Originally Posted by Skabungus

..........and yet again, another thread falls victim to the one track minds stuck on the libertarian jag.

What a shame.

Aw, Ska, I was hoping you'd chime in about free-range farming.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Eh, we've already had this discussion before. Most of the libertarians who took part in it agreed that Prop 2 is entirely consistent with libertarianism, either because "rights" are extended to animals or because it's enacting legislation to oppose government suppression of liberty.

Prop 2, as far as I can tell, is certainly rights-violating; I don't see how it's consistent with libertarianism's injunction against aggression. A gradualist might see it as a temporary solution, but then again, I'm not a gradualist. So while it's really not consistent with libertarianism, it may be considered not inconsistent, depending on the libertarian.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Look, there's really no dispute between liberals and libertarians as to ends, only as to means. The ends of libertarianism ARE liberal ends; they are the ends that DEFINE liberalism, in fact. But the contention of modern liberals is that libertarian MEANS -- which are the same as the means of liberals from an earlier era -- no longer work to serve liberal ends. Restraining the government is the right idea when the government is the main threat to liberty, and when society is sufficiently simple that it doesn't need complex government. But we are no longer in that situation. Safeguards have been placed on the state to prevent tyranny, and, by and large, they work well. The main threat to liberty is today private agencies such as corporations, and the real question in regard to government is not how big and powerful it is but who's interests it serves.

Cool. Because American corporations have killed eight million in the past 60 years, may draft you when the situation presents itself, incarcerates 1/4's of the world prison population at any give time, provides the framework for the current state of modern business, creates (or at the very least, supports) numerous social pathologies that we now face, operates shitty school systems (or kiddie prisons), and actively suppresses small-scale alternatives that would certainly function better, etc., etc. Un-freaken-believable.

Agreed. But the argument of anarchists is precisely against the necessity of rules, and that of libertarians is against the necessity of so many of them.

The argument of anarchists is against state-imposed rules, not rules, laws, etc. in general.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Not interested in getting any kind of treatment, vaccine or otherwise, that was developed as a rush job.

I didn't think you were insulting me. If you knew the full extent of the government's involvement in the travesty that is factory farming, you'd see the libertarian angle also.

Whoever made that comment about genetic patents and seeds ... well maybe that will be the next crisis, a food shortage due to inbred crops.

I wasn't trying to insult you either and I commend you on your Prop 2 work. Brian expressed my viewpoint as well about where one (you in this case) has obvious expertise, one often sees an appropriate role for govt.

I'm not arguing that govt can only do good, there are plenty of examples were that is not only a false, but sometimes a very deadly assumption. But that is more about getting the govt we deserve thingee.

Yes, the govt needs to clean up its own act and not support "bad agribusiness" but that is not going to be enough. It is going to have to regulate agri-business - to what degree is classic right-left politics. But suggesting govt just do no harm is what often sets uninformed Libertarians off into the peanut gallery. Give them some expertise on the subject, they'll often jump into the fray.

On the other hand, I think its generally good to have some always questioning if govt needs to have role and to what extent. Its when one assumes there is none and can not be persuaded under any circumstances whatsoever, well, that's when the discussion gets a little weird and non-productive.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Aw, Ska, I was hoping you'd chime in about free-range farming.

I'm surprised , also. Anyway, squirrel season opens May, 15 here. (I'm also surprised Skabungus hasn't brought up wild game.

now doesn't this look yummy ?

N.B. remember to remove those scent glands on their paws whilst cleaning them.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I'm surprised , also. Anyway, squirrel season opens May, 15 here. (I'm also surprised Skabungus hasn't brought up wild game.

now doesn't this look yummy ?

N.B. remember to remove those scent glands on their paws whilst cleaning them.

I had frog one time.

It does Not taste like chicken.

Originally Posted by The Rani

I disagree completely that it's right-left politics. Agribusiness has both sides in their back pocket.

To some extent. But I think if you really thought about it, you might conclude that you are taking a lot of hardwork by many over many years for granted.

Perhaps a refresher -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jungle

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I was thinking of a heavily armed posse (composed only of volunteers, of course).

Of course.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

The argument of anarchists is against state-imposed rules, not rules, laws, etc. in general.

