the challenge of becoming an anarchist - why nearly everyone's a statist
It seems that nearly everyone in this day and age is a statist to some degree, Juan excepted :) Why is this so, I have asked myself. The state is a bully, and no one has escaped the experiences of being bullied by the state - RBTs, license checks, seizing of bank accounts outside of any court hearing nor any chance for the target to be heard in a court of law with a righteous jurisdiction; and anyway, the courts, that last bastion of freedom and justice against the tyranny of the state, is almost completely, systemically, instutitionally corrupt by any common man standard. The state seizes taxes at every corner, violates our constitutions, unilaterally attacks other states, and conspires year after year to increase the burdens and the violations of its own constituents, namely we the people. The state (whether USA, Australia, etc) is nowadays so abhorrent, so in violation of the constitution which created it, so outside of ethics, morals, anything resembling higher causes or principles, it really is a beast of epic proportion which must be slayed or transformed, or the descent to total chaos war and bloodshed will once again happen, just another war to end all wars. Yet nearly everyone still clings to the state. Whether implicitly (it's the best history has given us, other options would of course be so much worse) or explicitly (driver licenses are our only hope to rid the world of evil environment destroying cars). 'We' have lost faith in our fellow humans to a high degree. We don't trust ourselves and so we don't trust our fellow 'citizens'. We put money, creativity, leisure, life, family, mortgage and the rest before any higher principle, in denial of the magnificence of that which we be, that which we are, these incredible universes we stroll around in. We expect "others won't stand behind me if I did take a stand against a bully or a tyranny, because deep down I know I am probably unlikely to get behind someone else taking a stand - especially since I haven't seen myself do so yet, so I have no evidence suggesting I'm that way inclined, so it's most likely true." We hail the heroes "oh I think it's awesome that history proves that someone comes along to fix things up every now and then - at a minimum on average of every 400 years". Yes this and endless more excuses for not supporing your local freedom "fighters" even in a small way, fatalism is just one more excuse. I've heard so many of them. 'We' live in golden cages. By historical standards, almost everyone in the West can eat cheesecake every day, travel to friends and sights and events one way or another, drape ourselves in silk and suede, or lounge on the beach. And the gold cage is never enough, the car or pushbike really needs to be newer, faster, with better suspension, and I want more and my kids need to go to more activities and events and and and... I have my life to live. And the state redistributes the wealth of others to make our golden cages. So we encage one another, binding our fellow man to tyranny, binding ourselves to self serving, self centered, selfish non action. Sleepwalking in comfort whilst the beast prepares its final meal. Gee it's great that heroes come along and solve such problems in history occasionally... now don't interrupt me whilst I shout down your Trump rebellion and screem the benefits of The Democratic Platform notwithstanding the evil that my state has become regardless. Cowards most of us.
Anarchism is hard for some people to differentiate from nihilism. Try reading Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ludwig von Mises and, most especially, Murray Rothbard. Maybe a bit of David Friedman, too. Once you've made your way through their works, you can call yourself educated in anarchism. Ignore Emma Goldman, the various Russian anarchist, the anarcho-syndicalists, etc. - they aren't serious. Kurt On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Zenaan Harkness <zen@freedbms.net> wrote:
It seems that nearly everyone in this day and age is a statist to some degree, Juan excepted :)
Why is this so, I have asked myself.
The state is a bully, and no one has escaped the experiences of being bullied by the state - RBTs, license checks, seizing of bank accounts outside of any court hearing nor any chance for the target to be heard in a court of law with a righteous jurisdiction; and anyway, the courts, that last bastion of freedom and justice against the tyranny of the state, is almost completely, systemically, instutitionally corrupt by any common man standard.
The state seizes taxes at every corner, violates our constitutions, unilaterally attacks other states, and conspires year after year to increase the burdens and the violations of its own constituents, namely we the people.
