Larken Rose interview, pt. 2 – “Government – The Fallacy of Ad Verecundiam, pt. 1″ – #136


This episode is an interview with Larken Rose, pt 2 titled “Government - The Fallacy of Ad Verecundiam, pt. 1” and is being released on Monday, February 6, 2012. My interview with Larken was recorded on Saturday, February 4, 2012.

Larken has been here once before: last June, and he’s back again as we delve deeper into this most important, and yet most misunderstood topic.

What does it mean to have a leader, or government? Does government protect our freedoms, or are they the very cause of our enslavement? And what does it mean to vote? Does voting give us freedoms that we otherwise might not have?

What if the idea of government was nothing but a religious myth, created by criminals and followed by billions of mindless zombie zealots the world over - just as any other dogma? What would happen if one day, just all of a sudden, everyone stopped believing in government?


Today we’ll be discussing what it means to believe in government. Is government real, or a figment of your collective, religious imagination? Does not voting mean that we’d be sitting around like a bunch of lazy couch potatoes doing nothing? Or, if we use critical thinking, is it really our first course of action to disempower the criminals whom we call politicians? Is voting the only way to effect change? Or is it in reality one of the least effective ways to effect change and gain freedom? And what does it mean to live in a democratic (or “mob-ruled”) society, anyway?

Today we question some of our most firmly held governmental religious myths as we continue this investigation on the myth of government, exposing government as the fallacy of “ad verecundiam”.

It is time to grow up. The time is now to stop having mommy and daddy government tell us what we want, and what we can or can’t do, say, eat, or what drugs we can take. Today we begin acting as adults, making our own decisions – rejecting the fallacy of appeal to authority, or ad verecundiam.

Larken Rose is a self-described “enemy of the state” and “tax heretic.”
The author of several books–two of which were written during his one-year stay as a political prisoner in the U.S. prison system–Mr. Rose is an outspoken advocate of self-ownership and a voluntary society. For more information, see

  37 comments for “Larken Rose interview, pt. 2 – “Government – The Fallacy of Ad Verecundiam, pt. 1″ – #136

  1. Sparticus
    February 6, 2012 at 3:08 pm

    Ok I listened and I like the first part but I don’t see where your offering any solutions? Pointing out the logical fallacies is a good thing but I have noticed if I am not mistaken you can find the logical fallacies in almost anything? Ron Paul is looking like more like controlled opposition all the time. Duh! Glad I didn’t give much money cause he is not fighting back for nothing but I still like the guy and he is offering more of a solution than you are and you foolishly ended up spending a year in jail. Glad you wrote that speech though. I think that 911 ruth could be the test? Just asking about these things. Does anybody have any ideas or address my points.

    • Jan Irvin
      February 6, 2012 at 4:53 pm

      Not offering solutions!?!?! Wow. The trivium is the first and primary solution – THINKING. And if you think you can find fallacies in anything, you’re not thinking clearly.

      • Ahmet
        February 7, 2012 at 11:02 am

        I can see where Sparticus is coming from, although there is no arguing with Larken’s logic regarding the immorality of government, he didn’t give any solutions as to how essential services, like roads and hospitals will work in an anarchist state.

        • Adam Campbell
          February 7, 2012 at 7:25 pm

          I haven’t had time to listen to this episode yet.
          However, I have heard Larken many times before.
          It is not his job to tell you how to solve any problems. He is identifying a problem and doing his best to bring the details of that problem to the attention of as many people as possible so that they can find their own solutions. To say that every problem has one and only one solution is just plain silly. Individual circumstances will dictate the solutions that bloom from the seeds of liberty. Trying to force everyone into the same solution is part of the problem we currently have.

          But just to suggest a few, how about voluntary organizations, where power is not Incorporated into a single person at the top of a pyramid. How about volunteer work where the community volunteers to be a part of creating and managing the solution needed in their particular community, actually being involved in their own needs, wants and lives in general, actually live and not be a dependent.

