/+SabineHossenfelder/posts/8h9zayYjq9r

URL related G+ post:
plus.google.com/+AbleLawrence/posts/1eHzmJf9GR6
 
The Bullet Cluster as Evidence against Dark Matter
Once upon a time, at the far end of the universe, two galaxy clusters collided. Their head-on encounter tore apart the galaxies and left behind two reconfigured heaps of stars and gas, separating again and moving apart from each other, destiny unknown. Four...
Once upon a time, at the far end of the universe, two galaxy clusters collided. Their head-on encounter tore apart the galaxies and left behind two reconfigured heaps of stars and gas, separating again and moving apart from e...
1 comment on original post
1
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
Slavery in the Roman World

The Roman Empire, and prior to it, the Republic, was a regime of terror and oppression that the enemies of liberty and their brainwashed followers have tried to elevate to the glory of the altars. The regime of ancient history analogous to the Third Reich (the elephant in the room):

«The lot of agricultural slaves (vincti) was probably one of the worst as they were usually housed in barrack buildings (ergastula) in poor, prison-like conditions and often kept in chains. Pompeii has revealed such work gangs chained together in death as they were in life. Other skeletal remains from Pompeii have also revealed the chronic arthritis and distortion of limbs that could only have been produced by extreme overwork and malnutrition.
[…]
There is some evidence that slaves were better treated in the Imperial period as fewer wars resulted in slaves being in less ready supply and, therefore, they increased in value and it was recognised that harsh treatment was counter-productive so that there were even laws which provided against excessively cruel owners. However, in practical terms, one can imagine, that owners were at liberty to treat their property as they thought best and the only real constraint was the desire to maintain the value of the asset and not provoke a drastic and collective reaction from those enslaved. Indeed, treatises were written advising the best methods of management regarding slaves - what food and clothing was best, which were the most efficient methods of motivation (e.g. giving time off or better food rations), and how to create divisions amongst slaves so that they did not form dangerous protest groups.

Sometimes, however, these careful plans and strategies proved ineffective and slaves could turn against their owners. Undoubtedly, the most famous examples of such uprisings were those led by Eunus in Sicily in 135 BCE and Spartacus in southern Italy in 73 BCE
[…]
The entire Roman state and cultural apparatus was, then, built on the exploitation of one part of the population to provide for the other part. Regarded as no more than a commodity, any good treatment a slave received was largely only to preserve their value as a worker and as an asset in the case of future sale. No doubt, some slave owners were more generous than others and there was, in a few cases, the possibility of earning one's freedom but the harsh day-to-day reality of the vast majority of Roman slaves was certainly an unenviable one.»

— Mark Cartwright. "Slavery in the Roman World." Ancient History Encyclopedia (November 1, 2013)
https://www.ancient.eu/article/629


«Many captives were either brought back as war booty or sold to traders, and ancient sources cite anywhere from hundreds to tens of thousands of such slaves captured in each war. These wars included every major war of conquest from the Monarchical period to the Imperial period, as well as the Social and Samnite Wars.
[…]
Estimates for the prevalence of slavery in the Roman Empire vary. Estimates of the percentage of the population of Italy who were slaves range from 30 to 40 percent in the 1st century BC, upwards of two to three million slaves in Italy by the end of the 1st century BCE, about 35% to 40% of Italy's population. For the Empire as a whole, the slave population has been estimated at just under five million, representing 10-15% of the total population of 50-60 million+ inhabitants. An estimated 49% of all slaves were owned by the elite, who made up less than 1.5% of the Empire's population. About half of all slaves worked in the countryside where they were a small percentage of the population except on some large agricultural, especially imperial, estates;

[…] those categorized as dediticii suffered permanent disbarment from citizenship. The dediticii were mainly slaves whose masters had felt compelled to punish them for serious misconduct by placing them in chains, branding them, torturing them to confess a crime, imprisoning them or sending them involuntarily to a gladiatorial school (ludus), or condemning them to fight with gladiator or wild beasts (their subsequent status was obviously a concern only to those who survived). Dediticii were regarded as a threat to society, regardless of whether their master's punishments had been justified, and if they came within a hundred miles of Rome, they were subject to reenslavement.

Crucifixion was the capital punishment meted out specifically to slaves, traitors, and bandits. Marcus Crassus was supposed to have concluded his victory over Spartacus in the Third Servile War by crucifying 6,000 of the slave rebels along the Appian Way.

[…] the romans also practiced serfdom. By the 3rd century AD, the Roman Empire faced a labour shortage. Large Roman landowners increasingly relied on Roman freemen, acting as tenant farmers, instead of slaves to provide labour. The status of these tenant farmers, eventually known as coloni, steadily eroded. […] In 332 AD Emperor Constantine issued legislation that greatly restricted the rights of the coloni and tied them to the land.»

"Slavery in ancient Rome." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome


[p. x] «Civilizational discourses never entertain the possibility of people voluntarily going over to the barbarians, hence such statuses are stigmatized and ethnicized. Ethnicity and “tribe” begin exactly where taxes and sovereignty end —in the Roman Empire as in the Chinese.
[…]
[p. 2] Behind each lament lies a particular project of rule: Han rule under the Qing, British rule within the Empire, and finally, the rule of orthodox Protestant Christianity in Appalachia. All would style themselves, unself-consciously, as bearers of order, progress, enlightenment, and civilization. All wished to extend the advantages of administrative discipline, associated with the state or organized religion, to areas previously ungoverned.
[…]
[p. 6] What we know of the classical states such as Egypt, Greece, and Rome, as well as the early Khmer, Thai, and Burmese states, suggests that most of their subjects were formally unfree: slaves, captives, and their descendants.
[…]
[p. 7] At a time when the state seems pervasive and inescapable, it is easy to forget that for much of history, living within or outside the state—or in an intermediate zone—was a choice, one that might be revised as the circumstances warranted. A wealthy and peaceful state center might attract a growing population that found its advantages rewarding. This, of course, fits the standard civilizational narrative of rude barbarians mesmerized by the prosperity made possible by the king’s peace and justice—a narrative shared by most of the world’s salvational religions, not to mention Thomas Hobbes.

This narrative ignores two capital facts. First, as we have noted, it appears that much, if not most, of the population of the early states was unfree; they were subjects under duress. The second fact, most inconvenient for the standard narrative of civilization, is that it was very common for state subjects to run away. Living within the state meant, virtually by definition, taxes, conscription, corvée labor, and, for most, a condition of servitude; these conditions were at the core of the state’s strategic and military advantages.
[…]
[p. 8] Shatter zones are found wherever the expansion of states, empires, slave-trading, and wars, as well as natural disasters, have driven large numbers of people to seek refuge in out-of-the-way places: in Amazonia, in highland Latin America (with the notable exception of the Andes, with their arable highland plateaus and states), in that corridor of highland Africa safe from slave-raiding, in the Balkans and the Caucasus. The diagnostic characteristics of shatter zones are their relative geographical inaccessibility and the enormous diversity of tongues and cultures.

