I think that this is the heart of the matter and an obvious difference between 'left' and 'right' approaches' it's really about how far you extend the circle of care .. for right-minded people it's nearly always about 'just for us' and they can have deep communautarian feelings (except probably for committed anarcho-capitalists who only believe in individual contracting and full commodification of all things), by contrast the left wants to extend it. ron paul finds it acceptable to refuse entry to black people on the basis of property rights, something no person on the left could tolerate ... natalie explicetely rejects the quest for equality even thought the revolt against inequality is at the heart of this movement .. but we can find commonality around freedom .. though of course, freedom without equality is a chimera, as you need a gun to protect you from your neighbour ... and the greatest the differential, the greater number of guns needed (now nearly a quarter of the workforce ?) Michel On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulot cakis < [email protected]> wrote:

That is what a conservative libertarian would say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example the american people. This is how the greek athenian democrarcry worked as well. It wars a democracy for menr. But if we start thinking about liberty to a set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a libertarian (take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the word libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word is used to differentiate between people, we end up through *Reductio ad absurdum *that your defintion of libertarian is wrong. We also end up with the conclusion that you are not a libertarian.

As a personal remark, I would say that such a wrong definition of libertarian was always used as an excuse to diminish the liberties of others.

(reading math.. right now)

2011/10/17 Natalie Golovin <[email protected]>

...

Nations still exist. You can be a libertarian with regards to the rights/responsibilities/privileges/policies of your own citizens wo extending them to the universal

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

--

Sincerely yours,

Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

my conviction is the state is a bit like the ego or money ... you can be against it, but that doesn't make it disappear ... So then the question becomes, what do we do it ... My answer would be democratize it to the maximum extent, take it over and transform it when you can, and finally replace it through autonomous practices ... the attitude of the state has also to be kept in balance with the existence of exploitative ruling classes .. to some degree, institutions like the state, the law, etc.. are also a protection of the non-rulers .. in fact, historically, things like social welfare, regulation, environmental protection, have been demands of the people, not gifts. often, right-wing libertarians ally themselves with the rulers, only abolishing those aspects of the state which favour the majority .. why is it that high tax periods were better for the majority of the people (compare 45-74 to 80-2010), or that high tax countries are so much better on almost all accounts (compare scandinavia to the third world conditions in the US); high taxes on speculative actions, accumulated wealth are beneficial to the majority of the public, let's tax the bads, break the corporate stronghold on the state, make the state a partner state at the service of civil society .. such a state, in the hands of the people, would strive to abolish itself Michel On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:42 AM, Devin Balkind <[email protected]>wrote:

Just some quick thoughts:

Michel - I'd imagine - would rather the government have all the guns and trust that they'll use them to enforce equality than to have faith in the people and their capacity to organize.

If you have communautarian feelings then express them through actions - not taxes.

Ron Paul finds the federal government an unacceptable entity to force people to use their private property in a particular way. I might disagree with the extent to which he applies his philosophy but I respect it enough not to demonize it.

Every nation has a unique history and identity. I think we should encourage political differentiation within the framework of increasing people's access to technologies that enable them to escape coercion by becoming more self sufficient.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:

...

I think that this is the heart of the matter and an obvious difference between 'left' and 'right' approaches'

it's really about how far you extend the circle of care .. for right-minded people it's nearly always about 'just for us' and they can have deep communautarian feelings (except probably for committed anarcho-capitalists who only believe in individual contracting and full commodification of all things), by contrast the left wants to extend it. ron paul finds it acceptable to refuse entry to black people on the basis of property rights, something no person on the left could tolerate ... natalie explicetely rejects the quest for equality even thought the revolt against inequality is at the heart of this movement .. but we can find commonality around freedom ..

though of course, freedom without equality is a chimera, as you need a gun to protect you from your neighbour ...

and the greatest the differential, the greater number of guns needed (now nearly a quarter of the workforce ?)

Michel

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulot cakis < [email protected]> wrote:

...

That is what a conservative libertarian would say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example the american people. This is how the greek athenian democrarcry worked as well. It wars a democracy for menr. But if we start thinking about liberty to a set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a libertarian (take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the word libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word is used to differentiate between people, we end up through *Reductio ad absurdum *that your defintion of libertarian is wrong. We also end up with the conclusion that you are not a libertarian.

As a personal remark, I would say that such a wrong definition of libertarian was always used as an excuse to diminish the liberties of others.

