New Article: Eternal Vigilance or Perpetual Motion Liberty? Pt. 1: Selling Yourself into Slavery
March 27, 2008 at 2:00 pm | In Anarchism, Decentralism, Political theory | Leave a CommentAnother article by Lysander’s Ghost on the limits of Rothbardian anarchism and why it doesn’t prevent de facto authoritarianism. I’m still a massive fan of Rothbard, but I’m not one to preach basics to the choir. Consider this a challenge on behalf of decentralism to mainstream Rothbardians. Did I make a mistake in my criticism of standard Rothbardian anarchism? Please show me.
My New Article on Limits of Libertarian Politics & Ron Paul’s Campaign
January 24, 2008 at 12:16 pm | In Anarchism, Decentralism, Political theory | Leave a CommentI’m a bit critical of libertarians who focus on reform through politics. While I really like and support Ron Paul in most ways except such as on immigration, I hope people recognize libertarianism as something far beyond politics and electioneering.
With that said here is a link to the article:
The cheapest superfood: Fermenting Vegetables
January 9, 2008 at 6:32 pm | In Nutrition & Health | 4 CommentsAmericanized Kimchi, for lack of a better name, inspired by the Weston Price Foundation and their Nourishing Traditions cookbook:
Essential: Cabbage (any kind) and salt
Choose among options: Almost any combination of fresh vegetables plus other items with spicy ones to taste preference:
Broccoli, carrots, ginger, onions, finely chopped garlic, jalepenos, peppers of any kind, radish, cucumber, cilantro, whole flax seeds, sesame seeds, etc.
Wash and chop everything up to about a sauerkraut consistency. Put in a large bowl as chopping, mix and add salt. Put it in a gallon container and crush everything down to container. The juice displaced should be visible so that the liquid and solids rise to the same level in the container. Let ferment at room temperature for 3-5 days. When it is like a crunchy, flavorful sauerkraut, it is ready, and can be refrigerated to keep indefinitely. By adding fresh greens, these will stay fresh and green for longer than anyway but freezing them. When crushed down to release the juice like this, vegetables change from a very bulky food to a high density food like cheese, which uncoincidentally is also fermented. The juice is quite refreshing too, don’t throw it out. It can even be saved to ferment other foods. I haven’t tried it to make a sourdough starter, but it would probably work.
Serve alone or almost any way, but is full of probiotics when eaten raw. Foods ferment either before you eat them or inside you. Better let the good fermenters like what resides naturally in cabbage and grapes do their work first. Otherwise, bad ones like candida will ferment your sugars and grow roots through your intestines, and send signals to your brain to feed them/you even more sugar. Then you will say in a Darth Vader voice, “It’s too late for me. I’m more yeast than man now.”
Contrarianism and Decentralism
December 21, 2007 at 6:16 pm | In Decentralism | Leave a CommentContrarianism is the position that mainstream opinion is often wrong, misguided, or intentionally erroneous for an ulterior motive. It is most commonly used in investing, and many of the more successful investment experts have been contrarian. How could that be? In investing, don’t people pay most attention to the most successful investors? Sometimes, but if often they may follow some advice too late it is no longer good advice.
So how is this related to decentralism? A tactic in tactical investing can only work for so long if more and more people start adopting it, or the profitability of it decreases. If everyone started doing it, it would cease to be profitable approximately when it ceased to be contrarian.
So there could be lots of contrarian opinions and methods, and all or most could be profitable, but if one method became mainstream, it would no longer be as profitable, as contrarian, or too generic to be meaningful alone. Further, just because everyone believes “buy low, sell high” doesn’t make it anti-contrarian. It is questions of how to do it that makes one a contrarian or not.
But lesson number one of contrarianism, whether in investing or politics, would be don’t follow the talking heads of the mainstream media. Their advice is almost always skewed to benefit some one not following it.
How about a Decentralist FAQ? Questions wanted
November 19, 2007 at 9:42 pm | In Decentralism | 1 CommentA quick Google search confirms that there is no “Decentralist FAQ” on the internet. I would like to create one. I also realize that I may be using this term more ideologically than most, trying to add something unique to the libertarian movement. So if someone sends me answers, I’ll definitely consider using it if I agree, but mainly I’m looking for questions.
I know I don’t have many readers due in part to so infrequent postings, but I’m trying to establish decentralism as something consistent with libertarianism and anarchism, but more than these as a means to show that libertarianism is not innately self-preserving. However, a question, “How is decentralism different than libertarianism?” may be a good question, but at least for a while I’m looking for more specific questions like, “Is decentralism opposed to voluntarily acquired market power?”
As you can guess by my blog motto, decentralism in concerned about power. Many questions should be about power of some economic, cultural, political, organizational, or such system.
Note however, that providing any information will be considered releasing any exclusive rights to your comments, noting that I don’t intend to profit from them. I also apologize that with my real world obligations, this may take a long while to make it good.
