On the origin of species

Science tells us that a degree of our behavior is genetically determined. Whether it's coded into the genome, determined by the interaction of our genes and our fetal environment, or determined by the way genes are expressed as we develop science can't say. Science is also at a loss to define how much of our behavior is genetically determined and how much is learned later. We know, for example, that congenitally blind babies know how to smile even though they've never seen a person smile. And congenitally blind adults still use hand gestures when talking even though they've never seen such gestures. Clearly these people are acting on behavior they have not learned.

We even tacitly recognize this idea in our personal lives. Our personal fetishes and taboos have largely been with us since birth. I, for example, never made a conscious choice to be turned on by redheads. Nor can I consciously decide to not be turned on by redheads. It's an urge that has always been there and will be there as long as I draw breath.

If we accept the validity of the hypothesis that some behavior is genetically determined, I think we have to accept a somewhat more radical hypothesis. This is the radical idea that there is not a single human species. If behavior indicates something about your genome then radically different behaviors must indicate differences in the genome. So just like we differentiate between caucasians and occidentals we may have to differentiate between liberals and conservatives or between marxists and capitalists.

Not that I think there's a gene specifically for voting a certain way or similarly minute behaviors. But there is a strong possibility that there is a genetic predisposition to have a mindset which causes you to think in a way that leads you to voting a certain way. And this is why you can never win political debates. You aren't asking your opponent to change his mind. You are asking him to change his genes. Asking a liberal to become conservative is like asking an Asian man to stop squinting or asking a midget to grow. It is beyond the realm of the possible.

So I posit that much of the conflict we see in the world today is the result of interspecies rivalry, not merely a battle of ideas. This conflict cannot be resolved by the means we are accustomed to using since those means typically requires compromise and people cannot compromise their genetics. I think this hypothesis further strengthens the case for absolute individualism. It is impossible to create a system under which so many disparate views can be treated equally. The only way to allow all these views to coexist harmoniously is to remove any hierarchy among them and thereby to let people fully express themselves without coercion. As long as we have a hierarchal system we will have people fighting to put their ideals in control. Because, according to my hypothesis, there is no way we will ever get everybody to agree on a single best way to live.

Get a grip

So Ryan Dunn gets drunk, flies down the road, loses control, crashes, and dies and people call it a tragedy. What if it had just been some no-name shmuck? How many drunks die every day in similar crashes? Does anybody consider those deaths tragedies? No, they don't. But let a celebritard die and the fanboys come out of the woodwork.

Ryan Dunn was a moron. He lived his life doing stupid shit to get attention. You can't gamble your life constantly and expect to never lose. He wasn't about to cure cancer, end world hunger, or bring about global peace. He was just a drunk retard who made a living swimming in septic tanks. The world will not suffer for the loss. And if that is the sort of person you look up to, the world will not suffer when it loses you either.

Ignoble savages

So I'm scanning my Facebook newsfeed this morning and see this link. Really? Are we still beating that drum? This drivel is intellectually dishonest and counterproductive.

By way of explanation for those unfamiliar with anarchist philosophy and its various schools, the idea behind this picture is that every last acre of land in this territory was rightfully owned by the Skraelings when filthy Europeans arrived. Europeans then proceeded to rape, pillage, and plunder their way across the continent. They slaughtered everything in sight and stole all the land for their own nefarious purposes. Communists masquerading as anarchists say all land deeds today are invalid because all land was stolen.

And these claims are pure bullshit. It's caucasian self-loathing and revisionist history at its finest.

To review actual history, Europeans arrived peacefully in this territory. They colonized areas and traded with the natives. At least in the northern sections. South of the Rio Grande was definitely a different story. But Plymouth Rock was not a war zone. Nor did it become one for quite some time.

Gradually, more and more Europeans arrived. The colonies expanded. It was not until 1634, 137 years after John Cabot "discovered" the region, that the first violence broke out. This was the Pequot War. And it was started when allies of the Narragansett tribe raided a local trading vessel. They killed the ship's owner and several of his crew, and made off with the cargo. The natives started a war over protecting their trade routes. A war of protectionism. That's far from an anarchic ideal.

