Capitalism vs. Primitivism

[Rob_Ilir]

If I was born in the future primitivism of the past 1000's years, how would you/others stop me from inventing an aspirin that I would trade with others, who want my aspirin more than I want their ___(not sure what I would want from a primitivist)? 

[Philosphorous]

As an experiment, find out how much you could get for your blood. Then, for your hair. Then, for any other bodyparts. (You may have to go to the black market for this.)

 

After you figure this out, have somebody kill you, chop you up, and then sell you. I'm sure your family can use the money, right? Maybe have them do it too and donate the funds to charity. This is what humans ask of the rest of the world.

 

It happens to non-humans every day, all day, and will continue under "free" (for who?) market capitalism. Is it possible not to look at the world as dollar signs?

If I was born in the future primitivism of the past 1000's years, how would you/others stop me from inventing an aspirin that I would trade with others, who want my aspirin more than I want their ___(not sure what I would want from a primitivist)? 

 

Who would you trade with? HGs move around a lot. They only take what the Earth provides and then they move on. Staying put would probably mean death.

 

Still, in this scenario, are you taking more than you need? Are you damaging the land base while hoarding wealth? If you are, chances are whoever lives there would stop you. How? I have no idea.

 

In contrast, are you helping people without harming non-people? If so, then good. Continue on.

[Rob_Ilir]

"Who would you trade with?"

 

The people who want a more comfortable life.

 

 

 

"Still, in this scenario, are you taking more than you need?"

Who will calculate that, and how, can you even calculate in primitivism? If I am exchanging medicine, obviously I am giving more if others want it more than whatever they have to trade for it.

 

 

"Are you damaging the land base while hoarding wealth?"

 

 

Hoarding wealth? Do you also hoard good looks, clever minds, tallness, baldness ect?

 

 

"If you are, chances are whoever lives there would stop you."

 

I am breaking others private property? Or anybody jealous can go and take others stuff just like in primitive days?

 

 

"How? I have no idea."

 

 

I am sure you know, you are an expert on primitive people, what would a primitive person as you do?

[Philosphorous]

"Who would you trade with?"

 

The people who want a more comfortable life.

 

 

 

"Still, in this scenario, are you taking more than you need?"

 

Who will calculate that, and how, can you even calculate in primitivism? If I am exchanging medicine, obviously I am giving more if others want it more than whatever they have to trade for it.

 

 

"Are you damaging the land base while hoarding wealth?"

 

 

Hoarding wealth? Do you also hoard good looks, clever minds, tallness, baldness ect?

 

 

"If you are, chances are whoever lives there would stop you."

 

I am breaking others private property? Or anybody jealous can go and take others stuff just like in primitive days?

 

 

"How? I have no idea."

 

 

I am sure you know, you are an expert on primitive people, what would a primitive person as you do?

 

Wow. Really? This isn't even worth a response. Read up a little on primitivism instead of throwing out stereotypes ("just like in primitive days") and we'll talk.

 

This is some decent trolling. I'll give you that.

[JohnH.]

You continue to unnecessarily use resources to argue against unnecessarily using resources.  I never suggested that you should go off and live in the woods.  I can understand wanting to learn the basics of primitive living before jumping in.  The issue isn't that, it's that you are here, on a forum that has nothing to do with primitive living education, doing the very thing you are against: unnecessarily using resources.  You aren't here to learn about primitive survival, you're here to argue; you're here for pleasure.

 

Certainly this doesn't mean primitivism is invalid.  What it means is you are willing to behave in a manner you find immoral for mere pleasure.  It also means you hold complete strangers to a standard higher than you have for yourself.  

 

Primitivism is for the people, not the primitivist.

[Guest - Josh -]

Post #6

 

Yes, Stef has quoted Rand before, but he also noted her shortcomings in regards to foreign policy, etc. I for one have not bothered to read any of her works solely because of her views on foreign policy, which was my interest in school (Perhaps I’m not being fair; I don’t go to Sam Harris for philosophy advice just because he’s an expert in neuroscience, but that doesn’t mean I won’t listen to him talk about other stuff.) In any case, I’m not particularly a fan of her, and neither is Stef, because people like her are the reason he has no role models.

 

Here’s why: her views on the Native Americans and Palestinians actually betray the concepts of individualism and property rights she claimed to uphold. Those comments are simply extreme inconsistencies. Keep in mind also that Rand was an objectivist, not a libertarian (she in fact hated libertarianism). She was a statist -- her minarchism again yet another failure of logic, e.g., the state is inefficient and prone to brutality, but let’s have it monopolize the most necessary industries like security, defense, and arbitration.

 

I don’t think the free market has a spokesperson, but if you’re going to prop her up as the president of free industry, you might as well put Ronald Reagan up there too –  see where that gets you when debating with a crowd of anarchists like us.

 

I am unfamiliar with anarcho-primitivism, but in the interests of being fair, I’m not going to judge it based on the quality of your arguments, because you may very well be the Ayn Rand of your ideology, I don’t know. Instead, my post is simply going to examine your own consistency, while offering you the chance to respond to that.

 

 

 

Post #9

 

“Please try to keep your responses short. I don't have the attention span to sift through this nonsense to find the 1-2 lines worth reading.”

 

This will be difficult because there is just so much to respond to, whether it’s to question the merits of primitive living, or to address your characterization of capitalism – or to point out the contradictions I see.

 

This statement also seems like a “copout,” because you offer sources that are much longer than any of these posts. You come here to an ancap forum expecting us to have a longer attention span than you’re willing to give. You won’t bother to read posts you don’t like, and on top of that you provide links to online archives of anprim thoughts, which are so long they’re practically online books.  

 

You have decided to take the time to convince us that you are correct, so please follow through with that plan and give my response the time of day it took me to listen to your video and read all of your comments. Don’t tell us to read up on primitivism, when we could have done that without you being here; you’re the one advocating it on an ancap forum, so it’s your job to respond to rebuttals, criticisms, or any mischaracterizations on our part.

 

I mean it’s a waste of everyone’s time to just make claims and then refuse to address criticisms or questions that aren’t to your liking. It’s like trying to convince someone that Christianity is true just by saying it’s true because Stalin was an Atheist, and if you don’t believe me, read up on the Bible. I’m not saying you can’t refer to people who are experts on the idea, but in a debate forum, you’re supposed to have your own argument and not just spam critics with literature from other people.

 

When I am debating with progressives, I don’t just link them to a book and leave it at that. I quote some sources to illustrate my points and I address all their criticisms of my points even if they straw man my position.

 

You may find that you disagree with me to the point that it annoys you, but if it’s any consolation, what I’ve read from you hasn’t been painless either -- and that’s the nicest way I can put it. Out of respect, I’ve tried waiting a few days just to figure out where to begin, and to try to avoid straw manning anything. I’m glad I did because your later responses have told me a great deal about what you believe. Hopefully I can avoid any mischaracterizations, and if I fail to do so, feel free to point them out.

 

 

 

Post #13

 

It is ironic for someone, who possesses the idea that “property rights are invalid,” to use their computer to create their forum account in order to put forward their argument that promotes their beliefs on said forum.

 

Furthermore, if you believe that property rights are invalid, then you cannot claim, as you have, that “The Earth owns us” without being inconsistent.

 

If you believe that all hierarchies are invalid, then what is the basis for the idea that nature and all the species living within it, sans humans, are more important than humans?

 

You cannot claim that all life, even bacteria are equal when you view human life as parasitical.

 

If farming is violence, then so is gathering and hunting; the only difference is scale. To criticize profit, or excess, as immoral while holding the views that you do would be akin to a petty thief giving Robin Hood a lesson on ethics.

 

Need does not justify violence. I need money to repay my student loan but I can’t go rob a bank and thank them for their charity afterwards.

