Swartz, Weev & radical libertarian lexicon (Re: Jacob Appelbaum in Germany - Aaron Swartz)

Wed Jan 8 21:17:18 PST 2014

On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 	Well, but didn't they, using 'white' terminology, jointly owned the land
> they were living in? (and then whites came along and stole...)

this may explain a little more

http://www.barefootsworld.net/seattle.html

yes "white terminology" holds white CONCEPTS as do words in my tribe
the blackfoot and other tribes languages i am also cherokee for
instance the word "floor" does not exist because things are noted as
actions so it is "flooring" because things are not stagnant they are
active > everything is animated there are no inanimate and animate
objects all are animate

you may hear people say the whites 'stole' the land but what they did
was move the people ... kill them etc they did not live in concert etc
> do you know the story of lewis and clark by the way it shows how the
'indians' lived > very different

> 	Anyway, ownership of natural resources is a bit more complex (or harder to
> define) than ownership through labor, that's why I mentioned growing food
> (which involves personal labor)
>

i am not sure mayb make an argument as to why it is different

>

>
>
> 	That's fine. My question would be : If a tribe(?) took care of certain
> buffalo herd, did they have the 'right' (or choose whatever word is
> appropiate here) to hunt it and use the products? Or would it be OK for a
> tribe living nearby to 'steal' the herd from them?
>

i know of these instances yes but the land was vast so ... they moved
on ... no i dont think they saw it as particularly 'ok' and they made
confederacies and agreements regarding these issues - they had
community agreements which they worked together to come to also fyi
they had chiefs yes but they had different councils that made
decisions they still function in this way and what your role was was
what you were naturally good at  - they didnt try to make people into
something they were not

>
> 	Because they want to? It's their food and they do with it whatever they
> please =P

funny

>
> 	Now, what if some people don't want to give their food away for free, and
> a different group of people takes it by force?
>
> 	What if some people spends their labor producing something and other
> people come along and get the products, for free, against the will of the
> producers? That sonds like slavery to me, and I'd risk saying that it's
> been recognized as slavery since a long time ago, and in all parts of the
> world.
>

thats what we have now with neo liberal capitalism

>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 	If I'm not the 'absolute' owner of my person and what I produce, who is
>>> it?
>>
>> well i think ideas are in the air and we build on the shoulders of
>> giants
>
> 	That is true regarding ideas and knowledge (though things need to be
> re-learnt at the individual level, of course...) - but I'm talking more
> about physical production than intelectual production.

i meant physical production too - i mean do you understand how many
hundreds of years it took life to come up with the spoon > just a
spoon that took a ton of time and energy and really i see myself as no
different than a spoon

>
>>so production is owed down thru the ages and i think there isnt
>> really a you basically > your first form i would say is life itself
>> and you are made mostly of water and some minerals (dirt) and when you
>> 'die' your body dissipates like a cloud - i dont think 'you' die i
>> think you just transform
>
>
> 	Well, maybe, but individual consciousness seems to exist. Regardless of
> you and budhists calling it an illusion =P

i never said that i think in terms of co-creativity

>
>
>>
>> so there is no 'you' to have ownership > would you say life owns life
>> ? that would be odd > i think ownership is an illusion i also think
>> you didnt make yourself so that would be a glitch in your argument
>
>
> 	Living things are kinda self-assembling...Though I didn't argue that  I
> 'own myself' because I 'made myself'. I'm talking about external property.

no i was extending and making an argument > but how do you think you
"own" yourself?

>
> 	My argument is : I own this tomato plant because I took the trouble to
> cultivate it.

BUT what about the tomato plant it took more "trouble" than u i would
say - in ur world does it have "ownership"

>
>
>> i
>> mean i think you had a bit to say in the matter but we are very
>> limited mathematical concoctions (gorgeously made and amazing but
>> limited) we cant presently manufacture ourselves in order to "own"
>> ourselves but even then we wouldnt be independent of life itself
>
> 	No, we wouldn't.
>
> 	Also, you correctly point out that 'we' didn't 'make' ourselves, but are
> you suggesting that we were 'made' by someone else/some kind of
> entity/moral agent/or?