The state (whether USA, Australia, etc) is nowadays so abhorrent, so in violation of the constitution which created it, so outside of ethics, morals, anything resembling higher causes or principles, it really is a beast of epic proportion which must be slayed or transformed, or the descent to total chaos war and bloodshed will once again happen, just another war to end all wars.
Yet nearly everyone still clings to the state. Whether implicitly (it's the best history has given us, other options would of course be so much worse) or explicitly (driver licenses are our only hope to rid the world of evil environment destroying cars).
'We' have lost faith in our fellow humans to a high degree. We don't trust ourselves and so we don't trust our fellow 'citizens'. We put money, creativity, leisure, life, family, mortgage and the rest before any higher principle, in denial of the magnificence of that which we be, that which we are, these incredible universes we stroll around in.
We expect "others won't stand behind me if I did take a stand against a bully or a tyranny, because deep down I know I am probably unlikely to get behind someone else taking a stand - especially since I haven't seen myself do so yet, so I have no evidence suggesting I'm that way inclined, so it's most likely true."
We hail the heroes "oh I think it's awesome that history proves that someone comes along to fix things up every now and then - at a minimum on average of every 400 years".
Yes this and endless more excuses for not supporing your local freedom "fighters" even in a small way, fatalism is just one more excuse. I've heard so many of them.
'We' live in golden cages. By historical standards, almost everyone in the West can eat cheesecake every day, travel to friends and sights and events one way or another, drape ourselves in silk and suede, or lounge on the beach.
And the gold cage is never enough, the car or pushbike really needs to be newer, faster, with better suspension, and I want more and my kids need to go to more activities and events and and and... I have my life to live.
And the state redistributes the wealth of others to make our golden cages. So we encage one another, binding our fellow man to tyranny, binding ourselves to self serving, self centered, selfish non action.
Sleepwalking in comfort whilst the beast prepares its final meal.
Gee it's great that heroes come along and solve such problems in history occasionally... now don't interrupt me whilst I shout down your Trump rebellion and screem the benefits of The Democratic Platform notwithstanding the evil that my state has become regardless.
Cowards most of us.
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
Anarchism is hard for some people to differentiate from nihilism.
I agree.
Try reading Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ludwig von Mises and, most especially, Murray Rothbard. Maybe a bit of David Friedman, too.
Once you've made your way through their works, you can call yourself educated in anarchism.
Ignore Emma Goldman, the various Russian anarchist, the anarcho-syndicalists, etc. - they aren't serious.
Are you serious? Von MISES? How would you distinguish between Anarchism and Libertarianism (and nihilism)? -- eden
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:07 PM, eden <edenw@gal3.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
Anarchism is hard for some people to differentiate from nihilism.
I agree.
Try reading Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ludwig von Mises and, most especially, Murray Rothbard. Maybe a bit of David Friedman, too.
Once you've made your way through their works, you can call yourself educated in anarchism.
Ignore Emma Goldman, the various Russian anarchist, the anarcho-syndicalists, etc. - they aren't serious.
Are you serious?
Von MISES? How would you distinguish between Anarchism and Libertarianism (and nihilism)?
Yes, I'm serious, including about von Mises. He's extraordinarily influential, and Rothbard cites him as a primary influence. You must grant him (as you must with other historical figures, especially those of intellectual stature) the limitations of his time and place. See especially https://www.amazon.com/Mises-Liberalism-J%C3%B6rg-Guido-H%C3%BClsmann/dp/193.... He was not prepared to take the last few steps toward repudiating government, but he laid the foundation for those who would. Libertarians (both big and small 'L') usually postulate some form of minimalist government - usually of the "night watchman" strain. Nihilism (as opposed to both regular libertarianism and individualist anarchism) seems to eschew both personal responsibility and the logic of causality, preferring the dream state of absolute freedom, without consequence. Kurt
On Sat, 11 Jun 2016 21:59:07 -0700 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:07 PM, eden <edenw@gal3.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 3:54 AM, Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com> wrote:
Anarchism is hard for some people to differentiate from nihilism.
