Welcome to our penultimate Secession Week post, in celebration of Independence Day tomorrow.  Today’s concept is non-territorial secession, or seceding without moving.  For those who are totally unfamiliar with the concept, I offer a brief introduction.

Overview

This is not a new concept, and has been proposed by many names and in many flavors, such as:

• Polycentric Law: “a legal structure in which providers of legal systems compete or overlap in a given jurisdiction, as opposed to monopolistic statutory law according to which there is a sole provider of law for each jurisdiction.”
• Market Anarchism: a “philosophy in which monopoly of force held by government would be replaced by a competitive market of private institutions offering security, justice, and other defense services – “the private allocation of force, without central control”. A market would exist where providers of security and law compete for voluntarily paying customers that wish to receive the services rather than individuals being taxed without their consent and assigned a monopoly provider of force.”
• FOCJ: Functional, Overlapping, and Competing Jurisdictions – A reinvention of these 150-year old ideas by Swiss economists Bruno Frey and Reiner Eichenberger in the 1990s, in articles like FOCJ: Competitive Governments For Europe.
• Panarchy: “a conceptual term first coined by the Belgian botanist and economist Paul Emile de Puydt in 1860, referring to a specific form of governance (-archy) that would encompass (pan-) all others …In his 1860 article “Panarchy” de Puydt…applied the concept to the individual’s right to choose any form of government without being forced to move from their current locale. This is sometimes described as “extra-territorial” (or “exterritorial”) since governments often would serve non-contiguous parcels of land.”

Arnold Kling contributes a post about the idea, which he calls Virtual Secession:

The problem with physical secession is that it is very difficult to achieve critical mass. There is probably not much overlap between the people you want to live with and the people who want to choose your particular form of government. The vast majority of us put up with government we dislike in order to live in proximity to people with whom we want to work and play.

With virtual secession, you could still live in San Francisco or Manhattan or Silver Spring while seceding from much of the government at the city, state, and Federal level. You and your next-door neighbor might belong to very different governmental units.

Arnold also has a paper on Competitive Government which covers a number of different models, some much like non-territorial secession, with great references.  (A post of mine about how seasteading relates).

Historical Cases

Historical context is very important when it comes to questioning the current method of governing.  If a system has worked in the past, it is much more likely to be able to work in the future.  I have two favorite references for historical methods of providing today’s government services privately on a person-by-person basis.  The first is The Voluntary City: Choice, Community, and Civil Society, edited by David Beito, Peter Gordon, and Alexander Tabarrok.  Its essays contain a wide range of examples of past methods of providing today’s monopoly services on a voluntary basis.  The second is The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State, by Bruce Benson.  In addition to offering theoretical discussions of virtual secession, the author covers the history of law enforcement in England over the last millennia.  This history gives the lie to today’s automatic assumption that courts and police must be public monopolies.  Systems very different from what we are used to can function, and function well – sometimes even better than our own.  This book influenced me strongly, by giving historical reality behind a set of ideas that I had thought might only work in theory.

There are other interesting examples of societies where laws enforcement was provided in a non-territorial fashion, such as David Friedman’s work on Iceland and the Xeer law in Somalia.  Peter Leeson’s Cato Unbound essay Self-Governance Works More Often Than You Think contains numerous historical examples as well.

Polycentric Law

This article by law professor Tom Bell is a good introduction from a legal perspective, and Randy Barnett wrote an entire book, The Structure of Liberty, exploring the idea of a polycentric constitutional order.   Bruce Benson, whose book will be discussed below, has a good article about Polycentric Governance:

Let me say that my own preferred terminology here is “customary law communities” (bottom-up development of rules and institutions as opposed to top-down imposition of rules and institutions under “authoritarian law”). These communities do not just rely on self-enforcement in the sense of unilateral (morality-driven) or bilateral (e.g. tit-for-tat) actions. They often establish third party dispute resolution mechanisms (arbitration, mediation) backed by ostracism threats, and other institutions.

The first point I want to make is that while these communities may be based on geographic proximity, they also may be based on kinship, functional proximity as in a trade association or the “business community,” religion, or any of a number of factors that create repeated dealings and/or reputation effects).

This article is part of an entire issue of Cato Unbound, in August 2007, devoted to a discussion of non-territorial governance, although with a rather more provocative title:

Market Anarchism

Wikipedia states that the main 20th century proponents of this model were Murray Rothbard and David Friedman (who happens to be my dad).  David’s book Machinery of Freedom is an excellent introduction to the subject, focused somewhat on libertarians, and written very accessibly.  This annotated bibliography contains the key Rothbardian references and a number of others.  Bryan Caplan’s FAQ is another great source of information.  The best current work being done in this area, in my opinion, is by Stefan Molyneux at Freedomain Radio.  He has some excellent books available for free online, as well as over a thousand podcasts and many videos, like this introduction to the site:

A glaring hole in most market anarchist works is the lack of any reasonable incremental path to get from current monopolistic governments to ones where unbundled services are provided privately.  Agorism addresses this by proposing a steady process of economic secession to develop private provision of police and courts over time.  I have questioned Agorism on this blog, although a number of Agorists believe I have misunderstood or misanalyzed the approach.  Regardless of the merits of Agorism’s specific incremental strategy, at least they have one.

Panarchy

Reader Adam Knott offers a selection of works to read:

First, the original essay “Panarchy,” published in 1860 by Paul Emile de Puydt.  In this essay, de Puydt lays out his vision of the idea of multiple nonterritorial coexisting governments.  This essay is one of the most wonderful essays in libertarian literature, written entirely without rancor.  In this essay, de Puydt explains that government should be something open to individual choice and something nonterritorial in nature, just as religions are.

