#13563 - 10/28/08 08:48 AM
Universality principle/Why government sucks.
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
Previously I described the universality principle, which basically states 'If it isn't ok for me, it isn't ok for you'. This is not an absolute rule, but rather a set of constants consistent with human empathy and behavior ethics.
Most would agree they would not like to see a murder, robbery, or rape take place in their neighborhood. Such an event strikes directly at our sense of security and safety, which if Maslow is to be believed is right below breathing and eating on the scale of human needs.
Along these lines, it would also be wrong to kidnap someone. Nobody wants their freedom taken from them, not I, not you, not anyone. (this of course excludes the 'willing captive', but since it is willing captivity it isn't really captivity!) If it is wrong for someone to kidnap me, the same thing that makes it 'wrong' in my mind makes it wrong for me to turn around and abduct another against their will. This is common ground not only for the human animal, but pretty much all animals. Try to corner a raccoon and see what happens!
This has been the state of human society for a very long time. Even christianity absorbed this principle to convert into their 'golden rule' (which even the good old Doktor advocated to the point of being 'crossed'), but like most christian ideas they kept the bare bones and left out the meat, the rational, behind it.
So assuming you are buying any of this, lets move on to my main point. If it is wrong for me to go to your house and take you at gun point, why is it ok for a small group of elitists to do it? If it is wrong for me to shoot and kill those that speak or act against my interests, why is it ok for a select few? I guess what I'm asking is, why do we take a seemingly universal principle of ethics and pretty much throw it out with regards to only one small group of people? How did this exception obtain the air of legitimacy? I, as you have undoubtedly have figured out by now, am talking about agents of 'government'; ie that small group of people that claims dominion over you, me, and all the land we inhabit.
With this said, and for the reasons stated, I feel that no government can be legitimate, ethical, or moral unless it does not operate by coercion. This unfortunately excludes every last one of them and is one of the more prominent reasons I am an Agorist/Anarchist.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#13862 - 11/04/08 04:26 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
ceruleansteel
active member
Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
|
Let me ask you this: if there is no "small group of elitists", then who's job is it to collect the people who go against what it seems you agree to be cardinal rules of human society?
I will agree that the government has gotten way too busy-body, but I find it ridiculous to say that we have no need of a modicum of policing. We're not talking about sparse populations of family groups foraging for food, here. We're talking about a nation of millions of people living one atop another, and while I do consider myself to have bigger balls than a lot of men I know, I really don't want to spend my days defending my home and family from the criminal element, some of which is held in check only by the understanding that there are clear cut punishments for things they may want to do.
Not to mention the fact that if you were to commit a crime against my family and your anarchist utopia were reality, I can assure you that you would still be dragged from your home by gunpoint.
I would like to have a better car. If I find a single person with no family and I kill them and take their car, who punishes me for that? Do I get away with it if no one cares enough about that person to take up for them, or if they are afraid of me? Seriously, what in the hell are you saying here?
And trying to compare humans to animals is ridiculous as well. Yes, a cornered animal will attack, but I have yet to meet an animal that is going to murder another animals Grandma, dissect her into 84 pieces, and piss in her eye sockets before snatching her pension check and setting her house on fire.
Edited by ceruleansteel (11/04/08 04:28 PM) Edit Reason: animal comparison
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#13941 - 11/05/08 08:12 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: ceruleansteel]
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
Let me ask you this: if there is no "small group of elitists", then who's job is it to collect the people who go against what it seems you agree to be cardinal rules of human society?
Collect the people? I've read this three times and I can't make heads or tails of this question. I will say though I have no problem with elitists. I DO have a problem with ANYONE, be they elitists or not, being able to, under the guise of legitimacy, violate my basic rights to life and property. It isn't that I think my 'rights' are immutable, I just think that were I to strike back against these violators in kind I would be equally legitimate in doing so.
I find it ridiculous to say that we have no need of a modicum of policing.
Do you think a monopoly of force is the only workable way of distributing 'protection'? (what you really mean by policing) Things as a rule generally work better in a market situation. People are always going to desire safety, and so long as that desire exists so too will the market provide.