I agree.
Try reading Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ludwig von Mises and, most especially, Murray Rothbard. Maybe a bit of David Friedman, too.
Once you've made your way through their works, you can call yourself educated in anarchism.
Ignore Emma Goldman, the various Russian anarchist, the anarcho-syndicalists, etc. - they aren't serious.
Are you serious?
Von MISES? How would you distinguish between Anarchism and Libertarianism (and nihilism)?
Yes, I'm serious, including about von Mises. He's extraordinarily influential
mises was a second rate utiliarian **statist**. His only connection to anarchism is that he made some of the most stupid criticism of anarchism you could ever read. looks like now we have a bot from the austrian cult of economics , and Rothbard cites him as a primary influence. You must
grant him (as you must with other historical figures, especially those of intellectual stature) the limitations of his time and place. See especially https://www.amazon.com/Mises-Liberalism-J%C3%B6rg-Guido-H%C3%BClsmann/dp/193.... He was not prepared to take the last few steps toward repudiating government, but he laid the foundation for those who would.
Libertarians (both big and small 'L') usually postulate some form of minimalist government - usually of the "night watchman" strain.
Nihilism (as opposed to both regular libertarianism and individualist anarchism) seems to eschew both personal responsibility and the logic of causality, preferring the dream state of absolute freedom, without consequence.
Kurt
*Zenaan Harkness, zen@freedbms.net <zen@freedbms.net>:*
It seems that nearly everyone in this day and age is a statist to some degree, Juan excepted :)
Why is this so, I have asked myself.
The state is a bully, and no one has escaped the experiences of being bullied by the state - RBTs, license checks, seizing of bank accounts outside of any court hearing nor any chance for the target to be heard in a court of law with a righteous jurisdiction; and anyway, the courts, that last bastion of freedom and justice against the tyranny of the state, is almost completely, systemically, instutitionally corrupt by any common man standard.
The state seizes taxes at every corner, violates our constitutions, unilaterally attacks other states, and conspires year after year to increase the burdens and the violations of its own constituents, namely we the people.
The state (whether USA, Australia, etc) is nowadays so abhorrent, so in violation of the constitution which created it, so outside of ethics, morals, anything resembling higher causes or principles, it really is a beast of epic proportion which must be slayed or transformed, or the descent to total chaos war and bloodshed will once again happen, just another war to end all wars.
Yet nearly everyone still clings to the state. Whether implicitly (it's the best history has given us, other options would of course be so much worse) or explicitly (driver licenses are our only hope to rid the world of evil environment destroying cars).
'We' have lost faith in our fellow humans to a high degree. We don't trust ourselves and so we don't trust our fellow 'citizens'. We put money, creativity, leisure, life, family, mortgage and the rest before any higher principle, in denial of the magnificence of that which we be, that which we are, these incredible universes we stroll around in.
We expect "others won't stand behind me if I did take a stand against a bully or a tyranny, because deep down I know I am probably unlikely to get behind someone else taking a stand - especially since I haven't seen myself do so yet, so I have no evidence suggesting I'm that way inclined, so it's most likely true."
We hail the heroes "oh I think it's awesome that history proves that someone comes along to fix things up every now and then - at a minimum on average of every 400 years".
Yes this and endless more excuses for not supporing your local freedom "fighters" even in a small way, fatalism is just one more excuse. I've heard so many of them.
'We' live in golden cages. By historical standards, almost everyone in the West can eat cheesecake every day, travel to friends and sights and events one way or another, drape ourselves in silk and suede, or lounge on the beach.
And the gold cage is never enough, the car or pushbike really needs to be newer, faster, with better suspension, and I want more and my kids need to go to more activities and events and and and... I have my life to live.
And the state redistributes the wealth of others to make our golden cages. So we encage one another, binding our fellow man to tyranny, binding ourselves to self serving, self centered, selfish non action.
