Page all of 8 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#11880 - 09/26/08 02:12 PM I think I finally decided my political affiliation
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
As a kid I was a straight party line republican. Because my stepgrandfather told me to, and he also told me to do whatever adults say.

As an adolescent I reinforced my conservativism because I heard rush limbaugh and thought that his jokes on president Clinton were funny.

In college, fellow students and professors tried to brainwash me into liberalism. Some were democrats and some socialists. I wasn't swayed into liberalism, but they did convince me that republican conservatism is also bullshit.

I read on other stuff, and decided I was an anarchist because I didn't like any government system. so I read on anarchy. Emma Goldman and stuff like that. Anarchists (not all, like Mr. Fist isn't) are just socialists. They even admit it.

I realized I just don't think anyone has wisdom enough, or enough knowledge of my personal circustances to tell me what to do. And I always thought that no matter what laws are in place, people will just do whatever the fuck they want anyway. What percentage of the US population is in prison? A pretty alarming number. And who here has never commited a crime? It's almost impossible not to, almost like every christian sins.

I decided I'll do my own thing, I'll avoid stuff that will get nme in serious trouble with the law, but this stuff would get me in serious trouble without laws.

The political battles out there? As hard as I tried to, I can't bring my self to give a damn.

My political affiliation is now that of the devoutly apathetic person. My vote is the non-vote. I think in the US, this is in the majority. Why don't most people vote? because they'd rather be at their boring job, or they're going out for ice cream, because those things are more important than voting? God damned right they are. If voting was so important, why don't people do it? people do all the other important, even unpleasant stuff. though the majority votes for no president, we never win due to political opression. Our vote doesn't count so they go with the number 2 candidate.

It doesn't make a damn bit of difference to me whether obama or mccain wins, I'll live my life and adapt if there's problems, which either president will give me one way or another.

The only time I considered voting is when Pat Bucchannan ran for president. I hate that cocksucker enough to act to keep him out. But in the end, I knew he didn't have a chance.




Edited by coelentrate (09/26/08 02:24 PM)

Top
#11883 - 09/26/08 05:07 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: coelentrate]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Emma Goldman and her kind are communists - not anarchists. They fly the black flag only because the status quo is predominantly capitalist. You never find these types of 'anarchists' protesting communist/socialist institutions.

If you are truly interested in real anarchy - the absence of govt - check out the writings of Lysander Spooner:

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/

You see, Emma Goldman and her kind would be perfectly happy to live in a world where govt forced you to 'share' your prosperity. Spooner argues against both govt and corporations as corrupt, immoral, and unnecessary middle-men meddling in the free trade of goods and services between individuals.

The problem with all of today's predominant political thinking is that it tends to draw upon the past. Politicians spend the people's time and money either trying to correct the injustices of the past or acting reactionarilly to the present. No one is interested in comprehensive solutions or building anything for the future. Nearly every law is an object lesson in the Law of Unintended Consequences.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence

The Founding Fathers well understood human nature and man's tendency to abuse power to his own ends. They created a constitution and Bill of Rights with an eye to future.

Today, Extropy is the only current movement that seeks to move man beyond this current reactionary state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropy

http://www.extropy.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism

Govts of all types, will ultimately seek to force people to act against their own self-interests. The same can be said of corporations. At many levels it may be in one's own enlightened self interest to associate with one of these entities but all involvement must be voluntary and revocable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlightened_self-interest

Currently, the Libertarian Party is the only political party that promotes things that I believe in as a part of their platform. They are the only political party that actually want to increase personal freedom. Give them a look:

http://www.lp.org/

As an aside, you will notice that I linked quite a few Wiki entries. This is not to say the Wiki is a definitive source, but these entries are good enough that they do properly express the idea that I am trying to get across.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#11899 - 09/27/08 07:34 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: coelentrate]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Well if you are in Scotland, then the American vote wouldn't mean shit to you?

Or is Scotland some US state I've never heard of? I'm confused.

I'm really not trying to be a smart arse.

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#11901 - 09/27/08 08:13 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Coelentrate lives in Scotland. He holds a US passport. He can still vote in the US by applying for an absentee ballot.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#11910 - 09/27/08 03:42 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Fist]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Wow, is coelentrate from the US?
Didn't know that..
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#11915 - 09/27/08 07:00 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dimitri]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
I'm an American citizen in Scotland for a unique job and a change in scenery. I was born a bible reading, gun toting Texan.

Fist:
I admit I don't know much about the various anarchist movements, even Goldman's. I didn't have to read much of her stuff before I got discouraged. I'm still interested in anarchy in general, out of curiosity for now. I'll give the stuff you mentioned a read.

Top
#11920 - 09/27/08 08:13 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: coelentrate]
Aleph Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/18/08
Posts: 36
Loc: Pennsylvania
The problem with our current goverment lies with it's inability to grow and adapt.

Our Constitution was constructed as an adaptive set of guidelines. But technology and political situations have changed so much over time.

Sometimes is seems as if our laws and guidelines can be interperted and manipulated to mean whatever you want it to mean.

There is also the lack of other mainstream political parties. I don't agree with Libertarians, but I would love to see a third part, like themselves, on the ticket. By just having only two parties, you only hear two sides to an arguement. I have always been under the impression that an arguement leads to a solution, not a winner and loser. But this is we mainstream America thinks.
_________________________
...facilis descensus Averno; noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis. VIRGIL Aeneid

Top
#11951 - 09/28/08 01:21 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Aleph]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
 Originally Posted By: Aleph
I would love to see a third part, like themselves, on the ticket. By just having only two parties, you only hear two sides to an arguement


Scotland has three powerful parties in the same league and it's approaching four. We have Labour, Conservative, and Scottish National, with Liberal Democrats moving up fast.

this situation has changed nothing from when it was a two party system. The people tell me they haven't personally noticed any change in their lives or administrations when the scottish national party was born and took the majority. The only practical difference anyone really notices is that there will be another vote for national independence in 2010.

Top
#11977 - 09/29/08 01:16 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: coelentrate]
Aleph Offline
stranger


Registered: 09/18/08
Posts: 36
Loc: Pennsylvania
Well, there goes my theory.

The hell with it, maybe we just need some kind of revolution to act like an enima.

(My apologies to Homeland Security)
_________________________
...facilis descensus Averno; noctes atque dies patet atri ianua Ditis. VIRGIL Aeneid

Top
#12226 - 10/05/08 09:16 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Fist]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Didn't knew you were an anarchist Fist.

That's also my potitical position. I already mentionned it in the converstation we had with Lux (recently closed thread).

But you seem to have dig deeper than me in this subject. I keep your post as reference for further reading on the subject.

Also, to me, anarchism is the political position whih best fits Satanism. My personal view however...

Cheers,

Fabiano

Top
#12548 - 10/12/08 02:08 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Fabiano]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Countries and Religions are the same = fictional entities kept alive by faith and coercion. The difference is that the state holds real tangible power while the churchs power is more subliminal.

I really don't understand how a Satanist could support any sort of State.

But then again, a stateless society is a completely alien concept to most people.

Personally I stand as adversary not just to religions but to all forms of counterproductive herd culture. Democracy is right at the top.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12549 - 10/12/08 03:24 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
blsk Offline
member


Registered: 09/22/08
Posts: 298
Loc: salem or
Here's my view on the elections, and please tell me if i'm being too shallow on this. Like has been said before, if voting made a difference it would be illegal, and I think the Bush election has shown this to be true. It is nothing more that a popularity contest. They blow smoke up our asses telling us what they think we want to hear. It is not a run for the ruler of the free world but a vote for prom king. All hail the popular guy with a lot of money his dad gave him! What I hate is that they call non-voters like myself undecided. I am not undecided! I have decided that I don't want to vote for either jackoff running for office. Give me someone worth voting for and that one will surely recieve my vote.
_________________________
Ed made mens sewing cool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9mhsW5aWJM

Top
#12556 - 10/12/08 12:44 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
a stateless society is a completely alien concept to most people.


I've seen something pretty close to a stateless society out in the wilderness. There's villages with one cop who really doesn't give a shit. Everyone knows what you do, and will treat you accordingly; yet everyone's laid back and are fine with you as long as you aren't truly destructive. Maybe they'll have a crazy christian who gets on everyones' case, but people just don't tell them anything that's going on. It works beautifully.

I haven't seen this any place with more than about 2000 people. Bigger places than that attract more government to enforce stupid rules, and maybe a harder criminal element.

Top
#12761 - 10/16/08 05:24 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: coelentrate]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Theoretically I think a meritocracy would best fit Satanism. It should be the system most aligned with it but I surely doubt it ever to be an option.

I don't really believe in a stateless society, human beings need control, without it things go to hell. Government and law is nothing but applied damage control.

D.

Top
#12779 - 10/17/08 07:40 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
Well it makes sense. Children need routine and disapline to be happy and healthy, I guess to an extent that doesn't change much and a lot of adults need routine and structure to be happy and cope.

As for meritocracy, I'm a bit synical that it would actually ever happen. That's what the USA is supposed to have now isn't it? I realise of course that it isn't, just pointing that out.

Zejph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#12780 - 10/17/08 08:34 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think the USA qualifies as a meritocratic society.

In a meritocratic society there is no room for democracy and although it would be fundamentally egalitarian, there is no room for equality in the sense of sameness. It's a society subject to social darwinism and probably isn't fun for those not being able to accept their limitations and according position in society. There would be something like an 'American dream' in it although the 'Meritocratic dream' wouldn't be as much for dreamers as for doers and even at some levels, wanting something and striving for it would not even qualify them.

Theoretical I know.

D.

Top
#12790 - 10/17/08 11:47 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
A true meritocracy could not exist within a State.

Only when people are free to thrive or whither on their own terms can there ever be 'meritocracy', and so long as one small group has all the guns and all the power(regardless of any real 'merit') that can never come to pass.

It is amazing how some people that would denounce the need for a higher power , spiritually, would be the biggest advocates for a more earthly higher power, when in fact the arguments against them are exactly the same.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12793 - 10/17/08 12:03 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
coelentrate Offline
member


Registered: 07/07/08
Posts: 164
Loc: Dundee, Scotland
I think society in the US in a way is an anti-meritocracy. If you're good at what you do, you get promoted. You keep getting promoted untill you start to suck. Then they keep you there. Your're promoted to your own level of incompetence.
Top
#12794 - 10/17/08 12:10 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'd like to disagree here.

Anyone believing we can coexist peacefully without structure or hierarchy is dreaming. Even monkeys need hierarchy.
I don't think we need to debate the fact that humans are not exactly known as a tolerant, loving and respectful species.

So whatever system you'd devise would need some level of structure and damage control, no matter if it's a democracy, fascist or communist state. The more complex a society, the more complex its structures. Meritocratic, democratic or whatever just define how the structures are filled.

I can't see what arguments there are against a earthly higher power. At least none from a point of view that has a realistic perspective on the human race. But if there are some that escape me, feel free to enlighten me.

D.

Top
#12795 - 10/17/08 12:23 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I didn't say anything about removing hierarchy. A state is a coercive entity that only really deals with its own self preservation, and with those it benefits. I would even go so far as to say it prevents useful natural hierarchies from forming by keeping a non meritocratic artificially formed hierarchy in it's place.
I do not deal in ideals, but realities, but in my 'ideal society' all functions of the state would simply be absorbed into the free market. Services would sink or swim based on their own merit rather than have sluggish and ineffectual monopolies propped up by the very few that they actually serve, as is the case now.
Merit is based on competition, which doesn't exist in a monopoly.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12796 - 10/17/08 12:26 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

I can't see what arguments there are against a earthly higher power.

Try this one. If people are too stupid/incompetent/whatever to rules themselves, how does it follow that a person is qualified to rule them all? All of the arguments against self rule also apply to state rule, in spades.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12798 - 10/17/08 01:42 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
So if on some isle people form a natural meritocratic hierarchy, how does this differ from a state? The same for anywhere. Disband all structures they have now and let them form natural hierarchies and structures and you'll end up with a state.
I don't really see the point here.
What we have now is a result of societal evolution. If you start it all over, it will again lead to similar constructs. There might be some differences here and there, you can give it another name but there will always be a lot of similarities.

Merit is indeed based upon competition but can exist in a monopoly. The problem with a monopoly is that if you stop improving, at one point you'll lose the monopoly. Monopolies can't become slackers. Not for long that is.

For your argument:

 Quote:
If people are too stupid/incompetent/whatever to rules themselves, how does it follow that a person is qualified to rule them all? All of the arguments against self rule also apply to state rule, in spades.


You start with the argument that if people are... then...

The problem isn't that all people are but that some are. So we will always have a % that are perfectly capable of ruling themselves. Their problem is that they are stuck with the rest. That's a pretty decent argument for state rule.

Like I said, I don't consider a meritocracy to ever be an option but in my opinion it's the system best fitting Satanism.

For myself it doesn't matter much, I'll survive in about any system.

D.

Top
#12803 - 10/17/08 05:17 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

So if on some isle people form a natural meritocratic hierarchy, how does this differ from a state?

The difference is that people would have the ability to opt out, and it would not be funded by thievery.
 Quote:

Disband all structures they have now and let them form natural hierarchies and structures and you'll end up with a state.

States do not naturally form from hierarchies. States are externally enforced.
 Quote:

If you start it all over, it will again lead to similar constructs. There might be some differences here and there, you can give it another name but there will always be a lot of similarities.

I agree. I think a society without a state would be very much as it is now, with a few major exceptions.
 Quote:

Merit is indeed based upon competition but can exist in a monopoly.

Oh? How is that?
 Quote:

The problem with a monopoly is that if you stop improving, at one point you'll lose the monopoly.

Obviously you've never had to go to a canadian hospital.

 Quote:

The problem isn't that all people are but that some are. So we will always have a % that are perfectly capable of ruling themselves. Their problem is that they are stuck with the rest. That's a pretty decent argument for state rule.

First, how do you draw the criteria between who is capable of self rule and who isn't?
Second, do you really think politicians are better human beings than the rest of us? More capable? Who's interests do you think they have at heart?
I'll tell you one thing, it isn't my interests.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12805 - 10/17/08 05:51 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You can't have a natural hierarchy without it at the same time becoming territorial. Unless you have only ten humans living on a potato field you can't avoid the formation of states.
The amount of people we are with, combined with the level of demands we have to function in this era will inevitably lead to states. They are not externally enforced but internally. Even if you look at whatever tribe, they function as a state, maybe not as far developed as ours, politically differently and certainly not as defined but they are a state nonetheless.

A true free market is only possible in laissez-faire capitalism and will result in monopolies. If you allow competition without regulation you cannot avoid it. If you don't like monopolies, you need a strongly regulated market or a more socialist structure for the economy.

I've never been into a Canadian hospital no but I assume they aren't the result of the meritocratic policy there so until you enlighten me, I do not see the connection between them and monopolies in such a system.

It doesn't matter if I think politicians are better human beings than the rest of us, that isn't what I talk about. What I say is that we need a government and we need law and enforcement. We need a system and rules to make life tolerable for most of us, even if some are capable of doing without. To know who isn't capable of self rule I don't need to do more than look around, open a newspaper or watch the news.

Self rule is a pretty nice thing but not in this reality.

D.

Top
#12808 - 10/17/08 07:27 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

1:You can't have a natural hierarchy without it at the same time becoming territorial.

2:Unless you have only ten humans living on a potato field you can't avoid the formation of states.

3:The amount of people we are with, combined with the level of demands we have to function in this era will inevitably lead to states.

4:They(states) are not externally enforced but internally.

5:Even if you look at whatever tribe, they function as a state, maybe not as far developed as ours, politically differently and certainly not as defined but they are a state nonetheless.


So here you make 5 completely unsupported assertions. Am I supposed to just take your word on these things? Each of them seem intuitively false, aside from number four. I suppose I chose my words poorly and left room for ambiguity when I said states are externally enforced. Of course, once they are formed, they 'enforce' their will on everyone. What I should have said was 'externally inserted'
 Quote:

A true free market is only possible in laissez-faire capitalism and will result in monopolies. If you allow competition without regulation you cannot avoid it. If you don't like monopolies, you need a strongly regulated market or a more socialist structure for the economy.

Another assertion..you are quite the propaganda machine aren't you? Why don't you give me an example of this happening without state intervention. Bet you can't!
 Quote:

I've never been into a Canadian hospital no but I assume they aren't the result of the meritocratic policy there so until you enlighten me, I do not see the connection between them and monopolies in such a system.

Well, canadian hospitals are part of socialist canadian medicare, ie a medical monopoly.canadian hospitals are also terrible, with some of the longest wait times in the civilized world. The point being that without healthy competition there is no longer a motivator to provide good service. It isn't like we can just 'go somewhere else'.
 Quote:

What I say is that we need a government and we need law and enforcement.

I think you are where I once was, believing that it was in fact 'the government' that keeps society from degenerating into chaos. It is true that if the services the government provides were to be suddenly gone, chaos would ensue. There are plenty of examples to support this.
But is the government really good at providing these services? Historically private industry does everything better than the government does, and the reasons why are pretty obvious.
Do you think things like decentralized courts and capital are possible? What about decentralized protection?(essentially law enforcement)
I don't see why this isn't possible without the shadow of the worlds largest street gang hanging over our heads.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12812 - 10/18/08 02:05 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You don't need to take my word for anything, you don't even have to look it up but it makes me feel a bit as if I am debating that reality is real and the other party says it's intuitively wrong. So let's take a different approach.

