On Thu, 22 Sep 2016 05:50:00 -0000 xorcist@sigaint.org wrote:
On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000 Yes indeed. But there are very important differences between physics - a 'hard science', medicine which could be 'scientific' but since it deals with incredibly complex systems it is mostly a joke (and fraud) at the moment, and then psychiatry which is just...an attemtp to give a 'scientific' veneer to witch-burning.
In my experience, the people who are so rabidly anti-medicine, and anti-psychiatry are usually ridiculously religious, or fearful they are mentally ill.
Medicine and psychiatry are conceptually different. The problem with medicine is that knowledge in the field is very limited, but at least in theory, knowledge is possible. Also, not much debate is needed regarding what being healthy means - it's a physical condition. Psychiatry is radically different. Being 'mentally healthy' simply means being 'well adapted' to a society of crazies. For instance, so called western 'civilization' is choke full with religious lunatics who think that blowing brown children up is their sacred duty. And those people are not locked up in a nuthouse. They are the ones running the show.
You don't strike me as either, so this seems really odd to me. Obviously, psychiatry is mis-used by the state, but I just cannot fathom this idea of a "scientific veneer" .. certainly, there is a great amount to question in what the doc's say.. but.. certain things seem obvious?
Like the idea that people tend to operate from a position of protecting the ego. That just seems so.. obvious.. I don't know, I just don't know what else to say.
The fact that psychiatrists and the like may sometimes say some sensible things doesn't counter this other fact : they also say very crazy things. And do very criminal things.
Treating shy people taking into account their shyness seems like common sense and decency to me. You don't need the psycho-charlatans to teach you that.
You obviously know shit about autism. She is.. oddly sensitive to certain things, and prone to emotionally crippling "tantrums" because of it. Certain smells, the smell of freshly cut grass, makes her slightly ill feeling. She doesn't like things around her feet, like normal shoes or sneakers, and its genuinely distressing, not just a matter of preference. Consequently, the sight of lawnmowers, and the need to wear sneakers for gym glass, can cause her to get panic attacks, basically, which result in those tantrums.
Maybe she doesn't like gym class. And maybe the tantrums are caused by some other reason.
It isn't just a matter of her being shy, and needing to take shyness into account. Those differences, and people looking at her like she's all fucked up, made her shy. When she was much younger, she was very curious and outgoing. People treating her like a weirdo because she IS different, made her shy.
So, the issue is not any mental problem on her part, but having to deal with less than fully civilized people...
She really does have different neurology.
...whatever that means.
And that's what really should be called fucking crazy. Poisoning people because they are not comfortable with their 'peers' who do conform to totalitarian 'social' 'norms'.
Sorry, but this is idiotic. It's not about fucking "totalitarian" norms. When a kid freaks out about the smell of grass, its normal for other kids to tease, thinks she's weird, and so on. This is +not impressed on them by the fucking state.
It is impressed by parents not really caring for their children, sorry to break it to you. Some children may tease of bully other children sometimes but one would expect their parents to teach them not to.
It's how primate humans treat people who they see as different and not in their in-group.
But since that's all bullshit, sure.. it's the government.
In this case, it's the family. Which I think is some sort of model for the state...As in paternalistic governments, nanny states, founding fathers, the pope, patriotism (from pater)...that kind of thing...
C'mon. Granted, we agree on the silver-bullet drug thing. Drugs are over prescribed. I don't see that as state totalitarianism, and the "veneer" of science on a sham discipline.
That's economic corruption. Doctors getting kick-backs from drug companies, and shit. That's just good old fashion greed at work.
Exactly. Greedy STATE LICENSED doctors working as salesmen for the greedy pharmaceutical mafia that exists only thanks to STATE GRANTED patents and other IP shit. Furthermore, they drug up children who are not 'normal', i.e. they are actually healthy children who don't get along with 'normal' savagery. So the state seems to play some sort of role in all that...
The trouble with that view from an anti-authoritarian perspective is that, lets face, there is a lot of irrational stuff out there. So IF people were basically rational, then it would mean most people are just inherently stupid.
I'm not fully following...