Hence my request for clarification from Brian. The argument is actually that the rules imposed by a monopoly power-structure are (and tend to be) contrary to the rules that people ongoingly generate among themselves to meet the actual needs and direct feedbacks of life in their environments.

Brian came back to the monopoly-courts, which wasn't what I was talking about at all. Kiff was a fair bit closer, though there's no reason to think it would get to the point of armed conflict with any great degree of frequency, since that's so clealy opposed to the interests of all parties (plus anyone else standing around) -- and since the fact that it is clearly opposed is something people would have been able to take into account from the very earliest planning stages.

Really, though, the enforcement mechanism is the least of the issues to the question of liability. Right and wrong and responsibility are fact (that is, fact not necessarily in the particulars in a specific context, but in their constant relation to the things people do) regardless of whether they can be enforced in any particular instance. Let it be widely and unequivocably understood that person X or company Y is responsible for a wrong because of their actions, and society -- any society -- will figure out a way (or several ways, even) to deal with the situation.

Who hates factory farming?

Joel Salatin, the father of Pigerator Pork and a living example of how low input, sustainable farming can become VERY profitable. I’ve read all his books and use many of his practices particularly his marketing strategies and farm/family finance system. Joel is a bible believing Christian, hardcore libertarian and straight talking businessman. Joel’s answer to any question about good meat production (two legged or four) begins with “good grass!”

Farmer John Peterson, subject of the film documentary film “the Real Dirt on Farmer John” An icon of eccentric lifestyles and successful artisan farmer this fellow is largely responsible for the rebirth of small scale farming near urban centers in the Midwest. He’s practices Biodynamic farming which flows out of the Rudolph Steiner school of esoteric thinking. His farm is a Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) project and serves families and individuals directly and in many cases, directly engages them in the planning, planting and production of the foodstuffs. Personally, I find Biodynamic practices to be a little bit wacked……but no more wacked than Joel Salatin’s Chritianity. My first introduction to dowsing came from a Biodynamic farmer named John Verronen, who introduced me to his brother, Christopher with whom I started a CSA in 1989. The CSA project transformed me from a suburbanite into a sustainable farmer in four months and I’ve never looked back. If I had to I’d classify all the Biodynamic folks as a weird crossing of Gnostic monk/anarchist/socialist/rural folk. They are weird by modern American social standards, but, they are successful farmers, good at business and certainly driven by a desire to improve the quality of life for society as a whole.

CSA’s have always fascinated me because I’ve never been able to decide if they’re socialist cooperatives or red blooded American small businesses. Nearly all I’ve seen exhibit a strong drive to improve the commonweal, yet they all see free enterprise as a sacred thing. Adam Smith, where he alive today, would certainly have a working share in a CSA, and would probably run to sit on the shareholder board! There is no better living example of free trade than the “trade table” at a CSA farm, or the market booth at a local farmer’s market.

So, based on my own experience I can say that without question, the opposition to factory farming is rampant on the far left, the far right and the broad middle ground. Opposition to factory farming seems to be based on common sense, concern for personal health and some modicum of respect for society at large. Most everyone you meet in the organics section of the supermarket, at a CSA workday, or on a sustainable farming web forum, will tell you that health and healthcare costs rank at the top of their reasons for eating the way they do. Most will tell you that the health of their children is the most important reason. “Let your food be your medicine and your medicine be your food” are words to live by. Putting an end to factory farming is a national healthcare issue. Swine flu is only a blip on the radar. Obesity, heart disease, diabetes, cancer, etc. bear a larger share of the justification for eliminating factory production of meats and vegetables.


Who supports Factory Farming?

The invention of factory farming comes from the arrogant who believe that their bright new patent or a more efficient process can overrule centuries of agricultural knowledge and easily reorder the biological fabric of nature --- without risk.

Factory farming is financed by the greedy who see immense profits --- without risk.

Factory farming is enabled by the USDA and a covey of politicians on the left and the right who share in the profits and pork (of a political nature) that factory farming brings.

This evil cabal is supported by the average American consumer: lazy folk convinced the savings of 10% on an evening’s meal is somehow not related to their increased healthcare costs or the future health and wellbeing of their own children. You get what you deserve, or, you get what you pay for, pick your poison.