If you scan westward you will find more of the same. Homesteaders did not rush out with guns blazing. They found open fields and homesteaded them. That's where we get the word "homestead". This is important because homesteading is universally accepted by anarchist thinkers as a legitimate way of claiming unused land. Most schools of thought consider it the only legitimate way. This is the part I love. The standard within the anarchist community is that a person must "mix their labor" with the land in order to own it. In other words, you only own as much lawn as you are willing to mow or as much field as you are willing to plow. But most plains tribes were nomadic. They didn't have big cities with outlying farms. They followed the buffalo and ate what nature provided. According to the view created by John Locke and held as the standard in the anarchist community, the skraelings did not "own" their hunting grounds. They never applied their labor to it. So homesteaders had every right, under anarchist philosophy, to settle the land as they did.

But the skraelings had never read John Locke. They felt their hunting grounds belonged to them. They took offense at the settlers occupying their lands. And violence ensued. Yes, it was the noble savage that began a policy of ethnic cleansing by attempting to remove white settlers.

Frankly, it's disgracefully hypocritical for anarchists to use the skraelings as a role model. The skraelings did not recognize the Lockean view of property rights which is considered gospel by anarchists. Rather, they used deadly force against peaceful families who were simply exercising their right to make a life for themselves. In addition, anarchists vehemently oppose tighter control of the US/Mexico border by saying the right to move about is an inalienable human right. But they then ignore the skraeling use of violence to prevent "illegal immigration". Step back 200 years and you will see that Europeans heading west were treated the same by the skraelings as modern mexicans are treated when they cross the Rio Grande. So how can any intellectually honest anarchist hold skraelings in any regard?

If you support the idea of Lockean property rights, you cannot begin to claim all land is stolen. It's pure fantasy. And if you support the right of people to move about as they wish without artificial borders, you cannot hold the skraelings as a role model. They didn't invent ethnic cleansing. But they sure as hell practiced it.

There is still more hypocrisy in the claim that restitution must be made to the skraelings. Anarchy is a philosophy of individualism. You can only punish people for wrongs they themselves have committed. You can't punish a person by taking their land or money away from them because you think their great-great-great grandfather did something wrong. And you can't give restitution to people for wrongs that were not inflicted on them. The whole idea is bat-shit insane. It's a complete contradiction of anarchist ideals. Especially since it treats everybody as members of collectives instead of as individuals. Chief Ownsa Casino does not deserve money because Chief Sitting Bull was kicked out of his house. There is no connection between the two other than some vague cultural similarities.

Anarchists need to drop skraelings as a role model. The natives simply don't fit the bill. Nothing about their culture represents the anarchist ideal. Skraelings fought wars with each other, they treated women like property, they slaughtered wildlife far in excess of what they needed, they basically did everything anarchists claim to despise govts for doing.

There will be blood

I am a student of history. Not the sort of history you were taught in grade school. Specific names and dates are largely irrelevant. I study history the way a meteorologist studies the atmosphere. It's the overall currents that matter, not the local gusts. What the currents tell me is that humanity's problem is not an inherent condition of the species. Rather, it is a condition of a subset of the species. That condition is evangelism.

Merriam-Webster defines evangelism as "militant or crusading zeal". Evangelists are so sure of the superiority of their beliefs they are unable to accept that others may have different beliefs. Whether it's Muslims flying planes into buildings, socialists slaughtering millions in gulags, Christians "protesting" funerals, or vegans placing billboards to ridicule omnivores, evangelists simply cannot let others live their lives differently.

And this is where the problem begins. Because there is only one single rule to a moral life; live and let live. I do not control you. You do not control me. We are sovereign equals. The instant you seek to coerce me in any way you have violated my sovereignty. You have aggressed against me. You have initiated a conflict.

But evangelists do not mind this conflict. Because they are certain of the righteousness of their ways. They do not care about my sovereignty. To them, my very existence is immoral. I am but a bacteria infecting the body of their perfect society. And they will do whatever they can to excise me.

And so we have bloodshed. Because I do not wish to be excised. All I want is to be left alone to live my life. Living my life was precisely what I was doing before the evangelist came along to control me. The evangelist broke the peace and forced me to defend my existence. The evangelist spawned discord where there had been harmony.

