Sure, I'm not free to just go live in the woods.
I would have to pay taxes, which living in the woods I wouldnt be able to do, then theres trespassing laws and poaching laws and etc etc

But with no income what would you pay taxes on?

sastisfied?

I can go on all day

okay screw taxes. I couldnt stay anywhere because I wouldnt own the land, I couldnt grow food because of that reason, I couldnt hunt food because of hunting laws, firearm laws etc
my movement would be very restricted because of tresspassing laws.

So you want to revert to pre-civilisation man? When tribes attacked each other for food periodically and the only means of safety was through strength and though numbers, such that co-habiting, and getting along with others becomes essential, thus leading to the advent of modern civilisation?

to the 1st sentence, yeah pretty much, I think that a 'primitive' society would be the ideal.

to just about the rest of that your wrong or slanted

Actually, I seriously bet you could live very happily on your own in the woods, very very far from people. They wouldn't bother you with taxes or anything. Didn't the Unabomber do this successfully?

And if the US isn't big enough for you with big enough woods, I bet Canada has even more space.

So, I think it is clear that you DO have this freedom. You choose not to exercise it. Can you tell me another coveted freedom?

Come to Canada. Nobody would bother you in the woods.

It's a little harder to be self sustainable here though, especially in the winter.

I do not have this freedom.
for the reasons I mentioned above, and the fact that I lack all of the nessessary survival skills. robbed from me by a failing civilization.
besides I hate canada, too cold man.

oh god why does the Unabomber have to be drug into every disscussion I have about this, jesus.

theres alot of freedoms I dont have.
theres also alot of freedoms others dont have.

besides it's not 100% about what I can or cant do, theres alot of people being exploited and leading very miserable lives because of the current system we're in.

Ok, I will accept your lack of survival skills. This, however, is YOUR lacking. So I suggest you get on it and prepare for your future life of bliss by mastering these skills pronto!

The reasons you mentioned above have been refuted. Nobody could fine you or imprison you since you'd be basically vanished. I don't bring the Unabomber up for any negative reasons (he was an admirable fellow, no doubt)... he simply accomplished what you claim to be completely disabled from. I'm sure Mexico also has spare room if Canada is too cold.

Care to tell me these other freedoms you don't have?

I'm not very concerned with freedoms that other people don't have. That wasn't the question and it's too big to get into here, in my opinion.

perhaps it is my lacking, and I am working on it as I mentioned just a bit ago in another thread.
I think if I did that I'd feel like I was taking the easy way out.

if you see a pow or something in the jungle and theres a paradise esque oasis in the jungle, nothing really stopping you from going to enjoy said oasis, but wouldnt you want to help out the guy thats getting the shit kicked out of him?

me living alone in the woods wouldnt be how I want to live, it'd be like playing pretend.
like if someone wanted to fly, instead of using an airplane they just run around a field going 'swoooosh!'

me living in the woods, though prolly great, wouldnt solve anything, all the problems that gave me primitivist beliefs in the first place would still be there

This is a really silly place to have this conversation... And I feel silly participating in it... Here I go anyway, I guess I don't even understand myself for talking back on a computer...

Anyway, as a domesticated human being in our civilization, your 'rights' are constantly being taken and trampled. As Sicarius said, we ought to be free to "go live in the woods." An individual can do this, although not in a terribly sustainable or successful way, and that individual will usually be ignored because they are not threatening to the system.

However, when groups of people go live in the woods (which is far more sustainable and successful) they attract attention and more importantly followers. When a group outside of the 'law' imposed by government gains followers, success, and attention they are always crushed by more powerful and more violent 'civilization.' See ruby ridge, david koresh, the situation surrounding leonard peltier, countless 'hippy' communes, the native american tribes the used to cover these Americas, and all of the indigenous peoples who used to inhabit Africa, Europe, Asia, and beyond. All of these people were violently removed from their land and slaughtered because they would not comply with 'civilized' law.

In journals of early European colonization you will find countless stories of whites defecting from civilization and joining native American groups. What's interesting is that you will not find countless stories of Native Americans joining white societies. Why do you think this was the case? Additionally, most whites where welcomed and adopted into those tribes. However, whites who were captured after defecting were tortured and killed as traitors to their culture. Why do you think this was the case?

It's hard to imagine a different way of living, or even a better way of living (outside of 'capitalism' or 'democracy'... "the only thing found to work..." laff...) if you've existed your entire life in, framed every thought and notion in, and are constantly under threat from the context of a 'civilized' mind.

whalen, can I hire you as a translator?

