I really dug the music, so I'll share it. @Enzoblue can just ignore this. Enjoy: Nomad Soul Collective.

I'm assuming that's tongue-in-cheek.
>> ^poolcleaner:

Thank god white people are here to show the Mongolians what they've been missing out on.

Not to mention the truck, the car and the motorcycles.>> ^Januari:

Thought it was interesting the guy was wearing a yankee cap but had never seen a photo of himself.

>> ^Januari:

Thought it was interesting the guy was wearing a yankee cap but had never seen a photo of himself.


Considering goods like that are most likely mass produced in China, what are the chances that they are factory seconds shipped out to local stores?

>> ^marbles:

Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority.

This is your premise, it is also your conclusion. You have failed to demonstrate it at all. You have not made an argument. You have simply made a flurry of self contradicting statements, and insisted that they are true, and that any counter argument is false by definition. Do you really expect anybody to take you seriously?

>> ^marbles:

I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.


Marx advocated only the abolition of capital, not of workers rights to what they produce, he believed that capitalism had already destroyed that right:

>> ^Karl_Marx:

We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing
the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a
man's own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork
of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the
property of the petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of
property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to
abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent
already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.


>> ^marbles:

the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
So where does production come from again?



To restate: where does the producing of articles having exchange value. come from

Lets see, how many ways can I interpret this?

1) Where do produced items come from : They are made of other things + energy, conservation of M/E
2) Where does the idea of production come from : The social contract of market societies
3) Where does the exchange value of objects come from : Somewhat arbitrary cultural valuation
4) ??? : what you secretly mean probably goes here, how about cluing us in?

>> ^marbles:

I did just clearly demonstrate it.

Where?

>> ^marbles:

Care to prove it false?

State your case and I'll give it a whirl.

>> ^marbles:
Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?

Because the logical consistency of your ideology depends on the ability to bootstrap a property system with the ownership (as in what they word usually means) of self. Dispensing with that when it gets inconvenient makes the whole thing fall apart.

Without actual self ownership, you have no logically necessary ownership claim to the value produced by self, and so you can not build you system on property only. You must start adding more first principles in order to get there. If libertarians have been purposely obfuscating their ideology as you claim, then they have been hiding the weakness in their argument, and making a false case.

I take most libertarians at there word that they actually meant what they said. Your position now significantly diverges from that put forth in the video, and requires you to make a different argument to bootstrap your personal libertarian-derived view.

What new first principle are you introducing to bootstrap ownership from only figurative ownership of self?

>> ^marbles:

I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract?

You used its existence as an argument. You want to back peddle and say you didn't mean it? Then do so.

>> ^marbles:

I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.

And then, as an example, argued that I was wrong because what I suggested would not work in my property arrangement, read the transcript.

>> ^marbles:

And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

possession ≠ fee-simple

Possession is fact, who has current physical control of a thing is not an issue for philosophy, but only of physicality. If I hold a pen in my hand I possess it, irrespective of any ownership claims on the pen. To take the pen from me without my consent requires the initiation of actual physical force against me, based on the physics.

If you own the pen, I don't have to interact with you in any way to use it, or take it home with me. There is no way to know if you own the pen, or if anybody does.

There is no demonstrable physical consequence of fee-simple property, possession, on the other hand in a matter of facts. My acceptance of both the fact and historical relevance of possession, does not get you within miles of fee-simple.

>> ^dgandhi:
When people know things about general subjects they tend to reference general knowledge to simplify conversations. If I had known at the outset that you are adverse to knowing anything but your sacred ideology I would have just called you a religious wing-nut at the outset and been done with it. At this point I'm in for a pound, and I'm going to make sure you have at least heard something other than you navel gazing nonsense before I am through with you. Social contract theories have no relevance to the philosophy of liberty. As I pointed out from the beginning, your references have no context. Liberty exists outside of any relationship to an external authority. And instead of addressing the concept directly, you hide behind vapid arrogance and resort to personal attacks. Bravo!
>> ^dgandhi:
Okay, that clarifies a lot. You are actually arguing against an absurdist straw-man of any philosophy but your own. Please, since you are so keen on sourcing references, take a look at the manifesto, and tell me where you found that bit. I guess you’re right. Marxism is actually based on a small group’s right to the individual. Not even Marx was naïve enough to believe that a utopian classless society was achievable, let alone sustainable.
>> ^dgandhi:
Nice selective editing, I like how you completely ignored that your question as stated made no sense.

