🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <xcqdneETxdBLM8jRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 mrmcafee <"(mrmcafee)nospam"@cox.net> wrote:

> 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.

I never advocated it. I just used the definition that you gave me. I 
can't see it working beyond a group of 20 or more. But . . .

Society developed as it has in the Americas for 3 reasons, guns, germs, 
and steel, not European cultural traits.

http://www.amazon.com/Peoples-History-United-States-1492-Present/dp/00605
28370

A People's History of the United States: 1492-Present by Howard Zinn

p20-21

20 A PEOPLE'S HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES
In the villages of the Iroquois, land was owned in common and worked in 
common. Hunting was done together, and the catch was divided among the 
members of the village. Houses were considered common property and were 
shared by several families. The concept of private ownership of land and 
homes was foreign to the Iroquois. A French Jesuit priest who 
encountered them in the 1650s wrote: "No poorhouses are needed among 
them, because they are neither mendicants nor paupers. . . . Their 
kindness, humanity and courtesy not only makes them liberal with what 
they have, but causes them to possess hardly anything except in common."

Women were important and respected in Iroquois society. Families were 
matrilineal. That is, the family line went down through the female 
members, whose husbands joined the family, while sons who married then 
joined their wives' families. Each extended family lived in a "long 
house." When a woman wanted a divorce, she set her husband's things 
outside the door.

Families were grouped in clans, and a dozen or more clans might make up 
a village. The senior women in the village named the men who represented 
the clans at village and tribal councils. They also named the forty-nine 
chiefs who were the ruling council for the Five Nation confederacy of 
the Iroquois. The women attended clan meetings, stood behind the circle 
of men who spoke and voted, and removed the men from office if they 
strayed too far from the wishes of the women.

The women tended the crops and took general charge of village affairs 
while the men were always hunting or fishing. And since they supplied 
the moccasins and food for warring expeditions, they had some control 
over military matters. As Gary B. Nash notes in his fascinating study of 
early America, Red, White, and Black: "Thus power was shared between the 
sexes and the European idea of male dominancy and female subordination 
in all things was conspicuously absent in Iroquois society."

Children in Iroquois society, while taught the cultural heritage of 
their people and solidarity with the tribe, were also taught to be 
independent, not to submit to overbearing authority. They were taught 
equality in status and the sharing of possessions. The Iroquois did not 
use harsh punishment on children; they did not insist on early weaning 
or early toilet training, but gradually allowed the child to learn 
self-care.

All of this was in sharp contrast to European values as brought over by 
the first colonists, a society of rich and poor, controlled by priests, 
by governors, by male heads of families. For example, the pastor of the 
Pilgrim colony, John Robinson, thus advised his parishioners how to deal 
with their children: "And surely there is in all children ... a 
stubbornness, and stoutness ot mind arising from natural pride, which 
must, in the first place, be broken and beaten down; that so the 
foundation of their education being laid in humility and tractableness, 
other virtues may, in their time, be built thereon." Gary Nash describes 
Iroquois culture:

No laws and ordinances, sheriffs and constables, judges and juries, or 
courts or jails�the apparatus ofaudiority in European societies�were to 
be found in the northeast woodlands prior to European arrival. Yet 
boundaries of acceptable behavior were firmly set. Though priding 
themselves on the autonomous individual, the Iroquois maintained a 
strict sense of right and wrong. . . . He who stole another's food or 
acted invalourously in war was "shamed" by his people and ostracized 
from their company until he had atoned for his actions and demonstrated 
to their satisfaction that he had morally purified himsell.
-- 
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the 
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html