Snowden on the Twitters

[Juan]

On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 04:36:06 +0000
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

> On 10/2/15, Juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 	You know, the first requirement to win an argument is to
> > pick the right side. And statism isn't the right side of the
> > 	argument.
> 
> More like, fatally flawed.
> 
> Here and there I wonder of possible constitutional clauses
> (/amendments) which might somehow "balance" the degradation of the
> state, whilst maintaining it's potential or claimed benefits:
>  - eliminate politician salaries (or at least set them to a maximum of
> the mean (not median) of government subsistence handouts (now -that-
> might cause a rapid shift to "a living wage for everyone no
> exceptions" :)
>  - criminalise campaign donations (like HTTPS, raising the bar?)
>  - do a Switzerland/ Israeli "every child must learn to competently
> use a machine gun, and every household must possess at least one"
>  - legalise at least all plants, probably all drugs
>  - more?
> 


	Problem is, even a sensible statist 'constitution' or
	legal system is managed by the state. Things can look good on
	paper, but who's going to enforce the sensible laws? 

	"all men are created equal" - except slaves. 


> 
> > 	re : 'division of power' - the incentives for people who
> > have power lead them to COOPERATE to maintain or gain more power,
> > not to 'check' each other's power. ABC of economics.
> 
> So how does political anarchy improve on handling this 'problem', or
> is it not a problem but a reality we must accept?


	The problem remains, in general terms. People can cooperate for
	good or bad puroposes. 

	But at least anarchists aren't naive enough to believe that
	different factions within the mafia 'check' each other. Sure,
	there may be some internal quarreling in a mafia organization
	or in a government (they are the same thing), but the internal
	quarreling is not going to significantly prevent the government
	from doing all the bad things governments do. 

	Anyway, anarchists handle the problem of criminal cooperation
	inside a government by getting rid of the government. 



> 
> 
> >> etc)
> >> and build upon them or try implementing them in a more functional
> >> way, or... go the "ignore it altogether" route, end up reinventing
> >> the wheel, and arriving at a not-all- that-functional variation of
> >> it.
> >
> > 	So, you are willing to 'cooperate' with the current
> > criminals and justify them while accusing a bunch of anarchist of
> > 'maybe' doing something that goes against their principles?
> 
> It is human nature to gather with or cooperate with those who hold
> power, to the extent that it is in one's self interest - just as you
> say above about those already holding power cooperating amongst
> themselves.
> 
> I don't think any particular political system can solve the problem of
> the base nature of humans, 

	True, but some systems are...absurd, even when judged by
	their own flawed standards. 

	Democracy : people are not smart enough to govern themselves at
	the individual level, but, they are smart enough to
	elect...dumb 'representatives'? Something doesn't add up...


> although I do think some systems may have
> better prospects for social stability over some period of time -
> although more fundamentally is the state of consciousness of "we
> humans" - and educating the next generation to strive for something
> higher than the pursuit of greed.
> 
> Re education, I do recommend John Taylor Gatto 

	I've read stuff from Gatto. He's pretty good. What's really
	amazing about him is that he worked for tens of years for the
	US public indoctrin I mean US public education system to finally
	realize how fucked up the system is. 



>- I read one book a few
> years ago and promptly ordered a few more to read, he is that
> incisive, on topic and speaks from personal experience 'battling the
> USA education system'.
> 
> Regards
> Zenaan