individual responsibility - was Re: Nationalism vs Globalism

[Mirimir]

On 09/03/2016 05:25 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 03, 2016 at 04:47:28AM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
>> On 09/03/2016 04:03 AM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>>>>> Is it possibly less than 'constructive' to dishearten individuals before
>>>>> they've even begun?
>>>>
>>>> So maybe do something, instead of talking so much about it.
>>>
>>> Specific action has been underway for a few years, expecting about 2 to
>>> go. Will report here when success of course.
>>>
>>>>> Could doing so, in the context of "fly below the radar with compliance
>>>>> with the state" be seen as, I dunno, statist propaganda perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Are you fucking serious?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> "do not oppose the state publicly" is easy to read as "comply with the
>>> state".
>>
>> What I mean is don't get caught opposing the state.
> 
> Well ok, that's a legitimate survival strategy, and in general probably
> a wise approach.
> 
> I would say: don't publicly oppose the state, without a clear plan to
> ultimately win you chosen battle, even if that might take a few years.
> 
> And note, by "you" I mean not only you as some random individual, but
> "you" as a group of individuals who unite in a common cause.
> 
> 
> Let's not let those dichotomies (e.g. "one man against the state will
> never win") sidetrack us from possibly winnable approaches.
> 
> 
>> Where you have an
>> oppressed majority that acknowledges its oppression, nonviolent
>> resistance is a viable option.
> 
> This is a very good point.
> 
> 
>> India. US south. South Africa. But it's
>> hard so see how that would work in Australia, for example.
> 
> Ah yes, the wealthy Western nations, content in their golden cages and
> prancing around with many toys.
> 
> I definitely agree this is a bloody hard soil to till!
> 
> Still, fundamentals that hit the hip pocket, such as road tolls ("but
> who's going to pay for the roads?" and so many other bogus echoes...)
> and in particular exhorbitant (even for many poorer Westerners) annual
> vehicle registration fees, may provide some common ground.
> 
> (Let's not sidetrack to insurance just yet ... hold those horses!)
> 
> 
>> But hey, if going down as a martyr is your trip, go for it!
> 
> Sounds like an unwise strategy to me... no contention in recommending
> against that one.
> 
> 
>>> This is hard to read in an anarchist context as anything other than
>>> directly counter to the foundation principles of anarchism.
>>
>> I don't care much about labels. There is no "anarchism".
> 
> Labels are not used for the purpose of boxing, but for the purpose of
> sharing meaning. If we cannot share meanings, we cannot communicate.
> 
> Do you agree it's a useful term for efficiently sharing meaning re a
> particular political "philosophy" or "way"?
> 
> Let's try again:
> 
> 0)
> You say avoiding being a martyr is a good thing. I agree.

Unless it gains your friends enough support, I suppose ;)

> 1)
> Anarchism is entirely appropriate word in this context, since
> (political) anarchy is part of the premise of this list and presumably
> the shared interest, in some capacity, of all those who join this list.
> 
> Do you agree?

As I've argued in another thread, anarchy pre se is unworkable, because
there too many assholes. It's workable in small, self-selected groups.
So then you have myriad tweaks ("*anarchy etc) to deal with that. But
none have worked out very well, I think.

> 2)
> Your semi-implicit suggestion to "comply with the state, or you're just
> a martyr", could be interpreted by someone (e.g. Juan to pick a totally
> random example) as "statist propaganda".
> 
> Do you agree?

You comply strategically, and conceal non-compliance (say, using crypto)
as needed to accomplish your goals. I'd say that it's more like statist
propaganda to argue that you ought to openly defy state power. Because
then you can be eliminated.

> 3)
> Avoiding personal conflict is a valid and reasonable survival strategy.
> 
> I agree with this also - it seems we all agree on these things.

Golden rule. And right to self-defense.

>>> Do you say there's some flaw in this reasoning?
>>
>> Yeah, I did :)
> 
> Are you taking discussion of anarchy, and discussion of civil
> disobedience (peaceful or otherwise) as an invalid discussion, an
> invalid call to arms on this list, or otherwise worthy of countering in
> short order if such discussion raises its ugly head?

Generally, that stuff is off-topic on this list.

> You see, I can get that many have been harmed by the state.
> 
> Many have made legitimate personal efforts in the past - may be you
> have.
> 
> And may be engaging too closely in such discussions may tempt you from a
> comfortable semi-off the grid existence into action which your
> conscience might compel you, but perhaps your emotions and body really
> don't want to get involved in?
> 
> It's ok to be relatively conservative, compliant and below the radar,
> complying with the state where it would otherwise be quite an
> inconvenience or indeed a trip down martyr's lane!
> 
> Most comfortable golden-caged westerners would never consider such
> jaunts - something to leave to crazy people.
> 
> 
> However, perhaps we should caution ourselves when we leap into
> conversational protective mode, when seriously, all we're having is a
> little email chat :)

Hey, I get that. But it just gets so fucking old, after the Nth time ;)

> Watch this:
> 
> YEAH, we should all ditch all licenses, all registrations, give up on
> medical doctors and rage against the machine!
> 
> 
> Now, just for a moment, wear this hat.
> 
> Pretend you're 18, sex starved and really really pissed off with the
> man. Your papa beat the crap out of you, some boys in senior high jammed
> your face in the toilet when you were in middle school, one really
> creepy janitor tried to get you into a closet once, and to top it all
> off you really like a bit of weed.

Yeah, been there, done that. But you see, I learned to play a bully ;)

> Now some charismatic 29 year old (absolutely -ancient- in comparison)
> comes along and makes the above call to arms.
> 
> 
> How does this call to arms make you feel?

I don't follow anyone. Never did. Never will. Nor will I lead.

> Now try this hat on, just for a moment: "I'm not a coward, but I am
> comfortable, I've done my bit and I found some fellow souls I enjoy
> hanging out with, and I don't want to get involved in any significant
> confront with the state."

No dude, I just don't want to get caught at it ;) So crypto :)

> Finally, let whatever feelings arise go - say "that's just a
> conversation, irrational, rational, whatever, just a few words in an
> email."
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Can we facilitate the anarchists, the boat rockers, the inspireds, the
> whatever they damn well want to call themselves?
> 
> Can we help them along their journey of understanding and possible
> action?
> 
> Can we say things like "you might find that's just martyrdom and won't
> get anywhere, but good luck, and possibly consider A B C" rather than
> "you idiot! you're obviously too stupid to fly below the radar!" ...

Maybe we can help them set up their own list ;) But damn, maybe that
isn't necessary, because there are fuckloads of such lists!

> What kind of conversations are worthy of this list?

Maybe this is just too obvious, but consider what "cypherpunk" means.
The term was coined in the "punk rock" era. So by analogy, cypherpunk is
about co-opting crypto against the system. So that's what this list is
for, I believe. It's not a list for social/political/economic theory or
the fucking US presidential race or sucking Putin's dick or whatever.