A Facebook friend (whom I have known since she was 6 years old, and I can attest she was a freedom lover even then) posted this article from Ultraculture.org
http://ultraculture.org/blog/2014/03/24/terrifying-story-enslavement/
I personally have never seen a better description of the human condition. But, please note that the video ends with, "Wake up!" which indicates waking up and seeking liberty is possible and a goal worth pursuing.
Marcy
This is great!
The narrator (and I believe creator) of the video is libertarian anarchist Stefan Molyneux. I've seen him at PorcFest and Libertopia and he's a very smart and funny speaker. Understand he also has a popular podcast although I haven't checked it out.
I have some minor (well maybe not so minor) criticisms of the video, but overall it's a powerful piece. Particularly powerful because it is a work of art, rather than just a political sermon. I don't mean the fact of having video footage to go with the monologue, although that helps. I mean that the very metaphor of "human farming" is an artistic rendering of reality -- boiling things down to black and white in order to allow a pattern to be seen more clearly. Ayn Rand did this with her fiction, which is one reason I think it is so effective. Literary types tend to look down at her as an author because her characters and plot lines were too black-and-white, good-vs-evil, instead of being cast in myriad shades of grey that better reflect the nuanced reality we live in. But art boils things down to essences and reveals hidden truths. When everything is in nuanced shades of grey, it's harder to see the bars of the cages!
My main criticism of Molyneux's piece is the unsupported assertion that the smaller a government starts out, the larger it will eventually become, because (he claims) freedom causes government to metastasize due to the wealth it creates. Such a startlingly counter-intuitive claim makes little sense on the face of it and needs a lot more evidentiary support in order to be convincing. Especially since Molyneux, who believes that the solution is no government at all, apparently wants us to believe that starting out with zero government will over time result not in the largest government of all, but in the continuance of zero government. As if authoritarian impulses like greed, envy, and power-lust only infect human beings when there is an institution present that calls itself a "government", no matter how small or restricted it is, and could not find fertile soil in society without the pre-existence of such an institution! Another quibble I have is with his assertion that the "intellectual and artistic classes" are "always and forever dependent upon the farmers" (i.e. upon government) and ready to attack those who demand freedom. But in Eastern Europe, artists and intellectuals were among the foremost opponents of Soviet domination. Molyneux himself, as an intellectual and (I contend) an artist, is a walking refutation of his statement.
Still, the "human farming" paradigm is a powerful and in many ways compelling theory of human history that I think has a lot of truth to it, even if some of the details as he proclaims them here seem dubious.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
I saw Molyneux' name, but could not determine whether he was the author or the poster of someone's work. Thank you for the information that he is the author, Starchild.
Thank you also for your excellently written arguments, which I read with interest. Overall, indeed, the narrative succeeds in conveying its principal message -- we need to wake up to the fact that masters subtly transform us into dependent, acquiescent slaves.
Whether a credibly small master (government or non-government) better succeeds in the road to enslavement seems to me not only intuitive, but empirically evident, if by success we mean an enslavement of every aspect of our lives, which results in the greatest production of goods that benefit the masters. Prime examples in my view are the Soviet Union, starting big and staying big, but not producing the quantity and quality of goods as the U.S., which started small, and enslaved gradually and subtly.
Yes, artists and intellectuals are once in a while in the news throwing Molotovs ever which way. However, the ones in Molyneux' narrative are the steady producers -- recipients of sustaining grants and other financial largess -- who are bribed into servitude no less than the recipients of free healthcare, but can speak to the wonders of the masters much more efficiently than the single Mom receiving Medicaid.
In spite of my total admiration for this work, I also have a small criticism. I am wondering if the initial comment on schools that indoctrinate rather than teach constitutes a mixed metaphor, since cows don't go to school.
Marcy
Well, it's definitely Stefan's voice in the video, and I'm pretty sure he's the scriptwriter as well. Don't know whether he assembled the video montage or had help with that part.
I understand his (and your) point about a less overreaching government producing more wealth for "the masters" than a totalitarian regime. That much is certainly true. But a less overreaching government also means less slavery; it also means more wealth for the people. Stefan's claim however was not that a smaller government produces more wealth which may be confiscated, but that a government which starts out small ends up larger than a government which starts out large. I consider that claim unsupported and extremely dubious.