(reading math.. right now)

2011/10/17 Natalie Golovin <[email protected]>

...

Nations still exist. You can be a libertarian with regards to the rights/responsibilities/privileges/policies of your own citizens wo extending them to the universal

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

--

Sincerely yours,

Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- Devin Balkind Director, Sarapis Foundation [email protected] @devinbalkind

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

As I tried to point out before being a libertarian means protecting the liberties of all people, otherwise a dictator could be a libertarian. If one thinks that nations do not allow people to have the same liberties , like an immigrant or an american citizen , then he might be right but he surely is not libertarian. But should I adress you Natalie as an American or as a human? Do your liberties derive as a consequence of your american heritage or is it because you are human? And how does a nation has more privileges than another? Who gave it the priviledges to begin with? Who decided whose property is each thing in the world? Aren't all people equal in their effort to pursue their happiness? Can we own things? We can only loan things in an equalitarian way so that each person has equal opportunity in life. To this end, noone should disallow the unprivileged a better life because nothing makes someone better than another. But when was the word nation first started to be used with the current meaning? Did private property as a concept always exist? 19 oct. 2011, 02:58, ο/η "Natalie Golovin" <[email protected]> έγραψε:

Thank you Devin. While I appreciate Kevin’s sincerity-I see him in an alternate universe. If it came to fruition, I think the unintended consequences would be a “Mad Max” world of gang violence as opinions wavered on the legitimacy of Big D or little d rights/privileges depending on the location &moment- or govt imposed tyranny. Nation States exist, and they have borders that are much more than mathematical crosshairs on the globe. You can’t throw away thousands of years of civilizations’ attempt to codify property and human rights & obligations. The best we can do is encourage/support individuals to be more responsible citizens (of their respective nations)which includes reining in the corrupt govt/corporatist/military collusion that restrains all our progress.

From: Devin Balkind Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:42 AM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians

Just some quick thoughts:

Michel - I'd imagine - would rather the government have all the guns and trust that they'll use them to enforce equality than to have faith in the people and their capacity to organize.

If you have communautarian feelings then express them through actions - not taxes.

Ron Paul finds the federal government an unacceptable entity to force people to use their private property in a particular way. I might disagree with the extent to which he applies his philosophy but I respect it enough not to demonize it.

Every nation has a unique history and identity. I think we should encourage political differentiation within the framework of increasing people's access to technologies that enable them to escape coercion by becoming more self sufficient.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]> wrote: I think that this is the heart of the matter and an obvious difference between 'left' and 'right' approaches'

it's really about how far you extend the circle of care .. for right-minded people it's nearly always about 'just for us' and they can have deep communautarian feelings (except probably for committed anarcho-capitalists who only believe in individual contracting and full commodification of all things), by contrast the left wants to extend it. ron paul finds it acceptable to refuse entry to black people on the basis of property rights, something no person on the left could tolerate ... natalie explicetely rejects the quest for equality even thought the revolt against inequality is at the heart of this movement .. but we can find commonality around freedom ..

though of course, freedom without equality is a chimera, as you need a gun to protect you from your neighbour ...

and the greatest the differential, the greater number of guns needed (now nearly a quarter of the workforce ?)

Michel

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulot cakis <[email protected]> wrote: That is what a conservative libertarian would say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example the american people. This is how the greek athenian democrarcry worked as well. It wars a democracy for menr. But if we start thinking about liberty to a set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a libertarian (take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the word libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word is used to differentiate between people, we end up through Reductio ad absurdum that your defintion of libertarian is wrong. We also end up with the conclusion that you are not a libertarian.

As a personal remark, I would say that such a wrong definition of libertarian was always used as an excuse to diminish the liberties of others.

(reading math.. right now)

2011/10/17 Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> Nations still exist. You can be a libertarian with regards to the rights/responsibilities/privileges/policies of your own citizens wo extending them to the universal

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

--

Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- Devin Balkind Director, Sarapis Foundation [email protected] @devinbalkind

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

If a dictator then abolishes the constitution, you will have no liberties and will be unable to remove the dictator because liberties are only given by the state and are not inherent. Would you then try to break the laws of your nation to brink back democracy? If you answer yes, why would you do that if your nation tells you its not your right to decide which liberties you should have(liberties are given after all by the nation)? 2011/10/19 Natalie Golovin <[email protected]>

Convoluted I'm a human citizen of the US which through its Constitution grants its citizens a certain set of rights & privileges. It has 3 branches-Executive, Legislative & Judicial and a border that is "generally" respected and would be defended militarily if aggressively attacked. I consider myself fortunate to be a citizen of a country that confers human rights on its citizens- a rare thing. A human without a nation has no rights-privileges or security.

