🚀 go-pugleaf

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>