Page all of 7 12345>Last »
Topic Options
#35106 - 02/04/10 08:35 AM Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian
Baron dHolbach Offline
member


Registered: 12/29/09
Posts: 162
On a scale of one to ten, with one being anarchy, five being democratic republic, and ten being totalitarianism, where would you place yourself in terms of your political preferences if you could wave a magic wand and make the world in your image?

I would be at five. What I want most from the vast majority of human beings is that they leave me alone. So I value cops who stop criminals from messing with me, and I value soldiers who stop foreigners from messing with me, and I value a government that largely doesn't mess with me, since I'm neither a criminal nor a foreign spy.

How about you?
_________________________
The baboon is the soul of man.



Top
#35107 - 02/04/10 08:44 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Jake999 Offline
senior member


Registered: 11/02/08
Posts: 2230
If it was made in MY image... hell, I'd go all the way for a Satanic Dictatorship with me as its leader, reopen the arenas and start up the games. The first ones I would send in for gladiatorial combat would be the wannabe part/time Satanists. Slave labor camps would already be in the process of construction. Relax... I'd get to the rest of you soon.

But being that I'm a realist, centrism is the most uniquely advantageous position, since you can adjust the amount of government to be either liberal or conservative as the economic and political landscapes demand. And, while ANY form of government is bound to have is detractors, a centrist position allows you to skew popular opinion most easily so that whatever the political climate, you can warp things so that statistically, you are the people's champion.
_________________________
Bury your dead, pick up your weapon and soldier on.


Top
#35113 - 02/04/10 12:01 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
A poor choice of options but I'll humor you.

10 of course; like Frank said: "If I can make it there, I'll make it anywhere"

5 is the system for wussies, a bit like the McDonalds of political options.

1 is great if you want to get nowhere.

D.

Top
#35117 - 02/04/10 12:13 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Anarchism is one of those things that sounds nice but because of human nature I don't believe it works.

When it comes to the other two alternatives it all depends on what kind of ideology that society subscribes to in general. Both totalitarian regimes and democratic ones can be either good or bad. It depends on who is in power and what ideas society is built upon.

Top
#35140 - 02/05/10 09:08 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Autodidact Offline
member


Registered: 01/23/10
Posts: 428
 Quote:
I would be at five. What I want most from the vast majority of human beings is that they leave me alone. So I value cops who stop criminals from messing with me, and I value soldiers who stop foreigners from messing with me, and I value a government that largely doesn't mess with me, since I'm neither a criminal nor a foreign spy.


On your scale, you may want to be closer to a three.

As MawrinSkel noted, a lot of people want to be told what to do. The flip side of that is that people in government tend to want to creep into your life more and more ...
_________________________
An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Top
#35164 - 02/06/10 02:37 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Baron dHolbach

Would you like a country where everyone was drafted into the military and stayed in the military all their lives, so that all work was done by soldiers and the only differentiators were specialty and rank?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QkWS9PiXekE

Had to do it.

I'm caught between either three or 7-8. I want to be left alone, but I think other people need to be leashed.

Top
#35327 - 02/09/10 03:57 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: EvilDjinn]
Thorn Offline
stranger


Registered: 02/08/10
Posts: 7
I am mostly in agreement with MawhrinSkel. For all the praise of "democracy, holy democracy," it is a lie. Where has democracy gotten America? *silence...*

Leadership is what counts, strong, solid leadership. Respectfully, Jake, I don't agree with your ideas about polluting the masses and enslaving them. I think everyone should follow their leaders willingly, not because they're drugged or deluded, but because they know their leaders are right, and trust them.

Even communism, which claims pure democracy, had leaders, I mean the Russian revolution. Two leaders, largely one, Lenin, and secondly Trotsky of course. You see it in nature. The largest and strongest leads his pack, in wolves, for example. The pack follows him and trust that he knows his stuff.

I think we'll easier find one good man who knows what he's talking about than enough men for a huge senate. Politics is no longer about leading your people to happiness, it's about making money, like every other fucking thing. It's time for a change. As MawhrinSkel said, if this makes me fascist, bring it. Actually, it does, I am, and let it be known. Democracy does not work. Leadership does. We have seen both these points proven. When they really want something done, they go for leaders. The army, for example. The Catholic church. Leadership gets things done, a bunch of whining monkeys in pinstripe suits does not.

Thank you,
-Thorn

Top
#35342 - 02/09/10 06:24 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Thorn]
Woland Moderator Offline
Seasoned
active member


Registered: 08/28/07
Posts: 764
Loc: Oslo, Norway
*Yawns*

Firstly;

Democrazy should be at 1.
Consensual genocide.
The willing eradication of the human race, death by ignorance.

