The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: The Wolf DeVoon Archive  (Read 2333 times)

RagnarDanneskjold

  • Four-Leaf Order of PSM
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6944
The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« on: June 21, 2005, 04:01:51 am »

I stumbled across this archive of Wolf DeVoon's work here. I was an avid reader of his writings at the now defunct Laissez Faire Times, especially during the time when they were promoting "Laissez Faire City," which I was saddened to see go the way of every other such idea. "Chemical" Ali Hassan Massoud says
Quote
Wolf DeVoon is an interesting man even by anarcho-libertarian standards. He is equal parts scholar and activist. Wolf is also a free man in both theory and in practice, which is very rare.

He has at different times graduated college, attended law school, produced articles, books, and films, been personally ostracized by Ayn Rand and received critical praise for his insightful work and writing in the field of natural law and moral philosophy. He is also very funny, sarcastic, and a pleasure to read. Unlike many scholars of the anarcho-libertarian movement, he has eschewed a safe and easy sinecure at a webzine, think-tank, or a position on a university faculty.

Instead Wolf has written, experienced, succeeded and failed at trying to move the concept and practice of individual liberty from the treatises and novels and into the actual world. For all his efforts, I am personally very grateful. Most of Wolf's writing has been on the web, and so given the Internets' s ephemeral nature, has been scattered about. My goal here is to round it all up in one place on the web so it will be available to scholars, activists, and the intellectually curious. It is not all-inclusive so if you know of an article, forum or blog posts by or about Wolf, or anything else of note, please send it to me and I will include it here if possible.
He is compiling an archive of Wolf's work. IMHO this site is well deserving of a visit by anyone interested in anarcho-libertarian ideas.
Logged
The Mayor is the Problem
The flagpole is the answer
We hung the first one
We can hang another one

The Firesign Theatre - from the album Boom Dot Bust

Dear Government
You are a ass shit.

A note from my younger son when he was 3.

When rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have rights. - Me


Round up everybody who can ride a horse or pull a trigger. Let's break out some Winchesters.  - John Wayne (Chisum)

Bill St. Clair

  • Techie
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6780
    • End the War on Freedom
The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2005, 05:58:39 am »

Thanks, Ragnar. I've been mirroring Mr. DeVoon's "Freeman's Consitution", with his permission, since I first discovered it. Nice to see an archive of his writings, now that he's allowed his domain to expire.

Lawyers, Guns and Money is the latest Wolf DeVoon piece I've seen, published at anti-state.com on 5/11/2005.
Logged
"The state can only survive as long as a majority is programmed to believe that theft isn't wrong if it's called taxation or asset forfeiture or eminent domain, that assault and kidnapping isn't wrong if it's called arrest, that mass murder isn't wrong if it's called war." -- Bill St. Clair

"Separation of Earth and state!" -- Bill St. Clair

RagnarDanneskjold

  • Four-Leaf Order of PSM
  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6944
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #2 on: January 28, 2009, 01:27:58 pm »

Searching for something else, I tripped over this. Thought I'd bump it up for perusal by anyone interested.
Logged
The Mayor is the Problem
The flagpole is the answer
We hung the first one
We can hang another one

The Firesign Theatre - from the album Boom Dot Bust

Dear Government
You are a ass shit.

A note from my younger son when he was 3.

When rights are outlawed, only outlaws will have rights. - Me


Round up everybody who can ride a horse or pull a trigger. Let's break out some Winchesters.  - John Wayne (Chisum)

Claire

  • Plain Folks
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6577
    • Living Freedom
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #3 on: January 28, 2009, 03:37:42 pm »

"Chemical" Ali Hassan Massoud says

Thanks for the bump, Ragnar. And that reminds me ... anybody seen or talked with Chemical Ali lately?

Claire
Logged
Just as the flattery of friends often leads us astray, so the insults of enemies often do us good. -- St. Augustine, Confessions, Book IX, Chapter 8


When faith ceases to be a challenge to the standards of polite society, it is no longer, or has not yet become, faith. -- Donald Spoto, Reluctant Saint:  The Life of Francis of Assisi


My life is my message. -- Gandhi

freewoman

  • Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1704
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #4 on: January 29, 2009, 05:25:07 am »

Thanks for the bump, Ragnar; this was originally posted right before I joined TCF/TMM, so I didn't catch it then.  But then, maybe I wasn't ready for it then!
Logged

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 4783
  • TMM
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #5 on: January 29, 2009, 08:02:12 pm »

Haven't heard anything out of Wolf DeVoon in some years, but I did once get a nice letter from him, just at the time he had been adopted by "Laissez Faire City" and was making his plans to move there. I'm hoping he did not lose any of his shirts while being involved in that project.