Note that this account of the periphery is sharply at odds with the official story most civilizations tell about themselves. According to that tale, a backward, naïve, and perhaps barbaric people are gradually incorporated into an advanced, superior, and more prosperous society and culture.
[…]
Once we entertain the possibility that the “barbarians” are not just “there” as a residue but may well have chosen their location, their subsistence practices, and their social structure to maintain their autonomy, the standard civilizational story of social evolution collapses utterly. The temporal, civilizational series —from foraging to swiddening (or to pastoralism), to sedentary grain cultivation, to irrigated wet-rice farming —and its near-twin, the series from roving forest bands to small clearings, to hamlets, to villages, to towns, to court centers: these are the underpinning of the valley state’s sense of superiority.
[…]
[p. 9] And what if, over considerable periods of time, many groups have moved strategically among these options toward more presumptively “primitive” forms in order to keep the state at arm’s length? On this view, the civilizational discourse of the valley states —and not a few earlier theorists of social evolution—is not much more than a self-inflating way of confounding the status of state-subject with civilization and that of self-governing peoples with primitivism.
[…]
[p. 10] These stateless peoples were not, by and large, easily drawn into the fiscally legible economy of wage labor and sedentary agriculture. On this definition, “civilization” held little attraction for them when they could have all the advantages of trade without the drudgery, subordination, and immobility of state subjects. The widespread resistance of stateless peoples led directly to what might be called the golden age of slavery along the littoral of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans and in Southeast Asia. [14] From the perspective adopted here, populations were forcibly removed en masse from settings where their production and labor were illegible and inappropriable and were relocated in colonies and plantations where they could be made to grow cash crops (tea, cotton, sugar, indigo, coffee) which might contribute to the profits of landowners and the fiscal power of the state.[15] This first step of enclosure required forms of capture and bondage designed to relocate them from nonstate spaces where they were generally more autonomous (and healthy!) to places where their labor could be appropriated.
[…]
[p. 25] Inasmuch as the captivity and bondage associated with early state-making generate, in their wake, flight and zones of refuge, slavery as a labor system produced many “Zomias” large and small. It is possible, in this context, to delineate an upland, remote zone of West Africa that was relatively safe from the five hundred–year–long worldwide slave-raiding and trade that caught tens of millions of in its toils.[54] This zone of refuge grew in population despite the difficulties of the terrain and the necessity for new subsistence routines. Many of those who failed to evade the slave raids in Africa, once transplanted to the New World, promptly escaped and created fugitive slave (maroon) settlements wherever slavery was practiced: the famous highland “cockpit” of Jamaica; Palmares in Brazil, a maroon community of some twenty thousand inhabitants; and Surinam, the largest maroon population in the hemisphere, are only three illustrations. Were we to include smaller scale “refugia” such as marshes, swamps, and deltas, the list would multiply many-fold. To mention only a few, the great marsh on the lower Euphrates (drained under Saddam Hussein’s rule) was for two thousand years a refuge from state control. So, on a smaller scale, were the storied Great Dismal Swamp on the North Carolina–Virginia border, the Pripet Marshes in Poland, now on the Belarus-Ukraine border, and the Pontian Marshes near Rome (drained finally by Mussolini) known as zones of refuge from the state. The list of such refugia is at least as long as the list of coercive labor schemes that inevitably spawn them.
[…]
[p. 66] It is this depiction of a largely peaceful and gradual ingathering of hitherto stateless peoples, attracted to a luminous and thriving court center, that is the narrative conjured by dynastic histories and contemporary schoolbook idealizations of the precolonial state. As such, it is a wildly distorted narrative. It mistakes the exception as the rule; it fails utterly to explain the frequent collapse of precolonial kingdoms; it ignores, above all, the essential role that war, slavery, and coercion played in the creation and maintenance of these states.
[…]
[pp. 71-72] In imperial Rome as well, the most important commodity transported along its fabled road system was slaves; they were bought and sold under government monopoly.
[…]
[p. 98] The permanent settlement of populations is, along with taxes, perhaps the oldest state activity. It has always been accompanied by a civilizational discourse in which those who are settled are presumed to have raised their cultural and moral level. While the rhetoric of high imperialism could speak unself-consciously of “civilizing” and “Christianizing” the nomadic heathen, such terms strike the modern ear as outdated and provincial, or as euphemisms for all manner of brutalities.

[p 99] Given the fact that such states were created by an ingathering of various peoples living outside state structures, it is not surprising that the major elements representing a “civilized” existence happen to coincide with life in the padi state: living in permanent villages in the valleys, cultivating fixed fields, preferably wet rice, recognizing a social hierarchy with kings and clerics at its apex, and professing a major salvation religion —Buddhism, Islam, or, in the case of the Philippines, Christianity.
[…]
[p. 103] The proof of their primitive, ur- condition was precisely the list of their customs and practices— dwellings, clothes (or their absence), footwear (or its absence), diet, burial practices, and demeanor —that contravened every ideal of Confucian civilization.
[…]
[p. 124] Slavery was as central to Roman statecraft as it was to Burmese, Thai, or early Han statecraft. Merchants accompanied each military campaign with a view to buying captives and reselling them closer to Rome. Many of the interbarbarian wars were fought between competitors striving to control and profit from this human tracking. Roman culture, from province to province, as distinct from the famed uniformity of Roman citizenship, looked different depending on the various “barbarian” cultures it had absorbed.

Like their Han and mainland Southeast Asian counterparts, the Romans had a barbarian chiefdom fetish. Wherever possible they created territories, promulgated more or less arbitrary ethnic distinctions, and appointed, or recognized, a single chief who was, willy nilly, the local vector of Roman authority and answerable for the good conduct of his “people.” The peoples so codified were likewise ranged along an evolutionary scale of civilization. The Celts closest to Roman power in Gaul, a stateless but culturally distinct group of peoples with fortified towns and agriculture, were comparable to cooked barbarians in the Chinese scheme. Those beyond the Rhine (the various Germanic peoples) were raw barbarians, and the mobile Huns between Rome and the Black Sea were the rawest of the raw. In the Roman province of Britain, the Picts beyond Hadrian’s Wall in the north were the rawest of the raw, or “the last of the free,” depending on one’s perspective.[87]

Once again, positionality vis-à-vis imperial rule was a crucial marker for a people’s degree of civilization. Administered (cooked) barbarians in Roman ruled provinces lost their ethnic designations as they became, like farmers, liable for taxes and conscription. All those beyond this sphere were invariably ethnicized, given chiefs, and made responsible for tribute (obsequium), as distinct from taxes, especially as they were seen as a non-grain-growing people. The link between direct Roman rule and barbarian status is obvious in those cases when such “provincials” rebelled against Roman rule. They were, in such cases, reethnicized (rebarbarianized!), demonstrating, in the process, that civilizational backsliding was possible and was very much a political category. Depending on the circumstances, Romans might move into barbarian territory as deserters, traders, settlers, and fugitives from the law, and “barbarians” might move into the Roman sphere, though they needed permission to do so collectively. The dividing line, despite the two-way traffic across it, was always sharply marked. Here too, “barbarians” were a state effect. “Only conquest produced real knowledge of the barbarian world, but then it ceased to be barbarian. Thus conceptually, the barbarians were forever retreating from Roman understanding.”[88]
[…]
[p. 125] As a political location—outside the state but adjacent to it—the ethnicized barbarians represent a permanent example of defiance of central authority. Semiotically necessary to the cultural idea of civilization, the barbarians are also well nigh ineradicable, owing to their defensive advantages in terrain, in dispersal, in segmentary social organization, and in their mobile, fugitive subsistence strategies.

[p. 128] This view of the hills as peopled, until very recently, by a process of state-evading migration is in sharp contrast to an older view that is still part of the folk beliefs of valley people. This older view saw hill people as an aboriginal population that had failed, for one reason or another, to make the transition to a more civilized way of life: specifically, to settled, wet-rice agriculture, lowland religion, and membership (as subject or citizen) in a larger political community.
[…]
[p. 128] Periods of dynastic peace and expanding commerce as well as periods of successful imperial expansion enlarged the population living under the aegis of state authority. The standard narrative of a “civilizing process,” though hardly as benign or voluntary as its rosier versions imply, might be said to characterize such eras. At times of war, crop failure, famine, crushing taxation, economic contraction, or military conquest, however, the advantages of a social existence outside the reach of the valley state were far more alluring.
[…]
[p. 137] The term savages, used by so many authors to denote all the hill tribes of Indo-China, is very inaccurate and misleading, as many of these tribes are more civilized and humane than the tax-ridden inhabitants of the plain country, and indeed merely the remains of once mighty empires.
—Archibald Ross Colquhoun, Amongst the Shans, 1885
[…]
[p. 158] Sedentary grain cultivation and the rearing of domestic livestock (pigs, chickens, geese, ducks, cattle, sheep, horses, and so on) constituted, it is clear, a great leap forward for infectious diseases. Most of the deadly epidemic diseases from which we suffer—smallpox, flu, tuberculosis, plague, measles, and cholera—are zoonotic diseases that have evolved from domesticated animals. Crowding is crucial. And crowding means the concentration not only of people but also of domestic animals and the “obligate” pests that inevitably accompany them: rats, mice, ticks, mosquitoes, fleas, mites, and so on. So far as the diseases in question are spread by proximity (coughing, touch, shared water sources) or through the obligate pests, the density of hosts per se represents an ideal environment for rapidly spreading epidemic diseases. Rates of mortality in early modern European cities exceeded the natural rate of increase until roughly the mid-nineteenth century, when sanitation measures and clean water supplies cut the death rate appreciably. There is no reason to believe that Southeast Asian cities were any more salubrious. The great majority of these diseases might appropriately be called “diseases of civilization”; they appear in the historical record along with grain-growing cores and the concentration of flora, fauna, and insects they presuppose.[93]

