Page 2 of 4 <1234>
Topic Options
#14584 - 11/17/08 12:27 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Ringmaster Offline
member


Registered: 04/07/08
Posts: 205
Loc: Salem Oregon
Yes secrets lead to corruption, however it comes down to if people know is it really a secret? Because if we didn't know that these black on black operations exist we wouldn't have a problem.

But that is beside the point. I honestly need to ask, what is wrong with some vigilante justice at times? Because some of the things I've seen is that the justice system we have is not working the way it should. At times resaults are easier to reach when vigilante justice is practiced.

I'm not saying that I agree with black on black ghost killing teams. In fact I quite disagree with them because if you don't have the balls to act out in the open then you shouldn't be doing the act in the first place. Also nobody has the right to decide who is worthy of life and who is not. It should come in the form of retaliation.
_________________________
Get off the cross and save yourself, I feel no pity for the cries of a weak man.

Top
#14617 - 11/17/08 09:03 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: ZephyrGirl]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

There will always be those that crave power and will do anything to get it. They will therefore be very susceptible to corruption.

Very true. In and of itself I don't think this is even a bad thing. People generally seek their own level based on ability and other factors, and that's just fine.

The problem is the incentive structure and the mechanisms that are already in place for the very few bad apples to wield power over the rest of us. If the system by which such people attain and retain power and legitimacy did not exist, such people would have to seek more legitimate means to power; which being susceptible to natural law would be harder.

Think about it. If the mechanism for government hadn't already existed, do you think a nut like Hitler would have been able to attain the means by which to instate his particular brand of crazy on such a large scale?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14631 - 11/18/08 05:33 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
Think about it. If the mechanism for government hadn't already existed, do you think a nut like Hitler would have been able to attain the means by which to instate his particular brand of crazy on such a large scale?


Of course he would have been able.

Think without governmental structures for a second. People all live together in whatever preference they like. Now many blue people cluster together -as nature makes them- and at one point a problem arises between the blue and the green, blue starts to perceive green as a danger. The idea spreads amongst the blue group that the problem is getting out of control and needs to be solved. The more blue starts to share this view amongst others, the bigger the problem becomes. At one point blue will solve the problem. Once they reach the critical point, there is no return possible.

Governmental structures are nothing but a tool in some cases, a system that some can take advantage upon to get where they want. In other cases, the structure prevents people from taking advantage of it. At times, it doesn't even matter if the structure is there or not to reach the goal.
If you'd look at Europe as an example, if we'd abandon governmental structures, would or would it not benefit para-military groups or extreme-right?

Throughout history, blue always conquered and dominated green because of their problematic nature and only an idea or memeplex, is enough to rupture whatever status quo and lead to whatever abomination you can imagine.

The pen is mightier than the sword if you translate pen into idea. Or memeplex as I prefer to call it nowadays.

D.

Top
#14634 - 11/18/08 09:00 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Diavolo]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
Simply put, nature abhors a vacuum. The interactions of physics are the same for people. If there is a void in power, or a void in command, SOMEONE or SOMETHING willl become the touchstone to fill that void. In the case of Germany, it was Hitler, but it could have been one of several other players in the political arenas.

The theme repeats itself at intervals throughout time. Some would say that here in the United States, we had the same thing happen with the end of the Clinton Presidency and the rise of the Bush (#2) Presidency. It's physics. The pendulum swings left to right. An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted upon by another force.

When a nation moves in one direction for a period of time, there comes a time when what I call "human physics" takes over. There will be a resistance in assuming that the current trends in government have gone too far and the pendulum's momentum will be slowed and sent in the opposite direction. Sometimes the resistance is greater than at others, but the pendulum of change always responds.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#14637 - 11/18/08 09:59 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Jake999]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree. Nature is a constant battle, there is darwinian selection at all levels and considering we are a part of nature, we are subject to the same mechanics, in our actions and in our thinking.

I'll paste a part from an article here, it's a long but nonetheless interesting read. I'll only paste a part, the rest I'll provide a link to.