You explain to me how in reality you can do without states. I'm very interested.

At the same time, tell me how monopolies will not arise in a free market? Free market, not perfect market.

On this:

 Quote:
Historically private industry does everything better than the government does, and the reasons why are pretty obvious.


Been watching the news during the last weeks? A hell of an argument for governmental control if you ask me. If they didn't jump in, we'd be calling it the new great depression.

I'm gone a couple of days, so you got time to convince me.

D.

Top
#12824 - 10/18/08 12:17 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

You explain to me how in reality you can do without states. I'm very interested.

There are lots of examples of stateless societies throughout history.

But just to save some time I'll direct you to a resource(a discussion I was involved with) that will answer most of your questions. In fact, this is what moved me from minarchist to Market Anarchist

CLICK TO CHANGE YOUR VIEWS ON GOVERNMENT FOREVER!


Edited by Dan_Dread (10/18/08 12:18 PM)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12884 - 10/19/08 04:42 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Sorry mate but I don't see stateless societies. I see societies with a different governmental or political (if you like) structure but nowhere I see something that doesn't classify as a state. Mind you, it's not because the USA is a state that everything that doesn't resemble the USA isn't a state.

So might I assume that I'm not that loco for thinking that earthly higher powers are a necessity for our species to coexist?

And for anarchy; I'm going to refrain from sharing my views on it.

D.

Top
#12886 - 10/19/08 05:23 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I am willing to guess you didn't even click on my link.

So since you keep insisting we people need a state to function, try THIS on for size. Be warned, it's a fairly exhaustive list and a lot of reading to back each example up.

I suspect you won't look at this one either and continue bleating the same tune.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12888 - 10/19/08 06:20 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You are right, I didn't read all of the posts, many are just plain irrelevant. But I didn't miss this link, which they give as an example:

FAQ: Historical instances of Market Anarchic territories

And like I said, I don't see stateless societies. Either you have no clue what a state is, or you do deal in ideals, while I restrict myself to reality. Anarchy my friend, is for dreamers.

D.

Top
#12891 - 10/19/08 07:14 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I think, perhaps, it is you that doesn't know what a state is. The burden of proof is on you to show what is wrong with my examples.

You have yet to move from making bald assertions to making any sort of cogent response.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#12911 - 10/20/08 02:22 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
This is goddamn pathetic. You are the one claiming it is possible to have stateless societies nowadays and let's not forget the 'free market without monopolies' gem. I just ask you if you are for real because if you'd stick that head of yours out of the window, you'd see that reality tends to prove pretty nicely what I claim.

Hell, you've been dancing around the subject all the time without being able to deliver some goodies. You know what, you're with your back against the wall and you and I know it.

I expect more here from someone disagreeing with me but it isn't that important, shallow shit seems to be the sign of times.

D.

Top
#12931 - 10/20/08 01:05 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I decided to be the nice guy, look for my silver spoon and tell you what I think of anarchy.

All kinds of people today call themselves "libertarians," especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they're anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It's a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don't want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That's the Libertarian movement.

Ayn Rand



Although I don't necessarily agree with everything Rand says, I do think she brilliantly describes what anarchists really are; a bunch of wannabe hippies.
A Satanist promoting anarchy as a societal structure is the same as a hippie promoting rape as a way to share love.

The big mistake of anarchy is to be found in what they demand of humans to make the system work; acting upon common sense. It requires everyone involved to have common sense and act upon it. If everyone had common sense and acted upon it, there was no need for anarchism in the first place. They act as if the system makes humans do evil things and if you present them with another solution they would change and happily coexist together. That's Christianity in a political suit. The devil makes people do bad things and if they'd take the side of god, they'd all live happily together. It's the same sort of collectivism and bullshit Satanism is at war with. Wake up; people do bad things because they choose to do bad things.

People don't always act upon common sense and hell, too many of them don't even know what common sense is. We got a system with rules, laws and punishment and still our prisons are flooded. If you release them in public and tell them to act upon common sense from now one, they'd eat every anarchist alive.
Social Darwinism, might is right, alphas and followers; does it ring a bell? How the hell are you going to handle that problem in an anarchistic structure?

Ownership and money; how does it fit? You really think I am going to give a profit-share to a dishwasher when I have a restaurant? He should be lucky I want to pay him. Who's going to take care of the public part in a society; housing, schooling, public roads… We gonna rely on goodwill of all participants and hope they use their common sense? Or are we going to make a committee for everything and end up with a zillion committees and act as if that isn't a governmental system?

Who's gonna protect us from the bad guy next door that is organized? We gonna solve that with directly changing everything in a brave new world?

I know there is genetic (reciprocal) altruism in nature but don't get your hopes up high because we and other animals display it. It only works in small communities where there is social control and most important: punishment. In large societies, anonymity overrules our genetic altruistic tendency and most become cheaters. That's why prisons are filled that nicely.

Anarchism is a theoretical model upheld most of the time by college students and hippies that just had a haircut. It is at no point a realistic model for a society and every attempt will be at mercy of the predator living next to them or within. The individuals are as free as the individuals under communism. Even fascism is more in touch with Satanism.

Now, if you like to dream about anarchism, it is your right. In lala-land we are allowed to imagine everything. In my dreams I run around chasing children and clubbing them like baby seals but I don't take my fantasies out of lala-land.

If you are smart enough to realize how humans are, you should be smart enough to know what works and what doesn't when they coexist.

D.

Top
#12991 - 10/20/08 09:54 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Anarchy is simply absence of government, thus advocating government is to make a positive claim that requires justification. In other words, the burden of proof to show why a government is necessary belongs to you. You have yet to do anything close to this.

As for monopolies, I am still waiting for you to produce an example of this ever happening. Since it never has, I won't hold my breath.

 Quote:

Although I don't necessarily agree with everything Rand says, I do think she brilliantly describes what anarchists really are; a bunch of wannabe hippies.

As anarchism and hippies are absolutely unrelated, this statement leaves you looking pretty ignorant.
 Quote:

They act as if the system makes humans do evil things and if you present them with another solution they would change and happily coexist together.

Though the system doesn't make anyone do anything, the incentive structure insures that only people with evil ends have all the guns and all the power.
 Quote:

People don't always act upon common sense and hell, too many of them don't even know what common sense is. We got a system with rules, laws and punishment and still our prisons are flooded. I

So you think it's perfectly ok for a street gang to kidnap you and lock you up because you act against their will?
 Quote:

It's the same sort of collectivism and bullshit Satanism is at war with. Wake up; people do bad things because they choose to do bad things.

Actually it's the exact opposite. It is becoming more clear with every post that you don't understand what you are arguing against here. The ultimate form of collectivism, the biggest steaming pile of mob rule crap ever, is democracy. What I am advocating is individual sovereignty.
 Quote:

Social Darwinism, might is right, alphas and followers; does it ring a bell? How the hell are you going to handle that problem in an anarchistic structure?

Without ridiculous laws in place protecting the weak from themselves, I would expect you would see more of a problem now.
People would still be free to follow or lead as they so chose.
 Quote:

Who's gonna protect us from the bad guy next door that is organized? We gonna solve that with directly changing everything in a brave new world?

Now you are just being ridiculous. Do you really think peoples desires for security would evaporate in the absence of a state? You watch too many movies.
 Quote:

I know there is genetic (reciprocal) altruism in nature but don't get your hopes up high because we and other animals display it.

What does altruism have to do with anything? It's pretty clear now you are arguing against some ethereal straw man and not what I am saying at all.
 Quote:

Ownership and money; how does it fit? You really think I am going to give a profit-share to a dishwasher when I have a restaurant? He should be lucky I want to pay him.

Again, you are WAYYYYYY off track. I am not a mutualist, nor have I given any reason for you to make that leap of logic.
 Quote:

Who's going to take care of the public part in a society; housing, schooling, public roads…

Ever heard of the 'tragedy of the commons' problem? Public property is a very bad idea.
..By the way how is housing 'public'? I own mine...and I'd imagine those that don't would continue renting.
As for 'roads', the real problem is 'transportation' which the market could deal with quite easily.
 Quote:

Who's gonna protect us from the bad guy next door that is organized? We gonna solve that with directly changing everything in a brave new world?

In an armed population such a group would have a lot of trouble getting anywhere. For those that choose protection services could and would function as long as the market existed. Since security is a pretty big desire among most I don't see any problem there.
 Quote:

Anarchism is a theoretical model upheld most of the time by college students and hippies that just had a haircut. It is at no point a realistic model for a society and every attempt will be at mercy of the predator living next to them or within. The individuals are as free as the individuals under communism. Even fascism is more in touch with Satanism.

Perhaps this is true of whatever strawman you are arguing against. What I am advocating is a society without constraints in which the weak/stupid do very poorly due to a lack of social safety nets. A society where the very strong/clever can build an empire by their own hand.

You use the example of advocating rape, which is very interesting because you are right now advocating the initiation of coercion which is basically the same thing.
 Quote:

In my dreams I run around chasing children and clubbing them like baby seals but I don't take my fantasies out of lala-land.

Well aren't you just the antisocial fuckbag? Since you like to dictate what is Satanic and what isn't, how do you feel about hurting little children? hmmm..
 Quote:

If you are smart enough to realize how humans are, you should be smart enough to know what works and what doesn't when they coexist.

I am smart enough to do my homework and research a subject before attempting to argue against it. I suggest you do the same.
http://www.mises.org/
http://www.graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=4305
http://www.freedomainradio.com/podcasts.html
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13051 - 10/21/08 04:56 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
First let me mention I don't like the serial quote of death too much as a manner of responding. Quoting is there to take a fragment of a post as an indicator of what you are going to reply to, but I think it becomes negative in a debate when it is overused. Mainly because some replies are a whole and if you are going to vivisect all parts, you aren't debating the point made but the different parts; which taken out of context can lead to different conclusions. It also seem to lead towards criticism of the sentence written, often without the required argumentation.
I think it is possible for both of us to write a coherent reply without the need of serial quoting. I assume our memory is good enough to know what we wrote a couple of hours ago and our brain functions at the required level to know what the other talks about.
That being said, you are free to use whatever approach you like, none can force you.

Let's first get to monopolies because it doesn't fit too much into the rest. If I'm not mistaking, I claimed that monopolies are a logical result of a free market. The only way to avoid it is having a regulated market. Your claim, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that it IS possible to control monopolies (which is avoidance too) in a free market. The burden of proof is on you on this one because we don't have a free market. If you'd look at the USA, you'd notice that the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act are control mechanism already implemented at an early stage. In a true free market, there would be none of those controlling mechanisms and monopolies would flourish. It's a logical result in economics and if there is a manner how to avoid that without applying control or depending on global common sense, it escapes me. There is no economic deus ex machine that jumps in when required. If there is, then the proof is upon you, the current reality lacks it.

Ok, onwards to anarchism; hippies and anarchists.

 Quote:
The Yippie "New Nation" concept called for the creation of alternative, counterculture institutions (food co-ops, underground newspapers, free clinics, etc.). Yippies believed these cooperative institutions and a radicalized hippie culture would spread until they supplanted the existing system.

"We are a people. We are a new nation," YIP's New Nation Statement said of the burgeoning hippie movement. "We want everyone to control their own life and to care for one another... We cannot tolerate attitudes, institutions, and machines whose purpose is the destruction of life, the accumulation of profit."

The goal was a decentralized, collective, anarchistic nation rooted in the borderless hippie counterculture and its communal ethos. Abbie Hoffman wrote: "We shall not defeat Amerika by organizing a political party. We shall do it by building a new nation — a nation as rugged as the marijuana leaf."


Absence of government does not exist in nature. Absence of government as we know it does. It is not because tribes have no democratic, theocratic or fascist government that they are not governed. If all members of a tribe would have the freedom to have a say, and decisions would be made upon that, and logic concludes that what the majority decides would happen; you'd have a true democracy.
I'm sorry but I did not make it this way; social evolution through times, combined with darwinistic selection ended up in the systems we know today. If it shouldn't have happened it wouldn't have happened and although this can be regarded as a strange argument, it is one. The proof is in where we are today and in what we came from in the past. Throughout history we have had social evolution and change which ended in what we have nowadays. It does not imply that the social and governmental structures we have today are the best or will be there forever; this is a transitional stage. So you see, I don't need to prove why we need government; nature and history did that for me and if you think there can be a solution which does not require governing and in such a manner that it would not quickly shift in either chaos or tyranny, you have to come with pretty good arguments. I don't need to create a straw man to prove it isn't possible, my straw man is man as he is. Man as we recognize him in Satanism. To prove anarchy is possible, we have to create a universal man because without him, the status quo that is required to stabilize anarchy isn't possible.

On people with evil ends I do not see your point. Why would I think it is ok for a street gang to kidnap me and lock me up? I know, you probably used that as a metaphor for cops or a governmental structure but it doesn't matter. Even with or without government, the fact that street gangs could kidnap and lock me up, or murder me would not change. If all are free to govern themselves, they are free to form a street gang and dominate all that go against their will. You cannot avoid that, the only thing you can do is try to control it. In a non-governmental system it will be pretty hard without forming controlling organism and ending the status quo. You will be applying your will upon others and limit their self-control. Having a governmental system with laws and punishment is, like I said some replies ago, necessary damage control. You are confusing the potential or actual errors of a government with the need for a government. It's a strange leap which isn't logical at all.

The structures also don't insure that only people with evil ends have all the guns and power. If you'd look at the favelas in Brazil, you'd notice that it isn't exactly the systems structures that dominate there. Again, to make this argument of yours be valid, it requires a universal man, which by structures is provided to act upon his evil impulses. Crime proves this isn't the case. Ted Bundy didn't need any structure to act upon his needs.

That people would still be free to lead and follow as they choose in an anarchistic system is a contradiction. If people would have that option, they also have the option to destroy the status quo and ending the system. If I am free to lead, I could gather enough followers in my region to control it; I could then control the neighbouring regions. Without governmental structures everyone would be at the mercy of the law of the jungle. And although many think that is pretty nice for a satanist, I can assure you that we are all too spoiled to really want to live in such a situation. Again, individual sovereignity requires a universal man, some sort of sameness that makes it work. Just by looking at our fellow man, we realize that isn't going to happen very soon.

You seem to be advocating some sort of anarchism in which we just remove the current government and assume things will keep functioning as they are, but better. As if the whole system will keep on rolling when all are governing themselves. It might be my lack of logic but I don't see it happen. Like I mentioned in my previous posts, how are you going to tackle problems like war, crime and all public requirements without dissolving the status quo? How are you going to structure it? City-States comes to mind but alas, it conflicts with anarchy.

I really would like to see you give me some answers here so I can point out how you unavoidably are promoting something that conflicts with anarchy and is very much aligned with government. I know you can do better then adding some links and are perfectly capable of arguing your own position.

I'm not a staunch defender of democracy, as you seem to conclude. You confuse my position on the need for a system with the approval of this system. We already live in systems where the strong/clever dominate. In fact, in all systems this is the case. The fact that you and I aren't ruling maybe indicates that we either lack the strength/cleverness or just don't know how to adapt to get there.

And about my lala-land fantasies; it's amusing to see that people really require emoticons or a haha nowadays. It shows how deep their thinking goes.

But you are right on one thing; I'm an antisocial fuckbag, I'd be offended if you'd call me the opposite.

D.

Top
#13096 - 10/21/08 01:02 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, thank you for bringing the hostility levels down. When it becomes a battle of emotions and not reason it degenerates into a head ramming contest. I am glad you kept your tone civil this time, and in turn I will return the courtesy.

You claim that monopolies are a logical result of a free market, and I used to believe the same thing. I asked you to provide an example of a monopoly arising in a 'free market', which you recognized as rhetorical as there are no free markets to draw examples from. My point being , of course, that if it has never happened how can you be so sure it would?

Let me first point out that I was a minarchist for YEARS before arriving (a)politically where I am today, through a TON of reading and studying. I doubt I will be able to convince you of anything so complex with a few soundbites, so bare with me if I ask you to do some reading.
The myth of the natural monopoly
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf

On hippies and anarchy;I don't deny there are a lot of leftist fuckwads that use the label 'anarchist'. To their credit, and unlike the 'theistic satanists' that darken our doorstep, they really do have a legitimate claim to the word, but then again so do I. (for the record I am a Market Anarchist, which is basically an-cap with a few modifiers) Anarchy simply means 'no rulers' (It should be kept in mind this is not synonymous with 'no rules') When arguing against my points keep in mind I am not a mutualist, an com, or any of that other leftist shit.

On government, I think you are confusing government and society. Society has rules, social norms, faux pas, and a host of other cause and effect based checks and balances that keeps it all cohesive. Government is an external coercive force that manipulates society to its own ends. All animals have 'society', but pretty much all animals are free to go rogue. Not so with people living under the thumb of a robber-baron. Try not paying your taxes for a while and see what happens?
Here is one example of a society without government
http://mises.org/article.aspx?Id=1121

 Quote:

On people with evil ends I do not see your point. Why would I think it is ok for a street gang to kidnap me and lock me up? I know, you probably used that as a metaphor for cops or a governmental structure but it doesn't matter. Even with or without government, the fact that street gangs could kidnap and lock me up, or murder me would not change.