Well, presumably we can agree that there is a lot of irrational shit out there in society. Right? So, pick something that you are sure is just straight irrational.
If people were so fundamentally, at their core, rational -- why does this irrational thing exist?
Because there are well organized 'minorities' who are able to impose their views on the rest. So, many things that happen are things that benefit those in power but look absurd if we assume that the majority is directly responsible for them. For instance, if you are going to have to pay taxes no matter what, then you won't pay too much attention to rational arguments about taxation because you *know* that arguments don't count. And let me borrow a theory from you =) - After people have been *forced* to pay taxes they come up with the rationalization that 'taxes are good' Also, I'm not saying all people are completely rational all the time. Obviously we are not. But rationality still plays an important role. And if there's a choice between encouraging the rational side of people or the emotional side, I think the rational choice is the first =P
If we're all so rational, and yet irrational things exist, then that means that some people (the creators, facilitators, etc) - while rational - are not competent and smart enough to UNDERSTAND that its irrational. The scope of their intellect is just not there. People are stupid.
And if people are so stupid as to not see these irrational things, clearly you, or I, or others who DO see the irrationality of them, out to be in charge to deal with.
We should be the state. We obviously know better than the stupid fucks that can't reason their way out of a paper bag.
Even if we were cleverer than the rest, it doesn't follow we should be in charge. And a group of stupid people controlled by a minority of marginally less stupid people is a recipe for tyranny and disaster.
I find all this to be problematic. So, for me, I tend to reason this way: Yeah, irrational stuff exists because humans aren't entirely rational. Some really irrational shit exists to meet emotional needs people have. It doesn't mean, I or anyone else, should necessarily be "in charge" .. because I can't decide what meets someone else's emotional needs any better than they can... if I can reason more clearly.
Well at least I agree with the conclusion...
And if they are not capable of reasoning through shit, it really calls into question whether they are capable of, for example, maintaining their affairs without State intervention, so some type of big brother checking up on them.
I didn't fully get what you were saying a couple of paragraphs above, but this last one is mistaken anyway. If people are not rational, then who is going to 'check up' on them.
I'm not following.
The point is that if "rationality" is the metric for "good" then the "most rational" people should be in charge. They should be the agents of the state.
Except that the state is a criminal organization so by definition it's not "good".
Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =)
Social mammals have a herd instinct, and more specifically humans naturally select leaders at a subconscious level in social situations.
/some stuff deleted
You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select "popular" kids,
Did I mention that children (and 'teenagers') are well known for defying authority? The 'authority' of their shitty parents, for starters. You seem to be focusing on facts that validate your theory but ignore the facts that don't fit...
For people deeply attached to the state, when you call into question the state, in an emotional way, you're sort of insulting their father,
Yes, fuck their parents.
or maybe "big brother"
And of course, fuck big brother too! Now I'm kinda wondering what's your take on 1984? An example of heretical and misguided rational thinking?
would be more apropros, and you're calling into question the entire structure of what they know. They find it difficult to believe a world without the state is possible,
So the answer to the problem is obvious. Don't bother with grown ups.
So, what do we do about all this?
The way you describe the situation? We do nothing because nothing can be done. You can keep repeating your deterministic views, based on...'biology'? 'psychology'? but if you keep repeating that alpha/beta thing, at least face the logical consequences of your own theories.
Well, it should be immediately obvious that we're up against something much larger than a mere principality. It may seem daunting to consider, but it's really not that big of a deal. Humans have organized in fantastically diverse ways in history.
Hm. Now the 'herd instinct' has vanished?
The emotional ties people have are important to consider, when trying to "win a convert" to an anti-authoritarian view, make your arguments against the state .. "gentle" .. couch it with "I wonder if people could organize without it.."
But I don't wonder. I've studied the subject =) And actually I do listen to statists first, and then yes, shred their 'arguments' to pieces. Seems to me that's the intellectually honest way to talk to people.
when they object, AGREE, but continue with the "wondering."
...pretend to agree with nonsensical stuff?
We should feel compassion for people so enamored with authoritarianism, and be gentle with them.
