Libertarians, Anarchists, and Cavemen

25 09 2011

Over a year ago, I posted something about the conflict between my anarcho-capitalist political stance and my newer understanding of human behavior. This came about because market anarchism and other “idealistic” political theory tends to presume and depend on rational behavior among humans. The problem is, that much of our behavior is irrational. I began to realize this when I discovered game, the art/science of being attractive to women.

Game, as it is understood today, came about as a mechanism to get men, especially men of high intelligence (who arguably think too much), to stop projecting rational thinking onto women. Instead, we should behave in a way that takes advantage of their instinctual drives if we should hope to get what we want from them. This doesn’t just work for men on women they want to bang, but it’s definitely the scenario where it’s most pronounced.

I’ve also learned, and this is similar, that if you want to convince people to agree with you, rational argument is not normally the most effective means of accomplishing this goal. It is generally more effective to appeal to one’s emotions. If you can appeal to the more powerful emotions like fear, even better. Understanding this helps explain why democracy doesn’t work so well, why the people who manage to get elected to political offices tend to be awful human beings with no discernible conscience.

Rational arguments work on critical thinkers, typically people of well above average intelligence. The problem is that most people are not critical thinkers. The structure of anarcho-capitalist society is a hard sell, largely because of it’s necessary complexity. It could be argued that people in an anarcho-capitalist society don’t need to “believe in” anarcho-capitalism for things to run smoothly, but I’m not convinced. I’m not saying anarcho-capitalism is the necessary endpoint of critical political thinking, but that any sufficiently complex and sufficiently different social arrangement is too far-out for the typical idiot to understand or accept.

More recently, I’ve been heavily into the ideas of the paleo diet community, and when you think about the natural environment of our ancestors and how it differs from what we have, it’s easy to wonder if we might be seriously ill-equipped to deal with the society we’ve accidentally created. A very recent post by Andrew at Evolvify addresses this. There’s a lot I could say about his post, but right now I’m mostly just referencing his claims about hunter-gatherers. He’s got a lot of footnotes, is what I’m saying.

When we think about humans in paleolithic times or even modern hunter-gatherers, we see small groups of 20-100 people where everyone knows each other. Such small societies are inherently orderly because each person needs the rest of the group for their own survival and reproductive success. Hunting, gathering, and child care are performed communally. Violence within groups exists almost exclusively among males vying for the mates.

What we don’t see are property rights outside of a man’s hut, his tools, and maybe his wife. We don’t see individuals lost among thousands of fellow humans who neither know nor care about each other. Outsiders may be welcome among hunter-gatherers, but they will certainly have to demonstrate that they are trustworthy before they are trusted. In such a world, a man is never expected to interact peacefully with people he’s never met and has no reason to trust, as we are expected to when we go about our business.

The problem here is that this world is very different from what we have today and very different from any future world we can imagine that doesn’t involve massive depopulation, something I’m not a supporter of, to put it mildly. What we can do here is question the practicality and necessity of private property in land, I suppose. I’m not one to argue against the private ownership of land, but I’ve always felt the the arguments of georgists or geoists have some merit. If you fell off a cruise ship, landed on an island, and met a guy who claimed to own the entire island because he got there first, you might really have a problem with his further claim that you must either do as he demands or leave.

In the Evolvify post I linked to above, Andrew notes how common it is for paleo people to also be libertarians and how these ideas are at conflict. Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism support the institutions of private property, and individual responsibility and autonomy. Communist anarchists favor limited private property rights and shared responsibilities, and this sounds a lot more like the environment to which we are best suited, as long as we’re talking about the social arrangement inside the monkeysphere™. If you’ve never heard the term, please follow the link to and learn. Basically, it’s the size of a group of people we can be part of and care for everyone else in the group, estimated to be about 150 for humans. Of course (as if this is common knowledge), communist anarchists typically support collective societies on a much larger scale, all the way up to the entire population of Earth.

It may well be a good idea be part of a monkeysphere™ of some sort, where wealth and and responsibilities may be shared to some extent. I think fraternal orders might be good for this, and I think those who embrace paleo-living concepts would likely benefit from building interdependent groups based on this one common interest. I also think that it’s impractical and unwise to totally abandon private property and individual autonomy for several reasons, including the fact that the cost of being shunned from a group just isn’t what it used to be and that we quite literally don’t need to depend on each other the way we once did. Also, I can’t ignore the reality that even if we build wonderful monkeyspheres™ for ourselves we will still need to deal peacefully with outsiders on a regular basis.