 

Because need does not justify violence, then a hunter-gatherer lifestyle is violent just the same. In my view preying on a deer and shooting an arrow through its neck is much more grizzly than eating an ear of corn. And in my view feeding my child would take priority over the life of that corn. But that’s just me and my stupid hierarchical acceptance talking – unlike your "non-hierarchical" belief that makes earth like god.

 

And assuming that need does justify violence, how do you define need? Is need based on caloric intake that satisfies hunger for the average person, or is need based on caloric intake that barely keeps the body alive for a month? How many people need to live, just enough to keep the human race going, or just enough to insure humans eventually die out? I mean you cannot treat illnesses without killing the bacteria. You as a product of nature cannot live in nature without consuming a part of it.

 

You think torture is a loaded term… well nothing approaches the level of ambiguity like “need.”

 

I totally understand your points on excessive consumption and pollution and all manner of unsustainable things driven by the state. But as for the other stuff…   

 

Trees do not feel pain. Roots are not nerve endings. Trees have the same number of thoughts that a rock does. For someone who cares about nature as much as you do, it’s amazing you hold beliefs that contradict basic plant biology.

 

If chopping down trees to build shelter is murder, then plucking berries to stay alive is infanticide, and scratching your nose is genocide. To do any of those things to survive would mean that you are sacrificing lesser life forms for yourself – the greater good.

 

If you say that plant and animal life is more important than bacteria, which you do every time you treat your own illnesses and wounds (whether it be with cough syrup, or some herbal remedy), then that is also a hierarchical distinction that you have failed to justify.

 

You advocate primitivism and you’re just now thinking about maybe going on a camping trip? And it's not out of neccesity, but only to sate your own curiosity, and for the pleasure of enjoying nature at nature's expense (you're creating a human impact that doesn't have to be there).

 

You come to a forum misrepresenting capitalism and dismissing valid criticisms to your worldview, and then accuse people of trolling.

 

And why single-out capitalists for the desire to live and prosper, since most other anarchists share that natural inclination?

 

Hey, but you can do whatever you like so long as you don’t aggress against humans and their stuff. Just don't take after Bender and everything is cool.

 

[Rob_Ilir]

"Read up a little on primitivism instead of throwing out stereotypes"

 

"If you are, chances are whoever lives there would stop you."

 

"How? I have no idea."

 

 

What can I read when you have no idea of what it is?

 

 

 

"This is some decent trolling. I'll give you that."

 

When you have no answers to what you should know, you just start a passive aggressive phase?How did you get disciplined when you were young? 

[Philosphorous]

You continue to unnecessarily use resources to argue against unnecessarily using resources.  I never suggested that you should go off and live in the woods.  I can understand wanting to learn the basics of primitive living before jumping in.  The issue isn't that, it's that you are here, on a forum that has nothing to do with primitive living education, doing the very thing you are against: unnecessarily using resources.  You aren't here to learn about primitive survival, you're here to argue; you're here for pleasure.

 

Certainly this doesn't mean primitivism is invalid.  What it means is you are willing to behave in a manner you find immoral for mere pleasure.  It also means you hold complete strangers to a standard higher than you have for yourself.  

 

Primitivism is for the people, not the primitivist.

 

Credentialism. Ad hominem. Non-arguments.

Trees do not feel pain. Roots are not nerve endings. Trees have the same number of thoughts that a rock does. For someone who cares about nature as much as you do, it’s amazing you hold beliefs that contradict basic plant biology.

 

 

The animals depending on those trees do feel pain. The consequences of cutting down trees are impossible to calculate. For example, the roots die, which makes soil and sediment get into rivers via erosion. That kills the animals in the rivers and anyone dependent on the water.

 

This one sentence is all I really needed to see. Capitalism is selling life, which is sociopathic. There really isn't anything else to say. The coldness I've seen on this forum toward nature is very disturbing.

 

Here's some good reading;

Why the Maya Fell: Climate Change, Conflict—And a Trip to the Beach?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/121109-maya-civilization-climate-change-belize-science/

 

I mean.. if I can't get the point across that we shouldn't be exploiting and selling life for trivial bullshit, I'm not dealing with rational people. The next step is to exploit weak humans, which of course is going to happen because it's great that people made up the non-aggression principle and property rights, but people raised in a competitive monetary society usually don't follow fictional guidelines.

 

There's nothing else I care to say on this topic. You wouldn't want people exploiting you or your family, so why do you think it's okay to do it to other creatures--especially for money of all things? It's a cultural sickness and the contradictory dark side of capitalism.

People obviously are interested in this topic. If you want to hear me discuss/debate Stef, please contact Michael at [email protected].

Last thing: all you capitalists trying to attack my behavior, take a look in the mirror. Do you pay taxes? You're a hypocrite. Do you go to all anti-government rallies? No? Maybe family obligations? Hypocrite. Do you live as simply as possible so you can dedicate your life to the fight? No? Hypocrite.

 

I've already explained why I'm not in the woods. Among other things it would require 100% of my time. No, I'm not doing that now. But, since you're assuming I can and somehow primitivism is less of an argument because I'm not, the burden shifts to you why you aren't living an extremely simple life and spending the vast majority of it advocating for your beliefs--especially why you still pay taxes. 

 

Better get on that. Hypocrites.

[JohnH.]

Each post, more natural resources unnecessarily used.

[Holo Cene]

Credentialism. Ad hominem. Non-arguments.

The animals depending on those trees do feel pain. The consequences of cutting down trees are impossible to calculate. For example, the roots die, which makes soil and sediment get into rivers via erosion. That kills the animals in the rivers and anyone dependent on the water.

 

This one sentence is all I really needed to see. Capitalism is selling life, which is sociopathic. There really isn't anything else to say. The coldness I've seen on this forum toward nature is very disturbing.

 

Here's some good reading;

Why the Maya Fell: Climate Change, Conflict—And a Trip to the Beach?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/121109-maya-civilization-climate-change-belize-science/

 

I mean.. if I can't get the point across that we shouldn't be exploiting and selling life for trivial bullshit, I'm not dealing with rational people. The next step is to exploit weak humans, which of course is going to happen because it's great that people made up the non-aggression principle and property rights, but people raised in a competitive monetary society usually don't follow fictional guidelines.

 

There's nothing else I care to say on this topic. You wouldn't want people exploiting you or your family, so why do you think it's okay to do it to other creatures--especially for money of all things? It's a cultural sickness and the contradictory dark side of capitalism.

People obviously are interested in this topic. If you want to hear me discuss/debate Stef, please contact Michael at [email protected].

Last thing: all you capitalists trying to attack my behavior, take a look in the mirror. Do you pay taxes? You're a hypocrite. Do you go to all anti-government rallies? No? Maybe family obligations? Hypocrite. Do you live as simply as possible so you can dedicate your life to the fight? No? Hypocrite.

 

I've already explained why I'm not in the woods. Among other things it would require 100% of my time. No, I'm not doing that now. But, since you're assuming I can and somehow primitivism is less of an argument because I'm not, the burden shifts to you why you aren't living an extremely simple life and spending the vast majority of it advocating for your beliefs--especially why you still pay taxes. 

 

Better get on that. Hypocrites.

 

Freedom does not equal simple, it equals efficient. Not paying taxes lands you in jail. Primitivism is you going out and living that life. You are breaking all of your own moral codes sitting in front of that computer, in that heated house with your supermarket bought food. You are actually the hypocrite and the worst kind at that.

[Guest - Josh -]

The animals depending on those trees do feel pain. The consequences of cutting down trees are impossible to calculate. For example, the roots die, which makes soil and sediment get into rivers via erosion. That kills the animals in the rivers and anyone dependent on the water.

You're changing the subject to animals. I don't question that animals feel pain. This is why I think hunting animals (which is particularly grizzly) in an postindustrial society is unnecessary. Humans don't need have an impact in their habitats at all, when we can eat vegetables and meat from farms. But when you see no difference between chopping off a screaming human being's legs for a potion and chopping down a tree for firewood, I guess one's grasp on right and wrong can get kinda foggy.