Which reminds me - back then I signed up for their Beta program, and the deeper I got into that, the more suspicious I became about the group's materialistic philosophy. They seemed to be going in one direction, and I was going in an opposite direction, lol! Loved the fact that they paid their contributing authors (and they sure did have a bunch of great writers listed in their stables! - I think sunni, Wendy, and Claire were listed there), but I finally shied away from their plan. They they went silent. So, my question is today, does anyone know what really happened with Laissez Faire City? Or with their publishing operation? Just curious....

Thanks,
Salute!
Elias
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

da gooch

  • Mr. Badger? Only when need be
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6868
  • 32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #6 on: January 29, 2009, 08:51:49 pm »


WOW !

Admittedly I am late to the party but this guy is amazing.

NAP This !

Amazing.

Thanks Rags. 
I have much to read and learn ....
Logged
"Come and Take It"  Gonzales, Texas 1835

     III

Apple

  • Strangely Attractive
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 703
  • Play the Game
    • Weapons of Mass Enlightenment
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #7 on: January 31, 2009, 01:05:29 pm »

Admittedly I am late to the party but this guy is amazing.
NAP This !
Amazing.

I don't get it. :dontknow:
DeVoon seems to confuse the NAP/ZAP with some form of pacifism. Meanwhile he champions DTOM, which is kind of the same thing, isn't it?
Logged
 —Well? Shall we go?
 —Yes, let's go.
[Stage directive: they do not move.]

(last lines of “Waiting for Godot”)

PGP Key:  A2D2 B4BD CEB9 24C8 F272  16DC C1C9 65C5 39ED A0BF

da gooch

  • Mr. Badger? Only when need be
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6868
  • 32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #8 on: January 31, 2009, 02:17:15 pm »

I don't get it. :dontknow:
DeVoon seems to confuse the NAP/ZAP with some form of pacifism. Meanwhile he champions DTOM, which is kind of the same thing, isn't it?

I don't claim to be a libertarian philosopher, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, but it seems to me that he hits that nail exactly dead center.  I don't think he is "confused" at all.

NAP/ZAP is not pacifistic BUT it is reactionary only.
To initiate any action prematurely automatically cancels the "high moral ground" protection that NAP/ZAP offers.
One cannot have it both ways. 
Either you can kill the weed Before it flowers and violate NAP/ZAP  OR you have to wait until its poison is being spread to React to its aggression.

:twocents:
Logged
"Come and Take It"  Gonzales, Texas 1835

     III

Apple

  • Strangely Attractive
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 703
  • Play the Game
    • Weapons of Mass Enlightenment
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #9 on: February 01, 2009, 05:36:13 am »

NAP/ZAP is not pacifistic BUT it is reactionary only.

But that doesn't seem to be the point he's making, so I still don't get it. Some outtakes:

Quote
In John Locke's terms, "Being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.

Well, except in self-defense, but DeVoon leaves that bit out of it.

Quote
But such evidence as we have does not indicate that ill intentions will cease to exist if repressive force disappears, and it is clear enough that one ill-intentioned person can upset a large part of society if there is no repressive force.

See above. Repressive force is allowed.

Quote
Big surprise, admirers of non-aggression end up endorsing coercive government.

I s'pose Wolf may have been talking to the other kind of "libertarian". You know, the ones who like to have a Party in celebration of the state.

Quote
Every mouthful of food you eat is one that was arguably taken wrongly from or denied to someone else, unless it was grown and harvested personally.

Huh? What? ???


Secondly, if you'll remember, the ZAP allows you to act on (credible) threats, whether it's in the form of lip-flappings or in the form of armed men assembling on your property boundary, so you do get to kill the weed before it flowers.
Logged
 —Well? Shall we go?
 —Yes, let's go.
[Stage directive: they do not move.]

