Page all of 4 1234>
Topic Options
#13563 - 10/28/08 08:48 AM Universality principle/Why government sucks.
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
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.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13862 - 11/04/08 04:26 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
ceruleansteel Offline
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 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

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.
 Quote:

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.
 Quote:

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

 Quote:

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.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#13976 - 11/06/08 12:32 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: ceruleansteel]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
 Originally Posted By: ceruleansteel
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".



 Quote:
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
#13977 - 11/06/08 12:33 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
Touche, Dan. I enjoyed the ass whipping you just gave me.

By "collect", I meant physically rounding up the "bad guys".

I apologize for not being clearer on my human-animal thing. When I said it, I was thinking about a human's ability to consciously commit crimes. If an animal eats it's young, there is a reason behind it whether it be overcrowding, the baby is not viable, or whatever. I know that humans are animals. I admit, I fucked that one up a bit...

I'm going to check out your link, because I'm clueless as to how a "contract driven dispute resolution organization" would handle the Grandma scenario.

Top
#13978 - 11/06/08 12:39 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dimitri]
ceruleansteel Offline
active member


Registered: 10/15/07
Posts: 784
Loc: Behind you
 Originally Posted By: Dimitri

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".


The wording that I chose was used solely to relate my comment back to the original poster in his own words. I do not personally consider police and such to be elite.

Top
#14456 - 11/15/08 10:37 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: ceruleansteel]
Venux Offline
Banned-Troll/Idiot
stranger


Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 11
Rule is suck!!
Who need the rule!!
Break the rule. Find your freedom. Live your life!!
Just break to free!!
You're liying if you don't hate the rule.
Life comes with
no guarantees, no time outs, no second chances.You can
never get back.
This is your own life. Life is yours. don't let anybody disturb your way!!
so, just do what you want, do as you will.


Edited by Venux (11/15/08 10:41 AM)

Top
#14459 - 11/15/08 11:01 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Venux]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
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.

 Quote:
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
#14464 - 11/15/08 12:08 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dimitri]
Venux Offline
Banned-Troll/Idiot
stranger


Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 11
First I want to say hi 'cause we meet and meet again in two topics
________________________________________________________________
Posted by: Dimitri
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
________________________________________________________________

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?
This rule will make you boring and do insane thing like I told you before.
Do you know why? 'cause the reality humand don't want to be ruled, human just want to break free, and cannot change this natural appetite.


Edited by Venux (11/15/08 12:11 PM)

Top
#14467 - 11/15/08 12:49 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Venux]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3115
 Quote:
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 Offline
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
#14474 - 11/15/08 01:38 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dimitri]
Venux Offline
Banned-Troll/Idiot
stranger


Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 11
________________________________________________________________
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"

Top
#14475 - 11/15/08 01:50 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Venux]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Originally Posted By: Venux
________________________________________________________________
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.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14476 - 11/15/08 02:12 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Venux Offline
Banned-Troll/Idiot
stranger


Registered: 11/13/08
Posts: 11
________________________________________________________________
Quote:
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.
________________________________________________________________

Fine, and thankyou for your kind word

Top
#14572 - 11/17/08 04:16 AM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Venux]
ZephyrGirl Offline
R.I.P.
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 706
Loc: Adelaide Australia
I think I agree with what you are saying Dan. What gives the government the right to have secret squirrels out there 'taking out' people they have decided are a threat to 'society' (although more likely they are a threat to 'government' first if not foremost.

I don't think that many people here would think they do have that right. I would think that there are many on this forum that don't agree with secret agendas or agencies.

Secrets lead to corruption. How do you think your perfect society (not having a go, just using it as a term of reference) would deal with corruption? Would it be ok, because those that can afford to buy their way will? Because it would be inevitable that it would happen? Wouldn't it? And who would be there to make sure that it didn't happen. There will always be those that crave power and will do anything to get it. They will therefore be very susceptible to corruption.

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


Top
#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: 3810
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: 3810
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: 3115
 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: 3810
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: 3115
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]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Online
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1724
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: 3810
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]
Happy Birthday Asmedious Moderator Online
Moderator
senior member


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 1724
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: 3115
 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
#14731 - 11/20/08 02:54 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
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.

 Quote:

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.
 Quote:

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?
 Quote:


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.
 Quote:

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.
 Quote:

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,
 Quote:

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.

 Quote:

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.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14733 - 11/20/08 03:28 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Quote:
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.


This might sound weird Dan but what you say there is borderlining inferiority.

Bow down before me, for I am the highest embodiment of Human Life.
I refuse to not see humans as having the potential to utterly dominate their world or transcend into an Nietzschian ‹bermensch.

D.

Top
#14735 - 11/20/08 03:52 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Weren't you the one berating me for not being realistic a few post ago?

I'm not sure exactly what you are trying to say when you say 'borderlining inferiority' as grammatically it makes no sense.

If you are trying to accuse me of having an inferiority complex, well that is too ridiculous to even lend a reply to, much less give one.

But I can at least sense a general tone of disapproval in your oddly chosen words. SO, why don't you humour me and describe a mechanism other than statism where one person could gain the kind of over-arching power as presented to an american president?
Without inventing something that doesn't yet exist, you will find this very difficult.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14737 - 11/20/08 04:37 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
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 Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

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:
 Quote:

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.

 Quote:

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.
 Quote:

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.

 Quote:

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.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14742 - 11/20/08 05:22 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
Oh; this is kinda comical...

The first rule of Anarchism is; you dont talk about Anarchism...

