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

[Juan Garofalo]

--On Thursday, January 09, 2014 4:10 AM +0100 Cari Machet
<carimachet at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 1/9/14, Juan Garofalo <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 	Let's say I grow my own food. Do you think I'm the onwer of the food I
>> grow? Or maybe some people, let's call them the 'government', have a
>> 'right' to my food?
> 
> 
> if u really want to know what i think then u need to know my thought
> processies are not like "white" ppl > ideas of ownership are foreign
> to me i am native american and most tribes though they lived in areas
> didnt consider ownership of them but a co-creative partnership - 


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


>re:
> food > when my people hunted buffalo in the plains they didnt just
> indiscriminately kill buffalo they weeded the herd and were mindful to
> examine how they could be of help to the herd it was only intelligent
> to do so as it kept their source of food and clothing healthy and
> vibrant but also it was respectful of life


	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? 


> 
> so there are people that give food away for free right now today > why
> would they do that?

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

	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. 




> 
>> 
>> 	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. 

>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


> 
> 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. 

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


> 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? 



so
> ... > maybe in future we will manufacture ourselves but there is
> probably going to be a divisive factor in the manufacturing of life
> forms (divisive as in schism - not workin so good - should be
> interesting but already happening w/ monsanto actually so...)

		the only thing that the monsanto mafia manufactures is patents =P
	

> 
> 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.

		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)




> 
> > 
>> 
>>> 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...
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>