Regarding artists and intellectuals, my objection is to Stefan singling them out. Are these categories of people more anti-freedom on the whole than business executives? Than white collar professionals? Than blue collar workers? Than farmers? Than emergency personnel? Than other groups in society? It's not clear to me that this is the case. Certainly the video gives no evidence that it is true. And unquestionably the claim that these classes are "always and forever" dependent on and reinforcing of government is false, as I've already shown; that claim seems (to me at least) to go beyond the artistic approach of clarifying by presenting things in black and white that I discuss in my previous message.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
It's too bad the we accept the conditions while we criticize their description.
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@earthlink.net>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeWell, it's definitely Stefan's voice in the video, and I'm pretty sure he's the scriptwriter as well. Don't know whether he assembled the video montage or had help with that part.
I understand his (and your) point about a less overreaching government producing more wealth for "the masters" than a totalitarian regime. That much is certainly true. But a less overreaching government also means less slavery; it also means more wealth for the people. Stefan's claim however was not that a smaller government produces more wealth which may be confiscated, but that a government which starts out small ends up larger than a government which starts out large. I consider that claim unsupported and extremely dubious.
Regarding artists and intellectuals, my objection is to Stefan singling them out. Are these categories of people more anti-freedom on the whole than business executives? Than white collar professionals? Than blue collar workers? Than farmers? Than emergency personnel? Than other groups in society? It's not clear to me that this is the case. Certainly the video gives no evidence that it is true. And unquestionably the claim that these classes are "always and forever" dependent on and reinforcing of government is false, as I've already shown; that claim seems (to me at least) to go beyond the artistic approach of clarifying by presenting things in black and white that I discuss in my previous message.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))I saw Molyneux' name, but could not determine whether he was the author or the poster of someone's work. Thank you for the information that he is the author, Starchild.
Thank you also for your excellently written arguments, which I read with interest. Overall, indeed, the narrative succeeds in conveying its principal message -- we need to wake up to the fact that masters subtly transform us into dependent, acquiescent slaves.
Whether a credibly small master (government or non-government) better succeeds in the road to enslavement seems to me not only intuitive, but empirically evident, if by success we mean an enslavement of every aspect of our lives, which results in the greatest production of goods that benefit the masters. Prime examples in my view are the Soviet Union, starting big and staying big, but not producing the quantity and quality of goods as the U.S., which started small, and enslaved gradually and subtly.
Yes, artists and intellectuals are once in a while in the news throwing Molotovs ever which way. However, the ones in Molyneux' narrative are the steady producers -- recipients of sustaining grants and other financial largess -- who are bribed into servitude no less than the recipients of free healthcare, but can speak to the wonders of the masters much more efficiently than the single Mom receiving Medicaid.
In spite of my total admiration for this work, I also have a small criticism. I am wondering if the initial comment on schools that indoctrinate rather than teach constitutes a mixed metaphor, since cows don't go to school.
Marcy
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
From: sfdreamer@...
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:06:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeThe narrator (and I believe creator) of the video is libertarian anarchist Stefan Molyneux. I've seen him at PorcFest and Libertopia and he's a very smart and funny speaker. Understand he also has a popular podcast although I haven't checked it out.
I have some minor (well maybe not so minor) criticisms of the video, but overall it's a powerful piece. Particularly powerful because it is a work of art, rather than just a political sermon. I don't mean the fact of having video footage to go with the monologue, although that helps. I mean that the very metaphor of "human farming" is an artistic rendering of reality -- boiling things down to black and white in order to allow a pattern to be seen more clearly. Ayn Rand did this with her fiction, which is one reason I think it is so effective. Literary types tend to look down at her as an author because her characters and plot lines were too black-and-white, good-vs-evil, instead of being cast in myriad shades of grey that better reflect the nuanced reality we live in. But art boils things down to essences and reveals hidden truths. When everything is in nuanced shades of grey, it's harder to see the bars of the cages!