In conclusion, I don’t really know what to conclude. I still believe the state, especially the nation-state is an unnecessary evil, but maybe voluntary socialism on a small scale isn’t a terrible idea, and I should point out that we have that already in families. I’ve touched on a lot of stuff here, and I have a lot more to say in seven different directions. For inspiring me to think about this stuff, in addition to the game and paleo bloggers out there, I’d like to acknowledge Joe Rogan, for continually referencing our ape ancestry and our evolutionary limitations on his podcast, the Joe Rogan Experience, which is the most open-minded and informative podcast by a household name in all of the internet. I should also mention Richard Nikoley of, who twittered the Evolvify post to me and recently posted two related articles, If You Want Someone Dead Kill Them Yourself and Are You More Moral, More Benevolent and More Competent than Any Politician? Then Act Like It.

Who gives a shit about Mexicans?

5 09 2011

The Phoenix Newtimes is a weekly free newspaper distributed in the Phoenix area. The people behind it are the same folks responsible for the Villiage Voice. It’s generally left-leaning but not universally. I’ve been  reading the Newtimes for years, and over the years they’ve had some great in-depth articles about many different things. For years they’ve published article after article about Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a senile megalomaniac former DEA agent. The man’s a terrible person who’s done many terrible things, and I wonder if anyone would even know about them if it wasn’t for the Newtimes. For years, nobody else in local media would dare hint that there was anything wrong with him or question anything he’s said. Now, he’s been under federal investigation for almost three years and the tide’s changed slightly (but only slightly). I think feds are just waiting for him to die because there’s no way these  investigators don’t have enough evidence to indict the man on several charges, some of them for things that are actual crimes. Generally speaking, when the federal government indicts someone famous or infamous, there are always way too many charges and they’re mostly for things that aren’t actual crimes like ‘conspiracy’ or lying to cops. In the few years that Arpaio’s actually gotten some negative press, he came up with a great idea to boost his popularity.

The idea was the immigration sweep. He sends a bunch of deputies to some part of the county, where they hang out and stop people for bullshit traffic violations and other bullshit reasons that they can think of. Then, if they’re suspected of being in the country illegally, they’re presumably deported. Sending Mexicans back to Mexico is a pretty popular idea in this county, at least among people with pink skin, white hair, and big blue sedans. The fact this practice isn’t simply tolerated but actually welcomed is pretty hard evidence in support of my hypothesis that people are really stupid and democracy is an absurd institution. I’m not too terribly bothered by these sweeps, and maybe it’s because I don’t really care about Mexicans. Their culture annoys me. I like the food, but I don’t like their music, the colors they paint their houses, their low expectations, their high birth rates, the terrible things they do to perfectly good cars, they way the whole family has to come with, and I really hate painted on eyebrows. I’m probably not the only person who feels this way, so I can see the idea of sending Mexicans back to Mexico at least sounding good, as an idea. But it’s not something that can be accomplished without violating the rights of people who are legally in the country and aren’t really doing anything wrong. Hell, if they’re illegally in the country and not doing anything wrong, I don’t see why they should be hassled.

One thing that bothered me about the sweeps was that it was the one thing that finally got him some negative press outside the Newtimes. Never mind the arrests of journalists and political opponents. Never mind the mentally unstable inmates who died in his jails at the hands of his deputies. Never mind the evidence that his net worth is a lot higher than it should be. Never mind a bunch of shit I can’t even remember. He takes on illegal immigration, and now he’s finally a bad guy. Actually, the press never really cast judgement on him, but they did finally cover the fact some people oppose his practices for once. Up until then, the only source for news on Joe Arpaio was Joe Arpaio.

Another thing that bothered me was the Newtimes itself. They started putting a lot of energy into covering the sweeps and protests and shit that doesn’t really matter. They’ve spent energy trying to paint him as a racist, as if that somehow makes him even worse than we already know he is. For a year or two now, the feature article in at least every other issue is something about the plight of the illegals, whether it’s a story about dying in the desert or some kid who does some really cool thing and didn’t even know he was an illegal immigrant until he tried to get a job. I just don’t care. I get it – Mexicans are people too. I don’t understand why they’re so interested in making me care about Mexicans in America when nobody gives a shit about Mexicans in Mexico. If they did, they might be a little more concerned with federal drug policy than Arizona’s SB1070 or Joe Arpaio’s lastest canine and equestrian extravaganza.