Second, a compilation of essays written by living panarchist authors, including John Zube, the oldest living panarchist philosopher.  These are wonderful and original essays that make the case for voluntary choice in governments.  One of the articles, by Gene Callahan, is written specifically on the subject of secessionism.  But all the essays are about the individual’s right to choose his government (his right to exit, join, or form them) and not have it imposed upon him on the basis of geography.

And finally, The Present State of Liberty is an essay I self published in 2007.  In this essay, I argue that libertarianism has failed as a political movement because it is still a movement that thinks in terms of political monopolism and geographic government.  I argue that libertarians generally either support liberalizing a democracy, or they support the utopian vision of a particular author (such as Rand or Rothbard), but neither of these things is true liberty, because neither vision includes the right to opt out or secede and go one’s own way.   Liberty exists when the individual may choose, not only goods and services and his place of domicile, but also the government he lives under.

Here at Let A Thousand Nations Bloom, we couldn’t agree more.  Everyone has a different concept of freedom and utopia, and we seek a world where any group who share a vision can go form a sovereign country, and thus individuals have a myriad array of choices for types of governments to live under.

(Note that there is a Facebook group for Supporters of Libertarian Extraterritorial Secession.)

This post is merely a short overview of some of the flavors of and references for virtual, extraterritorial, or non-territorial secession.  Functional, overlapping, and competing providers of government services is a large area of political thought, with numerous high-quality books, essays, and academic papers.  These references should be a good start.

We hope you’ll take a brief break from your BBQing and fireworks to join us tomorrow for our final day of Secession Week, focused on the Declaration of Independence and the American Revolution.

Suzuki’s 2010 Alto has achieved a very respectable four-star rating in the latest round of ANCAP (Australasian New Car Assessment Program) testing.

Hitting the showroom floors August 1st, the Alto is Suzuki’s, smallest, safest and cheapest offering yet.

With a price tag of under $13,000, the 885 kilogram Japanese lighweight does boast good value for money.

Safety features include ABS along with EBD and brake assist, front and side driver and passenger airbags. The higher-spec, SV4 also has curtain airbags, fog lights and electronic stability control.

A quick glance similarly priced options in the ’small hatch’ category is quite glorifying; nothing comes close to the edgy little Alto. The $14,000 Proton Savvy or Kia Rio is nowhere close in terms of safety, performance, efficiency or appeal.

If you couldn’t look at yourself in the mirror after buying a Suzuki, will have to dig a fair bit deeper to get something with the same safety features. Think Smart, Civic or Fiesta. But still, nothing has close to 6 airbags for this kind of money.

In the value stakes, one of the Alto’s closest and most value-conscious competitor is infact part of the same brood: the Swift.

- Anthony Crawford

Heard of ANCAP? It stands for the Australasian New Car Assessment Program and provides potential car buyers with information on how much protection you can expect from your�vehicle in the event of a serious front�or side crash.

The overwhelming number of our fellow Australians who perish on our roads each and every year, remains alarming. That figure,�more than�1600 is near enough to three times the number of Australian troops who died during the Vietnam War.

Worse still, most of these tragic deaths don?t even make it into the newspaper, as society has been largely desensitised due to the every day occurrence.

Moreover, the other number you don?t hear about, are those who are seriously injured in car crashes, roughly�10 times that of fatalities. So if we take the 2007 number above, its reasonable to suggest that 16,000 people are incapacitated in some way, and will most likely draw on the public health system. The cost to us all is staggering, not to mention the lifelong pain of losing a loved one.

While ANCAP doesn’t have anywhere near the size of budget�it should have,�it does have a serious passion for saving lives on our roads and lobbies both governments and carmakers for constant improvements in car safety devices such as curtain airbags and Electronic Stability Control (ESC) as�it�prefers to label the feature.

Take ESC or�Electronic Stability Program (ESP) as some call it and �German authorities say that this remarkable piece of electronic wizardry can eliminate up to 80 percent�of all skidding crashes and thus, 35 percent�of all fatalities.

It?s a similar story in safety conscious Sweden, where out of 500 road deaths each year, ESC can reduce fatalities by 80 to 100.

In the United States, with its enormous car population, up to 56 percent�of all fatalities could be avoided with the fitment of ESC.

So why then doesn?t the Federal Government make ESC and curtain airbags mandatory on�all new car sold in Australia?

�Next page…

Pages: 1 23

GM’s Chevy Traverse earns ‘Top Safety Pick’

Holden today announced the upgraded VE Commodore Omega sedan has achieved a maximum five-star rating under ANCAP testing criteria.

The result comes from the addition of a steering column shroud energy absorber across the VE sedan range that helps to reduce driver knee injuries, and a passenger seat belt reminder on the Omega sedan (introduced in October this year).

These improvements are in addition to the front passenger side impact airbags and curtain airbags that were made standard across the range earlier in 2008.

These improvements add to Omega’s already impressive safety equipment list of ABS, EBA, EBD, ESP and Traction Control – all of which are included as standard.

GM Holden Chairman and Managing Director, Mark Reuss welcomed the result and said it was encouraging to receive this third party endorsement.