The chronicles of padi states and the testimony of early European witnesses attest to the frequency of devastating epidemics in the larger cities of premodern Southeast Asia.[94] In a comprehensive and meticulous study of north and central Sulawesi, David Henley argues that epidemic diseases, particularly smallpox, represented a major obstacle to population growth. Perhaps reflecting the effects of crowding and the proximity to trade routes, the coastal population seemed less fit than “the populations of the upland areas,” who “made a healthier and stronger impression.”[95]

[p. 187] Any effort to examine the history of social structure and subsistence routines as part of a deliberate political choice runs smack against a powerful civilizational narrative. That narrative consists of a historical series arranged as an account of economic, social, and cultural progress. With respect to livelihood strategies, the series, from most primitive to most advanced, might be: foraging/hunting-gathering, pastoral nomadism, horticulture/ shifting cultivation, sedentary fixed-field agriculture, irrigated plow agriculture, industrial agriculture. With respect to social structure, again from the most primitive to most advanced, the series might read: small bands in the forest or savannah, hamlets, villages, towns, cities, metropolises. These two series are, of course, essentially the same; they chart a growing concentration of agricultural production (yield per unit of land) and a growing concentration of population in larger agglomerations. First elaborated by Giovanni Battista Vico at the beginning of the eighteenth century, the narrative derives its hegemonic status not only from its affinity with social Darwinism but from the fact that it maps nicely on the stories most states and civilizations tell about themselves. The schema assumes movement in a single direction toward concentrated populations and intensive grain production; no backsliding is envisioned; each step is irreversible progress.
[…]
[p. 188] As an empirical description of premodern Europe or of most poor nations until the twentieth century, and as an empirical description of the hilly areas of mainland Southeast Asia (Zomia), however, this narrative is profoundly misleading. What the schema portrays is not simply a self-satisfied normative account of progress but a gradient of successive stages of incorporation into state structures. Its stages of civilization are, at the same time, an index of diminishing autonomy and freedom.
[…]
[p. 189] They appeared to the ahistorical eye, much later, as a backward, technologically simple people—an aboriginal remnant. In reality, they had adapted to a more mobile life as a means of escaping the servitude and disease that civilization had to offer.

[p.208] “Tribality”

The state’s relation with tribes, though it preoccupied Rome and its legions, has long since disappeared from European historiography. One by one, Europe’s last independent, tribal peoples—the Swiss, the Welsh, the Scots, the Irish, the Montenegrins, and nomads of the south Russian steppe—were absorbed into more powerful states and their dominant religions and cultures. The issue of tribes and states, however, is still very much alive in the Middle East. Thus it is from the ethnographers and historians of tribal-state relations there that we can begin to take our bearings.

Tribes and states, they agree, are mutually constituting entities. There is no evolutionary sequence; tribes are not prior to states. Tribes are, rather, a social formation defined by its relation to the state. “If rulers of the Middle East have been preoccupied by a ‘tribal problem,’ . . . tribes could be said to have had a perennial ‘state-problem.’”[73]

[p. 209] One reason why tribes often appear to be stable, enduring, genealogically and culturally coherent units is that the state typically desires such units and sets out, over time, to fashion them. A tribe may spring into existence on the basis of political entrepreneurship or through the political identities and “traffic patterns” that a state can impose by structuring rewards and penalties. The tribe’s existence, in either case, depends on a particular relationship to the state. Rulers and state institutions require a stable, reliable, hierarchical, “graspable” social structure through which to negotiate or rule. They need an interlocutor, a partner, with whom to parlay, whose allegiance can be solicited, through whom instructions can be conveyed, who can be held responsible for political order, and who can deliver grain and tribute. Since tribal peoples are, by definition, outside the direct administration of the state, they must, if they are to be governed at all, be governed through leaders who can speak for them and, if necessary, be held hostage. The entities represented as “tribes” seldom exist with anything like the substantiality of state imaginings. This misrepresentation is due not only to the official identities cooked up by the state but also to the need of ethnographers and historians for social identities that can serve as a coherent object of description and analysis. It is hard to produce an account of, let alone govern, a social organism that is continually going in and out of focus.
[…]
[p. 224] There is no place in any of the standard civilizational narratives for the loss or abandonment of literacy. The acquisition of literacy is envisaged as a oneway trip in just the same fashion as is the transition from shifting agriculture to wet-rice cultivation and from forest bands to villages, towns, and cities. And yet literacy in premodern societies was, under the best of circumstances, confined to a minuscule portion of the population, almost certainly less than 1 percent. It was the social property of scribes, accomplished religious figures, and a very thin stratum of scholar gentry in the case of the Han. To assert, in this context, that a whole society or people is literate is incorrect; in all premodern societies the vast majority of the population was illiterate and lived in an oral culture, inflected though it was by texts. To say that, demographically speaking, literacy hung by a thread would in many cases be no exaggeration. Not only was it confined to a tiny elite, but the social value of literacy, in turn, depended on a state bureaucracy, an organized clergy, and a social pyramid where literacy was a means of advancement and a mark of status. Any event that threatened these institutional structures threatened literacy itself.

[p. 225] Another instance in which literacy appears to have been largely but not entirely lost is in the period following the collapse of the tattered vestiges of the Roman Empire around 600 CE. Literacy in Latin, which had previously been both expensive and necessary to a nonmilitary career in the Empire, was now of no particular value except perhaps as an ornament. The path to security and power for local elites now lay in military service to the local king. Literacy receded to the point that it was largely con ned to the clergy even in areas of Gaul that had been quite Romanized previously. In distant Britain the veneer of a Roman culture and education evaporated altogether. It had been the Roman state, and its institutions that had maintained the context in which literacy was “an essential component of ‘eliteness,’” just as the Mycenaean social order had upheld the more restricted Linear B literacy in ancient Greece. When that institutional nexus crumbled, so did the social foundations of literacy.[13]
[…]
[pp. 257-258] States and empires create tribes precisely to cut through the flux and formlessness that characterize vernacular social relations. It is true that vernacular distinctions were made between, say, swiddeners and foragers, between maritime and inland populations, between grain growers and horticulturalists. Such distinctions, however, crisscrossed many other distinctions of language, ritual, and history; they were typically gradients rather than sharp discontinuities and rarely became the basis for political authority. At some level, it simply did not matter how arbitrary the invented tribes were; the point was to put an administrative end to the flux by instituting units of governance and negotiation. Thus the Romans insisted on the territorialization of named barbarians under chiefs who, in principle, could be held responsible for their conduct. The bureaucratic grid was necessary “because there was so much fluidity in social bonds and internal barbarian politics.”[43] Whether the designations made vernacular sense to the natives was largely beside the point.
[…]
[p. 263] The enterprise of dividing up the natives into mutually exclusive, territorially delimited tribes was not an administrative mania peculiar to Cartesian Enlightenment thinking or, for that matter, Anglo-Saxon, Calvinist tidiness. And one need only read Caesar’s Gallic Wars to notice a tribal order of the same kind which, however confounded it might have been by facts on the ground, was a gleam in the eye of every Roman governor.
[…]
[p. 297] For most societies, of course, the correlations of rankings are high and, over time, many rankings are, to use the financial term, fungible. This social hierarchy is manifested by a pattern of ceremony, ritual, and consumption, often glossed as civilized conduct. Certain ways of celebrating marriages and funerals, certain clothes, housing styles, certain patterns of feasting, of ritual and religious behavior, of entertainment come to be seen as proper and worthy. Those who have the means to acquit themselves honorably by these standards come to see themselves, and are usually seen, as more exemplary and honorable than those who lack the means to emulate them.[31]
[…]
[p. 324] Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to leadership. Such a natural disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization.
—Ibn Khaldun on nomads
[…]
[p. 326] The valley state’s elites define their status as a civilization by reference to those outside their grasp, while at the same time depending on them for trade and to replenish (by capture or inducements) their subject population.