*From:* Xekoukoulotakis Apostolos <[email protected]> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 5:47 PM *To:* P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Cc:* P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians

As I tried to point out before being a libertarian means protecting the liberties of all people, otherwise a dictator could be a libertarian. If one thinks that nations do not allow people to have the same liberties , like an immigrant or an american citizen , then he might be right but he surely is not libertarian.

But should I adress you Natalie as an American or as a human? Do your liberties derive as a consequence of your american heritage or is it because you are human?

And how does a nation has more privileges than another? Who gave it the priviledges to begin with? Who decided whose property is each thing in the world? Aren't all people equal in their effort to pursue their happiness?

Can we own things? We can only loan things in an equalitarian way so that each person has equal opportunity in life. To this end, noone should disallow the unprivileged a better life because nothing makes someone better than another.

But when was the word nation first started to be used with the current meaning? Did private property as a concept always exist?

19 oct. 2011, 02:58, ο/η "Natalie Golovin" <[email protected]> έγραψε:

Thank you Devin. While I appreciate Kevin's sincerity-I see him in an alternate universe. If it came to fruition, I think the unintended consequences would be a "Mad Max" world of gang violence as opinions wavered on the legitimacy of Big D or little d rights/privileges depending on the location &moment- or govt imposed tyranny. Nation States exist, and they have borders that are much more than mathematical crosshairs on the globe. You can't throw away thousands of years of civilizations' attempt to codify property and human rights & obligations. The best we can do is encourage/support individuals to be more responsible citizens (of their respective nations)which includes reining in the corrupt govt/corporatist/military collusion that restrains all our progress.

*From:* Devin Balkind <[email protected]> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:42 AM *To:* P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians

Just some quick thoughts:

Michel - I'd imagine - would rather the government have all the guns and trust that they'll use them to enforce equality than to have faith in the people and their capacity to organize.

If you have communautarian feelings then express them through actions - not taxes.

Ron Paul finds the federal government an unacceptable entity to force people to use their private property in a particular way. I might disagree with the extent to which he applies his philosophy but I respect it enough not to demonize it.

Every nation has a unique history and identity. I think we should encourage political differentiation within the framework of increasing people's access to technologies that enable them to escape coercion by becoming more self sufficient.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Michel Bauwens <<[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:

...

I think that this is the heart of the matter and an obvious difference between 'left' and 'right' approaches'

it's really about how far you extend the circle of care .. for right-minded people it's nearly always about 'just for us' and they can have deep communautarian feelings (except probably for committed anarcho-capitalists who only believe in individual contracting and full commodification of all things), by contrast the left wants to extend it. ron paul finds it acceptable to refuse entry to black people on the basis of property rights, something no person on the left could tolerate ... natalie explicetely rejects the quest for equality even thought the revolt against inequality is at the heart of this movement .. but we can find commonality around freedom ..

though of course, freedom without equality is a chimera, as you need a gun to protect you from your neighbour ...

and the greatest the differential, the greater number of guns needed (now nearly a quarter of the workforce ?)

Michel

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulot cakis <<[email protected]> [email protected]> wrote:

...

That is what a conservative libertarian would say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example the american people. This is how the greek athenian democrarcry worked as well. It wars a democracy for menr. But if we start thinking about liberty to a set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a libertarian (take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the word libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word is used to differentiate between people, we end up through *Reductio ad absurdum *that your defintion of libertarian is wrong. We also end up with the conclusion that you are not a libertarian.

As a personal remark, I would say that such a wrong definition of libertarian was always used as an excuse to diminish the liberties of others.

(reading math.. right now)

2011/10/17 Natalie Golovin < <[email protected]>[email protected]>

...