There are an increasing number of people in our society who due to unemployment or reduced earnings have less choice about what they can afford to eat. They are confronted with another chance to change their practices. Growing your own food, buying from a farmer’s market, joining (or forming) a CSA is actually a little more possible when you have less money and more free time. The excuse that the poor have no choice is a fallacy. The urban poor are the people who started the CSA movement. The choice should be clear especially when you find out what your COBRA payment will be when your employer’s insurance payment runs out!

Next time you go to the supermarket and pick up that factory raised bacon to go with that perfect looking spinach salad (sprayed with aluminum oxide to keep it that way) just remember that it’s your choice. Take that 10% savings and sock it away for when you next go to the doctor.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I'm surprised , also. Anyway, squirrel season opens May, 15 here. (I'm also surprised Skabungus hasn't brought up wild game.

now doesn't this look yummy ?

N.B. remember to remove those scent glands on their paws whilst cleaning them.

Meh, hunting is on the downshwing dees days. I don't blame PETA and the animal rights movement though. Rather I blame the disconnectedness of families (on the left and right) in modern times. Hunting is almost exclusively a pass down tradition. If a child is taken hunting 3 times before the age of 13, there is a 60% chance that they will take up hunting as a regular hobby after age 18. Venison (like goat) is extremely lean and nearly cholesterol free. A good substitute for beef in all regards. Given the exponential growth of the deer herd nationally and the concomitant appearance of CWD and bovine TB in the deer herd, I think we're approaching a time when we may see a bounty on deer and/or no limit hunting in many states. Here in Michigan, if you fill all your tags you can end up with 5 doe and 2 bucks in one year. My best to date is 4 doe and that's because I am hard pressed to pull the trigger on a buck. Killing bucks weakens the gene pool and does absolutely nothing to control population: antlers are simply a trophy/ego game.

Turkey is on the rise everywhere and provides another lean alternative to the trash birds (dutch white turkey) raised in factory farms all over America! Tastes better too!

If one has a serious beef (or ham) about the issue, I would think one needs to move beyond 'the fault lies with politicians, on both the Right and the Left, being in the hands of agribusiness' as their penultimate conclusion (and, I applaud Rani's Prop 2 as a "moving beyond" success) . One would also need to move beyond 'society will figure out a way' as their penultimate solution.

Otherwise, remaining at these platitudes offers no moral high ground in which to judge lazy and/or uniformed consumers.

Originally Posted by playwrite

One would also need to move beyond 'society will figure out a way' as their penultimate solution.

Of course, a rational person would recognize the quest for a penultimate solution (of one's own design, no less) as being no more than evidence of monomaniacal delusion.

As the same time, as an element of society himself, he would not be in the wrong to start working out what seemed to him a reasonable course of action -- indeed, even of sharing the course with others around him. "Society" doesn't mean "everyone but me".

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Let it be widely and unequivocably understood that person X or company Y is responsible for a wrong because of their actions, and society -- any society -- will figure out a way (or several ways, even) to deal with the situation.

Probably.

And, also very probably, those ways will all involve government.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Cool. Because American corporations have killed eight million in the past 60 years, may draft you when the situation presents itself, incarcerates 1/4's of the world prison population at any give time, provides the framework for the current state of modern business, creates (or at the very least, supports) numerous social pathologies that we now face, operates shitty school systems (or kiddie prisons), and actively suppresses small-scale alternatives that would certainly function better, etc., etc.

Yes. Every last bit of that is to be laid at the door of U.S. corporations. Or on whose behalf and behest and instigation do you think the government did all of that?

Add to this, that U.S. corporations control all or nearly all natural capital, making it impossible for almost everyone to support themselves without serving the interests of corporations, and exercise direct control over eight or more hours of people's lives and indirect control over the rest of the day. For most people -- everyone who doesn't work for the government, basically -- corporations exert far more control over an individual's life than the state does, on a daily basis.

The argument of anarchists is against state-imposed rules, not rules, laws, etc. in general.

In other words, it's against enforceable rules.

Where people don't know one another and willingly cooperate on that basis, lack of enforceable rules means lack of rules. (In extreme cases it means that even when people do know each other.)

And back to the thread topic . . .

This being a 4T, the rise of a new epidemic will of course generate cries for the government to DO SOMETHING -- Obama had better quit telling people there's no reason for alarm and start addressing the alarm -- and it will be interesting to see if pressure arises to regulate the meat industry and ban factory farming.