[p. 327] Upland societies, far from being the original, primal “stuff” from which states and “civilizations” were crafted, are, rather, largely a reflexive product of state-making designed to be as unappealing as possible as a site of appropriation. Just as nomadic pastoralism is now generally recognized as a secondary adaptation by populations wishing both to leave the sedentary agrarian state and yet take advantage of the trading and raiding opportunities it afforded, so is swiddening largely a secondary adaptation. Like pastoralism, it disperses population and lacks the “nerve centers” that a state might seize. The fugitive nature of its production frustrates appropriation. Hill societies with their deliberate out-of-the-way locations, with their mixed portfolio of linguistic and cultural identities, with the variety of subsistence routines at their disposal, with their capacity to fission and disperse like the “jellyfish” tribes of the Middle East, and with their capacity, thanks in part to valley cosmologies, to form new resistant identities at the drop of a hat, are constituted as if they were intended to be a state-maker’s or colonial official’s worst nightmare. And indeed, they are largely so.
[…]
[p. 335] British and French colonial administrators, justifying the novel tax burdens they were imposing on their subjects, often explained that taxes were the inevitable price one paid for living in a “civilized society.” By this discursive legerdemain they neatly managed three tricks: they described their subjects as effectively “precivilized,” they substituted imperial ideals for colonial reality, and above all, they confounded “civilization” with what was, in fact, state-making.

The “just-so” story of civilization always requires a wild untamed antagonist, usually just out of reach, to eventually be subdued and incorporated. The hypothetical civilization in question—whether French, Han, Burman, Kinh, British, or Siamese—is defined by this negation. This is largely why tribes and ethnicity begin, in practice, where sovereignty and taxes stop.
[…]
[p. 336] The padi state’s officials had, on the other hand, every incentive to discourage all form of settlement, subsistence, and social organization that represented an inappropriable landscape. They discouraged and, when they could, prohibited dispersed settlement, foraging, swiddening, and migration away from the core. If the padi fields had come to mean civilized landscape of properly organized subjects and their production, then by extension those who lived in remote places, in the hills or in the forests, who shifted their fields and often shifted themselves, who formed and re-formed small egalitarian hamlets were uncivilized. What is most striking here, of course, is how closely the ideal of a civilized landscape and demography coincides with a landscape and demography most suitable for state-making and how closely a landscape unsuitable for state appropriation, as well as the people who inhabit it, is understood as uncivilized and barbaric. The effective coordinates, from this perspective, for figuring out who is civilized and who is not, turn out to be not much more than an agro-ecological code for state appropriation.

The tight correlation is unmistakable between life at the margins of the state on the one hand and primitiveness and backwardness on the other, in the view of valley elites. One has only to list the most salient characteristics of landscapes and peoples beyond the state’s easy grasp to produce, simultaneously, a catalogue of primitiveness. Dwelling in inaccessible forests and on hilltops codes as uncivilized. Foraging, forest collecting—even for commercial gain—and swiddening also code as backward. Scattered living and small settlements are, by definition, archaic. Physical mobility and transient, negotiable identities are both primitive and dangerous. Not following the great valley religions or not being the tax- and tithe-bearing subjects of monarchs and clergy places one outside the pale of civilization.
[…]
There’s nothing particularly wrong with the valley understanding of the agro-ecology, social organization, and mobility of the peoples who elude them. They’ve sorted these people, as it were, into the right bins. In addition to radically misunderstanding the historical sequence, however, they have got their labels wrong. If they merely substituted “state-subject” for “civilized” and “not-a-state-subject” for “uncivilized,” they’d have it just about right.»

— James C Scott. "The Art of Not Being Governed: An Anarchist History of Upland Southeast Asia." Yale Agrarian Studies; Yale University Press (2009)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Art_of_Not_Being_Governed
https://books.google.com/books?id=oiLYu2-uc8IC
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0300169175
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_C._Scott
Slavery was an ever-present feature of the Roman world. Slaves served in households, agriculture, mines, the military, manufacturing workshops, construction and a wide range of services within the city...
3
2
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
• Michael Shermer. "How to Convince Someone When Facts Fail: Why worldview threats undermine evidence." Scientific American (January 2017 Issue)
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-convince-someone-when-facts-fail

• Robert Todd Carroll. "Backfire effect." The Skeptic's Dictionary (Last updated 14 March 2015)
http://skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

• David McRaney. "The Backfire Effect." You Are Not So Smart (June 10, 2011)
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect

"The Backfire Effect: Why Facts Don't Win Arguments." Big Think (2015-2016)
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/the-backfire-effect-why-facts-dont-win-arguments

• Thomas Gilovich. "4. Seeing What We Expect to See: The Biased Evaluation of Ambiguous and Inconsistent Data." (pp. 49-74) "How We Know What Isn't So." The Free Press (1991)
https://books.google.com/books?id=LURGkHCPAJEC&pg=PA49

"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it."
~Misattributed to George Bernard Shaw.

— Jeremy E Sherman PhD. «Fighting With Pigs: Adult variations on “I know you are but what am I?”» Ambigamy, Psychology Today (December 18, 2010)
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ambigamy/201012/fighting-pigs-adult-variations-i-know-you-are-what-am-i

"George Bernard Shaw. Misattributed." Wikiquote
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Bernard_Shaw#Misattributed

"Dunning–Kruger effect." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

«But my favorite way to identify brainwashed citizens is by the way they start comments on social media. The brainwashed start with one of the following openers and then go on to offer either sarcasm or no argument at all.
Look for these tells to identify the brainwashed:
1. LOL
2. Wow.
3. So…
4. In other words…
5. OMG
6. HAHAHAHA!
7. (Any personal or professional insult)
8. Hitler analogy
[…]
Another tell for brainwashing involves people hallucinating an opponent’s opinion and using sarcasm to mock their own hallucination. Example: “LOL. So you’re saying we should put all poor people in jail? Wow.”»

— Scott Adams. "How to Identify the Brainwashed." Scott Adams' Blog (August 9, 2016)
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/148692199141

«Word-Thinkers: Use labels, word definitions, and analogies to create the illusion of rational thinking.
[…]
Persuaders: Use simplicity, repetition, emotion, habit, aspirations, visual communication, and other tools of persuasion to program other people and themselves.
[…]
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.
[…]
Persuaders know that most people are word-thinkers, so a big part of political persuasion involves defining people to be in or out of a certain category. This creates a substitute for thinking that the public likes. It makes them feel as if they used data and reason to form opinions.
[…]
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 (July 18, 2016)
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147595892021
3
3
Add a comment...
 
Non-emancipated children their mothers' property by default

In my view, non-emancipated individuals (e.g., most children) are property. For instance, non-emancipated children by default should be the property of their female progenitors. As part of their property, they should be free to physically punish them if they see fit. Would I do so or recommend to do so? No, but that's just my personal preference, and I won't try to impose my personal preferences on anybody else through the use of coercion or physical violence (and that includes government's aggression).

Can we dispose of/destroy said property?

— If it's your property, yes. That's why I'm pro-choice.

OK to kill our e.g. 5y/o offspring?

— Any non-emancipated individual, regardless of their age. That solves the dilemma posed by so many pro-lifers.

What would societies look like if we start condoning children as property?
Torture, Prostitution, Organ Sales... would surely be acceptably rampant too?

— Domestic animals are also property and most owners don't torture them, right? Likewise, for most people it would be counterproductive to torture or kill their own offspring (that's why it's relatively uncommon among other animal populations).

In contrast, it would make more sense to use non-emancipated individuals as an alternative organ source for organ transplants. In such case, it wouldn't be economically sound to wait for long. For instance, it wouldn't be sensible to wait until their immune system had fully matured since this could contribute to graft-versus-host disease. On the other hand, keeping an individual alive and in good health for longer would make such alternative substantially more expensive than it would already be.

Prostitution?