          Do you really think that if government just disappeared that all those people who used roads would just sit there and watch the nature take back the land? Some would, but others would step up. Shit gets done, its always gotten done, except when government is involved, then it takes 10 longer than it should an costs 100 times more.

          example of positive action:

          Things getting done takes positive action in the direction you wish it to go. Unfortunately government and government workers don’t like anyone but themselves filling potholes.

          Can’t wait to hear the actual episode. Larken’ is a refreshing point of view.

        • spiritsplice
          February 20, 2012 at 1:43 pm

          What difference would it make if he did? Your argument (and most who are against anarchism) is basically, “Sure murder is immoral but we can’t get rid of it because….how would we live without it?”

 has plenty of articles and free books written on the specifics of how, see Mises, Rothbard, Sowell, Kinsella, etc. Entire books have been written about transportation alone. Hospitals (and everything else for that matter) are a mess *because* of government meddling. They have made it unaffordable unless you participate in the insurance scam/racket. Governmemt is not accomplishing the good and the grand as you and so many others wish to believe. Nearly all the major problems in the world are directly attributable to government action.

        • mike
          March 7, 2012 at 7:57 pm

          I thought hospitals were semi private already

          • Ann
            September 13, 2012 at 4:11 am

            They are and you have to be paying into the scam to be able to afford to access them or be stinking rich.
            They cripple peoples last remaining money with impunity.

            If people had more time to be part of their families and community they would find that they would get sick far less anyway and that family or community would help out where necessary.

            I have been a chronic pain sufferer for years and paid out so much money to be pain free. I became depressed and suicidal as a result of the medications.
            One day at the age of 66 I decided I had had enough.
            It was find my own way or do away with myself.

            I found alternate natural ways of dealing with the pain and also became a Vegan (no animal products at all). I am now going on 70 and have never been this painfree in my entire life nor this healthy since I was in my teens.

            Don’t rely on ANY institutions for help. Search for your own and find out what the ancients knew. They were able to survive wonderfully without any of the structures we have in place today.
            We have been robbed of nature deliberately so this is where you start.
            Get back to nature as much as possible and study all the natural processes. Keep YOURSElF healthy by eating and resting correctly and staying in tune with nature.
            Your body knows how to heal. When last did you tell yourself to breath? When did you tell your cells what to do? When did you tell a graze or a cut to heal? If you give it the right fuel it works like magic.
            If you tell yourself you must have hospitals,medicine etc., your body will respond accordingly, it will give itself over to what you believe in.

    • el
      February 11, 2012 at 10:35 am

      yes, the solution is here, it just takes inititive–the Trivium, despite its cabalistic roots, has helped me free myself even more–i cant wait to learn more….

    • LokiLoks
      August 8, 2012 at 7:02 am

      Was it the responsibility of the people calling for the end of slavery to figure out how the cotton would be picked? Would they REALLY have been able to say that we’d use crushed dinosaur juice in big whirling machines? It’s called freedom. It’s called competition. It’s called a free market. THAT is how we get these services done, we let people compete to see who can best provide the best product or service to get it done and we don’t FORCE our opinion on how it will happen.

  2. Chris
    February 7, 2012 at 4:50 am

    Hey, I think that Larken is spot on about people’s belief in government but is quite vague on how to put these ideas into practice. The current system is absolutely terrible and is not working, but as Jan and Larken both conceded, violence and theft is not acceptable. Therefore, we still need a way to settle disputes and find remedy to maintain order. Order is not at odds with the practice of freedom, it is actually very beneficial to a free and peaceful society. There is a long history called common law, based on similar principles to what Larken describes (inherent rights – don’t harm, steal or defraud). This is where the word ‘authority’ comes from (to author a writ that settles an argument) Most ‘laws’ today are however only statutes given the force of law by consent or conceding jurisdiction to the ‘authority’. The ‘authorities’ deceive us into thinking that ‘illegal’ means ‘unlawful’, and they have changed our commonly used English grammar into a similar language called ‘Legalese’ where words mean completely different things – eg. ‘person’, ‘title’. The way to change the system is to learn o become the authority of your own life – educate yourself (thanks Jan), write down your understanding and rights, these become law, live your life according to your understanding and your law. Can I recommend a film called ‘UNGRIP’? It touches on many themes common to Gnostic Media and Larken’s ideas of freedom. Please people, DON’T CONSENT! Peace.

