Self Preservation and Irreversible Decline [was: Electronic Freedom Foundation selective in support of freedom]

[juan]

On Fri, 15 Jan 2016 03:33:49 +0000
Zenaan Harkness <zen at freedbms.net> wrote:

 
> I am a "Western" non-American (Australia) and when I read the "
> founding fathers' " words of the USofA and of Australia, I actually
> find some of them to be genuinely worthy to strive for, to hold as
> worthy in general for future generations.


	Oh, the liberal* ideals  that those politicians talked about
	are worth striving for. 


	*older sense
> 
> The overt corruption, blatant violation of foundation (constitutional)
> principles and basic human rights by the various "Western" governments
> is enough to draw out the cynic in the best intentioned individual and
> send the rest to some beer and TV soma.


	Here's a bit more cynism : If we want to carry a coup d'etat
	against the british monarchy, what kind of rhetoric should we 
	use? Well, the choice seems kinda obvious. We're against
	tyranny and for freedom. (what does 'freedom' mean exactly,
	well, you'll learn the details in the plantations)


> 
> 
> >> On the Moral Superiority
> >
> > 	null pointer
> 
> Frankly re the current Subject: "Self Preservation and Irreversible
> Decline", "Moral Superiority" is I say the most practical answer yet -
> if we trust that in principle humans are basically righteous/ ethical/
> moral/ good, this seems a solid foundation for justifying political
> anarchism yes?


	
	Well, yes, a political system based on real, individual consent
	is the only system that can claim 'moral superiority'. 

	Funnily enough, western political rhetoric/propaganda is based
	on the ideas of 'government by consent', 'self-government'
	'social contract' and the like. All that stuff logically takes
	political anarchy (the abilty for individuals to *actually*
	'govern' themselves) for granted. And of course, the members of
	the western political mafia/state don't believe or apply a
	single word of their own propaganda. Which makes them so morally
	un-superior...



> - whereas with direct democracy 'the people' only have themselves to
> blame, since they vote for/against every single law and executive
> order, 

	Well, that would be at least more interesing and honest than
	the system we currently have. The problem remains though, some
	people seem to believe that whatever a majority votes for is
	automatically good or legitimate.


> and in political anarchy, well who knows since we haven't seen
> a large anarchist community AFAICT - perhaps anarchy would be more
> practical and or long lasting than 'western (two) party democracy',
> perhaps it would devolve to a modern tribal type thing... I doubt any
> system will achieve a long lasting utopianism given the average state
> of consciousness of humans on our lovely blue planet.


	I suppose  if we look at the current state of human societies
	the conclusion is warranted...

> 
> 
> Perhaps s/moral/ethical/ ?  


	I think the two words are mostly synonyms. Also, in the past
	people used to talk on one hand about "natural philosophy" (now
	called 'physics' and related scientific disciplines) and on the
	other hand about "moral philosophy" which dealt with  



I have never quite understood why people
> get hung up on these terms - perhaps past experience of religionists
> ramming "Godly morals" down the throat? - if so, take control of the
> word and smite those who would blaspheme the one true definition of
> "moral" according to the god of your own sensible mind! :)
> 
> ("Smite" as in, use words to cut them and slice them to size.)
> Z
> 
> 
> A couple of definitions:
> 
>   Ethics \Eth"ics\ ([e^]th"[i^]ks), n. [Cf. F. ['e]thique. See
>      {Ethic}.]
>      The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn
>      from this science; a particular system of principles and
>      rules concerting duty, whether true or false; rules of
>      practice in respect to a single class of human actions; as,
>      political or social ethics; medical ethics.
>      [1913 Webster]
> 
> From The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing (20 July 2014) [foldoc]:
>   computer ethics
>   ethics
> 
>      <philosophy> Ethics is the field of study that is concerned
>      with questions of value, that is, judgments about what human
>      behaviour is "good" or "bad".  Ethical judgments are no
>      different in the area of computing from those in any other
>      area.  Computers raise problems of privacy, ownership, theft,
>      and power, to name but a few.
> 
> From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:
>   ethics
>       n 1: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong [syn: {ethical
>            motive}, {ethics}, {morals}, {morality}]
>       2: the philosophical study of moral values and rules [syn:
>          {ethics}, {moral philosophy}]