Sleepwalking in comfort whilst the beast prepares its final meal.
Gee it's great that heroes come along and solve such problems in history occasionally... now don't interrupt me whilst I shout down your Trump rebellion and screem the benefits of The Democratic Platform notwithstanding the evil that my state has become regardless.
Cowards most of us.
Wonderful speech, Zenaan. Gives so much food for thought & actions... In the past 4 days i have read so much powerful stuff from you... something really great is going on in your head-heart-soul. DON"T STOP IT! :) 2016-06-12 6:54 GMT+03:00 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com>:
Try reading Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ludwig von Mises and, most especially, Murray Rothbard. Maybe a bit of David Friedman, too.
Once you've made your way through their works, you can call yourself educated in anarchism.
That's really great, Kurt. But Zenaan is asking WHY don't we ** * act*? Why do we live like SLAVES? and WHEN will we start putting great words (like in the books you listed) *into ACTIONS*? Knowledge is NOT ONLY about "knowing" it in brain, you know... It's about incarnating it into actions = into ones physical life! Even in this cypherpunk list, i believe there are 80% at least, who don't need more "insights/education of how everything sucks and how one should (at least try to) repair it". *BUT* as Zenaan says in his speech,- *self serving (egoismus) and self delusion* get the victory over all our great intentions and insights. *Cowards most of us.* .
On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Александр <afalex169@gmail.com> wrote:
Zenaan Harkness, zen@freedbms.net:
It seems that nearly everyone in this day and age is a statist to some degree, Juan excepted :)
Why is this so, I have asked myself.
The state is a bully, and no one has escaped the experiences of being bullied by the state - RBTs, license checks, seizing of bank accounts outside of any court hearing nor any chance for the target to be heard in a court of law with a righteous jurisdiction; and anyway, the courts, that last bastion of freedom and justice against the tyranny of the state, is almost completely, systemically, instutitionally corrupt by any common man standard.
The state seizes taxes at every corner, violates our constitutions, unilaterally attacks other states, and conspires year after year to increase the burdens and the violations of its own constituents, namely we the people.
The state (whether USA, Australia, etc) is nowadays so abhorrent, so in violation of the constitution which created it, so outside of ethics, morals, anything resembling higher causes or principles, it really is a beast of epic proportion which must be slayed or transformed, or the descent to total chaos war and bloodshed will once again happen, just another war to end all wars.
Yet nearly everyone still clings to the state. Whether implicitly (it's the best history has given us, other options would of course be so much worse) or explicitly (driver licenses are our only hope to rid the world of evil environment destroying cars).
'We' have lost faith in our fellow humans to a high degree. We don't trust ourselves and so we don't trust our fellow 'citizens'. We put money, creativity, leisure, life, family, mortgage and the rest before any higher principle, in denial of the magnificence of that which we be, that which we are, these incredible universes we stroll around in.
We expect "others won't stand behind me if I did take a stand against a bully or a tyranny, because deep down I know I am probably unlikely to get behind someone else taking a stand - especially since I haven't seen myself do so yet, so I have no evidence suggesting I'm that way inclined, so it's most likely true."
We hail the heroes "oh I think it's awesome that history proves that someone comes along to fix things up every now and then - at a minimum on average of every 400 years".
Yes this and endless more excuses for not supporing your local freedom "fighters" even in a small way, fatalism is just one more excuse. I've heard so many of them.
'We' live in golden cages. By historical standards, almost everyone in the West can eat cheesecake every day, travel to friends and sights and events one way or another, drape ourselves in silk and suede, or lounge on the beach.
And the gold cage is never enough, the car or pushbike really needs to be newer, faster, with better suspension, and I want more and my kids need to go to more activities and events and and and... I have my life to live.
And the state redistributes the wealth of others to make our golden cages. So we encage one another, binding our fellow man to tyranny, binding ourselves to self serving, self centered, selfish non action.