Are the Mormon Elite all Bad People?
August 31, 2007 at 3:30 pm | In Religion | Leave a CommentThe official LDS church maybe notorious among the Hellenisticly monogamous Western World for having promoted and practiced polygamy over a century ago. However, among those who believe in “doing no harm to a neighbor” that is irrelevant. They are notorious as strict persecutors of their own true believers in Mormonism.
Mormons in the late 1800s had just enough political power to influence major political elections. Joseph Smith bartered the Mormon vote for political favors even before he ran for president in 1844. The mainstream politicians didn’t like Mormons taking a piece of the political pie and so decided to prosecute polygamy as a way to stop them. The Mormon elite had a choice. They could sell out their doctrines and destroy their families and regain political privilege, or they could suffer through the persecution of the tyrannical American government. They chose the former.
Consider this:
Much less clear is the church’s position on polygamy in the eternal hereafter. When a Mormon man and woman are married in the Temple, they are “sealed,” which means they and their children will be bound together forever in heaven—what Mormons call the celestial kingdom. If a Mormon man becomes a widower, or if he is divorced, he can remarry in the Temple—and thus be sealed to more than one woman. (Mormon women, on the other hand, need to have their previous sealings canceled before they can be sealed again.) Doesn’t this mean, in effect, that men can have multiple wives in heaven? LDS Church officials decline to answer specifically, saying only that “the Lord has not given answers to all the details of life after death. There are some things we simply don’t know.”
How deceptive can they get? They say “we simply don’t know” when the issue is whether 1+1=2 simultaneously sealed wives, and thus “afterlife polygamy.” Do they disbelieve in math? It isn’t a debate about what constitutes a “sealed marriage” because this uses their own beliefs to define it. Why not admit that they believe in polygamy in the afterlife? Remember that the US law only prohibits freedom of religious practices, but claims to allow freedom of religious belief only. Are they worried that US law will be binding in the afterlife?
But the answer to why they do such is pretty obvious. Such an admission fuels the arguments of fundamentalist Mormons. Since the LDS claims polygamy was required once but forbidden today, they are on the morally weak ground of being flip-floppers, and to make up for it, they have become the biggest persecutors of those who didn’t believe the Mormon elite could overrule doctrines and destroy formerly approved families. Now they may claim that it is the state that prosecutes polygamy, but especially in Utah, the LDS is the state. The state does anything only by the approval of the LDS voters.
This brings an essential lesson of “divide and conquer” in religious persecution. The state demands it be accepted as sovereign. A religion refuses. It gets persecuted. The state makes “an offer that can’t be refused” to some leaders of the religion to accept and praise/worship the state as sovereign. Some give in. Those leaders become the wealthy, and powerful by the privilege of the state, and the only ones free to speak their side of the argument. The followers of the original religious beliefs refuse to follow the new leaders or their new direction and beliefs. The new leaders become the new persecutors of their original religion. They even claim that the old believers are ungrateful for their “religious freedom” now provided by the state. The original part of the state that persecuted the religion no longer has to persecute the religion. because the new version of the old religion becomes the most intent on exterminating the old religion, and becomes the real persecutor.
The paragraph above doesn’t refer just to LDS persecution of polygamists, but to most religions in history, including mine. The exceptions are mainly the Anabaptists, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and I’d be interested in other examples. The state requires the praise of the religions and when they give it, they become de facto state religions.
So for a hundred years, the LDS has been continuously persecuting those who followed older LDS beliefs. Is that all? No. Now we have Mitt Romney, a totalitarian neocon who is trying to force his real religion (statism) on the entire world, killing those who want to be free to live in peace.
Also, I find it odd how so many of the crooks of SCO are Mormons. Did the LDS sell what was left of their souls to Microsoft? Just a quick description. SCO (a Microsoft spin-off) bought some rights (but not copyrights) to license Unix. It then claimed (falsely) to own Unix in total, that Linux contained over 1 million lines of proprietary Unix code (still not finding a single one), claimed that IBM added Unix code to Linux (without evidence), tried to threaten all Linux users to pay it $699 per computer or risk lawsuit, sued companies that used Linux, etc.
In short, multiple Mormon leaders of SCO were and are intimately involved in the fraud and extortion, and their own actions show they knew it was a fraud to begin with. Groklaw shows hundreds of unanswered details. Here is an example of a Mormon who admits SCO has no case and reflects poorly on the LDS church. Ah, but here’s the thing. If some rich and powerful Mormons are acting crookedly and embarrass the whole LDS church, shouldn’t the LDS church publicly rebuke them and/or make them stop? …But as far as anyone knows, they don’t. The LDS can’t claim people like SCO CEO Darl McBride are so insignificant they’ve never heard of him either. It seems they are quite proud of him.