That is just on the personal scale. Magnify that effect up to the regional or global scale. Factor in all the different evangelist groups with often opposing ideals. Instantly the world comes into focus. If "live and let live" were universally practiced within the human population there would be no war, no crime. War and crime are the result of evangelism. They are the result of people seeking to control their peers instead of simply allowing them to exist in peace. No good can come from evangelism. It is the mindset of the tyrant.

Is there hope for a cure for this condition? No. Evangelism will always be with us. The best we can hope for is to marginalize evangelists so that they don't gain the power they need to hurt others. And one final note for the evangelists who may read this. Your actions define your morality. So if you refuse to let me live in peace, I will return the favor.

My beef, revisited.

I recently did a post exposing the false claims of the ecological benefits of the vegan diet versus a meat-based diet. I did this, not because I want people to stop being vegans, but because I want vegans to stop trying to manipulate me into changing my life. Their claims that veganism is better for the environment are demonstrably false. I included plenty of links showing the amount of resources it takes to produce grains and other “earth-friendly” crops for human consumption. But even if they acknowledge that veganism is no better for the environment they still refuse to let me enjoy my steak in peace.

There was a claim made during a recent debate which absolutely astonished me. It was so devoid of reason and any basis in empirical fact that I cannot believe it was uttered by a sentient being. The claim was that meat is a luxury. The supporting evidence was that millions of people live without meat. The implication being that since millions do it, it must be safe, healthy, and proper. Of course, millions of people take drugs too. That does not make taking drugs safe, healthy, or proper. In the realm of formal logic this is known as “argumentum ad populum”, or appeal to the masses, or appeal to belief. It is a fallacy. The fact any group does something has nothing to do with the morality or efficacy of the act in question.

The implication of the claim that meat is a luxury is that we should do without meat because we don't need luxuries and the world would be better off if we only produced necessities. This is a hypocritical statement coming from a person who is using a computer to get online and pontificate. I guarantee his computer consumed more resources than any meal I have ever eaten. And billions of people exist quite happily without computers.

I could even turn his logic to support my own “alternative” lifestyle. I live barefoot. Given my choice I would not own a pair of shoes. Shoes are a luxury. Millions of people live their entire lives without shoes. Shoes consume vast amounts of resources that could be used for more essential things. This is the same logic as the anti-meat stance. I wonder if my opponent in this instance would acknowledge the validity of my claim and decide to quit wearing shoes? I doubt it. Because the only reason he claimed meat was a luxury was because he could live without it. His claim was solely to justify his worldview. I can guarantee that when faced with his own logic being used to defend an idea he doesn't like he would find some other way of rationalizing his worldview.

Returning to the world of food, there are many items which could certainly be considered luxuries. Coffee, tea, soda, and alcohol are four that come to mind right away. None of these items are essential to human survival. In fact, they each have detrimental effects. How many acres of land could we reclaim by banning the production of these “foods”? How many resources would be saved for use on the essential items we really need? Would my opponent call for these to be eliminated?

But what about the actual substance of his claim? Is there any validity to the idea that meat is a luxury? No. True, there are millions of people who live without meat. But these people all have one thing in common. They all live in advanced societies where it is possible to acquire a broad range of foods and supplemental nutrients. There has never been a vegetarian culture. Because at the subsistence level, meat is essential to survival. Alone in the wilderness, humans need meat of some sort to provide essential nutrients. You can't go out to the garden in the dead of winter and pluck the spectrum of fruits and vegetables necessary to sustain you. But you can carry a spear into the forest and kill a pig. Take away the vast technology that allows people the *luxury* of avoiding meat and they would have no choice but to kill to survive.

The idea that meat is a luxury has another serious flaw. Humans evolved as omnivores. Our arboreal origin still influences our diet. In the canopy millions of years ago we lived on leaves, shoots, eggs, nuts, fruit, berries, insects, and most likely some birds or other small animals. This is the typical menu of any arboreal creature even though some are more selective than others. This is the diet our bodies are adapted to. This is what we have the enzymes to digest. Also, biologists and anthropologists agree that it was increased consumption of meat that gave us the protein we needed to grow our brains and become human. When vegans point out that other primates are mostly vegan, they seem to ignore the fact that veganism is precisely why those other primates are still “other” primates.

