Lewis Dot Diagram Clf2−

of sight, out of mind

Each day that passes I stick more to say "Out of sight, out of mind."
If someone asked me now whether I am happy to answer what I always respond, "No, I'm not happy." But whenever I add a tagline that is the center of the response and the core of the "My unhappiness is not due to my own life, and I'm happy with what I have become with my family, my possessions, my friends , etc. ... I'm unhappy about what I see around me, because too much into the events, because I see too much injustice and because I feel I can do nothing to help change the turn things are taking. " Given this, what I decided?, For that, "out of sight, out of mind." How do I apply?: Do not watch the news, changing TV channels or radio when I do not like what's there, I get to read booklets just love when I'm not studying or preparing medical issues, etc ... I know that most atisbáis degree of immaturity in this behavior but in reality is quite the opposite: it is a very mature mechanism of survival that while you may seem a lie every People are spending more time with high sensitivity and intelligence, and if you want, I invite you to do a survey with your colleagues, neighbors and family and you will realize that this is still the case.

But stay out of the events is quite impossible in this day and I find it very hard to look the other way. Now the information is found on the street every day. Local free newspapers are distributed each morning at the subway entrance, hospitals, shops or other facilities put us up to date with local news and international leading by four strokes with a writing style that is the most elegant at times, but that in itself is effective. Then there's internet ... invention ... the news will reach you by the most convoluted channels. When looking for a specific topic using a search engine like google you can find lots of information that were unaware, and in principle has nothing to do with the topic that were centered. Then there are the mails for causes of action against or to prevent legislation. Spam mails are such that many recipients do not know and do not want that though, if only for curiosity, not just reading quickly to deepen. And of course, is also on facebook. Almost everybody ends up biting, some to follow fashion, other conviction that really is a useful tool, others down with colleagues, other people's lives for gossip and eventually others, to make public his own life. On facebook there are plenty of causes to which you can join, and afterwards you feel good because you're contributing, you do not know that ... The truth is that I have no idea if these pages truly carry a positive reaction part of those involved, but nothing happens try; total, it is only to give a button that says "join the cause."

Although I though I will discuss some of the latest news that has had an impact on the facebook and have led union requests "to the cause." I know that I said trying not to involve me in all these raunchy that give me poor quality of life, but as I noted earlier, is unspeakable ... the news is in the air and even look away or tapes you ears tightly, just finding yourself with it.

- "The slaughter of dolphins in the Faroe Islands", the truth is that it seems that years ago is happening but so far, I had lived happily without knowing. I have not wanted to delve into the subject, I have been unable. I could only watch a few seconds of a video for "you tube" and a picture where the beach is completely red with lots of dolphins being killed with machetes base. Is that the Faroe Islands belong to Denmark, civilized country, and belonging to the European Union. There are those who advocate this approach based on tradition and that is one of the only livelihood they have. It seems to me a barbarism that can treat a living being in this way, but I think it barbaric or even a government, a group of governments do nothing to stop it. I can not keep talking about it because the view is clouded with tears me (and that I suffer from dry eye, which brings me repeat keratitis sicca).

- Another cause to which I have joined is "No, bullfighting" we met this time in our country, a civilized state, belonging to the European Union which developed the da. There is now a process of collecting signatures for a proposed law at regional level to ban the celebration of bullfighting in Catalonia. As always there are people in favor of bullfights and people against. Most who favor based on the English tradition, and most importantly, they argue that the bull's life until it's time they leave the arena is fantastic and that death is worth the rest ... And Strangely though I think this what many people. The conclusion I draw is that many would sign to have a life of pleasure (a lot of sex, good food, relax, not work) and then die at age 20 based insurance lunges hurt a lot ... no comment. I think that settles the issue here, because the arguments of those who are against bullfights are well known, but are summarized in three words: humiliation, cruelty and pain.