My main criticism of Molyneux's piece is the unsupported assertion that the smaller a government starts out, the larger it will eventually become, because (he claims) freedom causes government to metastasize due to the wealth it creates. Such a startlingly counter-intuitive claim makes little sense on the face of it and needs a lot more evidentiary support in order to be convincing. Especially since Molyneux, who believes that the solution is no government at all, apparently wants us to believe that starting out with zero government will over time result not in the largest government of all, but in the continuance of zero government. As if authoritarian impulses like greed, envy, and power-lust only infect human beings when there is an institution present that calls itself a "government", no matter how small or restricted it is, and could not find fertile soil in society without the pre-existence of such an institution! Another quibble I have is with
his assertion that the "intellectual and artistic classes" are "always and forever dependent upon the farmers" (i.e. upon government) and ready to attack those who demand freedom. But in Eastern Europe, artists and intellectuals were among the foremost opponents of Soviet domination. Molyneux himself, as an intellectual and (I contend) an artist, is a walking refutation of his statement.
John,
Don't mistake my comments for acceptance. The question in my mind is not whether the enslavement should end, but how to make that happen.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Two different set of dudes.
Marcy
Yup. Obviously.
Marcy
Could'da fooled me. 
The bulk of the commentary is focused in discussion of the art of the piece.
Not much is about how long we will continue to submit to the conditions and what timeline we are on for relief.
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...t>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeJohn,
Don't mistake my comments for acceptance\. The question in my mind is not whether the enslavement should end, but how to make that happen\.Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))It's too bad the we accept the conditions while we criticize their description.
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeWell, it's definitely Stefan's voice in the video, and I'm pretty sure he's the scriptwriter as well. Don't know whether he assembled the video montage or had help with that part.
I understand his (and your) point about a less overreaching government producing more wealth for "the masters" than a totalitarian regime. That much is certainly true. But a less overreaching government also means less slavery; it also means more wealth for the people. Stefan's claim however was not that a smaller government produces more wealth which may be confiscated, but that a government which starts out small ends up larger than a government which starts out large. I consider that claim unsupported and extremely dubious.
Regarding artists and intellectuals, my objection is to Stefan singling them out. Are these categories of people more anti-freedom on the whole than business executives? Than white collar professionals? Than blue collar workers? Than farmers? Than emergency personnel? Than other groups in society? It's not clear to me that this is the case. Certainly the video gives no evidence that it is true. And unquestionably the claim that these classes are "always and forever" dependent on and reinforcing of government is false, as I've already shown; that claim seems (to me at least) to go beyond the artistic approach of clarifying by presenting things in black and white that I discuss in my previous message.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))> I saw Molyneux' name, but could not determine whether he was the author or the poster of someone's work. Thank you for the information that he is the author, Starchild.
>
> Thank you also for your excellently written arguments, which I read with interest. Overall, indeed, the narrative succeeds in conveying its principal message -- we need to wake up to the fact that masters subtly transform us into dependent, acquiescent slaves.
>
> Whether a credibly small master (government or non-government) better succeeds in the road to enslavement seems to me not only intuitive, but empirically evident, if by success we mean an enslavement of every aspect of our lives, which results in the greatest production of goods that benefit the masters. Prime examples in my view are the Soviet Union, starting big and staying big, but not producing the quantity and quality of goods as the U.S., which started small, and enslaved gradually and subtly.
>
> Yes, artists and intellectuals are once in a while in the news throwing Molotovs ever which way. However, the ones in Molyneux' narrative are the steady producers -- recipients of sustaining grants and other financial largess -- who are bribed into servitude no less than the recipients of free healthcare, but can speak to the wonders of the masters much more efficiently than the single Mom receiving Medicaid.
>
> In spite of my total admiration for this work, I also have a small criticism. I am wondering if the initial comment on schools that indoctrinate rather than teach constitutes a mixed metaphor, since cows don't go to school.
>
> Marcy
>
>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> From: sfdreamer@...
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:06:38 -0700
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to see
>
>
>
> The narrator (and I believe creator) of the video is libertarian anarchist Stefan Molyneux. I've seen him at PorcFest and Libertopia and he's a very smart and funny speaker. Understand he also has a popular podcast although I haven't checked it out.
