scratch-mark

If You Want Someone Dead, Then Kill Them Yourself

I had a beef with Andrew Badenoch way back when over esoteric issues surrounding freedom, i.e……………anarchism.

I really didn’t explore the issue with him enough before I got pissed off and basically ignored him. And then months later, the Ancestral Health Symposium happened, I met him in person, and consequently felt embarrassed that I hadn’t taken the time to get to the gist of our disagreement before that. While we were very cordial to one-another, I feel and felt as though I lost an opportunity to do us both a little better.

I took steps to rectify my shortness with him immediately after AHS and that continues because Andrew is sort of a kindred spirit — to me — in my enthusiasm for motivating the paleo community to at least consider and discuss issues beyond fat loss and bodily health. We have a complex mind; and complex social systems…none of which are being regularly addressed by anyone but, in my humble opinion, myself, Andrew, and a small few others, typically focussed around evolutionary psychology, such as Emily. While I applaud being healthier and happier in any context and I applaud those — many my friends — who are helping to drive that forward, I just — forgive me — want to be on the cutting or bleeding edge of The Whole Monte, always. When hundreds of bloggers and book writers dive into the space I have been part of for so long, it’s my nature to further be part of driving it to the next level. And I still have a further level to two in mind.

I posted my latest: Are You More Moral, More Benevolent and More Competent Than Any Politician? Then Act Like It. And Andrew has posted something that while having intersecting ideas and principles, really touches deeper into paleo on the one hand, and politics vis-a-vis primitive social organization on the other. And he does all the references shit, too: Foundations for a Hunter-Gatherer Philosophy II: The Libertarianism Question

You can read those posts if you haven’t, and I encourage you to do so. Homework assignment, but only if you’re willing to take on mind and society, now that you’ve cured, or are well on your way to curing body. If not, I will be the first to say that this can wait and there will be more opportunities. Have more to look forward to. Don’t worry about it and you have important things you’re working on. Stay tuned. You’ll know when you’re ready for more.

I wanted, just for a bit, to really shake you up with something. This should come as a big surprise.

Killing and murder happens.

Always has, and always will. You can take any number of positions on all of that and it will still happen. There will always be very bad people, and psychopaths. People will still kill people and your choice is to live in bedtime story fantasy about it for comfort’s sake, or confront the reality of it. Here’s an off the cuff stream of consciousness sampling, referencing modern times:

  • The Duel. Perhaps the most “gentlemanly” form of killing, where both participants are willing, with witnesses, and all is clean and tidy. Such a form of resolving differences over honor — or even more petty — strike me as conditioned by social dynamics far removed from the human animal sphere. It’s merely a way to defend an already baked in the cake dynamic, though at least it was manno a manno. In the Middle East, honor killings are…well, you know what those God loving savages do to girls and women. So there’s that.
  • “Coon Hunt.” I don’t know how to draw any valid distinctions between that and those God loving savages. That’s likely because there’s likely none to draw.
  • Wildwest Gunfight. I’m too un-stoked in boring American-West mythology — and don’t know whom to trust — to comment on it, without spending countless hours in the library. I dunno, do you? I never have cared if they all killed one-another. Wait. I have sometimes wished they had, if nothing else, but to relieve us from the prospect of boring and pointless movies. OK, Big John Wayne was pretty cool. And a few others I guess.
  • The Random Murderer. Small potatoes, but shit happens and there are no guarantees. You would do well to choose your friends, acquaintances, lovers and friends circumspectly. Still no guarantees, because when seconds count, the cops are only minutes away. Have a gun, or two, or six; I do. Don’t you?
  • Gang Murders. Why do you think there are gangs there? Because there are people there to dominate. Unless they have you in handcuffs to your kitchen table, get out, with your 10 welfare babies in tow. Otherwise, in 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 years in succession, you’ll have blood on your hands. 
  • Media Motivated Execution. It’s sensational and all in vogue, now, but I find it difficult to care much about the proponents or opponents alike, because I find it difficult to distinguish their true hearts from their overpowering minds; which minds might — merely — like to make things easier on their hearts from here out — or after another > 10 executions for the proponents, and < 10 for the opponents…and which it is? Personally, for me, the notion that it might be wise to end the life of a predator for everyone’s sake gets totally tarnished and indistinguishable from lynch mobs in today’s unserious flash and sparkle sensationalism, over serious substance, and even with real lives in balance — but it’s sure entertaining; there’s that. And there’s momentum. That too. I think we’re fallible, so there’s no such thing as an “objective” death sentence short of a conviction beyond any possible doubt.
  • Soldiers, Sailors, Marines & Airmen. So noble. So many get to kill by remote control, now, or at least kill the most by means of various lethal technologies. I have never decided if I was really fooled or not. In the logic of geopolitics, it seemed sensible to do my part at the time. When The Wall came down, I soon submitted my resignation. I didn’t like the trend I saw towards creating new enemies to replace the old ones.
  • The Government. I had to save the best for last; the winner! Now, I know this is very unpopular. The government is so popular, it’s the most ingenious marketing plan ever. Let’s see, you control everything through force and coercion, erect laws to fine and imprison, spice it up with with prosecution of the unpopular (one assumes real bad guys will always be dealt with anyway) and then, you execute people here and there to hand clapping. Don’t worry. Let God sort it out. Winner.

God Bless America.

There will always be killing and murder. Those who propose solutions that involve eradication are deluded, or worse, scamming you. Have you paid them anything or donated?

I have a modest proposal and it’s already in the title: if you want someone dead, then just kill them yourself.

You see, it’s very difficult for me to assume that many people don’t want one whole fuck of a lot of people dead. Isn’t that part of the reason why so many agitate, then stand in line at a voting booth, to vote death by proxy, “support the troops,” and all thayt? Do they go home and wash their hands?

If you want someone dead — and I’m certainly not saying there’s not valid reasons for that — then kill them yourself.

Just kill them yourself.

Imagine a world where that was the creed, and you had to live with, or got to enjoy, the real consequences of your deed. Might you be a little careful?

I saw people today in the latest go-round over an execution being impotent as always; pathetic, some admonishing that it’s better for 100, 1,000, 10,000 guilty men to go free than for one to be executed unjustly.

That’s a sucker’s hope. People will always be killed. Some unjustly. It happens. It will happen. But how much more likely is it when real culpability for error is nowhere to be found?

So just do it yourself when you think it’s warranted, and face the consequences if you’re deemed wrong.

Of course, there is an alternative, which would be simply to stop killing people because they think and act differently from you, or are in the way, or whatever. But yea, that would never work.

Update: I neglected to mention that the title phrase is not original to me but was something a long time anarchist friend, Greg Swann wrote years ago, in 2005 (final paragraph). Visit his current blog, SplendorQuest.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More

110 Comments

  1. Brett Legree on September 23, 2011 at 10:46

    That was fucking awesome.