- Let's talk about the month "indiscriminate killing of innocent people in Gaza": By God, if this were happening anywhere else in the UN, NATO, U.S., EU, NGOs ... I'm running out acronyms!, had put the outcry, Israel had bombed, they would have taken with the excuse that there are hidden bombs or with the excuse that there are plenty of hidden terrorists and everyone happy. But of course, in this case, things are very different. If the great world leader who is the U.S. does nothing, others that are a few simple puppets, they will not take any initiative. And because the U.S. does nothing?, Is it because the Jews have always been a genius with money and are the owners of large fortunes world? Probably this is the main reason, because I do not believe me, that this preferential treatment they are receiving is because it is the people chosen by God. I would really like to know if I really chose God because if he did then, should now be pulling their hair. I do not want these words to create a diplomatic conflict, as happened to one of our politicians, than going to a pro-Palestinian, has been on the verge of causing a heart attack Israel's ambassador in Spain. But to see Mr. Ambassador, do you not know that this is social and democratic state (art 1 English Constitution) and protect us the principle of freedom of thought limited only by the maintenance of public order (Article 16 EC)? Well, that ... nothing more to say about it. Do not believe that the Palestinians completely exempt from all this mess. As in marriages, when something goes wrong, is not one thing, but rather than two. What they say angels are not angels, because a terrorist suffered from its consequences, but it is clear that each claim what is theirs (or think you own) as they know or think is best. And I will not Comminute over the issue because they know well the historical background of the area to conclude who is the absolute master of Palestine or Israel or whatever you want to call it.

- "Climate Change: Hurricanes in Spain": oh, my!, All you had to go out last Saturday fliparíais sure. I came on duty and when I got home I had a mouth full of sand watery eyes so much crap that I had splashed his face, stiff neck for being so long looking at the sky forced position (he was dropping everything: pots, blinds, clothing, trees, plants, bags of all kinds ...) and nose Cold and wet from the cold it was. Then I came out walking the dog with my partner, more than anything to see if the pooch went flying too. It was OK, it passed the animal pump. He would look toward the wind and his mane of black curls and floated away from their eyes (usually not much hair looks good, but the little master does not peel it until the summer, to keep you cool). After this bit of fun we got home and of course, more misery!: four children killed by collapsed wall of a municipal sports ground, thousands of people without power, blocked roads, destroyed houses with owners to dust, ... Anyway, that nature has very bad temper when it comes to humans. As we are mean to her (do not care for anything, anything), it is bad to us ("eye for eye, tooth for tooth"), but of course, and following the sayings, almost always "pay for the sins" because I have not heard that no politician has been affected by this storm of wind and destruction unusual.

- And to finish (now I'm rolling lot), talk about the likely future of the judiciary strike: yesterday I saw the story on TV3 "30 Minutes" and freaked. And I thought that doctors were unhappy about how bad they treated us, how little we charge in comparison to the responsibility and how hard we work in appalling conditions, but is that judges earn calleeeee us. We at least we have computers to check the data. They still work without software that will unify the information. They lack staff, and us, but at least we have increased the quota of physicians MIR compensate for the lack of specialists. They are oppositional each year to a few places, by an examination it is even more pathetic that I had to do to be a surgeon. Missing media, political masters, Fix it, but do not go around saying that the problem is that judges do not want to stop being untouchable. Just want to work in conditions like we care. The population increase has led to the disorderly and uncontrolled immigration has not been in line with increased resources and this is being felt in increased waiting lists in the health and judicial collapse. I think these two issues go far and probably will try soon, when inspired.

Movie Party Invitation Wording For A 15 Year Old

wg --- Contra the "apartheid" anarchist ... Roderick Long

Taken from Austro-Athenian Empire

complete translation

Note the following lists of names:

GROUP 1

Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

Josiah Warren Stephen Pearl Andrews
Ezra Heywood
Anselme Bellegarrigue
Lysander Spooner

Francis D. Benjamin Tucker John Henry Mackay
Tandy
Cleyre Voltairine of (first)
Franz Oppenheimer

GRUPO 2

Gustave de Molinari
Herbert Spencer (primer)
Auberon Herbert
Wordsworth
Donisthorpe
Rose Wilder Lane
Robert LeFevre
Murray Rothbard
David Friedman
Randy Barnett
Samuel E. Konkin 3.0
Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Es obvio que ambas listas tienen algo en común: todos los nombres pertenecen a pensadores que apoyan radicalmente los mercados libres y la abolición del estado; por tanto, podemos inferir que todos son anarquistas de mercado .