Feel compasion for people who advocate all sort of attrocities?
Many anarchist writers of the past have looked at them as some sort of debased beast who is content to lick their chains, and this view is why we don't have more people.
Oh, so it's bakunin's fault now? =)
Be compassionate: the statist is one that is weary, and feels weak. They get brow-beat with orders from superiors regularly. Our job is to give them respite. Don't brow-beat them with arguments designed to make them feel inferior.
Arguments are not meant to make people feel inferior. Arguments are used to get at the truth. On the other hand if two people are arguing and the one who loses feels bad, then...don't argue? If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen?
Gently encourage new thoughts. Make them feel strong. Ask for their opinions, and don't be quick to dismiss. If you disagree, nudge them towards your view.
It is more effective, persuasion wise today, and one day, without a state, those would need to be social norms so that the "betas" get uplifted, and feel like they too can lead, in some areas.
And what kind of 'leading' would the 'betas' do...?
Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and putting you in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE that power. Ask for their opinions, and defer to them. When someone comes to you, for advice, or a solution.. Be content to say you don't know, and encourage them to use their own understanding. Encourage them to see that you aren't their superior.
I'm not sure what that is about. I'm not a politician nor I believe in authority...
With those types of norms in place, the roots of power have less surface to take hold, and in the absence of a state (either self-made collapse, or insurrection) we're more likely to be able to fill the power vacuum
There shouldn't be any 'power vacuum' absent the state. That's like saying that absent the mafia there would be a 'crime vacuum'. Well, yes, actually that's the point of the whole anarchy exercise, a power vacuum, meaning nobody has power.
with something better than the current notion of the state.
The only way, that I see, to really make a society where people don't have to conform to an insane litany of arbitrary social norms is to have very few social norms that are very flexible and adaptable towards people.
Well, yes.
There may be a mix of causes, but as a libertarian I would say : 1) being lazy is a virtue 2) by far the most important problem is the rigged economic system.
I must say, I'm surprised by #1. Most libertarians I've met are very enamored with the self-made-man trope and the idea that people should be ambitious, and do well for themselves.
Those are conservatives, puritans, people who babble about protestant 'work ethic' and the like. The self-made-man part is OK, but it doesn't necessarily mean making money.
Or did you mean libertarian in the old-school sense, and not so much the modern "objectivist" sense?
I meant it in the bastiat-adam-smith-old-liberal sense. Yes, the stuff that the randroids stole and mutilated.
I don't entirely disagree with you here. Certainly, people deserve more time for slack, and sloth, but I don't know that I'd say laziness is a virtue.
Consider that the 'classical liberals' devoted a good deal of time to 'economics' and in turn 'economics' deals with 'economizing', optimization of resources. You can optimize for maximum free time...
The rigged economic system is a problem, true. Providing alternatives to that system is another thing that needs to at least have seeds planted if we're to get through a power vacuum.
Again, I don't understand. If rationaliy was the core feature, then people WOULD be capable of decent logic? So this...
"If I thought that rationality was the core feature of the human mind, I'd be forced to conclude most people are just not capable +of decent logic"
...doesn't make sense to me. And you further add that in that case a nanny state would be 'needed' - that's also absurd? Even if the nanny state was 'needed', WHO would run it?
Well, lets put it this way. A child can reason, and utilize rationality.. but they won't necessarily come to TRUE conclusions.
They won't? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGUZud3OLgg
Their minds are not developed enough, there will be variables and conditions that they can't keep track of. You might think of it like chess. And inherently rational game, well defined rules. Easy to learn. But not everyone can play at the same level, and its not a matter of practice.
So, irrational things exist. If rationality is the core human feature, then I must conclude that a great many people are too feeble of mind to come to correct, true, conclusions. People trade their queens for pawns, regularly.
If rationality is the prime reason for this, then there is no hope to win the game. But I don't believe that. They make irrational trades, for non-rational reasons. Those reasons, nevertheless, can be understood, and compensated for.
Well, I already gave my take on that.
