🚀 go-pugleaf

Billy wrote:
> In article <ua6dnTFXhIzytc7RnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
> 
>> Billy wrote:
>>> In article <xMqdnW-KIvZEiM7RnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Billy wrote:
>>>>> In article <4v-dnUacM7Ywbc_RnZ2dnUVZ_vKdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>>>>  mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Strongman "B" is just exercising his sovereign rights (as defined by 
>>>>>> himself and the Libertarian Party) as is Weakling "A". Good thing for 
>>>>>> Strongman "B" is he is strong and "A" is weak. The conflict is why 
>>>>>> libertarian (anarchist) philosphy can not work. In human nature 
>>>>>> conflicts will inevitably develop. There has to be some way to resolve 
>>>>>> them, even if not everybody agrees with the resolution.
>>>>> You said that libertarians "hold that all individuals have the right to 
>>>>> exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live 
>>>>> in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly 
>>>>> interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they 
>>>>> choose." 
>>>>>
>>>>> Ergo, "B" isn't an anarchist.
>>>> "B" is too. "B" is practicing "sole dominion" over his own life, as is 
>>>> "A". "B" recognizes no authority above his own, as does "A". The 
>>>> difference is that "B" has the power to have his way and "A" does not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Anarchy worked fine for hunter gatherers, but those were small units.
>>>> Prehistoric people were organized into the most non-anarchistic 
>>>> organization there is: the family / clan (tribe). Power flowed from the 
>>>> Chief down to the smallest girl child. Anarchy has never worked for long 
>>>> anywhere in any large group setting.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm beginning to worry about what you were doing when you should have 
>>>> been in school.
>>> You where the one who gave a definition, and when it made you look like 
>>> the idiot that you are, you disavowed it.
>> It's not my definition, Billy, it is the LP's definition and no, it is 
>> not I that appears like an idiot here.
>>
>>
>>> In hunter/gatherer cultures, the best hunter was the leader of the 
>>> group, because the best hunter gave the group it's best chance of 
>>> success. Aristocracy didn't enter into the picture until agriculture. 
>>> Don't you know anything?
>> Who is talking about aristocracy?
>>
>> Prehistoric clans were normally lead by the smartest elder, not the best 
>> hunter. It is why elders were allowed to exist. It is why agriculture 
>> was developed, a boon to mankind despite that silly link you provided. 
>> Authoritative family / clans are NOT libertarian or anarchist in nature 
>> despite your delusions. You don't really believe in what you promote, do 
>> you?
>>
>>
>>> Hunter/gatherers were squeezed out by the greater numbers of 
>>> malnourished agriculturalists.
>>
>> Let's see, that would make them a failed approach, right?
>>
>>
>>> <http://www.environnement.ens.fr/perso/claessen/agriculture/mistake_jared
>>> _diamond.pdf>
> First you give me a definition of libertarian as those that "hold that 
> all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own 
> lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so 
> long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to 
> live in whatever manner they choose." 
> 
> Then you say that a tyrant is the same as a libertarian, because s/he 
> does what s/he wants. Besides being hypocritical, it doesn't fulfill the 
> definition that YOU gave.

I see you have discovered the illogical foundation of the Libertarian 
Party. There can be no individual sovereignty in a society. Sooner or 
later conflicts will arise and someone has to come out a winner and 
someone a loser thus the end of "sole dominion" over one's life. The 
result is anarchy with the strong dominating the weak.


> 
> Most of human existence has been as hunter/gatherers, except for the 
> last 10,000 years, so you may want to look up the term prehistoric, as 
> writing began as a way to inventory the crops of the agriculturalists.
> 
> Social and economic structure
> Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, 
> egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in 
> the more mobile societies, which generally are not able to store surplus 
> food. **Thus, full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely 
> supported by these societies.**
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structu
> re>


A little later on in your cite there is:
"Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band 
(or tribe) membership."

We should all be familiar with how families / tribes / clans are 
governed. We should also be familiar with how in nature wild beast 
organize their societies. There is always a leadership, no matter how 
temporary or shared.



> 
> Hunter/gatherers were small cooperative groups in which no permanent 
> leadership was invested in any member, and any member had an equal say 
> regardless of age or gender, because their cooperation was needed in the 
> hunt.

I think it is useful to take a look at hunter / gather societies that we 
can all relate to, and that were in existence not all that long ago. 
Let's look at Comanche culture.

"Comanche groups did not have a single acknowledged leader. Instead, a 
small number of generally recognized leaders acted as counsel and 
advisers to the group as a whole. These included the "peace chief," the 
members of the council, and the "war chief."

The peace chief was usually an older individual, who could bring his 
experience to the task of advising. There was no formal inauguration or 
election to the position, it was one of general consensus.

The council made decisions about where the band should hunt, whether 
they should war against their enemies, and whether to ally themselves 
with other bands. Any member could speak at council meetings, but the 
older men usually did most of the talking."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comanche#Social_order

This example illustrates both of our points; your point that leadership 
was to some extent shared and progressed to the individuals most capable 
and my point that leadership fell to the most experienced. The major 
point is that there is always leadership. Hunter / gathers didn't run 
off willynilly as a bunch of individuals to the hunt. No, they 
cooperated under the leadership of their leaders even if it was for just 
that one effort.

So you should see, amigo, that the Libertarian approach is both 
unnatural and impossible. No society can function in anarchy, and it is 
extremely doubtful that individuals would fair as well as they would in 
an organized society. This truth is why society developed as it has, 
organized.