Good Friday to you, TDVers. How was your week? Did you hear Obama's troops on the other end of your phone calls? Were state drones buzzing your house? Did you get arrested for telling the truth and caring about your fellow man? Of course you did! You live in the USSA!
Want to join in on the discourse? Send your questions, comments, queries, and concerns to tdv@dollarvigilante.com, comment on a post, or get on the forums.
On to the feedback…
MORE ON PROPERTY. AND FLEAS.
Hey Gary,
Love the in-depth discussions of property. Even as an anarcho-capitalist, I find the topic fascinating and worthy of debate. Personally, I don't care if property (or anything) is "natural". That doesn't even mean anything – anything that exists or can exist in nature is natural. That's why I don't believe in "natural rights" like Rothbard does. I think you touch the most important point in your last Feedback Friday comment: We use property (rights) to stake claims on who can use resources, when use of those resources would otherwise be conflicted. In that sense, the concept of property is totally man-made and "unnatural" in the hippie sense. But it is clearly extremely beneficial. And since land is a resource humans constantly have conflict over, property is clearly a useful solution to use on it. The anarcho-communist explanation that there "shouldn't be property (rights) on land because it is scarce" is exactly backwards – why would you use property if something wasn't scarce?
Property is a solution to conflicts from scarcity. The distinction between "property" and "possession" that an-coms often make is also very useless to me. Call it what you want. There's a conflict over resources, and if you manage that conflict by allowing party X certain types of usage in certain ways, that's property. This might take the form of owning, renting, leasing, sharing, communal grazing, or whatever. Some of these forms are better suited to some types of resource conflicts. Ownership tends to produce better stewardship of land than communal "tragedy of the commons" type usage outside the scope of a small village or family. For a family, complicated leasing contracts and insurance claims might have more overhead than they have value, so communal sharing might work better. And the flea analogy isn't wrong at all. Fleas have to solve resource conflicts on dogs. I don't know how they do it. They might wage war, or have rituals, or instincts, or maybe they do exchange flea-money. But unless they use some kind of "property" to manage their resource (the dog), there's going to be conflicts with all their problems (over-flea'ing might cause the dog to scratch himself, causing the fleas to fly off, which is bad for every flea involved).
Property is a social construct to solve resource conflicts, like language is a social construct to solve communication problems.
John T.
Gary’s Response:
John, you're making me look bad here. Are you gunning for my job? Well said, my friend.
ENDING RELATIONSHIPS ON PRINCIPLE
Gary,
Didn't you split 'cause of her inability to grasp your politics? Wasn't that you? I remember feeling a great amount of respect for you when I read that.
I'm in a somewhat similar situation now, not exactly an anarcho-capitalist vs liberal thing, but a very similar situation philosophically. Please advise. Anything, just tell me something, lol.
Jack
(Frequent TDV forum poster)
Gary's Response:
Jack,
Anything, huh? Ok, here we go…
I did indeed end every romantic relationship when the woman simply couldn't bring herself to embrace the principles of voluntaryism even after I'd spend weeks or months explaining them. But to be honest, it wasn't on principle. It was simply the natural result of the sexual novelty wearing off and leaving me to realize how immoral the woman really was. If I were truly principled, I wouldn't start these relationships in the first place. Honestly (and I mean this from the bottom of my heart), I think outright prostitution is the far more moral activity than dating for the philisophical free market anarchist.
As I've pointed out ad nauseum, voluntaryists/anarcho-capitalists/free market anarchists are harder to find than a shred of morality at a joint session of Congress. Further this anti-state, propertarian worldview is overwhelmingly peopled by introverted men from the minority Rational group in Myers-Briggs Personality Typing. Pure anarchism is hard to come by. Even many of those people who don't trust government and want to keep it in check still feel that a monopoly on violence is necessary for "some things." I don't mean to sound snobbish about the moral purity of my anarchism (or anyone else's for that matter). But this is indeed a deeply moral view and conviction. And once you've dwelt in this sphere long enough, it becomes impossible to truly love those who still cling to aggression and who make excuses for the initiation of force.
You don't have to try to avoid falling for statists. After a while, you find that you simply can't fall for them. Lust may be possible for a while, but certainly not love. You didn't say exactly what divides you and your girlfriend…but if it's significant enough…if it's something that your principles just can't abide…physics will kick in and your desire to be around her will fade. Happens to me every time!
I'm sure I have some other issues with commitment based on early childhood traumas. But truly embracing non-aggression multiplies that like a mother******. Principled philisophical anarchism is the ultimate birth control. Used to be that sufficient amounts of hotness were enough to make me forget the inherent underlying immorality of potential non-anarchist mates. But now where I used to see beauty, hips and breasts, I just see violent, propagandized automatons. They say things like "education should be free" or "who would build the roads?" and are too hopelessly married to the secular religion of the state even when they consider themselves otherwise thoughtfully agnostic or atheist.
Do you know how sickening and depressing it is to be sitting or lying with a lover when some social issue or current event comes up and you just know without her evening opening her mouth that she supports the initiation of collectivized violence as the solution?
It's all seriously making me want to defend prostitution very publicly as the moral superiority of emotionless commercial sex for the principled anarcho-capitalist. Better that than to try to form serious emotional attachments with the bloodthirsty zombies who support the state. I suppose an even morally superior strategy would be to withdraw entirely from any romantic or sexual congress until you find someone with an actual mind instead of propogandized goop and whom you are able to love.
Personally, I'm not quite that noble yet. So I keep rotating different statist gals in and out of my life, skedaddling before we hit the official "couple" zone. I've learned that laying my arguments for anarchism out too early (like at the bar where we first meet) is a bit much. Because the arguments are rational, they can produce great frustration and anger because they reveal to people just how little they've been actually thinking and how much they've been trained not to think. I guess what I'm trying to say is "Ancaps…we don't luh dem statist hoes."