As far as who would run a nanny state -- anyone popular, savvy, and ambitious enough to get the job. Just like now. Certain people would be able to look around, with a keener mind, and say "These stupid fucks can't see that X will never work. I'll fix it, do Y, they'll be amazed, and I'm on easy street." It's compelling, for the self-interested.
Only after extensive brainwashing and outright violent coercion.
Well, with a wide enough definition of brainwashing, I guess this works. But its not really brainwashing.. not in the way cult leaders or the like do it. It's just being .. "pro-social."
Well, I still call it brainwashing and coercion, and I think it's a more accurate description of what's going on... Sure, totalitarian societies are pro-social in that they reinforce their own totalitarian/authoritarian views.
We just have to turn the emotional valve for people, to inspire them.
That sounds a bit too manipulative for my taste...
You know, I was in agreement with you on that for a long, long time. And, in fact, I've greatly enjoyed this conversation, because its like arguing with the 20 year old me.
So, yeah, I get it. But, suffice it to say that, over the years (and please don't take this as some appeal to aged wisdom here, its just my experience) I've come to really learn the meaning of "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar."
Not the kind of metaphor I'd use, though the point may be partially true. But since it's figurative language, I'm not really sure what it alludes to. Are rational arguments 'vinegar' and they should be avoided? Or is it just a suggestion to be always polite, or what. And what does it mean to catch flies? One catches flies in order to get rid of them...They are caught and killed.
It depends on what you're "manipulating" them to do, I'd say. If you're manipulating them to your own ends, against their wishes.. yeah, its terrible. But often times, people lack the courage to do what they want. They lack the confidence. If you're inspiring them to be true to themselves, I see nothing wrong with it at all, and rather see it as a virtue.
I've met people that were "manipulative" in this way. It turned me off, at first, until I began to realize that.. it's really just a tool. How that tool is used, really is up to the person and if its used for good, then its good. I've seen people be "manipulative" in this way, and nevertheless really inspire genuine love and affection in others, and genuinely inspire them to chase - and more importantly - fulfill dreams.
By making people FEEL GOOD, of course they are going to want to be around us. We're providing them with a real positive aspect to their lives. If, as a community, we did this for each other, we'd have more members. Just a thought.
The time I'm thinking of, in particular, a friend I'll call Alice, used some emotional manipulation to convince another (Betty) to go back to school, get a degree, and really helped her get into a much better path in life. At the graduation party, Betty introduced Alice to some other people, and - her face just beaming - told how she owed everything to Alice, and she wouldn't have been able to get the degree, and go back to school without her, and so on. Alice just smiled, and said "Sweetie, I didn't do your homework. Everything you've accomplished, you did on your own. You just forgot that you could and I reminded you. If anything, you inspire me!" Then the tears and laughter started flowing.
And don't think that 'manipulating' or 'causing' or 'suggesting to' somebody to get a degree is a good thing. So both the means and end strike as less than ideal.
It was a genuine, human moment. If inspiring each other to be our best selves is distasteful, then I would suggest that you don't actually like humanity very much.
Yeah. I'd tell people that academy is a disguting mafia and that they shouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole =)
OK - That is seriously wrong. Taxes are not collected by the state to help people, altough a tiny bit goes to 'help' people as a propaganda effort.
You're missing the point.
People pay them, justify it to themselves, because of the helping part.
I commented on that point above. People pay them under coercion. What they say after being forced to pay doesn't matter much. Even if they say that they want to pay, the remark is meaningless because they CAN'T prove it, because taxes are NOT voluntary...
Statists will say, we NEED taxes, to help with welfare, to build roads, and so on.
We know thats bullshit. Ok. So we can spend time.. going on hundreds of years now.. trying to argue against this perception, OR we can just build alternative institutions that mitigate the entire fucking idea.
So, you are going to build roads. How are you going to deal with the fact that road building has been monopolized by the state, including land title registration. Plus the problem that you'll have to pay taxes for 'official' roads, even if you build your own, thus having to pay twice for roads.
But it is impossible to both pay taxes AND try to fix the problems that taxation causes by putting even MORE money and effort into the system.
Like I said, we try real hard, and are mostly effective, at not needing government dollars for our work with the disabled.