Further refuting the idea that meat is a luxury is the growing amount of hard data showing that many of the staples of the vegan lifestyle are detrimental to human health. Grains which are high in fiber cause physical damage to the digestive system. Grains and legumes also contain phytic acid which blocks the absorption of various nutrients. Soy is especially problematic. Aside from the phytic acid mentioned above it also contains trypsin inhibitors, which is important because trypsin is one of the enzymes that breaks proteins into amino acids that can be absorbed and used by the body. Ironically, soy is touted as as a viable source of protein in a vegan diet despite containing compounds that block protein absorption. Soy also contains lectin, which can cause serious problems when consumed in large quantities over a period of time. There is also concern over the phytoestrogens and potential carcinogenic properties of soy.

I am no fear-mongerer. I realize that eating various beans, seeds, and grains in small amounts as part of a natural diet is unlikely to cause serious problems. The body can handle small amounts of toxins regularly and even larger amounts periodically without damage. This is why pipe and cigar smokers are less prone to cancer than cigarette smokers. Their dosage of carcinogenic compounds is smaller and less frequent. Similarly, an omnivorous human who places meat, fruits, and greens at the center of their diet can afford the occasional adventure with grains and legumes. But the vegan diet is heavily based on legumes and grains. This means chronic exposure to the above-mentioned anti-nutrients. That cannot be healthy in the long term.

Yet health is precisely the reason many vegans chose their path. They pontificate ad nauseum on the virtues of their lifestyle. Feel free to believe that if you wish. But do not try swaying me with the tired comparison of the perfect vegan diet with the typical Western diet. As somebody who knows firsthand, I can attest to the fact that it is the attention paid to the diet that makes the difference. People are not fat because they eat meat. People are fat because they eat everything in sight. And there is more science coming out almost daily which shows meat, and hence fat, is not the culprit in the obesity epidemic. Instead, it is the insulin spikes caused by our overly grain-based diet which causes the problem. This is why Westerners continue to get fatter even though the “low-fat” craze has been going on for more than a generation now. It isn't the bacon and eggs. It's that slice of toast covered in jelly which causes an insulin spike that triggers the body to burn the glucose and store the fat for later. Get rid of the glucose rush and the protein and fat in the bacon and eggs will go to build cells, repair cells, fuel cells, or be excreted as excess.

The essential benefits of meat also impact the brain. The brain actually runs better on ketones than on glucose. Ketones are produced when the body burns fat for fuel instead of glucose. This happens in a low-carb, high-protein diet. Ketones are also shown to help maintain a healthy brain and even reduce seizures in epileptic children. Your body burns fat, your brain runs better, how is this a luxury? How is this a bad thing?

I am not trying to sway anybody from their chosen path. As I have said many times in many forums, your life is yours to live. I post this because I am tired of the arrogance displayed by many vegans and vegetarians. They assume I am just an ignorant neanderthal who needs to be shown the light. They are wrong. I have done plenty of research on nutrition over the past thirty years due to my involvement with strength training. I have experimented with many types of diet. There is no empirical evidence showing meat to be anything other than an essential component of a healthy human diet. There is a huge amount of hard data from many studies over many years showing that meat and fat consumption are essential to peak human health. I am not about to dismiss all that simply because a handful of people insist I am wasting resources on a luxury I could easily do without. I cannot do without meat. I will not even entertain the idea. There is no rational reason to sacrifice my health.

My beef

My entire philosophy can be summed up in the quote, “live and let live”. It's an ancient quote. It's often cited as the most profoundly noble ideal humans can strive for. Yet it is also the last thing most people even bother reaching for. The one thing in this world that still angers me is when people try to manipulate me into following their path. Often, this manipulation takes the form of physical force via the proxy of govt. But just as often these days it comes in the form of people claiming their way is the righteous way and trying to shame me into joining their cult. They can't simply enjoy their life and accept that I enjoy life differently.

Although they have not yet resorted to the violent brutality of the Inquisition, there are groups today who steadfastly claim the moral high ground and use almost every underhanded tactic they can to prove they are better than you. It started with environmentalists. They have succeeded in using pseudo-science, shame, ridicule, outright lies, and propaganda to sway much of the modern world to their beliefs. But the group I want to direct my tirade towards today is vegans.

