CDR: Re: would it be so much to ask..

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 22 Sep 2000, Ken Brown wrote:

> The trouble with that use of the words (though it is the most common one
> on this list I guess) is that it defines just about every nation-state
> that ever existed as "fascist" including the so-called capitalist
> countries:

If you believe capitalism prevents fascism you better do some more
thinking. There is nothing about capitalism that prevents fascism. In
fact, if you think about it the management of private property (by any
party other than the immediate owner) to maximize profit (i.e. the trains
run on time) is a form of fascism. This is especialy true of corporations
(ie fictional people - yuck) and things like LLC's.

By my definition, capitalism is a form of socialism (I personaly think
Marx was an idiot and the communist manifesto has several glareing
incongruities) because it defines the pursuit of capital (the fact that
it is in a small set of hands or lots is to this point irrelevant, what
matters is everyone is at least trying to pursue capital) as the primary
goal of society. It in effect wants to make everyone live by the same
standards and processes.

I would say that my position is the distinction between socialism,
fascims, capitalism, crypto-anarchy are all false distinctions. The
primary point of interest is that each of them is mono-theistic (if
you'll let me bastardize that term) in that they require each participant 
to pursue the same goals, they require an inordinate amount of
cooperation. They're an attempt to tame the unknown and uncontrollable by 
injecting an external framework. Hubris at its best.

What a long-term stable human society needs is plurality, distribution, 
and lots of armed individuals. Yes, it may cause a higher murder rate than
without the guns, but the freedom is much more precious than human life
(if it weren't why spill blood for it?).

Democracy is not about compromise. It is about recognizing fundamental
limits to the actions of both individuals and societies, and respects
those parties right to exist and defend that existance.

Socialism, fascism, crypto-anarcy, bah. A gilded cage is still a cage.

>  "if you don't manage it the way they want they do take it
> away" is more or less the situation in western Europe and North America
> right now. (Can anyone say "consent order"?)

It's always been that way. The Consitition (here comes another of my
half-based COTUS rants) is the first attempt at breaking this. It clearly
says if you take private property for civil use the owner must be
compensated, no exceptions are listed. Unfortunately this has gotten to be
so bastardized (especialy in these days of confiscation) as to allow the
taking of private property without compensation in nearly any
circumstance.

I blame this on the rise of federalism (and as a consequence fascism) that
has taken hold of this country since Lincoln came to power and started the
Civil War.

Lincoln's heart may have been in the right place (I personaly doubt it)
but it doesn't change the fact that his good intentions took us to the
exit to hell. And the real bitch is that Mexican radio that keeps fading
in and out on the AM band...

Capitalism itself has some problems, such as it has no recognition of
civil rights, religion, representation, etc. It's primary function is to
increase the profit margin and raise capital, everything else is
secondary. Nothing angelic in that at all. Greed is an original sin.

> So we end up with words that don't really distinguish between the very
> different situations of say, the USA, & the old USSR, & Spain under
> Franco.

Simply because two societies are capitalist, socialist, or democratic
(really anything) doesn't necessarily mean they will be implemented the
same way. What you're doing is confusing principle with practice. We are
after all using these terms in a very! general way. It's not like a
perfect form of any sort of government has ever existed. People aren't
that clean, which is the point under discussion after all and the reason
for governments.

This after all addressed the very heart of my disrespect for all political
systems other than democratic ones. In every case the goal is to manage
all persons using the same standards and practices. Democracy (at least in
principle) is the only political system which recognizes in an axiomatic
way the differences in goals and views of the participants of the system
and (at least attempts to) protects that plurality.

> Also of course most people who call themselves "socialists" (at least in
> Western Europe) say they don't want centralised state control of
> everything. You might say that socialism inevitably leads to an
> authoritarian Russian-style state (though if you did you couldn't use
> Russia as an example because it already had one of those before the
> revolution) but that's a different argument - you would be saying that
> all socialists are either deluded or lying, not (as you seem to be
> saying at the moment) that all governments are socialists.

Yes. I am saying that many people out there who call themselves, for
example, social democrats or christian libertarian are confused. They
have not sat down and reasoned their views out from first principles. They
can not explicity list (or even make reference to some extant list) their
fundamental base axioms, identify potential conflicts, and then how those
conflicts are resolved. I believe that most anarchist, libertarians, etc.
are simply people who are intellectualy advanced, emotionaly retarded, and
as a result pissed off that everyone doesn't see things their way, 'cause
it's the right way. In other words they're mad because they can't have
what they want, right now.

The vast majority of poeple think of themselves as good people (even
Hitler thought he was doing good killing Jews). They believe they only
want the best. The only problem is it's the best only from their narrow
perspective. It isn't that they're bad, it's that they've never learned to
think criticaly (or for themselves if you prefer) and as a result they
have failed to develop emotionaly (i.e. empathy).