I would like to have a better car. If I find a single person with no family and I kill them and take their car, who punishes me for that? Do I get away with it if no one cares enough about that person to take up for them, or if they are afraid of me? Seriously, what in the hell are you saying here?
I would imagine some sort of contract driven dispute resolution organizations would arise to fill that niche. There have been elaborate theories created on the subject of stateless justice. Read here for a short primer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization
And trying to compare humans to animals is ridiculous as well.
Humans are quite obviously animals. We are certainly not vegetables or minerals. My comparison was quite valid because the example I used (the desire for freedom) is a universal among almost all mammals. Your statement about humans being percievedly more vicious at times is really not related to my point in any way. Even if it was, when is the last time you saw a man eat his baby alive shortly after it is born? I would say this is equally 'brutal' as your given scenario and is commonplace within the animal kingdom.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#13976 - 11/06/08 12:32 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: ceruleansteel]
|
Dimitri
stalker
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3385
|
Let me ask you this: if there is no "small group of elitists", then who's job is it to collect the people who go against what it seems you agree to be cardinal rules of human society? Hmm, if you are expecting a simple answer I'm afraid I can't give you one. First of all there is no such thing as an "elite" person/group. It is some way you perceive things. Go to an elite group or an elitist, he will have the same opinions hobby's and toughts as any other person. The only thing that differs is the fact he is more "skilled" in a certain field in comparisation with other people. The person or group itself may lable himself as "normal" while others call him "la creme de la creme".
And trying to compare humans to animals is ridiculous as well. Yes, a cornered animal will attack, but I have yet to meet an animal that is going to murder another animals Grandma, dissect her into 84 pieces, and piss in her eye sockets before snatching her pension check and setting her house on fire. Give me an example where we humans differ from animals. As far as I am concerned humans and animals are all the same. The only thing is that we have more intelligence to use against each other. But then again, we all are fueled by prime instincts.
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14459 - 11/15/08 11:01 AM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Venux]
|
Dimitri
stalker
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3385
|
Hmmm, interesting thing you happen to write down here. So you are claiming we don't need rules and that every rule "sucks"? Let me put it this way; if there were no rules you'd probably hadn't a good life right now. You see, freedom is something nice to dream about and to say when you are in a war. Nothing is nicer to say you are fighting for freedom. Only problem is, what is freedom? Haven't you already achieved it in your own mind? For thus far the philosophical approach.
You're liying if you don't hate the rule. Lying about what? "The rule" is quite vague. It can mean anything, you should be more detailed about that part. I can make up I must hate the rule that says to me I have the right to work and study. I don't hate it, I love that rule, it makes me able to earn some money, get smarter let humanity evolve, etc. Pretty good in my opinion..
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14467 - 11/15/08 12:49 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Venux]
|
Dimitri
stalker
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3385
|
So, if I give you a rule that you must study twenty hour per day with the reason to make you the genius person, do you love my rule? C'mon you hate it right? Really, studying something doesn't maky my mind change it to hate. And if it makes me a genius I'd happily agree with it and study it maybe even longer then 20hours a day. This to be sure I get the full perspective of it.
Rules are everywhere you know, you can't break free from all rules. If you think you have it is just a mere illusion. If you take a point of total perspective; you'll notice you will need rules to keep yourself in order. Just like the law of nature: "eat or be eaten". It is something you just have to obey and can't break out of it. I'm not saying all rules are positive, to be honest; there are some who bore the crap out of me, but without them we wouldn't have established our society nowadays. Altough I'm not very keen on today's politics. To much gibbering and brainless toughts and too less straight-forward action.
Maybe a slight hint, spellchecker could be usefull. It is "humans" or "human" not "humand". Slight chance you have another language then English?
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14473 - 11/15/08 01:30 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Dimitri]
|
Jake999
senior member
Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
|
Rules come even when you least expect them. To Venux's mind, a rule is a terrible thing... so he makes a rule that if there is a rule it must be disobeyed or hated.
Rules are sometimes naturally occuring features of existence, as Dimitri points out. EAT OR BE EATEN is a rule that if ignored, leads to starvation at best and being the victim of predation at worst. You can't avoid it.