(last lines of “Waiting for Godot”)

PGP Key:  A2D2 B4BD CEB9 24C8 F272  16DC C1C9 65C5 39ED A0BF

da gooch

  • Mr. Badger? Only when need be
  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6868
  • 32*25' N X 77*05' W X 060 Mag
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #10 on: February 01, 2009, 10:10:18 am »

snip-snip

Secondly, if you'll remember, the ZAP allows you to act on (credible) threats, whether it's in the form of lip-flappings or in the form of armed men assembling on your property boundary, so you do get to kill the weed before it flowers.

Good luck with the jury after killing someone over words [lip-flapping].
[Unless you have some "unrelated" witnesses .... more than one I would suspect.]
 
It [the concept] seems to require an enlightened populace [at minimum an educated, to the concept at very least, populace] and how likely is that in today's world ?

How many of the people who profess to know and follow it's precepts actually understand all of it's ramifications ?
[Witness the conflict HERE about it .... and the disagreements among the "leading" anarchist and libertarian philosophers.]

To me, at least, it appears that nearly 90% of the world's population want some kind of Parent Figure to be "the responsible party" while they simply coast through life as bystanders and/or dependents. [Gimme gimme, I, Me, Mine]
That's going to make NAP/ZAP hard to institute as most of the populace wants "someone else" to defend and support them.





Even though I, personally, don't believe it will happen in any widespread form in my lifetime I will still attempt to adhere to the basic precepts of the NAP to the best of my abilities.
Nor do I make any claim to "completely understand" NAP/ZAP and/or All of it's applications.

That said ....
I Will make an honest effort to neither initiate nor cause to be initiated, in my name or on my behalf, any aggression against any other human being while at the same time I reserve and maintain the right to defend my life, family and property, with deadly force IF necessary.
Logged
"Come and Take It"  Gonzales, Texas 1835

     III

Hollywoodgold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 845
  • You can trust them to be them...
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #11 on: February 01, 2009, 10:32:09 am »

Accidentally posted before completed edited to complete.

Quote
Secondly, if you'll remember, the ZAP allows you to act on (credible) threats, whether it's in the form of lip-flappings or in the form of armed men assembling on your property boundary, so you do get to kill the weed before it flowers.

I do not intend to be disingenuous here but wasn't "credible threat" at the core of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike? IMO, the notion of ZAP/NAP is a principle that guides conduct but cannot be literally followed in all circumstances. Each person is going to have a somewhat different view of threat and aggression. Meaning, at what point do you shoot to kill in the case of trespass?

1.Three people have crossed your fence line. You are not certain that there are more or not.
2.They are moving cautiously towards your house which is 1/4 mile from the gravel road.
3.Your spouse is in the house but is not very skilled with firearms.
4. You are 400 yards away and undetected
5. They are about 150 yards from the house and moving towards it lateral to your position
6. You have a rifle and can hit at 300 yards for sure maybe 350-400
7.  You think they are armed but are not certain.
8. Where you are there is cover but if you move towards the house you will be fully exposed (visible no cover) for the entire 400 yds on a down slope.

Is this credible or not? Is there action aggressive enough to shoot to kill?

One day while at work, two men appeared at the house. Both men were black we are "white". One went to the back of the house the other to the front of the house. They parked their car turned around facing towards the road. They had crossed one gate-fence line and came 1/4 miles to the house. They said they were just looking for work. She grabbed a 22 revolver and started screaming and ranting at them like a mad person. She faced them down. They left.

Should she have shot to kill? She was able to get them off the property without shooting the gun. Was she "right" to do so?

IMO, I can't tell. I can't judge what she "should" have done since I wasn't there. Myself, based on what she told me and with my knowledge of the homestead, (buildings, sight lines, topo, vegetation etc.) I would have been very close to killing had I been in her situation as I think I would have in the above theoretical situation. Would I be the aggressor in either case? Maybe, but that ideal would not influence my ultimate act because it is an ideal, not a reality. At some point in the real world, I believe your senses take over and in my life's experience, I better pay attention to my own senses in extreme conditions. They are a better friend than a theoretical ideal. Behind this trust in my "senses" is a belief in the ideal of ZAP. I just don't want to be the one "zapped" for adhering to a belief that was inadequate to deal with the entropy of life.

By law, in my State, I would have had the right to shoot in either circumstances. I would also have had the burden of proving the legality of my acts in a court, no small feat.