Okay, if you want to pretend you are six, fine. NON-OBJECTS CAN'T BE CREATED, "production" is not an object, it's a concept, it has no physicality, just like the color blue it can't come/go to or from anywhere. If stating that fact tweaks your ideology then your position is weaker than I thought.
I never said it was an object. Actually, I've previously said objects are only representations of property.

production
–noun
1.the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2.something that is produced; a product.
3.Economics . the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.

So where does production come from again?
>> ^dgandhi:
Yes you keep saying this, saying things does not make them so.

When I say something is a fact, that means that I can clearly demonstrate it. You have failed to even acknowledge that demonstrating your truth claims is relevant to their accuracy. Given your bizarre aversion, what exactly do you mean when you claim something is a fact? I did just clearly demonstrate it. Care to prove it false?
>> ^dgandhi:
So you own yourself, but you are not allowed to sell what you own? I'm going to need you to define own if you are going to use it like that. And I’m the one that’s six? One argument you ignore the literal meaning, the next you cling to it. Sorry but self-ownership is a hyphenated word not found in the dictionary. The implications in of itself are clearly not literal: My self owns myself? So why exactly are you trying to make a literal argument?
>> ^dgandhi:

You realize that this whole discussion is displayed above right? You used my current property arrangement as an argument that your property ideal is right, that argument fails to differentiate between property and all the other things my social contract covers. You were sloppy, so just suck it up and state your case. I’m sorry, was I supposed to give a damn about your hypothetical social contract? I didn’t use your property arrangement for anything; I rejected your claims outright.
>> ^dgandhi:
Since neither property nor theft have any meaning in the absence of social contract, all three claims are false because they require conditions to exist where they can not. This is not a problem for me, your problem is backing up the one of them you seem to think is true. And yet you recognized property for Nomadic humans. Wonder what all those hunter-gatherers were doing? So does physical life also need a social contract to exist?

>> ^dgandhi:

>> ^marbles:
No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.
Okay, I just have to add, this claim re:property displays an absurd degree of historical illiteracy.
1) Nomadic human societies tend to use a possession scheme, where its yours if you have it.
2) As people began to settle land they started using a usufruct scheme where it's yours only while you maintain it.
3) As settlements and their governments became more powerful they created property in perpetuity to consolidate their own power.
Property, as you defend it, is the result of a statist powergrab.
If there exists an inherent set of human rights to things, history shows that to be by physical possession only.


And all this time you've been denying the concept of property exists. Like I've previously eluded to: Government force is not always consistent with liberty. And that's the point. Government force should always be consistent with liberty.

>> ^marbles:

No one decides. They’re inherent. They evolved in the human mind long before the organization of human society.

Okay, I just have to add, this claim re:property displays an absurd degree of historical illiteracy.

1) Nomadic human societies tend to use a possession scheme, where its yours if you have it.

2) As people began to settle land they started using a usufruct scheme where it's yours only while you maintain it.

3) As settlements and their governments became more powerful they created property in perpetuity to consolidate their own power.

Property, as you defend it, is the result of a statist powergrab.

If there exists an inherent set of human rights to things, history shows that to be by physical possession only.

>> ^Porksandwich:

I feel that him being presumably independently wealthy at the time he made this, puts him in a questionable position. I am not saying he's wrong, but he definitely made a lot of money on his stance. And it's not as if he was turning around and donating the majority of his earnings. Looks like this was shot in his home, his house looked pretty nice...on the large size for a single guy and definitely not a mobile home.
Maybe he was less involved in it than others who have to work daily for their paycheck, but he was definitely involved in the very process he claims to be apart from.
I think until you could produce everything you'd ever need, grow it, make it, whatever with your own hands, tools you fashioned, or machines you designed and built.....you are going to be a part of this system. He's mostly describing greed (more and more stuff) and envy (He has a truck bigger than mine), with a sprinkling of the others. But really, if Carlin didn't care about getting and having stuff, he'd have did shows for free...definitely wouldn't have traveled all over doing his shows for money.


That's fairly correct. I'd even wager that the "nomads" got lucky and had family that bought land for them to use. Back in the day that was perhaps the best investment you can make. You can get rich barely lifting your finger.

(Except to sign your checks...)

>> ^kceaton1:

>> ^Enzoblue:
"I'm divorced from it now." - because I got rich and now can afford to be. Show me someone w/o amazing talent that got that divorce, and I'll show you a guy that lives in a van down by the river.

Please, tell us your pay scale so we can respond appropriately. Me, myself, I'm at a satisfactory low-middle class income.