>
> I have some minor (well maybe not so minor) criticisms of the video, but overall it's a powerful piece. Particularly powerful because it is a work of art, rather than just a political sermon. I don't mean the fact of having video footage to go with the monologue, although that helps. I mean that the very metaphor of "human farming" is an artistic rendering of reality -- boiling things down to black and white in order to allow a pattern to be seen more clearly. Ayn Rand did this with her fiction, which is one reason I think it is so effective. Literary types tend to look down at her as an author because her characters and plot lines were too black-and-white, good-vs-evil, instead of being cast in myriad shades of grey that better reflect the nuanced reality we live in. But art boils things down to essences and reveals hidden truths. When everything is in nuanced shades of grey, it's harder to see the bars of the cages!
>
> My main criticism of Molyneux's piece is the unsupported assertion that the smaller a government startringrecycling@... out, the larger it will eventually become, because (he claims) freedom causes government to metastasize due to the wealth it creates. Such a startlingly counter-intuitive claim makes little sense on the face of it and needs a lot more evidentiary support in order to be convincing. Especially since Molyneux, who believes that the solution is no government at all, apparently wants us to believe that starting out with zero government will over time result not in the largest government of all, but in the continuance of zero government. As if authoritarian impulses like greed, envy, and power-lust only infect human beings when there is an institution present that calls itself a "government", no matter how small or restricted it is, and could not find fertile soil in society without the pre-existence of such an institution!
Another quibble I have is with his assertion that the "intellectual and artistic classes" are "always and forever dependent upon the farmers" (i.e. upon government) and ready to attack those who demand freedom. But in Eastern Europe, artists and intellectuals were among the foremost opponents of Soviet domination. Molyneux himself, as an intellectual and (I contend) an artist, is a walking refutation of his statement.
This is a crucial point, Starchild! So very crucial! You have on one hand a master who is overreaching from the start, allowing no freedoms. What happens? Low productivity, low taxes, lower growth of the master who feeds on the taxes. You have on the other hand, a master who exudes benevolence and freedoms (healthcare, minimum wage, slaves on its payroll, etc.; as well as community input, free speech zones, election of bozos every 4 years, etc). What happens? High productivity, high taxation, huge growth of the master. The state that starts the smallest grows the largest.
Regarding the parasite intellectuals and artists, of course other professions can be equally parasitic. However, as I intimated previously, the blue collar worker or the emergency personnel do not have the intellect, the talent, and the audience to communicate the benevolence of the state to the rest of the slaves. A Steinbeck writing The Grapes of Wrath can produce infinitely more productive slaves dependent on the master for protection of their livelihood than the plumber who fixes your sink efficiently and often in silence. The cancer researcher who lives on grants and depends on us paying our fair share so he can continue his life-saving mission produces more slaves than the pizza delivery guy, who may not even speak your language and cannot communicate much with you. Yes, pretty straight forward facts -- pretty black and white.
Equally crucial is the question whether a scenario where there is no master, no slave, no human ownership can exist. I say "no." As I believe you indicated, people are people with or without the state; and therefore, will try to rise to the level of master no matter what the conditions, or try to acquire protections no matter the scenario. Perhaps the best that can be achieved is a scenario where people are encouraged to understand the nature of indoctrination (government schools), false pride (nationalism), fake liberties (voting for benevolent bozos), manufactured conflict (wars on everything), and above all state benevolence and protection (the list is endless), and develop the fortitude to reject it all. Liberty is hard work and pain.
Marcy
I've begun proposing the start-up of a GSP, Government Services Provider.
A subscription fee would provide all wanted government services and defend the subscriber from organized crime.
________________________________
From: Marcy Berry <amarcyb@...>
To: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:25 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeThis is a crucial point, Starchild! So very crucial! You have on one hand a master who is overreaching from the start, allowing no freedoms. What happens? Low productivity, low taxes, lower growth of the master who feeds on the taxes. You have on the other hand, a master who exudes benevolence and freedoms (healthcare, minimum wage, slaves on its payroll, etc.; as well as community input, free speech zones, election of bozos every 4 years, etc). What happens? High productivity, high taxation, huge growth of the master. The state that starts the smallest grows the largest.
Regarding the parasite intellectuals and artists, of course other professions can be equally parasitic. However, as I intimated previously, the blue collar worker or the emergency personnel do not have the intellect, the talent, and the audience to communicate the benevolence of the state to the rest of the slaves. A Steinbeck writing The Grapes of Wrath can produce infinitely more productive slaves dependent on the master for protection of their livelihood than the plumber who fixes your sink efficiently and often in silence. The cancer researcher who lives on grants and depends on us paying our fair share so he can continue his life-saving mission produces more slaves than the pizza delivery guy, who may not even speak your language and cannot communicate much with you. Yes, pretty straight forward facts -- pretty black and white.