    • Paul Short
      February 22, 2012 at 6:24 pm

      I haven’t listened to the podcast above yet but your comments on common law got my attention got my attention, especially the part about ‘Legalese’ and the different meaning of the words.

      I’ve been doing my own research and have been studying law dictionaries. If you have access to different editions of Black’s Law dictionary, check out the earliest version you can get your hands on and pick a few words, note their definitions, then look them up in the most current edition. You’ll see how words like ‘Person’ have completely different meanings now as compared to ‘back then.’ A Person was basically a facade a human being used to interface with government and business, similar to how a corporation is a facade set up to do business through. Now, the new definition of a Person is a human being.

      Or better yet, sit down with the dictionaries and a copy of the U.S. constitution. Study the early definitions of some crucial words compared to the newer definitions. Whoever is writing and revising those dictionaries are guilty of treason.

      They don’t need to change law or the constitution. All they have to do is change the meanings of the words it’s written in. I suspect that’s also the reason so many lawyers become high level politicians.

  3. Matt W
    February 7, 2012 at 8:53 am

    Fantastic interview. I’m eagerly awaiting next week’s follow up.I especially enjoyed Laken’s responses to those old masquerading-as-adages falsehoods “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain” and “If you don’t like it[America], then you can leave it”. It is highly likely that these slogans will be encountered in discussions on this topic. Hearing Larken’s response to them was enlightening. By the way Jan, Excellent job structuring and guiding the interview.
    Also, I feel it’s pertinent to add that I think a companion study(well, in truth they are both one work just different facets) to the work presented by Larken is Mark Passio’s material on Natural Law. As I’m sure a lot of the regular listeners to Gnosticmedia already know.

    ORDER can exist without government, but it is imperative that individuals have explicit knowledge of what is right and wrong through the recognition of Natural Law principles. In actuality, the main reason why we don’t have the prosperous and free lives we desire is the commonly held erroneous belief in government. Dispelling this belief is one of the most important solutions. Without the engineered chaos of world governments people would live peaceable lives. The abolition of ‘government’(the concept of government…then the actual world governments themselves) would take care of most of the world’s ills today.( check out podcast # 73 on Mark Passio’s What on Earth is Happening webpage).

    • Jan Irvin
      February 7, 2012 at 10:09 am

      Thanks, Matt. And I got the book. Was that you who sent it? If so, thank you.

      Mark, Larken and I are all friends. We all presented as the highlight speakers the last night of the free your mind conference last April, and we’ve all been on each other’s shows. Though if you provide a link to that exact show of Marks, that would be helpful. The other most important element here is Clint Richardson’s material.

      • Matt W
        February 7, 2012 at 11:43 am

        Yes, indeed it was. I hope you enjoy it!
        The last paragraph of my previous comment was mostly directed to “Sparticus”, but also to anyone else that is curious as to “What then?” regarding post-government humanity.

        [Here I begin addressing the forum at large:]For most people ‘Order’ is synonymous with ‘control’, which couldn’t be further from the truth. Mark demonstrates this in his extensive breakdown of Natural Law. Which can be found Here:
        Starting at podcast #73.

        Mark uses different methods to come to the same conclusion as Larken; namely, government is the cause of the very thing it masquerades as protecting us from…CHAOS . Law is not an invention of man, but something inherent in the universe. We as humans have certain rights, it is our responsibility to recognize our natural Law rights and most importantly: understand what our rights are not. Most people out there intuitively know right and wrong but making explicit what has previous been implicit is extremely important. Especially considering all the propaganda we’ve all been awash in.