In a society that hasn't been declawed with gun regulations, (to keep the power relationship between govt and people asymmetrical, of course)and one in which people weren't conditioned to be reliant on said government and instead valued freedom, it would be very hard for such a gang of thugs to get started. So hard, in fact, that the incentive to do so would all but evaporate. Have you read much on Austrian economics?

On incentive structures and the status quo:
http://mises.org/story/2265

 Quote:

You seem to be advocating some sort of anarchism in which we just remove the current government and assume things will keep functioning as they are, but better.

I prefer to think of it as the absorption of the functions that the state currently fills into the free market. This would necessarily be a slow process, yanking out the tablecloth from the dishes so to speak is a very bad idea. Free market alternatives to current things such as transportation and protection would need time to build infrastructure.
But there are very sound theories, books, articles, and essays, written by a bevy of brilliant thinkers and economists that detail very cogent theories about how such things would and could arise given the right circumstances.

 Quote:

City-States comes to mind but alas, it conflicts with anarchy.

Here we have a critical misunderstanding. People would be more than free to join any sort of voluntary society that would arise within a market anarchy. I would imagine there would be communes, city states, and everything in between. Sovereign people would tend to live however best suits them. If a city state arises that provides what I want, ie increased security, better transportation, or whatever, I could enter a contract with them that I may be subject to their laws in return for their services.
The key separator here is that it would be voluntary, and I could leave if I so chose.

On democracy. This is a relatively new concept, and in my view a small step towards a truly free society. Certainly not the final step, or even close. You seem to think it is how it is because it could be no other way;the chips of determinism have fallen into place and here we are. With that I agree.
That doesn't mean tomorrow will be the same as today. traditionally it hasn't been.

It is good to see your responses have gone from bald, 'matter of fact' assertions to honest inquiries. I think we are getting somewhere.

I'll deconvert you from statism yet.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13190 - 10/22/08 07:33 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Don't confuse my words with my emotions, I can be blunt (some call it offensive) or pressing at times but most of the time it's only words. I'm not half as serious or agitated as I might appear from reading my replies. I prefer reason myself when debating but there's nothing wrong with spicing it. It at least scares away those not being able to look beyond it and thus, separates the mice from men.
That being said let me mention that I enjoy this debate, I can be a whore at that level and even when my true interests are at different fields, debating political or philosophical abstracts can be enjoyable. Except you making me read horribly boring documents of course. Economic writers should be forced following creative writing classes but hey, I'll struggle through it. I'm also glad you provided links to articles and not to rather chaotic websites; before it made me feel as if I was arguing with someone that said; it's not true and if you wanna know why, google it.

On monopolies

I read the Myth about natural monopoly article and I don't say I disagree with much there but I think there are some gaps which are problematic for a free market. In laissez-faire capitalism, as defined by Rand, you will have a true free market, separated from the state (church is a no-brainer and shouldn't be added). But I agree with her that some problems arise. How are you going to handle copyright and patents in a true free market.

If one company spends a zillion of dollars on R&D before they bring a new product on the market, what prevents another company from just copying that product and distributing it at a lower price, possible only because they had to invest close to zero at R&D?
The same with copyright; does it require a regulation or not?
If you want to regulate those, you need a third independent governing party that is responsible for it.
The only solution I see to not affect a true free market is declaring everything free game. Personally I don't really consider that a good idea.

I agree totally with: the enduring forces of competition -including potential competition- will render free-market monopolies an impossibility. Competition is a permanent process indeed and nothing lasts forever. At one point there will be a loss of need, a substitute or just another competitor that breaks the status quo. But in my opinion it only implies that there will be no everlasting monopolies. If I invent something new and produce it on mass, I will have a natural monopoly.

Problematic will be a market where the R&D is ridiculously high or where the facilities cost fortunes. I have no problem admitting that there is likely no natural monopoly in telephone services, or cell phone nowadays, but if you look at the facilities cell phones require; satellites, you can't avoid seeing problems arise with monopolies. Again, they won't last forever but does that really make it that much better?

Another is that competition leads to better pricing. Again I agree on that, I seldom see competition increase prices over time but that's only when you look at the direct costs. If you'd look at indirect costs for the consumer, you'd notice that competition isn't always improving things. Outsourcing leads to better pricing but at what price for others?
I work in a free-market environment at many levels. There are no fixed prices for the jobs I do and you can't avoid seeing the effects here. There is an economic need for people in certain industries but instead of paying better to attract them, companies are importing low-cost workers. First we had the Polish working at about half the price of a normal guy, now we are even trying to get some from further at an even lower price. I don't mind it too much, they will always need people with half a brain and the ability to speak a couple of languages but as you see, in this case competition does lead to better pricing but it's not the competitor that pays the difference.

To state or not…

I think we have two different conceptions of state. I use this definition: a state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population. Of course like in Iceland, isolated from neighbours, there is very little need to identify with the state; a state requires a competitor to transform into THE state. That's why I said before that even tribes carry the blueprint of states.
Even without that abstract transformation, to me, Iceland during that period of time was a state. They have the political structure, the territorial demands and they represent a population. Iceland is also a perfect example of what I meant when saying that anarchy requires a status quo that is very fragile. Iceland had the predator within and lasted 290 years before he devoured it. With a predator next door, it can be assumed they would have never lasted that long. Competition is a permanent process in a free market but it is also a permanent process at societal level. Anarchy can be regarded as a natural monopoly; either it isn't possible or it isn't everlasting.

Privatising

I'm not a big fan of government having a finger in too much, I'm more libertarian at some levels but I don't find it a good idea to privatise everything. One of the main problems I see in this all, as you already know, is the human. I am convinced that humans fuck things up and no matter what happens or how we restructure everything, humans will keep fucking up. Either because they want to, or because they can't do anything else. I think we both agree that a government with a supporting police force can be a tricky thing. Not because the concept is bad but because the concept has room for exploitation. If we'd privatise law and order, we would only move the same 'room for exploitation' to the next structure. Even more, I think private law and order has an even bigger need to guarantee them being needed and will likely be exploited faster.
Another big problem is defence. An army doesn't function without hierarchy. In some ways, an army is like a state in itself and a minority controls the whole force. Now government (besides banana republics) controls an army. How is one ever going to maintain control over a private army? Again, if there is no universal human, potential problems will arise.
Also, how is anyone ever going to convince Joe Six-pack that it is in his best interest to pay for law and order or for global defence? People have a tendency to only see the need of something when the bad guy is hissing in their neck.

I see much more problems in voluntarism but they aren't as huge as these.

Like I said, I am not a staunch defender of current democracy but to me the price paid now is less than the costs I see arise in a stateless voluntary society. Good luck trying to deconvert me.

Oh, and the stop paying your taxes argument; wrong guy to use that argument against; I quit paying income taxes some years ago. ;\)

D.

Top
#13214 - 10/22/08 11:23 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Just to jump in for a moment...

Dan, where do education and medicine fit in?

For that matter also paving highways?


Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#13284 - 10/22/08 06:33 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

How are you going to handle copyright and patents in a true free market.

You don't . Intellectual property is bullshit.
I see what you mean about R&D, but I would imagine if someone with an idea but lacking the financial power to produce it without someone doing it better would probably sell the idea to someone that could.If not and they get outdone by someone that can do it better, so be it. No matter what happens the consumer wins.
 Quote:

a state is a political association with effective sovereignty over a geographic area and representing a population.

Well by that definition neither Canada nor the United states are states.
My interests are not represented by any politician.
Think of it like this; no matter who becomes the representative, there is no way their views can align with everyone within their constituency. In fact, they would necessarily be diametrically opposed to a large segment of those they are supposed to be representing.
Also, how is said sovereignty gained? Unless it is with the consent of every person living within the borders it claims, it isn't legitimate. It would be like me saying 'I AM NOW TEH KING' and annexing your swimming pool peter griffin style.

 Quote:

Anarchy can be regarded as a natural monopoly; either it isn't possible or it isn't everlasting.

Well, nothing is everlasting.

 Quote:

I am convinced that humans fuck things up and no matter what happens or how we restructure everything, humans will keep fucking up.

The weird thing is, I see this as a point for my case. If people are naturally power hungry, greedy, selfish, etc, how is it better for a very few to wield ALL the power rather than having very many wield little? Certainly to me the latter sounds less problematic.


 Quote:

If I invent something new and produce it on mass, I will have a natural monopoly.

But you will not be able to practice monopoly pricing as long as even one competitor exists. Short of heavy handed tactics there will always be someone that wants some of the gravy, and if the consumers knew about such behavior boycotts would be inevitable.
Without monopoly pricing monopoly isn't a problem.
 Quote:

If we'd privatise law and order, we would only move the same 'room for exploitation' to the next structure.

Not really. As it is now the police have no real incentive to do a good job or not exploit people. It isn't like there is another police force waiting in the wings to steal the contract if the first provides less than adequate service. (which is certainly the case, well, everywhere)
 Quote:

How is one ever going to maintain control over a private army? Again, if there is no universal human, potential problems will arise.
Also, how is anyone ever going to convince Joe Six-pack that it is in his best interest to pay for law and order or for global defence?

A Market Anarchist territory would necessarily be very weak for offensive military action, but being that the territory would not be 'declawed' as is the case in most states, it would be very hard to take it over. For more serious problems maybe a contract between competing DROS (dispute resolution organizations) with an invasion clause. Honestly it is pretty hard to predict exactly HOW it would work, given that the market often gives us solutions we might not expect.
 Quote:

Also, how is anyone ever going to convince Joe Six-pack that it is in his best interest to pay for law and order or for global defence?

probably through his own fears. I see fire/police service working sort of like how renters insurance works today. If some people are too stupid to do what's in their best interest, and flounder because of it, all the better. They will serve as examples of why you want to pay for those services. The fact that you will not be losing a good chunk of your pay automatically to bullshit taxation leaves more money for things like that.
 Quote:

Oh, and the stop paying your taxes argument; wrong guy to use that argument against; I quit paying income taxes some years ago. ;\)

Good for you. For every person that does that we are one step closer to bringing down the beast. Hopefully no gangsters take you away for not paying their protection racket!
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13285 - 10/22/08 06:46 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
Just to jump in for a moment...

Dan, where do education and medicine fit in?

For that matter also paving highways?


Morgan


Hi Morgan. I'll tell you this, socialized medicine is a really bad idea. Come to Canada and wait 7 hours to get stitches if you don't believe that.

In a territory with no such things as 'public property' the problem of 'roads' is actually a problem of 'transportation'. Who knows, if not for all the subsidization of public transportation and roads we might all be flying around with jet packs by now.

Assuming for a second roads are deemed fit by the market to be a primary source of transportation, I would imagine people that need the roads would have them built and probably charge tolls. Since the idea of a toll booth on every property line is ridiculously untenable, perhaps a committee of landowners jointly owning tolls at more reasonable intervals? This is just off the top of my head, and given the think tank power of those that actually NEED the services, I would imagine some sort of balance between consumer happiness and landowner/business owner satisfaction would be reached in no time.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13337 - 10/23/08 05:33 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
On copyright and patents

If there is no copyright or patent you will have serious implications. Actually what it implies is that theft is allowed as long as it isn't physical what you steal. The whole music and artist scene will love you for that.
It implies I can just reprint a book printed in whatever country, slap my name on the cover and sell it as my book. Or I can reprint your artwork, copy your music and just make a profit out of your labor.

Another problem -and here I'd like to include Morgan's remark- is indeed medicine. If all is on a voluntary base (to be funded) and there are no patents, why is anyone ever going to try look for a cure for Progeria? After all, only 1 in about 8 million has this condition and the R&D will be far greater in costs than the eventual profit. Of course we can say; it's only like 750 kids affected in the whole world; sucks to be them but that's natural selection. But at the same time it is fairly possible a potential cure for Progeria has effects on aging for all. I'd sure would like to look like 30 when I'm 80 even though I am fairly sure I'll even be sexy when old. When there are no patents and medicine works on a voluntary financial base, there will only be invested in cost-profit reasonable medicine or it will become secretive. Secretive never has been an advantage for consumers; one of the biggest advantages in many sectors nowadays is free sharing of some information because they know it is protected by either patent or copyright. I'm not gonna deny there is room for abuse.

On politics

I agree that there is never going to be a representative that is going to represent every person's views. It is not possible; even in a true democracy where everyone is allowed to cast his/her vote on whatever subject, rule or idea, there is a problem that at one point a decision has to be made. It's going to be either what the majority wants or a compromise, but at no point there will be an outcome that all desired. It's a problem of numbers, the more people there are, the less likely all will be satisfied.
The idea that you can just leave if you don't like the way things are going is a nice one but it doesn't work that way. If you'd be living in a city and at one point there is a decision made on whatever subject which you are opposed; you could end up with having to make a decision to either freely submit and continue where you are; or don't submit and pack your things and go somewhere else.
Now, this is less problematic in a hunter/gatherer society but nowadays, it would imply, you'd give up all the security and provisions you have and would be forced to move somewhere else. Somewhere else could also be somewhere on your own.
Voluntarism gives you the freedom to choose either way but if you'd have a family and are responsible for their survival and future, how free are you?

On anarchy and predators

I don't agree that an anarchistic structure would be very hard to take over. If you'd look at all the great empires in the past, you'd notice that their strength was organization. Nowadays we have the impression that fighting non-organized troops is somewhat harder, when looking at Iraq or Afghanistan.
It's not because they are unorganized as much as it is because current warfare is civilized warfare. If the USA would have stormed in and unleashed their potential, they would have owned the country right now. It's because they don't drop daisy cutters on Baghdad and execute all the opposition that people get the impression that it has become hard to conquer something. If a predator isn't ethical and gives a rat's ass about other opinions, they are fast and lethal.

D.

Top
#13352 - 10/23/08 07:03 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
In general, in who would pay the teacher, the doctors, and the construction crews?

Would doctors or teachers be held hostage to remain in a given area?

Would an Atlas Shrugged situation develope?

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#13366 - 10/23/08 10:58 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

one of the biggest advantages in many sectors nowadays is free sharing of some information because they know it is protected by either patent or copyright.

You should check out the GNU GPL.

I will address the rest of your post later, I had a long day and don't have that kind of energy at the moment \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13367 - 10/23/08 11:04 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
In general, in who would pay the teacher, the doctors, and the construction crews?

Whomever it is that wants their specialized services. I don't imagine the demand would be radically different than it is now.

 Quote:

Would doctors or teachers be held hostage to remain in a given area?

Of course not! What I am talking about here is total freedom.

 Quote:

Would an Atlas Shrugged situation develope?

Morgan

As I have never read it, I couldn't tell you. ;\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13406 - 10/24/08 06:37 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
Hmm, so pay as needed for teachers and doctors.

I could see the world becoming stupidier, and more stratified every generation.

The teachers and doctors would come to be quite valuable. At least doctors, I could see a community getting pissed if their only doctor wants to pack up and leave the area.

Atlas Shrugged is a book you should read.
I think it gets to the bones of some of the issues that you are not fully seeing the long term ramifications of.

People tend to be on average, stupid, lazy, mean, and looking to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money.
If you think that your world would change that, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

Morgan
_________________________
Courage Conquering Fear
Fuck em if they can't take a joke
Don't Like What I Say, Kiss My Ass



Top
#13431 - 10/25/08 11:50 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Morgan]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

Hmm, so pay as needed for teachers and doctors.

I could see the world becoming stupidier, and more stratified every generation.

Besides stupider not being an actual word, I see no problem with this. One of the main problems I see with society as it is now is that the useless wastrels get carried along on the backs of the worthy.
 Quote:

The teachers and doctors would come to be quite valuable. At least doctors, I could see a community getting pissed if their only doctor wants to pack up and leave the area.

Then said community would have to make an offer to entice the doctor to stay. What stops doctors from picking up and leaving small communities now anyway?
 Quote:

Atlas Shrugged is a book you should read.
I think it gets to the bones of some of the issues that you are not fully seeing the long term ramifications of.

Like what? You are the first person I have ever seen take ayn rand as an economist...

 Quote:

People tend to be on average, stupid, lazy, mean, and looking to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money.
If you think that your world would change that, I believe you are sadly mistaken.

Yes, and in a raw capitalism type situation the coasters and coat tail riders would be forced to either sink or swim. It is the current system that rewards laziness, and hence that is where your problem lies.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13497 - 10/27/08 01:46 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Several topics in one neat little post, and forgive me if I am revisiting anything that has been beaten to death...

First off, we don't elect our president, the Electoral College does. I feel like a broken record saying this. The popular vote was designed as a sort of guideline to let them know what we're thinking, but the reality is that they don't have to vote the way we tell them to, so in essense, all votes are useless.