As an aside, in discussing biblical philosophy and history with a cleric, he told me that the term used in the Old Testament for "kill" in ancient Hebrew actually meant "murder". I took his word for that since I do not read Hebrew or ancient Hebrew and his explanation made "sense" to me.

DS
« Last Edit: February 01, 2009, 11:02:55 am by Hollywoodgold »
Logged
"Democracy must be something more than
two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner."

Apple

  • Strangely Attractive
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 703
  • Play the Game
    • Weapons of Mass Enlightenment
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #12 on: February 01, 2009, 01:56:23 pm »

Good luck with the jury after killing someone over words [lip-flapping].
[Unless you have some "unrelated" witnesses .... more than one I would suspect.]

As they say, "it is better to be judged by twelve than carried by six." The key word is credible.

Aside, remember when Jon Olson threatened to kill Mark Turner's wife during karate training? Had that been me, that would have been the end of Jon there and then. Plenty of witnesses around too. The rest of the story certainly vinicates that decision, though of course it's only fiction. I wonder if Halffast set it up like that on purpose. [You did read Lights Out didn't you?]

To me, at least, it appears that nearly 90% of the world's population want some kind of Parent Figure to be "the responsible party" while they simply coast through life as bystanders and/or dependents. [Gimme gimme, I, Me, Mine]
That's going to make NAP/ZAP hard to institute as most of the populace wants "someone else" to defend and support them.

Ah well. Learned helplessness institutionalized by public schooling in a self-reinforcing feedback loop of government rule. That's life. Gotta learn to live with it.

Even though I, personally, don't believe it will happen in any widespread form in my lifetime I will still attempt to adhere to the basic precepts of the NAP to the best of my abilities. Nor do I make any claim to "completely understand" NAP/ZAP and/or All of it's applications.

It's not that hard. The ZAP is simultaneously an invitation, and a threat. It is an invitation to approach me non-agressively and build a cooperative relationship on that foundation. It is also a threat, in that I'll feel free to respond to aggression in kind. You can add complexities, but that's the basic premise.
Logged
 —Well? Shall we go?
 —Yes, let's go.
[Stage directive: they do not move.]

(last lines of “Waiting for Godot”)

PGP Key:  A2D2 B4BD CEB9 24C8 F272  16DC C1C9 65C5 39ED A0BF

Apple

  • Strangely Attractive
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 703
  • Play the Game
    • Weapons of Mass Enlightenment
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #13 on: February 01, 2009, 02:12:49 pm »

I do not intend to be disingenuous here but wasn't "credible threat" at the core of the Bush Doctrine of preemptive strike?

That was the public excuse, but they know, and we know, that there wasn't any credible threat. And certainly, there was no clear and present threat to the US itself. Yet, Bush and his cronies walk free.

IMO, the notion of ZAP/NAP is a principle that guides conduct but cannot be literally followed in all circumstances. Each person is going to have a somewhat different view of threat and aggression. Meaning, at what point do you shoot to kill in the case of trespass?

I don't disagree with you. The ZAP, and especially its threat part, leaves a lot of wriggling room. Only a fully conscious human mind can assess the situation in its entirity and make a correct decision. And that's just if you're lucky.

8. Where you are there is cover but if you move towards the house you will be fully exposed (visible no cover) for the entire 400 yds on a down slope.

Is this credible or not? Is there action aggressive enough to shoot to kill?

Not yet. I might have fired a warning shot (from cover) at this point, which serves to do three things: 1. Puts the Wife on alert and hopefully has her reaching for the gun. 2. Distract the trespassers, giving the wife a bit more time to appraise the situation. 3. Force the trespassers' hand, either make them drop down and pull out their guns, or make them beat a hasty retreat. In the former case, they'll find themselves under a crossfire. Unskilled as the wife may be, not a very enviable position to be in.

One day while at work, two men appeared at the house. Both men were black we are "white".

Hmm, not sure what that has to do with anything.

One went to the back of the house the other to the front of the house.

Spider senses... TINGLING

Should she have shot to kill? She was able to get them off the property without shooting the gun. Was she "right" to do so?

IMO she behaved exactly right. However, if they'd tried "anything funny", that's when she should have pulled the trigger.