Secondly;

A totalitarian rule solves nothing.
Supposedly good thing if you are on the top of it.
(I have serious doubts bout that one.)
Individualism?

Third;

Democrazy is a badly disguised totalitarian system.
Church, state, capital, party, state, capital etc.
Clever in the sense of cuttin of your head in order to cure a headache.

Fourth;

Anarchism was NOT,
is NOT,
nor will ever BE,
a system intended for practical political use.

(If someone tells you otherwise, they will turn out to be badly disguised communists/socialists.)

Anarchism is a philosophical direction, with individual choice as inspiration.
Nothing more, nothing less...

Personally I clock in at value; 11!!!

Smaller units (clans).
Leadership by merit, easily revoked.
The sworn duty of clan members to collectively hunt down and kill leaders who violates agreements or their word.

The right to vote must be earned, not automatically given.

All acts of war will be acted through confederations.

Individual responsibility for crimes will seize to exist.
The individual clan will be held responsible for the wrongdoings of members.
Every crime can be redeemed by paying a fine to the offended clan.

The ultimate punishment is expulsion from the clan.
Clanless individuals can be killed on sight without it be considered a crime.

Etc!
_________________________
Regards

Woland

Contra Mundum!

Top
#35502 - 02/12/10 12:55 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Thorn]
EvilDjinn Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/22/09
Posts: 31
 Originally Posted By: Thorn
I am mostly in agreement with MawhrinSkel. For all the praise of "democracy, holy democracy," it is a lie. Where has democracy gotten America? *silence...*


Nowhere because America is primarily a Republic. Democratic yes, but nothing like how, say, Athens used to be when it was Democratic. It does not even resemble that "communal ethos" that I think is the actual ideal of Communism (which did exist and does in so-called primitive societies).

Hell, when the USA was officially founded, there wasn't even a popular vote, Presidents being decided purely by the Electoral College. It was more a system of financial and intellectual elites.

Some people are drugged and deluded to begin with. They allow themselves to be and if you ask me, that's as willing as you get. There's no slave like the willing slave. Remember the credo of the Drug Addict: "I can stop at any time." They really could, if they really wanted to. But they don't, which is why they're slaves.

Top
#35582 - 02/12/10 10:15 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Woland]
Fist Moderator Offline
veteran member


Registered: 08/31/07
Posts: 1453
Loc: B'mo Cautious MF
 Quote:
Smaller units (clans).
Leadership by merit, easily revoked.
The sworn duty of clan members to collectively hunt down and kill leaders who violates agreements or their word.

The right to vote must be earned, not automatically given.

All acts of war will be acted through confederations.

Individual responsibility for crimes will seize to exist.
The individual clan will be held responsible for the wrongdoings of members.
Every crime can be redeemed by paying a fine to the offended clan.

The ultimate punishment is expulsion from the clan.
Clanless individuals can be killed on sight without it be considered a crime.

Etc!


Actually, this was the prevailing system of govt practiced by neolithic man for the better part of a half a million years. I am pretty sure man is hardwired to function this way. As you may know, this was also the system of govt practiced by your people as early as 1000 years ago.

Any system that diverges from this is doomed to failure. Our current woes can be directly linked to our abandonment of our natural form of social organization.
_________________________
I am the Devil and I am here to do the Devil's work.

Top
#35789 - 02/18/10 09:34 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Jake999]
Nightmare Offline
pledge


Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 58
Loc: San Antonio TX
 Originally Posted By: Jake999
If it was made in MY image... hell, I'd go all the way for a Satanic Dictatorship with me as its leader, reopen the arenas and start up the games. The first ones I would send in for gladiatorial combat would be the wannabe part/time Satanists. Slave labor camps would already be in the process of construction. Relax... I'd get to the rest of you soon.


Oh I like that one but in reality I think (If I was leader) totalitarian would work the best

No one-liners!
If you have something on your mind; look into whys, wherefores, motivations and consequences involved in your train of thought BEFORE you throw your nimble little fingers at an innocent keyboard.

Woland


Edited by Woland (02/19/10 04:34 AM)
_________________________
So can you tell me what exactly does freedom mean,
If I'm not free to be as twisted as I wanna be

Top
#35796 - 02/19/10 03:41 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Nightmare]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
I'd probably be a 3 or 4. If governments of the world finally stopped messing with each other and worked to maintain a stable and free economy, everyone would prosper and be free to live unlimited. I would not want any kind of totalitarianism, it makes me happy to know that others experience the same freedom I do, and I would never want to waste my time being in charge of people. I don't care about having massive amounts of money, and I don't care a about the power. I don't have anyone I would consider a threat or enemy to my interests other than big government and dictators around the world. So smaller governments everywhere would fix this problem.
Some of the greatest times in human history yielded amazing art. That would be great to see on a whole new level.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#35811 - 02/19/10 11:00 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Doomsage680
I would not want any kind of totalitarianism, it makes me happy to know that others experience the same freedom I do, and I would never want to waste my time being in charge of people.