Next on the agenda: government in general. I live in a town where there are a lot of factories and therefor a lot of unions. Unions were great when we needed them, but now they are becoming part of the problem and not part of the solution by convincing some jackoff who does nothing but turn screws all day to strike so he can get another dollar added to his already insanely high wage. So instead of giving them an extra buck per hour, the factories are moving to mexico so they can pay even less and not get taxed on what they earn. Congress is the same way. If you go to http://www.thomas.gov and read what they actually do the 4 days a year that they work, you will see that for the most part, they don't do shit. They are like overpaid union reps and have all but outlived their usefulness. They actually spent our tax dollars on several occasions doing nothing but renaming post offices. They write up a lot of opinions that don't mean shit, too...like the several official declarations that they are angry with Iran. They don't actually do shit, they just make it official that they aren't pleased.

As an aside on this, Obama and McCain have two of the three worst voting records...and by "worst voting record" I mean that they did not vote at all on more issues than any of their cronies. So how can they say that they are responsible enough to run the country when they aren't even responsible enough to do the bullshit job they have now?

We need a deconstruction of government. No apologies to homeland security because they are part of the problem as well, but it's a different problem that is not related to the topic at hand. I think that the popular vote should be the only votes that elect the president, but I also think that people should have to pass an American Government Competency Exam before they are given the right to vote. Anyone who cannot even say how our government operates, who their reps are, or how our country is politically/governmentally structured should not have the right to take a stab at "change". You shouldn't be handed a tool to fix a machine you know nothing about.

Also, we are NOT a two-party system any more than we are a democracy. We are a democratic republic, hence the phrase "and to the republic, for which it stands". If we were a two-party system, Bob Barr would be wasting a lot of time, effort and money trying to get onto a ballot that only allowed for republicans and democrats. By the way, the way it is determined whether or not a candidate gets on the ballot is whether or not he has enough signatures supporting his desire to be on the ballot. So if you don't see a name that you were expecting to see when you go to pull the lever, it's because your lazy ass and the lazy asses of others were not hunting down that candidates petition to sign so that he could get on the ballot.

All of america is apathetic and I personally would like to see someone get into office who has an idea what the constitution says and a plan to cut out about half of the suit-and-ties our tax dollars support. Oh, shredding a few lawbooks would be nice, too. We're overlawed, if you ask me, and tediously overlawed at that. Some things should be left to common sense so that we can maintain a certain status quo as to who gets to breed (in other words, let the idiots weed themselves out instead of making warning label laws).

I vote libertarian, even though I bitch and moan the whole time I'm casting a vote (because of the aforementioned Electoral College). They are almost as anti-current-government as I am. That gives me the warm fuzzies...and who could vote against warm fuzzies? It would be nice if half the gov. simply ceased to be one day. It would be even nicer, IMO, if that meant that everyone had to start thinking for themselves. All hell would indeed break loose...at least until the really panicky ones killed each other off.

Top
#13523 - 10/27/08 02:03 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ceruleansteel]
BlacKAcRE66 Offline
pledge


Registered: 10/22/08
Posts: 59
Loc: California
I am currently registered as an Independent, I can feel your frustration casting your vote...The thing that really gets me ticked is that all these Green Party people and Libertarian or Independents for that matter are all talking this good stuff about reform and getting more constitutional, but they all have chumps running for the Presidency who look like they've had a few..Beers,marijuana joints,or Martinis.

How in the hell am I suppose to vote for someone who looks like he could have played the role of Sasquatch on Harry and the Hendersons? The last election the independent candidate was some guy who had this long beard and long ass hair and wore a shirt that was a size too small with a couple of pens in his pocket like some rocket engineer.

If someone is serious about making a difference they should look like they want the job bad enough...If Barack Obama wins I hope that Bill Clinton will do some Foreign relations work on his behalf, cause we're in a World of shit... I will read more of your post later...Pretty huge bits of data for me.
_________________________
~The power to deny is as the power of myth~

Top
#13550 - 10/27/08 09:43 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: BlacKAcRE66]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Ha! Yeah, I am almost convinced that I'm a decendent of Tolstoy...

I agree with the third parties having goofy looking candidates, but it kicks my ass that the race for leader of this country boils down to a fashion show.

I apoligize because this doesn't happen often, but I'm too drunk to continue this reply.

Top
#13552 - 10/28/08 05:41 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ceruleansteel]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree with people needing knowledge of politics before they are allowed to vote. I've been saying it for years here; people ignorant upon either how politics works, or what the actual parties stand for, should not be allowed to vote. It's as if you'd let a construction worker perform an open-heart surgery.
I live in a fairly complicated country when it comes to politics, and even when the effect of my vote matters little to me due to my work situation, I do prefer to know why and what I vote for.
We have electronic voting and although I see the potential weakness of all things electronic, it opens a massive opportunity to do a pre-vote quiz. It should be fairly possible to construct some sort of multiple-choice test to see if voters have the necessary political knowledge to actually vote. If you don't reach the required % you’ll get a message: FAILURE, you suck; now go home and educate yourself before the NEXT election.

It would at least get rid of those voting coz mommy and daddy voted like that or coz the guy/girl looks really cool. Or because he/she looks like them. Idiots should never ever be granted the right to make a decisive choice that affects other people. And anyone actually voting without having a clue is nothing but an idiot.

I also agree that government should limit its control to a degree. What or what not can be discussed but I do find it elementary that a government has no business with what happens inside people's bedroom. Unless you're shagging daughters, babies or sheep.

D.

Top
#13561 - 10/28/08 08:15 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Democracy is political christianity. By this I mean it is a system to placate people into believing something that isn't true, as a means to control peoples behaviors.
Voting gives the illusion that we, as individuals, have some say in running the show. We don't.It only takes that one redneck hick to vote opposite you to nullify any effect you may have had.
This is ESPECIALLY true if one holds minority views, as most of US(Satanists) do. Does anyone really believe there is a christian politician (most of them) that cares about my interests? About yours?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13562 - 10/28/08 08:44 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree democracy is an illusion to a degree.
It's fairly possible to have a true democratic system with the current technology but it would also have major flaws. While one is constructed in such a manner that people vote for representatives that (should) vote what they (the people) want, the other would allow/require every numbnut to vote on every proposal.

Now personally I don't know too many christian politicians. I live in a democratic (true) multi-party political system which on a scale of stupid to smart ranks a bit higher than the USA's political system. Not that we're great but there are more advantages to ours.
Of course not all decided there is what I would agree upon but do I feel oppressed?

Certainly not; I do have minority views at some levels but can't I express them? I sure can and am not getting arrested or waterboarded for it. Should they care about my interests? No, why should they? I'm a minority; as long as they allow me to have my interests, they are doing ok.

D.

Top
#13564 - 10/28/08 09:00 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
And as long as your interests and theirs don't conflict, you are just fine and dandy. But what happens if they do?
You know quite well!

 Quote:

While one is constructed in such a manner that people vote for representatives that (should) vote what they (the people) want, the other would allow/require every numbnut to vote on every proposal.

Both of these options are horrible in my opinion. Firstly, there is no 'the people'. There is a collection of individuals. There is no overarching entity for which there can be a 'common good' (another myth).

Ultimately, every person is only representing his or her own interests. It is possible to represent someones interests only to the point they conflict with your own. Nobody 'represents' me. The best even an 'honest politician' (oxymoron) can hope to do is please the majority on any given issue, but even this is highly problematic because even in this best case scenario you are left with a tyranny of the majority. I don't think I need to spell out why THAT is bad!

The second option you give, with every joe blow getting a vote on what color the curtains in city hall will be, is at least a more honest form of tyranny; but obviously so cumbersome as to be completely untenable. People would have to spend a good part of each day voting on trivial matters like the aforementioned one.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13565 - 10/28/08 09:36 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
What is conflicting interests? I am free to make every decision I want or act any way I want. I can make money, live on the street, rape murder kill steal or be a jolly nice guy and mind my own business. Nothing, absolutely nothing, is stopping me from following my needs or urges. Nothing besides myself.

There only is a price to be paid and not being a nancy about it. It does not differ if I'd live in a democracy, theocracy, tyranny or even anarchy. I can do whatever I want anywhere and I will always have to decide if the price is right for me.

So what are conflicting interests? There are none, there is only adaptation. If I don't like to pay taxes, I work around it. If I don't like my community, I move. If I don't like working for the man, I do something else.

Putting the blame on a system for the restrictions it has on me, is underestimating my own capabilities.

I don't mind chatting theory but in reality, this system suits me just as good as any other.

D.

Top
#13566 - 10/28/08 09:52 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Firstly let me say that I don't expect anything to change within my lifetime. (assuming I die at a normal human age ;\) ) I advocate this way of thinking only because i agree with it, not because I think I can make it happen. These forays are strictly an indulgence for me

With that said, I agree with most of what you wrote. Ultimately we are free to do anything we can do before we are stopped, but that isn't really what I was getting at.

'Conflicting interests' is anything you do which can get you locked up or worse. You can't lock them up, but they can you. It only works in one direction, which is the heart of the problem.

 Quote:

Putting the blame on a system for the restrictions it has on me, is underestimating my own capabilities.

This statement seems to almost border on Stockholm syndrome. Of course the one putting the restrictions on another is responsible for those restrictions! How could you argue otherwise?
I understand that you, as I do, probably thrive in spite of the system. That doesn't make the system right. I think we as a society can do MUCH better, just as the peasants under the thumb of monarchy once did. Democracy was a good and necessary step in the development of human society, but do you honestly believe it is the final destination?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13567 - 10/28/08 10:16 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I know we're mostly talking theory and both don't expect changes.

Still, even in theory I am not too bothered about conflicting interests. There will always be conflicting interests, it has been decided -not consciously of course- by nature. There is no equality. I can find it incorrect that the government can lock me up but I can't lock them up, but it's nothing but an advanced form of Joe kicking Jim's butt because he is stronger.
And if it isn't because he's stronger, it's because he's smarter. Or just because he's a raving madman that doesn't have problems with crossing the border.

That inequality will always exist no matter how anything is structured. That's my biggest criticism of anarchy. It doesn't solve anything, it either stalls the problem or shifts it around. Or, what I think is more likely, makes it florish.

I don't think I'm suffering the Stockholm syndrome. I prefer to regard the system as some sort of illusion. It is there to make people act in a certain manner but it exists only in our heads. Of course there are rules and laws and whatever but like I said, we do not need to follow anything we don't want.

Do I think democracy is the final destination? Of course not. But what a better system is depends solely on for whom the system is developed. You might construct one for the individual but the fact that I don't agree already shows the first flaw in it.

D.

Top
#13568 - 10/28/08 10:26 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well the system I am advocating is 'no system' so to speak.

On equality, social darwinism, stratification, etc, well I am ALL FOR IT :).

I think a true market anarchy is the purest form of meritocracy and the closest thing to our animal nature. I abhore socialism, social safety nets, and any sort of coddling for the weak. I think if someone can not cut their own path through the jungle , or be lucky enough to have someone WILLINGLY AND GLADLY coddle them along, they should be left to die.

I also think that a lot of people are simply born too stupid or incapable of surviving in such a system, and smile when I think of the natural eugenics that would take place.

This, just to stamp out any thought in your head that I may be championing the notion of equality or fairness ;\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13569 - 10/28/08 10:54 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I know social darwinism sounds great but to be realistically about it for a second, it doesn't always work that well for us.

I'm rather familiar with the societal outcasts nowadays. My partner works in the sector where each day the finest examples of our human race are visiting; junks, alcoholics, homeless. Women with kids that have been beaten to crap. Parents robbed by their children and ending up on the streets, the lesser gifted being exploited by others and left to rot. I hear the stories when I'm at hers and witness some now and then when I pick her up there.
I know, a loser is born every day and she knows that if I'd work there, I'd bitchslap sense into half of them. I admit, empathy isn't my strongest side.

But I'm realistic enough to realize that avoiding a problem isn't going to make it go away. The more people there are, the more there are in the lower ranges of that group, and when applying social darwnism, it does not make them sit under a tree and die. So there is a growing problem that might start to bite others in the butt after a while. That too is social darwinism.

We do know that survival is one of the biggest drives in nature and most people will try to survive no matter what.
So no matter what, you need to find a solution for this. If it isn't voluntary, it should be forced. You either create some conditions to make them survive or you dig a really big hole for them to fit in.

Relying on nature only solving it will only make it come back and haunt you.

D.

Top
#13720 - 11/01/08 06:34 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I have to agree on that Diavolo.

Last year a galah (bird) was born near our house that never got it's full and proper feathers. It got them on it's head and wings and tail, but it's body is still full of baby down.

It's not a very attractive galah, actually we've nicknamed it Mouldy because it looks so moth eaten, however, it has survived it's first year of life, somewhat of an outcast from the flock and even quite a cold winter. Because it's wings have full feathers it can fly, which must be the minimum it could manage with I would think, but the fact of the matter is, not only the beautiful and strong survive in nature. Sometimes the weak manage to survive as well, even if only for a while. Who then is going to be the one to make the decisions about who gets to be the survivors and who doesn't out of the lower life forms?

I think you are dead right about not being able to just ignore the weak and stupid. It won't make them just go away.

I'm against the big hole idea though, because who exactly is going to be the one to make the decision on who gets to be in the whole. No one is going to go there willingly, like you said, the survival instinct is strong in some of the weakest stupidest of people. and usually people want to find the EASIEST way to survive. That laziness is the mother of invention really. Trying to find easier ways to do things to the point that the laziest of people have lazied themselves to obesity and bad health. Yet we are living longer than ever, and we are about to hit the first real baby boomers hitting retirement soon and there being more people in retirement than actually doing the work.

The issues are so big, and so complex that I'm not sure there is ANY ONE ANSWER to the problem. After all, nothing in this world is one size fits all, so why would this be any different.

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all go, lets make the largest countries democracies, the mid size ones communistic and the smallest ones anarchistic and go live where you want and see which ones turns out the best!

I'm pretty sure I'd stay in the democracy too. Sure it's not a perfect system and there has got to be some changes coming or it has to evolve as is the nature of everything, but it certainly is far from the worse system that we could have.

At least in a democracy you have the CHOICE of dropping out! Or working your guts out and making the most of it. I do hope that there is another option out there, even if it's just for my kids.

Zeph
_________________________
Life isn't about waiting for the storm to pass -
It's about learning to dance in the rain.


Top
#13724 - 11/01/08 01:34 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

At least in a democracy you have the CHOICE of dropping out!

Only if you count having to leave as a choice. There is no viable option of staying where you are and simply not participating.

In that a democracy is no different than a communism or a dictatorship.

It really boils down to this;If you recognize the people that ultimately make your rules for you, tell you what is and isn't ok for you as your legitimate masters, that's fine. Have at it.
Myself, I do not.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13781 - 11/02/08 12:44 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
[quote=Dan_Dread]
 Quote:

It really boils down to this;If you recognize the people that ultimately make your rules for you, tell you what is and isn't ok for you as your legitimate masters, that's fine. Have at it.
Myself, I do not.


What you seem to forget is that it does not matter if you consider them legimate or not. You seem to shout "unfair" and assume it makes you different but eventually it doesn't make a difference at all. You accept what is, not by protesting but, by submitting.

D.

Top
#13782 - 11/02/08 01:24 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Of course it matters what I think! My opinion is the only one that ultimately matters. If more people used reason to arrive at a concept of legitimacy rather than accept what is handed down from above we wouldn't be in this mess! I understand that you probably mean it is smarter to deal in what is than what if, and I totally agree. However this is a matter of philosophy. If people ignore the 'could be' altogether very little of any importance would ever be achieved.

I am not sure which orifice you pulled the word unfair from, because fairness is not an idea I deal in whatsoever. But just because I don't believe in equality doesn't mean I have to complacently sit idly by and let the world pass without interfering. I assure you championing any sort of 'fairness' is the exact opposite of what I'm doing. It is the state that mandates and enforces 'fairness' upon us, manufacturing it out of thin air. It disgusts me.

As for being different, and you somehow assuming I care if people approve of my opinions, all I can do is paraphrase the late great Popeye the sailor. I 'yam what I' yam'. I make these posts and say this shit because it is what I actually believe, not because I could give even a turtleheads worth of shit if anyone outside of my circle approves of me. I make these posts because I know I am causing at least a part of my audience to think in the right direction, and knowing that pleases me.

And as for your last sentence, I will assume because English isn't your first language you can't see how the words you chose leave that statement reading as 'beaten dog mentality'. Accept and Submit? Are you fucking kidding?


Edited by Dan_Dread (11/02/08 01:41 PM)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13794 - 11/02/08 09:10 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I enjoyed reading this thread, the exchange between Dan and Diavolo was very instructive to me. I think it helps me to better refine my position on this.

Interesting also to observe how the dialogue evolved, from apparently radically opposed points of views to some kind of “compromise”. I don’t think their positions changed fundamentally, but other’s opinion was better understood at the end.

I declare to be an anarchist as I share with Dan that view of the ideal society. A society with no ruler but with “natural rules” that will auto-adapt as interactions between a large number of individuals can bring some kind of auto-generated structure that will vanish or transform as soon as the need sustaining it disappears of change.

 Originally Posted By: Dan Dread
I advocate this way of thinking only because i agree with it, not because I think I can make it happen.


But thanks to Diavolo, I saw how it could be hard to see such a society become real. How complex the practical problems could be. He brought the pragmatic side.