Nations still exist. You can be a libertarian with regards to the rights/responsibilities/privileges/policies of your own citizens wo extending them to the universal

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list <http://www.p2pfoundation.net>http://www.p2pfoundation.net <https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

--

Sincerely yours,

Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list <http://www.p2pfoundation.net>http://www.p2pfoundation.net <https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- P2P Foundation: <http://p2pfoundation.net>http://p2pfoundation.net - <http://blog.p2pfoundation.net>http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: <http://p2pfoundation.ning.com>http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: <http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: <http://del.icio.us/mbauwens>http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; <http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens>http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; <http://twitter.com/mbauwens>http://twitter.com/mbauwens; <http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens>http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list <http://www.p2pfoundation.net>http://www.p2pfoundation.net <https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation> https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- Devin Balkind Director, Sarapis Foundation <[email protected]>[email protected] @devinbalkind

------------------------------ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

------------------------------ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

The Declaration of Independence says the rights come from the Creator-thus human rights. But they're Secured by the State. The US scores pretty well regarding human rights. When abuses like slavery are targeted they have been addressed. Why not direct your anger at the many nations where human rights are at the disposition of the military or depend on one's gender or religion. And please stop romanticizing native peoples. At the time-all the tribes-including the invading European ones- engaged in shifting alliances & schemes to enrich their communities. The Europeans had better weapons. And since no one "owned" all that available land, and many of the tribes were nomadic-What right (Re: a previous mail) did the natives have to dominate it? The invaders came from crowded cities and were "homesteading." We're not getting anywhere with this dialogue-Why not switch gears to attacking CEO's & enabling bureaucrats & politicians-where we have "common" ground? -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Carson Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:48 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:

Convoluted I’m a human citizen of the US which through its Constitution grants its citizens a certain set of rights & privileges. It has 3 branches-Executive, Legislative & Judicial and a border that is “generally” respected and would be defended militarily if aggressively attacked. I consider myself fortunate to be a citizen of a country that confers human rights on its citizens- a rare thing. A human without a nation has no rights-privileges or security.

I believe I have my rights by nature of my birth as a human being, not as a result of their being "granted" or "conferred" by any government. The U.S. government, at most, recognizes -- or rather, pays lip service -- to these rights. And the wording of the Bill of Rights itself refers to "persons," not citizens, and has been widely understood since the beginning to require due process of law for all persons residing under the state's jurisdiction. -- Kevin Carson Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State: The Countervailing Power of Super-Empowered Individuals http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Read history-Most of the deaths were from disease. That native didn't have immunity can't be blamed on Europeans. Alcoholism is tied to generic differences in metabolism. The processing of sugars is different in peoples who were nomadic-didn't eat regularly and had a high protein diet. The actual conflicts that caused hostile actions were economic and trade related-and manipulated from England then Washington. BTW I have travelled extensively-including to many tribal lands. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Janssen Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:08 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:

And please stop romanticizing native peoples. At the time-all the tribes-including the invading European ones- engaged in shifting alliances & schemes to enrich their communities. The Europeans had better weapons. And since no one "owned" all that available land, and many of the tribes were nomadic-What right (Re: a previous mail) did the natives have to dominate it?

Sorry, I feel I have to step in and clear up this illusion that somehow we're "romanticizing" the native peoples. It is not fucking "romantic" just because one doesn't want to be the genocidal benefactor of 12 million deaths. IS it? Is that how you want to define the basis of the wealth of the Nation? That you're prosperous because you've built up an empire standing on top of 12 million, mostly innocent people, living on their ancient, ancestral lands as they had for thousands of years before we invaded it. Go fucking visit a reservation in northern nebraska and see the people that suffer to this day, unable to "cure" their alcoholism because their spirit and grand relationship to the cosmos has been broken simply because you had a fucking gun. Pardon me, sorry for any friendly-fire.. marcos The invaders came from crowded cities and were "homesteading."

We're not getting anywhere with this dialogue-Why not switch gears to attacking CEO's & enabling bureaucrats & politicians-where we have "common" ground?

-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Carson Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:48 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Convoluted I’m a human citizen of the US which through its Constitution grants its citizens a certain set of rights & privileges. It has 3 branches-Executive, Legislative & Judicial and a border that is “generally” respected and would be defended militarily if aggressively attacked. I consider myself fortunate to be a citizen of a country that confers human rights on its citizens- a rare thing. A human without a nation has no rights-privileges or security.

I believe I have my rights by nature of my birth as a human being, not as a result of their being "granted" or "conferred" by any government. The U.S. government, at most, recognizes -- or rather, pays lip service -- to these rights.