The connection isn't being carried on the U.S. mainstream media but with the internet these days that almost doesn't matter. It will be interesting, in a gruesome way, to watch how the issue plays out in the blogosphere and propagates in the Crisis culture.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Yes. Every last bit of that is to be laid at the door of U.S. corporations. Or on whose behalf and behest and instigation do you think the government did all of that?

I think it's a bit bizarre to lay the primary blame for the negative consequences of the U.S. Empire at the door of the corporations rather than the murderers (Truman, Johnson, Nixon, Bush, whoever) themselves. Corporations merely feed from the existing power structure that provides them the opportunity to exist in their current form. While it's interesting to speculate, with regard to the current State and corporations, on "who created who?", only one is virtually synonymous with a monopoly of power.

In other words, it's against enforceable rules.

Well, no, I don't think so. If someone were to murder, then I would surely support that murderer being forcibly removed from society. That's some degree of enforcement. Can this theoretically be done without a government? Sure, why not?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

And back to the thread topic . . .

This being a 4T, the rise of a new epidemic will of course generate cries for the government to DO SOMETHING -- Obama had better quit telling people there's no reason for alarm and start addressing the alarm -- and it will be interesting to see if pressure arises to regulate the meat industry and ban factory farming.

Have there been any public calls yet for this sort of action by influential mainstream figures?

Well, I'm happy to say I spoke too soon about the connection not being made in the U.S. media:

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/...7566&GT1=31036

Matt, I think we should not use this thread to discuss anarchism; there is no doubt whatever that the approach to dealing with this swine flu will involve government.

Looks like Chicago has several cases:

http://chicagotribune.com

Originally Posted by The Rani

Whether or not the approach will yield results remains to be seen.

That's usually the case.

We still seem to be in headless chicken mode at present.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Well, I'm happy to say I spoke too soon about the connection not being made in the U.S. media:

http://health.msn.com/health-topics/...7566&GT1=31036

Sure, but how about the pundits? (I don't watch them) They seem to be driving the mainstream liberal and conservative position these days.

Matt, I think we should not use this thread to discuss anarchism

Fair enough; neither do I. Feel free to respond in another thread if you wish.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The ends of libertarianism ARE liberal ends; they are the ends that DEFINE liberalism, in fact. But the contention of modern liberals is that libertarian MEANS -- which are the same as the means of liberals from an earlier era -- no longer work to serve liberal ends.

That seems like a fair summation of the disagreement.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Restraining the government is the right idea when the government is the main threat to liberty, and when society is sufficiently simple that it doesn't need complex government.

The second statement is unnecessary and potentially pernicious. I'm going to argue that the appropriateness of simple rules vs. precise rules liberalism oscillates over time. I would argue that the pendulum is currently close to the maxima for precise rules liberalism and will begin shifting back over the course of the 21st century.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

But we are no longer in that situation. Safeguards have been placed on the state to prevent tyranny, and, by and large, they work well.

I think Binyam Mohammed would disagree with you on that point.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Or, to make it even simpler: the problem with libertarianism is not that it's not a noble goal, but that its chosen means don't work. And the more you know about a particular area of life, the more obvious that becomes.

Well, to be clear, I don't advocate a change of means in my area of expertise at all. I see just as much evidence of hyper-precision in the rules of structural engineering as elsewhere in society. I just recognize that in lieu of fundamental rules revisions, some of the precise rules are a good stopgap measure. Many of them are also just plain junk.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

By all means, feel free to create one.

When I get a chance, I'll start a thread about political archetypes. In the meantime, I think I've hijacked this thread enough.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Probably.

And, also very probably, those ways will all involve government.

All the ways someone stuck in a very small box might come up with -- that's sure. Good thing humanity as a whole isn't fundamentally limited to the boxes in which some of its members find themselves.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

All the ways someone stuck in a very small box might come up with -- that's sure. Good thing humanity as a whole isn't fundamentally limited to the boxes in which some of its members find themselves.

In this case, it would seem that humanity is indeed stuck in that particular box, probably because they're aware that, however big or small it is, they're sharing it with the occasional sociopath.

But as I said to Matt, I don't think this thread is where we should discuss anarchism.