Since 2006, 25,000 to 40,000 people in Mexico have been killed as a result of the expansion of the US War On Drugs into Mexico. It’s been suggested that it’s a case of “caged animals attacking one another”, but among the dead are hundreds of police officers and soldiers, many politicians and journalists, and a great deal of innocent people. Never mind that the caged animals would probably be normal people with normal jobs if heavy enforcement tactics weren’t greatly boosting the profit potential of the recreational drug trade. The violence just gets worse every year. The obvious sensible solution is to pull the plug on enforcement. The Mexican government needs to stop taking our money and needs to tell us to fuck off. Our government should cease paying local law enforcement agencies to fight the drug war, fire the DEA, and legalize everything. It won’t happen, but some Mexican politicians are cautiously leaning in that direction.

Former President Vincente Fox has suggested a cease-fire, possibly offering amnesty to gang members. That idea didn’t go over well, apparently. Current Mexican President Felipe Calderon, speaking in his state of the Union Address just one week after 52 people were killed in a drug gang attack on a casino, blamed US drug consumers while carefully suggesting decriminalizationg. He said, “If [the US-ians] are determined and resigned to consuming drugs, they should look for market alternatives that annul the stratospheric profits of the criminals, or establish clear points of access that are not the border with Mexico.” That sounds a lot like he’s suggesting the US allow drug imports, presumably directly from South America.

Of course, the people who know what’s best for us are having none of that. From this blog at Reason:

 …a high level State Department functionary insisted last month that the anti-cartel Merida Initiative would continue regardless of who Mexicans elected president in 2012. Hopefully Calderón grows a conscience and a spine between now and then.

It doesn’t seem very likely, and even if the legalization movement gathers steam in Mexico, they’re still doomed as long as the drugs remain very illegal in the US.

So, that’s my thought. Anyone who gives a shit about Mexicans should really be throwing their shoes at Obama and his fellow clowns, insisting they reverse this insanity, that they legalize drugs for the sake of our neighbors. It’s the only human thing to do. I’m sure the only thing most people will take from this is that I’m a racist because I don’t like Sharpie™ eyebrows.

BULLSHIT! – Julian Assange Behind Bars!

7 12 2010

Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, is being held in London after turning himself in to face extradition to Sweden for total bullshit sex-crime charges. (Al Jazeera story) He was denied bail and has an extradition hearing on December 14. There’s a lot to this story, and I’ve mentioned it before. I’m a bit disgusted by this. It seems that the release of several thousand diplomatic “cables” has motivated the rulers of the world to put a stop to this man, and this is very sad.

  • November 28, 2010 – On the day that the site was planning to release some 250,000 US State Department cables, Wikileaks reported on twitter that the site was under a massive DDoS (Distributed Denial of Service) attack. The site was down for several hours. (link)
  • November 29, 2010 – Twitter user, th3j35t3r, claimed responsibility for the attack, that it was “for attempting to endanger the lives of our troops and other assets.” (link)
  • Wednesday, December 1, 2010 – announced that it would cease hosting Wikileak’s “cablegate” site that could be found at after being pressured by government assholes, including the staff of Joe Lieberman, chairman of the Senate’s committee on homeland security. (link) Fuck Joe Lieberman. I really hate that guy.
  • Thursday, December 2, 2010 – unlisted, meaning that typing the address into a browser brings up the Wikileaks website, which can currently be found at ip address: and at cited threats to their infrastructure (from DDOS attacks)  as the reason for removing the listing and stated that they had no objection to the content. (link)
  • Saturday, December 4, 2010 – Paypal closed Wikileaks account, stating “our payment service cannot be used for any activities that encourage, promote, facilitate or instruct others to engage in illegal activity.” Paypal was Wikileaks primary source of donations. (link)
  • Monday, December 6, 2010 – Julian Assange’s Swiss bank account was closed, reportedly because he had given false information, namely that he was a resident of Sweden. (link)
  • Monday, December 6, 2010 – Mastercard stopped allowing payments to Wikileaks. (link)
  • Monday, December 6, 2010 – A warrant was issued for the arrest of Julian Assange in Britain. (link)
  • Tuesday, December 7, 2010 – Visa followed suit and also stopped payments to the website. (link)
  • Tuesday, December 7, 2010 – Assange held and denied bail in London.