    And right on target.

  2. Peggy The Primal Parent on September 23, 2011 at 10:50

    Or in this massive modern society of ours, if you want someone dead, just ignore them since killing often comes with jail time and jail time sucks ass. But I don’t live in your idealist world where everybody acts like real men and women.

    Killing is fine though really, laudable in many situations. It’s always funny to me when people get all freaked out about it. I first enrolled in an ethics class because I just couldn’t figure out why people in a society shouldn’t kill. I never did reconcile that “ethical” issue even 4 years through a philosophy degree.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 10:55

      “Or in this massive modern society of ours, if you want someone dead, just ignore them since killing often comes with jail time and jail time sucks ass.”

      The underlying point is that that’s exactly what you would do if at all possible, provided you had to do it yourself.

      And what may suck more than jail time is what might happen to you if you’re very wrong. This is merely about not being able to escape consequences so easy, by being party to a collective.

      “But I don’t live in your idealist world where everybody acts like real men and women.”

      That’s interesting. Killing thousands and million by proxy as is done now is probably regarded as pretty ideal by a great many.



    • Peggy The Primal Parent on September 23, 2011 at 11:21

      Killing thousands by proxy isn’t ideal. Responsibility is ideal! Trouble is when killing is against the law in all cases, when taking matters into your own hands in any way is illegal, the responsibility gene turns off. So now we’ve got a society in which killing someone yourself is just not an option, unless you’ve got a ticket to Tahiti. So we dole out the responsibility to a bunch of unjust, pompous fools and wash our hands of it.



    • Justin on September 24, 2011 at 11:46

      Killing by proxy is how people get their meat! Perfectly Ideal!



  3. zach on September 23, 2011 at 10:52

    Yeah, one thing that is incomprehensible to me is the prohibition of revenge. If somebody killed my loved one, why shouldn’t I be able to find and kill the murderer? Instead I have to wait for the state, who may or may not do anything about it? Screw that. If it was found I killed the wrong man, then I could be justly killed, etc. Certainly won’t be perfect. Nothing is; but it makes a lot more sense than the monopoly court system we have now that is utterly unaccountable, unaffordable, and slow.

    • pfw on September 23, 2011 at 14:48

      Civilization can basically be reduced to the process of creating social structures to prevent exactly the behavior you outline.

      Preventing blood feud has been the business of every organizational structure since some ape realized you could mediate conflict with a group rather than just cower in the corner while the alpha male laid out a beat down. Literally every single society ever is predicated on conflict resolution; what you’ve suggested isn’t even political anarchy, but rather a return to a pre-human state.

      Having the group resolve a conflict without bloodshed is as paleo as you get.



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 15:22

      Well at the risk of giving Richard something else to take a shot at :-), that is exactly what happened under the anarchist polity of the ancient Hebrews (before the institution of the monarchy). The next of kin (of the murder victim) could take the life of the murder without any further consequences. The only caveat was if the suspected murder made it to a city of refuge, in which case he/she was temporarily safe and the judicial process would kick in.

      What is interesting is that according to Bensen’s The Enterprise of Law: Justice Without The State,this type of approach was not uncommon among hunter-gather groups, where the perp committing a capital offense would have a chance to flee but if caught he/she would lose their life.



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 15:34

      >Screw that. If it was found I killed the wrong man, then I could be justly killed, etc.

      This is an incredibly regressive and ignorant way to run a society, and exactly why we have the legal systems in place that we do.

      Otherwise idiots would be running around killing physicists for doing “witchcraft” and so on.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 15:52

      You’re right, Dan. We also wouldn’t want whack jobs killing abortion doctors. Or, suicide bombers.

      What were we thinking.



    • Josh on September 23, 2011 at 15:55

      The difference is that now when it happens they ARE whackjobs rather than part of the acceptable norm. By enforcing a community standard, we may not always make the right choices, but at least we are making choices the majority can live with, and setting up a predictable matrix around which to base our actions.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 17:03

      Right, Josh. There certainly exist no cheerleaders for abortion doctor murders or suicide bombers.

      Thank God & State.



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 17:13

      Cheerleading is fine and covered under free speech.

      Without protective laws however, free speech erodes rapidly.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 17:20

      “Without protective laws however, free speech erodes rapidly.”

      Oh, yea, because of all the gangs of marauders who’d be out and about hunting people down who were dissing them.

      Dan, seriously? Free Speech laws such as the 1st amendment to the US Cpnsitution exist to protect people against WHOM?



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 18:28

      >Free Speech laws such as the 1st amendment to the US Cpnsitution exist to protect people against WHOM?

      Against anyone who would attempt to silence it.

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



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 18:49

      I hate to be the bearer of bad news, and far be it for me to question that bastion of truth known as Wikipedia, but fact is the Roman Inquisition was something initially instituted by the Spanish State, and as Walter Block pointed out in a link I posted in Richard’s last thread, its impact was far more greatly limited than what “conventional” historians normally like to admit.

      The greatest suppressor of free (activity) speech has always been the State (you know, the very entity that is supposed to uphold such laws). Not even close. Not. Even. Close



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 19:19

      That sounds like revisionist history. The Holy See was clearly a branch of the Catholic Church, not a branch of government.

      They were far from the first religious institution to repress free speech anyway.

      You can see it even very recently in the occupation of Iraq. Once the government and military were disbanded, people were hungry and scared. Who did they turn to? Religious leaders.

      The Mosques, because they were perceived as having the most power. Everyone wanted to survive, so they joined the toughest gangs they could.

      And of course, the Mosques proceeded to enforce whatever social doctrines they wanted at gun-point. Mostly along the lines of, “Anyone with a different creed is the enemy.”



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 20:44

      That sounds like revisionist history. The Holy See was clearly a branch of the Catholic Church, not a branch of government.

      While technically the “Holy See” is not a “branch” of the Roman Catholic Church, I will accede the larger point you are trying to make since I never suggested otherwise. What I did say was the Roman Inquisition was initiated by the Spanish State, or since you seem to not understand what that means, the monarchy that ruled Spain at the time.

      I hate to say this lest we get off on another tangent, but there is nothing wrong with historical revisionism.

      They were far from the first religious institution to repress free speech anyway.

      Which is beside the point. Lots of nasty things have been done under the guise of both religion and atheism. Only a fool would argue otherwise.

      The point was rather your invoking the very institution which has been the most egregious violator of free speech as the “protector” of free speech.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 22:51

      Dan, the 1st amendment is intended to be a limitation on state power. Historically, is has only been the state (and church, but I repeat myself) that has had an interest in spending time & money quashing speech.

      But you have nothing to worry about, cheerleader that you are.