It's also a "rule" that people must either learn or they don't thrive. They may LIVE, and they may FUNCTION, but they don't do very well amongst a world of creatures who learn and adapt and use their knowledge to their benefit. True, ignorant people can make a living in the world, and we need ignorant people as grease for the gears of economy and servitude, but they stratify themselves in maintaining their ignorance, wondering why others and not themselves "make the rules."
There are some people who are happy to live the life of ignorant bliss, and that's fine. No one should drag someone up to be better than they wish to be. But the majority of thinking individuals always look for that "better something" that they must strive to reach. And they recognize and honor the rules that can get them there, even though they might not always agree with them.
Rules are what you make of them.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14475 - 11/15/08 01:50 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Venux]
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
________________________________________________________________ Quote: It is "humans" or "human" not "humand ________________________________________________________________ I guess human is right, isn't it? ________________________________________________________________ Quote: Slight chance you have another language then English? ________________________________________________________________ Honestly you're right, I have another language
One think that you should know, I have the same opinion with you, "If i ever meet god, he will disappear in a puf of logic" Would you kindly quit shitting all over my thread with your pigeon English streams of consciousness?
If you have something to contribute, cool. Do you even understand what the topic is about?
It doesn't seem like it.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14617 - 11/17/08 09:03 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: ZephyrGirl]
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
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?
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14631 - 11/18/08 05:33 AM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Diavolo
RIP
stalker
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
|
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
|
|
|
|
#14637 - 11/18/08 09:59 AM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Jake999]
|
Diavolo
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.
... 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
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
Diavolo,
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.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14714 - 11/20/08 03:24 AM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Dimitri
stalker
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3385
|
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
|
|
|
|
#14718 - 11/20/08 11:31 AM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Dimitri]
|
Asmedious
Moderator
senior member
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1823
Loc: New York
|
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
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
|
|
|
|
#14725 - 11/20/08 12:43 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Asmedious
Moderator
senior member
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1823
Loc: New York
|
I just read the whole thread all the way through. Interesting ideas.
Here’s 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 it’s 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 don’t 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
|
|
|
|
#14730 - 11/20/08 02:47 PM
Re: A
[Re: Diavolo]
|
Dimitri
stalker
Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3385
|
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..
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
|
|
|
|
#14731 - 11/20/08 02:54 PM
Re: A
[Re: Diavolo]
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
Asmedious,
It is good to see someone understands what I am on about. I was beginning to wonder if anyone was actually listening.
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).
Law enforcement, as it is now, has no real incentive to be efficient. If there were other agencies willing able and ready to snatch those 'policing' contracts should the current policing agency not live up to its obligations, good service would become a priority.
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.
Roads are governments universal solution to transportation, yes. So we have roads. Roads could also exist in a free market. But who is to say roads are even the best solution to transportation?
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 functions of government are only the functions of government because the government will not allow competition to exist. A free market will always outperform an enforced monopoly.
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.
Yes, human nature in action. The system is tailored for people to further their own ends only, and to perpetuate itself. It is a cancer, much like organized religion; Only religion has no real power, and is a much lesser evil.
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.
There are theories. I don't think the situation is so dire as to just give up and develop an acute case of Stockholm syndrome as seems to be a popular solution. I think through education, agorism and disengagement a state can actually be starved to death. There is much writing on this subject.
Diavolo,
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.
Oh, absolutely not. I used hitler as a random example. When people started to jump to his defense on a personal level I thought the example should be dropped, as it was becoming counterproductive to it's intended purpose. The comment on slavery was just an honest observation of the situation as I see it. Why you would read emotion into that is beyond me. I could just as easily read emotion into your defense of hitler at a time when neither the example nor the discussion required it.
And although part of the reason I post this (the other being my own enjoyment) is to educate people, I do not expect anyone to swallow anything without thoroughly scrutinizing it first, especially not here on this forum. I'd be disappointed at anything less. But with this said I will always prefer an intellectually honest response over a volley from a deeply entrenched and unassailable position.
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.
Well, no. If the current power structure didn't exist Jimmy or Sue wouldn't have the means to attain power over 300 million people. Nobody would. Not even Jack.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14737 - 11/20/08 04:37 PM
Re: A
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Diavolo
RIP
stalker
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
|
I said the argument was borderlining inferiority Dan -not you- and completely opposing the very basics of Satanism. You seem to give so much credit to the system that a man without it, is a rather inferior creature not capable of grand acts.