 Quote:
...
The most direct control on the behavior of a biological system is the
knowledge stored in its genes. Genes will dictate particular actions in
particular circumstances, and preclude other actions. One way to solve the
problem of cooperation then would be to have a configuration of individuals
whose genes predispose them to cooperative moves. However, as long as the
genes of different individuals in a group can vary independently, we should
expect the evolution of deviant genes that predispose their carriers to
selfishness and defection, through genetic competition among the
cooperators (Campbell, 1983).

The cooperative configuration can only be salvaged if the genes for the
whole group are constrained to remain virtually identical, i.e. are kept
from diverging. In that case there is basically a single genetic control
directing the action of the different group members, and the fitness of
that control will be measured through the fitness of the group as a whole.
In such a group with a shared control, suboptimization is equal to global
optimization, since the good for an individual instance of the control is
identical to the good for the control on the collective. The selection of
the control will here be identical to selection at the level of the group.
Moreover, our earlier argument that global optimization is much less likely
to be achieved than suboptimization does not hold in this case, since the
constraint that keeps individual controls identical simultaneously reduces
the space of possible controls to the size for an individual control.

This "shared control" configuration is realized in the social insects:
bees, ants and termites (Campbell, 1983). The different members of an ant
colony are genetically very similar. Moreover, there is no independent
evolution of genes, since only the queen of the colony is capable of
reproducing her genes. This leads to a strongly cooperative system, since
the workers will have the best chances to further the retention and
replication of their (shared) genes by helping the colony as a whole to
achieve a maximal production of offspring by the queen. "Free rider" genes
would not survive as rebel workers are unable to reproduce.

In almost all other species of animals, however, the different members of
a group are able to independently reproduce their genes and thus keep open
the possibility for erosion of any cooperative arrangement. This includes
human populations. Yet human groups present some of the most extensive
cooperative systems, comparable only to the social insects. This can be
explained by assuming shared controls additional to the genetic one. Though
we will discuss different types of control mechanisms in a later section,
the most typically human mechanism can be found in culture: knowledge or
beliefs shared between individuals through communication. A belief, piece
of knowledge or pattern of behavior that is transmitted from one individual
to another one can be said to replicate. In analogy to genes, such cultural
replicators can be called "memes" (Dawkins, 1976; Heylighen, 1992a; Moritz,
this issue).

In order to get a shared control, in addition to replication of knowledge,
we need to find a constraining mechanism that keeps copies of a piece of
knowledge carried by different individuals virtually identical. This
mechanism can be found in what Boyd & Richerson (1985) have called
"conformist frequency-dependent non-linear (multiple-parenting)
transmission". ("conformist transmission" for short.) Unlike biological
reproduction, where genetic information is transmitted from one or two
parents to offspring, in cultural reproduction information can be
transmitted from several individuals ("parents") to the same individual
("multiple parenting"). In their mathematical model Boyd & Richerson find
that under certain (plausible) conditions it would be optimal for the
learners to adopt the majority or plurality beliefs, when several competing
beliefs are transmitted by different individuals. Thus, individuals would
tend to "conform" to the majority position of their elders and peers. In
relatively small groups this leads quickly to internal homogeneity on all
cultural traits.

The non-linear, positive feedback inherent in conformist transmission
implies that small differences in initial distribution of beliefs between
different groups will be intensified: if suffices that slightly more
individuals initially share a belief for that belief to come to dominate
all others. Thus, small variations between groups tend to be reinforced,
while variations within groups tend to be erased. The resulting
homogeneities within groups and sharp differences between groups provide
the possibility for cultural group selection: the group whose set of
beliefs is most beneficial will have a higher global fitness and tend to
replace groups with less adaptive beliefs. Beneficial beliefs in this
context mean beliefs that promote a synergetic or cooperative pattern of
interaction within the group.