Sin embargo, en los círculos anarco-izquierdistas se insiste en que los pensadores del Grupo 1 son anarquistas genuinos, y que los del Grupo 2 are not anarchists at all, since the true anarchist must oppose not only the state but also to capitalism. It is said that in Group 1 are clearly anti-capitalist and, consequently, real anarchists, but those in Group 2 are excluded because they defend capitalism. (I'm not sure where to put geoliberales as Albert J. Nock and Frank Chodorov, or thinkers such as Karl Hess migrants, so that I'd rather not mention)

Needless to say I'm not a fan of this supposed dichotomy between "true" and "false" market anarchists. I think this criticism in more detail in the future, for now confine myself to two general questions.

First : Those who are determined to sustain this dichotomy are hardly market themselves anarchists . They are usually the anarcho or anarcocolectivistas thinkers who believe that the two groups make unacceptable concessions to the economic individualism. (In fact often dismiss as "stirneritas" even their favorites in Group 1-with the exception of Proudhon, and that even though most of the thinkers in Group 1 developed their ideas quite apart from Max Stirner, even Tucker, clearer "stirnerita" the group, was an anarchist known market before the ideas of Stirner). When anti-market anarchists claim the right to decide who is and who is not a genuine anarchist market is a bit like Christians who claim the right to decide the dispute between Shiites and Sunnis. (I suspect that what they really wanted the anti-market is to purge both groups, but as anarchists credentials are well established Group 1 is not a practical solution.)

So instead of investigating the views of anti-market anarchists, it seems more relevant to know whether the thinkers considered Group 1 to Group 2 as fellow anarchists or not. And indeed, some 2-group luminaries as Molinari, Donisthorpe and Spencer, were first greeted as anarchists, or (in the case of Herbert Spencer) as "close to anarchy" - that in the pages of Tucker's Liberty, the main body of American individualist anarchism, which published most of the writers Group 1. (Donisthorpe, even for both Liberty wrote to the newspaper of the Liberty and Property Defence League, which was passing through an ideology supposedly impassable gulf.) Thus, the leader and spokesman for the Group 1, while certainly critical of some aspects of the thinkers in Group 2 had no trouble recognizing them as fellow anarchists. (Compare also the very strong tuckeriano contemporary attitude towards Rothbardians Kevin Carson and konkinianos).

Not that Tucker was especially generous with the term "anarchist." In contrast, Tucker refused the right to that term anarcho as Johann Most, Pyotr Kropotkin and the Haymarket martyrs, from the viewpoint of Tucker, it was they, not the Spencerian, anarchists "false." Of course, I do not follow Tucker on this particular point, a parochialism is not better than anyone else. But the fact is that the editor of Liberty, who always called his own position as "the Manchester consistent" - felt less close the anarcho-communists of his time that the precursors of the "anarcho-capitalism" (certainly the views of Tucker on radical Spencerian Molinari and are the best guide that we have about what we think today about Rothbard Tucker, Friedman, etc) , and that speaks against the simplistic division of the market anarchist socialist sheep and goats capitalists. (Indeed, the writers of Liberty quoting Spencer as much as Proudhon and, for this purpose, Karl Marx complained Proudhon that respect more like a classic liberal quasi-anarchist who was Charles Dunoyer a revolutionary communist Étienne Cabet).

Second
: So far it is unclear under what criteria have to separate the Group 1 of Group 2. Supporters insist the dichotomy that Group 1 is "anti-capitalist", while Group 2 is "pro-capitalist," but this label is not useful unless it's behind something substantive, not merely terminological. The fact that Group 1 thinkers tend to use "socialism" as a word virtuous, and "capitalism" as a nasty word, while Group 2 thinkers often do not, matters little, because, clearly, both groups do not speak the same thing when they use these words. Most thinkers in Group 2 used the word "capitalism" split talk of a free unregulated market, and use "socialism" to talk of government control, while the majority of Group 1 use those words with different meanings, but agree with Group 2 in favor of free markets and oppose government control, no matter what names used to refer to it all. As Thomas Hobbes said: "Words are wise men's counters, But They Do reckon by Them, But They Are the money of fools."

Given the many meanings of "capitalism" is very difficult support a crucial dichotomy between thinkers antistatist based solely on their attitude towards indefinite abstraction called "capitalism." We have to know what specific positions divide the Group 1 Group 2. But it is exceedingly difficult to find positions that separate the two groups in the desired manner.

Will, perhaps, its position on the labor theory of value? While this does not translate into practical differences, what difference does it make?

Or is your position on the wage system and the exploitation of labor by capital? Under this approach, the thinkers of Group 2 and Spencer, Konkin and Friedman, who support the abolition from employment, belong to Group 1, while Molinari and Donisthorpe, who propose to reform the wage system to give more power to the workers, would be somewhere in between the two groups.