This also gave a more concrete view on what could be an anarchist society. I indeed feel Dan’s society as “unfair” in the sense of being hard and rude for the stupid and the weak. Showing no mercy, little altruism. A quite dark picture, but does not Satanism be on the dark side?
I think however it reflects more an extremely individualist society than an anarchist one.
Human is a gregarious animal, even if Satanists should take their decisions on an “as rational as possible” basis, we cannot exclude human feelings, including kindness, solidarity, from the picture. How these “human factors” will influence the anarchist auto-organized society.

 Originally Posted By: Dan Dread
Honestly it is pretty hard to predict exactly HOW it would work, given that the market often gives us solutions we might not expect.


Unless we could realize the experiment Zeph proposed, we’ll not know what such a society could finally result in.

What I retain from all that, what’s my position now?

On a philosophical/conceptual/idealistic perspective I still share Dan’s view.
On the real/pragmatic side, I live in a democracy. Probably the least bad system we have.
Democracy is an illusion. I don’t see revolutions in my day to day life after elections. I don’t see thing radically change when the power goes from left to right.

Whatever you vote, you will always vote for a minority of people struggling for power. The democracy has the advantage that the opposition observes what the majority does. And with the lottery elections, you bring the random factor that will go against monopoly of power.

But is it so important after all? I’m good in all systems. I’m my own god. Whatever the rules are, I’ll stay a good player. I start my life quite “unluckily” but I went over it. I’m now quite happy with what I have… I now have quite big rewards for few efforts. This make me think to a Morgan quote:

 Originally Posted By: Morgan
People tend to be on average, stupid, lazy, mean, and looking to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money.
If you think that your world would change that, I believe you are sadly mistaken.
.

That’s true! But I would not mix up everything. I’m neither stupid nor “mean”. But I’m lazy ! Not that laziness which would make me miss some good opportunity brought by life, but the one that make me always looking to do the least amount of work for the most amount of money.
Yes for sure Morgan, if tomorrow I can have 2 times my salary for the same job I will say YES without any doubt or culpability! It looks to me natural to find the easiest way to achieve my goals. Just a question of efficiency. I’m not stupid, the system is what it is, and the rules are what they’re. But there is always a clever way to use the system for achieving its own goals. It’s just to be in the place you want to be in the system.

Bored paying taxes? Be clever, move your ass and do as Diavolo !


Edited by Fabiano (11/02/08 09:11 PM)

Top
#23499 - 04/19/09 02:19 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
meateatereater Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/15/09
Posts: 10
 Quote:
though the majority votes for no president, we never win due to political opression. Our vote doesn't count so they go with the number 2 candidate.


OMFG! is this true? I seriously never thought of this. (I'm not being sarcastic, I'm just not politically active/aware.). Is this a valid statistic? If so that is cool as shit; even better than what I thought was going on, evolving from racism! Thanks for typing this. I know this reply doesnt contribute much but maybe it will derive some statistics? Again is this true and does the government display this? Is it U.S. voting-age population -vs- ballots? Damn interesting.

Top
#23923 - 04/30/09 06:18 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: meateatereater]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
the idea that people will follow tacit rules of good conduct (i.e. not rape, pillage and murder whomever they please), when left to their own devices is naive at best. if satanic philosophy values individuality, the challenging of convenient social morals, and the cultivation of rational egoism and one's natural, most basic self, how are we not able to achieve this under our current government?

presuming everyone's egoism is rational and justified is an invitation for civic chaos. as diavolo said many months ago, meritocracy seems to best fit Satanism. i'd like to echo his idea that if people are well behaved in the first place, anarchy is irrelevant. i agree with social darwinism on a primal level, but when physical evolution precludes intelligence, people who should be surviving and procreating end up brutalized and unheard.

if only a meritocracy were possible! nepotism and the sorry distribution of wealth in the united states will never allow for this. and anyway, who gets to decide who has merit? ceruleansteel's "American Government Competency Exam" is a good start!
theoretically democracy has a great possibility for success in maintaining social order and encouraging personal freedom. that is, if we imagine democracy is incorruptible.

people are corrupt, some would argue inherently evil, some would say a blank slate waiting to be imprinted with bogus norms and values. either way, government allows us a modicum of physical safety and reassurance. as a young woman living alone, i like knowing that there is a police force out there trying to keep rapists off the street. i also take comfort in the fact that if the police force fails to do their job, there is a semblance of a legal system in which i can participate. i can speak and behave as i please within reason, and am glad that there are consequences for those who would harm me.

it is pointless to argue that people would naturally weed out criminals and ill-doers in an anarchic state. in such a "society" i would need a gun, and probably an intimidating male protector. needing a male protector is a return to patriarchy, and is most certainly an infringement on my freedom. without some form of protection, i am not free to live as i please. if i am constantly scrambling for safety, my next meal, etc., i am not free to think what i please. i think about safety, about food, about asserting my human rights in any way i can. the real reason for my existence, to create, think, to separate myself from others, is nullified.

although i place physical freedom and action high on my list, true freedom and luxury is in the mind. read man's search for meaning, by viktor frankl.

while part of me yearns for health care, historically heavily socialist countries have and put constraints on what one can and cannot think or do. and anarchy, as i see it, could be devastating and inefficient. so what does that leave us with? our corrupt "democracy." a democracy that i dearly hope will institute health care and uphold greater social security. there will always be assholes who play the system, and low income hospitals will always suck; but my parents have worked every day of their respective lives and have no retirement or health care. they are educated, free thinking, responsible individuals who just so happen to be poor. my (perhaps unrealistic) wish is that our government will preserve our human and capitalistic rights, while providing for our social rights: the pursuit health, wealth, and happiness (i.e. health care, the ability to retire, and the ability to think and say what we want). naturally this is wishful thinking on my part; if wishes were horses, than beggars would ride.

dan_dread, you can always run for political office you know. if you were a politician, whose interests would you have at heart?

humans are biologically pack animals, and will always gravitate toward some form of leadership, under any circumstance and under any government or lack thereof. i think we've come a long way since malatesta's anarchy.

i suppose in the end i agree with everyone and no one. i want it all. unfortunately, i'm not going to get it.
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23927 - 04/30/09 07:40 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

the idea that people will follow tacit rules of good conduct (i.e. not rape, pillage and murder whomever they please), when left to their own devices is naive at best.

So if you weren't under the threat of imprisonment, you would rape and murder and pillage? All you are really doing is making a character analysis of yourself. If you believe the threat of violence is all that holds society together I would counter that is you that is naive. Society is beneficial to pretty much everyone, so it exists. But so too do consequences for actions.

So go ahead and rape, murder and pillage, but I'm guessing you wouldn't get too far before someone put a bullet or two in your head.
 Quote:

i agree with social darwinism on a primal level, but when physical evolution precludes intelligence, people who should be surviving and procreating end up brutalized and unheard.

Ridiculous. The clever thrive no matter what. This world you are envisioning, where everyone is reduced to murdering barbarians straight out of 'mad max' is comical at best. People will always desire security, and supply and demand will always provide.

 Quote:

who gets to decide who has merit?

Results always decide merit.
 Quote:

theoretically democracy has a great possibility for success in maintaining social order and encouraging personal freedom.

That's a laugh and a half. In what way does democracy do any of these things better than, say, an iron clad dictatorship or a monarchy?
 Quote:

people are corrupt, some would argue inherently evil, some would say a blank slate waiting to be imprinted with bogus norms and values. either way, government allows us a modicum of physical safety and reassurance.

Corrupt, evil..according to what standard, anyway? People are people. We are not in some 'fallen' state or failing to live up to some magical standard. That is judeo-christian memetics telling you people are not as good as they 'should be' which is sort of silly. Reality is what it is.

People have certain needs, says Maslow, and security is one of the main ones. Market economics tells us that a monopoly never outperforms a free market.
 Quote:

and anarchy, as i see it, could be devastating and inefficient.

I suggest you research Austrian economics at length, especially the writings of Rothbard and Mises. It would be hard to disagree that society would do poorly without the services provided by 'government'. Fires, crime, and medical emergencies will always be a fact of life. People will always need roads(or some viable method of mass transportation). But does having a coercive entity hold an iron clad monopoly really the best solution? I would say not. I would think if the services provided by government were instead absorbed into the free market, the quality of those services would necessarily increase due to competition.
 Quote:

y (perhaps unrealistic) wish is that our government will preserve our human and capitalistic rights, while providing for our social rights: the pursuit health, wealth, and happiness

There is no such animal as altruism. People ultimately represent their own interests, and that is that. The only 'rights' (read, things we are given permission to do by those that hold power over you) that exist exist not to serve your interests, but theirs. These 'rights' of course are subject to change without notice.

 Quote:

dan_dread, you can always run for political office you know.

That made me throw up a little. Why would I feed the beast I want to see starve?
 Quote:

humans are biologically pack animals, and will always gravitate toward some form of leadership, under any circumstance and under any government or lack thereof.

Exactly \:\)

Leaders and followers will always lead and follow. This is really here nor there, however.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23938 - 04/30/09 11:36 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dan_Dread]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
well, i'll grant you that people often fear that which is reflected in themselves. perhaps i am a dangerous maniac, blindly believing everyone else is out to get me. or maybe when i say that people are unlikely to control their banal urges, i don't mean you personally. i'm sure you're very nice.

in order to get results, don't you have to give someone leadership? what if you elect the wrong person, what if the results are negative? isn't this some form of state? not everyone is as intelligent as you are, you can't really predict what people will do when given blind opportunity. maybe you're right, maybe everyone would work together in harmony and dispatch vigilante justice when necessary, but really this seems less likely to me than a chaotic scenario. at the very least, i admire your faith in humanity. although it's this kind of optimism that makes me throw up. now we've both thrown up. we're even.

democracy, however much it passes over the poor, the weak, the under-privileged, still allows for more personal freedom and expression than a dictatorship or monarchy. you are allowed to think what you choose, live where you choose, write what you choose, participate in whatever social interests you choose, create radical and revolutionary art, walk around on the street late at night; in some states you can marry someone of the same sex and smoke marijuana. you can run for political office, vote, refrain from voting, talk shit about the government. there are countries that seem to run more smoothly than the USA, but on the other hand there are also countries where these things would not be possible.
in a dictatorship or monarchy, these little freedoms that we take for granted are not a given. perhaps a benevolent dictator will allow them, but a dictatorship does not guarantee benevolence.

this doesn't mean i love the USA, it doesn't mean i think americans are absolved from global responsibility. it just means i think that things could be a lot worse.

note that i said "some" would say people are evil, "some" would say a blank slate. i'm not imposing my ideals here, but i did say people are corrupt. is that not true? are people really not corrupt? if people are people, people can be corrupt. i don't understand what "reality is what it is" has to do with this. it doesn't make my assertion any less true, it only means you don't seem to care whether people are corrupt or not. which is fine, you don't have to care. but calling a spade a spade doesn't mean i'm allowing "judeo-christian memetics" to interfere with my opinions. i don't come from a judeo-christian background, so this is impossible, and a big assumption on your part.

maybe i will research rothbard and mises. i don't know much about them in particular. but i'm not sure that economics are the only point in question here. they seem to be the deciding factor for you.
and no, i don't think having a coercive entity holding an iron clad monopoly is the best solution. that should be obvious. the only people who think that is the best solution must be directly benefitting from it.

rights are not only legal and imposed upon us by power mongers. there are also inalienable rights. i will not list what i think these are, i presume you know, since they are your rights as much as mine. it is your right to question the existence of rights, although only your experience will tell you whether you are right or wrong. \:\)
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23944 - 05/01/09 02:02 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dan_Dread]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
Dan, please explain Somalia. it is an anarchist heaven, right?
there's a few similar places with no functioning central government, where the people "rule" themselves.

Top
#23945 - 05/01/09 03:45 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Bacchae]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Somalia is a prime example of my position and there are many more.

At this moment most of us live in a democracy and it can be seen as a middle ground between anarchism and super-statism -admit, that sounds fancier than fascism-, so we have a degree of freedom and a degree of control. It's also why we can ponder about the options; if we'd live under constant threat and struggle, democracy would already seem like a match made in heaven.
Anyways, what we notice while having the best -or worst- of both, is that humans still rape, kill, dominate, abuse, well show the worst of human nature. They show the best too, occasionally. The same happens in super-statism and of course, in anarchism. What is the problem in this is human nature, as I have said numerous times before.

The argument that under anarchism ALL people will begin raping, killing and murdering is a bit simplistic. Those that act upon their natural urges now, will do the same in anarchism but one should add to those, the ones that now are held in control by rules and repercussions. And that might be a not too small group. To counter the problem, the ones that are not subject to bad behavior under anarchy do have to join forces, prepare and defend themselves against those who are. Basically what they have to do is start organizing themselves and again, form some sort of state, no matter how small. So practical anarchy will be nothing but a fluctuation between order and chaos. True anarchism will however never be possible. It will require all humans involved to be of a similar intellectual, emotional and self-control level. At the level of probabilities, it is close to zero, so I prefer being on the other side of the fence which rationally, to me of course, does seem more probably.

I do see some similarities with the agnostic riddle here. Democracy I see as the agnostic position, you have both options open but don't get anywhere by doing so, super-statism of course being the strong atheistic stance and anarchism, well that's saying there is a god. I'm of course a bitch so I adjust the argument to my preference, as I would do with my environment, society and the world if control and force was not limiting me. ;\)

D.

Top
#23963 - 05/01/09 05:37 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Diavolo]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
well, some of us are in agreement.
i didn't mean to say that everyone would rape and pillage, but i did read a study last year of about 10,000 men (i'm trying to find the study again). they were asked whether or not they would commit rape if there were absolutely no consequences. 60-something percent said yes. so not all people would commit crimes, of course, but i think more psychos might come out of the woodwork. there is a higher rate of violent crime in wartime, when the government is busy attending to things other than civilian safety.

and i can turn this question back on myself: would i murder someone if i knew i would get away with it? possibly. especially if it were in retribution. but then someone would avenge my killing and kill me, and so forth. anarchy has its romantic draw... i can see myself channeling tank girl right now- kapow!

diavolo, adjusting your arguments doesn't make you a bitch, it makes you adaptable. social darwinism at work. i'm happy to say i doubt you'll be winning any darwin awards.

on a side note, a friend told me last night that another study postulated that religion was a genetic predisposition; that religion gathered people into communities for the sake of survival.
i can't decide what i think about this. is it saying that in order to survive we should continue to be religious, or is it saying that belief is genetic and that there is no longer a reason for this in our secular society?

any thoughts?


Edited by miriam (05/01/09 05:40 PM)
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23965 - 05/01/09 05:53 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I read an article upon it some time ago and they have a theory that humans have a predisposition for religion. It's partly caused by how our brain works.

Here's a quote out of it, the link I'll provide below.

 Quote:
The origin of religious belief is something of a mystery, but in recent years scientists have started to make suggestions. One leading idea is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation. In this view, shared religious belief helped our ancestors form tightly knit groups that cooperated in hunting, foraging and childcare, enabling these groups to outcompete others. In this way, the theory goes, religion was selected for by evolution, and eventually permeated every human society (New Scientist, 28 January 2006, p 30)

The religion-as-an-adaptation theory doesn't wash with everybody, however. As anthropologist Scott Atran of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor points out, the benefits of holding such unfounded beliefs are questionable, in terms of evolutionary fitness. "I don't think the idea makes much sense, given the kinds of things you find in religion," he says. A belief in life after death, for example, is hardly compatible with surviving in the here-and-now and propagating your genes. Moreover, if there are adaptive advantages of religion, they do not explain its origin, but simply how it spread.


I don't know if this answers your questions but I found it at least insightful.

Born believers: How your brain creates God

D.

Top
#23970 - 05/01/09 07:32 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Diavolo]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
interesting article. i wonder if this is the one my friend was talking about...
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23972 - 05/01/09 09:07 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

democracy, however much it passes over the poor, the weak, the under-privileged, still allows for more personal freedom and expression than a dictatorship or monarchy. you are allowed to think what you choose, live where you choose, write what you choose, participate in whatever social interests you choose, create radical and revolutionary art, walk around on the street late at night; in some states you can marry someone of the same sex and smoke marijuana. you can run for political office, vote, refrain from voting, talk shit about the government.

This is (mostly) true, and I don't dispute that. But you have to admit that these 'freedoms' can and have been revoked when it serves the interests of the ones you accept as your legitimate masters. And in this a democracy is no different than any other coercive government entity.

 Quote:

in order to get results, don't you have to give someone leadership? what if you elect the wrong person, what if the results are negative? isn't this some form of state?

I guess it depends what sort of results you are talking about. If the desired result is slavery, then yes. The method through which your masters are appointed is really just academic after the fact.
 Quote:

but i did say people are corrupt. is that not true? are people really not corrupt? if people are people, people can be corrupt. i don't understand what "reality is what it is" has to do with this.

In order for 'corruption' to exist there must first exist a 'natural' state from which to be corrupted;corruption implies a change of state from what is 'good and pure' to what is 'tainted'. In order for people to be 'corrupt' they must exist in a fallen state, but fallen from where? Some sort of artificially projected ideal. In order to believe man is corrupt you must first believe that his true nature is something other than what it is. I see no reason to make this assumption.
 Quote:

but calling a spade a spade doesn't mean i'm allowing "judeo-christian memetics" to interfere with my opinions. i don't come from a judeo-christian background, so this is impossible, and a big assumption on your part.