Sleepwalking in comfort whilst the beast prepares its final meal.
Gee it's great that heroes come along and solve such problems in history occasionally... now don't interrupt me whilst I shout down your Trump rebellion and screem the benefits of The Democratic Platform notwithstanding the evil that my state has become regardless.
Cowards most of us.
Wonderful speech, Zenaan. Gives so much food for thought & actions... In the past 4 days i have read so much powerful stuff from you... something really great is going on in your head-heart-soul. DON"T STOP IT! :)
2016-06-12 6:54 GMT+03:00 Kurt Buff <kurt.buff@gmail.com>: Try reading Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, Ludwig von Mises and, most especially, Murray Rothbard. Maybe a bit of David Friedman, too.
Once you've made your way through their works, you can call yourself educated in anarchism.
That's really great, Kurt. But Zenaan is asking WHY don't we act? Why do we live like SLAVES? and WHEN will we start putting great words (like in the books you listed) into ACTIONS?
Knowledge is NOT ONLY about "knowing" it in brain, you know... It's about incarnating it into actions = into ones physical life!
Even in this cypherpunk list, i believe there are 80% at least, who don't need more "insights/education of how everything sucks and how one should (at least try to) repair it". BUT as Zenaan says in his speech,- self serving (egoismus) and self delusion get the victory over all our great intentions and insights.
Cowards most of us.
There's a difference between cowardice and understanding that some/many/most actions in support of liberty are [un|counter]productive. Plus, as we age, we accumulate obligations, some of which (marriage and children especially) are vastly inhibitory. This is not to say that action for freedom is worthless, but it does mean that one must be judicious in choosing those actions which will productive and worth the risk. It's important to realize that not all actions which are morally legitimate are reasonable. Take for instance the writings of Richard Slomon, who advocated for a number of (in his philosophy) morally legitimate actions (cf "retaliatory recapture"), but who didn't actually undertake those actions, for various reasons. (https://thedegree.org/research/richard-r-slomon-archive/) Lastly, one should realize that your first obligation is to yourself, then to your [chosen] family/friends, and finally none at all to "society", which is a construct of dubious utility, and which doesn't exist on its own. It's not a matter of "every man for himself and devil take the hindmost", it's a matter of "there's only so much one can do, and the most important things come first". Kurt
Lastly, one should realize that your first obligation is to yourself, then to your [chosen] family/friends, and finally none at all to "society", which is a construct of dubious utility, and which doesn't exist on its own. It's not a matter of "every man for himself and devil take the hindmost", it's a matter of "there's only so much one can do, and the most important things come first".
Problem is, "most important things", in almost all humans, fails to include "actions which will in some (even small) way, bring forward some correction or shift to my wayward state, in which I am in some small way a party to". 0. Pick a cause. E.g. - handling the inevitable descent into nazism of every fascist state, which is every purported democracy today. 1. Name it. E.g. "No More Papers Please!" 2. Communicate it. Online, in person. 3. Find those who are passionate about it and will form part of your "core team" in this wayward t3rr0r1st group of extreme constitutionalists. 4. Invent some some slogans. E.g. "Be radical, live our absolute right to give no more than our name to any authority." 5. Perhaps water it down a bit, if you don't have enough takers, E.g. "Be radical, live our absolute right to give no more than our name and address as per section 51 of the Crimes Act 1971 (Australia), to any authority." (Sorry, that section and year are not quite right, but the details are otherwise correct, either download it from austlii.edu.au and read it to find it, or reply and ask, if you can't find it.) 6. Make plans, take actions, build it, do it. 7. Know and teach that for a cause to truly impact beneficially in the world, many individuals must carry it clearly in their words, with certainty in their hearts. A single individual put on a leadership pedestal, a Jacob, a Zenaan, a Juan or yourself, can and will be taken down. EVERY individual must live the cause, the freedom, speak from his own heart and carry the battle cry in a moments notice - only --then-- is the cause truly won, truly owned by many, and earned by many, and therefore able to persist. Every single one of us, as flawed as we are, uncomfortable and unsure, doubtful and embarrassed, every single one of us carries the capacity to communicate in our body and mind, the capacity to be sincere, clear and true in our minds and hearts. The perception