?We have always been very confident of this vehicle?s real world safety capabilities. Before we launched VE, we conducted almost 80 real world prototype crash tests and more than 5000 crashtest simulations using leading edge virtual technology. When it comes to safety we are committed to continually improving the passive and active safety features we offer. We are also pleased to see that ANCAP now acknowledges Electronic Stability Control in determining its ratings.?

Holden will adopt the passenger seat belt reminder feature as standard fit across the VE Commodore range from mid 2009 production.

CarAdvice are currently testing the new 2009 Holden Commodore Omega against Ford’s Falcon XT – stay tuned.

GM’s Chevy Traverse earns ‘Top Safety Pick’

In what is a far cry from the original TK Barina’s woeful two-star rating, Holden today acknowledged ANCAP?s confirmation of a four-star crash rating for the upgraded 2009 model year (or TK9) Barina three-door hatchback.

The result reflects structural improvements and the addition of side impact airbags as standard across the updated Barina hatchback range (result does not apply to sedan models), which was introduced in August

�

The bodyshell has been enhanced with three clearly defined load paths designed to better absorb the impact of an offset front-end collision and support the entire structure of the passenger cell over a larger area.

High-strength steel has been used to reinforce the B-pillar and the dual side impact airbags (driver and passenger) extend upwards to provide head and thorax protection.

�

GM Holden Executive Director ? Sales, Marketing and Aftersales, Alan Batey said the ANCAP result was welcome as Barina was an important and significant vehicle for Holden in the small car market.

?There has been a very positive response to the new Barina?s styling and this announcement confirms the effectiveness of our various safety improvements,? Mr Batey said.

The Barina hatchback and sedan is sold in over 120 markets around the world, predominantly as the Chevrolet Aveo. The Barina nameplate has been part of the Holden line up since 1985 when the Suzuki based MB Barina went on sale.

Holden has sold more than 34,000 of the current model TK Barina since its Australian launch in 2005.

Leviton to open Lebanon center

Victor Rossi
MTOP

Paul Elberse “el macanudo”

David Mulford
Credit Suisse, CFR

SOCIO LEADGATE

Fede Muxi(NE),his Uruguayan Friend, Pancho Ravecca (HBS 97´), Arturo Alvarez Demalde(NC), Mauricio Gonzalez-Botto (OB) and Pancho Malmierca

Diego Alvarez Demalde ( ¿ familia ?) es actualmente el vicepresidente de Credit Suisse en Argentinay ex estudiante de Columbia Business School al igual que Daniel Hirsch ( ¿ familia?)

http://beta.americaeconomia.com/revista/117400-Como-reloj.NotaRevista.note.aspx

Standing, fromleft to right, are Alejandro Rio’04, Federico Schargorodsky ’05, Diego Alvarez Demalde’02, Ramiro Lauzan ’03, Fabio Tonolini’02 and Eduardo Franck ’80. In the front row, Daniel Hirsch’84 and Martin Brons ’05 join Mariano Pino’85.

El Columbia Business School se encuentra vinculado a JP Morgan, Morgan Stanley,

Más de una década después de Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co se hizo cargo de RJR Nabisco, la Unión Europea presentó una demanda en EE.UU al Tribunal Federal de Distrito debido a el blanqueo de dinero por la corporación a niverl Mundial de diversas mafias y grupos de delincuencia organizada. para una descripción de la demanda, ver Dillon, Read & Co. [2] Para obtener una descripción de la demanda, ver Dillon, Lee & Co y la Aristocracia del stock de beneficios, el capítulo 3, [1] y de las copias de las solicitudes seleccionadas demanda que figuran en RJR Nabisco en el artículo Recursos – Organizaciones [2].

Conversation on Private Equity: Russ Carson ’67, Henry Kravis ’69 and Dean Glenn Hubbard
http://www6.gsb.columbia.edu/cfmx/web/alumni/news/print.cfm?a=7

Dean Glenn Hubbard moderated a discussion about private equity featuring Russ Carson ’67 and Henry Kravis ’69.
Copyright Columbia Business School 2007

Sistema interactivo de conexiones : http://www.muckety.com/

http://www.muckety.com/Henry-R-Kravis/2281.muckety

SEBASTIAN HIRSCH

Sebastián Hirsch proviene de la familia Hirsch socia del decadente imperio de Bunge & Born, el cual también cae dentro del poderío del grupo Yabran al vender Molinos Río de la Plata al grupo Exxel, casualmentela venta se realiza en la sede del Credit Suisse de Madison Avenue.

http://www.clarin.com/suplementos/economico/1998/05/31/o-00401e.htm

http://www.ambitofinanciero.com/edicionesanteriores/afinancieroback/98-11-26/quinchos002.htm

El actual Director de Bunge & Born es el Sr. Octavio Caraballo de la familia Hirsch el mismo es miembro de la Americas Society, sociedad fundada y dirigida por David Rockefeller.

Wenceslao Bunge

Harvard C, DRCLAS

Alfredo Yabran

Pdue

Zelmar Michelini y Héctor Guiterrez Ruiz

Su hijo Wenceslao casualmentetambién trabaja también trabaja para el Credit Suisse como inversionista, gracias a la buena gestión de su padre.

http://www.globalrealestate.org/retreat/profile.asp?m=ne07&rcd=16191&ofn=12447

JORGE BORN, RODOLFO GALIMBERTI,

El síndromede Estocolmo?