This of course stems from your apparent belief that man is 'corrupted' from his true state(a patently judeo-christian belief). You don't need to subscribe to judeo-christian religion to be effected by that memetics set. It runs much deeper than that.

 Quote:

rights are not only legal and imposed upon us by power mongers. there are also inalienable rights.

Like what? the right to life and liberty? The right to choose? The right to drive a beamer and own a blackberry flip? By what authority do these rights exist? Isn't it a bit odd that someone who believes in inalienable rights would give full support and legitimacy to an organization with the power to take those 'rights' away?

And as for the crux of the issue (at least seemingly, from your perspective):
 Quote:

he idea that people will follow tacit rules of good conduct (i.e. not rape, pillage and murder whomever they please), when left to their own devices is naive at best.

No rulers is not mutually exclusive to no rules. It seems as if you believe a justice system can only exist if it is controlled by a monopoly. I see no reason why a self regulating free market on protection couldn't exist. I would rather have a police force that has incentive to do their job well than one that doesn't.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23973 - 05/01/09 09:12 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Bacchae]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Bacchae
Dan, please explain Somalia. it is an anarchist heaven, right?
there's a few similar places with no functioning central government, where the people "rule" themselves.

Well, Somalia was a 3rd world war torn shithole before the regime fell,and remained so for the short time before the next one took over. A paradise? Hardly.

But the fact of the matter is that Somalias economy got better, not worse, when the market opened up for that brief period.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23993 - 05/02/09 01:03 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dan_Dread]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
people may be born into a "natural state," but once we've grown into our environment, we become corruptible. otherwise, people are merely instinctual animals fulfilling their most basic needs.

i am not arguing that we are devoid of instinct. i'm just saying that our violent actions imply a cognizance and awareness rarely seen in the animal kingdom. acting despite this awareness is a form of corruption.

and not only do i not subscribe to judeo-christian religious beliefs (why would i be here if i did?), i am not culturally or genetically a product of the judeo-christian ilk.

when i spoke of inalienable rights, i really wasn't referring to the right to own a blackberry flip. i'm personally quite satisfied with my motorola.
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#23994 - 05/02/09 01:40 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well this is drifting off topic, but still I feel this is an important point. In order to be 'corrupt' , by the very definition of the word, something has to be other than it is supposed to be. By saying people are corrupt you are also saying there is a certain way people are supposed to be. Who get's to be the final arbiter of this?

This line of thinking, ultimately, only goes anywhere when an arbiter is added, which makes it clearly identifiable as judeo-christian memetics. If you are living in any western society you are exposed to them. Do you not watch TV? Read? Talk to anybody? It is literally everywhere. And 'genetics' really has less than nothing to do with anything.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#23997 - 05/02/09 02:10 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think it got much to do with judeo-christian memetics. Of course the word corrupt does imply "fallen from grace" in certain settings but it can be seen as "not as is prefered" too. If I uphold democracy, I can see a totalitarian idea or act as corrupt, while an anarchist does the same. His view of the State and those promoting it, is one of corruptness. Who is the final arbiter in this? We of course, like in everything.

D.

Top
#24006 - 05/02/09 04:41 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:
60-something percent said yes. so not all people would commit crimes, of course, but i think more psychos might come out of the woodwork. there is a higher rate of violent crime in wartime, when the government is busy attending to things other than civilian safety.

Miriam,.. it's just a mere study.. And I'm 100% convinced that if such an event occurs that the percentage will have a huge difference. (It might be higher, it might be lower.. I think it will be lower for various reasons. Then again, who knows? That part can't be studied..)

If the study used percentages, it means there are statistics and from what I learned: statistics are multi-interpretable and depend on the people you have chosen. In other words, the study can't be used on a global scale, only in the environment where the participants have been chosen.

You should also make a difference between rape and murder. It is easier to use violence then to rape.. psychological borders you see... I prefer the scientific approach and treat each subject as something individual. (Then again,.. it depends on where you live and what your background is..).


And that's also one of the reasons I'm not interested in politics.. the problem is bigger then most people think and almost everything in politics is based on statistics.
And statistics can only be right under certain conditions but NEVER on a global scale.


Edited by Dimitri (05/02/09 04:44 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#24007 - 05/02/09 05:00 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dimitri]
miriam Offline
pledge


Registered: 03/11/09
Posts: 90
Loc: Seattle, WA
you've got a point about statistics.

but how is rape not violent?
_________________________
"Your body is the church where Nature asks to be reverenced."

Top
#24009 - 05/02/09 05:59 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: miriam]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
I didn't say rape isn't violent.
Only that it shouldn't be put next to murder...
Rape is sexual inclined while murder is more pure physically.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#24015 - 05/02/09 09:03 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dimitri]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think one can't get more physically than rape. Maybe you wanted to express something else but mixed up some words. Rape is often about power, if it was only about sex, rapists would visit hookers, pay the cash needed and get it over with.

The "would you rape?" question with statistics does appear in this video- which strangely enough does work now- and the answer there is 35%. I am pretty sure they know about statistics, most did go to uni too.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (05/02/09 09:05 AM)

Top
#24021 - 05/02/09 11:47 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Dimitri]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
 Quote:
I didn't say rape isn't violent.
Only that it shouldn't be put next to murder...
Rape is sexual inclined while murder is more pure physically.


Wrong. In the majority of rape cases it has nothing to do with sexual achievement. It is about power, force, brutallity, and dominance. What would a 30yo rapist find sexually appealing about a 70yo lady? These rapists are the same guys that stole your lunch money in 3rd grade and went on to lock you in a locker in high school. They are common bullies, looking for a way to get a release by overpowering someone. Most victims are weak, have low self appeal, came across as vulnerable. Not hot, not sexy, not "perfect 10s that you can't have unless you force yourself on them". Date rape being an exception. Some rapists never get to an orgasm. It's all about the force. In the prison system, kid touchers and rapists rank at the bottom of the barrel. Get locked up for one of these offenses and rest assured you will find yourself getting more than one beat down.

I was lucky enough to take a college class taught by one of the top FBI agents at the time. Rape was one subject we explored in depth. He presented statistics, data, and profiles to support the basis that rape is about dominance, power, and force. We did case studies of serial rapists. If you think it's about getting a nut sexually, you're wrong. It's about getting a nut through force.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#24029 - 05/02/09 04:23 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: fakepropht]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
 Quote:
If you think it's about getting a nut sexually, you're wrong. It's about getting a nut through force.


AND a rapist "getting their nut" is secondary. There have been many rapes when there has been no penile insertion, but forced insertion with an non-sexual object. The act is called "object rape." The rapist might use a dildo, a hairbrush, even a knife, but never penetrate the woman (or man) with any body part whatsoever. It's not about sex. It's about power, it's about control and often it's about humiliation of one's victim and their dehumanization to create the illusion of one's superiority.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#24049 - 05/03/09 12:20 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Jake999]
fakepropht Moderator Offline
Big Slick
active member


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 990
Loc: Texas
Right. I was trying to convey that in most cases rape has nothing to do with sexual gratification. You brought up a point I forgot to add. A small minority of cases are actually sexually centered. In most cases it is all about power, domination, humiliation, and demeaning the victim.
_________________________
Beer, the reason I get up every afternoon.

Top
#24060 - 05/03/09 06:20 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: fakepropht]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
I agree with Fp and Jake..

but Diavolo:
 Quote:
I am pretty sure they know about statistics, most did go to uni too.

Understanding statistics is really no big deal, even calculating them.
The only problem with statistics is that it only describes a part of the population (a very small part..), it also is subjective to different factors (mood, geographical, religion, background, influences,..) and most of the time, the options to choose from are limited. On a group of 10 000 man you simply can't ask a question with 2 possible answers to choose from. There will always be a considerable percentage of people who want to indicate something else, but simply can't since it's not one of the possible things to choose from.

It is a big mistake to assume that if statistics tell so, it will be.. The only way to be sure is to test it..


Edited by Dimitri (05/03/09 06:21 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#26305 - 06/26/09 03:10 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Diavolo]
Maxim D Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 20
Loc: Portland, Oregon, United State...
I believe that laws are just made by the smart to keep the stupid out of their way. Example: It's the 4th of july, and some dumb kid blows his hand off with certain kind of firework (firework X), therefore firework X must be banned, whereas less dangerous (less fun) fireworks Y and Z are still legal.
The majority feels sympathy for patient X, and fears for their children's safety- they buy instead the less dangerous firework Y.

I, however still don't get to play with firework X even though it's my favorite kind.

I'd like to live in a world where this doesn't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.
_________________________
The leaders of institutionalized religion should be institutionalized....

Top
#26306 - 06/26/09 03:43 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Maxim D]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Maxim D
I, however still don't get to play with firework X even though it's my favorite kind.

Wow that was a whole bunch of XYZ going on there. I know you didn’t ask me shit personally and Diavolo will probably give you a better answer, but I'm feeling chatty..

Lawmakers need to protect the stupids from themselves. In doing so they protect them from all of us in a way. I am a law-abiding tax-paying citizen why should my tax dollars go to support a fool who has no hands due to playing with fireworks.

In turn how can you pay taxes if you cannot work due to blowing your hands off or not wearing your seatbelt? See the lawmakers need to protect you, for them not to do so is just risking a paycheck after all.

 Originally Posted By: Maxim D
I'd like to live in a world where this doesn't happen, but I'm not holding my breath.

I live in the world of reality where money and having the right connection can assure you almost anything you want. Here in CT all fireworks were illegal until a few years ago. That never stopped me from buying these things I wanted from the trunks of cars. It also never stopped me from blasting off some fireworks in the past (I wasn’t even out of high school yet) that put some local towns shows to shame.

The times I was caught honesty worked in my favor. I may have been told to calm things down a bit but never had anything confiscated or have been arrested for illegal fireworks. I was also never stupid enough to light an m-80 or ¼ stick in my hand. But alas I am responsible enough to know that if I blew my hand off well then it was my own damn stupid fault.

So your using fireworks as an example seems pretty weak as the law had no effect at least on me. Now if you want to talk about things that the stupids ruin for us all that we cannot easily change, like the fact that my cars rear door windows will not roll all the way down.

That we can do but I think we may have strayed off topic. This has little to do with political affiliations.

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#26350 - 06/27/09 02:45 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: ta2zz]
Maxim D Offline
stranger


Registered: 06/21/09
Posts: 20
Loc: Portland, Oregon, United State...
Here, we have WA state right across the river, but it's still a pain in the ass. I guess my point is that I'd like to vote for people who don't have an agenda which oversteps into personal lives, or my fun, i.e. I am very upset with the current administration for banning flavored tobacco, for it supposedly being "meant for kids."

Adults like flavors too, obviously. One good thing is that since they're getting rid of the "lights' and whatnot, I got a pack of marlboro mediums for just $3.65...

Anyway, back to my point. I'm a registered libertarian myself, and I believe there is much damage to un-do as far as laws go. The two-party system is f**ked, as it provides two horrid choices of how the government should be run. I don't have respect for many democrats, due to their stance on things like healthcare and gun control. The notion that stupid people should be protected, I personally find grossly offensive.

Thus the reason for my fireworks analogy.
_________________________
The leaders of institutionalized religion should be institutionalized....

Top
#26355 - 06/27/09 04:05 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Maxim D]
ta2zz Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 1552
Loc: Connecticut

 Originally Posted By: Maxim D
The notion that stupid people should be protected, I personally find grossly offensive.

Personally I find anyone who feels the need to protect me or wants to help me for no good reason pretty disgusting. They are either seriously wanting to make a change (to what they see as better) or they have some hidden agenda.

I myself hold no political affiliation, voting in this country is just another means of control. It makes you feel as if you can in some way create change, even though to are only getting a choice between A and B. To not be able to see through this façade seems quite natural for most.

They taught me in 4th grade about the electoral vote, I’ve seen through the bullshit since then. I suggest you read up on it if you are not aware of what the electoral vote is. Basically if A is meant to be in office then all the public votes for B are nullified by an electoral vote for A. Since all your personal vote is doing is allowing more or less electoral votes for your state, your personal vote is essentially meaningless.

I can understand the need to protect stupids as a dead stupid pays no tax, can’t you also see this? I also find it amusing when many here would like a culling on the stupid side of humanity. What many forget is if there is nothing left but chiefs who is left to lead? Who then does the most menial work?

Again I only responded because I’m chatty. I pay little attention to things that matter little to me. Politics in no way matters to me. To steal a phrase from an old signature of Asmedious and of course modify it a bit and make it my own.

I am Satanist, as such when the wind blows in a different direction I will simply adjust my sail to continue in the direction I choose. If I just don’t decide to change the direction of the wind that is.

Later

~T~
_________________________
We are the music makers, And we are the dreamers of dreams. ~Arthur William Edgar O'Shaughnessy

Top
#26357 - 06/27/09 04:37 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affilia [Re: Maxim D]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think laws are entirely made to keep the stupid out of the way of the smart. Back in the day when we formed our early societies, we pretty fast realized that although the wolf and bear or lion are pretty nasty creatures, they are not as nasty nor unpredictable as our fellow man.

So laws were made to protect the (human) prey from the (human) predators and it evolved from there. Currently there is this tendency to protect the stupid too, as if life is precious under all conditions but it can be argued that it is not the life of the stupid that is so important as the lives of the people being ruined by other's stupidity.

But while all those laws are in effect, you have to realize laws mean nothing at the level of a desire to do something. Laws only imply that you will suffer some consequences if you are caught. If not, laws have no power. If something is illegal, you can be sure it is supplied. Illegality only affects the price to obtain. So technically you live in world where anything goes, no matter what political doctrine the government imposes or what taboos are affecting the social environment. The only difference with a truly free world (which is utopian) is that the desire is more costly at some levels and can have grave consequences.

Ta2zz said it most really, just wanted to add my thing because I tend to like the subject.

D.

Top
#26822 - 07/05/09 03:55 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Impius Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 60
Loc: Lille, France
Meritocracy is Satanism's utopia. But I don't think it can ever happen either. The best we could do is enhance democracy so it approaches justice the more it can. But it's going to take aaages, and we need the right people at the head of the states to begin with (even if Obama looks like a good start to me).

As for political affiliation, I personally never felt like I needed one. If I have to vote for something, I read every candidate's proposals and opinions about actuality, and then I pick one, not giving a damn about whether he's de gauche or de droite (which I think would more-or-less correspond to democrat and republican for you US fellows).
_________________________
In the end everyone dies...

Top
#26824 - 07/05/09 05:07 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Impius]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Agreed. Satanism's utopian concept would be a meritocracy. Unfortunately, the feeling amongst the majority of people today is that they merit whatever the hell they desire simply by virtue of managing to exist. Witness the apprentice of any skill complaining because they don't make as much money as the next guy, and to hell with seniority, skill levels or training! I am, therefore I deserve.

A true meritocracy would scare the hell out of most people. If they were paid according to their contribution, rather than the ability to show up for work and make it to lunch without killing themselves, we'd have an endless supply of slave labor.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#26916 - 07/07/09 03:08 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Impius]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree that at this moment meritocracy is utopian but the main problem why it is utopian is because most people consider the road to meritocracy one that has to be aligned with democracy. I think we have to stop considering democracy as a reasonable option. Democracy leads nowhere simply because in a democracy the people have a too important role. And that is what fucks up democracy and it is what fucks up potential meritocracy.

Like Jake said, people seem to feel entitled to everything just because of them being. That idea is so egalitarian it can't but degenerate everything.

A meritocracy depends upon the intention of the State, its direction and a good approach towards the problems. At some levels, it implies treating citizens like children again; give the good kid cookies and take them away when necessary. Not unlike what is done today except now they too often are giving the cookies to the fat and lazy.

D.

Top
#26936 - 07/08/09 10:31 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Impius Offline
pledge


Registered: 09/08/08
Posts: 60
Loc: Lille, France
Meritocracy is an utopia because it's never ever to be happening. Do you really think democracy will end someday...? I don't think so. If democracy disappears from our civilization, it'll be because some dude has taken it over, and we'll find ourselves in totalitarism.

Too many people wouldn't agree with such a political system. They can't conceive the goodness of it in their minds. Too much socialist stenches inside \:D
_________________________
In the end everyone dies...

Top
#26938 - 07/08/09 01:03 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Impius]
Dionysus Offline
lurker


Registered: 07/04/09
Posts: 2
Loc: Florida
I thought I'd mention something that occured some years back. I was enticed to register to vote by a girlfriend at the time. I didn't want to, but did so anyways. "Every vote counts, etc. etc." I was 18 and it was something to do. Anyways, I was given the chance to declare my party affiliation. There were boxes for Democratic, Republican, Independant, and Communist parties. Feeling mischievous, I decided to check the Communist box simply for the absurdity of the fact that I could actually do so. I got my voter registration card in the mail not long after, and "they" - whoever that is... changed it to Democratic party. I have not seen the Communist option since then as I was in Connecticut and this was for the election beween Gore & Bush that caused all the chaos over the votes in Florida. But someone changed my affiliation to Democratic. (I state again that I am not affiliated with Communism, but I just wanted to see if I got a card registering me as a party member.