 

 

 

This one sentence is all I really needed to see. Capitalism is selling life, which is sociopathic. There really isn't anything else to say.

It is unfortunate that you don't wish to address my concerns and I wish I wouldn't have even brought up the trees if it meant that you would be more open to answering my questions.

 

 

 

The coldness I've seen on this forum toward nature is very disturbing.

I find that what's cold is when the term "violence" is rendered so meaningless that it doesn't just apply to one conscious being's use of force against another, but also walking on grass, blowing your nose, and tending your wounds. All of these things, nay life itself, would require some minimal level of "violence" under your fast and lose definition.

 

If however violence is narrowly defined as the initiation of force of one sentient creature against another (be they alien or human or whatever), then existence does not require violence at all, and all violence is to be condemned and avoided. Again the NAP and UPB apply to humans (or any other sentient beings out there) only because we are the only ones capable of reason and altering our behavior; e.g., you can't put a bear on trial for murder (people in ancient times actually used to do this).

 

Personally, I find it disturbing to think that one should be more concerned for the wellbeing of the peas on the plate than the wellbeing of your baby girl who's about to eat them.

 

 

 

Here's some good reading;

Why the Maya Fell: Climate Change, Conflict—And a Trip to the Beach?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/11/121109-maya-civilization-climate-change-belize-science/

 

I mean.. if I can't get the point across that we shouldn't be exploiting and selling life for trivial bullshit, I'm not dealing with rational people. The next step is to exploit weak humans, which of course is going to happen because it's great that people made up the non-aggression principle and property rights, but people raised in a competitive monetary society usually don't follow fictional guidelines.

 

There's nothing else I care to say on this topic. You wouldn't want people exploiting you or your family, so why do you think it's okay to do it to other creatures--especially for money of all things? It's a cultural sickness and the contradictory dark side of capitalism.

The Mayans also had a government and a religion (but I repeat myself) that might have caused them to live in the woods instead of on the coast in the first place. Also they lived off the coast in the same manner than they lived in the woods; they farmed for fish instead of plants and they traded with each other. Humans have since developed more efficient farming methods that don't rely on nature's mercy. We have houses and shelter rather than the skin on our back. We have tools rather than our bare hands. Why is that wrong?

 

I don't think human life and happiness is trivial.

 

It doesn't matter how weak or intelligent or advanced one group of humans are. Humans are by nature beings capable of reason. All state-backed homestead claims which occupy the living area of another group of humans are invalid. Human ownership of humans is a violation of the NAP. Alien colonization of earth would also be a violation of the NAP.

 

It is true that children who grow up abusing animals may grow up to be serial killers, but keep in mind that the only reason a child would wish to torture animals for nothing other than fulfilling a sadistic pleasure is precisely because the parents abuse or neglect the child. Children aren't born wicked.

 

It does not follow that because someone can use berries or deer meat or corn to live, that that person can prey on other human beings, even weaker ones like elders and the young. Naturally human beings can empathize with members of their own species because that's just a fact of biology. However, what drives ethics are principles. And contradictory ideas like making oneself the exception to the rule means that initiating force against others is invalid, and therefore immoral.

 

Now it is true that there are humans who prey on others and there always will be. They are not bound by principles, but that doesn't mean the principles aren't true. Evolution is true whether or not Creationists take over the planet. UPB is valid even if no one on earth agrees with it. How do we get more people to adhere to principles? Live a principled life and don't practice violence against your children.

 

Money is just a medium of exchange. If all we had was a barter economy, you'd still have one group of humans exchanging deer pelts for firewood because it's mutually beneficial for the survival of both parties. Money does not produce violence and evil. Mass production does not produce evil. The scarcity of resources is what catapults ethics out the window. Starving humans are minds driven by hunger, not necessarily consideration for others. America has enough food to feed Africa and it doesn't because the state is an inefficient way to distribute things needed for life. Free trade and charity would greatly mitigate the problems you see the state driving today.

 

Capitalists aren't the only ones who like to live. I don't understand why you're singling out capitalism since the world's greatest polluters are states and their corporate friends.

 

 

 

People obviously are interested in this topic. If you want to hear me discuss/debate Stef, please contact Michael at [email protected].

People are interested about your upbringing and how it could have possibly affected your views now, but I doubt very seriously that Stef will want to debate with you on the merits of anarcho-primitivism if you refuse to address our valid concerns here in this thread. I understand if you don't have the time to get to everyone or if you feel overwhelmed due to the number of replies, but that's somewhat to be expected since how you decided to come here.

 

 

 

I've already explained why I'm not in the woods. Among other things it would require 100% of my time. No, I'm not doing that now.

I'm not condemning your choice to stay indoors, but it is worth noting that currently survival is occupying 0% of your time, and proposing the "ethics" of primitivism occupy quite a bit of your time. You want the world to embrace primitivism and implement it fully eventually, but right now you have no incentive or interest to try it out yourself first.

 

No one is saying you have to become a Zulu warrior right off the bat, but the fact that you haven't been camping recently at least severely impacts the persuasive power you have (not just here, but everywhere). And this is important to understand if you want to spread your ideas.

 

If Stef was a CEO or a government official, most people would recognize the hypocrisy right away and be turned off by the message, no matter how true it is. The same applies to everyone really.

 

You haven't won anyone's respect in this regard. If you keep stressing that you don't have the time to practice your beliefs, while expecting others to jump right in, then you are engaging in special pleading.

 

But aside from your comfortable lifestyle choices, most of the resistance you're experiencing is due to you dodging valid questions/concerns about anarcho-primitivism, or by labeling entire posts you don't like as not worthy of consideration in an effort to dismiss them. Everyone can see that and that's making it very hard for people to wish to engage with you.

 

 

 

But, since you're assuming I can and somehow primitivism is less of an argument because I'm not . . . .

Hold on. I made it very clear in my last post that I'm not going to judge anarcho-primitivism based on your ability to argue for it or based on your lifestyle. I said you could be the Ayn Rand of anarcho-primitivism and I meant that.

 

But before I waste my valuable time researching and studying anprim literature for myself, I wanted to see if you could be able to provide answers to my questions since you've already familiarized yourself with the ideology. I'd like you to address my questions in my last post if you would.

 

If you can't even do that, then you can't convince anyone who doesn't already agree to agree with you, and you might as well go hang out with like-minded people because you're not satisfying anyone's concerns here, and therefore you are making absolutely zero headway. It wouldn't matter what you are advocating; if Stef never rebutted anyone and never provided any satisfactory answers then no one would bother to listen to him.

 

 

 

. . . the burden shifts to you why you aren't living an extremely simple life and spending the vast majority of it advocating for your beliefs. . . .

 

There's nothing in UPB or the NAP that requires me to subsist and fast and not satisfy my own needs. I do try to live within my means, but that of course is in my own best interest; I am like a squirrel who prepares for winter. If I had a lot of money, I wouldn't waste it on cars and vacation homes. If you want to get by on dumpster food, I'm not going to make you buy a sandwich, and if you want to eat at one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, I won't stop you.

 

 

 

Do you pay taxes? You're a hypocrite. Do you go to all anti-government rallies? No? Maybe family obligations? . . . Do you live as simply as possible so you can dedicate your life to the fight? No?

There is no one forcing you through fine or imprisonment to go live in the woods. Living in the woods, however prepared, is a free choice. There is no compulsion there whatsoever. There is no penalty for doing so or for not doing so apart from whatever consequences you wish to accept for yourself.

 

If you don't pay taxes, you will ultimately be faced with a home invasion and jail time. A free choice cannot exist when someone else is threatening you if you fail to comply. Being robbed isn't a choice when the only alternative is death.