F no and i dont think there was a big bang either or a beginning i
think life is a spiral cone time and space are - i dont think time is
linear see deleuze and guattari > but native americans think like that
too

>>
>> i think the idea of ownership was made by rulers (seen thru millenia
>> but look at the magna carta which will be 800 in 2015) i want as
>> little to do with rulers thought patterns and functioning as possible
>
>
> 		I think property is an extension of personal freedom, and so it's
> actually anathema to rulers.

i think property is a coffin
BUT i understand what you mean how it could be seen that way actually
it really is a multidimensional issue but overall i see that history -
and my own inner gut - shows that having community is a more fully
effective way of living than individualism BUT also i think rulers
will turn anything they can into something fucked up

>
> 		magna carta is as far as I can tell a document dealing with two factions
> of the ruling class - the 'noblemen', also known as oligarchy and the
> monarchic party (actually a different faction of the oligarchy)

yes that was my point those are the people that are so interested in
property rights > hey ya know the largest land owner in manhattan ??
catholic church... know the second largest property owner in manhattan
?? episcopal church ... what i think they have socially engineered is
the protection of ruling class property rights and convinced the
people it serves them - it does not !! otherwise everyone would have
food and clean water and a place to live (its not that much to ask
for) really it doesnt serve humanity or life force either to have such
levels of separation between ppl because of who they were born to,
where etc

>
>
>
>
>>
>> >
>>>
>>>> but to parse it for you believing in
>>>> something is about religion which is smoke and mirrors + the public
>>>> sphere is waning if you havent noticed
>>>
>>>
>>> 	Not sure what you mean by the public sphere, but what I understand by
>>> 	the public sphere isn't exactly waning.
>>>
>>> 	
>>>
>>>> but its not so much an
>>>> emergency but an emergence of the collective ... an opportunity > your
>>>> choice to be mindful of the reality or not
>>>>
>>>> klein is an economist
>>>
>>> 	yeah well, so were keynes and marx. Or at least there are people who
>>> 	think they were 'economists'...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 11:11 PM +0100 Cari Machet
>>>>> <carimachet at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> to all the libratarians on the planet that 'believe' in ownership
>>>>>
>>>>> 	In case you're addressing me... =P
>>>>>
>>>>> 	(well, you seem to be talking to James, but replied to a post of
>>>>> mine,
>>>>> 	so I'm not sure)
>>>>>
>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 'belief' and 'ownership' are idiotic arcane notions of
>>>>>> anthropocentric
>>>>>> type amygdala activity
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://archive.org/details/The_Shock_Doctrine.The_Rise_of_Disaster_C
>>>>>> ap it alism
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 	Is Klein some kind of radical anarcho communist? If not she probably
>>>>> subscribes to some notion of private property...
>>>>>
>>>>> 	
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this means you james > with a caveat that obama is a disgusting
>>>>>> reflection of the system and ppl were ill informed to think he wasnt
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> i offer this piece by naomi klein in dispute of your 'ideology' seen
>>>>>> thru your crummy/flimmsy/pathetic analysis of aaron's work
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if you have seen it then you have no excuse for your mindset > if you
>>>>>> have not seen it i dare you to debate its consciousness
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/8/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --On Wednesday, January 08, 2014 6:59 AM -0500 Ulex Europae
>>>>>>> <europus at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> At 02:07 AM 1/8/2014, Juan Garofalo wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>         fucking americunt fascist.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Russian emigre. Yes there is a difference, and yes that is
>>>>>>>> relevant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 	As a transplanted nationalist, she was even more rabid than home
>>>>>>> grown
>>>>>>> nationalists. That's the first(and only) difference that comes to
>>>>>>> mind...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>
>

-- 
Cari Machet
NYC 646-436-7795
carimachet at gmail.com
AIM carismachet
Syria +963-099 277 3243
Amman +962 077 636 9407
Berlin +49 152 11779219
Twitter: @carimachet <https://twitter.com/carimachet>

Ruh-roh, this is now necessary: This email is intended only for the
addressee(s) and may contain confidential information. If you are not the
intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use of this
information, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this email without
permission is strictly prohibited.