I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people choosing to live the vegan lifestyle. It's their life, their choice. And I harbor no ill will towards those who view it that way. But recently I have begun to encounter militant vegans. These are people who are so convinced their choice is the right one that they have become evangelical about it. They say veganism is the only moral way to live. That is where they cross the line. The instant you claim you are righteous and I am evil for disagreeing, you have ceased to be a worthy human being.

Since morality is such a fuzzy subject and virtually impossible to debate with any objectivity, I will focus on what has become the standard “proof” vegans use to show they are the righteous ones. They have latched on to the popularity of the eco movement and are trying to claim that veganism is better for the environment than omnivorism. They claim that meat creates more pollution, uses more energy, and wastes more resources than a meat-free diet does.

This is absolute bunk. First of all, grains and vegetables are woefully lacking in important nutrients. Essential fats are missing. Protein is in short supply. And vitamins are scarce. You have to eat a broad range of non-meat products to get the same level of nutrition you can get by eating meat. This is important to note because every vegetable you eat is grown in a separate field. The more types of vegetables you need, the more fields we need to grow those vegetables. Vegans like to claim that forests are razed to make room for cow pastures. But they conveniently ignore that those same forests, more even, would have to be razed to make room for the fields of rutabagas it would take to feed everyone. So they can't claim cows are more damaging because they remove forests. Unless they are going to produce the added veggies by magical means that require no fields.

But they don't stop with the fallacious claim of wasted land. They also insist cows waste water. Because, apparently, you don't have to water crops. This link shows the sort of outright lies these folks will resort to in order to “prove” their point.

According to the author of that article, it takes twelve thousand gallons of water to produce a single pound of beef. If you are curious, a typical cow produces somewhere in excess of 500 pounds of beef. So the author of that article is telling you it takes six million gallons of water to raise a cow for slaughter. I have raised cows. I have filled the water trough. I have never seen a cow drink nearly that much water. But just for kicks, let's do some math.

There are approximately 98 million cows just in the United States. If each of them needed 6 million gallons of water that means the entire US cattle population would consume 588 TRILLION gallons of water. That's 588 with twelve zeroes behind it. To help visualize that, there are 1,101,117,147,428 gallons in a cubic mile. That means cows in the US consume 534 cubic miles of water. Still not getting the scale? That is just under ten percent of the volume of the Great Lakes. And that is just the US cattle. China has over 130 million cattle. That still leaves Europe, Africa, South America, Canada, India, Russia.... By the time you add up all these cattle, where does the water come from to support them?

In reality, cows don't use nearly that much water. A typical cow drinks twenty-five to fifty gallons a day. Assuming you raise the cow for two years before slaughter, that means the cow will have drank, at most, 36,500 gallons of water in it's entire life. Or about seventy-three gallons per pound of beef. That's a far cry from the twelve thousand gallons claimed in the above article. Not to mention the fact that every single drop of water consumed in the production of beef is recycled. It is either excreted by the cow, exhaled as vapor in the cow's breath, or consumed by you as that succulent juice in the steak. Water does not disappear. So even if their figures were close to accurate the whole idea would still be a red herring.

But they will tell you it isn't just about what the cow drinks. The other 11,927 gallons per pound of beef are the result of the process of raising cows. Anti-meat types love to claim meat requires much more resources to produce. Shall we compare?

This is how you prepare a field to grow crops. This is how you prepare a field to grow cattle. Is there any question which method is using more resources and producing more pollution? But we're not done yet.

This is how you plant a field of crops. This is how you plant a cow. Again, the difference in the amount of labor and resources is self-evident.

This is how you fertilize a field of crops. This is how you fertilize a cow pasture. The difference in the level of technology is once again self-evident.


This is how you pesticide a field of crops. That doesn't have an analog in the world of livestock. More resources consumed by crops that would not be used by livestock.

This is how you harvest grain. The grain is then hauled to a silo and stored until it is ready to be reloaded and hauled to a processing facility. This is how you harvest cattle. Again, which process involves the least effort and mechanization? Not to mention how much grain gets wasted in the harvesting process.

I challenge anybody to explain to me how all that machinery using all that fuel and producing all that pollution to plant and harvest vegetables can possibly be more eco-friendly than this.