    • Dan Linehan on September 24, 2011 at 00:02

      >The point was rather your invoking the very institution which has been the most egregious violator of free speech as the “protector” of free speech.

      Who protects free speech, if not the court system?

      What is the constitution, if not a federal document?



    • Dan Linehan on September 24, 2011 at 00:08

      >Historically, is has only been the state (and church, but I repeat myself) that has had an interest in spending time & money quashing speech.

      As long as we’re recognizing that other large groups besides governments can have an interest in quashing free speech, I think that answers the original question.

      Organized crime, I’m sure, did plenty of free speech quashing when necessary. Corporations have an interest in doing so as well. That’s why there are corporate whistle-blowers.



    • Michael on September 24, 2011 at 08:31

      As long as we’re recognizing that other large groups besides governments can have an interest in quashing free speech, I think that answers the original question.

      And what was the original question answered by Richard’s response? I couldn’t find it up thread. It is early morning and I had a short night, so I’m sure it is just an oversight on my part.



    • Dan Linehan on September 24, 2011 at 15:17

      He asked,

      >Dan, seriously? Free Speech laws such as the 1st amendment to the US Consitution exist to protect people against WHOM?

      I assume that was stated with the implication that Free Speech laws only protect us from “government.”

      Which I believe we’ve shown isn’t the case. Other institutions, corporations and gangs also have an interest in suppressing free speech.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 25, 2011 at 09:46

      Well you’re conflating things. First of all, you don’t get to stand in someone’s living room or their retail store and say whatever you want (or any number of other things). That ought to be easy enough to understand even beyond an issue of property rights. It’s just simple respect and I submit that things like free speech laws get in the way of what ought to be a more elegant understanding in a human social context.

      And when corporations or individuals do attempt to muffle someone via libel, slander, and other laws, it’s the state they go to to enforce it.



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 18:31

      Wait, you mean to tell me that those (few or one) behind the only dropping of the nuclear bomb in the history of the world, behind the internment of Japanese citizens on American soil, behind the attempt to not only end the “civil” war but wipe out the entire south as well (women, children, and other non-combatants), behind the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children, behind Ruby Ridge, Waco, and assorted other incidents ad infinitum, ad nauseum are generally considered as “whack jobs”?

      Hmmm…fooled me.

      While those are choices the majority seems to be able to live with, its a community standard I think I will pass over.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 22:57

      But you have to admit, Michael, the dropping of the two bombs was very economically efficient. And pragmatic.

      I think it worked well. 🙂



    • Unfrozen Caveman on September 24, 2011 at 06:35

      To what end? Dropping atomic bombs on Japan was in no way necessary to end WWII. Japan was actively trying to negotiate a surrender with the US. They just weren’t willing to agree to an “unconditional surrender” as the US demanded. The only purpose that makes any sense to me was to show the Russians what “we” could do.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 24, 2011 at 08:32

      I should have used sarcasm tags, unfrozen caveman. This was a dig on libertarians who seem to think most American military actions have been just fine, because it was well, America. As well, the way they tend to use economic terms like efficiency and utility to justify things.



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 16:07

      Exactly.

      Thankfully, things like that are currently kept to a bare minimum by years of consistent legal enforcement.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 17:08

      Yep, suicide bombing, knocking down skyscrapers with human airplane bombs, bombers all over the middle east from Israel to Iraq, all the collateral killing of innocents by both them and us, and on and on.

      Bare minimum indeed. Thank God & State.



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 18:39

      Bare minimum indeed. Thank God & State.

      As I wrote years go for an anarchist website:

      “…when someone is speaking of God and civil government and is not referring to the inherent antagonism between the two, we best pray such a worldview never succeeds.

      “Lovers of freedom do not have friends in government. That spigot will always turn ugly. Some think we can change or limit it. I do not. Civil government has its own internal dynamic. This side of heaven it will never remain limited. Its foundation is flawed therefore all the fruit it produces will be poisoned.”



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 18:44

      >This side of heaven..

      What are you talking about?



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 18:54

      You mean you don’t know? You have never in all your years heard such a statement as a way to dramatically emphasize a point as being impossible short of a perfect man/woman? Well now you know. 🙂



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 19:30

      No, there wasn’t really a way to tell you were using it for dramatic effect.

      Some people actually believe in Heaven. Of course, they all have different definitions.



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 20:52

      Given the context, a belief or not in a literal heaven has no bearing on this usage since AFAIK no one believes there is a civil government in heaven.

      Nonetheless, it wasn’t the primary point of the paragraph anyway, which is easily discernible.



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 23:27

      We’ll have to agree to disagree on how easily discernible it was.

      It’s littered with references to religion, God, prayer, Heaven.

      If none of the religious stuff is part of the point, why is it all in there?



    • Michael on September 24, 2011 at 08:13

      Dan, I’m inclined to think that you don’t actually get the point. Which is kind of interesting, cuz even my most most antagonistic interlocutors didn’t get caught up in the minutiae of red herrings when vehemently disagreeing when I first wrote that piece.



    • Dan Linehan on September 24, 2011 at 15:39

      Michael, I’m not trying to be antagonistic. I’ve said several times I found your quote difficult to parse. It seems that isn’t enough for you, so let me be more specific.

      >when someone is speaking of God and civil government and is not referring to the inherent antagonism between the two, we best pray such a worldview never succeeds.

      That’s a ridiculous statement. There are any number of definitions for God, and every “believer” has a different idea of “what God wants.”

      Some ideas of God might get along great with government, such as people who believe society should be very socialist and help out the poor and needy at any cost to those who are more fortunate.

      Libertarians tend to think God wants a libertarian government. Fascists tend to think God wants a fascist government, and so on. The statement is meaningless because every believer creates God in their own image.

      >Lovers of freedom do not have friends in government.

      Sweeping generalization, poisoning the well, and no true Scotsman fallacy (*real* lovers of freedom do X,) all in one. Freedom, like God, means a lot of different things to a lot of different people and you can’t just group everyone together. What happened to individualism?

      >That spigot will always turn ugly. Some think we can change or limit it.

      Not to be pedantic, but technically your pronoun here refers to the spigot, which made these sentences hard to parse for me. Just sayin’.

      >Civil government has its own internal dynamic. This side of heaven it will never remain limited.

      The Heaven thing made this difficult for me to parse as well, since I have no idea how you define Heaven, but we discussed that earlier.

      >Its foundation is flawed therefore all the fruit it produces will be poisoned.

      This sounds like some sort of reference to original sin? That’s the only thing I can think of at this point with all the previous religious allusions.

      If you’re referring to government here, you’re basically saying “government is flawed, therefore it’s bad.” Which is pretty over-simplistic. Anything human-driven is flawed.