This sounds all good but I tend to believe that while some people can deal with freedom (whatever that word means is debatable though, freedom from or freedom of and how far does it stretch etc) I think most people cant. And sure enough one can claim that a society should encourage and make those capable of the responsibility thrive while the others are doomed. Unfortunately I think the opposite would happen since the ones who wouldnt be able to deal with freedom and responsibility would be in far greater numbers. I think if everyone was given enough freedom we would live in a society that wasnt very pleasant at all.

I think this is especially true if mankind keeps moving closer to eachother in big cities. I think the big bulk of people out there needs to be governed and I think that even those who could be responsible in their own freedom would benefit from that since it keeps the mass in check so to speak.

Top
#35828 - 02/19/10 05:09 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"I think the big bulk of people out there needs to be governed"

What do you mean by this? Though the Satanic elitism on this site is somewhat ubiquitous, and I would mostly agree rightly so, what exactly is it you mean by this? That people should be highly restricted in a police state?
A free market would lead to not only less government spending but lower taxes ultimately leading to a government with little to spend money on but things like defense and law enforcement, so your perceived response of uncontrolled idiocy would be quite under control. As an example of this, I would like to cite Gary Kleck, award-winning criminologist on gun control, who discovered in 1993 that a given firearm was more likely to be used in self-defense than an assault- 3 to 5 times more likely. This may seem contrary to human nature, but it makes sense. Allowing people the ability to effectively defend themselves does not lead to widespread chaos. And a police state would, again, take a lot of time, energy, and money to run- I don't want to waste my time on it, and I certainly don't want anyone else running it. I would argue it a better use of my time and directly beneficial to me to have widespread freedom. Of course people will always kill each other. But anything less than a military state has and will have those crimes. It goes against everything in me to have any part in running people's lives. Our satanic tendencies may devalue what we perceive to be the stupid ignorant manipulated masses, but this I question too. Who cares that some people don't know what's happening in the world? They are living their lives, and their goal is clearly to do what humans and other animals biologically do- live, reproduce, and enjoy life with minimal distractions and obstacles. If you fear anything for being the cause of some unacceptable amount of initiation of force, you should fear government- the only "legitimate" source of initiating force. It has and always will exist, the only answer is how to construct and maintain one that does not infringe on individuals as much. (I believe government begins with initiating some kind of force and claiming some responsibility for something/someone)

Unless your consistency comes from a basis in fascism, I don't see how you can truly hold these beliefs without contradicting some of the very things you likely hold most dear. If you believe in the satanic principle of "Do What Thou Wilt", your true desire for self-fulfillment could never be to dominate others for power's sake. Unless your mind is clouded by insecurity and you have a need to "take back" something robbed from you as a way to feel in control.
A species does not evolve via the strongest working in collusion to oppress those less capable. The strongest will suffer from lack of competition, and the oppressed may very well rise up as they have before and take what they deserve.
We don't need more government to limit people anyway. Quite a few people limit themselves in every aspect of their lives, from religion, to accepting corrupt government, to letting other people push them around. The cause of the most dangerous people in our society is the prohibition of drugs, a black market that allows the criminal-minded a way to prosper among those you deem "responsible enough to handle freedom".

So either you're a minarchist like me or a hardline statist, depending on whether you personally enjoy power or freedom. But you must pick lest you be a hypocrite. I find power in freedom. I want to be able to do whatever I want in life, and I have no particular desire to initiate any force on anyone. I consider myself powerful when I can do what I want unobstructed. Having a gun and some law enforcement will do me just fine.

God I could go on about this all day. If you respond I might, I enjoy these kinds of debates.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#35851 - 02/20/10 06:09 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Some clarifications. "Do what thou wilt" is a metaphysical concept at the very core of Thelema. It has had a huge influence on Satanism for sure but most people don’t know what the concept is all about. It is not about personal or political freedom. It is about finding and recognizing your own true orbit so that you do not contradict your True Will so to speak. It can almost be said to be some form of determinism at times. The Will as the true movement of your Self. It is an orbit – a path you’re already on. You can’t but do your Will but if you don’t recognize what it is there will be trouble because you try to break away from the one path you’re on (go against your true nature) and the path that is the best for you (so the thought goes if everyone would do their True Will there would be no conflict).