        I cannot overstate that Mark Passio’s work regarding morality, human rights, and Natural Law is an important corollary to the information present by Larken. It addresses all the concerns that arise from Larken’s work and answers the questions “If not government, then what?”
        Here’s a hint: Cooperative Spiritual Anarchy. ..No, this is not fantasy; but it does take the power of reason and the faculty of imagination to fathom.

        Oh, Also… Here is a video of Larken’s Free Your Mind conference presentation:
        For those who have already listened to Gnosticmedia podcast #115(Larken Rose’ First Gnosticmedia appearance), then you’ve already heard it. For anyone who hasn’t…it’s a much watch.

        And I concur with Jan that Clint Richardson’s material is also another important element to this most important of topics.

        • Jan Irvin
          February 7, 2012 at 12:29 pm

          Thank you, Matt. Do I need to return it when I’m done?

          The video of Larken’s free your mind conference presentation was posted in his last interview from June/July, so I didn’t repost it.

          Maybe I’ll have Mark back on week after next to go further into natural law. What would be really fantastic is a Mark, Larken, Clint, Rich, and Jan discussion panel.

          • Matt W
            February 7, 2012 at 2:07 pm

            There’s no need to return it. Pass it along to someone else if you’d like.

            That would be a round table to rival Arthur’s…actually, a vast improvement upon it considering the topic of interest. Bring extra chairs…we all might show up(Anarchy/Sovereignty joke folks…)

          • Adam Campbell
            February 7, 2012 at 7:34 pm

            That would be a most fantastic panel. Could also include Paul Verge, always nice to hear a Canadian perspective.
            I’ll be looking forward to it, if you can make it happen.

        • Jan Irvin
          February 9, 2012 at 11:53 pm

          Matt, I’m embarrassed. I just found the envelope you included in the book. Thank you for that too.

  4. el
    February 7, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Will there ever be a West Coast Free Your Mind Con?

  5. Peter
    February 8, 2012 at 11:07 am

    I would love to see you explore the Iroquois form of government which the US constitution was based on. In the Iroquois culture approving laws was based on consensus, not majority rule, and if the chosen leaders didn’t represent the people they were thrown out of office. Once a leader was impeached for not representing the people they could never hold another public office. I am not well versed on Iroquois culture but what I have learned so far is thought provoking, and I think there is much more to be learned from that culture.

  6. Ben Steigmann
    February 8, 2012 at 4:43 pm

    Nice interview.

    I hope you received my most recent email and can understand the relevance of it’s content. I apologize for the frustration that came from our communications, and I hope we can let that pass.

  7. mrance tcenna
    February 10, 2012 at 7:27 am

    teaching people how to think is not much different from teaching them what to think. with ‘how’ you lay a framework where you are free to think but within that framework. that is called squaring the circle (brain/imagination)!
    paving a road which you freely move within but never outside of the boundary. that’s not much different from ordinary schools and churches!
    there’s nothing hidden for those whom have eyes to see. and you don’t need mushrooms to open your inner eye or outer eyes.
    all you need to know is here:

  8. Phonic-Photon
    February 11, 2012 at 1:41 am

    Helle interview.
    Absolute Irreverence to human/fake-god Authority is my birthright. I hope one day to be the one who is to assassinate it (not the individuals just the concept). Larkens stance is clearly the road to true human harmony. I’m glad Jan mentioned Saharasia by James DeMeo, hopefully others will read it (nasty evil circumcision).

  9. Patrick
    February 11, 2012 at 9:58 pm

    Great podcast, I think it was a bit of a stretch to say all hippies and punks were essentially Stalinists, hah.. even if you think all collectivism leads to authoritarian communism, kinda weird to accuse punks of that.