P.S. Thank heaven that enclaves like Galt's Gulch, Chile are forming. If any outpost for like-minded, liberty-loving individuals will gather the beautiful, principled women of the world like iron filings to a magnet, it's GCC. This is because of something that I term "The Berwick Effect" (TBE). Hang out with Jeff at a conference — or head down to Acapulco and hang out with him there — to see what I mean. Magnet. Iron fillings. It will begin to make sense. You begin to see that life can be full of laughter and beautiful women and alcohol while you're surrounded by those who share your deepest convictions about the individual and liberty. Galt's Gulch, Chile is going to be spectacular. Click here to find out about reserving your spot today.
Jeff's Response:
I just had to chime in here. Poor Gary grew up in the USSA and still doesn't fully realize that the entire world isn't statist. He has lived and still lives in the United State. I've had the pleasure of travel and know that the majority of the world is quite anarchist. I'm writing in today from Vina del Mar, Chile, and amongst the dozens of conversations I've had with locals, never is politics brought up. They just don't care. And its the same, even more so, in Mexico. The US government and media like to demonize Mexico as much as possible because they realize that the great majority of Mexicans despise government and won't allow them to destroy freedom. This has made Mexico, by far, the freest country in North America. And the US government knows that every spring breaker who goes there might have a moment of awakening that maybe they don't really live in the "land of the free".
When I first met my wife-to-be in Acapulco the topic of government or freedom didn't even come up for weeks on either of our parts. There were much better things to talk about… life, love, happiness, music, fiesta. I think it was months after I met her that I brought it up in passing, "What do you think of government?" She gave me a bit of a stern look and said, "Government? Criminal organization."
I married that beautiful, natural anarchist.
My advice to Gary is to just get out. He, like most men, has a particular preference for women and his leans definitely to the lighter skinned. In that case, I advise him to go to Chile, Argentina, Prague or Tallin, Estonia and find that almost every single girl he meets will not only be sexually attractive to him but outwardly hostile to even the concept of government. In the US the conversation starts with, "are you a republican (slave) or a democrat (slave)". In Chile, Mexico, Czech Republic, Estonia and almost every other country on Earth the conversation usually starts with "how are you?" and even bringing up politics or government is looked down upon as speaking about evil.
I know Gary will soon get out. He's like countless of our readers and subscribers who has a lot of fear of the unknown. Allow me to tell you, from a person who is out here and doing it, there is nothing to fear but fear itself!
CANADA OR CHILE? REALLY?
Hello TDV,
I thought I would write to you as I need a bit of guidance.
I have been following your videos and posts of quite a few months now and have been inspired to change some of my future decisions to create some of stability for myself and my family.
I am from the UK and currently live in France with my daughter. I was planning to move to Canada in 2015, but after watching your videos over the last months not so sure that is a good idea.
I have taken lots of good advice from Jeff especially and applaud his courage for speaking out and educating those who will listen. What little disposable income I do have I have started buying gold coins, instead of letting my money sit in a savings account. My father is Dominican and have seen that you advocate applying for a second passport for security, which I am going to do this year. I am also going to acquire a piece of land next year and start a small organic farming business.
My dilemma is that if I do not move to Canada, where would you recommend? The Chile option is enticing, but I don't not have a lump sum to purchase land at the moment. My assets lie in the UK and pay me a good steady income.
Would it be possible for you to advise me in what would be best next step. I know my story sounds a bit confusing, but I would really appreciate it.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Best regards,
Rina
Jeff’s Response:
Salut Rina!
Thinking of leaving France for Canada? Who knows, it could work out. It all depends on your personal situation and what your skillset is and what value you can provide people and how well you can handle brutally cold temperatures! As for me, personally, I'd actually go to France instead of Canada. France, governmentally, is a complete basket case. They now have gone Full Commie with income tax rates over 100% for some wealth creators! But the wine, women and natural beauty, especially in the south of France would attract me more than the barren, frozen tundra of Kanada… a place I call North America's Siberia.
One comment of yours that strikes me is that you are planning a few years ahead (2015). Trust me on this, things will be changing so dramatically in the next few years that it is almost pointless to plan that far ahead. What I would do is learn Spanish. If you speak French it will be quite easy. They are very similar. At least by doing that you give yourself a lot of options in some places that may not totally self-destruct. Specifically, Chile. On that note, if you are going to learn Spanish with a thought of possibly coming to Chile one day, I would suggest you find a way to learn Chilean Spanish. It is quite different than other forms of Spanish. I've had a hard time adjusting my Mexican Spanglish to here… and even my wife, born in Mexico, said there were quite a few words and style of accent that confused her. If you've ever gone to Scotland you will understand. I spent a few days in Glasgow once (recommendation: don't go to Glasgow) and if they were speaking English it was news to me. I didn't understand a word anyone said to me the entire time I was there. Of course, that could be because almost everyone I met, during day or night, was falling down drunk.
In any case, if your father is Dominican you should run, not walk, to get a Dominican Republic passport. This will give you more options as The End Of The Monetary System As We Know It (TEOTMSAWKI) devolves. Plus, the DR tax laws are very enticing. If you are DR citizen and you don't make any money in the DR, you pay zero tax. That's quite night and day from France, as I'm sure you know!
Keep improving yourself, learn new skills, find ways to add value to things, learn more languages, put any assets you have into hard assets such as precious metals or foreign real estate in a decent country and get another passport. If you do even some of those things you will be miles ahead of the majority of communist frogs who will soon find out that communism, and its lighter variant, socialism, ends when you run out of other people's money.