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodolfo_Galimberti

FICUS CAPITAL, ENDEAVOR, DRCLAS, AMERICAS SOCIETY,

Extraído dela pagina web Ficus Capital.

http://www.ficuscapital.com/esp/commitment.html

Responsabilidad Social & Desarrollo Sustentable:

Ficus Capital participa activamenteen diferentes organizaciones e iniciativas que proactivamente contribuyenhacia el desarrollo y sustentabilidad económica y social del Uruguay y la región. Estas organizaciones son:

Endeavor
(http://www.endeavor.org/)

Fondo Rosado
(http://www.fondorosado.org/)

Fundación
Visionair (http://www.fundacionvisionair.org/)

Endeavor o “el Club del reparto de los Morgan”del tercer mundo para Latinoamérica y Sudáfrica” , pioneros enburbujas tecnológicas en Latinoamérica, la CEO o Directora es Linda Rottemberg miembro del CFR ( Consejo Para Asuntos Exteriores )

Francisco Ravecca y Linda Rottemberg en el 2001 antes de estallar la crisis con Jorge Batlle

http://www.presidencia.gub.uy/fotos/banco/2001/marzo/20010308ag.jpg INAUGURACION DE CONFERENCIA
El Presidente de la República, Dr. Jorge Batlle Ibañez, se hizo presente hoy en la Sala de Conferencias del Laboratorio Tecnológico del Uruguay donde tuvo lugar la apertura de la Conferencia “El Rol de los Emprendedores en el Desarrollo Económico”. En la ocasión hicieron uso de la palabra el Director Ejecutivo de Endeavor Uruguay, Dr. Francisco Ravecca y la presidenta y co-fundadora de Endeavor, Dra. Linda Rottemberg.(Foto SEPREDI,08 de marzo de 2001)
07 de Marzo, 2001

C.F.R

COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

El CFR fundado por J.PMorgan y su sponsor es Morgan Stanley su primer socio honorario no podía ser otro que David Rockefeller.

http://www.cfr.org/

http://www.cfr.org/about/people/board_of_directors.html

CFR Y ARGENTINA

http://www.laeditorialvirtual.com.ar/Pages/Salbuchi_ArgentinaMafiaMundial.htm

http://www.seprin.com/menu/notas1677.htm

HISTORIA DEL CFR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQZNEO2Tc1I

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Foreign_Relations

http://www.elfaronacional.com.ar/informes/2004-02.htm

Situación Internacional:“El Poder detrás del Trono Mundial” (Nota sobre Inteligencia Estratégica).

http://www.elfaronacional.com.ar/informes/2004-02.htm

JOSE ROHM

IBM BANCONACION, ARMAS, ORO, LAVADO, CARRASCOSA, FONDOS SANTA CRUZ, CORRALITO.

El Sr. José Rohm ( Alias Puchi )era consejero de la misma organización en Argentina hasta el 2001posteriormente se fuga de la justicia Argentina por los vaciamientos bancarios por todos conocidos, anteriormente estuvo implicado en los escándalosdel Banco Nación IBM , la venta de armas de armas a Ecuador y Croacia y la venta ilegal del oro.

Casualmente IBM es el sponsor de la Comisión trilateral según su pagina web otro de los exclusivos clubs creados por Rockefeller.

En el sonado caso Carrascosa y el asesinato de Marta García Belsunce apuntan a conexiones con el Cartel de Juarez y el lavado de dinero con el BGN presidido por José Rohm.

http://www.minutouno.com/1/hoy/article/Carrascosa:-del-pasado-con-los-hermanos-Rohm-hasta-los-caballos-y-el-bridge%5Eid_32505.htm

http://www.pagina12.com.ar/1999/99-06/99-06-22/pag03.htm

http://www.drclas.harvard.edu/files/AnnualReport2001.pdf

Los Rohm, Kirchner

y los fondos de Santa Cruz.

http://malditoscorruptos.blogspot.com/2007/07/500-millones-de-tu-abuelo-de-tu-sobrino.html

La Comisión

trilateral y el Sr. Rockefeller

http://www.animalweb.cl/n_o_imperial/nomundial/comision_trilateral.htm

“America… just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable.”

-Hunter S. Thompson

I hate the way life for your typical person has become. It is a sadly, depressing, story. I acknowledge that this country is one of the main problems. You see the government bailing out Fortune 500 companies and multi billionaires and you wonder, “How can I make something out of this sad and pathetic life when people with more money than God can’t even make theirs work?”

I know how they say money can’t make ya happy, but you have to admit, it is a big priority to have. But, if you see that the country is going broke the same way you do, you have that little glimmer in the back of your mind that tells you that there is no hope at all for mankind. Life is just a dolente wasteland anymore. That is why I live on cutting myself.

But people ask why? Why do you do this to yourself? Because basically, I have no hope in society anymore, and it is a better way to release the pain. It is a killed or be killed world in this country that is heading toward a third world type feel. I would prefer to be dead then live in this world that is heading toward that type of feel. I hate the way this life has become, but sometimes you got to say fuck it and do something to get rid of the pain and sorrow.

Now, I steal an old Hunter S. Thompson quote. “I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they’ve always worked for me.” If you feel over pressured by stupid shit, just try the cutting, pop that pill, drink that beer, smoke that weed, or just say fuck it and end it all. We all know that life and death are just the same anymore. I don’t plan on living very long in this world. Life is depressing and death is peaceful and the gap between that is hard.

But, for God’s sake, we are living in a country where our nation leaders are being chosen like it was a popularity contest, something on par with American Idol or Dancing With the Stars. Hell, why don’t we get Barack Obama out there dancing with Joe Biden while John McCain and Sarah Palin sings a duet of “Easy” by Lionel Richie, while they whisper to one another how they are gonna corrupt each other. Let’s make it even easier, instead of going somewhere else to vote, you can vote via text message and by calling a 1-800 number.