 

If I don't pay taxes I am setting myself up to lose more freedom and I am burdening future generations who will be forced to do the same. There is nothing in the UPB or NAP that puts any moral obligation on me to avoid paying taxes at all costs, just as there is nothing in those things that put a moral obligation on anyone to use lethal force or die trying to defend themselves. But if you think about it, paying taxes is just self-defense, just like obeying the commands of an armed criminal at a bank. With the NAP and UPB you're not betraying your own principles by being a victim of violence.

 

I don't go to anti-government rallies because 1. they are a waste of time, and 2. if they are in anyway political in nature, then I would be engaging in violence myself. This is why I do not vote; voting is just violence that I don't have to participate in or validate, plus it has no statistical impact on elections anyway so there's no reason to do it.

 

You are free to associate with whomever you wish. This includes family. If you want to hang out with your family, that is your decision. There is no force involved in that choice. Whatever harm you may endure from that decision is entirely of your own choosing. I for one have no problem with associating with my family, so I am not violating any of my principles here.

 

When I got out of college, I decided I would not work for the government, whether it was a federal or local authority. I don't want to live on the tax dollars of others, as far as it is within my power to do so. I have been pursuing private and voluntary sector employment for a year now to a great cost to myself. I think it's finally starting to pay off and I hope I might be able to be employed soon. But I'd rather go live in the woods than live on legal plunder. I do not wish to be a beneficiary of violence against others of my own species. I think it's important that people learn to stop treating each other like resources before they ever advance enough technologically to minimize their impact on the environment.

[Philosphorous]

Each post, more natural resources unnecessarily used.

 

It's crazy. That's all you people have.

 

Since you're so bent on discussing my life, let me ask you a few questions:

 

1) Are you using roads? Utilities? Eating articially cheap food? Living a relatively comfortable life? Well, you'd better stop since most of that was made possible with the ruling class and their military. Keep biting the hand that feeds you and you might not have that cheap fuel: http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

 

Every inch of your cheap Western lives are fueled by government cruelty. You think there's going to be some miraculous age of reasoning if the govt steps aside? There'll be food riots among other things. The laughable part is that you think people are going to play nice if this happens because somebody invented the NAP.

 

So, until you stop paying your taxes (or minimize it by owning next to nothing and barely working), dedicate your life to spreading the message and then stop using all of the nice things the ruling class gives to you--stop talking about what I'm doing.

 

2) What is the moral difference between the state ruling you and you ruling nature? You have no say; nature has no say. Therefore, shut up. You think it's okay to uphold your bloated lifestyles on the body pile of the animals killed, maimed and displaced when capitalists steal resources to sell to you? So, I guess when the IRS steals your taxes, that's okay, since, you know, they can. You've got the chainsaws; they've got the guns. Tit for tat. The capitalist "might makes right" sure is convenient when it comes to nature but damn if you don't draw the line when it begins to affect you.

 

In short, anyone questioning what I'm doing (since you don't actually know) needs to question the very nice lives the government has enabled them to live. Sure, it goes to war, but it brings back cheap oil for you. It invades third world countries and drives those poor bastards out of business (and often it kills them), but that makes smartphones really cheap for you. Sure, it destroys land all over the world and chops down rainforests at about a football field every four minutes, but it also brings home heavily subsidized, cheap meat for you.

 

You have the really nice advantage of blaming the boogeyman government as if what you're living now would be possible without it.

 

"The US is one big gated community and the military are the guards." --Derrick Jensen

[JohnH.]

It's crazy. That's all you people have.

 

Since you're so bent on discussing my life, let me ask you a few questions:

 

1) Are you using roads? Utilities? Eating articially cheap food? Living a relatively comfortable life? Well, you'd better stop since most of that was made possible with the ruling class and their military. Keep biting the hand that feeds you and you might not have that cheap fuel: http://www.iags.org/costofoil.html

 

Every inch of your cheap Western lives are fueled by government cruelty. You think there's going to be some miraculous age of reasoning if the govt steps aside? There'll be food riots among other things. The laughable part is that you think people are going to play nice if this happens because somebody invented the NAP.

 

So, until you stop paying your taxes (or minimize it by owning next to nothing and barely working), dedicate your life to spreading the message and then stop using all of the nice things the ruling class gives to you--stop talking about what I'm doing.

 

2) What is the moral difference between the state ruling you and you ruling nature? You have no say; nature has no say. Therefore, shut up. You think it's okay to uphold your bloated lifestyles on the body pile of the animals killed, maimed and displaced when capitalists steal resources to sell to you? So, I guess when the IRS steals your taxes, that's okay, since, you know, they can. You've got the chainsaws; they've got the guns. Tit for tat. The capitalist "might makes right" sure is convenient when it comes to nature but damn if you don't draw the line when it begins to affect you.

 

In short, anyone questioning what I'm doing (since you don't actually know) needs to question the very nice lives the government has enabled them to live. Sure, it goes to war, but it brings back cheap oil for you. It invades third world countries and drives those poor bastards out of business (and often it kills them), but that makes smartphones really cheap for you. Sure, it destroys land all over the world and chops down rainforests at about a football field every four minutes, but it also brings home heavily subsidized, cheap meat for you.

 

You have the really nice advantage of blaming the boogeyman government as if what you're living now would be possible without it.

 

"The US is one big gated community and the military are the guards." --Derrick Jensen

 

Not "you people", just me.  Others have explained to you the problems of primitivism.  I don't care about primitivism, I'm more interested in why you hold complete strangers to a standard higher than you hold for yourself and why you continue to behave in a manner you consider immoral.

 

Josh H, above, has, essentially, answered those questions already.

[Philosphorous]

You're changing the subject to animals. I don't question that animals feel pain. This is why I think hunting animals (which is particularly grizzly) in an postindustrial society is unnecessary. Humans don't need have an impact in their habitats at all, when we can eat vegetables and meat from farms. But when you see no difference between chopping off a screaming human being's legs for a potion and chopping down a tree for firewood, I guess one's grasp on right and wrong can get kinda foggy.You chop down a tree, you destroy animal life. Period. The only difference betwee humans and animals in terms of feeling pain, living life, etc. is human judgment.  

I find that what's cold is when the term "violence" is rendered so meaningless that it doesn't just apply to one conscious being's use of force against another, but also walking on grass, blowing your nose, and tending your wounds. All of these things, nay life itself, would require some minimal level of "violence" under your fast and lose definition.

 

These are ridiculous strawnmen non-arguments.

If however violence is narrowly defined as the initiation of force of one sentient creature against another (be they alien or human or whatever), then existence does not require violence at all, and all violence is to be condemned and avoided. Again the NAP and UPB apply to humans (or any other sentient beings out there) only because we are the only ones capable of reason and altering our behavior; e.g., you can't put a bear on trial for murder (people in ancient times actually used to do this).Personally, I find it disturbing to think that one should be more concerned for the wellbeing of the pees on the plate than the wellbeing of your baby girl who's about to eat them.That's not at all what I said, but keep at it I guess.

The Mayans also had a government and a religion (but I repeat myself) that might have caused them to live in the woods instead of on the coast in the first place. Also they lived off the coast in the same manner than they lived in the woods; they farmed for fish instead of plants and they traded with each other. Humans have since developed more efficient farming methods that don't rely on nature's mercy. We have houses and shelter rather than the skin on our back. We have tools rather than our bare hands. Why is that wrong?

 

There's a difference between taking from nature to survive and exploiting nature for profit. We are mammals; we must kill to eat and live. But we don't have to wreck the place to get flat screen TVs and Cadillacs.

 

"More efficient farming methods" means "better ways to deplete soil and dominate the land." It is far above and beyond what nature gives. It is domesticating plants, which breeds exploitation, which breeds overpopulation, which breeds overshoot.