    I agree with everything that was said about the government, but I think its pretty short sighted to think there isn’t other forms of hierarchy in society.(not that anyone specifically claimed that) I am not a communist, but capitalism certainly doesn’t work either. If we had capitalism with no check against the power of the rich, they would certainly be at least as bad as the government. Monopolies are inevitable and when the few own the means of production for something, hierarchy ensues, corporate feudalism is certainly real. Its also important to point out the government these days is the exact same people as the corporations. Corporations do need to be accountable to the environment, you can’t just claim individual freedom to destroy the planet, we all effect each other, especially in these technological days. Certainly no one should be forced in to a collective, but we do have to think in collective terms as well as individual terms. Its not a black and white situation, no one is truly independent, no one can really take away their individual responsibility in a collective society. Obviously you guys aren’t against people working together to accomplish goals but I kind of felt like you left out some big aspects to this problem.

    Anarcho syndicalism and other forms of Anarchism which are more individualist are about the only ways I have found to create a world that can function without hierarchy, there is plenty of literature out there for those interested, these ideas are hundreds of years old, if not older.

    Right now in Venezuala and in Germany there are succesful co-ops run by the workers, everyone makes the same, the workers do most of the management themselves and they own it themselves.. not a bad idea to start with

    • Jan Irvin
      February 11, 2012 at 10:50 pm

      1) Did he say he was for capitalism? Seems he said something about not using the money created out of thin air by government. But also, it seems that you’re looking to suppress free exchange. By what authority?
      2) Seems to me that corporations only exist on license with the government. No government, no corporation. Seems a no brainer.
      3) Larken refers to these types of companies in his work.

      • Patrick
        February 27, 2012 at 7:44 pm

        I never claimed he was for capitalism, I just thought that it didn’t really come up in the discussion and it was worth mentioning.
        So long as the environment isn’t put in danger I am not against free exchange exactly, though I am weary of the concept of private property in many ways, at least after a certain level of wealth has been reached so as to avoid hording and monopolies.
        Obviously neither I or anyone else is an authority on how we should produce and distribute wealth, I think this is something which requires different answers for different people in different situations.
        I just wanted to bring up the idea that libertarianism won’t really work any better than what we have now.
        I wasn’t trying to put down Larken’s work, what he said was gold, this is a big topic and no doubt not everything can be covered in a podcast, I was simply trying to widen the topic of discussion.

    • spiritsplice
      February 21, 2012 at 12:45 pm

      You make no sense. You say “if we had corporations with no checks”, yet this is what cronyism is and what we *do* have. What we do not have is capitalism. We have government sponsorships that are labelled capitalism, big difference. In true capitalism the checks come from consumers who can withold their purchases if displeased with a companies actions. Corporations are huge polluters and destroyers of the environment *right now* withen your pretended government intervention is keeping them in line. They aren’t. It is cheaper to pay the fines than change how they do business, guess which they choose?

      Monopolies are only inevitable when government rigs the playing field through regulations. Every monoply crumbles in time *except* where government becomes involved to ensure its survival. And if it weren’t for the phony concept of “intellectual property”, competition would be booming. And before you cry blasphemy at the notion that patents amd copyrights are not legitimate, I remind you that governmemt never forces something on the people that is in their best interests nor uses guns to enforce it.

      • Patrick
        February 27, 2012 at 7:32 pm

        wow you really assumed a whole lot about my position, I guess you think I am some kind of communist when I said I believe in anarchism. I whole heartedly agree we have cronyism and that the government does little to nothing to stop it, that was a big part of my point. I just think its inevitable when things start out as capitalism. I am not sure why you think monopolies would crumble if it wasnt for governments, nor why all of them come about because of government.

        I dont believe in copy rights either. hah you really take yourself too seriously and like to get offended over things that don’t even exist

  10. adc
    February 12, 2012 at 1:30 pm

    Of course no one mentions the raised consciousness that manifests through their voices whence they mention the truth of the matter with the world we inherit.