As blunt as I can be, it's pure bullshit. Grains and vegetables have to be grown on big factory farms. There is no other way to grow enough to feed people. They have to use pesticides and fertilizers to make sure they harvest enough to feed everybody. It is unavoidable. Organic methods will not produce enough food on the available land to sustain the population.

And none of this factors in the wastefulness of grains and vegetables. If you pay close attention towards the end of that video on harvesting corn you will see a great deal of corn being dumped over the side of the truck. That may be an unusual occurance to lose that amount. But some is lost every single time a truck is loaded. More is lost in the processing. Since grains and vegetables have a finite shelf-life they have to be treated with more chemicals to keep them from rotting before you buy them. Even so, grocers routinely have to throw away products that have expired. The amount of waste with grains and vegetables is very high compared to meat. Meat can be kept fresh, alive even, until the day you eat it.

Meat, on the other hand, requires very little machinery to grow. It requires no chemicals. Yes, I realize factory farms are the current practice in meat production as well. But meat doesn't require that technique. You can grow cows, pigs, chickens, whatever in small numbers quite economically. I have personally seen chickens being grown in a coop just twelve miles from Manhattan. And wild game is still plentiful for those who wish to harvest it. You can't get food with less expenditure of resources than that.

And meat can be grown in areas where edible crops cannot be grown. Much of Wyoming does not get enough rainfall to support corn or wheat. But cows, sheep, and buffalo can graze on the grass that grows there. There are also areas which are too hilly to allow for fields to be planted and harvested. But, again, livestock can easily graze on the wild grass that grows there. You can't plant corn on a lake; you can harvest the fish that grow in that lake.

I am not trying to convert anybody. How you choose to live your life is your business. But do not come at me with your nonsense in the attempt to convert me to your ways. Live and let live. I'm not bothering you, don't bother me. And definitely don't try to make me out as morally inferior when all the evidence shows that my lifestyle leaves less of a footprint than yours. Eat all the veggies you want. Just shut up and let me enjoy my steak in peace.

Unpleasantness

Anarchy is a political system in the same sense that atheism is a religion. Which is to say not the slightest bit. Anarchy is the absence of politics. Anarchy is a state of mind. It is the absolute belief in the right of self-ownership and the total rejection of any philosophy which violates this right. Which means we will never see an anarchic society. Because even anarchists I have much respect for profess support for things which are diametrically opposed to the principle of self-ownership.

Self-ownership means that nobody else has the right to control you. So long as your behavior does not impinge on their property rights people must leave you alone. This is the core belief of anarchy. There is no way around it. If you seek to control the behavior of another human being you cannot lay claim to the title of anarchist.

Yet there are anarchists who believe in control. To be fair, they do not believe in control in the sense the state believes in control. But it amounts to the same thing. They believe there is a certain way people should act and that people who act differently should be shunned or otherwise coerced into behaving appropriately. They call this “etiquette”.

The good folks at Merriam-Webster define etiquette thusly, “the conduct or procedure required by good breeding or prescribed by authority to be observed in social or official life.” I am especially intrigued by, “prescribed by authority”. Exactly how does this fit into the anarchist philosophy?

Etiquette is democracy at its most insidious. It is an unwritten set of arbitrary rules that seem to come from nowhere. They aren't written to protect property rights or general safety. They are simply rules to govern trivial behaviors.

During a recent debate on the subject, I was informed that a person's etiquette showed their willingness to comply with the rules of polite society. If I was willing to comply with arbitrary rules I wouldn't be an anarchist in the first place. Etiquette is obedience for the sake of obedience. Again, how does that fit into the philosophy of anarchy?

In this same debate the argument was made that etiquette was a good way to judge an individual's character. It was stated that a person's manners indicated whether they were trustworthy, a decent person to deal with. This is demonstrably false. First of all, conmen are notoriously well-mannered. They realize you can gather more flies with honey than with vinegar. And there are a great many people who deliberately put on a show of being polite and decent while secretly being complete assholes. Politicians spring to mind. Manners tell you nothing about the actual character of a person.

Here is a prime example of the meaninglessness of etiquette, the classic thumbs-up gesture. In the English-speaking world this is universally taken to indicate approval. We use it to say “nice job” or “way to go”. It's a friendly gesture. It may not be formal, but it is unquestionably considered polite.

But in the Arabic world a raised thumb is taboo. It is the equivalent of the American extended middle finger. So if you were to visit one of these places and innocently give somebody a thumbs-up for some reason they would be greatly insulted and would consider you a rude individual.

The gesture itself did not change. The intent behind it, the character of the person giving the gesture, did not change. But it created two completely opposite results. The difference had nothing to do with the gesture or the person giving it and everything to do with the etiquette of the recipient. This is the fundamental problem with etiquette. It means you must always follow the rules of those you are dealing with. Your rules, your etiquette, are irrelevant. You are being judged on how well you conform to their rules. This is not an anarchic ideal.

Etiquette is a social contract. This, again, is a concept abhorrent to anarchists. There is no rational way to justify the concept within an anarchic framework. If you believe it is righteous to require people to follow an arbitrary set of rules then you have no basis to argue against statism. If you truly believe in the right of self-ownership then you have no rational basis for demanding people behave in a certain way.

The point I want to make with this note is that anarchy is a mindset. It is the belief that people have the right to live their lives as they see fit. Pure, unadulterated anarchy would not be anbody's idea of utopia. Anarchy means there will be sodomy in the parks. Anarchy means people will be doing drugs while waiting for the bus. Anarchy means there will be scores of things going on which you may not personally approve of. And anarchy means you will be powerless to stop it.

Etiquette is the complete opposite of anarchy. Etiquette is the idea that certain behaviors are wrong and that somebody has the right to determine which behaviors these are and to then enforce a ban on them. The church's stance against homosexuality, for example. You may accuse me of exaggerating, but the logic is identical. The church thinks homosexuality is a sin and seeks to eliminate it by “converting” gays to “normal”. Similarly, mannerphiles see farting at the dinner table as a sin and seek to eliminate it by “educating” people on “proper” behavior. Just like the church, proponents of etiquette presume to have a monopoly on what is righteous. And they will gladly punish those who stray from the path.

I said at the start that we will never have an anarchic society. I stand by that claim. As long as people hold the mindset that it is acceptable to control the behavior of others we will never be free of tyranny. Ms. Manners and her rules of etiquette may not be as homicidal as the Khmer Rouge. But the attitude is precisely the same; “I know what's right. Do as I say and we'll get along just fine.” We can never have a free society as long as people think that way.

Be vewy, vewy quiet...

...I'm huntin' yabbuts. Yabbuts are mystical creatures that have nothing in common with the furry, long-eared animals with the similar name; unless you count the bunny from that Monty Python movie. Yabbuts are fierce predators who stalk and kill rational arguments. They are actually more commonly known by their full scientific name, “yeah, but”.

There are several breeds of yabbut. There's the “I think”, the “I feel”, the colorful “you can't convince me”, and so on. Most breeds also have counterbreeds; “I don't think”, “I don't feel”, etc. These breeds all have their distinctive characteristics. But they are all still yabbuts. Don't be fooled into thinking one is any less dangerous than the others.

You've undoubtedly encountered yabbuts more than once. Their range is unlimited and they can thrive in all conditions. Their primary food source, ignorance, is abundant everywhere. It's almost certain your encounters have not ended well.

As I said, yabbuts feed on ignorance. Those who raise yabbuts feed them a steady diet and keep them quite healthy. These breeders don't seem to realize the danger their pets pose to others. They will let yabbuts fly in a perfectly civil discussion without the slightest regard for the trail of yabbut shit they will leave behind. The yabbuts then proceed to consume all the logic in the room. It is often painful to watch.

Far worse, yabbuts breed at the speed of thought. If you find yourself conversing with a breeder you would be best advised to leave the area quickly. Yabbuts are extremely territorial. They will defend their breeder's beliefs without mercy. Your facts and reason will not save you. The breeder will send yabbut after yabbut flying at you. You will quickly be covered in yabbuts as though they were tribbles. (For those keeping score, that's one Python and one Trek reference in a single post). Far better to flee. Save your energies for a debate you can actually gain from.