This ingroup solidarity, however, tends to be associated with out-group
hostility, as ubiquitously noted in studies of ethnocentrism (LeVine &
Campbell, 1972). This follows from the fact that selection now takes place
on the group level, where relative fitness of one group with respect to the
others is the dominant criterion. When different groups use similar tools
and similar resources, this will produce a competitive configuration, and a
tendency to arms races, as argued earlier. In practice, ingroup solidarity
then becomes "clique selfishness": whatever the consequences for other
groups, the action that will be preferred is the one best for this group.
...


Selection of Organization at the Social Level

D.

Top
#14713 - 11/20/08 03:02 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Diavolo,

 Quote:

Of course he would have been able.

As your explanation as to why this might be true, ie the text following this statement, is essentially a string of non sequiturs and abstractions, I'll just skip it and go straight to why you are mistaken.
Let's look at the facts. Hitler gained power through a pre-existing avenue. Hitler used nationalism and patriotism to unify the people behind him. Take away these two factors and you are left with a physically and mentally unimpressive man. Do you honestly think he could have come to be the leader of the entire geographic area of 'germany' by his own brain and body alone?

I guess you think a simpleton like George W Bush would have come to be the leader of 300+ million or so people all on his own too? This to me seems very naive.

Of course there would still be leaders and followers. I don't know how many times I have said this already, but I am not arguing against human nature, I am arguing for it. You seem to think I am arguing for some sort of socialist paradise, or at least your reply's would indicate such, but nothing could be farther from the truth. I just don't think there is necessity for some overarching coercive parent figure in society.

I guess that makes me a political Atheist.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14714 - 11/20/08 03:24 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3153
 Quote:
Let's look at the facts. Hitler gained power through a pre-existing avenue. Hitler used nationalism and patriotism to unify the people behind him. Take away these two factors and you are left with a physically and mentally unimpressive man.

I wouldn't say that, if you take his nationalism and patriotism away Hitler still has the power of speech. In his time Hitler was one of the best speakers there was. It is an art to know what you are saying and to bind people with your words. Even so, if he hadn't had his nationalism, he still would be a political leader just because he could analyse and shape things with his words. The art of speech is pretty powerfull, never underestimate that part.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14715 - 11/20/08 03:45 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dimitri]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
And where do you think he would have gotten the stage to express his words if not for the political system? How good of a speaker he was helped him through the avenue he took, one that provided him with a stage to use that particular tool. If people were to choose and follow their own leaders, as would naturally follow in the absence of large scale coercive governance,speeches about nationalism and social unity of the sort hitler was famous for would have had very little effect. You are actually supporting my case \:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14716 - 11/20/08 04:23 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3153
Never spoke against your case.
Only mentioning that even he hadn't nationalism or patriotism he wasn't a physically and mental unimpressive man. He still would be impressive, only far less known because some actions didn't happen then.
Also, Hitler fought with the germans during WW1. He was a soldier, so I don't believe he was physically pretty weak. Maybe a short person but not weak.


Edited by Dimitri (11/20/08 04:33 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#14718 - 11/20/08 11:31 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dimitri]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1753
Loc: New York
 Quote:
Also, Hitler fought with the germans during WW1. He was a soldier, so I don't believe he was physically pretty weak. Maybe a short person but not weak.


Right. From what I have read about him, not only was he a soldier, but he was a war hero. Turns out, he had balls of steel back during WWI.

However, since he was eventually defeated, and it is the victors who write history, he is made out to be a pathetic little weakling, who only rose to power on the backs of other stronger people.

Although it is almost undoubtedly true, that he was eventually guilty of very serious war crimes (in my opinion that is), the extent of what really happened, might be worth while to question. The main reason being, is that in most countries, it is illegal to question them, and to make a contradictory claim against the actual numbers of people that Hitler was responsible of killing.

I believe that once something becomes illegal to even question, then it MUST be questioned, because it is likely that some people fear the discovery of something.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#14721 - 11/20/08 11:59 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
If you'd read the whole article, you'd notice that it explains pretty good how and why governement rises in societies and what the consequences and results are of human cooperation. It of course starts in nature and moves on from there.

