<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss
version="2.0"
xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
> <channel><title>Comments on: On becoming a libertarian leftist</title> <atom:link href="http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/</link> <description>ACCESS ALL AREAS</description> <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:39:04 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <item><title>By: Mike Gogulski</title><link>http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/comment-page-1/#comment-878</link> <dc:creator>Mike Gogulski</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2008 01:16:14 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.nostate.com/?p=676#comment-878</guid> <description>Okay, I went with &quot;cannibalistic&quot; instead. That&#039;s what I was after.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Okay, I went with &#8220;cannibalistic&#8221; instead. That&#8217;s what I was after.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Mike Gogulski</title><link>http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/comment-page-1/#comment-874</link> <dc:creator>Mike Gogulski</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 13 Oct 2008 20:33:38 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.nostate.com/?p=676#comment-874</guid> <description>I realize now the choice of &quot;necrophobic&quot; was silly and a result of confusion. I should have said &quot;sarcophagous&quot; or &quot;flesh-eating&quot; instead. Wups.
Thanks for the kind words, Jimi G, and for bringing another perspective on some of the core ideas.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I realize now the choice of &#8220;necrophobic&#8221; was silly and a result of confusion. I should have said &#8220;sarcophagous&#8221; or &#8220;flesh-eating&#8221; instead. Wups.</p><p>Thanks for the kind words, Jimi G, and for bringing another perspective on some of the core ideas.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Jimi G</title><link>http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/comment-page-1/#comment-847</link> <dc:creator>Jimi G</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 19:34:41 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.nostate.com/?p=676#comment-847</guid> <description>You&#039;re a great thinker and writer Mike.  Thank you.
&quot;Add in the disgusting bigotry dressed up as “cultural conservatism” and you suddenly have a realization akin to discovering that why you’re distrustful of your neighbor is because your neighbor is, in fact, a necrophobic ghoul.&quot;
Your neighbor is a necrophobic ghoul.  Nothing &quot;akin&quot; to it.  Human beings are killers.
The essence of being human is controlling oneself and, by extension, one&#039;s environment.  Of course, the fall of man is when humans discovered that their fellow man was part of the environment to be controlled.  Thus entered the State into the world.
Since control is the goal, and killing (or the threat of it) is the ultimate form of control, by necessity humans are killers.
This fact pervades all levels of &quot;society.&quot;  It accounts for the &quot;thin veneer of civilization,&quot; which easily eroded, reveals man&#039;s true nature.
Anarchy is the solution to this all-pervasive violence, in that it disperses it to its minimum density, whereas Statism concentrates it into its most potent and deadly forms.
No surprise that the ruling class that controls the machinery of State seeks to perpetuate it.  The level of control over the environment that it allows is virtually absolute in human terms.
I think that anarchism is misunderstood, in that most individuals that entertain the logical arguments in its favor leap illogically to a conclusion that somehow it will eradicate violence.  Alas, humans will cease to be human if they cease to be violent.
What anarchism achieves is the maximum dispersion of violence, thus ensuring maximum personal responsibility for one&#039;s life.
Just wanted to get those thoughts out.  Thanks again.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You&#8217;re a great thinker and writer Mike.  Thank you.</p><p>&#8220;Add in the disgusting bigotry dressed up as “cultural conservatism” and you suddenly have a realization akin to discovering that why you’re distrustful of your neighbor is because your neighbor is, in fact, a necrophobic ghoul.&#8221;</p><p>Your neighbor is a necrophobic ghoul.  Nothing &#8220;akin&#8221; to it.  Human beings are killers.</p><p>The essence of being human is controlling oneself and, by extension, one&#8217;s environment.  Of course, the fall of man is when humans discovered that their fellow man was part of the environment to be controlled.  Thus entered the State into the world.</p><p>Since control is the goal, and killing (or the threat of it) is the ultimate form of control, by necessity humans are killers.</p><p>This fact pervades all levels of &#8220;society.&#8221;  It accounts for the &#8220;thin veneer of civilization,&#8221; which easily eroded, reveals man&#8217;s true nature.</p><p>Anarchy is the solution to this all-pervasive violence, in that it disperses it to its minimum density, whereas Statism concentrates it into its most potent and deadly forms.</p><p>No surprise that the ruling class that controls the machinery of State seeks to perpetuate it.  The level of control over the environment that it allows is virtually absolute in human terms.</p><p>I think that anarchism is misunderstood, in that most individuals that entertain the logical arguments in its favor leap illogically to a conclusion that somehow it will eradicate violence.  Alas, humans will cease to be human if they cease to be violent.</p><p>What anarchism achieves is the maximum dispersion of violence, thus ensuring maximum personal responsibility for one&#8217;s life.</p><p>Just wanted to get those thoughts out.  Thanks again.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Mike Gogulski</title><link>http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/comment-page-1/#comment-837</link> <dc:creator>Mike Gogulski</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:50:48 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.nostate.com/?p=676#comment-837</guid> <description>Restitution, destitution, whatever... we may as well demand it, even though we&#039;ll never get it, simply because doing so serves to shift the &quot;moderate&quot; positions ever more toward the radical ideal.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Restitution, destitution, whatever&#8230; we may as well demand it, even though we&#8217;ll never get it, simply because doing so serves to shift the &#8220;moderate&#8221; positions ever more toward the radical ideal.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: DixieFlatline</title><link>http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/comment-page-1/#comment-832</link> <dc:creator>DixieFlatline</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 18:22:20 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.nostate.com/?p=676#comment-832</guid> <description>Restitution?  Oh my...</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Restitution?  Oh my&#8230;</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Kent McManigal</title><link>http://www.nostate.com/676/on-becoming-a-libertarian-leftist/comment-page-1/#comment-803</link> <dc:creator>Kent McManigal</dc:creator> <pubDate>Sun, 05 Oct 2008 03:45:03 +0000</pubDate> <guid
isPermaLink="false">http://www.nostate.com/?p=676#comment-803</guid> <description>My original stance was simply that I was against government.  Someone I knew (who should have known better) told me that meant I was a &quot;conservative&quot;.  I just accepted his word for it.
It wasn&#039;t until I kept seeing that conservatives did NOT have the same ideals that I did that I began to question that premise and look around to see what I &quot;was&quot;.  I wasn&#039;t too worried about my label; my opinion never wavered.  Then I discovered the book &quot;Lever Action&quot; by L. Neil Smith and realized where I stood.</description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My original stance was simply that I was against government.  Someone I knew (who should have known better) told me that meant I was a &#8220;conservative&#8221;.  I just accepted his word for it.</p><p>It wasn&#8217;t until I kept seeing that conservatives did NOT have the same ideals that I did that I began to question that premise and look around to see what I &#8220;was&#8221;.  I wasn&#8217;t too worried about my label; my opinion never wavered.  Then I discovered the book &#8220;Lever Action&#8221; by L. Neil Smith and realized where I stood.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