Is your position on land ownership and income? Under this approach, Spencer, who rejected the whole land would be more "socialist" and Tucker and belongs to Group 1, while Spooner, who legitimized the absentee owner would be more " capitalist Tucker and then belong to Group 2.

Is your position on protection agencies and private police as quasi-governmental? Under this approach, Tucker, Tandy and Proudhon, who supported private police would be "pseudoanarquistas" Group 2, while LeFevre, who rejected all violence, even defensively, would be moved to Group 1 .

Is your position on intellectual property? Under this approach, a fan of IP as Spooner would have to be transferred to Group 2 "pro-propietarista" while the contemporary Rothbardians as enemies of the PI, would have to be accommodated in Group 1 "anti-propietarista."

Is your position on the legitimacy of interest? Well, maybe in the abstract, but both sides tend to predict a sharp drop in the price of loans as a result of free competition in the credit industry, but both deny that the decline will reach zero thinkers used to call Group 1 "cost" to the non-zero residue, while group 2 tend to call "interest"-and that's enough, hum. This seems a very fragile reed for something so heavy.

None of the criteria that usually appeal seems to support, on concrete bases, the division into two groups. I suspect that what really motivates Supporters of the dichotomy is not a specific policy, but rather the feeling that the pro-market rhetoric in group 2 is a disguise to hide the rationalization of the power relations that prevail in the corporate capitalism, which does not happen in pro-market rhetoric of Group 1-even though they also seem wrong to dichotomous. And, in turn, this perception is based, I believe, that the thinkers of Group 2 are more likely to fall into what Kevin Carson calls "vulgar libertarianism" that is, the error is to confuse defense of free markets to the defense of the current prevailing order, and not so free.

Now it is true that the Group 2 is more exposed than Group 1 fall into this unfortunate trend. However,

a) few thinkers in Group 2 make this mistake consistently,

b) some of Group 2 (VGR, Konkin, or the Rothbard-60's, or even Hess, whether it counts as part of this group) not committed at all;

c) the error of vulgar libertarian is not worse than, say, the egregious misogyny or anti-Semitism of Proudhon, that is, not a compelling reason to throw them out of the anarchist club, and

d) if to confuse the free market capitalism does not disqualify corporate anti-market anarchists (who often make the same error, but traveling in the opposite direction), why should be sufficient to disqualify the vulgar libertarians?

therefore see no sound basis to support the dichotomy between Groups 1 and 2. All are market-anarchists with different virtues and flaws, but all comrades. **********



Trad: wg

Pokemon Adultfooted Pijamas

--- The Bolsheviks and capitalism spontaneous wg --- --- Zapirón

Lenin said:

The dictatorship of the proletariat is the most selfless war and most implacable of the new class against a more powerful enemy, the bourgeoisie, whose resistance is mirrored by overthrow (even if more than one country) and whose power lies not only in the strength and soundness of the international links of the bourgeoisie, but also force of habit, on the strength of small production. Because, unfortunately, is still in the world many, many small production and small production engenders capitalism and the bourgeoisie continuously, daily, hourly, spontaneously and mass. For all these reasons the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary, and the victory over the bourgeoisie is impossible without a protracted war, tenacious, desperate to death, a war that requires calm, discipline, firmness, inflexibility and a single will. --- VI Lenin, Selected Works , vol III, p.373 (Foreign Languages \u200b\u200bPublishing House, Moscow, 1960) [emphasis added]

This shows several things:


a) That Lenin was an intuitive praxeological highest level and perfectly understood that capitalism is ... that thing people do when left alone ;


b) that his dictatorship was not the result of "malice or lust for power of the Bolsheviks, but rather a strategy specifically designed to avoid spontaneous rebirth of capitalism


c) that, as the Grey Wolf Lothlorien, the degree of restraint necessary to defend the common property is infinitely larger than necessary to defend private property (although the poor anarcho not realize it)


d) that the Soviets or the popular assemblies would be ineffective to defeat capitalism spontaneous because they lack the main thing: a single will .



MORAL: The anarchists have only two options: anarcho or dictatorship.

A Good Thesis Statement For A Raisin In The Sun

Berganza and Miguel de Unamuno

Hemorrhoids After Cycle

Tremendo pleitazo between Anarchists / RE-modified




In To the Barricades (ALB) will bring a lawsuit against Nihilo and against Wikipedia. View: this and this


Apparently, the reason for the anger is entry "Anarchism" in Wikipedia , which was written by Nihilo. Because people are managed and controlled ALB-most-anarcomunistas or members, it seems very bad that Wikipedia is made appear to market anarchism (and very especially the anarcho-capitalism) as an ideology, a trend or movement as important as anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism and other collectivist anarchism. It also seems undesirable to say that market anarchism is closely related to individualist anarchism, or is a development of it, or-worse still-an "evolution" of it. As they say, market anarchism is something very minor, almost unknown, without history, without heroes, without a fight. At best it is something that exists on the internet and nothing else. It has no importance deserves cleverly-give-Nihilo and Wikipedia (whose owner, Wales, is an admirer of Ayn Rand and is, therefore, someone close to anarcho-capitalism). And since Wikipedia is now an educational tool for many people, fear ALB students or beginners are left with the impression that market anarchism is really important within the anarchist movement ... which is not true. Anarchism authentic, truly, is the Communist or collectivist or syndicalist, which has spilled blood -no bits or bytes, in the struggle.


Well it's true that market anarchism is far from having the historical significance of the anarcho-socialist. However, little by little is becoming important. In the U.S. a majority, or is in the process of being, may already have most anarcho-capitalists and anarcho anarcomutualistas that. Only in the Libertarian Party there may be three or four thousand supporters and activists of anarcho-capitalism. And what say the LP, despite being a minority party, draws attention in the press and among lawmakers, interest groups, the president's office, etc.. In Europe and Latin America there is no Libertarian Party, but it's hard to resist this influence comes from North America. In addition, the individualist tradition still lives there, in fact there are many anarchists who claim to be "individualistic" and are very critical of democracy. Nor is it difficult to begin to read more Mises and less to Marx, in Spain, for example, Red Liberal and Inst Juan de Mariana, both dominated by anarcho-have for some weight among the intellectuals, even those on the left. All that, almost certainly lead to many market individualist anarchism, the agora or some variety of anarcomutualismo that is almost-almost like anarcho-capitalism. Muchos terminarán convertidos en anarcocapitalistas de facto... aun cuando en el plano retórico se llamen a sí mismos “proudhonianos”, "socialistas" o algo parecido.


Por otro lado, la dicotomía colectivismo/individualismo sigue estando hoy tan vigente como en el siglo xix. Los anarquistas podrán diferenciarse entre sí por su forma de organizarse, claro que sí. Pero es inevitable que también se separen por sus principios filosóficos. Más tarde o más temprano salen a relucir las diferencias filosóficas. Y la principal, o una de las principales, es la de colectivistas/individualistas, o la de los que prefieren la planificación y la propiedad social y los que prefieren market and private property. Therefore it seems justified that the Wikipedia article makes the great distinction between "schools of anarchism." And then it is inevitable to talk about market anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, Molinari, Rothbard, etc..


Finally, the word "anarchism" is not anyone's private property. It does not belong to those of ALB or the anarchists of Spain. That last word has been used as synonymous with "anarcho" or "anarcho" nothing more than an accident. In the American tradition the word "anarchy" has always been tied to individualism, the market and some kind of "ownership or possession." That should be enough to understand that the duality collectivism / individualism is central to anarchism.


Trying to mediate this dispute-Nihilo vs ALB-I suggest the following:
A Nihilo: That Wikipedia article give more space or emphasis to the history of socialist anarchism and their struggles, concepts, values, strategies, Heroes / héroas, authors or authors. At ALB: To recognize that market anarchism is a trend that is growing within anarchism and also deserves some space or emphasis. The fact that liberals in it, the fact that the word "capitalism" is part of its name, that use other strategies, or the fact that the class struggle is not "workers vs. capitalists", but "civil society against the state", does not have to turn it into a pseudo-anarchism.


Finally, congratulate Nihilo not yield to the doctrinaire and insulting, and anarchism strive to present a neutral and objective.


And jokes, here is a good


And here's another



UPDATE

The scandal is bigger than I thought. Look


RE-UPDATE

individualist anarchism also has its traditions, its heroes and their struggles. View this

Anarcho-capitalism is simply one of the logically possible ways you can take individualist anarchism.