Why does it matter anyway? I mean the government is gonna decide who they want in the Office anyway. Call me a weirdo for thinking that way but you know it is true.

The government has a secret plot against its people. But, I will not get into that at the moment, but instead change the subject that is opening up a can of whoop ass on the nation, and that is the economy. The economy is like a wonderful ya meet at a bar (when your drunk). You look at her and think, “Wow, that is coming home with me tonight.” Then you talk to her, get her to come home with ya, few drinks, a few cocktails, and BOOM! Your in bed with her. Then ya wake up the next morning, you see all your money gone and her 900 pound gorilla ass running down the street.

The economy has fucked us over more times than OJ Simpson has fucked himself over. I mean at the time I am writing this (October 13, 2008) The DOW Jones has fallen under 9000 for the first time since 2003. I mean, I ain’t complaining because I am an anarcho-capitalist and I push for a free market and no economy, but anyway this sucks for the country.

But, if ya watch the news now-a-days, you will see that there are about four news subject that will dominate the news for a while.

1) There’s an election coming up. And they are smearing each other anyway they can.
2) Economy’s volatile.
3) Hurricanes are all over the place.
4) Alot of unexpected things happening in sports.

In other words, there’s a lot going on.

For the news media, this is a good thing – they don’t have to create news on their own, others are doing it for them. But something’s about to become very applicable, and it’s something that might have never occurred to you – there’s always the same amount of news.

Think about it. Newspapers are roughly the same size from day to day, newscasts are always 30 or 60 minutes long. It takes a huge event to change this – the last two times the news in Southwest Virginia produced a special edition, for example, were 9/11 and Pearl Harbor.

So we’ve created what’s known as the news cycle, the idea that no matter what, there always has to be something going on. The funny and slightly horrible part? People are really, really taking advantage of this.

If you want people to hear about your news, if you want the publicity that comes from media coverage, you wait until a slow spot in the news cycle to release it. Case in point, Marvel Comics’ decision to kill off Captain American a couple of years ago. It doesn’t seem like something that would even make most newscasts, let alone be considered a big story…but Marvel dropped this bombshell when the news cycle was at its slowest, and I remember watching Headline News not only running a story on it, but running it before the first commercial break.

There’s a flipside to this, of course. If someone doesn’t want people to notice their news for whatever reason, they’re well served to release it when the news cycle is at its busiest – as it will be from now through the American election. Something that might ordinarily be front page news will be bumped to the back, while something that would ordinarily be buried deep within the paper won’t make it in at all.

So my plea to you: for the next two months, pay attention to the news. And not just the big stuff (although it is important), also the little things that people are hoping to have slip through undetected.

But, back to my original point, Jake Ball does not plan on living long in life. That is why I try all this stuff to end it. I live by one credence, if you hate life, there is no way out of but killing yourself. I sit here everyday and I am the punching bag physically and mentally for everyone in my life and I refuse to fight back.

I’m not trying to sound morbid. But this is a perspective that I offer when I talk to people about life. If you looked at your tombstone, and could wind the clock back to today, how would you fill in the missing details? Who are you? What did you do? How did your life matter?

I was sitting in Oracle class the other day and wondering one question, “What if I died today?” I know a bunch of people around me would be sad, but most people would be sad for the wrong reasons. People would be sad, because they want fucking attention. And you must be thinking to yourself, Jake Ball, why do you think this why of people? Because people have provided to me in my life, that people are shit. Everyone, everywhere, at anytime, are fucking shit.

Say, I was to walk into school one day and fall over dead, of heart attack (I know, I look like I could have one at any time), people would be sad and crying, not because it was me, but because, oh, another kid died. He was not close to me or I never talked to him, but I must feel sad because everyone else expects this from me. If I died today, you would be sad and ’say’ you were close to me, but, in all actual reality, you never talked to me unless I talked to you first.

People would be on the news, saying:

Reporter: So, how close were you to Jake Ball?

Random Fucker: Oh, we were so close. One day, we were forced to sit beside one another in a class. I mean I don’t know him personally, but we were close.

Like the other day, I was at the Richlands/Marion football game, and I actually decided to walk around and actually let people talk to me first to see who would actually talk to me and four people (Smithy, Dan, Dink, and Shawn Ball) actually came up to me or yelled me over and actually said, “Hey.” It is not like I wouldn’t talk to someone, but I tried my best running into people to get them to talk to me, but I got the “go to hell” look from every damn one of them. Tonight, just destroyed my thoughts and feelings about any relationship with anyone in the fucking world.

People I thought were actually close to me, seemed to stab me in the back. And I realize one thing, my life can only get better from here. And, if it doesn’t, there is always the option of suicide.

This is just my views on the world anymore.

El sábado pasado, el 5 de abril, fuimos a Montevideo Shopping, con mamá, Papá, Angela y Milena. Y claro, ¿qué otra cosa podíamos hacer?, fuimos a jugar a la Ciudad de los Chicos.
Mili no había ido y yo era mi tercera vez (segunda con mis papis, la otra fue con la escuelita).
Los chiquis que nos dan en el banco, nos sirven para jugar mucho. Claro, somos chiquitas todavía y no nos dejan jugar en tooodo, pero nos re divertimos igual.