If the LDS had any morals it would renounce the forced destruction of families and persecution of polygamists. It would renounce totalitarian politicians, both in Utah and national, and crooked abuse and falsification of claims through courts such as by SCO. Since it does not, just like in the SCO case, the LDS as an institution can be dismissed through “summary judgement” without ever needing to consider which of its religious claims might be true or false, because its actions are opposite of both natural moral standards and its own claimed moral standards.
Such is the result of having an extremely centralized religion. Contrary to anti-SCO Mormons, you can judge a centralized body by how it ignores the sins of its own rich and powerful and refuses to discipline them.
Note: Since someone’s bound to ask: No, I don’t desire to practice polygamy, but I don’t see anything wrong with it, only with destroying families. A Nigerian friend grew up in a family where his father had five wives. (Hey J.O. Are you reading this! I even referenced you!)
UPDATE: Yes, the LDS is officially aware of Darl McBride, and seems to be very tolerant to his brand of extortion.
Since the lawsuits were filed, you personally have been criticized and ridiculed in various blogs and publications. How do you view the comments of your critics? It’s a little bit of a strange twist to the story how I’ve become the most hated man in the industry. I was speaking at Brigham Young University last year, and I held up the Fortune magazine that had me on the cover that said, “He’s corporate enemy No. 1, and his name’s Darl McBride.” I said it must have been a slow year for corporate enemies.
C.S. Lewis, Enemy of the Golden Rule
July 26, 2007 at 11:34 am | In Anarchism, Religion, War | Leave a CommentI’ve been too busy to keep this blog updated regularly. Nevertheless, I’ve got a new essay published that, like many others, may rile some feathers. Check it out over at www.strike-the-root.com. I take an overdue axe to C.S. Lewis’ position as patron saint of modern Christianity.
I am in the process of attempting to change my articles referencing my name to my new pen name: Lysander’s Ghost. I was warned independently by a recruiter and a hiring manager that my difficulty in actually getting jobs I apply for (even though they say I’m well qualified and they really like me) is that they Google my name and get scared off by my radical essays. (I didn’t mention to either one that I had any radical essays, they just got curious that there may be something about me on the internet limiting my marketability.) So now I must retreat to having a superhero’s secret identity.
So besides writing more, I need to find a better job, with a more respectable employer, until I can eventually follow this long term goal. When our Sr. department manager admits we’ve become the Walmart of our industry, [understood as the lowest quality provider] when we used to be a top quality service provider, its just proof of all my warnings that our management’s philosophy would make us so.
Lesson of Government Oversight: Transfats
April 24, 2007 at 11:15 am | In Anarchism, Nutrition & Health | 4 CommentsI’m a health nut. I at least avoid unhealthy foods unless they are free. I’m also a thrift nut, something has to be bad for me to pass it up for free. I haven’t had a soft drink in 19 years, even when people offer me one for free, but I’ll take the occasional cake and cookies at work. If they were provided regularly I’d have to cut back on this exception.
I try to avoid transfats completely. I think that corrupt big businesses and their cronies in government health and education positions have falsely made saturated fats look bad to intentionally promote high profit low quality unnatural mass market trans fats as a replacement good. For overwhelming historical and scientific evidence look up articles by the Weston Price Foundation.
When people promote government restrictions on transfat, I’m sympathetic to the support for good health, but as a libertarian opposed to the methods. Given that the government in the past couple years has geared up “regulation” of transfat, we have a test case to see whether libertarian principle provides real world lessons.
Notice most nutrition labels in the US. They are nationally regulated by the FDA. The content, the qualifications, even the order of what is listed is all standardized. Transfat profiteers had supposedly opposed the inclusion of trans fat as a separate category. Supposedly, this would identify products with an unhealthy low quality ingredient. Supposedly, consumer advocates wanted this and big business did not. Supposedly, consumer advocates won and is why we see the transfat category on nutrition labels.
Is that end of story? Not even half. Various junk food makers are allowed to list their transfat content as “zero” when they have less than half a gram per serving. This falsely makes the product appear healthier than it is. One gram of transfat per day is enough to cause measurable negative health effects. By altering the serving size and the transfat content to just under 0.5 grams per arbitrary serving size, a person may be fooled into thinking they are safe eating the product. People could eat only products with FDA defined “zero transfat” and actually be consuming 10-20 grams per day of transfats.
The lesson is this: Taking a pragmatic approach to libertarianism (the foundation of interpersonal morality) for some issues where we know there is an exploitation of ignorance or weakness of the will is counterproductive, unprincipled, and effectively unpragmatic in long term results as well.
Don’t make deals with the devil. The transfat makers are the ones who profitted from trans fat labelling regulations. There are probably thousands of examples like this, and there are ones that we’ve been led to believe are opposite. We’ve been fooled to think that WW2 jumpstarted the economy, that Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase was a good pragmatic decision, etc. Some of these have been debunked by various libertarians in libertarian circles, but the lesson always needs to be expanded as long as there are people as clueless as the public school textbooks.
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.