Anyways, Hitler volunteered to fight in WW1 at the german side - being an Austrian- and was rewarded a couple of medals, including the iron cross. After the treaty of Versailles he started to work at his own plans.
He first tried to gain control out of the political structure with his famous Beer Hall Putsch but it failed and he did time for it. He wrote a fairly big book there, well known by most, if not only in title.
After that, he used politics as a tool and we know what the result was. He wasn't a puppet on a string in any of it.
No matter if you like or dislike the guy, he sure went where not many go.
Add to that his artistic side, and although many use the failed artist as mantra, I'd like to see them reproduce what the guy did.

So if he was a unimpressive man, what are we then? I guess Napoleon was fairly unimpressive too.

D.

Top
#14724 - 11/20/08 12:23 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3935
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, I had no idea Hitler had such a fanbase here. If you don't like the hitler example, lets focus instead on george w bush.

Who among you thinks he could have attained the power he did without the prepaved avenues of election and democracy before him?

What I'm saying here is the system provides an avenue that caters to people with skill sets focused on deception and pandering rather than actual strength or leadership ability. Coercive governance gives us masters, not leaders.

It still boggles my mind every time anyone wearing the mantle of Satanist preaches the goodness of slavery.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14725 - 11/20/08 12:43 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Asmedious Moderator Offline
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1753
Loc: New York
I just read the whole thread all the way through. Interesting ideas.

Hereís my view, because I just know that everyone has been sitting on the edge of their seats, in front of their computers, eagerly awaiting it. ;\)

Inside of me, I FEEL like an anarchist. This is basically do to the fact, that on a personal level, most of my interactions with the government, its rules, and itís agencies, have been negative, and financially costly; while the positive aspects of the government, often times appear to be so natural that they seem as if they just exist as rights to certain services.

These PERCEIVED rights, include the ability to leave my shelter (home), and knowing that I am safe to do so, and that if an individual or a group of people decide to, in some way, to hinder that right, by attacking me for some reason, I will be protected by law enforcement (in most cases).

When I drive down a the road, attempting to get to a certain destination, it is very rare for me to think about (but yes, I have thought about it), how the roads which I am driving on, come to be there. I simply expect that there will be roads to get to where I am going. Again, this is done through the government and its agencies.

There are many more examples I could give, but I believe most of you get my point about what I consider to be the positive aspects of government.

The problems start, when a government becomes the master of the people, instead of the people being the master of their government.

Most governments, even when one talks about a Monarchy, are originally formed for the reason of having a central head for the will of the people or the clan.
In order to get most of a group organized, and to allow for a certain amount of cooperation, which is necessary for a group to be productive and safe, the government is allowed a certain amount of power over the general populace. This power is GRANTED unto the government, by the people that it is supposed to support and protect.

The nature of power however, is that it requires more power. Often times, this requirement for increased power is not due to greed, and the desire to keep others down, but is granted by the population.

People want more protection, benefits, and guarantees from the leadership, so more power is freely given to the government, by those who require its services.

Eventually though, the people in government, get a taste for power, and start to believe that they are powerful themselves. This feeling and belief in their power, becomes a self fulfilling prophecy of sorts, because in the disguise of wanting to serve the people more, they seek more control for the government, which they feel gives them even more success, perks, and control.
The people who were given this power and control start to believe that they are rulers and are entitled to special considerations, eventually getting to the point, where they feel that the rules which they create for the population, do not apply to them.

At this point, more often then not, the populace is still convinced that the people that THEY have put in control, still have their best interest in mind. It is likely, that it may actually be so at this point in some cases. After all, there are some decent politicians out there, who do have the best interest of the population in mind. At least I hope that they are, and I am not being simply naive.

However, by the time, when the population starts to realize that the ones they have elected to serve them are instead ruling them, the government has too many laws and rules set in place, to ensure that they are able to maintain their power over the people.

Eventually, the people have less and less of a voice, and they become in a sense servants to the government, instead of the other way around; as can be clearly seen in the United States.