of greatness in an individual "out there", in the "glory" of a public success, in the "exceptionalism" of an individual is a fast way to excusing inaction, to clouding the mind and the heart, into denying our equal potential as humans. All are unique and exceptional. Even if you only get through steps 0 to 2 above, that's more than 99% of people can generally say they've done in the past 10 years. Consider renumbering the steps to begin with 1 when talking with non computer programmers. Tech people may be a useful target demographic/ group - freedom of speech, freedom of code, experience in working and communicating with others, these days more "geek cred" than "nerd aversion", so possibly tending toward influential in general, if not only in the business and "silicon valley investor" set. Good luck, and may your actions speak for you. Rock the world in your own little way. Inspire others where possible. Do what we can. Amongst the 100s of causes and slogans, one may take off - and that's all that's needed! Enjoy the ride.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/12/2016 05:57 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
Lastly, one should realize that your first obligation is to yourself, then to your [chosen] family/friends, and finally none at all to "society", which is a construct of dubious utility, and which doesn't exist on its own. It's not a matter of "every man for himself and devil take the hindmost", it's a matter of "there's only so much one can do, and the most important things come first".
Problem is, "most important things", in almost all humans, fails to include "actions which will in some (even small) way, bring forward some correction or shift to my wayward state, in which I am in some small way a party to".
[description of issue oriented populist political activism omitted ]
Good luck, and may your actions speak for you. Rock the world in your own little way. Inspire others where possible. Do what we can. Amongst the 100s of causes and slogans, one may take off - and that's all that's needed! Enjoy the ride.
Plus one on that. Let me get out my Norton II hat & soap box for a minute here. Anarchism provides a frame of reference that enables us to understand how systems of government actually work, and what we can do with and to them in purely practical terms. Anarchism does not propose a Utopian system of government to replace the ones already in place, nor is it a call to "smash the State" and replace it with nothing. Anarchism describes a group of people who work together for mutual advantage as a syndicate. Syndicates organize themselves to develop and exploit resources for social and economic gain, often in competition against rival syndicates and among their own membership. In a stable going concern State, law and public policy are whatever its dominant syndicates impose by force on the rest of the people in the territory they control through the State. In this context force means applied power, not just physical violence: Propaganda, elaborate deceptions and economic incentives do all the heavy lifting. Competent State authorities only apply kidnapping and murder when other methods of manipulation fail: Violence "is wrong" in the sense that, except in the context of terrorism (using the threat of violence to enforce compliant behavior), violence destroys valuable resources that "should" properly belong to the dominant syndicates. Anarchists study politics as social power: Who has it, who does not, and how these groups interact. As such, Anarchism provides a frame of reference for analyzing and comparing various "systems of government" and for modifying these systems where and as useful opportunities to do so arise. A State sanctioned discipline called Human Ecology seeks to exploit anarchist theory for the exclusive benefit of dominant syndicates. Anarchy becomes a visible "force" when and as enough previously unorganized people push back against State sanctioned syndicates to forcibly modify those syndicates' behavior. When dominant syndicates controlling a State lose touch with reality and exceed the bounds of their real social power, they may do enough physical and economic harm to motivate active rebellion among formerly docile State subjects. At these times, Anarchists provide propaganda, educational resources, and facilitation to enable formerly unorganized people to form effective ad hoc syndicates of their own, and exercise the specific forms of social and economic power accessible to them. In the context of political warfare, Anarchism functions as a force mltiplier: By themselves, anarchists do not have the material resource base needed to affect significant changes in the behavior of State sanctioned syndicates. But where and as substantial numbers of disenfranchised people begin to demand social and economic power of their own, anarchists can facilitate the rapid development of effective organization, realistic goal setting, and effective action by those motivated people. Some call this process Direct Democracy. As a countermeasure to the potential impact of Anarchist theory and practice on the behavior of populations dominated by powerful minority syndicates, State sanctioned propagandists present a fictional version of Anarchism based on nihilism. States spare no expense in promoting and reinforcing a false definition of Anarchy as "violent opposition to social order of any kind." Naive self identifying anarchists who rebel as they are told by State sponsored propagandists provide "living proof" that the State's definition of Anarchy is correct. The well promoted presence of these pseudo-anarchists on mass communication networks diverts and obstructs public access to Anarchist resources - except where and as "real" anarchists effectively weaponize their own understanding of propaganda and information warfare techniques. Well that's enough about that for now. Get busy. :o) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJXXWEOAAoJEECU6c5Xzmuq6cQH/RRCqCkkRIa5rtmc8dtbAIB9 HEm+OssWZJAqz+Qq3TQVrj2ErOP81Dth+wWUJ+KO1fjfrw+gtSXCzMU7sCeEAaAB 5OmZUbRDSxZfJ82DLIsjS8eEoTWT0yhzn59Du0aD508M89e6yUMd/xgwdsr24rw1 e4ZexCytdxtsg2j1j8CJ7hmDZUetaJMrVpL7cJlD5TOKzoDLVlLkibzFxtz3mhiL oRAoYcFaKEVI7rhoYfVL84kNlZzZx930a4F5Qg5WK4XgA3fP/o03dItWTlqMLmK3 rNQ2JIBRAtcOLg3rSoq41px0zjttBbKlPEOxKsNsr47QFcEY/0CiAf5gxPzdI3s= =4d3l -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lastly, one should realize that your first obligation is to yourself, then to your [chosen] family/friends, and finally none at all to "society", which is a construct of dubious utility, and which doesn't exist on its own.
society is a word which for the average person in conversation is used to describe part of his reality in which he finds himself. Taking one of the positions in the words above: "your first obligation is ... finally none at all to 'society'..." One way to tackle this position is to name it as the prisoner's dilemma: do the prisoners each hold out for the others, and thereby maximise the benefit to everyone, or jump at the first opportunity for individual benefit, maximising the cost/pain to everyone. I say this is a question of conscience. I encourage us all to live according to one's own conscience, one's knowledge of good and evil, and one's perception of right and wrong and how to improve things towards the "good" end of the spectrum (again, according to your own personal awareness of what is good). We in the West are schooled, not so much educated, and our schooling is so effective we do not see how brainwashed we are. "It's a dog eat dog world, every man for himself, society/government are dubious constructs not much related to reality and therefore to be ignored, focus on self and family instead, be competitive, be number 1, win that human rat race and take the podium and then you will have been successful in life." I say this is competitive schooling^Wbrainwashing is driving us away from our humanity, away from our conscience, and truly, away from those things which actually bring happiness in life. So many relatively wealthy or on the way to wealthy individuals here in Australia spend their adult lives striving, so hard, for financial success, to become that millionaire (and seriously, the papers, TV and people talk about how really, even if you want to retire "comfortably", you now need a MULTI million dollar retirement fund. That's right, just to be comfortable AT RETIREMENT AND NOT BEFORE, you need to become a multi millionaire. I say this to people and they nod in agreement - the cost of living comfortably is now so expensive. Seriously, it's now broadly accepted. So, all these people, racing around for decades to becomes multis (multi millionaires), a lifetime, only to discover at retirement that they need to find some people to spend their "comfortable retirement" with. Other folks, like some I know, take a different view, a different approach, considering that it is most productive (from a sanity perspective) to spend a good decade or two discovering people worthy of spending time with, hanging out with, marching a cause with, and -then- pursue a bit of "comfortability" in this world. Then occasionally I find a real extremist who will put a righteous cause and loyalty to friends who share the principles, even above family. Them's worth hanging onto... Please, choose words wisely. As to action, if someone believe's their action is righteous and will benefit others, and we believe such action will benefit at least some and at least even in small ways, then let's support such action, even if we encourage more effective action - with concrete suggestions of how to act more effectively of course (don't need to belabour -that- point around here now right?)... Be a monk IN the world. A rebellious table turning, boat rocking, rock of conscience type of monk, with care and graciousness to all, firm vehemence and determination against bullies, love to family and friends and consideration in our public voice. Who needs more depression? - let's inspire instead!