— The same as with domestic animals. Most people who own domestic animals don't have sex with them. Contrary to media-spread belief there doesn't exist a huge potential market for sex with babies and toddlers. On the other hand, it'd probably be more affordable to hire an emancipated prostitute.

Aren't more people attracted to e.g. 15 year olds than to e.g. dogs?

— Normal 15-year olds would already be emancipated or "emancipable" individuals. So they could set themselves free and leave their former owners whenever they wish in case they didn't like their living conditions. Even today they can:

"Emancipation of minors." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_of_minors

Start emancipation procedures once the rape becomes unbearable?

— By "emancipation procedures" do you mean leaving home or running away from home?

And then the perpetrators can go on unpunished?
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/01/08/da-says-teen-killed-as-part-moms-rape-murder-fantasy-with-boyfriend.html

— Why should there be any punishment when there's no crime? On the other hand, punitive "justice" has proven to be highly ineffective. It does neither prevent crimes nor relieve the victims from the harm inflicted. Compensatory justice and protective measures are the way to go.

And since it's not a crime,…

— Precisely.

… surely there is no reason to prevent them from adopting their next victim?

— What victim? A non-emancipated or non-emancipable individual is not a victim for the same reason that neither is an aborted foetus.


Further reading:

«And again: "That a child is property is absurd. If property, then a slave. […] Wherein does the undeveloped child differ from the animals? In its possibilities, does Mr. Lloyd answer? But the ovum in a woman’s body has the same possibilities. Is it not her property? […] Property in any living creature means slavery in the ordinary sense. If, however, we take Colonel Greene’s metaphorical, but much more rational, definition of slavery, […] "What is it to be a slave?" asks Colonel Greene. And he answers: "It is to see the Blazing Star and not be permitted to follow it." […] But a baby has not the faintest glimpse of the Blazing Star, and, therefore, in the more philosophic sense of the term, property in babies is not slavery.»

— 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]
http://fair-use.org/liberty/1895/09/21/what-is-property
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/3010

«We combine, moreover, to protect, not only property, but also life and liberty. But the life, liberty, and property of whom? So far as the child and its status are concerned, this is the crucial question. And I answer it that we combine to protect the life, liberty, and property only of those who have reached a stage of development which enables them to form at least some crude conception of such a combination and its purpose,—in other words, only of those in whose minds the idea of contract has taken shape. If we protect the life and liberty of organisms that are outside this limit, we do so only in the interest of their owners; we do not protect them against their owners. As for the property of such organisms, they have none; they are themselves the property of others. Were we to protect organisms outside this limit in their own interest and against everybody, we should by that very act cease in a measure to protect the property right of organisms inside the limit. All this is but another way of saying what I said in No. 313,—that sociological material consists of two categories, the owners and the owned, and that the possession or lack of the power to contract, of the power to consciously and deliberately undertake to serve another in return for another’s service and respect another in return for another’s respect, determines the category in which any given organism belongs. No animal has this power; therefore all animals fall into the category of the owned, and are not entitled to social protection. There is a time in the life of every child when it lacks this power, and there is also a time in the life of every normal child whom death does not cut off in infancy when it acquires this power. As long as the child lacks this power, it remains in the category of the owned, and should not have social protection, because that would be injustice to its owner; as soon as it acquires this power, it becomes an owner, emancipates itself, and may contract for social protection. But this emancipation does not consist, as Mr. Fisher and Mr. Byington seem to think, in the mere manifestation of a recognizable will. Animals have wills and can make their volitions known, but they do not thereby become owners, and members of society. The necessary qualification for social membership is the power to entertain the simple idea of the social contract.

Now a second question arises: if the unemancipated child falls within the category of the owned, who is its owner? I answer that I can see no clearer property title in the world than that of the mother to the fruit of her womb, unless she has otherwise disposed of it by contract.»

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

«And I am confident that nearly all affectionate mothers will appreciate it and insist upon it, once they rid of the superstition that there is something sacred about human beings, as such, that exempt them from the domain of property. There is really no reason in denying property in human beings because of their humanity. One may as legitimately own beings with two legs and no feathers as any other species of animal. But there is sound reason in denying property in all beings constitutionally capable of dealing with us on an equal footing. If there were any such beings among brutes, it would be necessary to exempt them from the domain of property. And conversely, such human beings as do not meet this requirement cannot properly be so exempted. As a matter of fact, these two classes, human beings and beings capable of contracting, are nearly coextensive, the latter including the former with the exception of very young children and weak-minded adults; and this has led us to identify the two, substituting in our minds the human form for the power to contract as the distinguishing difference between owners and owned. But this is a superficial and superstitious view.—one which ignores essential reason.»

— 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]
http://library.libertarian-labyrinth.org/items/show/301


For the sake of comparison, the following is the view of Murray Rothbard on this subject. I don't think that Murray be always logically consistent with the arguments he puts forward here. In spite of that, his contribution adds some value to that of Benjamin Tucker since he offers more detailed and nuanced solutions to the sort of problems raised about the property of children or other non-emancipated individuals.

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

First, let us begin with the prenatal child. What is the parent’s, or rather the mother’s, property right in the fetus?
[…]
[p. 98] The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man’s absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus.
[…]
It has been objected that since the mother originally consented to the conception, the mother has therefore “contracted” its status with the fetus, and may not “violate” that “contract” by having an abortion. There are many problems with this doctrine, however. In the first place, as we shall see further below, a mere promise is not an enforceable contract: contracts are only properly enforceable if their violation involves implicit theft, and clearly no such consideration can apply here. Secondly, there is obviously no “contract” here, since the fetus (fertilized ovum?) can hardly be considered a voluntarily and consciously contracting entity. And thirdly, as we have seen above, a crucial point in libertarian theory is the inalienability of the will, and therefore the impermissibility of enforcing voluntary slave contracts. Even if this had been a “contract,” then, it could not be enforced because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.

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

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

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

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

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

[p. 100] But surely the mother or parents may not receive the ownership of the child in absolute fee simple, because that would imply the bizarre state of affairs that a fifty-year old adult would be subject to the absolute and unquestioned jurisdiction of his seventy-year-old parent. So the parental property right must be limited in time. But it also must be limited in kind, for it surely would be grotesque for a libertarian who believes in the right of self-ownership to advocate the right of a parent to murder or torture his or her children.
[The above argument is logically inconsistent since non-emancipated children aren't self-owners, as Rothbard had previously conceded: "it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner"; "A newborn baby cannot be an existent self-owner in any sense"]
[…]
In short, every baby as soon as it is born and is therefore no longer contained within his mother's body possesses the right of self-ownership by virtue of being a separate entity and a potential adult.
[Ditto; besides, it's a spurious justification for self-ownership]
[…]
On the other hand, the very concept of "rights" is a "negative" one, demarcating the areas of a person's action that no man may properly interfere with. No man can therefore have a "right" to compel someone to do a positive act, for in that case the compulsion violates the right of person or property of the individual being coerced. Thus, we may say that a man has a right to his property (i.e., a right not to have his property invaded), but we cannot say that anyone has a "right" to a "living wage," for that would mean that someone would be coerced into providing him with such a wage, and that would violate the property rights of the people being coerced. As a corollary this means that, in the free society, no man may be saddled with the legal obligation to do anything for another, since that would invade the former's rights; the only legal obligation one man has to another is to respect the other man's rights.

[pp. 100-101] Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.[4] The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.[5] (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g. by not feeding it)?[6] The answer is of course yes, following a fortiori from the larger right to allow any baby, whether deformed or not, to die.
[…]
Let us examine the implications of the doctrine that parents should have a legally enforceable obligation to keep their children alive. The argument for this obligation contains two components: that the parents created the child by a freely-chosen, purposive act; and that the child is temporarily helpless and not a self-owner.[7] If we consider first the argument from helplessness, then first, we may make the general point that it is a philosophical fallacy to maintain that A's needs properly impose coercive obligations on B to satisfy these needs. For one thing, B's rights are then violated. Secondly, if a helpless child may be said to impose legal obligations on someone else, why specifically on its parents, and not on other people? What do the parents have to do with it? The answer, of course, is that they are the creators of the child, but this brings us to the second argument, the argument from creation.
[…]
[p. 102] Considering, then, the creation argument, this immediately rules out any obligation of a mother to keep a child alive who was the result of an act of rape, since this was not a freely-undertaken act. It also rules out any such obligation by a step-parent, foster parent, or guardian, who didn't participate at all in creating the child.

