Most of those animals aren’t even a threat to humans. Survival shelters are perfectly capable of protecting against bears and coyotes. Animals (unlike civilized man) never kill unless they have to. Leave a coyote alone and he won’t attack you.
Tell that to my brother and cousins who were “pursued” by a mountain lion in Arkansas through the woods.
A lone coyote certainly isn’t going to attack you but you’re trying to lump that with the other animals mentioned? Have you ever even been to a city park? From the naivete of your posts, I get the impression that you’ve lived your entire life without setting foot outside the 32nd story of whatever downtown apartment complex you live in.
As much as you annoy some of us, we certainly don’t want to see you dead. So, please, do us all a favor and don’t try living in the woods, at least, not on your own. Find someone who actually grew up in the outdoors and understands the do’s and don’ts.
Clayton -
Eugenisits call for global depopulation (can only happen because of tech)
A lone coyote certainly isn’t going to attack you but you’re trying to lump that with the other animals mentioned? Have you ever even been to a city park? From the naivete of your posts, I get the impression that you’ve lived your entire life without setting foot outside the 32nd story of whatever downtown apartment complex you live in.
I live in NH and have been to the woods many times. I’ve camped in the woods for over a week. Why do you think I’m ignorant?
The reason people think you’re ignorant is because you keep making ignorant statements, like “bears won’t be a problem in New Hampshire” and thinking that some (poorly constructed) emergency wilderness shelter is proper shelter in the long run.
Camping a week in the “woods” doesn’t make you an expert, and the fact that you present that it as a badge of experience is telling. I’ve done my fair share of camping, hiking, and wilderness survival over the years, and everything about your expectations screams “I have no idea what I’m really talking about”.
+1 LE - I’m no expert outdoorsman but I’ve camped longer than a week at a stretch and at least I know I’m no expert outdoorsman! It’s one thing to be ignorant but quite another to be ignorant of your own ignorance.
Clayton -
I get pretty worked up when people spout ignorant assery like “animals unlike humans don’t kill unless they have to”. I mean, the common housecat will torture mice to death for fun and leave their cadavers lying uneaten, and wolves and bears will go batshit crazy on flocks of sheep, killing far more than they can eat.
And really, depopulation can only happen because of tech? What do you think would happen if everyone went to live the way you preach? Mass starvation and depopulation.
You get between a mother moose and its offspring and it will ruin your shit, and of course the males are crazy during mating season. You won’t be able to store any food at your shelter, because both shelter and food will attract them, and make them far more likely to attack. (Unless you bury the food.)
The reason people think you’re ignorant is because you keep making ignorant statements, like “bears won’t be a problem in New Hampshire” and thinking that some (poorly constructed) emergency wilderness shelter is proper shelter in the long run.
Camping a week in the “woods” doesn’t make you an expert, and the fact that you present that it as a badge of experience is telling. I’ve done my fair share of camping, hiking, and wilderness survival over the years, and everything about your expectations screams “I have no idea what I’m really talking about”.
What makes you think I’m not doing my own research on primitive survival?
And really, depopulation can only happen because of tech? What do you think would happen if everyone went to live the way you preach? Mass starvation and depopulation.
There’s a huge difference between deliberately torturing/killing people vs. letting them starve. No one has any entitlement to anything so why should I care if others starve after civ collapses?
So,
to be a capitalist, and follow through with it is the logical vision of the civilized order massively starving while civilization collapses? This is the impression you get when reading Austrian Economists?
that’s what true capitalism is?
No offense dude, but the only people who don’t mind watching millions of people die and civ collapsing are some radical lefists. I think one used to post here named Francoise Tremblay. You should talk to him on all-left, you’ll both hate eachother, but you have a lot in common
H/Gs lived in 100% voluntary societies. They have no monopoly on violence and freely exchanged everything. Anarcho-primitivism IS anarcho-capitalism. States manifest themselves through technology now. The only way to truly rid ourselves of coercion is to get rid of tech, get rid of dependency relationships (agriculture creates dependency where people become dependent on others instead of self-relient) and get rid of collectivism which manifests itself through civilization. I don’t want to destroy anything of course. I want to commit myself to a pure survivalist lifestyle and watch civ collapse on its own.
That wasn’t my point.
My question is: do you think this was in the mind of the Austrians of how “pure” capitalism was going to function.
Some people (non economists usually) at LRC, etc may be all about surivialism or whatever - but they see it as comming because the capitalistic / market order is deteriorating
Simple: I took the NAP to its logical conclusions. What’s the point of trying to convince everyone to adhere to the NAP if your not addressing the roots of most aggression? Without civilization there’s NO way we’d see aggression.
Want proof that tech functions as a gov-sponsored mind control device?
I want you to repeat back to me what you think my point is.
And finally, as I already stated, I will not be viewing videos, links, etc. I just want your typed answers
Organized collective violence is a staple of civilization. It only follows to be anti-civ if you believe in complete non-aggression.
This is a random subject from a random Wikipedia article:
The Iliad (sometimes referred to as the Song of Ilion or Song of Ilium) is an epic poem written in dactylic hexameters, traditionally attributed to Homer. Set during the Trojan War, the ten-year siege of the city of Troy (Ilium) by a coalition of Greek states, it tells of the battles and events during the weeks of a quarrel between King Agamemnon and the warrior Achilles.
Although the story covers only a few weeks in the final year of the war, the Iliad mentions or alludes to many of the Greek legends about the siege; the earlier events, such as the gathering of warriors for the siege, the cause of the war, and related concerns tend to appear near the beginning. Then the epic narrative takes up events prophesied for the future, such as Achilles’ looming death and the sack of Troy, prefigured and alluded to more and more vividly, so that when it reaches an end, the poem has told a more or less complete tale of the Trojan War.
Along with the Odyssey, also attributed to Homer, the Iliad is among the oldest extant works of Western literature, and its written version is usually dated to around the eighth century BC.[1] The Iliad contains over 15,000 lines, and is written in Homeric Greek, a literary amalgam of Ionic Greek with other dialects.
Can you type back to me and give me a sum up what these paragraphs are saying?
delete - double post
On a side note I feel like watching Troy now.
Hang on, I believe I have a youtube playlist that vaguely references something that may or may not have anything to do with this wiki-article. It’s my lady gaga best of list.