And the wording of the Bill of Rights itself refers to "persons," not citizens, and has been widely understood since the beginning to require due process of law for all persons residing under the state's jurisdiction. -- Kevin Carson Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State: The Countervailing Power of Super-Empowered Individuals http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Natalie Golovin wrote:

The actual conflicts that caused hostile actions were economic and trade related

Surely these markets were "Free Trade" at the time... Are you saying Free Trade causes conflicts and hostile actions? If so, then I agree.

-Rush 2 leave 4 work-Of course I meant genetic not generic, but given your other comments-I can't assume too much. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Janssen Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:08 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:

And please stop romanticizing native peoples. At the time-all the tribes-including the invading European ones- engaged in shifting alliances & schemes to enrich their communities. The Europeans had better weapons. And since no one "owned" all that available land, and many of the tribes were nomadic-What right (Re: a previous mail) did the natives have to dominate it?

Sorry, I feel I have to step in and clear up this illusion that somehow we're "romanticizing" the native peoples. It is not fucking "romantic" just because one doesn't want to be the genocidal benefactor of 12 million deaths. IS it? Is that how you want to define the basis of the wealth of the Nation? That you're prosperous because you've built up an empire standing on top of 12 million, mostly innocent people, living on their ancient, ancestral lands as they had for thousands of years before we invaded it. Go fucking visit a reservation in northern nebraska and see the people that suffer to this day, unable to "cure" their alcoholism because their spirit and grand relationship to the cosmos has been broken simply because you had a fucking gun. Pardon me, sorry for any friendly-fire.. marcos The invaders came from crowded cities and were "homesteading."

We're not getting anywhere with this dialogue-Why not switch gears to attacking CEO's & enabling bureaucrats & politicians-where we have "common" ground?

-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Carson Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:48 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:

...

Convoluted I’m a human citizen of the US which through its Constitution grants its citizens a certain set of rights & privileges. It has 3 branches-Executive, Legislative & Judicial and a border that is “generally” respected and would be defended militarily if aggressively attacked. I consider myself fortunate to be a citizen of a country that confers human rights on its citizens- a rare thing. A human without a nation has no rights-privileges or security.

I believe I have my rights by nature of my birth as a human being, not as a result of their being "granted" or "conferred" by any government. The U.S. government, at most, recognizes -- or rather, pays lip service -- to these rights.

And the wording of the Bill of Rights itself refers to "persons," not citizens, and has been widely understood since the beginning to require due process of law for all persons residing under the state's jurisdiction. -- Kevin Carson Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State: The Countervailing Power of Super-Empowered Individuals http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 2:45 PM, Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote:

What an incredibly odd argument to encounter on a P2P list concerned with reclaiming the commons!

To say that the aboriginal people of the Western Hemisphere didn't "own" the land is as relevant as saying they didn't read English or worship Jesus Christ as their savior. Europeans stole the land by imposing their own peculiar property regime, along with the metaphysics that viewed such peculiarity as both natural and universal.

I agree. First of all, the "some" Indians who were nomads were pretty much those centered on the Great Plains. That leaves out all those who practiced some form of sedentary horticulture or field cropping, like the Five Civilized Tribes (pretty much anything south of the Ohio or east of the Mississippi), the corn growers of the Southwest, the lodge peoples of the Northeast and Eastern seaboard (who friggin' taught the English colonists about native crops, fer chrissakes), the potlatch peoples of the Pacific NW.... It's a bit like "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" And second, the idea that any form of ownership other than allodial, fee-simple commodity ownership on a one-family-per-parcel basis is invalid is nonsense. The claim that common ownnership of hunting grounds is null and void, and that expropriation is fair game because those who covet them can put them to more efficient use, smacks of the "best and highest use" arguments for eminent domain. -- Kevin Carson Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Homebrew Industrial Revolution:  A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State:  The Countervailing Power of Super-Empowered Individuals http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com Organization Theory:  A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html