(Anyways, Bush won. I was in D.C for the on the day of his innauguration and there was quite a large protest party.)

Top
#26941 - 07/08/09 02:16 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Impius]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Why do you think democracy will be everlasting? How old is democracy in our Western Civilization? A hundred years old max? Not even that. The Greek experiment back in the day was short lived so there is no reason to assume our experiment will be of a longer lasting nature.

The problem with other solutions is that some are socially burned. As I mentioned before to someone, there are some similarities between fascism and Satanism. When one mentions fascism, people directly have visions of death camps, death squads, uniform ideas of thinking or living; in short horror galore and yeah N.A.Z.I. radiates through it all. The left has done a good job at indoctrinating us, as the religious did with Satanism.

What people tend to forget is that a certain governing structure is as bad as the direction it is taking or the intention behind it. So fascism, or superstatism as I prefer to call it to distinct it from old nazi-lore, can be a perfect system just as easily as it can be a horrible system. It all depends on the leadership. Is it easy to set up a meritocracy in a superstate? A lot easier than in a democracy for sure. The mob will never support ideas that challenge themselves; that can only be accomplish in a top-down structure, not a bottom-up.

D.

Top
#32092 - 11/22/09 02:24 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: ZephyrGirl]
SatanicVeteran Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 11
Loc: San Francisco
all of these terms "socialism" "capitalism" "Communism" "Fascism" "Anarchism" They are just symantics...They whole argument can be boiled down to this
Individualism Vs. Collectivism Anarchism is basically the believe that people can vote on the direction of their society. They fail to see that the collective is not real their is no such thing as a group a group is but number of individuals. Hence their are no group rights only individual rights. If their is no state that will protect the rights of the individual then the angry mob will vote his/her rights away. or worse yet leave the individual swinging at the end of a rope much like the democracy we had in the southern states for a time.

Satanism is Individualism

Top
#34397 - 01/22/10 03:23 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
As I mentioned before to someone, there are some similarities between fascism and Satanism. . .

What people tend to forget is that a certain governing structure is as bad as the direction it is taking or the intention behind it. So fascism, or superstatism as I prefer to call it to distinct it from old nazi-lore, can be a perfect system just as easily as it can be a horrible system. It all depends on the leadership. Is it easy to set up a meritocracy in a superstate? A lot easier than in a democracy for sure. The mob will never support ideas that challenge themselves; that can only be accomplish in a top-down structure, not a bottom-up.

D.


I would agree with this. Of course Satanism is to much of an individualism to be put into = with any political ideology but I find that it does share or works well together with fascism in certain forms. Actually it seems to me that most Satanists either have meritocratic tendencies (which is common in fascist thought of course) or they are democratic libertarians or anarchists going full force forward with the "individual freedom" thought.

Personally I lean alot more to a meritocratic system rather than a democratic one. I see no reason why the people should choose who should run the country since most of us doesn't know enough to even know the most basic things in politics. People usually vote either by tradition, by a party's momentary popularity or by a politicians charisma and ability to speak. None are unimportant but hardy a good criteria for deciding who should run a nation.

A totalitarian state or a dictatorship can be either excellent or really bad or anything in between. Just like in a democracy it depends on who leads and what actions he or she takes. What totalitarian regimes have as an advantage is that they can really push through with their ideas while democracies really cant. In Sweden where I live there are 4 years between elections and whatever the current government has done alot will be for nothing if the opposition wins the next election this year. Their ideas will have no time to mature and start to work properly.

Another thing is that in a democratic country parties must be much more careful as to not betray their base ideology. Even if they recognize that an action that goes against the party's official traditional base is for the best they cant do it because they will loose popularity and thus be put in a position to maybe loose power. Of course a good dictator cant decide on just everything. Keeping the people happy is also important but its easier in a dictatorial regime.

Furthermore totalitarianism doesn't necessarily mean that the people are suppressed and not allowed some of the basic individual freedom rights. Again this depends on the governments policies just like in a democracy. Because whether one likes it or not democratic countries also practice censorship or the silencing of uncomfortable ideas.

But the most Satanic thing about a Fascist state would be the strife towards a meritocratic system. Satanism does stand for elitism and not egalitarianism – at least that's how most of us interpret it. And really, no one actually wants the idiot next door to decide anything regarding our lives much less the whole country's development.

Top
#34408 - 01/22/10 10:29 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I cannot agree with Diavolo. Where is the similarity with Satanism ? I only see that totalitarism could be the best instrument for implementing a meritocracy. So, as meritocracy is part of Satanism, Satanism is similar to fascism ??? It's thin...

Superstatims need a superstate. A superstate that will dicate (for my good if well intentionned) my behaviour by setting unilaterally the criterias. It will request me to be a good fascist, a good suercitizen.... AND THIS I DO NOT WANT !

If you think twice, the Xian system is nothing else. In the Xian perspective, You have a superleader (God) which is by definition well intentionned. He's by definion the perfect leader, he cares about me and does everything for my happiness.
NEVERTHELESS, FUCK THE SUPERSTATE AND ITS SUPERGOD !

I'm not a fonded of politic, but I'm rather reluctant towards totalitarian systems. I think the history speak by itself...
Democracy is far from an ideal. The elections tends to be similar to a lottery. It's power distributed at random. And it has the advantage to limitting the risk of totalitarian deviations toward the horrible. It's not a weak point...
And off course, the "intention" factor works in democracy as well.

I personnaly think anarchy is more fitted to meritocracy. It's the only system allowing individuals to interract freely on a contractual basis. From there, it's the survival of the fittest...

So, there might be a spider silk from the Satanic border to the fascism land, but there is a gulf in between !


Edited by Fabiano (01/22/10 10:54 PM)

Top
#34410 - 01/22/10 10:51 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
But the most Satanic thing about a Fascist state would be the strife towards a meritocratic system. Satanism does stand for elitism and not egalitarianism – at least that's how most of us interpret it. And really, no one actually wants the idiot next door to decide anything regarding our lives much less the whole country's development.


Fascism is Atheist RHP. God is replaced by the state. Satanism is LHP.

Another kind of Atheist RHP is what will sometimes emerge in large corportations, where a serious attempt at brainwashing will occur, so as to replace God with the corporation.

Meritocracy is desirable in principle and sometimes even functions as advertised, while at other times devolving into a kissass-itocracy, the perrennial danger in any RHP collective, where devotion to the Godstate or the Godcorp is the way to heaven, or at least promotion, which is the mundane analogue to ascension.

Another difficulty with meritocracy is the fact that merit as a worker can lead to promotion into management, a field of endeavor requiring skills and propensities that are often quite different from the ones that were so successful when one was a worker, so that the resulting failure in the new field (management) could have been predicted. The flip side of that is when a worker has all the right skills and propensities for management, but not so much for the work itself, and thus gets stuck at the worker level due to a failure to excel there, whereas if promoted to management an immediate leap forward in performance would have occurred. There is a theoretical solution to these problems, namely, two completely distinct career paths that diverge right from the start and never converge, with comparable pay scales at the lowest, middle, and highest levels. Unfortunately I've never seen or heard of this being implemented.

None of the above is enough of an indictment of meritocracy to recommend its abolition, as no better system has yet been proposed.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34413 - 01/22/10 11:08 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Quote:
Another difficulty with meritocracy is the fact that merit as a worker can lead to promotion into management, ...


This issue is not due to meritocracy. It's due to the fact that by saying "a worker can be promoted to management" you suppose that there exists a structure where the worker is at the bottom and the top managemet at the top. The salaries increase as you go higher in the hierarchy. But who can say no worker is more meritant than any manager ? In a true meritocracy, if the worker's work is hard, heavy it'll pay back and if management is easier, less risky... it should pay less...

Top
#34418 - 01/23/10 05:34 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Fabiano]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Fabiano
This issue is not due to meritocracy. It's due to the fact that by saying "a worker can be promoted to management" you suppose that there exists a structure where the worker is at the bottom and the top managemet at the top. The salaries increase as you go higher in the hierarchy. But who can say no worker is more meritant than any manager ? In a true meritocracy, if the worker's work is hard, heavy it'll pay back and if management is easier, less risky... it should pay less...


So the skyscraper window washer could make more money than the CEO? A novel notion to me and appealing, or at least that's my knee-jerk reaction to it. You, I think, would make a good dictator! \:\)

And only a dictator could impose such a system, for every impulse in man is for the the boss to get first pick of the spoils, just as the alpha male wolf in any pack always does. Just let's not call it Fascism, but restrict ourselves to the word dictatorship, and I will fantasize of such a regime coming about. \:\)
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34420 - 01/23/10 06:24 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Fabiano:

 Quote:
Superstatims need a superstate. A superstate that will dicate (for my good if well intentionned) my behaviour by setting unilaterally the criterias. It will request me to be a good fascist, a good suercitizen.... AND THIS I DO NOT WANT !


How much a state will dictate your life depends on its ideology. Totalitarianism in itself doesn't mean the people is oppressed or not free to live life as they want. It will have guidelines on how to live but so does democratic countries. In fact I believe a country needs it because we cant let everyone do what they want or we would all live in chaos.

You link it to Christian metaphysics while I see no need to bring Christianity into the picture. My problem with Christianity is the world-view itself. No advoction of strength and pride, seeing all men as equals (or rather the poor and the weak are seen as more worthy than anyone else), the dualism of spirit vs matter etc.

 Quote:

I'm not a fonded of politic, but I'm rather reluctant towards totalitarian systems. I think the history speak by itself...
Democracy is far from an ideal. The elections tends to be similar to a lottery. It's power distributed at random.


Not really. Its about who has the most money, get the most amount of media time and who can express oneself best in a debate. Media controls who we put in charge these days as they set the trends and whims of society quite easily.

 Quote:
I personnaly think anarchy is more fitted to meritocracy. It's the only system allowing individuals to interract freely on a contractual basis. From there, it's the survival of the fittest...


Meritocracy and anarchism does not go hand in hand. The two terms actually go against each other. Anarchism means "without ruler" and meritocracy is defined as "leadership selected on the basis of intellectual criteria" (Merriam Webster).

Baron dHolbach

 Quote:
Fascism is Atheist RHP. God is replaced by the state. Satanism is LHP.

Another kind of Atheist RHP is what will sometimes emerge in large corportations, where a serious attempt at brainwashing will occur, so as to replace God with the corporation.


Politics have nothing to do with LHP or RHP. These terms are originated from tantra and describe different paths to reach wisdom (in fact both paths have the same goal). Politics are about the decisions that groups of people mdae in regards to a government and how a country should be ruled. It has nothing to do with personal enlightenment in the occult or religious or mystic sense.

You are right however about the dangers of a meritocracy. And in fact whatever system we have there will be loopholes all over whether we like it or not. Democratic capitalism puts popular ideas into power (not the best but the most popular) and it also protects economic interests even if it is destructive in the long run.


I think people are way to influenced by modern media on the subject. Almost everyone in the west cringes at the thought of a dictatorial regime because we define ourselves against that. I don't think its the dictatorship in itself that is the problem but by what ideological conviction such a country is ruled by.

We seem to think every dictatorship is defined by the suppressed individual which just isn't true. Likewise the free individual in democratic countries is also not a truthful image of how life is.

The main problem I find in the fascist state might be the cult of the person leading it. Mussolini may have been a great ruler for the first ten years but he did come to a point where something happened and suddenly he seemed to make all the wrong decisions (1936/1937). It is import and that the regime and the leader him/herself can recognise this and put a stop to it before it spirals out of control (like it eventually did with Italy).

Top
#34421 - 01/23/10 10:07 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Maybe you should have paid more attention to what I actually wrote about the link between Satanism and fascism. I was talking about a popularization of a certain idea; the creation of a specific meme to lead the sheep into the desired direction. As such most objections that I read here are nothing but people replicating those concepts defined by others without giving it much more thought than the obvious which has nested itself in their brains all too well.

The idea of fascism being RHP or a Christian model was amusing to read but I can't take it too serious. These are ideas sprouted in brains not able to detach from what has been popularized. Nothing has been infested more by Christian thinking than democracy, especially the European Leftist approach with their horrible concepts like socialism in whatever shape and multiculturalism. It is a system where the strong are forced to bow down to the demands of the weak. It will lead nowhere as already witnessed in the decline of our Western culture. Not long before we are truly men amongst ruins.

A superstate or organic state depends wholly on its intention and direction. The path it is heading defines it. As such, the State should not be seen as the mother that cuddles the weak -a role democracy is all too eager to take- but as a father that rewards the strong or punishes when needed. It also doesn't imply the state has control on all levels as depicted in most anti-fascist horror scenarios. Freedom is nothing but being able to advance as much as you are capable of without being held hostage by the weak and incompetent.

D.

Top
#34426 - 01/23/10 02:21 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
]The idea of fascism being RHP or a Christian model was amusing to read but I can't take it too serious.


I doubt anyone would say Fascism is Christian. But sincere Fascism is RHP because its center, its beating heart, is something outside the self, namely the state. Where the Satanist practices self-reverence, the sincere Fascist reveres the state. Where the Satanist practices self-overcoming so the Satanist may become, the sincere Fascist works for the state's self-overcoming so that the state may become. Where the Satanist wills power for the self, the sincere Fascist wills power for the state. The two systems cannot both drive the same person. The Satanist may preach Fascism to others as a tactic of manipulation and domination, but that's all it will ever be, a tactic, and as the sincere fools shout their slogans and stamp their feet and pound their chests, the Satanist will be calculating the logistics of personal power.

Mussolini may have been a Satanist, but those who blindly followed him were not. When Pope Benedict inspires his followers to fall to their knees and consecrate themselves to Christ, and when a Mussolini inspires his followers to rise to their feet and bellow their allegiance to the Fatherland, the essence is the same, the tactics of manipulation and domination are the same. It may be that some Popes were secretly Satanists. But the fools who wept at the feet of these Popes, and kissed their rings, were not. The one who says, "Follow me," may be a Satanist, but the one who whispers "Lead me" with trembling voice, is not.

Fascism cannot exist without leaders and followers. Satanism most definitely can.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34431 - 01/23/10 03:01 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: TheInsane
Politics have nothing to do with LHP or RHP. These terms are originated from tantra and describe different paths to reach wisdom (in fact both paths have the same goal). Politics are about the decisions that groups of people mdae in regards to a government and how a country should be ruled. It has nothing to do with personal enlightenment in the occult or religious or mystic sense.


While it's true that the terms LHP and RHP originated in Tantra, it would be rare for someone on this forum to be speaking about Tantra when using those terms. I certainly wasn't.

Furthermore, where it may be true that in Tantra the LHP and the RHP have the same goals - I don't know, as I haven't practiced or studied those systems - it isn't true for the LHP and RHP as generally spoken about on a forum like this one, whereby the RHP seeks the glorification of God, or of the state, or of the corporation, always of something outside the self, while the LHP seeks the glorification of the self.

Finally, politics and religion have more in common, and are more frequent bedfellows, than you acknowledge. There are many people who choose their political positions based on religion, and there are also people who choose their religious positions based on politics. A third element that often serves as the bridge between the other two is morality. The question of how to vote will sometimes be answered by politics, sometimes by morality, sometimes by religion, often by all three in a synthesis.

 Quote:
I think people are way to influenced by modern media on the subject. Almost everyone in the west cringes at the thought of a dictatorial regime because we define ourselves against that. I don't think its the dictatorship in itself that is the problem but by what ideological conviction such a country is ruled by.


Said President Bush, "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator." There's a lot of truth in that. I would trust almost no one with dictatorial powers, because I think it's true that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. But if anyone wants to vote me in, I will accept the position.

In any given country, either gold rules the guns, or guns rule the gold, and the one that rules the other rules everything else as well. In China, guns rule the gold for the most part, although the times they may be a-changing. In the USA, gold rules the guns. I like the latter scenario better, because the gold is distributed amongs a lot of different people who disagree with one another on many things, making monolithic control impossible. In a dictatorship, guns will rule the gold eventually, although there may be a time of transition first. Since all the guns will obey one guy, monolithic control will assert itself, and the strong likelihood is that my personal freedom will be curtailed in some way, to some extent, to my displeasure.
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34433 - 01/23/10 03:25 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
 Quote:

Furthermore, where it may be true that in Tantra the LHP and the RHP have the same goals - I don't know, as I haven't practiced or studied those systems - it isn't true for the LHP and RHP as generally spoken about on a forum like this one, whereby the RHP seeks the glorification of God, or of the state, or of the corporation, always of something outside the self, while the LHP seeks the glorification of the self.

Explain Setianism in this case....

The left hand path indeed seeks glorification of the self, it does not imply that the total absence of god ( or in this discussion) state is at hand. Glorification of the self can be done by the use of paying your dues to the state. The state is an organism you live off. When it is ends up in a downward spiral, you'll get sucked down with it. In modern society everyone is linked to the state and it's well-being. The best example is the recent crisis whose effects still last.
The same can be said about the company you work for. If all people involved in the company give the best of themselves, it will thrive well and its employees will also gain from it.
If the company is run badly, it will go broke with the necessary consequences.

Glorification and/or betterment of the self can also be reached by the betterment of secondary "organisms". Humans are social animals and modern society implies some sort of anticipation with your environment to have it easy ( more or less).