Equally crucial is the question whether a scenario where there is no master, no slave, no human ownership can exist. I say "no." As I believe you indicated, people are people with or without the state; and therefore, will try to rise to the level of master no matter what the conditions, or try to acquire protections no matter the scenario. Perhaps the best that can be achieved is a scenario where people are encouraged to understand the nature of indoctrination (government schools), false pride (nationalism), fake liberties (voting for benevolent bozos), manufactured conflict (wars on everything), and above all state benevolence and protection (the list is endless), and develop the fortitude to reject it all. Liberty is hard work and pain.
Marcy
________________________________
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
From: sfdreamer@earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:15:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeWell, it's definitely Stefan's voice in the video, and I'm pretty sure he's the scriptwriter as well. Don't know whether he assembled the video montage or had help with that part.
I understand his (and your) point about a less overreaching government producing more wealth for "the masters" than a totalitarian regime. That much is certainly true. But a less overreaching government also means less slavery; it also means more wealth for the people. Stefan's claim however was not that a smaller government produces more wealth which may be confiscated, but that a government which starts out small ends up larger than a government which starts out large. I consider that claim unsupported and extremely dubious.
Regarding artists and intellectuals, my objection is to Stefan singling them out. Are these categories of people more anti-freedom on the whole than business executives? Than white collar professionals? Than blue collar workers? Than farmers? Than emergency personnel? Than other groups in society? It's not clear to me that this is the case. Certainly the video gives no evidence that it is true. And unquestionably the claim that these classes are "always and forever" dependent on and reinforcing of government is false, as I've already shown; that claim seems (to me at least) to go beyond the artistic approach of clarifying by presenting things in black and white that I discuss in my previous message.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))I saw Molyneux' name, but could not determine whether he was the author or the poster of someone's work. Thank you for the information that he is the author, Starchild.
Thank you also for your excellently written arguments, which I read with interest. Overall, indeed, the narrative succeeds in conveying its principal message -- we need to wake up to the fact that masters subtly transform us into dependent, acquiescent slaves.
Whether a credibly small master (government or non-government) better succeeds in the road to enslavement seems to me not only intuitive, but empirically evident, if by success we mean an enslavement of every aspect of our lives, which results in the greatest production of goods that benefit the masters. Prime examples in my view are the Soviet Union, starting big and staying big, but not producing the quantity and quality of goods as the U.S., which started small, and enslaved gradually and subtly.
Yes, artists and intellectuals are once in a while in the news throwing Molotovs ever which way. However, the ones in Molyneux' narrative are the steady producers -- recipients of sustaining grants and other financial largess -- who are bribed into servitude no less than the recipients of free healthcare, but can speak to the wonders of the masters much more efficiently than the single Mom receiving Medicaid.
In spite of my total admiration for this work, I also have a small criticism. I am wondering if the initial comment on schools that indoctrinate rather than teach constitutes a mixed metaphor, since cows don't go to school.
Marcy
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
From: sfdreamer@...
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:06:38 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeThe narrator (and I believe creator) of the video is libertarian anarchist Stefan Molyneux. I've seen him at PorcFest and Libertopia and he's a very smart and funny speaker. Understand he also has a popular podcast although I haven't checked it out.
I have some minor (well maybe not so minor) criticisms of the video, but overall it's a powerful piece. Particularly powerful because it is a work of art, rather than just a political sermon. I don't mean the fact of having video footage to go with the monologue, although that helps. I mean that the very metaphor of "human farming" is an artistic rendering of reality -- boiling things down to black and white in order to allow a pattern to be seen more clearly. Ayn Rand did this with her fiction, which is one reason I think it is so effective. Literary types tend to look down at her as an author because her characters and plot lines were too black-and-white, good-vs-evil, instead of being cast in myriad shades of grey that better reflect the nuanced reality we live in. But art boils things down to essences and reveals hidden truths. When everything is in nuanced shades of grey, it's harder to see the bars of the cages!