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 01:33:41PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
'We' have lost faith in our fellow humans to a high degree. We don't trust
Isn't distrusting enemies/those who deserve it/ common sense and best practice?
ourselves and so we don't trust our fellow 'citizens'. We put money,
Not trusting others doesn't necessarily mean you don't trust yourself. As for practical anarchism, I consider it utopia (hi Juan ;) ) with the current sheeple. Maybe the most plausible implementation of anarchism is if aliens colonize humans or possibly "teach" them how good anarchism is ;) -- "It's all the same, only the names will change" -- Bon Jovi
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 01:44:18PM +0300, Georgi Guninski wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 01:33:41PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
'We' have lost faith in our fellow humans to a high degree. We don't trust
Isn't distrusting enemies/those who deserve it/ common sense and best practice?
Indeed. I gnashing my teeth here and there over those dang humans, so very few can be trusted to behave rationally, let alone without the negative aspects of the mind and emotion - vindictiveness, anger, spite, envy, greed, lust, lynch-mobbingness etc.
ourselves and so we don't trust our fellow 'citizens'. We put money,
Not trusting others doesn't necessarily mean you don't trust yourself.
As for practical anarchism, I consider it utopia (hi Juan ;) ) with the current sheeple.
An immediate transition, say removal of the state, would probably descend into gangs exacting vigilante justice on each other, causing a lot of damage, collateral damage, to humans and property, before eventually they figure out (if they/ the majority do figure anything out) that sanity requires a basic procedure of "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you" and therefore a justice procedure which involves more than just "go bash the shit out of the person your mate says did the wrong thing".
Maybe the most plausible implementation of anarchism is if aliens colonize humans or possibly "teach" them how good anarchism is ;)
An external authority is indeed probably required with the current state of schooled humans, to educate them on internal authority and how best to exercise that, such as to syndicate in an objectively self interested way. Lynch mobbing demonstrates that most humans don't get past their first thought to a second thought. That's just asking a lot... evidently. So practically I believe we are left with attempts to create enclaves of like minded individuals - syndicates of self interested humans, limited in number, acting in mutual self interest, learning how to handle the different natures of one another. I do believe we are stuck with the state for the short to medium term, and I'd hate to see the last 20 years of US hegemonic demonic domination of the planet had Russia completely disintegrated with Yeltsin.
On Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:44:18 +0300 Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 01:33:41PM +1000, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
'We' have lost faith in our fellow humans to a high degree. We don't trust
Isn't distrusting enemies/those who deserve it/ common sense and best practice?
It is...
ourselves and so we don't trust our fellow 'citizens'. We put money,
Not trusting others doesn't necessarily mean you don't trust yourself.
As for practical anarchism, I consider it utopia (hi Juan ;) )
Hi Georgi (^-^)/
with the current sheeple.
The problem boils down to cultural beliefs. So it's a matter of doing some software upgrade, so to speak...
Maybe the most plausible implementation of anarchism is if aliens colonize humans or possibly "teach" them how good anarchism is ;)
participants (7)
-
eden -
Georgi Guninski -
juan -
Kurt Buff -
Steve Kinney -
Zenaan Harkness -
Александр