Note that I didn't say a debate you can win. Debates aren't about winning. Debates are about finding the truth. You won't find truth in a pile of yabbut shit. You will only find ignorance, dogma, and the bones of older arguments the yabbuts savagely tore to pieces.

Yabbuts can also be sneaky. It is entirely possible to find them breeding in your own head. Fortunately, this is the one place they are vulnerable. When you feel a yabbut scratching at your tongue trying to get out, don't let it! For the love of all that is rational in this universe keep that yabbut inside. Crush it under the boot of reason. It isn't always easy. Yabbuts are cunning. They can persuade the best of us to set them free. Be vigilant. Be strong. The world will be a saner place for your efforts.

On anarchy and business

If there is one subject on which I find myself at odds with my fellow anarchists more than any other it is business. Specifically, big business. To be blunt, anarchists have no clue what business is about. It seems anarchists are little more than spoiled children lashing out at mommy for making them clean their room.

I just read a piece authored by a gentleman who insisted the thugs smashing store windows and burning cop cars in protest are genuine anarchists fighting for our freedom. While I take no issue with attacking state troops and property, smashing store windows is not fighting for freedom.

Now the author made the standard claim as laid out in the black bloc handbook. He stated that smashing the windows of big businesses is not a violation of property rights because big businesses are just an extension of the state. Wrong. Corporations are no different than any other business. They are not inherently evil. They are not branches of govt. But they serve as a popular whipping boy for those unable to fend for themselves.

Here are some simple facts:

Corporations are just groups of people working together towards a common goal. They are no different from co-ops, small businesses, partnerships, or even communes in this respect. If you are going to claim corporations should not exist because they gang up on small businesses then you have to outlaw any form of business which involves more than one person.

Corporations do not profit from govt any more than any other group does. This is the biggest strawman argument of all. Anti-business anarchists insist corporations are illegitimate because they suckle at the state teet. Well who doesn't? Show me a single business that does not take advantage of things the state has produced. If you drive a car you "benefit" from the state by using the roads it built. And every single business, regardless the size, tries to leverage the laws to it's advantage. This argument says nothing specific about corporations.

The complaints against corporations are based in ignorance. Anarchists attack the concept of "limited liability" without even understanding what it means. Limited liability, the reason for "corporate" status in the first place, means that members of the corporation are not personally liable for the actions of the corporation. It does not mean, as people love to assume, that corporations can do whatever the hell they want without being punished. The best example of this would be the January 6th, 2005 wreck of a Norfolk Southern train in Graniteville, South Carolina. The wreck occurred because one man on the crew forgot to set a switch properly. As a result, nine people died, 250 were hospitalized, and a local textile mill was forced to close due to contamination, putting 4,000 people out of work. One man caused all this. It wasn't the CEO or some bigwig. And the only punishment that man received was losing his job. The corporation, on the other hand, was sued by the owners of the mill and settled for an undisclosed sum. They were also sued by the EPA and forced to pay $4,000,000 in fines for polluting a nearby creek. This is despite the fact that "Norfolk Southern" had done nothing wrong. The entire fault for the accident was placed on the crew which had failed to put a switch in the proper position. If some vandal had deliberately moved the switch you can be certain that individual would have been charged with a multitude of crimes. But the crewman was charged with nothing and held responsible for nothing. Why? Limited liability. As a member of a corporation he got to say "oops" and leave the corporation holding the bag for his mistake. That's how it works.

I would ask these anti-business types a question. At what point does a business go from wholesome to evil? I assume a sole-proprietorship is as wholesome and noble as a business can get. Does each new employee make the business a little more evil? Or should we do away with limited liability so that every member of a corporation can be personally sued for the actions of the other members? Show me some objective data that proves why "big" business is inherently wrong. Because right now all I see is a bunch of emotional babble.

What these anti-business types seem to forget is that without big businesses we would have none of the luxuries we enjoy today. Some things are only practical because of the economics of scale. You wouldn't have a television if some local artisan had to extract his own raw materials, produce the parts, and assemble the unit all by himself. The only way to produce goods in sufficient quantity is with a large-scale operation. And that can only happen with a lot of people working towards one goal. We will always need "big" business to produce the things we desire. The only alternative is for everybody to produce their own things. Which means we fall back to subsistence farming. Good luck with that.