As an aside, in discussing biblical philosophy and history with a cleric, he told me that the term used in the Old Testament for "kill" in ancient Hebrew actually meant "murder". I took his word for that since I do not read Hebrew or ancient Hebrew and his explanation made "sense" to me.

And I'll have to take your word for it. ;)
Logged
 —Well? Shall we go?
 —Yes, let's go.
[Stage directive: they do not move.]

(last lines of “Waiting for Godot”)

PGP Key:  A2D2 B4BD CEB9 24C8 F272  16DC C1C9 65C5 39ED A0BF

Hollywoodgold

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 845
  • You can trust them to be them...
Re: The Wolf DeVoon Archive
« Reply #14 on: February 01, 2009, 03:12:37 pm »

Apple:

The reason I raised the Bush-credible issue is that one word introduces the notion of judgement and hence my two examples. At the end of the day, judgement, or more likely instinct/sense, will govern the response action while intent, honesty and respectfulness the rightfulness. The specifics of the circumstances are where theory/ideal and reality can decouple. It is that edge where "credible" is defined. If what you perceive to be overwhelming force is about to attack you, and because of the distribution of "attackers" is such that you would unlikely be able to successfully defend yourself if you waited for them to act, do you act "preemptively"? I have not been tested this way since a very young man and the preemption saved my butt then, hard lessons are remembered lessons.

I have had similar thoughts about both the theoretical and the actual event. Here are the reasons I said I would have been close to shooting to kill in both circumstances.

Theoretical

First, Had I shot and revealed my position, given the lay of our land, they would more than likely have moved to the house and out buildings to take cover and fired on me. The down slope open hill would have made it easy to keep me pinned down. They would have easily over taken the house because it has a front and a rear door and my wife would not have been able to get the firearm and defeat an assault. In this theoretical she would be either a hostage or dead or other. The house cannot be seen from the road so this activity would go unnoticed. Nearest neighbor about 1/4 mile next nearest 3/4 mile.

I believe you are correct. A warning shot would be the right act if you could take all three before they got to the house. A running target is a helluva a lot more difficult, for me anyway. But I think a warning shot and a quick re-sighting o body mass would have been next. I hope never to see such a situation but if the SHTF, I may. Living within an hour o the 4th largest City carries with it risk. I have given thought and sought advise on defending the spread and I have concluded I cannot do it alone. Tough realization.

The Actual

Why was Black and White relevant. I thought about that before I wrote it. A tough one. I suppose fear of the unknown is the reason. bear with me please. In our part of the country, there is an etiquette to coming onto someone's property. It is interesting how simple it is and essentially unwritten but widely understood. I think it is taught to youngsters as a part of teaching "manners".

Where I live "Sir" and "Mam" are commonly used when addressing a stranger or elder person. Hats are also removed when introducing yourself. A hand is extended in meeting someone. Threatening or potentially threatening gestures are carefully avoided. Gates are "always" left as they were either open or closed. In an emergency, you can borrow a neighbors tractor without asking (meaning if no one is home to ask) and return it when you are done with it. You always search out a neighbor if livestock is out of a fence/pasture. If you come onto someone's property the first thing you do is to you seek out the owner or a hired hand to let them know you are on and for what purpose you have come on the property and ask their permission to be on the property. When you approach a house, you put yourself in a visible and to some extent vulnerable position back away from the door on which you have knocked or rang a bell. You want whoever is in the house to easily see you are not threatening. There are other examples as I suspect there are in your area of the world.

In the "reality" example, these men did none of those things and "violated" numerous ones. The relevance of color/race in this specific example was the questions their actions immediately raised. They did not park the vehicle in an unthreatening way, they did not come to ask permission to be on the land, they did not take their hats off or extend any peaceful gesture(s). The question it raised in both of our minds was "did they behave the way they did because they culturally were unfamiliar with the accepted and appropriate behavior or was their behavior evidence of criminal intent." We are certain that it was the latter. At that moment, if you are convinced the intent is criminal, and they are in a superior position, what do you do. She got away with an "act". She was shrewd and lucky. I am thankful she is but whether I could have been as shrewd and lucky I am not certain. Reality can easily trump cold logic.

On the Hebrew thing, he is a biblical scholar and I have debated such things many times. "Thou shalt not murder" just sounds right to me anyway.

DS
Logged
"Democracy must be something more than
two wolves and a sheep voting on what to
have for dinner."
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up