      Sorry for the long comment, and I’m not trying to derail the thread or be an “antagonistic interlocutor” or whatever. But if you genuinely don’t understand why your point was difficult for me to understand, hopefully that clarifies it.



  4. consuelo werner on September 23, 2011 at 11:04

    Richard… If I wanted to kill someone I will probably give it a shot down in Mexico hahahaha… problem solved! I’m all for it

  5. Michael Field on September 23, 2011 at 11:09

    You need to watch Deadwood…I think you would enjoy it.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 11:24

      I did see a number of the episodes before it went off air. Yes, pretty much people figuring out on their own how to deal with shit.



  6. Jesrad on September 23, 2011 at 11:38

    Ever read “the not so wild wild west” by historians Hill and Anderson? You’ll be surprised.

    “can take any number of positions on all of that and it will still happen. There will always be very bad people, and psychopaths.” exactly. And if one can imagine horror stories of ‘what if’ freedom ruled, then you can imagine how much worse those stories would be with the same criminals holding positions of power in a different society…

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 11:48

      Jesrad, no, but I don’t doubt it. I have over the years heard and read that the “wild west” was far more peaceful that is portrayed in literature & film.



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 15:50

      Yup, the wild west is pretty much a myth.

      An American Experiment in Anarcho- Capitalism: The -Not So Wild, Wild West (Anderson and Hill – pdf)



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 19:06

      Didn’t work out so well for the Indians though. LOL.



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 20:55

      You mean the Indians interaction with the US Gov’t? Yeah, that would be an understatement.



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 23:43

      Weren’t you guys *just* saying there was hardly any government then?

      “An American Experiment in Anarcho- Capitalism”?



    • Richard Nikoley on September 24, 2011 at 00:48

      “Weren’t you guys *just* saying there was hardly any government then?”

      No. Nobody said that.



    • Michael on September 24, 2011 at 08:20

      I’m also inclined to think based on some of your responses that you see certain words and react to them, rather than consider the substance of what is being said. Or maybe you really don’t understand what it is that is being argued here.

      At any rate perhaps I should ask what you meant by the “Indians” comment, rather than assume it was somehow related to the theme of this thread or more specifically my reply.

      I tire quickly of comment threads when they continually have to be brought back on topic.



    • Dan Linehan on September 24, 2011 at 15:14

      To both of you guys —

      You’re saying I missed the point here, and I who know I may have. But I *thought* this thread was discussing how the American West in the 19th century was mostly Anarcho-Capitalistic.

      In the PDF you linked to Michael, it says,

      “The purpose of this paper is to take us from the theoretical world of anarchy to a case study of its application. To accomplish our task we will first discuss what is meant by “anarcho-capitalism” and present several hypotheses relating to the nature of social organization in this world. These hypotheses will then be tested in the context of the American West during its earliest settlement. We propose to examine property rights formulation and protection under voluntary organizations such as private protection agencies, vigilantes, wagon trains, and early mining camps.”

      Are you guys now saying that this is incorrect? How would this paper be “testing the hypothesis of anarcho-capitalism” by examining this time period, if society wasn’t really anarchist then?

      It seems like you’re saying that all the “good and peaceful” things people did during that time were anarchist, but all the bad things people did, like decimating Indian populations, weren’t?



    • Richard Nikoley on September 24, 2011 at 15:37

      I’m no expert on this but I would presume that since such settlements were indeed under some form of government, fed or state, that is was merely effectively anarchist due to time & distance. The fed gov was very small at the time.

      As far as the Indians, well I believe that was pretty exclusively the Fed’s doing.

      In other words, short of having a fed or even state presence in remote areas, people got by using other means, private means, I.e., anarchist means.



    • Jesrad on September 25, 2011 at 13:40

      The frontier was pretty much anarchy, exactly as quoted above, but that does not make the federal government inexistant. If you read the paper, you’ll see that government presence basically trailed the frontier towards the West coast. You might also like that quote from William ‘Buffalo Bill’ Cody, based on his first-hand experience: “Every Indian outbreak that I have ever known has resulted from broken promises and broken treaties by the government”



  7. Keoni Galt on September 23, 2011 at 12:08

    Great post Richard. I concur wholeheartedly.

    Not to try to de-rail the thread here, but I’d like to add a corollary to the “If you want someone dead then kill them yourself” – especially in terms of this “Paleo” community.

    If you want to free the animal, go hunting. Kill something yourself. Field dress it, pack it out of the wilderness, butcher, cook and eat it yourself.

    You want a truly primal experience? Hunt.

    Buying your grass-fed beef wrapped in plastic and sold for a premium at Whole Foods is only part of the equation to getting back to the roots of our ancestral experience.

    You want primal?

    Take your intermittent fasting while trekking through the wilderness tracking down some game.

    Like to get your workout in by lifting weights?

    Haul the carcass of a fresh kill on your back uphill. You will never test your will and physical capabilities until you haul a 100+ lbs. animal on your back for several miles through rugged terrain.

    Hunting is the true, free range meat.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 18:15

      Keoni:

      Where have you been? Your two comments are some of the best I’ve seen in a long time. You motivate me to do a post on my childhood hunting and fishing excursions. I’ve hauled deep out of canyon and ravene with my dad – mule deer, big & heavy. Then there was the steelhead fishing, the bird hunting of chukar and sage hen, and so on.

      I should endeavor to get away from Whole Foods and recapture some of that Primal living.



    • Keoni Galt on September 23, 2011 at 19:08

      I was inspired to write that comment while feeding my baby some wild boar this morning that I had caught last week Saturday. I’ve always wondered where are the hunting advocates in the Paleosphere?

      One thing about going paleo here in Hawaii, is that my favorite recreations (hunting and fishing) are so intertwined with our lifestyles, it’s not a huge mental adjustment to start eating like a predator. I often trade some wild pig for fish from my neighbor whose favorite past time is deep water trolling for tuna and marlin.

      I’ve been hunting wild boar here in Hawaii for over 18 years. This last boar was one of the healthiest and tastiest pigs I’ve bagged in quite a long time. But me and my partner had to haul it for over 3 miles, most of it uphill, to get it back to the truck. It’s been awhile since I had to haul such a big catch so far, but I was glad to see that at 38 years old, I still got some of that mental toughness to gut it out…especially while fasted. Prior to going primal, I used to have to pack my bag full of snacks and foods to keep my energy up to go hunting. Now, I only carry water, and I have better endurance and energy than I did when I was hunting at 28.

      I can thank you, Mark Sisson and J. Stanton for playing a role in helping me figure it out. When I was younger, even though I was a hunter, I still ate like a grazer.



    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 20:59

      Great comments Keoni throughout this thread. I briefly considered living in Hawaii precisely so I could hunt (and gather) a lot of my own food on a regular basis.



