individual responsibility - was Re: Nationalism vs Globalism

[Mirimir]

On 09/02/2016 11:30 PM, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 10:33:58PM -0600, Mirimir wrote:
>> On 09/02/2016 09:26 PM, 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.
>>
>> I do feel some compassion for the shitpile. But playing in shit is just
>> not very interesting. And change (or even transformation) is at best
>> illusory.
> 
> That is not agreeable, nor constructive, although the statement may be
> provable over specific time periods and at certain levels of analysis.

Maybe not agreeable or constructive to you, but accurate, I believe.

> Ought we stick to discussions which are not self defeating and premised
> on failure?

My point is that playing those games is pointless. Choosing not to play
is the only sane option.

>> So I'll settle for keeping out of it :)
> 
> That's tough - where the use of force is vested in the state and
> its institutions such as the DMV, and you "just want to drive to a
> mate's place to catch up".

It's just a fact that states monopolize force. Refusing to play does not
mean overt resistance. You just avoid attracting attention, and smile
and nod when necessary.

> Although "keeping out of it" is a laudable goal superficially, the
> implications are fundamentally opposed to living a full and enjoyable
> life engaged with other humans.

Not at all! I just hang with others who keep out of it ;)

> Some like the monastic isolationist life, and far be it from us to decry
> anyone who chooses that.

I wouldn't say monastic. Just private. Read old Bill Burroughs' stuff
about the Johnson Family.

> But, for many of us, where "keeping out of it" means not engaging or
> physically interacting with interesting folk who also exist within "our
> nation", isolationism is intolerable!

It doesn't mean that at all.

> We see what happened with the ascetic and isolationist Essenes who
> "seceded from the Zadokite priests" and wanted to live their lives
> independent of Rome (the empire at that time), so this battle we face to
> live our own lives (independently of the TPTB) is nothing new, see:
> https://waldodhc.wordpress.com/2009/07/01/masada-the-essenes/
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes

They attracted too much attention. There is no public history about the
ones we want as role models :)

> Some say the leader of the Zealots was Jesus the Nazarene, the last King
> of the jews and there is some evidence to this - a book where the author
> alleges he read the last scroll of the Zealots in person, but was not
> allowed a copy (can't remember the name of the book right now).

That was a long time ago, and impossible to tell from bullshit.

> Point is, the proles are prone to fear, reactivity, lynch mobbing and
> plenty more, and the isolationism of the Essenes, their desire to live
> free of rome, combined with their penchant for education and science
> (geekiness and personal and tribal advancement) may have been part of
> why 'the rest of the Roman society' was in fear of them, and ultimately
> preferred to destroy them / force submission, rather than let them live
> their lives as they chose.

Yes, they attracted too much attention :(