I was wondering how the current religious/Islamist extremists fit into the Takers v. Leavers struggle. My guess is that these fundamentalists are Leavers fighting back against Taker control.

But aren’t Leavers usually on the peaceful side of things? This makes it look like the Leavers are the “bad guys” by killing and trying to take over the world, or at least Western society.

I suppose these select few could be viewed as an anomaly in the system. What do you think?

Every time I talk about walking away from civilization and living tribally, my friends and family say they are all for it, but when we go thru possible scenarios they all seem to end in the ATF burning down our “compound.” To paraphrase Tolstoy, all Taker societies are maintained by violence or the threat of violence.

The U.S. government will not sit idly by while we stop paying taxes and stop asking for building permits, they will view us as a secessionist and attack. While true that it would be difficult to attack multiple “tribalist”‘ groups, I am talking about doing this tomorrow with just one group of people.

Unless I wanted to be a martyr, which I don’t, shouldn’t I be prepared to fight? How will it be different than the U.S. government attacking the Native Americans?

My question is one of the place of the role of government in general for human beings, Leaver and Taker both.

If the natural existence for humans is the tribe, or a grouping of men so that they may make a living better, then does natural growth of a group create a democracy, or is it that tribes stay the same size or they break up?

Does the tribal form of living lend itself to ever larger groups, equipped with representatives and a constitution? Or does representation ruin the essence of the Tribe, thus ending its existence as a Tribal unit?

Is it possible for the “owner” of a tribal company (by this I mean the person who organized the venture from the beginning and secured all the required loans for equipment, shelter, utilites, etc. under his/her name) to have a functioning part WITHIN the business?

Or would his/her day-to-day presence dissolve the “equality” needed amongst members to ensure a tribal cooperation/organization? (Basically, I can say “no” to a man who is my boss if I think a “no” is called for, but saying “no” to a man who laid the groundwork for our enterprise, without whom we would not have the backing to operate, is very different).

I recently saw a show on the Discovery Channel that attempted to explore the life of a tribal society (though for the life of me I cannot remember their name). In that group, young women are married off by their fathers to men they have never met.

The young women are guarded day and night (and this reminded me of the tale of the adulterous wife in one of your books, but in this case the women are not loosely guarded, they are FIERCELY guarded), and many young women choose to take their lives, since they are not capable of flight as an alternative to marrying the men they have been assigned to.

I have mixed feelings here. How can I hold true to a “there is no one right way for a people to live” philosophy while still regreting that here is a society that unnecessarily sheds life because of one of the rules of its culture.

Taker culture says that they should not do this. How can I say that it is “OK because it is THEIR culture” without sounding like some sort of monster?