Of course, none would be able to dominate the USA in 30 days but such an argument is too simplistic. The question is; is man capable of dominating his world when there are no structures for him to thrive upon?
Yes, history shows it again and again and again. Remove authority or government and you create a vacuum that someone will fill. He'll create structures, authority for one simple reason: because he can.
That's what it's all about; the will to power.
Maybe we should switch positions for a moment to make you understand my approach.
I will state that communism (as theoretically intended) is a great thing and that if everything was communistic, we'd prosper. We'd not be slaves to a government, and not to capitalism.
On what reasons would you disagree with that?
D.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14741 - 11/20/08 05:15 PM
Re: A
[Re: Diavolo]
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
I said the argument was borderlining inferiority Dan -not you- and completely opposing the very basics of Satanism. It still makes no sense grammatically. And I still don't think you are comprehending what I am arguing for. How is stating that no one person has the means to control 300 million people 'opposing the very basics of Satanism'? That makes absolutely no sense.
Just out of curiosity, what is your native language? There is certainly a language barrier here. Because for you to reply with something like this:
You seem to give so much credit to the system that a man without it, is a rather inferior creature not capable of grand acts.
..Shows you aren't really grasping what I am saying, and yet again are reading your own meanings into my words. I have never once argued against power structures or human potential.
Yes, history shows it again and again and again. Remove authority or government and you create a vacuum that someone will fill. He'll create structures, authority for one simple reason: because he can.
Yes, and this actually re-enforces my point. In a system such as we live in, where the balance of power it tipped massively in the favor of the very few over the very many it is very easy for people with corrupt aims to grab power. To make it even easier still the masses have been convinced this is all quite legitimate. In a society that has NOT been intellectually and physically declawed, as ours has, it would be much harder to attain power. THAT is the type of scenario an ubermensch could arise from. The types of leaders and leadership we get from government serves nobody aside from those in government.
That's what's its all about; the will to power.
Let's not forget about the balance factor. That little bit of reality that keeps us all from taking over the universe. It's great to have grandiose dreams of megalomania, but lets not completely leave reality behind.
I will state that communism (as theoretically intended) is a great thing and that if everything was communistic, we'd prosper. We'd not be slaves to a government, and not to capitalism.
Communism is just another form of top down coercive statism, even in it's marxist 'workers paradise' truest form. I fail to see how this example could be relevant. If you are talking about a bunch of people that agree, willingly, to live in a state of communism then I'd be all for it(just count me out). In fact, in a stateless society I could imagine pockets of everything from hard core military type rule to communism to lawlessness. If all property is private, the land owners would be free to govern their own land as they see fit.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14746 - 11/20/08 05:35 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Woland]
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
Your argument, dear Dan, is filled with short cuts and assumptions.
Do feel free to point them out, I'd be happy to discuss that.
Might I ask what you, from an whatever/Anarchist point of understanding, reason when it comes to; Monarchy?
I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14757 - 11/20/08 06:00 PM
Re: A
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Diavolo
RIP
stalker
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
|
Have you truly read the post I linked Dan? Did you check out game mechanics, cooperation in nature, memetics?
These aren't fuzzy theories any longer, it's science and it all perfectly demonstrates the objections I make. Evidence is on my side, sorry. It all says it can't be more than a transitional phase.
Either way, we can agree to disagree but I'm still convinced I'm more right. 
D.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14759 - 11/20/08 06:07 PM
Re: A
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Woland
Seasoned
active member
Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 766
Loc: Oslo, Norway
|
I can't make heads or tails of what this is supposed to mean.
The cause of that would probably be your lack of fluency in what we ignorant & outlandish personalities tend to call "Free English", or maybe "New Speak"?
I will spell it out for you:
From your "Agorist/Anarchist" point of view: Any deep thoughts about Monarchy as government? Pet idea of mine you see. Please; throw me with your acumen?
_________________________
Regards
Woland
Contra Mundum!