Same.
I guess my beef is he claims to have divorced himself from the rat race and is laughing at those of us still in it. A luxury few can afford. If he was at our income level and did this, he'd be the crazy hobo everyone avoids.
I'm a happy person myself, not very materialistic, but I do feel that until I throw in the towel and become a hobo, I'll always be a part of this downward slope of humanity. I am, willing or no, a part of this system. It makes me feel spiritially guilty that I keep going to work everyday, but I do and the material things make me feel better about it, (let's be honest here).
The people who call me a fool are either independantly wealthy, young with a parental fallback, or bums prattling as I walk by. Occasionally I see a nomadic guy near my age that sems to have it all in hand, but so far every one has had some base income to keep him afloat.

My girlfriend works with troubled Inuit youths (a group filled with intense despair, but thats another story), she told me a story about why so many of the Inuits in Canada despise white people.

The story goes that awhile back, not sure when, the Canadian army came to their settlements and put down all their sled-dogs. The Canadian governments official reason was that all the dogs were rabid. But another reason some people put forth is that the government wanted to issue SIN #'s to all the Inuits, and that was very hard to do when the Inuits were very nomadic, often traveling super far, with their sleddogs, to hunt caribou. And they did issue SIN #'s shortly after.

(My gf saw pictures of the Inuits holding their dead dogs, BTW)

I'm getting to my point: After the govt massacred their dogs, they built two grocery stores and two gas stations. That's pretty sweet... But were the dogs even rabid to begin with? That's the controversy.

And so I see a lot of parallel with American Imperialism in the Middle East. The hubbub and the murmurs are about the truth behind these wars. Are we there to free repressed Libyans? Or are we there to steal their oil? Well... Maybe it's both. What's so bad about seeing an unhappy people struggle to free itself from an oppressive govt, coming to their aid, helping them to build the foundations of democracy, and then... taking a little precious oil for our troubles?

OK that's it, devils advocate out.

FUCK AMERICAN IMPERIALISM.

Did you speak to God yourself shiny? Or did you read the re-re-re-translation of a book written by agenda driven nutters like you 600 years after a bunch of backward uneducated nomads in the desert wrote it?
(No offense to early mid-east culture but the Chinese at least could read and write by then, shame God gave them a miss).

You don't sound like a bad person but you HAVE to understand that to those of us who are not indoctrinated into believing in ancient peasant stories of magic tricks you sound like a NUTTER. And a nutter who claims to know the inner thoughts of a supreme being! If I was God I'd kick your ass for presumtion.

Come on, you must know you're crazy. If you lament the state of civilization then understand that tribal superstitions and fearfulness are FAR from part of the solution. Let's face it if you'd been born in a different country you'd be just as fervent about a whole different story.


>> ^shinyblurry:

I wouldn't want anyone to go to hell, and neither does God..

God has made it very clear He isn't letting any sin into Heaven and everyone knows that..

I don't mind it for the Lords sake but the worst part of it for me is knowing that the ones doing this will be judged for it if they don't repent.

@blankfist

Eventually we could all be working for the big corporations, and with less competition they could lessen benefits such as health or vacation pay, they could easily lower wages, and they could then extend the expected work week from 40 hours to something like 100 hours. If that sounds farfetched, I can tell you from first hand experience I've seen this exact thing happen to an industry I know very well. And when I say big corporations, I mean major parent companies that buy large businesses. For instance, let's take the advertising industry. One parent company could own almost all of the major companies in that industry, so if you complain about the 100 hour work week and loss of vacation benefits, your chances of receiving another job in that industry are cut to almost zero. I've seen it. And they do illegal shit like tell women not to get pregnant.

That is exactly what's happening. Wages began stagnating in the 70's. At the time, women were moving into the work force so the impact on families was offset by an extra income. And today, it's out of control. It's been researched and it's been documented. And it's visible if you look at all the personal debt families have. Americans take less vacation time than other industrialized nation. The US is also the only industrialized nation who does not mandate vacation time. I read something the other day (disclaimer: i don't have a good grasp on economics, it was a complicated paper and i'm a bit dyslexic/dyscalculic so I've got to reread it a few times before I'm totally confident I understand it, and then research it for accuracy) and the idea of it just fascinated me. It was something like, wages used to increase as labor's productivity increased.. like it was inherently built into the market. So maybe technology eliminated the need for as many people, but the remaining workers were more productive, so their wages should have been going up. But the mid 70's saw an abandonment of this principle in favor of higher profits and the consequences of that have been devastating for working people ever since. Like, they broke a rule of the market and it's sent tremors through almost 40 years and now everything is fucked up and the worker is more and more screwed everyday.

now, regulation: we've been peeling back regulations for decades. and it seems to have worked antithetically to your hypothesized outcome. why do you think that is? which regulations are you talking about, specifically?
I don't disagree that it should be fairly simple to start your own new business. And I don't like or trust government either, but I want some kind of assurance that this new business is not polluting my air, water, community, that its employees are not being exploited and are paid a living wage and that sanitary practices are being followed. What sort of system do you propose to keep new restaurants from serving rat poo infested soups made by 5 year olds? ..... maybe, eventually, the free market would take care of this sort of violation but after how many people eat there and get sick? And after how many child chefs burn their little fingers on hot stoves?