It doesn't matter how weak or intelligent or advanced one group of humans are. Humans are by nature beings capable of reason. All state-backed homestead claims which occupy the living area of another group of humans are invalid. Human ownership of humans is a violation of the NAP. Alien colonization of earth would also be a violation of the NAP.

 

Humans owning humans violate the NAP, but humans owning everything else doesn't. That is outrageous. You do realize that the NAP is fictional, right? Humans made it up to justify their behavior--to make themselves feel good about enslaving and exploiting nature. It's exactly the same as callilng theft taxation. Since the people stealing out of your pocket made that up and can shoot you with guns, by your logic, it's NAP for them to take from you. Replace their guns with your chainsaws and ploughs and it is literally the same thing. It is true that children who grow up abusing animals may grow up to be serial killers, but keep in mind that the only reason a child would wish to torture animals for nothing other than fulfilling a sadistic pleasure is precisely because the parents abuse or neglect the child. Children aren't born wicked.

 

You're right, but unless they're taught to enter into relationships with their fellow Earthlings rather than that they're justified in dominating everything on Earth, you're going to have a human that thinks it's okay to kill weaker beings for profit. That makes them a serial killer. Oops; forgot. It doesn't since the things they kill aren't human. It sure is nice to be a human. It must be how white people felt while enslaving and exploiting blacks.

It does not follow that because someone can use berries or deer meat or corn to live, that that person can prey on other human beings, even weaker ones like elders and the young. Naturally human beings can empathize with members of their own species because that's just a fact of biology. However, what drives ethics are principles. And contradictory ideas like making oneself the exception to the rule means that initiating force against others is invalid, and therefore immoral.Now it is true that there are humans who prey on others and there always will be. They are not bound by principles, but that doesn't mean the principles aren't true. Evolution is true whether or not Creationists take over the planet. UPB is valid even if no one on earth agrees with it. How do we get more people to adhere to principles? Live a principled life and don't practice violence against your children.

 

I'm not sure what the point of this is. Children born into a "might is right" environment are going to treat the Earth in certain way, while children born respecting nature and seeing everything around them as equals (rather than the masters of Earth) are going to act another way. Money is just a medium of exchange. If all we had was a barter economy, you'd still have one group of humans exchanging deer pelts for firewood because it's mutually beneficial for the survival of both parties. Money does not produce violence and evil. Mass production does not produce evil. The scarcity of resources is what catapults ethics out the window. Starving humans are minds driven by hunger, not necessarily consideration for others. America has enough food to feed Africa and it doesn't because the state is an inefficient way to distribute things needed for life. Free trade and charity would greatly mitigate the problems you see the state driving today.

 

Profit produces violence and evil. Modern life does as well. The entire Western way of life is based on slaughter and butchery, and you don't see ancaps saying, "let's stop using dams, airplanes and powerlines because they all destroy millions of non-human lives every year."

 

In addition, it appears so long as "the state" exists ancaps can keep doing what they want since Stefan has created an out for any scenario. People act a certain way? It's the state. You can't do something you should be? The state's fault. It's a great scapegoat if you can swallow that nonsense.

Capitalists aren't the only ones who like to live. I don't understand why you're singling out capitalism since the world's greatest polluters are states and their corporate friends.In order to support seven billion+ people, it's going to take a hell of a lot of pollution and damage to nature. There is no miracle non-state solution. It's simply too many people and the only way to care for them all is to rape nature--free market or not.  

People are interested about your upbringing and how it could have possibly affected your views now, but I doubt very seriously that Stef will want to debate with you on the merits of anarcho-primitivism if you refuse to address our valid concerns here in this thread. I understand if you don't have the time to get to everyone or if you feel overwhelmed due to the number of replies, but that's somewhat to be expected since how you decided to come here.Or, Stef doesn't want me to call out the BS "non-sadistic princple" or the fact that he hates nature. As I've said before, people who love something don't make videos about cutting it down and exploiting it as he did in the Sustainability video. Many creatures live among trees and all would be destroyed or at the very least displaced under his "give it to the highest bidder" scenario. You wouldn't trash your family's habitat, would you? Of course not, because you love them. The opposite = hate. Stef advocates capitalism because it worked well from him and he hasn't considered it from the victim's perspective. If he has, please send the video or post.  

I'm not condemning your choice to stay indoors, but it is worth noting that currently survival is occupying 0% of your time, and proposing the "ethics" of primitivism occupy quite a bit of your time. You want the world to embrace primitivism and implement it fully eventually, but right now you have no incentive or interest to try it out yourself first.

 

How do you know this, exactly? Are you stalking me? Even if you are right, it proves nothing. Character attacks are the hallmark of someone backed into a corner. Stef does this all the time and it's kind of pathetic. Attack the message, not the messenger.

No one is saying you have to become a Zulu warrior right off the bat, but the fact that you haven't been camping recently at least severely impacts the persuasive power you have (not just here, but everywhere). And this is important to understand if you want to spread your ideas.

 

You know nothing about me. See above.

If Stef was a CEO or a government official, most people would recognize the hypocrisy right away and be turned off by the message, no matter how true it is. The same applies to everyone really.You haven't won anyone's respect in this regard. If you keep stressing that you don't have the time to practice your beliefs, while expecting others to jump right in, then you are engaging in special pleading.But aside from your comfortable lifestyle choices, most of the resistance you're experiencing is due to you dodging valid questions/concerns about anarcho-primitivism, or by labeling entire posts you don't like as not worthy of consideration in an effort to dismiss them. Everyone can see that and that's making it very hard for people to wish to engage with you.I work 7 days/week and need to make time for engagements like this. Also, it's a little demotivating considering the many character attacks people are slinging. Why bother responding to them?

Hold on. I made it very clear in my last post that I'm not going to judge anarcho-primitivism based on your ability to argue for it or based on your lifestyle. I said you could be the Ayn Rand of anarcho-primitivism and I meant that.But before I waste my valuable time researching and studying anprim literature for myself, I wanted to see if you could be able to provide answers to my questions since you've already familiarized yourself with the ideology. I'd like you to address my questions in my last post if you would.If you can't even do that, then you can't convince anyone who doesn't already agree to agree with you, and you might as well go hang out with like-minded people because you're not satisfying anyone's concerns here, and therefore you are making absolutely zero headway. It wouldn't matter what you are advocating; if Stef never rebutted anyone and never provided any satisfactory answers then no one would bother to listen to him.You never know who's reading or watching. This thread has many thousands of views. Obviously not everyone is speaking up. Activism's impacts are rarely immediate or obvious.  

There's nothing in UPB or the NAP that requires me to subsist and fast and not satisfy my own needs. I do try to live within my means, but that of course is in my own best interest; I am like a squirrel who prepares for winter. If I had a lot of money, I wouldn't waste it on cars and vacation homes. If you want to get by on dumpster food, I'm not going to make you buy a sandwich, and if you want to eat at one of Gordon Ramsay's restaurants, I won't stop you. 

There is no one forcing you through fine or imprisonment to go live in the woods. Living in the woods, however prepared, is a free choice. There is no compulsion there whatsoever. There is no penalty for doing so or for not doing so apart from whatever consequences you wish to accept for yourself.

 

Capitalists want every inch of the Earth owned, and they've gotten that now for the most part. What woods should I go live in, exactly? And if I did, how would you be reading this? If we all withdrew, how would the issues come up? It would be like not showering to proest showers, or the futility of veganism while the state subsidizes meat. Withdrawal and personal choices really don't affect anyone but the person doing them.

If you don't pay taxes, you will ultimately be faced with a home invasion and jail time. A free choice cannot exist when someone else is threatening you if you fail to comply. Being robbed isn't a choice when the only alternative is death.

 

Own nothing (no sales, real estate, property, excise, etc. taxes) and you won't have to work much (few payroll taxes).