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14765 - 11/20/08 06:41 PM
Re: A
[Re: Woland]
|
Dan_Dread
stalker
Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 4017
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
|
From your "Agorist/Anarchist" point of view: Any deep thoughts about Monarchy as government? Pet idea of mine you see. Please; throw me with your acumen?
Well, I would put it ahead of democracy anyway. One man is pretty much always smarter than a mob.
_________________________
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#14785 - 11/21/08 11:37 AM
Re: A
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
Diavolo
RIP
stalker
Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
|
Oh I wrote game mechanics, that should have been game theory yeah, my fault.
Anyways, if you know game theory, you pretty much know that defectors are a reality in cooperation, and thus a reality in each status quo. Memetics also explains that a memeplex doesn't necessarily have the best interest of the infected in mind and that whatever idea might spread like crazy.
I don't think you can disagree with me saying that every status quo is conditional. In everything, so politics are not excluded. Communism can work if the conditions are right. Mess around with some aspects and communism fails, as we witnessed in reality. It's the same thing with anarchism; it is conditional. I don't really think that is arguable. And that's my point.
I'm not proving states are a necessity, I state that states are a result of societal evolution. Again, nothing to argue upon I think, the fact that they are there is the evidence supporting.
All I am saying is that anarchism is conditional and that it won't work in a non-conditional setup.
So no non sequitur I think, and you should really drop the forced Latin.
D.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
#80578 - 09/26/13 11:32 PM
Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks.
[Re: Dan_Dread]
|
SIN3
stalker
Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 7190
Loc: Virginia
|
If it is wrong for me to go to your house and take you at gun point, why is it ok for a small group of elitists to do it?
The acceptance of this hypocrisy is for the needs of the many vs. the needs of the one.
Even in tribal environments there's a Government. Individual Recognition Society vs. Anonymous Society. The head of the tribe decides what is best for the survival of the whole. An Anarchist mindset would set you an outsider. Happens all the time, even in the closest tight-nit groups. The minute a single individual no longer recognizes the members as having the same interests and/or identity, they're out.
A lot of the time, when people talk about real freedom and real Anarchy what they really mean is Anarcho-Communism. All the benefits of a community effort but for the individual's liberties. In a free-market of Anarchy, any person with a notion to pave a road could start building one, even if it cuts off other roads, or paves one right up to your driveway. Who would stop them? Sure, you could stand in their way but you can't be everywhere at once. Someone else is paving a road across town and they don't give a rat's ass if it cuts you off from where you need to go.
Universality in terms of Rights, is a conundrum. What are Rights anyway but a bunch of privileges you're allowed to have? Property for instance, you don't have Rights to property. Considering the definition of belongings, whom does your life belong to at birth? You or your parents? You are born into this world naked and helpless, co-dependent on care-givers or else perish. Do I own my eggs? Don't they belong to me? Can't I just kill the fruit of my womb if it came from my person? They're a component of me and certainly an attribute of my personhood and yet, the Universality of how they are regarded is as if they are privileged to me like a borrowed basket. By what Authority is the Right to life granted?
Do other species have Rights or do we humans grant them Rights? A study of Behavioral Ecology will show that we apply human concepts to other species. Take insects for instance (ants specifically), we dish out labels and identity pins to them, they too have societies both Anonymous and Individual Recognition! Instead of using Ethnicity, Culture or Locale ants use Hydrocarbons to identify members of their little societies. They kill off the outsiders and maintain their little piece of property, well until some chimpanzee comes along with a twizzle stick digging around in the anthill to have himself a snack.
Will the Ant-police arrest him and put him on trial for murder?
Even if our current societies were completely deconstructed the pattern would just repeat in smaller factions. Governments in the smaller tribes can go off in a direction that doesn't have squat to do with basic survival (Ethics/Morality). Most of the time the governing is for the government's sake.
that small group of people that claims dominion over you, me, and all the land we inhabit.
Inhabit sure, the evolution of our current stasis came from years of trial and error. Just like the White Europeans chased the Natives off the land, we too can be chased off the land, well unless of course the Government grants you Rights to property.
|
Top
|
|
|
|
Moderator: Woland, TV is God, fakepropht, SkaffenAmtiskaw, Asmedious, Fist
|
|