En ANCAP me encanta andar, me divierto mucho. Tambien en la fábrica de pasta, haciendo fideitos, que me regustan …. mmmmmmm
En el Súper comprando, en fin, de todo. jeje, aprendí a comprar en el súper, ahora voy sola al Disco, jaja, no, mentira.
En El País no nos dejan mucho por ser chicas, pero si nos dieron una charlita y una diario. Es como el de grandes, pero para chicos, genial …¿estudiaré lo mismo que papá?, jaja, no, no creo.

La verdad que me encanta ir. Y seguro, como dice papá, cuando sea un poquito más grande, me podré divertir más, porque podré jugar en toooodo.

Hay varias fotos, las ven Flickr. Veanlas.

ChauuuuYa habíamos ido y esa vez, como yo todavía no tenóa blog, lo publicó papá en el Botija, aqui.

I have not posted in awhile, though I have journaled a bit recently. As you can guess, I’ve gotten a bit busy recently, picking up two major jobs and throwing myself into them. I hope to stabilize within these new winds in the next weeks, then spend a bit more time here and developing freact.com

If anyone has good tech-consulting websites to refer to, send me a link. I’m aiming to give my consulting business a face by June. A face, forums, articles, etc.., for the tech newb.

Political predictions? Major slump and shakeout of economics will be accelerated by problems in the transportation industry, leading to a new global economic form that will revalue goods over currency and capital. Regressive, but more stable. Politically, the US federal government will spend our future even further, well past the breaking point, and will suffer an implosion of some sort, though not fatal. We have one more cycle within the current framework before……what? Federalization? : IE, states taking more autonomy? I don’t know, but the change in ~15 years will be fairly dramatic. How much longer can a binging pauper stagger on?

I thought I’d repost the comment Stefan Molyneux made a few days ago here, and post my reply. The comments in this particular template can be hard to notice, and I think this deserves its own post:

Stefan Molyneux writes:

“I certainly do believe that we should put as much effort as possible into helping people to rationally understand the evils of statism, and the violence it requires.

However, after you have stated and proved your position, there does come a point when someone you know may look you in the eye and say: “I still support the use of violence against you.”

If you consider somebody a friend who is willing to advocate the use of violence against you, then I would seriously question that definition of “friendship.””

My reply:

“Thanks for your comment Stef.

And I totally agree with your statement here. We each must take the measure of each other in our own way, and some are more willing than others to spend time or energy connecting even with those who would do us harm (out of ignorance or corruption or malevolence). Whether or not this is worthwhile or irrational is another question.

There certainly is an irrational or self-destructive element to claiming friendship with someone who would do us harm. However, a distinction can and must be made between friendship and connection in general. Like yourself, I would not call a statist a friend in the true sense, for I could not trust that he would not betray me for poor reasons. However, I would not exclude myself from attempting rapport and mutual empathy or compassion because I cannot at the moment claim true friendship.

I accept and respect your position on the matter. It is logical. But for myself I do think that beyond building our base of like-minded free-thinkers we will have to stretch our ability to connect even with those who would do us harm. You’ve demonstrated a great ability to get inside the minds of the corrupt, but often leave off at the level of condemnation. True, some persons may be beyond any of our individual abilities to build bridges away from violence and coercion and other soul-destroying habits towards freedom and mental health. And also true that condemnation or avoidance is often the healthy response to what would otherwise be personally destructive relationships. But I do not think it is true that we can extract and apply general rules to everyone such that we can assert: “Statists are irrecoverably corrupt. Avoid at all costs”.

To do so is to universalize a personal rule of thumb that works in keeping one (you in this case) safe and productive. But it is not universally true, and heavily conflicts with the idea of personal growth and change. Many of those at FDR, including you, were once statists of one sort or another, and to throw out the baby with the bathwater here looks and seems overly defensive, naive, and myopic. I do believe we can weave our mutual support for freethinkers and ancaps without this kind of isolationism. Indeed, I think it will only be possible to grow the freedom movement to the extent to which we can remain border-less, but not boundary-less.”

PS: Apparently I am banned at FDR. I tried to check the top referrer to the thread: http://freedomainradio.com/board/forums/thread/115192.aspx and I cannot log in. Maybe my account just expired? I never recieved a notice about being banned.

From: Liberating Minds, where I post regularly…

Laird wrote:
I’m not sure if all the folks on the board agree with me on this, but I don’t like his whole business of being anti-social towards people with wrong or confused political views (you know, statists). Instead of showing them towards the light, we should shun them? Hmm, I guess if you believe that people can never change their political views, you can adhere to this philosophy.

It really burns my bacon when Stef says you can’t be a libertarian if you hang out with statists (podcast 927), since there is nothing in the non-aggression principle that says you can’t hang with with those who advocate the use of force (against you or anyone else).

My reply:

Yes, it does seem on the surface that Stef preaches empathy for understanding others, but this gets second priority when he needs to justify isolationism.

He makes many good arguments about things like ‘not-arguing-with-the-irrational’ (which is irrational), but I don’t think he really wants to understand how people get deluded into their mistaken beliefs about power, authority, the state, and the family. If he did understand how people get themselves broken, I don’t think he’d be so quick to judge others in such absolutist ways as “don’t hang out with statists at all”.

He does seem to run into his own contradictions in these kinds of areas a lot: “We can change the world” vs. “Nobody ever changes” + “You can’t change others”, for instance.

Maybe sometimes we can’t change others, but surely we can try to understand them. When we do, we can connect, and that is a prerequisite to any real change in the first place. So the proposition of “reduce all comms with statists” is pretty numbskulled, especially coming from someone who in some areas knows better.