If I don't pay taxes I am setting myself up to lose more freedom and I am burdening future generations who will be forced to do the same. There is nothing in the UPB or NAP that puts any moral obligation on me to avoid paying taxes at all costs, just as there is nothing in those things that put a moral obligation on anyone to use lethal force or die trying to defend themselves. But if you think about it, paying taxes is just self-defense, just like obeying the commands of an armed criminal at a bank. With the NAP and UPB you're not betraying your own principles by being a victim of violence.

 

There's that statist scapegoat again. If I can go live in the woods, you can live with very little.

I don't go to anti-government rallies because 1. they are a waste of time, and 2. if they are in anyway political in nature, then I would be engaging in violence myself. This is why I do not vote; voting is just violence that I don't have to participate in or validate, plus it has no statistical impact on elections anyway so there's no reason to do it.

 

Go to those rallies and spread your message. Obviously the frustrated people there want change--your change. They just don't know it yet.

You are free to associate with whomever you wish. This includes family. If you want to hang out with your family, that is your decision. There is no force involved in that choice. Whatever harm you may endure from that decision is entirely of your own choosing. I for one have no problem with associating with my family, so I am not violating any of my principles here.

When I got out of college, I decided I would not work for the government, whether it was a federal or local authority. I don't want to live on the tax dollars of others, as far as it is within my power to do so. I have been pursuing private and voluntary sector employment for a year now to a great cost to myself. I think it's finally starting to pay off and I hope I might be able to be employed soon. But I'd rather go live in the woods than live on legal plunder. I do not wish to be a beneficiary of violence against others of my own species. I think it's important that people learn to stop treating each other like resources before they ever advance enough technologically to minimize their impact on the environment.

 

So you want people to stop treating others like resources, but you're okay with treating everything else like resources? Don't you see the glaring, nature-hating human supremacy contradiction here!?

[aeonicentity]

There is a problem with the assumption that Capitalistic principals are dependant on capitalism, and that these principals are not present in 'natural' or 'primitive' interactions.

 

The reality is that the conecept of 'profit' is entirely present in the natural world. It isn't measured in money, but value. Valueable things in the animal world include sex, children, food, and other things. Females in the natural world seek males who can provide a surplus of food (the black widow looks for a man to eat, squirrels look for men with big nuts). males seek to provide a surplus of profit to barter for sex and reproductive rights.

 

It is all well and good to look at the 'natural world' (the idea of a distinction between the 'artificial world' and the 'natural world' is more acedemic in my mind) for inspiration on where human relationships come from, but don't think for a second that humans ever in the past, or will in the future, disregard the issue of benefit, and especially the surplus of benefit (aka profit) as a fundamental modifier of human behaviors.

 

This is the instinct born into us at the womb out of neccessity. We are fundamentally at our most basic level organisms which understand that life REQUIRES effort, and if at any time we fail to provide sufficent effort, we will die. So we naturally and intellengently stockpile additional resources gained as profits from good years, to satisfy us in years of bad. Profit is a DIRECT function of the survival mechanism.

[wdiaz03]

Already addressed. Again:

 

There are two issues here; the first is education. We were all raised within civilization, which has a vested interest in ensuring its children have as little independent survival value as possible. The civilized cultural system has adapted well....

.....

Nobody has addressed two things:

 

1) Why pre-agriculture society worked for millions of years vs. this fantasy about capitalism that has never been in place and is untested (and most concerns about primitivism are based on stereotypes and misinformation), and

2) Why there are still 60+ HG tribes on the Earth today. Do you think they are stupid or something because they don't want to buy and sell life?

 

I'm curious on how you think the "new" hunter gathered man will be designed. I say designed because according to you there must be a gradual shift out of the cities and into the wild.

Will you for example take a few survival classes but have your kid take 10 classes? will you force him to wipe using his fingers? etc. force him to fight off an infection without the benefit of modern medicine, take him to a shaman etc? Will you then instruct him to take his kids a step further, say out of controlled temperature home and into the backyard etc? eat bugs, and frogs?

until, after some generations, the descendants are ready.

 

As far addressing your 2 points?

"Millions of years?" are you grouping modern man with Homo habilis, Homo erectus etc? Homo sapiens date back only 200K or so. And for all you know we are here because they were able to use their brain to conquer nature.But my point is. You say it has worked? But yet here we are and you keep dancing around the fact that your primitivism landed us here, so it didn't work. what is stopping it from happening again? Tell me if we go back to nature what is stopping people from ending up back in cities?

How many of these tribes keep animals for future consumption? how many would trade surplus hunted animals for other things? Don't you think superstition have something to do with these so called respect of nature?

[Philosphorous]

I'm curious on how you think the "new" hunter gathered man will be designed. I say designed because according to you there must be a gradual shift out of the cities and into the wild.

Will you for example take a few survival classes but have your kid take 10 classes? will you force him to wipe using his fingers? etc. force him to fight off an infection without the benefit of modern medicine, take him to a shaman etc? Will you then instruct him to take his kids a step further, say out of controlled temperature home and into the backyard etc? eat bugs, and frogs?

until, after some generations, the descendants are ready.

 

As far addressing your 2 points?

"Millions of years?" are you grouping modern man with Homo habilis, Homo erectus etc? Homo sapiens date back only 200K or so. And for all you know we are here because they were able to use their brain to conquer nature.But my point is. You say it has worked? But yet here we are and you keep dancing around the fact that your primitivism landed us here, so it didn't work. what is stopping it from happening again? Tell me if we go back to nature what is stopping people from ending up back in cities?

How many of these tribes keep animals for future consumption? how many would trade surplus hunted animals for other things? Don't you think superstition have something to do with these so called respect of nature?

 

To answer one of your questions, I asked the father of the movement; I think it's a good answer.

 

http://youtu.be/w5QBvrUV71I

[Jetrpg22]

Wow, I hope stefan doesn't do the debate, not worth it.

[wdiaz03]

To answer one of your questions, I asked the father of the movement; I think it's a good answer.

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

Wouldn't the knowledge of "how things turned out" be lost after a few thousand years? They will be no written records, all you'll have is cave paintings and campfire stories. Also I can see how people will want to ease their suffering and gradually control nature. Once a few love ones starve, or die of disease, wouldn't stories of "people planting food and having reserves year round and the wonders of medicine." also circulate?

What would happen when people loose their eyesight? break a bone? become cripple? Who is going to carry these people for miles at a time?

Would the cripple be allowed to ride a mule? to farm? "to each according to their needs?"

 

I'm also curious of how this gradual move to hunter gatherers will happen, someone will have to be told "sorry,  we can't do anything about the toothache"

Kind of reminds me of a welfare recipient telling future generations. "hey, I can't give up my food stamps because I was born in this welfare state, I need those $500, But you have to do with just $300 sorry, and your children with $100"

[Philosphorous]

Thanks for the reply.

 

Wouldn't the knowledge of "how things turned out" be lost after a few thousand years? They will be no written records, all you'll have is cave paintings and campfire stories. Also I can see how people will want to ease their suffering and gradually control nature. Once a few love ones starve, or die of disease, wouldn't stories of "people planting food and having reserves year round and the wonders of medicine." also circulate?

What would happen when people loose their eyesight? break a bone? become cripple? Who is going to carry these people for miles at a time?

Would the cripple be allowed to ride a mule? to farm? "to each according to their needs?"

 

I'm also curious of how this gradual move to hunter gatherers will happen, someone will have to be told "sorry,  we can't do anything about the toothache"

Kind of reminds me of a welfare recipient telling future generations. "hey, I can't give up my food stamps because I was born in this welfare state, I need those $500, But you have to do with just $300 sorry, and your children with $100"

 

Playing the "what about this or that possible bad thing in the future" is like saying "why stop the government? There might be fewer roads" or something like that. Let's worry about it in a few thousand years.