My main criticism of Molyneux's piece is the unsupported assertion that the smaller a government starts out, the larger it will eventually become, because (he claims) freedom causes government to metastasize due to the wealth it creates. Such a startlingly counter-intuitive claim makes little sense on the face of it and needs a lot more evidentiary support in order to be convincing. Especially since Molyneux, who believes that the solution is no government at all, apparently wants us to believe that starting out with zero government will over time result not in the largest government of all, but in the continuance of zero government. As if authoritarian impulses like greed, envy, and power-lust only infect human beings when there is an institution present that calls itself a "government", no matter how small or restricted it is, and could not find fertile soil in society without the pre-existence of such an institution! Another quibble I have is with
his assertion that the "intellectual and artistic classes" are "always and forever dependent upon the farmers" (i.e. upon government) and ready to attack those who demand freedom. But in Eastern Europe, artists and intellectuals were among the foremost opponents of Soviet domination. Molyneux himself, as an intellectual and (I contend) an artist, is a walking refutation of his statement.
John,
Is there a menu of services? I would like to know what fees are charged for what services, and what happens if a service you have purchased is not provided to your satisfaction -- if the deal sounds good, I might be your first client! Especially if you can get my current GSP to stop billing me and providing unwanted services.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Heh heh,
Of course there is a menu of services. But without you and some others on the board, the menu would soon include the usual "bomb other countries", "sell natural resources", "create underclasses and lock them up", "topple foreign governments", and so on.
Then these premium services to special interests, would make so much money, the minimum subscription could be free.
We'd need a niche market.
________________________________
From: Starchild <sfdreamer@...>
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 12:14 AM
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeJohn,
Is there a menu of services? I would like to know what fees are charged for what services, and what happens if a service you have purchased is not provided to your satisfaction -- if the deal sounds good, I might be your first client! Especially if you can get my current GSP to stop billing me and providing unwanted services.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))I've begun proposing the start-up of a GSP, Government Services Provider.
A subscription fee would provide all wanted government services and defend the subscriber from organized crime.
From: Marcy Berry <amarcyb@...>
To: "lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com" <lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:25 PM
Subject: RE: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeThis is a crucial point, Starchild! So very crucial! You have on one hand a master who is overreaching from the start, allowing no freedoms. What happens? Low productivity, low taxes, lower growth of the master who feeds on the taxes. You have on the other hand, a master who exudes benevolence and freedoms (healthcare, minimum wage, slaves on its payroll, etc.; as well as community input, free speech zones, election of bozos every 4 years, etc). What happens? High productivity, high taxation, huge growth of the master. The state that starts the smallest grows the largest.
Regarding the parasite intellectuals and artists, of course other professions can be equally parasitic. However, as I intimated previously, the blue collar worker or the emergency personnel do not have the intellect, the talent, and the audience to communicate the benevolence of the state to the rest of the slaves. A Steinbeck writing The Grapes of Wrath can produce infinitely more productive slaves dependent on the master for protection of their livelihood than the plumber who fixes your sink efficiently and often in silence. The cancer researcher who lives on grants and depends on us paying our fair share so he can continue his life-saving mission produces more slaves than the pizza delivery guy, who may not even speak your language and cannot communicate much with you. Yes, pretty straight forward facts -- pretty black and white.
Equally crucial is the question whether a scenario where there is no master, no slave, no human ownership can exist. I say "no." As I believe you indicated, people are people with or without the state; and therefore, will try to rise to the level of master no matter what the conditions, or try to acquire protections no matter the scenario. Perhaps the best that can be achieved is a scenario where people are encouraged to understand the nature of indoctrination (government schools), false pride (nationalism), fake liberties (voting for benevolent bozos), manufactured conflict (wars on everything), and above all state benevolence and protection (the list is endless), and develop the fortitude to reject it all. Liberty is hard work and pain.
Marcy
To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
From: sfdreamer@earthlink.net
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 20:15:01 -0700
Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to seeWell, it's definitely Stefan's voice in the video, and I'm pretty sure he's the scriptwriter as well. Don't know whether he assembled the video montage or had help with that part.