  8. Damien on September 23, 2011 at 13:07

    Anarchists really concern me when i read stuff like this. They spend ALOT of time talking about violence and imposing their will on others. Yet, they seem to think they are the opposite of that. Somehow i think most are deluded.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 15:03

      Damien

      If there were no laws contra murder, and idea who you’d kill first? And do you thnk there’d be no potential penalty?

      How about rape? Which wman would you rape first?

      Are laws the only reason you presumably don’t do these things now?



    • Contemplationist on September 24, 2011 at 14:40

      RIchard

      I believe you’ve stumbled upon the distinction between ‘Law’ and ‘Legislation’ that Hayek identified. In short, the law against murder did not come about from a vacuum or some sort of bull session at the parliament, but has evolved from millennia of human interaction. This does not speak to the efficacy (or lack thereof) of actual police enforcement of the customary sanction, but simply its existence.



  9. Josh on September 23, 2011 at 14:38

    Not a bad idea at all, but it has to be a part of a larger strategy. In the Paleo community we’re all about evolutionary this and evolutionary that. Don’t forget evolution and selection pressures do not only work on the genetic level.

    Societies are also shaped by selection pressures, and ‘evolve’ into fitter societies. I’m not saying our society today is the culmination of that evolution because we both know evolution does not work towards any specific goal. In fact, lots of things get tried out and lots of things fail miserably.

    Why it’s relevant though is that most successful societies have at their heart some codified set of behaviors, with distinct punishments for breaching those standards. It may be passed down through oral tradition, the wisdom of elders, decried by a ruler, or voted upon by the masses, but it’s pretty universal.

    Murder, ie: the unsanctioned killing by one party of another, when not in defense of self is almost ALWAYS going to be against those guidelines. Key word – unsanctioned. Successful societies again almost always have some method of sanctioned killing, be it by the individual (dueling, holmgang, trial of arms, etc…) or by proxy. Sometimes it’s done by proxy by those individuals themselves (lynch mobs, village stonings) or by a pre-selected few. (Headsmen, executioners, or a ‘judicial system’)

    Now, that makes me wonder why such systems always seem to crop up in some form across all societies. I suspect because societies that don’t practice such behaviors lose out quickly to those that do. Perhaps it has to do with cooperative strategies? I imagine productivity goes WAY down when you’ve got to protect yourself from that next bloke over, who just might feel like you slighted him in some way. Group hunts might be tough when you don’t trust anyone with a weapon around you. Who wants to compete for a promotion, when the next in line might just decide to bump you off for the job?

    Ah, but people wouldn’t do those things because they’d be shunned by society! No one would associate with people who committed such acts! They’d be all on their own, devoid of assistance. Well, maybe they would just take what they need, killing those who stood in their way.
    The counter to that of course, is that the society gangs up, and kills such a callous, selfish, murderous brute. Yup, right back to square one.

    • pfw on September 23, 2011 at 14:50

      The reason there’s no society where anyone can kill anyone else is that communal regulation of such behavior is the basic function of a society. You don’t have a society if random killing and counter-killing is ok, you have a state of war.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 15:11

      A society dominated by an authoritarian state is required for random killing and murder to be perceived as not OK? Sounds like the state is downright magical.



    • pfw on September 23, 2011 at 15:16

      Huh? Your previous post suggested some familiarity with the fact that even the most basic HG tribe mediated disputes to avoid blood feuds. Where’s the state in that?



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 15:23

      Looks like I gathered that by society you were referring to one dominated by state, but I see that wasn’t what you said.



  10. M.Stern on September 23, 2011 at 14:55

    This post is one reason why I can’t stomach anarcho-libertarians. Anarchism is delusional nonsense. By being associated with Classical/Laissez-faire liberalism, anarchism has basically discredited the libertarian movement. Anarchists are a plague to the pro-liberty movement because they do not stand for liberty but ceaseless gang warfare; the result of an anarchist society. It is to the great shame of Minarchists that they ever decided to align themselves with the anarchists. America has suffered because of it.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 15:15

      Wow, imagine that. Four million years of “ceaseless gang warfare,” to be followed by 10,000 years of Neolithic peace and bliss. No gang warfare I’m aware of in the last 10,000 years. I’m not sure who to thank more, God or country.

      It has been such deluded nonsense not to have recognized peaceful paradise when it has been staring me me right in the face for so long.



    • Keoni Galt on September 23, 2011 at 17:17

      People like M.Stern are the norm, completely unawares of the level of indoctrination used by the State to enslave us all. The State’s primary tactic in mind control is FEAR. And the worst fear they’ve instilled in we the sheeple, is the fear of not having the State around to protect us.

      This fear leaves most utterly incapable of recognizing that the greatest threat to their health and well being is in fact the very same State they are so afraid of even contemplating the idea of living without.

      FEAR of saturated fat. FEAR of red meat. FEAR of salt. FEAR of the sun. FEAR of not getting enough “fiber” in your diet.

      Is this not what this entire “primal/paleo” living is all about? Discovering that the fears of these things are nothing more than lies promulgated by the financial interests in the government, media, establishment and corporations who want everyone to buy and eat PRODUCTS, not PRODUCE. And after a lifetime of eating PRODUCTS, your sickness will than turn you into a revenue stream for the medical-pharmaceutical-insurance complex to keep you drugged up and unhealthy until your money runs out and you die.

      Primal living is about emulating the wild animals who live free. The State is all about herding us and domesticating us into collective herds and keeping us ON FEED so that we can be harvested of as much value as possible before we die.

      Our current society is a metaphorical feedlot, with the managers of this lot giving us feed, medication and keeping us confined so as to fatten us all for slaughter. There primary means of confinement is not literal barbed wire or fencing…but fear in our minds, inculcated by a culture shaped through mass media propaganda and educational indoctrination curriculum.

      The fear of anarchy, is the fear of feedlot cattle afraid of life on the open range.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 17:32

      Keoni gets it deeply. I just Tweeted a link to this comment out to 3,350 Tweeps.



    • Keoni Galt on September 23, 2011 at 18:42

      Thanks Richard. I’d like to say that the ending of your AHS speech resonated with me…about having 1/10000000 of a say in who gets to rule me. HAH. I quit participating in the charade of democracy since 2004…two wolves and sheep deciding what’s for dinner and all that.

      I’ve been reading your blog for a long time, (I’ve occasionally commented here as “Dave from Hawaii” before) and you are definitely the first “paleo” blogger I’ve seen to start addressing the issues that affect us all beyond simply diet.

      Diet and nutrition and the state of health in our society is merely but the first step to awakening to the true reality of our existence in what I like to call our “Brave New World Order.” (As other’s have noted before, our current society appears to be the amalgamation of the dystopias predicted in Orwell’s 1984 and Huxley’s Brave New World).