Slowly, and inconspicuously, power hungry individuals, and institutions infiltrate the government, and start using the governments power in support of their own agendas. Such as banking, and lawyers.
They use the power of the government to make their institutions stronger and more powerful, while making the government stronger and more powerful at the same time, since the government now works for them. The situation of control and power, at this point, takes on a snowball affect, where more power and jurisdiction over the people is desired and gained. (Conspiracy theory anyone?)

In the old days, when things go too far, revolutions would be started, to over throw the government, which at this point has become the enemy of its own people. Often times, these revolutions would be unsuccessful, while in a few cases they would change history, such as in the American Revolution.
However, as history tends to repeat itself, the victorious revolutionaries would need to be organized and would form a new government, and the cycle would start all over again.

This cycle has been likely going on, on smaller scale since man has started to work together to achieve a common goal.

Yet, we are now at a place, where a physical revolution, with rocks, sticks, pitchforks, and guns are very unlikely to be successful, due to modern technology, and the weapons available to governments world wide. These weapons donít only include the basic ones, but also things such as psychology, propaganda, and information technology.

The snow ball affect of power and control is now unchecked, and there is no realistic way of stopping it, aside from legal means through elections and the like. However, the government and the people in power are aware of this possible achilles heel, and it is certain that there are controls in place, that will keep the populace from making significant changes.

However, one thing in nature is certain (as another poster pointed out earlier) and that is change. Eventually, change will happen, even if it is after a catastrophic natural event, which levels the playing field out again, albeit only temporarily, before the cycle starts a new.
_________________________
"The first order of government is the protection of its citizens right to be left alone."

Top
#14727 - 11/20/08 01:40 PM A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
The Hitler fanbase and slavery comments smell like you're getting a bit emotional Dan. You surely don't expect us to fall on our knees and embrace the gospel you present simply because you think it rocks? Hey, my gospel rocks too.

That you think the universality principle and anarchy is a good thing, cool. Under certain conditions I also think it is a good thing. But the point I'm making is that under certain conditions is like when hell freezes over or when we all hold hands and wish it true.
I'm sorry but I'm the type that says, oh yeah that might be fantastic....but what if...? Not until there is an answer provided for all those what if's, fantastic is a serious option.

Now we moved to Bush. I don't think he'll ever win the Nobelprize for rocket science but I sure as hell don't think he's some drooling moron as some media presents him to be. I've seen a lot of drooling morons and most wear funny hats and need a lot of tissue but none of them ever had presidential ambitions or got there.

Would Bush be able to become leader of the USA when there wasn't the apparatus he used? Not likely no but does it really matter? What I say is that if Bush isn't going for it, Jimmy or Sue or Jack will attempt. It's normal human behavior, even when it might be abnormal according to the behavior of the majorty. None benefits more from a principle or rule as those able to use and abuse it. One out of some many humans is a defector.

D.

Top
#14730 - 11/20/08 02:47 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3153
 Quote:
Who among you thinks he could have attained the power he did without the prepaved avenues of election and democracy before him?

Like Diavolo pointed out this is a question "what if...".
The answer to your question is multi-sided. It has many answers but to have the right one you should go back in time and know Hitler personally. it is an open question so to say. it can be used to talk guilt or another emotion into people. Doesn't work here..

 Quote:
It still boggles my mind every time anyone wearing the mantle of Satanist preaches the goodness of slavery.

Slavery can be good. This is if you tread your slaves well.
By the way slavery is still here within the 21th century. They only transformed "slave" into "employer".

As for asmedious.
You certainly have a point there. Only problem is, it isn't a government anymore who is in control. The big industrial managers are the real leaders of the world. When in the US there is an election the candidates needs lots of money for their campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if some big industrial factories are involved to sponser the candidates and to let their ideas be promoted trough these people. There, the elected president is nothing more then a puppet. This unless the president itself has some sort of influence in all of this. (Didn't the Bush-family had a weapon factory?... Makes you think about the war in Iraq etc..)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
Page 2 of 4 <1234>


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

Generated in 0.023 seconds of which 0.001 seconds were spent on 28 queries. Zlib compression disabled.