The following article does not argue against either the value of individual liberty or a preference for limited government but demonstrates that attempts to derive the latter from the former are illusory. Scanlon's remarks on what is natural and what is not about property rights [follow link] are germane to this discussion. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/ndf_t_m_scanlon_libertarianism_liberty.ph... Libertarianism and Liberty How Not to Argue for Limited Government and Lower Taxes *T. M. Scanlon* *This article is part of Libertarianism and Liberty<http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/ndf_libertarianism_liberty.php>, a forum on arguments for libertarian policy conclusions.* Libertarianism presents itself as a simple, clear, and principled view. It appears to provide a moral basis, in the value of individual liberty, for a specific political program of limited government and low taxes. The moral significance of liberty seems obvious even to those who believe it is not the only thing that matters. But the claim of the libertarian political program to be founded on this value is illusory. *Three lines of thought lead to conclusions that might be seen as libertarian. But none of these shows that respect for the value of individual liberty should lead one to support the political program of low taxes and limited government that libertarians are supposed to favor. * - One route to libertarian conclusions appeals to an idea of productive efficiency. - A second, quite different view is what might be called “motorcycle-helmet libertarianism,” which gives fundamental place to the value of having control over how one’s life goes in important respects. - Enforcing any law involves coercively telling people what to do. Certainly this is true of property laws, which libertarians favor. So the libertarian idea is a narrower one, that no one should be coercively told what to do as long as he or she is not violating the rights of others. This intuitively appealing idea is the third route to libertarian conclusions, which starts not from the value of control over one’s life but from an idea of non-interference, given content by an enumerated list of rights. ** ** http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/ndf_t_m_scanlon_libertarianism_liberty.ph...

Interesting-no time now-will reply later From: Sandwichman Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 1:57 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians The following article does not argue against either the value of individual liberty or a preference for limited government but demonstrates that attempts to derive the latter from the former are illusory. Scanlon's remarks on what is natural and what is not about property rights [follow link] are germane to this discussion. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/ndf_t_m_scanlon_libertarianism_liberty.ph... Libertarianism and Liberty How Not to Argue for Limited Government and Lower Taxes T. M. Scanlon This article is part of Libertarianism and Liberty, a forum on arguments for libertarian policy conclusions. Libertarianism presents itself as a simple, clear, and principled view. It appears to provide a moral basis, in the value of individual liberty, for a specific political program of limited government and low taxes. The moral significance of liberty seems obvious even to those who believe it is not the only thing that matters. But the claim of the libertarian political program to be founded on this value is illusory. Three lines of thought lead to conclusions that might be seen as libertarian. But none of these shows that respect for the value of individual liberty should lead one to support the political program of low taxes and limited government that libertarians are supposed to favor. a.. One route to libertarian conclusions appeals to an idea of productive efficiency. b.. A second, quite different view is what might be called “motorcycle-helmet libertarianism,” which gives fundamental place to the value of having control over how one’s life goes in important respects. c.. Enforcing any law involves coercively telling people what to do. Certainly this is true of property laws, which libertarians favor. So the libertarian idea is a narrower one, that no one should be coercively told what to do as long as he or she is not violating the rights of others. This intuitively appealing idea is the third route to libertarian conclusions, which starts not from the value of control over one’s life but from an idea of non-interference, given content by an enumerated list of rights. http://www.bostonreview.net/BR36.5/ndf_t_m_scanlon_libertarianism_liberty.ph... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

I was replying to the argument sent to me re “homesteading”-trying to add some ironic humor. From: Sandwichman Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2011 12:45 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians What an incredibly odd argument to encounter on a P2P list concerned with reclaiming the commons! No one "owned" the commons in England, either. The common people had RIGHTS, guaranteed by the Charter of the Forest, the companion document to the Magna Carta. The enclosures of the commons usurped those traditional and legally ratified rights. "The law locks up the man or woman. Who steals the goose from off the common. But leaves the greater villain loose. Who steals the common from off the goose." May I recommend a couple of books by Peter Linebaugh?:"The Magna Carta Manifesto: Liberties and Commons for All" and "The Many-Headed Hydra: Sailors, Slaves, and the Atlantic Working Class" To say that the aboriginal people of the Western Hemisphere didn't "own" the land is as relevant as saying they didn't read English or worship Jesus Christ as their savior. Europeans stole the land by imposing their own peculiar property regime, along with the metaphysics that viewed such peculiarity as both natural and universal. On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote: The Europeans had better weapons. And since no one "owned" all that available land, and many of the tribes were nomadic-What right (Re: a previous mail) did the natives have to dominate it? -- Sandwichman -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Politeness can win more arguments even if we believe to be treated unjustly. 2011/10/20 Mark Janssen <[email protected]>

On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Sandwichman <[email protected]> wrote:

...

What an incredibly odd argument to encounter on a P2P list concerned with reclaiming the commons! No one "owned" the commons in England, either. The common people had RIGHTS, guaranteed by the Charter of the Forest, the companion document to the Magna Carta. The enclosures of the commons usurped those traditional and legally ratified rights.