      The problem here, much like how we have been so misled about diet, is that almost all political debate is controlled by the two party dialectic. The one thing both “sides” (liberal/democrat – conservative/republican) have in common is the use of the State to pass their side of the agenda. Both love the state and fear self-rule and true freedom.

      I get the impression that the majority of the paleo-sphere is largely left/liberal. It seemed like you had a literal atmosphere change in the room at AHS when you ended your speech on an anti-establishment theme…but it was good that you used the Socratic questioning approach to make your points.

      Keep up the great blogging Richard, you’ve been inspirational (I’m a long time blogger too, but I’ve had a bad case of writer’s block for this past summer…).

      Aloha



  11. Josh on September 23, 2011 at 15:26

    Richard, have you read “On Killing” by Lt. Col. David Grossman? It’s actually pretty relevant to this topic regarding murder and evolutionary psychology (even if not couched in exactly those terms).

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 16:51

      Nope, have not read it. But I’ll put it on the list.



  12. Kyle on September 23, 2011 at 15:26

    It’s like my mind has been read, I actually instigated a very similar conversation at work a few years back. Although my original premise was that in an effort to keep politicians (somewhat) honest it should be legal to kill them as long as you did it yourself.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 17:00

      Kyle, while I understand the sentiment and have my fair share of fantasies along those lines — ever read the novel Term Limits by Vince Flynn? — I am very anti violence and I’m even not huge on retributive violence. I think energies ought to be geared primarily towards society building with those of like mind and values, and very sound self defense to deter initiation of violence in the first place.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 18:07

      Oops, I forgot the prime directive: mind your own fucking business. That’s the best self defense ploy ever admonished.



  13. Feed the Beast | The Dream Lounge on September 23, 2011 at 16:37

    […] own progression in interests and concerns right here on The Dream Lounge, which is not unlike what Richard Nikoley is now encouraging to happen in the paleo […]

  14. R Dunn on September 23, 2011 at 16:50

    One of my personal credos is “If you’re going to be a killer, then you should be able to do it up close and personal.”

    Lately, that has been limited to killing ground hogs with pointed sticks.

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 17:13

      RD, you obviously get the whole theme.

      In reality, human animals aren’t typically killers of other humans. It happens, but it’s no more normal than it would be for other animals to primarily hunt and kill their own kind. Does it happen, sure, and always will. It’s not the norm, we’re not depraved and we require no salvation by coming to God and State.

      On the other hand, humans kill more other humans in modern times per capita than at any time in human history, and the resin for this is because they don’t have to get up close and personal.



    • Josh on September 23, 2011 at 21:08

      You got it exactly right there Richard, that is one of the central tenets listed in “On Killing”.

      Because it’s relevant, I’ll give the four things that are necessary for a sane human to kill another, as outlined by the book.

      (These are in no particular order)

      1) Sanction by authority – government, religion, gang leadership, tribes, it all works.

      2) Condoned by the group – a soldiers are more likely to kill the enemy due to the acceptance of that act from their unit. Ditto gangs, police, or any other closeknit group of people.

      3) Realistic training, or desensitization – It was noted that shooting at human shaped targets greatly increased the likelihood of soldiers to fire upon the enemy in combat. The more realistic the training, the greater the likelihood that a person would not hesitate to kill another human. The U. S. military has used this to great effect since WWII. (video games and violent movies may also be playing a role among civilians as well)

      4) Separation – Artillery, Naval gunfire, Aerial Bombardment, and even mechanical separation like a rifle scope all reduce the reluctance to kill. Killing someone up close and personal, as described in the post above is the hardest for people to do.



  15. Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 17:26

    “If You Want Someone Dead, Then Kill Them Yourself”

    Anarchy doesn’t prescribe rules like that anyway, does it?

    If you want someone dead you could do whatever the fuck you wanted. You *could* kill them yourself, but you wouldn’t have to.

    You could hire someone else. You could ignore the feeling. You could hire someone to kick their ass. You could kill their family. You could hire someone to kill their family. Etc. No rules means no rules, doesn’t it?

    The idea of, “If you want someone dead kill them yourself” sounds a lot like a law.

  16. Emily Deans on September 23, 2011 at 17:39

    Richard, another book for your list is “Humanity: a History of the 20th Century” I think you would find it interesting, though likely not agree with all of it… thanks for the linkage!

  17. Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 17:40

    “Anarchy doesn’t prescribe rules like that anyway, does it?”

    Nor does it proscribe uttering moral admonitions. Isn’t that cool?

    Yep, I suppose you could hire someone to do your killing. I say could, because as we know, since we have God & State that doesn’t happen. But to the point, sure.

    And if you have enough money and enough time to cover your tracks against private retribution, you might make a profit. Or something. Or you might decide that your money is better utilized elsewhere, but I can’t think of a more profitable, upside potential than investing in killing other people.

    Moreover, standing in line to vote to kill thousands of innocent people all over the world is so much more expensive. Now that’s gonna really cut into your bottom line.

    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 18:35

      >Nor does it proscribe uttering moral admonitions. Isn’t that cool?

      Then why are anarchists going on about moral law all the time?

      >Yep, I suppose you could hire someone to do your killing. I say could, because as we know, since we have God & State that doesn’t happen.

      If you could still just hire someone to do your killing, then what the hell is the difference between anarchy versus having a state?

      From an anarchist perspective, that’s all the government is doing anyway: People hire people to attack one another.

      If I don’t pay tax money into a protection racket, somebody pays somebody else to come put me into a cage. What’s not anarchist about that?

      “Organized crime” syndicates did much the same thing.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 23:10

      “Then why are anarchists going on about moral law all the time?”

      Haven’t a clue. I speak for myself and I am not well read. I prefer to think and write.

      “If you could still just hire someone to do your killing, then what the hell is the difference between anarchy versus having a state?”

      I’m sorry, Dan, but this is one of those moments where I’m struck with the fact that you simply don’t understand what you’re arguing against and I’m not an educator. If you want to argue anarchism, then go figure out what it’s about. I’m happy though, to explain how I differ from most.

      That question signals you don’t even get the most rudimentary distinctions.

      “somebody pays somebody else to come put me into a cage”

      That’s signals even a far deeper ignorance.



    • Dan Linehan on September 23, 2011 at 23:37

      >Haven’t a clue. I speak for myself and I am not well read.

      I’m saying, even the title of your last post referred to morality.

      >If you want to argue anarchism, then go figure out what it’s about. I’m happy though, to explain how I differ from most.

      Well allow me to clarify my point. Maybe it wasn’t worded well.

      You subscribe to anarchist, individualistic thinking right? You don’t recognize any laws.

      From that perspective, the government is essentially just a large gang who uses force to take what they want.

      If you don’t pay your taxes, some individual hires some other individual to arrest you (put you into a cage.)