What is so bad about FDR?.

Discussion of the internet as metaphor for anarcho-capitalism, and also, quite incidentally, Joomla 1.5 Stable’s release today! I continue to document my progress in website design, planning, and implementation, and take a break to discuss anarchy.

I seem to have chosen well: Joomla 1.0.x vs. Joomla 1.5.x was a tough one. But today Joomla 1.5 Stable is released! Code name: Khepri . I’m upgrading as I write this: upload the files to server, unpack and overright the 1.5 RC4 files. Easy peasy. I always check (as if I’ve done this so many times before!) the Joomla forums before attempting something new. Its one of the wonderful things about opensource: There are always people helping each other out. No need for customer service. Just let people communicate in a free way and solutions find themselves.

Maybe thats part of why I’ve gone ahead and started posting all this software mumbo jumbo on Growing Freedom: The web is a good metaphor for an anarcho-capitalist society in general. Pure voluntarism, yet strong economics. No need for some dark authority to pass laws and give permissions and favors. No need for democracy either. There are no decisions to be made.

People talk about the web being a very democratic place. That is nonsense. Its at best a poor way of saying: “Things that work become popular. Things that are popular drive further development.”. People who see democracy as the highest ideal tend not to see the fact that the internet isn’t democratic at all, unless people set up democratic sub-areas inside for themselves.

Speaking of sub-areas, I’ve been impressed by this simple test of government and freedom: Any system A that can contain within it examples of a different system, B, and where B cannot likewise contain A, we can say “A is a freer system than B”.

For example, a democracy with strong property rights can entertain examples of communism within it. Bob can set up a commune with Lucy and run it mostly how they like. But the reverse is not true: Communist Bob cannot set up a democratic institution or area with Communist-Lucy in a communist country / state / area. Without property rights, they would only be playing a game. The state claims hegemony over their ‘property’ no matter whether they deal with each other democratically on the surface or not.

The internet is anarchic: Strong property rights, almost zero controls (China comes to mind, and the fact that a lot of the underlying structure is meddled with or owned outright by governments or their lackeys). This makes for strong economics . And its easy to set up a sub-area with any sort of ‘government’ you could want. Anarchic systems can contain all other systems, or at least that is how the theory of this test goes. So next time you get to thinking about creating and enforcing some strict rules on your fellow man (especially family, and especially children. More on that another time), think of the internet. How is wealth really generated? In what environments do people really thrive? Do you really need to be in control, or would a more freedom-loving solution be even better?

As to hating the illegitimate authorities in your own life: Of course you do. We all know better now that we have so many examples of free systems in our lives. My own suggestion: Don’t get too caught up in fighting ‘the powers that be’, whether they are family, government, teachers, institutions, laws, conformist pressures, etc.. Rather, find your freedom inside yourself and nurture it into a flame. With your soul rooted in real freedom, the fact of living under illegitimate authority will become less menacing, and you’ll consequently be able to free-act to authority rather than react. Thats one of the meanings of my upcoming website: freact.com

Well, thats it for now. Let me know what you think about the ideas above, and also I’m looking for Joomla friends to work with: Anyone who’s also getting Joomla going for the first time, or has some experience and would like to work together to overcome obstacles, give me a ping, zing, digg, or old-fashioned comment.

Been waiting to see someone draw the parallels in a major science publication, and our fellow blogger theConverted gives a nice analysis of Dr. Michael Shermer’s recent SciAm paper on “Evonomics” which apparently comes through for those of us on the thinking side of the room….

But what this really points to is yet another example of hypocrisy that seems to plague both the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, both so-called liberals and conservatives. Each has their own cognitive dissonance here. The conservative right, staunchly defends the idea (for the most part) that the economy is molded “from the bottom up by the invisible hand” of the market, while denying the identical process that occurs in biology.  Of course, the liberal left seems to have the opposite problem – while rightly defending the process of evolution and natural selection, they fail to see this exact same process in the field of economics and claim that the government is needed to manage the market.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

I’m happy to find another libertarian / AnCap among the WordPress bloggers. This blog seems to be keeping track of the Paul campaign. Read more at Liberty Forged

From : This WP blog

Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are the only two US presidential candidates who voted consistently against war in Iraq, and who would bring the troops home from that illegal, unconstitutional and bloody quagmire of malfeasance and pandering to corporate oil interests, immediately. With 70% of Americans now opposed to the war in Iraq, these are also the only two candidates who in sync with the views, values and voice of the American people. Incidentally, Ron Paul, with his firm and strong anti-war stance, has received more support from US military personnel and veterans than any other candidate.

    In an anarcho-capitalist society, where persons who have freely chosen* to uphold the extension of property rights** such that those who make legitimate claim to property create voluntary systems to uphold those claims, how would people deal with the uncertainty we have today regarding global warming?

Simpler: How does a stateless society who’s fundamental operative principle is “right to property and the free exchange thereof” handle global warming?

Simplest: How does anarcho-capitalism ‘answer’ something like global warming?

First of all, it is not incumbent on a political philosophy based on voluntarism to answer this. The philosophy is not dependent on this kind of prediction. It is informed on the observations like “free pepole prosper most”, and that certain things are illegitimate, unproductive, illusory, or immoral: classes, states, coercion, violence, socialism, etc.. In this sense it is: Take away what is illegitimate and you have voluntarism.

Furthermore, a core strength of free systems is that nobody has to plan for every contingency. The inherent maximal richness of solutions offered by systems like evolution, or the free market, is such that predictions are neither necessary or relevant to overall success. They are relevant to the individuals of course who try to maximize success within the system by predicting what behaviors will work, but they are certainly not required for the system to work as a whole.

So why bother?

To a certain extent, trying to answer: “What would Voluntarism Do?” is beyond moot. It incubates and maintains the idea that a political system has to offer solutions, when the ‘point’ is that an apolitical system IS the solution. It is a category error on a grand scale. If you are convinced that your raping me is the only way to protect me from invisible demons, then should I take up the argument “Well, if you let me face these demons on my own, I could handle them better because I will take this or that action to control them with force”, I am in some way legitimizing the raping, the demons, and the argument from insanity. I am either lying to get you to stop raping me, or I actually believe that force is legitimate, demons exist, etc..

The basic answer to “What would Voluntarism Do?” is “Could you have predicted the internet 100 years ago?”. “Could you have predicted the automobile 500 years ago?”. “Could you have predicted human beings 5 billion years ago?”. If so, then let me sign up for your investment group. Otherwise, I have some other things I’d rather be doing. However, because its fun to think about, lets take a stab at global warming.

Who owns the air I breathe? Am I responsible for the air I exhale? More soon.

-Alex

* That ‘persons who have freely chosen’ is not an argument from majority, but I couldn’t word it better here. What I mean is that there are enough people who recognize property as a fundamental right such that they can create economic systems which are mutually beneficial and which much take into account this fundamental right. Such a voluntarist system would also have to account for those persons who do not recognize property rights (which is always hypocritical, but we’ll save that for another time). In other words, the protection of property would be a concern of everyone in a voluntary economy, and would be especially pronounced when interacting with those persons who claim not to recognize property rights.

**We own ourselves (a case that has been made quite convincingly elsewhere). We own the things we create with the things we create. We own the things we have come to own through voluntary exchange. I inherit or earn an apple tree and make pies. You trade me property for pies. I own that property. You own the pies.

Essay by Danny Sahar on “Do You Believe in Global Warming?”

To summarize: We are not certain. We may never in our lifetimes be able to be certain. So what do we do about it?

The essay conveys my sense of the research on the issue.

How do I, as an individual, take what responsibility is mine? If you believe in the state, what should it do? If only as a species we can ’solve’ global warming with teamwork, how would we go about that in a free society?

Being a strict anarcho-capitalist in the face of such a problem is tough. I think I could certainly make the case that: If the world were entirely stateless, we’d solve this just fine. But the world has groups of people that call themselves ‘governments’, and they have guns and goons. So what can I do?

An essential question is: Can such a problem as ‘the possibility that we may be causing global warming’ be solved to anyone’s satisfaction within the current systems?

If its possible that governments could take up policies that addressed this concern such that I would feel satisfied with the resulting ‘care’, would I be happy? No, because I recognize that other people’s positions may be more strong than my own, and that I cannot determine which position is right. So if I felt that reducing carbon emissions by 95% would basically take care of the problem, policies that would achieve this goal would be doubly wrong!

1. They would use force as a means.

2. They lack any certainty.

Lets try some mental test-cases, focusing on the certainty aspect.

If the only way to prevent a giant earth-eating space monster from devouring our planet is to get 90% of people to fast for a day (go against their short-term interests), how do we make this happen? Does it legitimize force?

In such a black / white scenario, the temptation to use force for compliance is very strong. If everyone can see the monster, and it says: “Fast for a day, or I eat everything”, and we have every reason to believe that it will follow through: It has eaten other planets that did not comply. It has shown itself to be logical and non-sadistic, amoral or moral. If we have engaged it many times and its always held to agreements, even when it could abrogate without consequence. In other words, if each of us had every reason in the world to trust the space monster, how would people act?

Certainly some people would find fasting tough going. Maybe some people would want to fast, but lack the self-control to do it, even if they fully believed they would die if they ate? I’m not sure. Maybe people would create “lock yourself it” shops so that people could isolate themselves from temptation, if they wanted to do so. How many people though would say “Screw you Space Monster! I’m going for some donuts!”?

I mean, here we have an intelligent being manipulating us for some reason. We can ascribe responsibility to it. Being angry with the ‘injustice’ of the monster does seem to make some sense. Would such a monster be merely sadistic?

Lets change the monster into a mindless horde of space-amoebas. One for every person on earth (big coincidence). The amoebas are shown to attack intelligent creature only. They detect these creatures only when they are eating. But if they are eating, a single amoeba flies to the scene, devours the person eating, and 10 other people at random, for good measure. Everyone believes this is totally true. We have piles of evidence. People have seen it happen before, etc.. So we only have to make it through a single day of fasting and we’re alright, and 10 other people are alright too.

Now clearly we’ll be very concerned that other people also fast. Its a game theory exercise of some kind. If the creatures will only devour the eaters, then no problem: Let everyone decide for themselves (unlike seat-belt laws). The temptation to protect others against their will is there, but its not powerful.

The farther we magnify the effect, the more tempting force becomes I think. If a single person breaks the fast and 100000 people die, I think we can legitimize force. But is this a long gray line? Is it true that while decisions only affect ourselves, we’re at perfect liberty (or rather should be, since there are plenty of laws that go against this idea), but when our decisions affect many others that we should not be at liberty?

If global warming were totally clear and ‘proven’, wouldn’t people just want to take actions for their own long-term interest? Clearly not everyone. But the real difficulty, beyond the serious uncertainty with the issue, is in the operation of effects. More later.