There are a lot of links for that last one. This article at the Daily Mail is a good source on how things got to be this way. Presumably in fear of Britain’s rape shield law, the identities of the accusers are not given. They are confusingly referred to as Sarah and Jessica. Sarah’s real name is Anna Ardin and Jessica’s real name is Sofia Wilen. In the following quote, the names have been corrected and bolded to implicate the guilty:

What happened next is difficult to explain. The most likely interpretation of events is that as a result of a one-night stand, one participant came to regret what had happened.

Sofia was worried she could have caught a sexual disease, or even be pregnant: and this is where the story takes an intriguing turn. She then decided to phone Anna — whom she had met at the seminar, and with whom Assange had been staying — and apparently confided to her that she’d had unprotected sex with him.

At that point, Anna said that she, too, had slept with him.

As a result of this conversation, Ms. Ardin reportedly phoned an acquaintance of Assange and said that she wanted him to leave her apartment. (He refused to do so, and maintains that she only asked him to leave three days later, on the Friday of that week.)

How must Anna have felt to discover that the man she’d taken to her bed three days before had already taken up with another woman? Furious? Jealous? Out for revenge? Perhaps she merely felt aggrieved for a fellow woman in distress.

Having taken stock of their options for a day or so, on Friday, August 20, Anna and Sofia took drastic action.

They went together to a Stockholm police station where they said they were seeking advice on how to proceed with a complaint by Ms. Wilen against Assange.

According to one source, Sofia wanted to know if it was possible to force Assange to undergo an HIV test. Anna Ardin, the seasoned feminist warrior, said she was there merely to support Sofia. But she also gave police an account of what had happened between herself and Assange a week before.

The message here is be careful who you fuck in Sweden, especially if you’re famous. I suppose if you’re not you can use a fake name and a throw-away phone.

Anna Ardin: 

Sofia Wilen: 

Much has been written on this story. There are people who think Ardin is an agent of some sort and even people who think that Assange is. I particularly like the perspective of Israel Shamir at Counterpunch, which I discovered via W.F. Price of The Spearhead:

Rape is a horrible crime, and it should not be stretched to encompass minor misdemeanors and moral failings (like the failure to give an encouraging phone call the next day). Tellingly, when the complainant’s advocate was asked why the young women were unsure whether they were raped, he replied: “They are not lawyers”.

That’s right, you gotta be a lawyer to know when you’ve been raped.

Helpful Information from the Government!

24 03 2010

I found something odd at a .gov website: Penis size: Survey of female perceptions of sexual satisfaction. The conclusion is hardly shocking:

Women reported that penis width was more important for their sexual satisfaction than penis length. The results were statistically significant. Penis width needs to be given more consideration, and taken into account when one discusses penis size.

…but this is apparently supposed to be a surprise because it contradicts the conclusion of Masters and Johnson, as if people learned about sex from them and not from porn and, well, having sex.

The methodology is rather funny:

To test the notion of the possible importance of length vs. width and female sexual satisfaction, two male undergraduate college students – both popular athletes on campus…

Oh, if only… If only it continued, “one with a long narrow penis, the other with a short wide penis…”, but it doesn’t. They had these two guys ask 50 girls who they considered sexually active if penis width or length was more important. 45 said width. It seems odd that these guys were asked to contact women who they most likely knew personally and may have had sex with. This introduces a huge potential bias. The respondents’ answers could have been colored by what they knew about the surveyors’ penises and their inclination to boost, spare, or hurt their feelings. Of course, this doesn’t really matter because the whole survey is unimportant.

My point is simply that many people are struggling financially, but they need not worry because the government is here to tell us that chicks prefer fat dicks.

I found this while looking for the story of Juan Baptista dos Santo and Blanche Dumas(nudity), a man and a woman with a total of six legs, two penises, two vaginae, and two voracious sexual appetites. That link claims the two got it on, but another source says, “While there is no evidence that the two had illicit meetings, there is great rumor of a brief affair.”