      My question to you is, how is that any different than anarchy? It’s all still individuals making the choices and maintaining contracts with one another, paying each other to do the work.

      In its shortest form, my question is this: If government is just the largest gang, what’s the issue? Anarchy would have gangs anyway, government is just a complexly organized one.

      In your idea of anarchy, how would complex gangs that use force like organized crime rings (or government systems, or religions) be handled?



    • Richard Nikoley on September 24, 2011 at 14:11

      “I’m saying, even the title of your last post referred to morality.”

      My _single_ naturally derived moral principle is laid out either on this post or the previous one, in comments.

      “From that perspective, the government is essentially just a large gang who uses force to take what they want.”

      No. It’s an institution that uses physical force, but relies primarily on fraud & deception to generally command allegiance and adoration from its citizens.

      Moreover, it is an institution that asserts and enforces its sovereignty over all and does not allow any competing “gangs.” It has a monopoly on ultimate authority.

      For other distinctions, see David D. Friedman, The Machinery of Freedom, which is now on the web:

      http://www.daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

      I don’t necessarily subscribe to his economics based approach to the whole thing (he’s a law professor, and sone of Milton Friedman) but it should at least give you a clear picture of how “law & order” might work in a society without a monopoly on force and ultimate authority.



    • Contemplationist on September 24, 2011 at 14:47

      Richard

      I’m not an anarchist though I’m sympathetic to the view. However, I think you need to grapple with Nozick’s arguments for why, even if you start with an anarcho capitalist condition, you will end up with something like a minimalist state. I’m not saying that his arguments are foolproof or irrefutable, just that every anarchist should have answers to them.



    • Dan Linehan on September 24, 2011 at 15:07

      >No. It’s an institution that uses physical force, but relies primarily on fraud & deception to generally command allegiance and adoration from its citizens.

      What is the difference, to you, between a large, organized gang and an institution?



    • Richard Nikoley on September 24, 2011 at 15:31

      Claims to sovereignty and monopoly on force, for two I’ve already mentioned. For a couple of others, fiat money and taxation through inflation of the money supply and direct taking.

      It’s quite a bit more sophisticated than your average neighborhood protection racket and besides that, organized gangs have historically made most of their money through “vice,” services like drugs, prostitution and gambling.



    • Dan Linehan on September 25, 2011 at 12:11

      I’ll have to mull that over a bit.

      It’s definitely an over-simplification on my part to say that institutions and large gangs are the same thing. There are some obvious differences in complexity.

      What might be more accurate to say is, “institutions are what large, successful gangs evolve into.”

      I don’t see anarchist systems (if you can call anarchy a system) as having any mechanism to counter that.

      Large groups of people colluding are always going to be difficult to deal with. It’s sort of the human condition.



    • Richard Nikoley on September 25, 2011 at 13:47

      This is why my approach to all this is exactly the same as with diet. People have to change the way they think and perceive.

      To put it another way, you don’t have a Paleo diet, you have Paleo dieters and you don’t have an Anarchy, but anarchists.



  18. Laurie D. on September 23, 2011 at 17:40

    So which is worse: Outright killing in the name of oil, land, honor? Or the insidious, slow death of the USDA food plate and the recommendations of the FDA? Another good post, Richard.

  19. Sonagi on September 23, 2011 at 17:46

    Thank you for your Paleo food for thought in your last two posts. Richard. Please continue your holistic approach to blogging about Paleo living.

  20. Dave Asprey on September 23, 2011 at 18:33

    Richard,
    Funny you should mention the small number if people who blog about paleo stuff outside of just diet. I’d respectfully suggest you add me to your list.

    The Bulletproof Executive just hosted evolutionary psychologist Emily Dean on the Weekly podcast. I called her a paleo brain hacker.

    The entire thing is about everything you can do to upgrade yourself to be better at everything. It just so happens that a paleo diet, especially one tweaked to remove natural toxins cavemen didn’t face, without
    garlic and onion, will also make you a better entrepreneur. Or father. Or killer. Whatever it is you are, getting brain-modifying toxins out of your decision process will make you better. A side effect is that you get calmer and kinder too, so you’ll probably kill less.

    I’m down with that, and Ayn Rand would have been too.

    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 21:19

      Well there are some others like myself who don’t openly self-identify as paleo (only cuz it would be disingenuous to do so in my mind while regularly chugging down raw milk/dairy and regularly knocking back other real foods that don’t fit comfortably in the paleo heuristic as generally perceived) who certainly blog beyond dietary issues. I mean I guess I could follow Dr. Harris’ lead and call myself an “Archevore” but I think real fooder fits just fine.

      And then there are others like Karen DeCoster who do openly identify as paleo and address issues beyond just diet. So don’t take it personally. 🙂

      In fact one of the core messages of my blog is that we have these dietary “issues” because we don’t address the problems beyond diet.

      Lets face it, regardless of your nutritional approach, if you are a regular reader of this blog, most people don’t eat like you. The Safeways and the McDonalds of the world are in business not because they, unlike our government, stick a gun to your head with the implied “pay me or die”, but rather they thrive because there is a legitimate voluntary demand. No amount of pontificating or fanciful thinking will change that basic economic fact. Such places will continue to exist and prosper as they are currently constituted as long as people are willing to pay for their products and services.

      Lessons From A Neighbor’s Refrigerator



    • Richard Nikoley on September 24, 2011 at 13:05

      Thanks Dave. I think I have run across your blog a time or two in the past. I’ll keep an eye out.



  21. Al on September 23, 2011 at 18:34

    Richard,

    I don’t think that I am disagreeing with you, but if we suddenly stripped the laws back and fended for ourselves, I think most people alive today would be victims (of whatever) and not defensive killers. Of course, there would be a period of evolution and our species would decrease considerably in size (a welcome thought), after which the natural balance of kill or be killed would lead to a natural form of non-violence (for the most part).

    But if your also telling me that I’m going to have to make my own wine and whiskey… well count me out of this idea ; ) Maybe I’ll find a barter – I’m good with stone…

    I like where you’re headed, Richard.

    -Al

    • Richard Nikoley on September 23, 2011 at 23:02

      Al, we have a long road ahead and all I know to do is hopefully write in a way that gets people to either say what the fuck, or fuck you, and in either case, I think I’m doing what I can do.