"The law locks up the man or woman. Who steals the goose from off the common. But leaves the greater villain loose. Who steals the common from off the goose."

To say that the aboriginal people of the Western Hemisphere didn't "own" the land is as relevant as saying they didn't read English or worship Jesus Christ as their savior. Europeans stole the land by imposing their own peculiar property regime, along with the metaphysics that viewed such peculiarity as both natural and universal.

Exactly, thank you.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to respond more either, but Natalie's points about bringing in the Western narrative (called "science") as a way to justify the spriritual loss are meaningless. Sorry, fuck you.

mark

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

I finally understood this philosophy: 1: Me, me, me and mine. 2: If A fucks over B, C can rightfully fuck over them both: survival of the fittest. 3: Let God sort them out. On 19/10/11 04:25, Natalie Golovin wrote:

The Declaration of Independence says the rights come from the Creator-thus human rights. But they're Secured by the State. The US scores pretty well regarding human rights. When abuses like slavery are targeted they have been addressed. Why not direct your anger at the many nations where human rights are at the disposition of the military or depend on one's gender or religion. And please stop romanticizing native peoples. At the time-all the tribes-including the invading European ones- engaged in shifting alliances& schemes to enrich their communities. The Europeans had better weapons. And since no one "owned" all that available land, and many of the tribes were nomadic-What right (Re: a previous mail) did the natives have to dominate it? The invaders came from crowded cities and were "homesteading." We're not getting anywhere with this dialogue-Why not switch gears to attacking CEO's& enabling bureaucrats& politicians-where we have "common" ground?

-----Original Message----- From: Kevin Carson Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 7:48 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Natalie Golovin<[email protected]> wrote:

...

Convoluted I�m a human citizen of the US which through its Constitution grants its citizens a certain set of rights& privileges. It has 3 branches-Executive, Legislative& Judicial and a border that is �generally� respected and would be defended militarily if aggressively attacked. I consider myself fortunate to be a citizen of a country that confers human rights on its citizens- a rare thing. A human without a nation has no rights-privileges or security.

I believe I have my rights by nature of my birth as a human being, not as a result of their being "granted" or "conferred" by any government. The U.S. government, at most, recognizes -- or rather, pays lip service -- to these rights.

And the wording of the Bill of Rights itself refers to "persons," not citizens, and has been widely understood since the beginning to require due process of law for all persons residing under the state's jurisdiction.

-- NOT sent from a flippin' "smart"phone - 'cause I like birds...

Interesting discussion. In my view, a "mad max" distopia is present in the form of massive inequality, and a world where people have guns ( to protect themselves in such a world of inequality ? ) I personally prefer a world without guns, and without inequality ( to start with, via the right of a unconditional basic income measured in use value, not money ) . On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 1:58 AM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you Devin. While I appreciate Kevin’s sincerity-I see him in an alternate universe. If it came to fruition, I think the unintended consequences would be a “Mad Max” world of gang violence as opinions wavered on the legitimacy of Big D or little d rights/privileges depending on the location &moment- or govt imposed tyranny. Nation States exist, and they have borders that are much more than mathematical crosshairs on the globe. You can’t throw away thousands of years of civilizations’ attempt to codify property and human rights & obligations. The best we can do is encourage/support individuals to be more responsible citizens (of their respective nations)which includes reining in the corrupt govt/corporatist/military collusion that restrains all our progress.

*From:* Devin Balkind <[email protected]> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2011 9:42 AM *To:* P2P Foundation mailing list <[email protected]> *Subject:* Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians

Just some quick thoughts:

Michel - I'd imagine - would rather the government have all the guns and trust that they'll use them to enforce equality than to have faith in the people and their capacity to organize.

If you have communautarian feelings then express them through actions - not taxes.

Ron Paul finds the federal government an unacceptable entity to force people to use their private property in a particular way. I might disagree with the extent to which he applies his philosophy but I respect it enough not to demonize it.

Every nation has a unique history and identity. I think we should encourage political differentiation within the framework of increasing people's access to technologies that enable them to escape coercion by becoming more self sufficient.

On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Michel Bauwens <[email protected]>wrote:

...