Intelligence is not all it's cracked up to be.

If the individual does not reserve the right to doubt in all cases then
there can be no emotional development because there can be no conflict as
there is no real choice.

This trend can only be exacerbated by increased federal involvement in our
schools for example. I find this trend horrendous as it is equivalent to
the killing of local culture. Perhaps the very 'mediocrity' that
D'Tokeville (I know the spelling is wrong) was concerned about. I can say
that the Texas of today is not the Texas of my youth. Much of the culture
has been lost with respect to individuals lives and what remains has been
commercialized (e.g. German Texas Bar-B-Q houses) to the point of
homogenization. I personaly want my god damn fiesta's back. I like
whacking the shit out of that pinata! Why there are not groups in this
country attacking any federal involvement in schools leaves me stunned
honestly. It is after all a wholly state level issue.

I will say this, that in regards mediocrity democracy must work at it.
Other forms of government institutionalize it from the beginning. I'll
take democracy, as "We" so poignantly demonstrates the battle isn't about
right or wrong. It's about the right to make the choice yourself.
Democracy at least gives me a chance (i.e. pursuit of happiness). I know
of no other form of government that makes that promise or gives one the
ability to be personaly involved (ie. 2nd Amendment).

Which segues into another point that's been on my mind. Waco. The judge
found the Davidians responsible and the feds without fault.

Strictly speaking, since every citizen has the right to self defence and
that at times in the course of human events, it becomes necessary
for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them
with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the seperate
and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle
them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they
should declare the causes which impel them to the seperation.

(oh yeah, so much for Lincolns claim that no country has ever recognized
it's own demise, or the 'supreme law of nations'. Neither exist in this
country and why nobody has ever bothered to mention this also stuns me.)

The Branch Davidians did that. Their 'crime' to defend their 1st Amendment
religion against the federal forces is a sham. They had every right to
kill those agents the moment those agents attempted to enforce their
'jurisdiction' by force. Nature, God, and the Declaration of Independance
(the founding document of the reasons and ethics that justified the
formation of this country) clearly demonstrate this. Only short-sighted
petty officials more interested in their own goals and greed than the
great oath they took can fail to see and understand.

Note I am not saying that in some cases federal agents don't have a
responsibility to settle issues by force. I am saying that the other side
has commited no crime in resisting. This is the true power of the American
form of democracy when practiced honestly. The Founding Fathers (Go
Jefferson!) knew exactly what they were doing.

"I am no mans (or by extention nations) nigger. I refuse to bend my knee
and any man who asks me to can't be an honest American. They can only be
here to oppress me. I will resist."

(It's also why I believe Jefferson was willing to keep his slaves. He
expected a conflict much quicker than actualy occurred. Perhaps as little
as 20 years. I believe his actions were based on rational expediency and
the safety of all concerned.)

THAT is THE fundamental American Democratic Ideal. It is the absolute
bedrock upon which this country is built. The right to resist is absolute.
This is why the 2nd Amendment says 'shall not be infringed'. That means
not registered, not intimidated, not filed, not collated, not infringed.
Unless there is specific evidence pursuant under the 4th Amendment it is
not a federal issue what happens between me and my weapons. The Federal
government may do nothing to interfere with the individual right to buy,
own, and carry weapons. The 10'th Amendment does not invalidate existing
state constitutional restrictions on same howerver. Weapon regulation is a
state by state issue governed by state constitutional regulations
regarding weapons. Note that since a fundamental bedrock of the nation,
and therefore the very states themselves, they are also bound to recognize
this point. In effect American democracy guarantees one the right to cease
participating in the American experiment (or perhaps participate more
actively in it depending on ones point of view).

If America is justified to exist then individual Americans are justifed in
killing any party which attempts to use force against them, as guaranteed
in the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The judge has in effect said that since the
Davidians didn't have a right to protect their beliefs the original
colonist didn't have a right to revolt. As a consequence he has said that
the very system that gives him authority to rule is not itself justified
to exist. And therefore he has no authority to rule.

What a fucking idiot.

It is my biggest condemnation of American jurisprudence that the
Declaration of Independence, the very ethical bedrock of this country -
not English law as the law mongers would have you believe, is virtualy
ignored with respect to the justification of law. Absolutely incredible
and absolutely damning. Treason. We did after all have a war with the
explicit intention of building our own society.

The fact that we have drifted from these ideals should surprise no-one.
The fact is the transient passion of pursuit of liberty will eventualy
fade to the power of longer-term relationships such as language and
family. I suspect this was the ultimate point of Jeffersons comment
on a revolution every so often. Jefferson was unfortunately off a tad.

I'm sorry but I'm getting tired and hungry. I'll leave the remainder of
your email unaddressed if you don't mind.


    ____________________________________________________________________

                     He is able who thinks he is able.

                                           Buddha

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------