  22. Jason on September 23, 2011 at 20:50

    I just read your 2 latest posts so I’m going to comment on both here. The move toward freedom can happen in steps. In my view Locke and Rousseau’s view were advances toward freedom when you consider the societies they came from. A society is just the individuals in that society; nothing more or less. Therefore, the only society that can truly be a free society is one where each individual has a mentality of freedom and individualism. If you gave freedom to most people today they would beg for a return to slavery. This is because they are not free in their hearts; through various methods of societal conditioning they have a slave mentality. thus the advances toward freedom can and can only be made by individuals gaining a more and more free persons mentality and heart. The reason that it’s important to understand that those with slave mentalities won’t accept complete freedom initially is, because this shows that doing things gradually and in steps is not a failure of these ideas to spread, but is rather the natural way that such a transition (which deals with a persons very spirit) can only and can best happen gradually. What this means is that movements such as Libertarianism, Tea Party Conservatism… while not being your ideal, are in fact steps away from decentralization and towards individualism and mental freedom. Freedom can only come from the individuals; when they are each free than there will be freedom. The freer their mentality and hearts are, the freer society will be. All this being said, you may poo poo The U.S. all you want, but given that things happen in steps this is the most likely country where freedom will occur and spread. It won’t happen in China, North Korea, Russia, Western Europe(well, there may be anarchism brought on by fiscal collapse of the euro soon but that won’t be freedom it’ll be more like the aftermath of the French Revolution), or the middle east or Africa. I’m happy to at least have the Bill of Rights to work with and proceed from (something which is lacking almost anywhere else). So I don’t think it’s so hopeless; in fact, I think the world is moving at ann ever increasing speed to either a true freedom or a complete slavery (Odds = about 50/50). Now, a statement and a question. Question first: What is a coon Hunt? I’ve never heard this term. Does it have to do with ‘The Coon’ character on South Park, probably not 🙂 Second, regarding the death penalty. I have problem with killing a murderer of an innocent person. And regarding the title of your post, yes I would gladly pull the trigger/insert the needle/pull the switch to execute a murderer or an innocent person who killed in a calculated manner.

    • Rhonda on September 24, 2011 at 14:21

      Whoa, you’ve made this hard to read! So, I didn’t read it (although, it looks as if it’s interesting from the first sentence I did read). A long comment/post with no paragraph breaks is the visual equivalent of writing in all caps–not easy on the reader’s eyes.



  23. Josh on September 23, 2011 at 20:55

    In response to many of the posts above, consider this:

    I think a lot of people are misunderstanding the difference between inter- society conflict and intra-society conflict.

    Intersociety conflict is indeed rare, usually the work of the aforementioned “whackjobs”. Gang members don’t kill members of their own gang (unless they first go against the gang, thus making them outsiders). Soldiers don’t kill their own civilians or allied forces. People of a group RARELY ever kill other people in their own group, however that may be defined.

    Intra-society conflict happens all the time, and is again one of those ‘sanctioned’ methods of killing. In the examples given above the attacks of 9/11 are one example. Even in paleolithic times this was likely the norm, given what we know of of traditional societies.

    Finally there is also the fact that people may belong to more than one group at the same time, and their values may thus be in partial conflict. Again, going with one of the examples above people who kill abortion doctors are “whackjobs” with regards to American society as a whole. However, they and their ‘cheerleaders’ are also part of a different, smaller group usually based upon religion that does condone such an act. A person identified more strongly with this group than the first is more likely to commit acts that are aberrant to the first, but in line with their smaller, selected group.

    • Michael on September 23, 2011 at 22:43

      Intersociety conflict is indeed rare, usually the work of the aforementioned “whackjobs”.

      Not from my understanding of Hunter Gatherer groups. Still, this is why I provided examples of both with the source being the same in all cases.

      And the work of Rummel clearly makes irrelevant such a distinction, showing that governments in the 20th century killed 262,000,000 of their own people (not including wars) or those under their control.

      http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html



    • Sonagi on September 24, 2011 at 11:00

      I think you’ve confused the two terms, intra-society and inter-society. “Intra” means “within” while “inter” means between; thus, intra-society conflict would be among members of the same society while inter-society conflict occurs between two or more organized groups.



    • Rhonda on September 24, 2011 at 14:25

      Re: 9/11

      Time (distance from the event) might just tell, thus allowing the truth to be told, that it was indeed INTER-SOCIETY.



    • Rhonda on September 24, 2011 at 14:27

      Whoops! Big mistake (just looked it up)…

      Re: 9/11

      Time (distance from the event) might just tell, thus allowing the truth to be told, that it was indeed INTRA-SOCIETY.



  24. Jason on September 23, 2011 at 21:17

    You Know, I wasn’t gonna write this in my comment because it might differ from many peoples views here and thus lead to a rejection of my main points but I just don’t feel comfortable not stating completely where I’m coming from and with what association this idea came to me from. If you don’t like that then God bless you; I don’t care. The idea that slaves will not accept freedom is a theme that occurs in Exodus when the former slaves (who still retain a slave mentality) complain at the first hint of any obstacle and say that they had it better as slaves in Egypt where they imagine they had all sorts of delicacies and a wonderful life as slaves. That entire generation [except for two individuals (who incidentally are true free individuals who stood up to a collective in the incident with the spies – also Exodus) Caleb ben jephunneh and Joshua] dies in the dessert specifically because of their slave mentality being incompatible with serving God. Aside from those 2 individuals only the younger generation with a free persons mentality advance. Just wanted to be upfront about my way of thinking. All the best.

  25. […] encourage you to see Richard pushing that envelope in a post called “If You Want Someone Dead, Then Kill Them Yourself.” It’s not Murder by Numbers, very much the contrary: There will always be killing and murder. […]

  26. Txomin on September 25, 2011 at 06:38

    Alright, my friend, who changed your drugs and what goofy shit are you on now?

  27. […] freetheanimal.com, 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 […]

  28. Wang on September 26, 2011 at 14:45

    Kind of off-topic, but I guess this post relates in some way to the notion that our ancestors were savages. I just listened to Richard’s interview with Angelo Coppola (Latest In Paleo podcast) and they were talking about the “Noble or Savage” topic and how people at the AHS thought Boyd Eaton was romanticizing hunter-gatherers and such.

    This site talks about the “Noble or Savage” topic that came out of The Economist. The writer to look out for is Jason Godesky – a writer with an Anthropology degree that is invested in this thing called “rewilding”. He went on a Paleo diet and logged his progress. I urge you all to check this site out, incredibly eye opening.

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

  29. Geoff on September 26, 2011 at 07:41

    Killing in America is very rare. It happens, yes, but it happens in a country of 300 million people. I, personally, have never been acquainted with anyone who was murdered, and I am acquainted with at least a few thousand people. I like those odds.

    So what’s the point? The point is that humans have submitted to much worse for the sake of protection of their own life, e.g. having their daughters deflowered at the age of 13 by the village elder. Not saying that our government has not overstepped, and cannot be improved, but I am saying that we created it for a reason, and that reason stands today. Let’s not lose sight of the why behind government http://www.armchairphilosophizing.com/2011/06/defining-government.html.

Leave a Comment





Pinterest118k
YouTube798
YouTube
Follow by Email8k
RSS780