And when people feel they pay into a nanny system, they feel less generous to help those in front of them. I know, I see it every damn day in LA.

this statement is a motherfucking cop-out. i'm not saying that you dont "see" it.. i'm just saying people should know better. The "nanny-system" obviously, isn't taking take care of those in front of them. This is where i see a major downfall in individualism. "I would help, but something else is already helping you. I'm looking out for #1!! I already gave to charity this week.. see where my pay stub says 'FICA'?"... And "someone else is already doing it" has become the operative ethic of the gen-x yuppie class. It is an excuse for petulance and cold heartedness and snobbery. If we lived in nomadic, tribal hunter/gatherer communities, they would be the first kicked out of the clan. ... and John Winthrop would have thrown them off the arabella. Shame on them.

I spend a great deal of time with the "nanny-system"... personally, professionally and academically. There are atrocious disparities. My most functionally impaired clients also happen to my poorest clients. At first, I thought this was a coincidence. It isn't. Not at all. Diagnosis doesn't have as much to do with prognosis as the financial and social status of the person living with the disability. (e.g. parents can't afford to make the home handicap accessible, so the wheelchair can't make it through the front door, so person with the disability spends 30 years crawling around on the floor, which solves the problem of moving from room to room, but creates 100 other problems in its place. the body is so malformed at this point, employment placement for the disabled adult is impossible, i could give you 500 other examples) This is a sin.

In a lot of ways, I agree... government is too bulky and convoluted here to be as effective as it needs to be. The apparatus is too cumbersome and the funding and political/community support for such services is far too small. It doesn't have to be this way. Nationally, we've tabled charity and efficiency as a virtue, in favor of strength and might and greed and pride. Social Services could be reworked, in a vastly more effective and efficient way if only we had the political and social will to do it. We could do it for a lot cheaper as well, I think. I won't go on my diatribe about how disability services needs to function, mostly because its full of jargon and boring.

But, I think we mostly agree on a lot of things, namely, corporations are fucking us all and the government is providing the reach around. every 4 years half of us orgasm when our candidate is elected by popular vote. only for the pounding to commence again the following January.

"The comforts and safety that you describe, are exactly the kinds of suburban trapping that give us the illusion that ours is the ideal life. Take away electricity, transport, water service and supermarket food supply and like the majority of suburban dwelling people on this planet, we're up the creek. That's not freedom-it's a thinly veiled dependence on a system that is in the throws of downfall. }

Naturally (no pun intended), I disagree with you on this assessment. A civilized society is far more resilient and able to recover from all types of disasters (man-made and natural) than a nomadic civilization has ever been at any time in history. Do you have any idea of the kind of destructive effort it would take to completely wipe out the power grid, uproot every road that has been paved, root out the entire plumbing network buried underground? The only point that I agree with you on is the far larger dependence upon food that massive (and they are truly massive compared to hunter-gatherers) civilizations have. But as I pointed out in my first post food is now a global industry, so again you are limited to world ending catastrophes when it comes finding enough firepower to bring down modern civilizations.

"As far as freedom to move goes, I think the fact that if you step outside your door and walk into your neighbor's yard without permission, you're considered trespassing, shows how hemmed-in we really are. So long as we are paid customers, we have a right to be somewhere, otherwise we'd better stick to public places, or face the consequences."

Personally, I think that literal direction freedom is a paltry definition of what true freedom really is. I will gladly take the paved road and all those "restrictions" for all the benefits that I get from having that taken space actively and productively contributing to the advancement and well-being of humanity. I will drive around a massive hospital that's blocking me from going "as the crow flies" quicker than a crow can fly.

Every inch of space that is denied to me is in some way indirectly or directly contributing. Can you say that a plain of scrubs and rocks is providing the same amount of benefits to nomads as they walk in whatever direction they want over it? What about cumulatively?

"If you want to know how free you really are, try doing something really outrageous or subversive and see how many people are ready to block you. Try walking 10,000 km across your country, camping out where there's a drinkable water supply, for starters..."

Let me ask you a question then, why did you walk 10,000km in any direction? What was your goal? Did you need food, water, because you could? What tangible benefit have you derived from the endeavor you just undertook?

If you are so "truly" free why can't you walk to the Moon?