    These boffins don’t notice those things left undiscovered, in the places they’re heading to, with the words they pose, too and froe, but we do, we feel you, Larken Rose, we do, absolutely same, as that, be sure that we know too.

    In fact your on the conservatively reserved side of expression, in exorcising this abominable appirition in the mental cortex of the human condition.

    Shall I jack the level again, see if you can – handel – iT TOO?

  11. fabio-massa
    February 16, 2012 at 4:58 am

    podemos viver na sociedade não pertencendo a ela? conseguimos estar fora do sistema mesmo tendo que lidar com ele?
    todas as perguntas tem uma solução a questão e fazer a pergunta certa e interpretar a perspectiva certa da resposta. mas se temos de lidar com pessoas diariamente que estão bloqueadas por o mundo do marketing e a viver uma vida egocêntrica temos de as tentar mudar criando reacções diferentes nelas. quando sabemos como pensar pensamos como os outros pensam para nos podemos relacionar o que temos de mudar na outra pessoa e a sua perspectiva! poluídos com tanta barbaridade nem todos conseguem encarar a sociedade e o sistema da mesma maneira estando presos em perspectivas erradas!como devemos encararar o sistema?

    • Jan Irvin
      February 16, 2012 at 11:22 am

      (Google translate) can live in society do not belong to it? system could be out even having to deal with it?
      all questions are resolved to the question and ask the right question and interpret the right perspective of the response. but if we have to deal with people daily that are blocked by the marketing world and live a self-centered life we have to try to change the different reactions creating them. when we think we know how to think as others think we can relate to what we have to change the other person and your outlook! polluted with such barbarity not everyone can face society in the same way and the system being trapped in the wrong prospects! how we encararar the system?

      • fabio-massa
        February 17, 2012 at 8:56 am


  12. Brian
    February 17, 2012 at 6:54 pm

    I always enjoy listening to Larken speak, and I am in agreement with him generally. However, I disagree on the notion that there is no point to voting for Ron Paul. Mr. Paul has consistently opposed the use of force (war) against people who have not attacked Americans first. If he were elected President the world would immediately become safer for all non-Americans. If I can end the use of deadly force by America against people in and outside America by the simple effort of casting a vote for Ron Paul, why would I not do it? I think there are billions of people outside the US who would agree with me.

    Casting a vote for Ron Paul does not preclude me from rejecting the authority of the government afterwards. But even if I reject the validity of government, how can I convince the people in our military to do the same? If I cannot convince them to walk away, then it’s better to have Ron Paul as their leader than anyone else running for the job. It is not acceptable to me to just opt out of the system and say “Well, I don’t recognize that government and I don’t pay taxes to it, so I am not responsible for what it does anymore.” If I can prevent a murder (or thousands of them) do I have a responsibility to do so? I believe I do, especially if it can be done by the simple act of casting a vote.

    • Jan Irvin
      February 17, 2012 at 7:29 pm

      Casting a vote for Ron Paul is a direct contradiction to rejecting authority of government. You just need to keep spreading the message, but buying into it empowers them. I see Ron Paul as nothing but a dialectic to Obama. As Larken points out, after Paul get’s elected, if he survives, then the congress, et al have to back what ever changes he’s to make. Obama was to have changed the world by his mere appearance, and he did – for a couple of few months – and that’s all that will happen with Paul.

      Voting for Paul will do nothing. Stop believing the myth. We’re not all going to wake up overnight, but as long as people keep empowering the criminals by voting, they suppress us all. And Paul isn’t going to end taxation or anything else, so by voting, you’re condoning violence against your neighbors. Please stop condoning violence. If Ron Paul was legit, he’s never take the position as president, because to do good has has to commit acts of aggression on others.

      • Brian Willcutts
        February 17, 2012 at 11:10 pm

        The President alone has started every war since WW2. Ron Paul does not need the backing of Congress to end war if elected, and his record is unambiguous – he is opposed to war. So voting for Paul could have the effect of ending violence against billions of my neighbors. Presently, I am less concerned about the violence directed at my fellow Americans who fund the govt than I am about the violence against non-Americans who have no part in it. It’s really a question of what is the most effective means of ending such violence. Of course, voting for Paul would be only one component of my effort to end war, there are other things I will do as well.

        Beyond that, to my knowledge all humans live as part of a cooperative group. If one chooses to live in a group that recognizes and supports some type of leader or leaders who make(s) some decisions which are binding on the group,
        I see no problem with it. After all, that is the nature of the group we call “family.” The key is that any member of the group ought to be able to leave the group or opt out of the hierarchy if he chooses. No one should be forced to submit to a social group or organization against their will.

        So let’s suppose Larken had the opportunity to address every person in the US in such a manner that each one came to understand the point he is making. Many would still choose to live with some form of “govt.” If that is their choice then they should be free to follow their will. They have chosen to live with the abuses that will follow because they see benefits that outweigh those abuses.

        Every manner in which human groups organize or cooperate will have it’s unique set of pros and cons. And a human who chooses to live completely alone will have a unique set of pros and cons as well. So if each of us is allowed to choose that manner of cooperation which we prefer, then I think that is the best one can expect. No one should be required to live in a group organization against their will, and that includes being able to change groups as desired.

        In his teachings, Larken assumes a right to property. From where does this right come? Do I really have the right to claim anything as my property, especially some amount of the Earth’s surface? If I do have that right, what are the terms of it? How will others know what is mine and what is not? And what means are justified to protect or secure my property? Without some agreement among the members of a group about the terms of property rights, do they exist? Is everyone obligated to agree to the terms? If someone violates the terms, what happens? If I have something that someone else needs, do they not have an equal right to it when I’m not in need of it? Can a group recognize private property without a set of rules to govern it? And how are property disputes settled?

        Keep in mind, there were many pre-industrial human societies which did not recognize private property or land ownership.

        • spiritsplice
          February 20, 2012 at 2:07 pm

          The right to property comes out of the self evident fact of self ownership. Your first property is your body, from thete it extends to things you can make use of. Without property rights there is no way to decide who gets the banana, how much an item will cost nor does a way to peacefully co-exist without stepping on everyones toes. Property rights are the only rights that exist. Anything else you can name that is a legitimate right is simply an extension or mode of property right.

          The only cultures who did not recognize property were nomadic tribes that had no property. Hard to accumulate much ehem you are constantly moving and have to carry it. All of your questions have been answered 1000 times over. Read Mises, read Rothbard, read Hoppe. has hundreds of free books on these questions.

          • Brian Willcutts
            February 28, 2012 at 10:29 pm

            “The only cultures who did not recognize property were nomadic tribes that had no property.”

            That is simply not true. There are numerous examples, including the Cherokee Indian Nation of the early 19th century, which was an Indian version of early American culture. It had agriculture, schools, and a Constitution which stated explicitly that all land was held in common, and forbade the sale of any improvements made thereon to any person or institution outside the Cherokee Nation.

            “The right to property comes out of the self evident fact of self ownership.”

            That’s my point, it is not self evident, and it is certainly not a fact. It is a human construct created by agreement among members of a group. Such an agreement is a form of government as it necessarily places limitations on the actions of all members of the group. So this is a problem in Larken’s discussion; once you recognize property rights you have government. Property rights = government

            “Without property rights there is no way to decide who gets the banana,”

            Generally, the strongest individual would get the banana.

            “Without property rights there is no way . . . to peacefully co-exist without stepping on everyones toes.”

            I think it’s safe to say, at present, we have the most extensive property rights in the history of humankind, yet we don’t have peaceful coexistence. Property rights are government. The more extensive the property rights, the more extensive the government.

            “Property rights are the only rights that exist.”

            Property rights only exist where people agree to (acknowledge) them.

Leave a Reply