I sometimes have trouble elucidating my thoughts when in off the cuff disscussions like this...

oh and as far as using a computer and being a luddite gos, I look at it like this, if an iraqi freedom fighter uses a captured U.S. jeep does that make him a hypocrite?

to be honest this is all bollocks, humans are pack animals we like company its are natural instinct to search in out, and in every pack theres a pack leader or to put it in more modern terms a ruling party, thats the way we function best as a society, so even if you forget about civilization or whatever we will still look to be part of a group where the strongest/most intelligant rule anarcism is bollocks.

we're intelligent being not slaves to instinct.

anarcism?

That's a particularly apt typo-- anarchy + narcissism = anarcism.

The ability to murder

hey I'm passionate about my views not a mirror whore

so you would be intelligent not to eat,not to sleep, not to move away from danger etc all these instincts that keep us alive, its only when people move away from their natural instincts and there natural moral compass do problems appear.@katsarephat sorry cant help being dyslexic

I'm not nessessarily disagreeing, lots of examples readily support your view. I'm just saying our intelligence allows us to escape our instinct sometimes.

kinda like now

@whalen,

I may regret getting into this, especialy with such a hastily written statement but here goes:

(I reserve the right to clarify, or change my mind on anything I write here)

There were in fact many native americans who made the choice to assimilate into European culture. But even if they did not, this wouldn't really necessarily bolster your point. True Native Americans did have a different sort of culture than the Europeans, and true the Europeans in the US did in fact quite unjustly all but destroy these people. But it wasn't because they were off running around living some idillic utopian life that the Europeans couldn't stand the site of, it was simply because the Europeans wanted the land and resources for themselves and regarded these natives as "others" who they didn't feel deserved those things. Sure they tried to make justifications about them being "savages" and trying to force assimilation, but even in cases where groups did try to "modernize," like the Cherokee Nations, they simply took what they wanted anyway, and forced them from their land.

You also seem to be operating on the assumption that Native American tribes all lived in peace and harmony and all had idillic anarchic societies. They didn't. They warred with one another, and traded with one another when it suited them. Entire civilizations rose, fell, and were wiped out by different groups, really not all that different form Europe in many ways. They didn't all have the same sorts of societies, and they all had their own sophisticated societies with their own internal power and rules structures and economic systems. They weren't anarchists.

Look, I'm not saying that a modern capitalist society is the only way for people to live and be happy, it manifestly isn't, but on a large global scale it's the best option we have at the moment.

I'd also point out to you Whalen, that within the United States and Europe there are in fact "hippy" communes as you call them, that still exist to this day, They aren't all immediately wiped out by the dominant culture, but can exist with their own internal economy quite well.

And before someone says that the Europeans forcing these people from their land is rooted in capitalism, I would argue it was rooted mostly in simple greed, without any power there to intervene and check it. I'd also point out that when colonialists arrived form Europe, none of the european powers were really practicing capitalism, at least not as we are discussing it today.

theres several books that detail how a main problem early settlers had was keeping their citizens from running off to join native american tribes.

only one I can think of now is "lies my teacher told me"

I also read a paper on that specifically by... a professor from I want to say brown not positive though.
and as far as the tribal warfare goes, it was kept at a sustainabvle level. it's like an act they went through. it was a retaliation oriented goal. never extermination

texts on primitive leisure time

After Eden: The Evolution of Human Domination
by kirkpatrick sale

time and leisure in the elaboration of culture

by peter just, dpt of anthropology, University of PN

brittannica encyclopedia

Man, Meaning, and Mystery
By Sigurd Hjelde, William Brede Kristensen

thats all I can find now.
he did email me an essay I had though, I'll post it sparetly its long

So Sicarios, you could go live in the woods, but you don't because you want to fight for my right to live in the woods?? News flash: I'm ok without that right. You sound like Jesus, who died for my sins.
well, i didnt ask for him to, and I don't need you sacrificing your happiness for me, or for an ideal which you know, even if you won't admit here, is not achievable (nor do you know if its even wanted).

I couldnt give a shit about you. I'm concerned with the human race as a whole.
collapse is inevitable my friend.

heres an essay on it actually, that I just ran across getting that other one

http://anthropik.com/2006/01/thesis-26-collapse-is-inevitable/

This might appeal to you, Sicarius.

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