 

Cocnerning food--there aren't reserves year round. There are more hungry people on Earth today than ever. I understand that farm subsidies have a lot to do with it, but it takes a vast amount of unnatural stuff like petroleum (~2 gallons of gas per bag of fertilizer) to grow this stuff, plus the environmental destruction it takes to do it. It takes a lot of work to keep animals and undesirable plants off of "your" land. Don't you think a world where food grew rather than people forcing it to grow would be more ideal? Mass starvation (almost a billion hungry today) was far less in primitive times. The stereotype you're talking about is from Hobbes, who put forward that uncivilized life was brutal and short.

 

Of course, he had his own agenda--you know, owning land, keeping people down for his profit, etc. He was part of the ruling class, and it was to his advantage to have people dependent on people like him in order to live. We can't have those "savages" being independent, can we? Then we can't control them. (That's the biggest problem I have with modern society: we are pathetically domesticated. We'd die in days without technology. Primitivie children were far more capable than 99.999% of us.)

 

When you ask about disease: well, what about cancer? AIDS? Amputations? H1N1? Legionaires? That and the TON of modern day diseases related to stress and obesity. Plus the large number of people who die from hospital infections and doctor malpractice. You can't tell me these would all go away if the state were abolished. With the free market--how do we know a guy isn't recommending a kidney removal to pay for his yacht? NAP or not, people get really funny when it comes to getting ahead.

 

Modern medicine is great for treating a guy who got run over by a car, but a huge amount of diseases are prevented with proper eating, exercise, low stress, etc.

 

This issue, again, is a "what if" and I would need you to tell me how people without insurance or having to deal with being fat stressed over money and jobs in the future would deal with it. When people discuss primitivism and medical care, I think they put a little too much faith in modern medicine. It deals with the problems modern civilization causes for the most part. I mean, it's great that it can possibly treat (not cure as with most things) radiation sickness, but that wouldn't be an issue in a future primitive.

 

A shift to a future primitive is millions of acts. It's not as if people will wake up and the system will come down. Tell me something though: if our Western lives were destroyed (artificially cheap food, artificially cheap energy, throw away society, etc.), how do you think the rest of the world would get on? Something like 1.5 billion people already live without electricity: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTENERGY2/0,,contentMDK:22855502~pagePK:210058~piPK:210062~theSitePK:4114200,00.html

 

The vast majority of the world would be far better off if the "the system" went down. Abolishing the state might stop the military, but there's still that problem of far too few having much too much and far too many having much too little.

 

If everyone lived like we do we'd need a few more planets: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/05/16/wwf-warns-that-we-will-need-two-earths-by-2030_n_1520449.html <--imagine the incredible damage to nature!

 

This is clearly unsustainable. 60+ hunter-gatherer tribes still live on the Earth. There isn't some disease plague or starvation epidemic.

 

Evidence gathered from around fire pits and caves from primitives shows that they were largely egalitarian. There were equal shares, not one big pile for the chief. (That happened with the introduction of agriculture almost immediately; the guy with the most grain had the biggest house, and then of course, you have all those mental problems from inequality.) Primitives took care of each other. It wasn't, "well, I did more work today so you don't get food." That is how a cripple, blind, etc. person would be handled. (I'm just assuming.) Let me ask you--if you witnessed the changed to anprim today, and you came across a crippled person, would you just leave him to rot? Ancaps argue that without money... well, that guy can pretty much go screw. "He should've bought insurance" or "he should've been nicer to people" or something.

 

Try thinking of survival as a collective rather than "might is right" or piggybacking a future primitive on today's standards. Just because people treat each other like trash today (and will treat each other based on how much money they have in an ancap future) doesn't mean that will happen in every scenario.

 

Is anprim perfect? By no means. But it's far better than what we have today. It looks at the Earth as something to respect and protect, and other creatures as equals, rather than putting a price tag on everything and dominating the weak so we can pee indoors on heated toilet seats.

Wow, I hope stefan doesn't do the debate, not worth it.

Hey guys lets undo all the good things we have done. Well you could argue they are not good... someone could not you becuase you continue to willing use the products of said developments.

 

He won't. He likes to debate in his comfort zone, and discussing how people can kill but not torture (whatever that means) non-humans would reveal a little sociopathy. In order for ancap to work one has to admit that humans own and can do as they please with the Earth. To protect themselves they invented the NAP, but everything else is expendable.

 

I mean--"Does Spaking Violate The Non-Aggression Princple?" Seriously? This thread has almost 15k views so obviously people are interested, but it's easier to deal with people who already basically agree with you and argue the equivalent of "egg shell or white?".

[Holo Cene]

I use technology to rail against technology.

 

How do you even justify using a computer?

[Philosphorous]

How do you even justify using a computer?

 

How do you justify paying your taxes? Or using your computer since fiat currency fueled the dot com bubble of the 90s that set up a lot of the infrastructure. Do you have a driver's license? State document. Figure out a way to not drive. Move to New Hampshire since they have no sales tax. Blah blah blah.

 

Really--try to interject something useful, okay?

[Holo Cene]

How do you justify paying your taxes? Or using your computer since fiat currency fueled the dot com bubble of the 90s that set up a lot of the infrastructure. Do you have a driver's license? State document. Figure out a way to not drive. Move to New Hampshire since they have no sales tax. Blah blah blah.

 

Really--try to interject something useful, okay?

 

I don't want to go to jail? I use my computer because I paid for it with the money I made doing work and I do not have a moral compunction against using technology. To the contrary I love technology. I do not drive. You have no consequences for not using a computer. So stop using one.

[Philosphorous]

I don't want to go to jail? I use my computer because I paid for it with the money I made doing work and I do not have a moral compunction against using technology. To the contrary I love technology. I do not drive. You have no consequences for not using a computer. So stop using one.

 

You can pay far fewer taxes by living very simply. You do have a moral compunction about supporting a murderous regime, yet you aren't doing everything possible to stop it?

 

My not using a computer would mean I withdraw, which is like protesting showers by not showering or telling anyone. That would sure be benficial, wouldn't it?

 

I can't understand humans' obsession with machines. Watch this.

 

[Holo Cene]

 

My not using a computer would mean I withdraw, which is like protesting showers by not showering or telling anyone. That would sure be benficial, wouldn't it?

 

You have a moral crusade against technology and modern life. Not showers. You would be withdrawing from evil, so stop equivocating and stop using your computer.

[Philosphorous]

You have a moral crusade against technology and modern life. Not showers. You would be withdrawing from evil, so stop equivocating and stop using your computer.

 

You have a moral crusade against government and taxes. You would be withdrawing from excess, so stop equivocating and stop consuming anything more than you need to survive.

[Holo Cene]

You have a moral crusade against government and taxes. You would be withdrawing from excess, so stop equivocating and stop consuming anything more than you need to survive.

 

What does government and taxes have to do with consuming and minimalism? They steal from me so I must then live an ascetic's life? You aren't very rational are you? I think it would benefit you to examine the emotions behind your philosophy, and learn why you believe what you believe. If morality is the backbone of your philosophy then you have to examine the moral premises because ultimately to you, humanity is evil. That has always been the foundation of any religion or political movement interested in controlling other people.

[wdiaz03]

Playing the "what about this or that possible bad thing in the future" is like saying "why stop the government? There might be fewer roads" or something like that. Let's worry about it in a few thousand years.

And playing the "don't worry about it and hope for the best" is like saying lets jump in the river now and worry about alligators once they start biting. 

Cocnerning food--...Don't you think a world where food grew rather than people forcing it to grow would be more ideal? Mass starvation (almost a billion hungry today) was far less in primitive times. The stereotype you're talking about is from Hobbes, who put forward that uncivilized life was brutal and short.

You talk about food like it is just going to grow out of the ground everywhere. Plants will grow, but not all plants are edible. Mass starvation will not exist in a Hunter gatherer society because some people might starve here and there (mostly children) and there will not be that many people land can sustain anyways. How many people can H&G support? just take a look and the size of their groups. It takes agriculture to have all children survive and increase the population. 