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

"The parents are still the creators of the child, why aren't they obliged to support the child forever? It is true that the child is no longer helpless; but helplessness (as pointed out above) is not in and of itself a cause of binding obligation. If the condition of being the creator of another is the source of the obligation, and this condition persists, why doesn't the obligation?"
[…]
[p. 103] A common argument holds that the voluntary act of the parents has created a "contract" by which the parents are obligated to maintain the child. But (a) this would also entail the alleged "contract" with the fetus that would prohibit abortion, and (b) this falls into all the difficulties with the contract theory as analyzed above.

Finally as Evers points out, suppose that we consider the case of a person who voluntarily rescues a child from a flaming wreck that kills the child's parents. In a very real sense, the rescuer has brought life to the child; does the rescuer, then, have a binding legal obligation to keep the child alive from then on? Wouldn't this be a "monstrous involuntary servitude that is being foisted upon a rescuer?"[11]
[…]
The mother, then, becomes at the birth of her child its "trustee-owner," legally obliged only not to aggress against the child's person, since the child possesses the potential for self-ownership. [Potentiality is a further spurious justification; the ovum or the foetus also possesses the "potential" for self-ownership] Apart from that, so long as the child lives at home, it must necessarily come under the jurisdiction of its parents, since it is living on property owned by those parents. Certainly the parents have the right to set down rules for the use of their home and property for all persons (whether children or not) living in that home.

But when are we to say that this parental trustee jurisdiction over children shall come to an end? Surely any particular age (21,18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution of this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his full rights of self-ownership when he demonstrates that he has them in nature-in short, when he leaves or "runs away" from home. Regardless of his age, we must grant to every child the absolute right to runaway and to find new foster parents who will voluntarily adopt him, or to try to exist on his own. Parents may try to persuade the runaway child to return, but it is totally impermissible enslavement and an aggression upon his right of self-ownership for them to use force to compel him to return. The absolute right to run away is the child's ultimate expression of his right of self-ownership, regardless of age.
[So until then the child is not a self-owner]
[…]
Footnotes:
[…]
3. Judith Jarvis Thornson, "A Defense of Abortion," Philosophy and Public Aflairs (Fall 1971):55-56.

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

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

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

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

8. Evers, "Political Theory," p. 17.
[…]
11. Ibid., pp. 15-16.»

— Murray N Rothbard. "Chapter 14. Children and Rights." "The Ethics of Liberty." New York University Press (1982)
goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983
mises.org/library/ethics-liberty

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

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

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

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 in the following web page:
voluntaryist.com/journa/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. "Chapter 14. Children and Rights." "The Ethics of Liberty." New York University Press (1982)
goodreads.com/ebooks/download/81983
mises.org/library/ethics-liberty

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

URL G+ post source comments:
plus.google.com/110558272289309146867/posts/dkTU4qjfhkS
______________
France is joining the ranks of 51 other countries in an effort to stop corporal punishment of children.
1
Add a comment...
 
Government cheerleaders gonna state

Jane “Negress” Eyre Jan 9, 2017 7:19 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla I have no idea what you are doing but please stay away from my posts with your bullshit or I will block you. Go find someone else to lay your conspiracy theories on. Thank you and good day.
______

URL G+ post source comments:
plus.google.com/109165227267542502403/posts/DhFBv5H7ch8
______________
 
Government cheerleaders gonna state

mary Zeman Shared publicly Jan 8, 2017 2:06 PM [UTC]
:)
plus.google.com/109165227267542502403/posts/DhFBv5H7ch8
______

Gert Sønderby Jan 8, 2017 2:13 PM [UTC]
Ah, they got the headline right this time. :-) Lot of headlines floating around about her being the first African-American on the ISS, but there's been... five before her? At least two of them women. Just for short stints as part of a shuttle mission, rather than as station crew.
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 3:51 PM [UTC]
Further evidence that ISS and NASA are instruments for political propaganda over anything else.
"First African-American to develop malaria vaccine"

• Ker Than. "Nobel Laureate Disses NASA's Manned Spaceflight." Space.com (September 18, 2007)
http://www.space.com/4357-nobel-laureate-disses-nasa-manned-spaceflight.html

• Sam Dinkin. "An interview with Steven Weinberg." The Space Review (January 14, 2008)
http://thespacereview.com/article/1037/1

• Steven Weinberg. "The Crisis of Big Science." The New York Review of Books (May 10, 2012)
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/05/10/crisis-big-science

• Patrick Collins et al. "How the West Wasn't Won (NAFA)." SpaceFuture.com
http://spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml

"Space Race." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Race

"Space propaganda." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_propaganda

"Space policy." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_policy

"Chinese exclusion policy of NASA." Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_exclusion_policy_of_NASA
______

Gert Sønderby Jan 9, 2017 3:53 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla What, are you saying that an international space station, built as a collaboration between multiple nations to explore space and do science is a bad thing? Because that... is not a very smart thing to say, IMO.
______

Gert Sønderby Jan 9, 2017 3:56 PM [UTC]
(Also, that NAFA piece is spectacularly wrongheaded re. what space exploration is re. what colonization of the American continent was. Exploring an infinite expanse and doing science is not quite the same as displacement and genocide through population movement...)
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 5:09 PM [UTC]
+Gert Sønderby: "Because that... is not a very smart thing to say, IMO."

— As "smart" as Steven Weinberg's argument can be. On the other hand, how valuable is the biased opinion of a NASA apologist like you?
The fact that the ISS has been a budget sinkhole for over two decades doesn't make it any "better", other than to those who make their living with those funds.

+Gert Sønderby: "Also, that NAFA piece is spectacularly wrongheaded re. what space exploration is re. what colonization of the American continent was. Exploring an infinite expanse and doing science is not quite the same as displacement and genocide through population movement..."

— I don't think you even understand it since you're hallucinating what it conveys. Alternatively, you may have decided to make a literal interpretation of its allegorical content in order to have an easy target to attack.

«Another tell for brainwashing involves people hallucinating an opponent’s opinion and using sarcasm to mock their own hallucination. Example: “LOL. So you’re saying we should put all poor people in jail? Wow.”»

— Scott Adams. "How to Identify the Brainwashed." Scott Adams' Blog (August 9, 2016)
blog.dilbert.com/post/148692199141
______

mary Zeman Jan 9, 2017 5:16 PM [UTC]
for the love of god knock it off Zephyr. Scott Adams is hardly a credible source itself. 
______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 9, 2017 5:24 PM [UTC]
+mary Zeman, "hardly a credible source" about what topic?
For starters, he isn't in the payroll of anybody or any government. Try to beat that.
______

mary Zeman Jan 9, 2017 5:36 PM [UTC]
Bye bye
______

URL G+ post source comments:
plus.google.com/+maryZeman/posts/A8g47WPznGt
______________
1 comment on original post
4
Zephyr López Cervilla's profile photoYamiShadow Kitty's profile photo
10 comments
 
+Zephyr López Cervilla Those others posts by you are fairly clearly related, again, as I said. I really don't know what went on there. This particular post, however, has a bunch of (public) conversation with no relation to the topic at hand. Rather than clearly contextualising a post which looks like it's outside of the ordinary domain (unlike the four example posts you've given), you left a bunch of random conversation which makes this post look like spam. The rest, I've got no idea. But I get this one.
Add a comment...

Zephyr López Cervilla

Shared publicly  - 
 
"The Truth About Chile’s Augusto Pinochet"

It is time to rehabilitate the figure of Augusto Pinochet from the leftist black list of History. Enemy of the democratic tyranny, champion of economic freedom, defensor of private property.