It is not a political system; it is a philosophy.
A guiding star in the desert...
The epiphany which becometh mankind in the late hours of starvation and contemplation, doing the one legged stand, on a suitable pillar in the wastelands.
(Feel free to comment my grammar.)

Your argument, dear Dan, is filled with short cuts and assumptions.
Not very impressive...

Might I ask what you, from an whatever/Anarchist point of understanding, reason when it comes to;
Monarchy?
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#14746 - 11/20/08 05:35 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Woland]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
 Quote:

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.

 Quote:

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.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14747 - 11/20/08 05:42 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
My native language is some barbaric mixture which is even harder to explain than to pronounce. Besides that, I do speak German, English, Dutch and somewhat French. Not that I need to explain myself but I prefered to amuse us both.

 Quote:
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.


Seriously Dan, you don't see the problems in this? You just wanna shake the box and watch the pieces of the puzzle connect again and call that transitional stage between the shaking and formation your anarchistic ideal?

That's not political Atheism Dan, it's politheism.

D.

Top
#14752 - 11/20/08 05:51 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well, no. I think you have it completely backwards. Anarchism is to statism as Atheism is to religion. The statist makes the positive claim that the state is necessary. The religionist makes this argument for 'god'.

The Atheist and anarchist do not hold that sort of faith by default.

I used to also believe, as you do, anarchism could only ever be a transitional blip. That government was a 'necessary evil'. That is, before I got educated and learned different.

Have you ever really looked at Austrian economics?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14754 - 11/20/08 05:55 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Bacchae Offline
Satan's White Trash Neighbor
member


Registered: 05/13/08
Posts: 438
Loc: los angeles
besides doom-laden pending zombie apocalypse movies, my favorite movies and books are post-apocalyptic. i even loved waterworld and the postman.
so i am all for a stateless society, because thats exactly what would happen. dudes like me with mohawks, human ear necklaces, assless leather chaps, and crossbows. bring it on.

Top
#14757 - 11/20/08 06:00 PM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
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 Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 763
Loc: Oslo, Norway
 Originally Posted By: Dan_Dread

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
#14764 - 11/20/08 06:33 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I am unsure which post you linked, or even really what you mean by that. I don't see any links to other sites in your recent posts if that's what you mean. If you are asking if I have been reading your posts thoroughly, I would have to say yes I have.

I have no idea what you mean by 'game mechanics', nor have I seen this term mentioned in our discussion thus far. Are you talking about game theory? If so I'd be interested to hear how that relates to our current discussion.

As for cooperation in nature, I assume you mean that animals usually cooperate with their own species in order to survive? As this is pretty much the cornerstone of my argument (that we don't need to be artificially coerced to function as a society) I am left wondering how this works against anything I have said.

I am also quite familiar with memetics, and am again left wondering how you think its very existence somehow proves the necessity of a state. Seems like a giant non sequitur to me.

What are you talking about?
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14765 - 11/20/08 06:41 PM Re: A [Re: Woland]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada


 Quote:

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.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14785 - 11/21/08 11:37 AM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
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
#14790 - 11/21/08 05:44 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well it seems we have hit the middle, that part where we find the commonality. I can't disagree with any of that really. Yes, all societies are extremely conditional. Yes states come about through societal evolution, and will continue to do so. Cancer also appeared through evolution;doesn't mean we have to stop fighting it. I also agree with what you said about memetics, the best interest (whatever that is) of the infected mind isn't even a factor.

As for the latin..that's just the name of the logical fallacy I was pointing out.It's easier and just as effective as saying 'the conclusion does not follow from the premises', which it really didn't. It may be latin but it is common vernacular in formal debate.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14800 - 11/22/08 05:33 AM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
It seems we have come to an agreement indeed.

Of course you don't have to stop fighting what you disagree upon and it is your right to promote the anarchistic meme. If more people had an opinion and fought for it, we might even get somewhere.
Personally I don't think it is a very succesful meme, no matter how good -or not- the endresult might be. If you compare it with religious memes, you see how those - even when being very silly- replicate far more succcesful.

D.

Top
#14809 - 11/22/08 01:59 PM Re: A [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3810
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I honestly don't expect anything will come out of this in my lifetime. Market Anarchistic ideas are quite unpopular and have very strong memetics directly opposed to them to contend with.But such is the role of the adversary I suppose.What it comes down to is that I enjoy the idea of real freedom, as a concept, and as such I choose to promote it as it feels right for me to do so.

When we as a race are still so primitive that the idea of invisible sky men is still overwhelmingly predominant,despite hundreds of years of solid reason and logic to the contrary being readily available, it is hard to expect great change overnight. However we in the Satanic community(for lack of a better term) tend to think more and carry less frozen preconceptions than the average person, and this is my intended audience.

Take from it what you will. Thank you for the debate, Diavolo
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#14821 - 11/23/08 05:16 AM Re: A [Re: Dan_Dread]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A man got to do what a man got to do yeah. At some levels you can't be but a rock and let the waves break on you.

I enjoy real freedom as a concept but prefer to look for it internally, simply because that's the only realistic attainable goal I perceive in these days.

The debate was my pleasure Dan, even when opposing your ideas at some levels, it made me realize some things at others.

That's why we do it I assume.

D.

Top
#80578 - 09/26/13 11:32 PM Re: Universality principle/Why government sucks. [Re: Dan_Dread]
SIN3 Offline
stalker


Registered: 05/14/13
Posts: 6673
Loc: Virginia
 Quote:
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.

 Quote:
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.
_________________________
SINJONES.com

Top
Page all of 4 1234>


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

Generated in 0.06 seconds of which 0 seconds were spent on 63 queries. Zlib compression disabled.