I understand his (and your) point about a less overreaching government producing more wealth for "the masters" than a totalitarian regime. That much is certainly true. But a less overreaching government also means less slavery; it also means more wealth for the people. Stefan's claim however was not that a smaller government produces more wealth which may be confiscated, but that a government which starts out small ends up larger than a government which starts out large. I consider that claim unsupported and extremely dubious.
Regarding artists and intellectuals, my objection is to Stefan singling them out. Are these categories of people more anti-freedom on the whole than business executives? Than white collar professionals? Than blue collar workers? Than farmers? Than emergency personnel? Than other groups in society? It's not clear to me that this is the case. Certainly the video gives no evidence that it is true. And unquestionably the claim that these classes are "always and forever" dependent on and reinforcing of government is false, as I've already shown; that claim seems (to me at least) to go beyond the artistic approach of clarifying by presenting things in black and white that I discuss in my previous message.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))> I saw Molyneux' name, but could not determine whether he was the author or the poster of someone's work. Thank you for the information that he is the author, Starchild.
>
> Thank you also for your excellently written arguments, which I read with interest. Overall, indeed, the narrative succeeds in conveying its principal message -- we need to wake up to the fact that masters subtly transform us into dependent, acquiescent slaves.
>
> Whether a credibly small master (government or non-government) better succeeds in the road to enslavement seems to me not only intuitive, but empirically evident, if by success we mean an enslavement of every aspect of our lives, which results in the greatest production of goods that benefit the masters. Prime examples in my view are the Soviet Union, starting big and staying big, but not producing the quantity and quality of goods as the U.S., which started small, and enslaved gradually and subtly.
>
> Yes, artists and intellectuals are once in a while in the news throwing Molotovs ever which way. However, the ones in Molyneux' narrative are the steady producers -- recipients of sustaining grants and other financial largess -- who are bribed into servitude no less than the recipients of free healthcare, but can speak to the wonders of the masters much more efficiently than the single Mom receiving Medicaid.
>
> In spite of my total admiration for this work, I also have a small criticism. I am wondering if the initial comment on schools that indoctrinate rather than teach constitutes a mixed metaphor, since cows don't go to school.
>
> Marcy
>
>
> To: lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> From: sfdreamer@...
> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 18:06:38 -0700
> Subject: Re: [lpsf-discuss] How we are kept in cages we refuse to see
>
>
>
> The narrator (and I believe creator) of the video is libertarian anarchist Stefan Molyneux. I've seen him at PorcFest and Libertopia and he's a very smart and funny speaker. Understand he also has a popular podcast although I haven't checked it out.
>
> I have some minor (well maybe not so minor) criticisms of the video, but overall it's a powerful piece. Particularly powerful because it is a work of art, rather than just a political sermon. I don't mean the fact of having video footage to go with the monologue, although that helps. I mean that the very metaphor of "human farming" is an artistic rendering of reality -- boiling things down to black and white in order to allow a pattern to be seen more clearly. Ayn Rand did this with her fiction, which is one reason I think it is so effective. Literary types tend to look down at her as an author because her characters and plot lines were too black-and-white, good-vs-evil, instead of being cast in myriad shades of grey that better reflect the nuanced reality we live in. But art boils things down to essences and reveals hidden truths. When everything is in nuanced shades of grey, it's harder to see the bars of the cages!
>
> My main criticism of Molyneux's piece is the unsupported assertion that the smaller a government starts out, the larger it will eventually become, because (he claims) freedom causes government to metastasize due to the wealth it creates. Such a startlingly counter-intuitive claim makes little sense on the face of it and needs a lot more evidentiary support in order to be convincing. Especially since Molyneux, who believes that the solution is no government at all, apparently wants us to believe that starting out with zero government will over time result not in the largest government of all, but in the continuance of zero government. As if authoritarian impulses like greed, envy, and power-lust only infect human beings when there is an institution present that calls itself a "government", no matter how small or restricted it is, and could not find fertile soil in society without the pre-existence of such an institution! Another quibble I have is
with his assertion that the "intellectual and artistic classes" are "always and forever dependent upon the farmers" (i.e. upon government) and ready to attack those who demand freedom. But in Eastern Europe, artists and intellectuals were among the foremost opponents of Soviet domination. Molyneux himself, as an intellectual and (I contend) an artist, is a walking refutation of his statement.