I think that this is the heart of the matter and an obvious difference between 'left' and 'right' approaches'

it's really about how far you extend the circle of care .. for right-minded people it's nearly always about 'just for us' and they can have deep communautarian feelings (except probably for committed anarcho-capitalists who only believe in individual contracting and full commodification of all things), by contrast the left wants to extend it. ron paul finds it acceptable to refuse entry to black people on the basis of property rights, something no person on the left could tolerate ... natalie explicetely rejects the quest for equality even thought the revolt against inequality is at the heart of this movement .. but we can find commonality around freedom ..

though of course, freedom without equality is a chimera, as you need a gun to protect you from your neighbour ...

and the greatest the differential, the greater number of guns needed (now nearly a quarter of the workforce ?)

Michel

On Tue, Oct 18, 2011 at 12:05 AM, Apostolis Xekoukoulot cakis < [email protected]> wrote:

...

That is what a conservative libertarian would say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example the american people. This is how the greek athenian democrarcry worked as well. It wars a democracy for menr. But if we start thinking about liberty to a set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a libertarian (take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the word libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word is used to differentiate between people, we end up through *Reductio ad absurdum *that your defintion of libertarian is wrong. We also end up with the conclusion that you are not a libertarian.

As a personal remark, I would say that such a wrong definition of libertarian was always used as an excuse to diminish the liberties of others.

(reading math.. right now)

2011/10/17 Natalie Golovin <[email protected]>

...

Nations still exist. You can be a libertarian with regards to the rights/responsibilities/privileges/policies of your own citizens wo extending them to the universal

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

--

Sincerely yours,

Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

-- Devin Balkind Director, Sarapis Foundation [email protected] @devinbalkind

------------------------------ _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Yes-As a US citizen I care about protecting the liberties & advantages of the “set” known as US Citizens. Nations still exist. That does not mean I don’t care about the ruthless abuses the global crony capitalist system forces and/or attempts to force on others. The corrupt politicians in most countries collude with them under the guise of protection. Peoples must look after themselves through their own govts. A sound world currency that kept govts honest would help. From: Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis Sent: Monday, October 17, 2011 10:05 AM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians That is what a conservative libertarian would say. ''Protect the liberty of a certain group of people, for example the american people. This is how the greek athenian democracy worked as well. It was a democracy for men. But if we start thinking about liberty to a set of people we end up with the conclusion that everyone is a libertarian (take as a set only yourself ). That would make the use of the word libertarian unnecessary (as we all are libertarians). Since the word is used to differentiate between people, we end up through Reductio ad absurdum that your defintion of libertarian is wrong. We also end up with the conclusion that you are not a libertarian. As a personal remark, I would say that such a wrong definition of libertarian was always used as an excuse to diminish the liberties of others. (reading math.. right now) 2011/10/17 Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> Nations still exist. You can be a libertarian with regards to the rights/responsibilities/privileges/policies of your own citizens wo extending them to the universal _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation -- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Disagree on all your points-How about the Mexican govt having greater latitude to extort its citizens due to the relief valve north. It was NAFTA that drove the local Mexican agricultural community out of business-tearing up villages. The wage in border towns now is less than when it passed. People had nowhere to go-north or drug gangs. If we had borders and didn't allow the corporate banksters free reign-things would be much different-and I think better for both nations. -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Carson Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2011 12:34 PM To: P2P Foundation mailing list Subject: Re: [P2P-F] Libertarians On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:47 PM, Natalie Golovin <[email protected]> wrote:

Yes-As a US citizen I care about protecting the liberties & advantages of the “set” known as US Citizens. Nations still exist.

But when that set coexists with other sets in the same geographical space, the state cannot differentially violate the liberties and advantages of one set without acquiring general-purpose powers to threaten the liberties and advantages of all. A guy with a hammer sees everything as a nail. And the militarization of American territory near the border, the police state apparatus required for mandating and checking national IDs, the prison-industrial apparatus required for processing detainees, etc., is one big-ass hammer. Give the government a hammer like that for using against the other "set," even if they're not "one of us," and it just might start thinking we also look a bit like nails. -- Kevin Carson Research Associate, Center for a Stateless Society http://c4ss.org Homebrew Industrial Revolution: A Low-Overhead Manifesto http://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com Desktop Regulatory State: The Countervailing Power of Super-Empowered Individuals http://desktopregulatorystate.wordpress.com Organization Theory: A Libertarian Perspective http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/12/studies-in-anarchist-theory-of.html _______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation