Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Has becoming primal/paleo ruined your life?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by whitebear View Post
    The way it is now we need security from our neighbors and from the collective or common. I know how nasty things would get if we all of a sudden had anarchy and honestly I'm not really prepared for that but I would gladly die protecting my own than continue life as blindfolded livestock. Die on your feet or live on your knees. I'm sick of living on my knees and I think a lot of other folks around the world are feeling this as well.
    Yep. I used the phrase "totally cooperative society" but what we're living in is a totally codependent society. Quite different, though a lot of people can't seem to tell the difference.

    Most people aren't prepared for the costs of anarchy. They see the social approach as more efficient and they are right. The problem comes at the break-down of cooperation. Today your home is in a place with police, laws, order, and so on. Tomorrow it might not be. At that point, you will pay the cost of anarchy one way or another whether you like it or not. That's the risk you take with the cooperative approach. Unfortunately, it's an infrequent risk, vs. the constant cost of maintaining individual security. Over a lifetime, the cooperative approach (With infrequent breakdowns) will be less expensive for most people than the self-sufficient approach. That means it's very hard to convince them to spend the extra money, time, and inconvenience needed to support the infrastructure of anarchy.

    Comment


    • Really this idea of "social costs" is just an illusion. Tax-payers work so much to pay taxes that they are not saving any time or money in acquiring government-provided security, an oxymoron that I'm sure makes any more intelligent poster here laugh at the sight of it.
      "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

      Jack london, "Before Adam"

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mr.Perfidy View Post
        right now the security that you are talking about, (someone respecting the lock on my door) is rather expensive, because they "respect" this lock because of fear of the police. ...
        I'm not sure. I think a lot of people don't respect the lock because they basically don't want to steal from you. It's a social contract perhaps, where we all agree that being stolen from sucks so we mostly agree not to be the cause of that suckage. Some people of course only fear the repercussions (police, armed homeowners, social stigma, etc), I have no idea what the ratio is, or what it can be.

        Really this idea of "social costs" is just an illusion. Tax-payers work so much to pay taxes that they are not saving any time or money in acquiring government-provided security, an oxymoron that I'm sure makes any more intelligent poster here laugh at the sight of it.
        Not sure what you mean. If you dress up in neon green spandex and put condoms over your ears there is definitely a social cost. There would also be laughter at the sight, but the laughter is not at the social cost.
        Last edited by Him; 02-08-2013, 09:18 AM.

        Comment


        • Well the people that do not want to rob me are not a problem and would not be without government either- in fact, people who respect me just because they are decent are generally punished and discouraged from helping me by government, and in a system without imposed laws, would offer me MORE assistance- they wouldn;t need licenses to help me with medicine, construction, child-birth, education, security, manufacturing, waste-removal, etc etc etc etc, whereas now, the State actively prohibits them from giving me aid in any of these arenas without first being designated as the one who gets to take money for these services.
          "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

          Jack london, "Before Adam"

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Him View Post
            Yep. I used the phrase "totally cooperative society" but what we're living in is a totally codependent society. Quite different, though a lot of people can't seem to tell the difference.

            Most people aren't prepared for the costs of anarchy. They see the social approach as more efficient and they are right. The problem comes at the break-down of cooperation. Today your home is in a place with police, laws, order, and so on. Tomorrow it might not be. At that point, you will pay the cost of anarchy one way or another whether you like it or not. That's the risk you take with the cooperative approach. Unfortunately, it's an infrequent risk, vs. the constant cost of maintaining individual security. Over a lifetime, the cooperative approach (With infrequent breakdowns) will be less expensive for most people than the self-sufficient approach. That means it's very hard to convince them to spend the extra money, time, and inconvenience needed to support the infrastructure of anarchy.
            This opens the door to too much manipulation and corruption and who said any thing about money? People have been fooled into giving up independence and responsibility. Yes, take care of me please so I can watch tv and not think. The security provided to us is actually a way to control us through the illusion of safety and freedom. I think the world would be a better place if people could really take care of themselves and not be so dependent on the system. The reality is that we are now slaves as most are now so dependent on the system that they could not survive without it. And they tell you you are free.
            Last edited by whitebear; 02-08-2013, 09:23 AM.

            Comment


            • That actually isn't an opinion- it's a scientific fact that can be verified by the measurable presence of chemical levels in the body that equate to strength, ascendency, contentment and physical and emotional health.
              "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

              Jack london, "Before Adam"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by whitebear View Post
                This opens the door to too much manipulation and corruption and who said any thing about money? People have been fooled into giving up independence and responsibility. Yes, take care of me please so I can watch tv and not think. The security provided to us is actually a way to control us through the illusion of safety and freedom. I think the world would be a better place if people could really take care of themselves and not be so dependent on the system.
                The phrase that was popular in my youth went like this: "No shit, Sherlock." Nowadays people seem to use the less scatological, "Thank you Captain Obvious!"

                I'm not saying I like how the system works. I'm just saying why (I think) it is what it is. You've got to understand what drives a thing to be what it is if you want to change it.

                Comment


                • it is a church of domination of human consciousness. The vulgar say "government."
                  "Ah, those endless forests, and their horror-haunted gloom! For what eternities have I wandered through them, a timid, hunted creature, starting at the least sound, frightened of my own shadow, keyed-up, ever alert and vigilant, ready on the instant to dash away in mad flight for my life. For I was the prey of all manner of fierce life that dwelt in the forest, and it was in ecstasies of fear that I fled before the hunting monsters."

                  Jack london, "Before Adam"

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ssn679doc View Post
                    Being an "individualist" means that I can like the color red, you can like blue, and we are both right; and yet we work together to build a wall for mutual protection, or kill an antelope for our mutual welfare.
                    From Nicator's context I was reading more to "individualist" than "different strokes for different folks". I saw it as everyone going it alone like homesteaders. I think this holds more appeal to Americans than a lot of other countries. We love the Jeremiah Johnson ideal. What's not to love. But I think it deserves some dy-mystification. The go-it-alone frontiersman was always mostly myth.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                      Haha, your thinking is diseased.
                      Why is this necessary?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Nicator View Post
                        The true political spectrum identifies totalitarian government (Stalin and Hitler) on the far left, and the absence of government on the far right.
                        There's nothing "true" about the above spectrum. It's a slant, like others. And a fairly modern one. My D-Day landing grandfather would've scratched his head at the idea that Hitler was a leftist.

                        Left and Right started in the French Assembly after the French Revolution. Generally the "left" wanted more liberty, equality, fraternity and the "right" less.

                        It's generally been understood that the left has been for more popular control and the right for more elite control. Because Communism extends popular control to the means of production, it's seen as leftist. That it ends up in elite-control by party apparatchiks is a cruel irony.

                        The spectrum you're refering to is a purposeful paradigm shift by polemicist created after WWII to shed the right's association with fascism and Nazism and to further a new phenomenon -- libertarianism. Before WWII libertarianism didn't exist.

                        There was anarchism and it was widely seen as a left-wing ideology, most of it was Marxist. They defined the State as something different from government. The State was a construct to ensure elite control by safeguarding private property claims, crushing collectivities and forcing workers into the wage-labor system.

                        The French created this from scratch in Madagascar. They introduced a currency so they could buy food for their occupying soldiers from Malagasy farmers. But the farmers had no use for the script. So the French introduced a tax that had to be paid in the script. Now the farmers needed it and were subsumed into a wage-labor economy where there was none.

                        States created the conditions of our modern economy. The idea that they're some sort of parasitical growth on a market economy is mostly false.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rojo View Post
                          As Marx pointed out Capitalism is a powerful thing. It'll uproot everything that gets in its way. And often that's not a bad thing. Most traditional societies, for example, aren't good to women. And lives can be short, brutish and filled with superstition.

                          But the idea has taken hold that Capitalism is some sort of self-correcting machine, that any downside, like the housing bubble or Great Depression, MUST be the result of government meddling. This view is no accident, it's promotion is well-funded. And it's found it's most receptive audience among folks with a religious bent, who need infallible icons -- capitalism, Founding Fathers, Consitution. People who need stone tablets.

                          I'm 44 and grew up with history textbooks that still had a New Deal slant. I was actually taught, believe it or not, that America was great (history texts are always propoganda) because we weren't fully Communist or fully Capitalist, that we had a "mixed economy" and that was the way forward. This, of course, when away in the 80's.
                          The new deal kept the country from recovering from the Great Depression, it was only when all the other world's economic powers were destroyed and America was one of the few left that could produce anything in substantial volume that lead to recovering from the great depression and that was post WW2 ffs. American socialism is quite a nasty thing and very detrimental to the long term growth of the country. This will continue to hurt living standards & liberty just like the New Deal did.

                          I do find it interesting that when people talk about the New Deal they fail to note Hoover's role in the creation of it.
                          Starting Date: Dec 18, 2010
                          Starting Weight: 294 pounds
                          Current Weight: 235 pounds
                          Goal Weight: 195 pounds

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by kenn View Post
                            The new deal kept the country from recovering from the Great Depression, it was only when all the other world's economic powers were destroyed and America was one of the few left that could produce anything in substantial volume that lead to recovering from the great depression and that was post WW2 ffs. American socialism is quite a nasty thing and very detrimental to the long term growth of the country. This will continue to hurt living standards & liberty just like the New Deal did.

                            I do find it interesting that when people talk about the New Deal they fail to note Hoover's role in the creation of it.
                            Why socialism so successful in Europe? Is it because people have stronger cultural ties to each other and overall have culturally inherited that mentality?
                            My chocolatey Primal journey

                            Unusual food recipes (plus chocolate) blog

                            Comment


                            • I was just wondering that myself
                              Originally posted by Warmbear View Post
                              Good gods what have I started?
                              You know all those things you wanted to do: You should go do them.

                              Age 48
                              height 5'3
                              SW 215 lbs
                              CW 180 lbs (whole foods/primal eating)
                              LW 172 lbs
                              GW 125ish lbs

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kenn View Post
                                The new deal kept the country from recovering from the Great Depression, it was only when all the other world's economic powers were destroyed and America was one of the few left that could produce anything in substantial volume that lead to recovering from the great depression and that was post WW2 ffs. American socialism is quite a nasty thing and very detrimental to the long term growth of the country. This will continue to hurt living standards & liberty just like the New Deal did.
                                Yes, yes, I've heard all this before. It's balderdash.

                                Government spending as % of GDP continued to grown the salad days post WWII. It meant an unprecedented level of stability, even after our industrial "rivals" (I don't know why they have to be rivals) recovered. We only suffered the recent huge downturn because we deregulated to the point of a banking crisis.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X