There already are sizable 'charity' efforts. They don't change a thing, IMO.
The two areas where tax money comes into play is when we get people jobs. The employers get tax subsidies. We try to encourage them not to take them, but are mostly ineffective with that. The other area is education. We don't have always have the private funding to pay for schooling, so we help our "clients" file for the government programs to get it. I actually disagree with that.
It's good that you disagree because I can't think of anything more fucked up than sending people to schools, let alone state schools (which is what virtually all schools are today anyway)
We'd be able to pay for them if we took money from religious charities, then we wouldn't need the government grants. I get out voted on that by some rabid atheists in the group though, so it is what it is.
As if theocracy was anything but the most brutal sort of statism?
Food not Bombs provides food without tax money.
People should be able to provide food for themselves? Also, http://foodnotbombs.net/new_site/faq.php "Military contractors are worried that we might influence the public to realize our taxes could be spent on human needs instead of war" "The government and corporations find our message – that we could redirect the taxes that currently are used on the military to fund things like education and healthcare – a threat to their profits and power." That seems ambiguous. Although it would be better that stolen money be used to 'educate' people instead of outright killing them, it would still be statism. And as matter of obvious fact, the welfare-warfare does both. They keep right wingers and left wingers 'happy'. "No one should need to rely on a soup kitchen or charity when we have food in great abundance." So they are not a charity...I don't get what's the point of giving 'free' food is then. I don't think that poverty would be a problem at all in a free society, but the impression I get from fnb is that they think that economic problems can be solved by giving away 'free' stuff - which is of course sheer commie nonsense.
There are plenty of anarchist social services building infrastructure independent from the state.
They don't seem to be interfering with state power too much, if at all...
Not in the way you described.
What way? People helping people? People getting programs together that are independent from the state?
Only to a very limited extent. Because the state knows pretty well that if their power gets really challenged, they can 'fix' the problem.
Actually you can't. There's a obvious rational explanation you missed, and worse, you are trying to 'psychoanalize' me.
Instead of realzing that your anti rationalistic bias prevents you from thinking correctly, you are...messing with me =)
Your obvious rational explanation is nonsense. There is no reason alternative to state programs cannot be made without taking tax dollars.
There are various problems with that. One is that your alternative statist programs are just that. Giving 'free' stuff to people is obviously NOT the way to encourage people to be independent. Second, even if you can give some free stuff away, it will never scale.
There is no reason you can't boot strap an independent program using tax dollars initially.
Lol. Not only you are playing state, you are also using state money? It doesn't get any more 'anarchist' than that...
And I'm not trying to mess with you or analyze you. You're obviously a loner, and have said as much.
What I said is "mas vale solo que mal acompañado" - but whether I'm a loner or not, my points stand on or fall on their own.
If you're rather focus on ways to destroy the state, rather than create alternatives.. that's fine too. Destruction can be an act of creation.
I choose differently. And it has nothing to do with an "anti-rationalist" stance. I'm not, even, anti-rationalist, despite what you want to think.
I just incorporate more axioms into my logic, and I'm aware of the .. larger.. implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. =)
I suspect that your grasp of math is way better than mine. However your overall political analysis doesn't strike me as good.
But, as far as I can tell, its the only viable option.
Too bad that simple economic analysis shows it's actually not viable at all.
Lulz. Economic analysis, generally, is horse shit.. or at least confined to a frame of reference. Economics is all predicated on theory of value. Socialist theory of value says, roughly "A thing is worth the labor gone in to produce it."
It's well known that socialists stole that one (from smith and co.), and got it wrong anyway. Cart before the horse and all that. Valuable stuff usually requires labor to be created, that's why it looks as if labor is a measure of value. (but there are valuable stuff that don't require labor).
Capitalist: "A thing is worth what someone will pay."
Anarchist: "A thing is worth what it is being used for."
From each of these theories of value, one can derive economic "laws" .. like the "law" of supply and demand. It's a law.. only so long as people operate according to the theory of value.
But people can choose to value things however they like. Goes with the whole free will thing, actually.