Also, when admitting yourself to a secondary organism you might just get yourself promoted or receiving an "extra" which in turn will let other people envy you or even commit themselves to you. Which in turn might/ can give you that glorification you are searching for.
To glorify the self personally is one thing, letting others glorify you is yet another (and much sweeter).


Edited by Dimitri (01/23/10 03:45 PM)
Edit Reason: Expanded a bit
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34435 - 01/23/10 04:01 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
There is a grande difference between using or feeding a collective in the name of rational self interest, and putting the collective before yourself.

In the first instance you are using a tool to your own benefit.

In the second, you are a tool being used for someone else's.

In practice they are quite similar yet in principle they are completely opposite.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34437 - 01/23/10 04:19 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dimitri:

I can really appreciate and agree with alot of what you're writing. I'm on the same page as you are it seems \:\)

Baron dHolbach:

 Quote:
But sincere Fascism is RHP because its centre, its beating heart, is something outside the self, namely the state. Where the Satanist practices self-reverence, the sincere Fascist reveres the state. Where the Satanist practices self-overcoming so the Satanist may become, the sincere Fascist works for the state's self-overcoming so that the state may become. Where the Satanist wills power for the self, the sincere Fascist wills power for the state. The two systems cannot both drive the same person.


I don't agree with this at all. The Fascist does seek to empower the state and the nation but because it also in return gives something good back to the individual. My biggest problem with Satanists were always the preaching of egoism to mean ”do what I want and don't give a shit about others”. To me egoism is way more complex than that and to truly feel good you cant just don't give a damn about others. I would rather live in a strong society where the capable sits in the appropriate places than a sick and weak society. Its quite natural to strive for a better nation if one also seeks to maximize ones own well being. The two actually go hand in hand. One may have to sacrifice for this to happen but the goal is always something that is worth sacrificing for. Mussolini wrote:

In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.

I do believe that humans need restrictions or else it would be chaos and no one really wants that. The state, fascist – democratic or something else, always need to restrict peoples freedom because everything cant ever be allowed or we would destroy ourselves. The most important thing is the thin line one has to walk between enough freedom for the individual to be happy but enough restriction for them to not be destructive to society at large. Some people can absolutely handle total freedom but most cant and thus a society shouldn't allow it.

 Quote:
Mussolini may have been a Satanist, but those who blindly followed him were not.


There will always be blind followers. Satanism has it as well. However just because a state is fascist doesn't mean it has more blind followers than other regimes. I am quite surprised at how blind alot of people are about democracy and what it really means for example. Most think its the political system that will save everyone from war and misery. I wouldn't be surprised if we see a radical change in opinion on this in 50 years or 100 years when people begin to realize the problems democracy presents and that it isn't the solution to all problems.

 Quote:
While it's true that the terms LHP and RHP originated in Tantra, it would be rare for someone on this forum to be speaking about Tantra when using those terms. I certainly wasn't.

Furthermore, where it may be true that in Tantra the LHP and the RHP have the same goals - I don't know, as I haven't practiced or studied those systems - it isn't true for the LHP and RHP as generally spoken about on a forum like this one, whereby the RHP seeks the glorification of God, or of the state, or of the corporation, always of something outside the self, while the LHP seeks the glorification of the self.


This is really a separate topic but I don't understand why people so desperately wants to use the terms LHP and RHP when they clearly just invent new meanings for the words. This all stems from western occultism where both paths have been defined in so many different ways from Blavatsky to Crowley to LaVey to Aquino. Its quite interesting how a concept that originated from a non-dual world-view suddenly has come to have meanings that indicate that the world is based in duality. The whole root in the terms are swept away from under them. In its original meaning the two paths are about to realize the true nature of things. This true nature is always happening and we always live it but it can be concealed. The RHP (dakshinachara ) is the way of the traditionalists in hinduism. Meditation and asceticism as means to realize the true nature of the world. The LHP (vamachara ) is the antinomian path towards the same goal. The former is considered to be slower but more safe while the latter is considered a faster path but also more dangerous. So antinomianism is one aspect that hasn't been lost through the transition to the west but where the ideas of the isolate self or the merging with god comes from I don't know.

 Quote:
There is a grande difference between using or feeding a collective in the name of rational self interest, and putting the collective before yourself.

In the first instance you are using a tool to your own benefit.

In the second, you are a tool being used for someone else's.

In practice they are quite similar yet in principle they are completely opposite.


But the strife for a fascist state or the helping of the same doesn't mean that you strive for it because it gives someone above you the power just for powers sake. It is done because of a belief that things will be better for the individual, the family, the city, the country and the nation. It all build on each other. If we were all to use or feed off a collective exclusively and not give back we would be the vampires that dragged society down with us eventually. I don't want to drag down the society in which I live. I want to make it stronger and more ”healthy” (in lack of a better word) so that I can feed off it and also receive gain from its strength. The individual is part of the state and fights for it and the State is there to give support and help the individual and try to make sure everyone can reach his or her potential.

Top
#34438 - 01/23/10 05:22 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

The individual is part of the state and fights for it and the State is there to give support and help the individual and try to make sure everyone can reach his or her potential.

Har, if you actually believe that I have a bridge you may be interested in purchasing.



The state does not serve the people, the people serve the state. Rather, there is no 'state', only a collection of individuals, each with his or her own interests and agendas. The state serves only those who hold its various segmented reigns. I think, perhaps you, like most who have not broken free of the many layers of nationalistic programming that permeate all forms of media, may not clearly see the very distinct line that separates government from society. They are certainly different animals.

Regardless of that, serving society or government, from a Satanic perspective, is only worthwhile as long as the cost to benefit ratio is in your favor.

_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34439 - 01/23/10 05:26 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
Utter nonsense.

Fascism, socialism and communism differ primarily in their spelling. All such systems are Statist - requiring the Individual to subordinate themselves to the State and to work against their own interests.

There is no time in history that such systems have not caused grave human suffering. While supporters of such systems will often offer academic explanations promoting the virtues of the true Collectivist State, history and reality do not bear this out. The problem is that they fail to take into account the core of human nature is to be a selfish opportunist.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#34444 - 01/23/10 06:49 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Fist]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Dan_Dread

 Quote:
The state does not serve the people, the people serve the state. . . Rather, there is no 'state', only a collection of individuals, each with his or her own interests and agendas. The state serves only those who hold its various segmented reigns. I think, perhaps you, like most who have not broken free of the many layers of nationalistic programming that permeate all forms of media, may not clearly see the very distinct line that separates government from society. They are certainly different animals.


First off there is hardly any nationalistic programming in Swedish media. It is actually a taboo subject since it is connected to the racist debate and Sweden is very anti-racist in the media and therefore alot of people are afraid to be connected to movements that can be viewed as having a connection to that. Heck, some years ago some schools even banned the singing of the national anthem in schools during graduation because they were afraid it would be regarded as racist. Our immigrants didn't understand it of course since they thought it was the most natural thing to be proud of where one comes from.

Whether the state serves the individual or not depends on the regime of course but in the end the idea behind it is to create a strong nation/country and to do this it needs to encourage people in that nation to also be strong and for them to find the place where their work may be most valuable and where their talent is used for good. The individual probably wants this as well – to be able to be recognized his/her achievements and to make use of the talents and skills that he/she has.

Now I don't know about you but where I live I feel like the state, our government, does indeed serve me with certain benefits because of what I deliver back to the same state. To claim that the state doesn't serve the people at all is just ignorant.

And of course you are right that there is indeed a difference between society and government but as a country the two are very much connected. Both serve the other – or that's at least how it should be.

 Quote:
Regardless of that, serving society or government, from a Satanic perspective, is only worthwhile as long as the cost to benefit ratio is in your favour.


Agreed!



Fist:

 Quote:
Fascism, socialism and communism differ primarily in their spelling. All such systems are Statist - requiring the Individual to subordinate themselves to the State and to work against their own interests.


That is just not true. There are big differences between all of those political systems you mention and if you don't know what they are I don't know why you would even start to debate about it. Now I wouldn't say I am a follower of either of the three (even though I am closest to fascism) but I know that no one from either ideology views it as if they go against their own interests. They are followers of the political movements because they believe its right and because they think that in the long run it serves themselves and others in the best possible way.

 Quote:
There is no time in history that such systems have not caused grave human suffering. While supporters of such systems will often offer academic explanations promoting the virtues of the true Collectivist State, history and reality do not bear this out.


Really? You speak of totalitarian or authoritarian regimes now not one certain political ideology? Because the world is filled with history of countries that have existed and thrived with some sort of totalitarian rule. Democracy is a tiny, mostly modern, phenomenon and to disregard all totalitarian or authorian regimes down to them always causing grave human suffering. And again, democratic countries have also pain and suffering but in general towards other countries they want to make into democratic countries. So it goes both ways. Neither system is perfect.

 Quote:
The problem is that they fail to take into account the core of human nature is to be a selfish opportunist.


How would you suggest a politician would do this, to recognise and take into account ”true human nature”. Because as a man in power you cant both realize true human nature as well as accept that people live by it. Because then it would bring chaos to the country. The main role for whoever rules any country and whatever ideology they have is to control the human society over which they have power so that they wont be destructive. This is also a part of true human nature – to organize and to cooperate for bringing the best possible conditions for survival (and in our times comfort, technological success etc). I think this part is often overlooked in the Satanist community. While selfishness is definitely a big part of us humans so is cooperation and helping each other to bring good for oneself and the family (or tribe or community). Humans are social creatures and this is of utter importance.

Top
#34449 - 01/23/10 07:48 PM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3934
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:
To claim that the state doesn't serve the people at all is just ignorant.

This is true to the extent that the state enforces a monopoly on certain essential services. Again, I think you are blurring the line between government and society.

Easy to do living in a socialist nanny-state, I suppose.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#34461 - 01/24/10 05:44 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread
 Quote:
To claim that the state doesn't serve the people at all is just ignorant.

This is true to the extent that the state enforces a monopoly on certain essential services. Again, I think you are blurring the line between government and society.

Easy to do living in a socialist nanny-state, I suppose.


Now I realize that the government is the body that makes and enforces rules and law etc and that a society basically is the very body of humans living in a community. Please explain why the distinction of the two is problematic to what I have written above in previous posts.

I think you have to walk a line between government monopoly and the free market. For one I would never want the health care system the United States have where even people who are pretty well off have a hard time paying for hospital bills. The market there has gone into a bad extreme in that regard.

I think England's system is good in that health care is actually free and paid by taxes (I guess its similar to your country Canada in that regard). In Sweden it isn't free but very cheap all things considered. I am thinking of this now purely from my own need and I definitely would rather live in a country where I can afford health care, where it is already paid for in taxes (i.e. In that case what you call a ”socialist nanny-state”) rather than live in the free market USA. Now the US have other things on its plus side that Sweden doesn't have but as I said its a thin line one has to walk between what is good and desirable and what is not.

Top
#34519 - 01/25/10 07:48 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: TheInsane]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Oh, I see a lot was said in few days.

I can only bounce on Fist's post :
 Quote:
Fascism, socialism and communism differ primarily in their spelling. All such systems are Statist - requiring the Individual to subordinate themselves to the State and to work against their own interests.


From this, totalirian states are probably the more risky because the more coercitive and without any counter-power.

Whatever the ideology behind (RHP or LHP) a totalirian state will be always a place I would not like to live.



Off course, for those who dream of leading the sheep into the desired direction and find this amusing, the totalirain state (with them leading it off course) is the best scheme for imposing their own ideas.
After all, every political party in a democracy dreams about absolute majority because they're all convinced that if their ideas would be applied, all would finally go well for the benefit of the society... Totalitarism is just a longlasting shortcut to this...

In the same order of idea, compare the CoS and its Priests, Grand Priests and Super-Clown-Magus against the Fisrt Satanic Church organisation where there is no positionary titles...

I might join the FSC but I don't think I will ever join the CoS...

Top
#34650 - 01/27/10 07:11 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You can come of your little soapbox now.

Your argument here doesn't impress me at the least because frankly it is no argument at all. Comparing Satanism and fascism is like comparing hooves with horsepower. I might be wrong but last time I checked Satanism was no system of government. Democracy, aristocracy or fascism etc… is so if you're going to compare one; it is probably smarter if the comparison involves another. Else your argument tends to look silly.

Setting up a sincere fascist -in the mind numbing context you did- against a free Satanist is constructing a straw man which I could as easily do by setting up the sincere Satanist -in the same context, you as an example- against the free fascist.

What many of you forget is that no matter what system of government is in control, nothing, absolutely nothing, is enforcing it upon someone. Rules and laws are only there for them that submit themselves. Those that see them as what they are can do whatever they want. All too many Satanists fear fascism because it would severely limit their freedom but they don't realize that they are the ones that limit their own freedom. If you don't dare to step outside of your comfort zone, it will turn into a prison indeed. Even if you are under the assumption it is a golden one. So many are housebroken and no matter how much they gloat about them being free and individual, whenever government snaps their fingers, they retreat to their corner. Be a brave dog and we allow you to bark once in a while.

Fascism is a form of government that can be effective where I am not. It can address certain problems and provide solutions which are inevitable in our current society. Democracy is glorifying weakness and promoting it is promoting that very weakness. So is ignoring it.

D.

Top
#34655 - 01/27/10 07:56 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Diavolo]
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
You can come of your little soapbox now.


Well, I had stepped off a while ago, but I'll step back on.

 Quote:

Your argument here doesn't impress me at the least because frankly it is no argument at all. Comparing Satanism and fascism is like comparing hooves with horsepower. I might be wrong but last time I checked Satanism was no system of government. Democracy, aristocracy or fascism etc… is so if you're going to compare one; it is probably smarter if the comparison involves another. Else your argument tends to look silly.


Diavolo, you aren't seriously denying that Fascism has a philosophical component, are you? Yes, it of course advocates a system of government known as totalitarianism, but there is more going on than just that.

Random House Webster's College Dictionary:
fascism, n. 1. (sometimes cap) a totalitarian governmental system led by a dictator and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism, militarism, and often racism. 2. (sometimes cap) the philosophy, principles, or methods of fascism. 3. (cap) a movement toward or embodying fascism, especially the one established by Mussolini in Italy.

Definition #1 becomes philosophy from the word emphasizing onward.

Definition #2 actually includes the word philosophy.

Definition #3 implies philosophy when it names Mussolini, whose book, My Rise and Fall, which I have read, is chock full of philosophy.

If you want to limit the discussion to totalitarianism, that would be fine by me, but it will be a very different discussion. In fact, earlier in this thread I agreed that there were (or at least could be) positives in a dictatorship, which of course is a form of totalitarianism. It's when you add the philosophical component incorporated in Fascism that I reject it.

 Quote:
What many of you forget is that no matter what system of government is in control, nothing, absolutely nothing, is enforcing it upon someone. Rules and laws are only there for them that submit themselves. Those that see them as what they are can do whatever they want.


Technically true, of course. Responsibly accepting the consequences of one's actions, one can do whatever one wants with eyes wide open and chin held high. Still, the consequences of flouting the law are often severe in the extreme, especially under a totalitarian regime, which usually has no motivation to be merciful and every motivation to be brutal. Even with a gun to my head, I am technically free, but the gun is still there, the coercion is real, and the narrow range of options is undesirable to say the least.

 Quote:

Democracy is glorifying weakness and promoting it is promoting that very weakness. So is ignoring it.


All democracy means to me is that the government tends to leave me alone. Being left alone suits me. Of course that also means the government tends to leave everyone else alone, even people I disdain or despise. I'm fine with that, since the people I disdain or despise tend to leave me alone, not least because I return the favor.


Edited by Baron dHolbach (01/27/10 08:03 AM)
Edit Reason: Fixed important typo
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#34657 - 01/27/10 09:25 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3151
Let's not confuse ideology with philosophy, would we?
Fascism is a form of government with straight set ideological ideas. The term philosophy used in this context is a bit misplaced.
Satanism is a way of living, a "philosophy".
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#34659 - 01/27/10 11:13 AM Re: I think I finally decided my political affiliation [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri
Let's not confuse ideology with philosophy, would we?
Fascism is a form of government with straight set ideological ideas. The term philosophy used in this context is a bit misplaced.
Satanism is a way of living, a "philosophy".


Your definition of philosophy as "a way of living" is wrong. Philosophy is the "love of wisdom" (from the greek word philosophia). It is the study of the fundamental questions of life and death and everything in between. If one says "one philosophy" it is generally regarded to mean a coherent system of thought, an ideology or a philosophical school of thought.

Politics is a sub-category of the philosophy subject which isn't strange at all once one looks deeper into it. When I was studying philosophy in the University we had the course slashed into four equal branches of philosophical study: ethics, logics, metaphysics and politics (there are of course several more branches).

I think both Satanism and fascism (and every other political and religious idea) are philosophy as well as ideology. Political ideas are always founded on, and developed into, philosophical ideas.

However Satanism is not a form of government which of course all political ideologies ar (except maybe extreme utopian anarchism where there is nothing to govern in the end \:D ).


Edited by TheInsane (01/27/10 11:14 AM)

Top
Page all of 8 12345>Last »


Moderator:  Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist 
Hop to:

Generated in 0.136 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 132 queries. Zlib compression disabled.