"[S]imple explanations are almost always wrong."
~Sabine Hossenfelder (January 3, 2017)
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html

Augusto Pinochet, even though having been a dictator with a number of crimes in his record, wasn't particularly bad to most Chileans, as the leftist propaganda has traditionally portrayed him. Certainly, as a ruler he was less murderous than Barack Obama or George Bush, and the policies of his administration were more favorable to most of the population under his power/influence:

• Axel Kaiser (guest) and Tom Woods (host). "The Truth About Chile’s Augusto Pinochet." The Tom Woods' Show (December 27, 2016) ep. 812 [40 min]
http://tomwoods.com/ep-812-the-truth-about-chiles-augusto-pinochet

«During 1972, the macroeconomic problems continued to mount. Inflation surpassed 200 percent, and the fiscal deficit surpassed 13 percent of GDP. Domestic credit to the public sector grew at almost 300 percent, and international reserves dipped below US$77 million. Real wages fell 25 percent in 1972[106]»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile#Statism_and_collectivism_.281970.E2.80.9373.29

«The Vuskovic Plan was the basis for the economic policy of the Popular Unity (UP) government of Chilean President Salvador Allende. It was drafted by and named after his first Economics Minister Pedro Vuskovic, who had worked before with the CEPAL. Although good results were obtained in 1970,[1] hyperinflation made a come-back in 1972. By 1973, Chile was in shambles – inflation was hundreds of percents, the country had no foreign reserves, and GDP was falling.[2]»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan

«The first year saw 12% industrial growth and an 8.6% increase in GDP, accompanied by major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%).[citation needed] In addition to the rise in employment, Allende also raised wages on a number of occasions throughout 1970 and 1971. These rises in wages were negated by continuing increases in prices for food. Although price rises had also been high under president Eduardo Frei Montalva (27% a year between 1967 and 1970), a basic basket of consumer goods rose by 120% from 190 to 421 escudos in one month alone, August 1972. In the period 1970–72, while Allende was in government, exports fell 24% and imports rose 26%, with imports of food rising an estimated 149%.[5] Although nominal wages were rising, there was not a commensurate increase in the standard of living for the Chilean population.
[…]
In 1972 the escudo had runaway inflation of 140%. From December 1972 to December 1973, the inflation rate was a catastrophic 508% – an example of hyperinflation.[8] The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6% ("negative growth"), and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined.[9] Inflation led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour, and a "disappearance" of such basic commodities from supermarket shelves. The government attempted to prevent this shortage by creating juntas de Abastecimientos y Precios.[10]

In addition to the hyperinflation and the fall in the value of copper, the lack of economic aid further depressed the economy. The growth in GDP went from 9% in 1971 to −1.2% in 1972, while the rate of inflation went from 22.1% the previous year to 163.4%. Vuskovic was replaced as Minister of Economy on June 17, 1972, and the Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Allende also froze all prices while raising salaries, but the damage was already done. Chile had entered a major recession, with hyperinflation, a negative growth in GDP, a lack of supplies and spare parts, as well as a state of general political and social disorder. His implementation of these policies led to strong opposition by landowners, some middle-class sectors, the rightist National Party, the Roman Catholic Church (which was displeased with the direction of the educational policy[11]), and eventually the Christian Democrats. By September 1973, inflation had reached 381.1% and the growth in GDP stood at −4.2%.[10]»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan#Results

«The overall stated objective of Allende's Popular Unity government was to achieve a transition to socialism by democratic means. This would involve a combined political and economic program aimed at wresting control of the economy out of the hands of business owners and placing it in the hands of the state. It would then be easier to dismantle the various institutions connected with Western capitalism. The key figure in the economic policy of Salvador Allende’s UP government was the first Minister of the Economy, Pedro Vuskovic. In accordance with Keynesian economics, he wanted to implement a massive redistribution of revenue by raising salaries and increasing public expenditure, through which the buying power of the population would increase and accordingly consumption in general. These measures would activate the idle capacity of the Chilean productive apparatus (which was relatively large) and generate a climate of prosperity. If this strategy paid off, it would have had the effect of strengthening the government’s position and allowing it to advance its revolutionary program much faster.[3]

The macroeconomic program was based on several key assumptions, the most important being that the manufacturing sector had ample underutilized capacity. The lack of full utilization was, in turn, attributed to two fundamental factors: the monopolistic nature of the manufacturing industry and the structure of income distribution. Based on this diagnosis, influenced by Keynesian ideas of support to aggregate demand, it was thought that if income were redistributed toward the poorer groups through wage increases and if prices were properly controlled, there would be a significant expansion of demand and output.[citation needed] This provided the theoretical basis for the belief that large fiscal deficits would not necessarily be inflationary. Regarding inflation, the UP program placed blame on structural rigidities (namely, slow or no response of quantity supplied to price increases), bottlenecks, and the role of monopolistic pricing, and it played down the role of fiscal pressures and money creation.»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan#Background
_______

URL related G+ post:
plus.google.com/115856948258535799149/posts/CYvnTzVr9A4
________________
1
Mark Bothwell's profile photoZephyr López Cervilla's profile photoShayne Lenin's profile photo
5 comments
 
You should report him. ;_)
Add a comment...
 
 
Report an Allende apologist spammer allegedly named "Lenin"

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 5, 2017
Augusto Pinochet, even though having been a dictator with a number of crimes in his record, wasn't particularly bad to most Chileans, as the leftist propaganda has traditionally portrayed him. Certainly, as a ruler he was less murderous than Barack Obama or George Bush, and the policies of his administration were more favorable to most of the population under his power/influence:

• Axel Kaiser (guest) and Tom Woods (host). "The Truth About Chile’s Augusto Pinochet." The Tom Woods' Show (December 27, 2016) ep. 812 [40 min]
http://tomwoods.com/ep-812-the-truth-about-chiles-augusto-pinochet
_______

Shayne Lenin Jan 5, 2017
+Zephyr López Cervilla you can also find links to people that defend Pol Pot,Idi Amin and Leopold of Belgium.
Pinochet was a scumbag dictator without any defence.
Simple.
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 5, 2017
+Shayne Lenin: «Pinochet was a scumbag dictator without any defence. | Simple.»
— "Simple explanations are almost always wrong", Mr. Lenin:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-bullet-cluster-as-evidence-against.html
_______

Shayne Lenin Jan 5, 2017
+Zephyr López Cervilla keep coming up with selective "opinion" sites that suit your agenda.
I prefer facts.


Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 5, 2017
+Shayne Lenin, do you prefer facts? How about the GDP per capita of Chile in 1990 and its life expectancy compared to all the other Latino American economies? How about the hyperinflation and the GDP per capita of Chile from November 1970 to September 1973, right before the coup?

«During 1972, the macroeconomic problems continued to mount. Inflation surpassed 200 percent, and the fiscal deficit surpassed 13 percent of GDP. Domestic credit to the public sector grew at almost 300 percent, and international reserves dipped below US$77 million. Real wages fell 25 percent in 1972[106]»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_Chile#Statism_and_collectivism_.281970.E2.80.9373.29

«The Vuskovic Plan was the basis for the economic policy of the Popular Unity (UP) government of Chilean President Salvador Allende. It was drafted by and named after his first Economics Minister Pedro Vuskovic, who had worked before with the CEPAL. Although good results were obtained in 1970,[1] hyperinflation made a come-back in 1972. By 1973, Chile was in shambles – inflation was hundreds of percents, the country had no foreign reserves, and GDP was falling.[2]»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan

«The first year saw 12% industrial growth and an 8.6% increase in GDP, accompanied by major declines in inflation (down from 34.9% to 22.1%) and unemployment (down to 3.8%).[citation needed] In addition to the rise in employment, Allende also raised wages on a number of occasions throughout 1970 and 1971. These rises in wages were negated by continuing increases in prices for food. Although price rises had also been high under president Eduardo Frei Montalva (27% a year between 1967 and 1970), a basic basket of consumer goods rose by 120% from 190 to 421 escudos in one month alone, August 1972. In the period 1970–72, while Allende was in government, exports fell 24% and imports rose 26%, with imports of food rising an estimated 149%.[5] Although nominal wages were rising, there was not a commensurate increase in the standard of living for the Chilean population.
[…]
In 1972 the escudo had runaway inflation of 140%. From December 1972 to December 1973, the inflation rate was a catastrophic 508% – an example of hyperinflation.[8] The average Real GDP contracted between 1971 and 1973 at an annual rate of 5.6% ("negative growth"), and the government's fiscal deficit soared while foreign reserves declined.[9] Inflation led to the rise of black markets in rice, beans, sugar, and flour, and a "disappearance" of such basic commodities from supermarket shelves. The government attempted to prevent this shortage by creating juntas de Abastecimientos y Precios.[10]