When you ask about disease: well, what about cancer? AIDS? Amputations? H1N1? Legionaires? That and the TON of modern day diseases related to stress and obesity. Plus the large number of people who die from hospital infections and doctor malpractice. You can't tell me these would all go away if the state were abolished. With the free market--how do we know a guy isn't recommending a kidney removal to pay for his yacht? NAP or not, people get really funny when it comes to getting ahead.

I'm gonna guess second opinions and reviews of the doctor.But don't ignore new diseases a H&G society will have to deal with. Don't you think it is stressful not knowing where your next meal will come from? that your life depends on not getting hurt while chasing animals or being hurt by one? You won't have a god or spirits to give you a false sense of security. 

Modern medicine is great for treating a guy who got run over by a car, but a huge amount of diseases are prevented with proper eating, exercise, low stress, etc.

Well you will have the same, people getting punctures on their feet, falling from trees, and being hurt while hunting. Eating properly? maybe if you find the right foods but other animals will be after some of the same foods humans will be. See above for stress comment. 

This issue, again, is a "what if" and I would need you to tell me how people without insurance or having to deal with being fat stressed over money and jobs in the future would deal with it...

Most of this stuff is government created, if a free market will solve it then why run to privitivism? 

Let me ask you--if you witnessed the changed to anprim today, and you came across a crippled person, would you just leave him to rot? Ancaps argue that without money... well, that guy can pretty much go screw. "He should've bought insurance" or "he should've been nicer to people" or something.

I would feel bad for the guy but I only have enough for myself remember? Because I only consume enough to survive? anything I give him puts me and my family in danger. 

He won't. He likes to debate in his comfort zone, and discussing how people can kill but not torture (whatever that means) non-humans would reveal a little sociopathy. In order for ancap to work one has to admit that humans own and can do as they please with the Earth. To protect themselves they invented the NAP, but everything else is expendable.

wow, You really need to be a little more humble here. You are jumping to conclusions here and that does not help your case at all.

[LanceD]

What the hell will 7 billion hunter gatherers hunt and eat? I mean, there are a lot of deer around the United States but it seems that without agriculture and farm raised animals we would be in a lot of trouble. 

 

Also wouldn't hunting an animal be murder? 

 

Wouldn't gathering berries be murder?

 

So if we can't hunt animals, we can't gather berries and we can't cut down trees to make shelter how will we live?

 

We all have to live in naturally formed caves and eat what exactly? If trees are protected I assume insects are protected so they are out too. 

 

So really your philosophy is that we should all commit very slow suicide by starvation?

 

But if I keep this thought process going I think the dying will happen much quicker then starvation.

 

Water is necessary for all of the things in nature to survive, so us drinking water could be seen as an attack on the inhabitants of said source of water or even the plants around said water source.

 

So based on your philosophy we obviously cannot drink water.

 

So forget the slow death by starvation, you'll have a world polluted by 7 billion rotting corpses in just a few short days!

[wdiaz03]

What the hell will 7 billion hunter gatherers hunt and eat? I mean, there are a lot of deer around the United States but it seems that without agriculture and farm raised animals we would be in a lot of trouble. 

 

Also wouldn't hunting an animal be murder? 

 

Wouldn't gathering berries be murder?

 

So if we can't hunt animals, we can't gather berries and we can't cut down trees to make shelter how will we live?

 

We all have to live in naturally formed caves and eat what exactly? If trees are protected I assume insects are protected so they are out too. 

 

So really your philosophy is that we should all commit very slow suicide by starvation?

 

But if I keep this thought process going I think the dying will happen much quicker then starvation.

 

Water is necessary for all of the things in nature to survive, so us drinking water could be seen as an attack on the inhabitants of said source of water or even the plants around said water source.

 

So based on your philosophy we obviously cannot drink water.

 

So forget the slow death by starvation, you'll have a world polluted by 7 billion rotting corpses in just a few short days!

 

If I understand the OP correctly people can eat animals and plans but just enough to survive.

 

A little raping of mother nature is OK but you can't get carried away. When does a little raping become too much its still a gray area. Apparently "no" means "yes" then "no" or something along those lines.

 

I do agree that H&G will not support the number of humans in the planet today so there will be a little thinning of the herd if you will. But this might be OK to a primitivist because the amount of humans alive today is artificial it seems.

[Guest - Josh -]

Turns out that through negotiation, voluntary action, and acknowledging basic incentives, nature can literally be brought back from the brink.

 

[wdiaz03]

Turns out that through negotiation, voluntary action, and acknowledging basic incentives, nature can literally be brought back from the brink.

 

 

I don't buy it. Where is the money for paying ranchers coming from? government?

And what is stopping ranchers to allow their sick or dying cattle to just get killed by wolfs so they can get paid?

 

This whole primitivism comes across like a fantasy to me. Anyone that has read Peter Shiff's "How an Economy Grows and why it Crashes" can see how in a H&G society without savings all that is created is consumed, how the entire day must be spent looking for food or shelter. Where any mishap could be the last because there's nothing stored for a rainy day. It is a cruel zero-sum game. Animals are not better off either, with primitive tools most of the animals being hunted could escape just with injuries that would either kill them slowly later or they have to suffer until they nurse themselves back to health.

 

I could be wrong, but if someone has doubts spending a few months in the wilderness without any modern aids should clear things up. specially if they would want to do this for the rest of their lives and while dragging women and children along. They can bring a few friends too. After all the more hands the better, but the greater the likelihood of someone getting injured and becoming a liability to the group.

[Guest - Josh -]

I don't buy it. Where is the money for paying ranchers coming from? government?

And what is stopping ranchers to allow their sick or dying cattle to just get killed by wolfs so they can get paid?

 

This whole primitivism comes across like a fantasy to me. Anyone that has read Peter Shiff's "How an Economy Grows and why it Crashes" can see how in a H&G society without savings all that is created is consumed, how the entire day must be spent looking for food or shelter. Where any mishap could be the last because there's nothing stored for a rainy day. It is a cruel zero-sum game. Animals are not better off either, with primitive tools most of the animals being hunted could escape just with injuries that would either kill them slowly later or they have to suffer until they nurse themselves back to health.

 

I could be wrong, but if someone has doubts spending a few months in the wilderness without any modern aids should clear things up. specially if they would want to do this for the rest of their lives and while dragging women and children along. They can bring a few friends too. After all the more hands the better, but the greater the likelihood of someone getting injured and becoming a liability to the group.

 

 

Didn't you watch the video? The compensation comes from private donations raised.

 

Also, I'm not advocating primitivism; I favor technological advancement. I just wanted to show that there are ways to save endangered species without having to go live in the woods or rely on the government. The video was meant to illustrate that money and "profit" isn't this evil thing a lot of anarchists make it out to be.

[Philosphorous]

Turns out that through negotiation, voluntary action, and acknowledging basic incentives, nature can literally be brought back from the brink.

 

 

Or, humans can get the hell out of the way rather than feeling like they need to manage the planet. Nature doesn't need our help. It needs us to leave it be.

 

This is the main problem with ancaps. TRUE anarchy is not feeling like everything needs to be managed--especially the planet. What an incredibly arrogant sentiment.

How do you even justify using a computer?

 

For you and everyone else wondering why I am not off living in the woods, it's because I'm not allowed to. Here are some details:

 

[LanceD]

This whole saving the wolves thing seems like a terrible idea. I know nature and all that, but I really don't care to have wolves running around where people live. We used to be very afraid of them as a species and there was damn good reason for it. Particularly since these wolves they are bringing back are NOT the wolves that used to live there. Some idiot decided we needed to replace the basically extinct population of gray wolves that were native with the Canadian Timber Wolf (a subspecies of the gray wolf  that is a MUCH larger animal).