And what does it mean for anything to exist inherently, let alone “the market” which isn’t even a thing, it’s the set of economic relationships and interactions between individuals?
Clayton -
I meant to say, as long as there’s humans there will be a market, since markets are just individuals acting voluntarily.
Ag is violent. I blame the state for subsidizing the crap out of it AND making us dependent on it for food when ag will be what leads to human extinction.
Hunting is violent. Good God.
“Fools need some “expert’s” studies because the scientific studies performed by their own brains aren’t good enough. I don’t need an official “scientific study” conducted by idiots to tell me that there is a connection between aggression/statism and civ/tech. Every news I read, everything I see and everything I know points to the fact that I’d be better off living outside of civ, off the grid and in the least violent state (New Hampshire) so when the state and civ start to collapse and their violence steps into overdrive I know I’ll be able to survive w/o having to deal.”
Laugh all you want. Go ahead. Logically speaking we know our civ won’t last. Look at how the state keeps monopolizing natural resources AND cages anyone who tries to live sustainably. Tragedy of the commons combined with criminalizing living naturally AND mass subsidies to big ag AND the dumbing down of children through gov schools AND poison in food/medicine and tech (like cancer phones) will kill us.
What would it take to convince you that you are wrong, and are in danger of going down a path that you should not be going?
Also, what led you to your conclusions? What got you started? Ex: was it LRC articles on survivalism, what was it?
What would it take to convince you that you are wrong, and are in danger of going down a path that you should not be going?
Explain to me USING LOGIC that civilization won’t collapse and that industrial ag can be sustainable.
Can you define civilization?
Can you define civilization?
http://harmonhouse.net/archive/fdl/friends014.html
Civilization: cities, artificial replication of food (ag), mixed with forced collectivism.
Agriculture is the artificial replication of food? Are we eating virtual bread?
@excel: I’m still trying to figure out how hunting is not violent…
@Clayton: Similarily, where is the line drawn between agriculture and foraging. If you forage a berry bush often, thus becoming little more than a berry-farmer, does that make you evil/civilized/violent?
If, after years of harvesting apples from different trees that are all a mile away, apple trees grow from the seeds that you either carelessly and violently discared into fertile plots of earth or which were expunged with your waste in different areas that are closer to your home, and you start eating from those trees instead of trekking a mile to get from the original ones, have you then become a violent apple-farmer?
Is it more violent to push a potato into the ground than to pull it out? Or is it the planning part of the planting of a potato that makes it violent?
Explain to me USING LOGIC that civilization won’t collapse and that industrial ag can be sustainable.
That’s impossible. I can’t logically tell you anything about the future. I can no more tell you logically that civilization will collapse, than I can tell you that the US won’t nuke Canada tomorrow, or that pigs will evenually fly. I do think that those are foolish things to think, and ultimately counter productive modes of thinking.
As for the sustanability of the Industrial age; the proof is in the existence. If you consider yourself living in the industrial age and are able to live in it - it is sustained. We can also say that if everyone decided to do what you wish to do billions wold perish - as that life style can not sustain the extant population - the only thing that can would be civilization.
Iff no one can convince you that yo are no more of an anarcho-capitalist than Rousseau based off of simple grammar, much less logic - I think you have to realize that logic won’t convince you of anything. We are arguing with an aesthetic and an attittude - and I think it is a dangerous one to adopt
@excel: I’m still trying to figure out how hunting is not violent…
I don’t hunt. I eat a 100% raw vegan diet excluding raw milk. I adhere to the NAP and I don’t believe in exercising violence over other animals.
Explain to me USING LOGIC that civilization won’t collapse and that industrial ag can be sustainable.
That’s impossible. I can’t logically tell you anything about the future. I can no more tell you logically that civilization will collapse, than I can tell you that the US won’t nuke Canada tomorrow, or that pigs will evenually fly. I do think that those are foolish things to think, and ultimately counter productive modes of thinking.
As for the sustanability of the Industrial age; the proof is in the existence. If you consider yourself living in the industrial age and are able to live in it - it is sustained. We can also say that if everyone decided to do what you wish to do billions wold perish - as that life style can not sustain the extant population - the only thing that can would be civilization.
Iff no one can convince you that yo are no more of an anarcho-capitalist than Rousseau based off of simple grammar, much less logic - I think you have to realize that logic won’t convince you of anything. We are arguing with an aesthetic and an attittude - and I think it is a dangerous one to adopt
Claiming that industrial civ hasn’t collapsed yet doesn’t mean it won’t collapse in the future. There is tons of evidence of pending collapse.
So what do you actually eat?
So what do you actually eat?
Raw veggies + raw fruits (dependent on ag at the moment but soon enough I’ll know how to gather my diet in the wild), raw milk and non-fluoridated (non-poisoned) water.
And this is for every meal?