In addition to the hyperinflation and the fall in the value of copper, the lack of economic aid further depressed the economy. The growth in GDP went from 9% in 1971 to −1.2% in 1972, while the rate of inflation went from 22.1% the previous year to 163.4%. Vuskovic was replaced as Minister of Economy on June 17, 1972, and the Allende government announced it would default on debts owed to international creditors and foreign governments. Allende also froze all prices while raising salaries, but the damage was already done. Chile had entered a major recession, with hyperinflation, a negative growth in GDP, a lack of supplies and spare parts, as well as a state of general political and social disorder. His implementation of these policies led to strong opposition by landowners, some middle-class sectors, the rightist National Party, the Roman Catholic Church (which was displeased with the direction of the educational policy[11]), and eventually the Christian Democrats. By September 1973, inflation had reached 381.1% and the growth in GDP stood at −4.2%.[10]»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan#Results

«The overall stated objective of Allende's Popular Unity government was to achieve a transition to socialism by democratic means. This would involve a combined political and economic program aimed at wresting control of the economy out of the hands of business owners and placing it in the hands of the state. It would then be easier to dismantle the various institutions connected with Western capitalism. The key figure in the economic policy of Salvador Allende’s UP government was the first Minister of the Economy, Pedro Vuskovic. In accordance with Keynesian economics, he wanted to implement a massive redistribution of revenue by raising salaries and increasing public expenditure, through which the buying power of the population would increase and accordingly consumption in general. These measures would activate the idle capacity of the Chilean productive apparatus (which was relatively large) and generate a climate of prosperity. If this strategy paid off, it would have had the effect of strengthening the government’s position and allowing it to advance its revolutionary program much faster.[3]

The macroeconomic program was based on several key assumptions, the most important being that the manufacturing sector had ample underutilized capacity. The lack of full utilization was, in turn, attributed to two fundamental factors: the monopolistic nature of the manufacturing industry and the structure of income distribution. Based on this diagnosis, influenced by Keynesian ideas of support to aggregate demand, it was thought that if income were redistributed toward the poorer groups through wage increases and if prices were properly controlled, there would be a significant expansion of demand and output.[citation needed] This provided the theoretical basis for the belief that large fiscal deficits would not necessarily be inflationary. Regarding inflation, the UP program placed blame on structural rigidities (namely, slow or no response of quantity supplied to price increases), bottlenecks, and the role of monopolistic pricing, and it played down the role of fiscal pressures and money creation.»
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan#Background
_______

Shayne Lenin Jan 5, 2017
+Zephyr López Cervilla

Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign, including murder and torture of political opponents. According to a government commission report that included testimony from more than 30,000 people, Pinochet's government killed at least 3,197 people and tortured about 29,000. Two-thirds of the cases listed in the report happened in 1973.[141]

Professor Clive Foss, in The Tyrants: 2500 Years of Absolute Power and Corruption (Quercus Publishing 2006), estimates that 1,500–2,000 Chileans were killed or "disappeared" during the Pinochet regime. In October 1979, the New York Times reported that Amnesty International had documented the disappearance of approximately 1,500 Chileans since 1973.[142] Among the killed and disappeared during the military regime were at least 663 Marxist MIR guerrillas.[143] The Manuel Rodríguez Patriotic Front, however, has stated that only 49 FPMR guerrillas were killed but hundreds detained and tortured.[144] According to a study in Latin American Perspectives,[145] at least 200,000 Chileans (about 2% of Chile's 1973 population) were forced to go into exile. Additionally, hundreds of thousands left the country in the wake of the economic crises that followed the military coup during the 1970s and 1980s.[145] Some of the key individuals who fled because of political persecution were followed in their exile by the DINA secret police, in the framework of Operation Condor, which linked South American military dictatorships together against political opponents.

According to Peter Kornbluh in The Pinochet File, "routine sadism was taken to extremes" in the prison camps. The rape of women was common, including sexual torture such as the insertion of rats into genitals and "unnatural acts involving dogs." Detainees were forcibly immersed in vats of urine and excrement. Beatings with gun butts, fists and chains were routine; one technique known as "the telephone" involved the torturer slamming "his open hands hard and rhythmically against the ears of the victim," leaving the person deaf. At Villa Grimaldi, prisoners were dragged into the parking lot and had the bones in their legs crushed as they were run over with trucks. Some died from torture; prisoners were beaten with chains and left to die from internal injuries.[146] Following abuse and execution, corpses were interred in secret graves, dropped into rivers or the ocean, or just dumped on urban streets in the night. The body of the renowned Chilean singer, theatre director and academic Víctor Jara was found in a dirty canal "with his hands and face extremely disfigured" and with "forty-four bullet holes."[147]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 5, 2017
+Shayne Lenin, your comment shows nothing I hadn't already mentioned above. "3,197 people" killed and "about 29,000" tortured is a tiny fraction of the entire Chilean population at that time (even those 200,000 Chileans who were allegedly forced to go to exile, about 2% of the entire Chilean population at that time, as yourself quoted). I specifically stated that Pinochet "wasn't particularly bad to most Chileans", not that he wasn't bad to all of them. Obviously, to those whom Pinochet ordered to kill, he wasn't beneficial at all. I also specifically stated in my first comment that Pinochet had "a number of crimes in his record". I won't be so foolish to attribute all the 3,197 deaths and all the 29,000 tortured people to him.

Now, do you want me to enumerate the hundreds of thousands of deaths attributable to the orders given by Barack Obama and George Bush?

PS: BTW, do you know what fraction of the Cuban population is in the exile? I can tell you that it's a bit more than 2%, over 10% of the population residing in Cuba:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_exile

And the number confirmed homicides by the Castro's regime triples those of Pinochet's dictatorship, despite the fact that the population of Cuba were less than half the population of Chile over that same period:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113590852154334404
_______

Shayne Lenin Jan 5, 2017
+Zephyr López Cervilla I have no issue with you critisizing Obama or Bush either so your point is irrelevant.
Especially Bush.
So try to justify your human rights abusing dictatorships to someone else because I'm not susceptible to opinions of those that defend them.
_______

Zephyr López Cervilla Jan 5, 2017
+Shayne Lenin, you may not be aware of this, but Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov "Lenin" was directly responsible of millions of deaths while in power (6-9 million[1, 2]), and of 280,000 to 500,000 executions.[3, 4]
I noticed that you mentioned Obama and Bush but said nothing about Castro's Cuban dictatorship, which killed many more people than Pinochet's regime never did (ten times as many[5]). Perhaps do you believe that the murders for "the Cause" are exculpatory, condonable or any more defensible?

Augusto Pinochet: 3,000 [5]
Fidel Castro: 30,000 [5]

1. www.tallrite.com/weblog/blogimages/refs2005/tyrantsdeathroll.htm
2. http://necrometrics.com/20c5m.htm
3. https://books.google.com/books?id=kmPXAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA109
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Terror
5. http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/dictat.html
_______

Shayne Lenin Jan 6, 2017 11:58 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign,…

Shayne Lenin Jan 6, 2017 12:47 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign,

Shayne Lenin Jan 6, 2017 1:24 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign,…

Shayne Lenin Jan 6, 2017 3:29 PM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign,…

Shayne Lenin Jan 7, 2017 4:47 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign,…

Shayne Lenin Jan 7, 2017 5:02 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign,…

Shayne Lenin Jan 7, 2017 5:35 AM [UTC]
+Zephyr López Cervilla
Pinochet's regime was responsible for various human rights abuses during its reign,…
_______

URL G+ post source comments:
plus.google.com/115856948258535799149/posts/CYvnTzVr9A4
________________
Muh capitalism - Alexander Eley (Wheat): Google+
1 comment on original post
1
Add a comment...
Zephyr's Collections
Collections Zephyr is following