I think you are hand-waving...
All the services that the state has monopolized like education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the market/the people/the commune once the state is gone.
Cart before the horse, man.
Yes, exactly. That is exactly the reason why your analysis isn't right.
You cannot compete with the state, providing all the garbage services the states provides, if you don't deprive the state FIRST of their monopoly powers.
It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an alternative.
I call that competition. I think it's the correct word =) You can go to grocery store 'A' or to grocery store 'B'. 'A' is an alternative to 'B'. And viceversa. And both stores are 'competing'. People can use state services, or your alternative services. You are competing with the state.
It doesn't need to be a complete, viable alternative. It just needs to be a working model. A proof of concept.
Of what concept? That cooperation can exist without the state? That's self-evident. Oh wait, thinking about stuff for five minutes is too much for the poor masses...
Why? Because I'm not trying to destroy the state.. directly. I'm not trying to blow it up, and start from zero.
Start what from zero? You seem to believe that the state needs to be replaced with something. I don't think that's the case. The state is a criminal organization. An UNnecessary evil.
I'm trying to grow alternatives that will, over time, allow the state to wither..
It will NEVER wither. You will NEVER be allowed to provide an alternative. Seriously. The state is all about COERCION. If people could voluntary choose an alternative, WE WOULD ALREADY BE LIVING UNDER ANARCHY. The people who call themselves the government are criminals. They need to be stopped. They will never 'wither' and 'voluntarily' relinquish their power. If your plan is based on the idea that you will catch them unaware and outsmart them...they've already outsmarted you.
the same way it didn't appear overnight and slowly grew. That is how it will be replaced.
Non sequitur.
At bottom, a state is just a human activity. PEOPLE DO it.
Of course. A particular kind of activity. Crimianl activity. And it's some people who do it, not aliens, but what of it?
We just have to attract a critical mass of people doing something different.
Agreed on the critical mass part.
Consider the example of stuff banned by the state like 'some drugs'. What is your plan? Sell drugs on the black market? And you think that would limit state power? It obviously never does.
Uhm. The cartels run Columbia dude, so I'm not sure what you're exactly getting at there.
Drug dealers and the state run colombia. And drug dealers need the state to outlaw drugs, otherwise prices would be ridiculously low and selling coke would be as profitable as growing potatos. My point is, how would you solve a quintessential statist problem like the 'war on drugs'? What kind of alternative can you provide to the 'war on drugs', apart from ending it ASAP?
But you're making a subtle error. Helping disabled people isn't illegal. The state has their hands in it anyhow. We can take that over, and get them out of it.
You can take it over only if they allow you. And I'm not making an error. I'm switching to an area (drugs) where it's not clear how the 'provide alternative options' strategy can be implemented.
By appropriating social services, there is also a propaganda effect involved..
Yes, that's true. But do notice that before the state ITSELF appropiated social services, they were mostly provided by 'private' mutual aid societies and the like.
the state will have a difficult time blasting away at anarchists involved with helping disabled, the homeless, etc. Food not Bombs gets shit, usually out of health-code nonsense, but even still, they are relatively immune because of the propaganda effect.
You lose that when you get into overt crime areas.
They are crime areas only because they've been made so by the state. But yes, they are more problematic and the only solution is to get rid of the outlawing. But how?
This is what fucked over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by deed" horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations, and associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind.
I don't know...
It is, essentially, why I am politically pacifist. In theory, I'd be up for good old insurrection, but I'd have to KNOW we'd win. Fuck the self-interest of it, I don't care about that.. but the potential for centuries of setbacks is too great if we let the victory write our history.
And it doesn't even have to be an army. It's just a matter of getting a big enough number of people to say "no".
AGREED! Critical mass of people living without the state. That's what I'm working towards.
Well, that's a lot harder if people are living in a statist society. You can have your alterative help system for disabled persons but you will still be subjected to taxation, regulation and whatnot.
We're not there yet. In order to fight, people need something to fight for. Thats where the OTHER non-state services come in, in my view.
As you said, cart before the horse =P
Perhaps. But I like the smell of this horse better.