individual responsibility - was Re: Nationalism vs Globalism

[Zenaan Harkness]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 08:26:05PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> 
> 
> On 09/02/2016 07:01 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 06:06:24PM -0700, Razer wrote:
> >> On 09/02/2016 05:51 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >>
> >>> individual sovereignty and anarchism
> >>
> >> Try "individual RESPONSIBILITY to the 'collective' called humanity and
> >> Anarchism" and I'll nibble. Until then it's just Feudal Nihilism by
> >> different means.
> > 
> > Nihilism sounds like moral relativism, not very useful.
> > 
> > "Feudal nihilism" - I don't understand what that's supposed to mean.
> 
> It means you don't care what happens to the shitpile as long as you're
> at the tip of the turd.

Well that's no philosophy worth subscribing to then is it?


> > Anyway, to the new subject: in what way is individual responsibility
> > precluded by individual sovereignty or anarchy?
> 
> I'm discussing from a US POV. Donald Trump IS the perfect representation
> of most Americans who believe in individual sovereignty.
> 
> Would you say he feels at all responsible for anybody but him and, as
> Phil Ochs said, "A small circle of friends".

OK, gotcha...

How about this then:

1) let's get clear on what particular political philosophies are

2) provide examples and say "this applies" or "this not applies"

3) proceed with useful discussion


My point is, what some might see here is a classic strawman:
a) "individual sovereignty sucks, because Trump!"


Is it possible this could be seen as attempting to steam roll the
conversation by hook and by crook into a direction that is either not
useful, not true, not relevant, not based in fact, materially deficient,
not constructive, or some combination of the above?

Just wondering...



> > You've brought this up before and I seem to recall saying the same thing
> > then - individual sovereignty is a good thing, let's hold hands and sing
> > the kumbaya praises of individual responsibility brother Rayzer!
> > 
> > I can feel a dichotomy, coming on. Got the taste for it! Just can't wait
> > for it! False di-cho-to-mies, coming on! <with apologies for the Aussie
> > XXXX brand beer commercials>
> > 
> > 
> > Now Rayzer: we recall you getting your kahnickerbokeries rather worked
> > up about motorized carriages and shortly thereafter lauding the wonders
> > of the DMV.
> > 
> > So what does that tell us?
> 
> It tells me you're making it up. All I ever said was I want the person
> who MIGHT run me over with a 2,000 pound deadly weapon to prove, at
> least, the competence not to do that and have some sort of
> group-recognized documentation to that effect.

With your explicit eimplication being that:

a) political anarchy precludes this, and

b) the DMV is the solution to a lack of individual self responsibility



> If that translates to DMV luv for you, so be it, but it's an
> extrapolation on your part. It's nothing I ever said nor believe.

OK, so you do not uphold state authorised force (police with guns,
courts and jail for non-compliance) by authority of 'DMV', to force
compliance with "arbitrary" road "rules"?


Wanting clarity on this one.



> Ps. Daddy Semi-truck-driver used to 'sign off on sonny boy's Class A
> Tractor license and that was good enough for most states. There were
> literally thousands of truck drivers in the US who didn't know how to
> adjust tractor-trailer brakes which, until the last decade or so,  had
> to be adjusted manually or... Let me put it this way if you're
> mechanically minded, there a shaft going into the drum with an S-shaped
> cam on it that pushes the the backs of the brake shoes out. If you don't
> adjust the 'slacks' the cam spins without touching the backs of the
> shoes and the brakes? They don't work!
> 
> I want truck drivers to prove they know how to adjust their brakes.

And that requires state-sanctioned 'democratic' force for compliance,
by way of state entities such as DMV?



> > Are you not trusting of humans to exercise individual responsibility?
> 
> In nation-states? Absolutely not.

In "what" 'states' exactly, DO you trust individual humans, collectively
generally with all the obvious exceptions, to exercise, generally,
individual responsibility?



> > Or you have a basis of fear that says in an old electoral candidate's
> > voice "we must ensure compliance"?
> > 
> > 
> > Seriously, you sound mixed up.  Your words comes across, consistently,
> > as notably nationalistic - perhaps you can speak to us as to why this is
> > so?
> 
> I don't believe in national borders. You're confused.

Let's not get caught up in terminology - fascist state, demoncratic
state, whatever the hell we call what we mostly live within these days.


I believe in national borders - they exist today, they are enforced by
police and military means / force, by what are called 'governments'
which are allegedly democratic but are mostly fascist.

I believe in them - they exist.

I could assume you mean you don't believe in them as in "you would
prefer they did not exist" - you might have said something like this in
the past, but I want to not put words in your mouth.


Frankly, I like the idea of hanging around with folks of like belief and
values, principles and morals/ ethics (never sure which term is PC these
days) - and I have heard and read numerous examples of "Islamic leaders"
in middle eastern and also western countries, make religious calls,
publicly, loudly, clearly and with absolutely no ambiguity, for islamic
immigration to western nations, and to breed themselves into power.


I object to that on principle.


If you want to emmegrate from your country, and immigrate into my
country / nation, I want to know that your belief systems are "somewhat
compatible" with mine!


The closest term that may be considered politically correct so far is
"cultural strength" - I want some cultural strength for "my culture",
within "my country".


For these reasons I like some aspects of "nationalism", at least when
nationalism is not used by TPTB to undermine those in my nation / tribe
to cause the majority within it to feel guilty for how we live, what we
believe in, and the wealth we enjoy.


AND I vehemently oppose the many and varied evils I witness going on all
around the world and conducted in the name "Australia" (and USA, France,
Germany, etc).


This world politically is a bloody mess, we see it, we need to do
everything we can to correct things.