The use of guns would be fine if they were just used for self-defence but they aren’t. With more guns more people are shot dead and not just those who deserve it but overall. And more guns mean more accidents with a fatal ending. I don’t think just anyone should be allowed to carry a gun because in the end I don’t think most can control or use it wisely. And even if most could, a less amount of guns in regular people’s homes would mean less amount of guns for the criminals as well. This is a fact. Compare Sweden to the US for instance. We really don’t have problems with gunfire at all. It really is very rare. Hence no need to defend oneself with gunfire either. More guns means more people dead, in self defence or not and it leads to a more dangerous violent world. I can see why people in the cities in the US get guns. Maybe you need them there but I have a different view since the amount of guns are so low in Sweden there is no need for defence by means of gunfire. I think that is to be preferred don’t you?

I don’t think people can handle freedom on a big scale. Individuals may but groups do not. We see this everyday in the big cities because that’s where the problems are worst. When lots of people live on top of each other people can’t seem to respect others freedoms and they cant take responsibility for their own actions either. So I believe if one gives to much freedom to to many people the world would become worse for people like me, who Id like to think can handle my own freedoms. Therefore Id rather see the masses more controlled and kept in check if that means my life would get better because of lower crime rates for example. I would easily choose a political system that restricts people more if that meant the risk of me getting attacked or killed or robbed was less rather than have more people get freedoms, we get less policemen out there and more people could abuse their freedoms (which would mean more negativity for me). I believe in a strong police force for instant and I am against the leftist views (at least Swedish leftist) that we should spend less on the police. I would like to clarify that I don’t by this mean people should have no freedom at all. Far from it. I do believe however that we do need more governing of _certain aspects_ of living in a country than we maybe have today.

 Quote:
They are living their lives, and their goal is clearly to do what humans and other animals biologically do- live, reproduce, and enjoy life with minimal distractions and obstacles.


Yes, minimal distractions and obstacles. I think that people with a lot of freedom tend to misuse it and this leads to them intruding on other people’s freedoms (hence your need to own a gun for example). This would be, and is, chaotic. So freedom in some way leads to oppression, not by the state, but by other individuals because of fear and violence between individuals and groups. I would rather have an orderly rule that maybe infringe on the freedom of the masses but made the country more safe to live in. I’m not saying I want a government that is militaristic, who doesn’t let people do anything but work as slaves for them etc. I just think to much individual freedom will be, and is, misused and in the end it won’t benefit people. Satanism does include thinking like this. Sure a Satanist appreciates and valued his own freedoms but also realizes that the mass will have to be governed. There will always be ruler and the ruled and it pretty much has to be. To give everyone the same freedoms and the same benefits would create chaos.
I have already discussed the free market and why I think it is bad for the environment for example. Where money and success means more than living in a healthy natural environment. That is not something I support. I don’t want a totally controlled market but also not a totally free one. But this has already been discussed elsewhere on this forum so I don’t wish to repeating myself here. If you’re interested check out my other posts.

 Quote:
Unless your consistency comes from a basis in fascism, I don't see how you can truly hold these beliefs without contradicting some of the very things you likely hold most dear. If you believe in the satanic principle of "Do What Thou Wilt", your true desire for self-fulfillment could never be to dominate others for power's sake. Unless your mind is clouded by insecurity and you have a need to "take back" something robbed from you as a way to feel in control.


I’m not saying “my desire for self-fulfillment is to dominate others for power's sake” but why couldn’t it be? Just curious. It all depends on if we are to respect every mans opinion to do what he wants (realize the difference between this, want or desire, and Thelemas view on True Will – from which your quote is taken) or if we think that some restrictions are needed for a society to work.

I, like you, don’t wish to rule others. I wouldn’t be the right person for that and I don’t want to do it. My desire is to be an artist and only do what I find enjoyable and not let others infringe in my life in a negative way. That is my goal. Nothing more, nothing less.

 Quote:
A species does not evolve via the strongest working in collusion to oppress those less capable. The strongest will suffer from lack of competition, and the oppressed may very well rise up as they have before and take what they deserve.


For sure. I don’t want a static society – far from it. It needs to be dynamic. But I also strongly believe in hierarchy and meritocracy. I think that the strongest doesn’t need to oppress others (I never said I wanted that) but they do need to govern them. But of course the able should be able to rise to the levels they deserve and desire just like the unable should be let down the ladder in favor of those who are better. I do think there is a danger in making everyone and everything to equal. Humans are herd animals and we do need leaders and followers (there are of course exceptions but in general this applies to humans in group – and we do tend to seek groups to join).

 Quote:
So either you're a minarchist like me or a hardline statist, depending on whether you personally enjoy power or freedom. But you must pick lest you be a hypocrite. I find power in freedom. I want to be able to do whatever I want in life, and I have no particular desire to initiate any force on anyone. I consider myself powerful when I can do what I want unobstructed. Having a gun and some law enforcement will do me just fine.


Well there is a golden middle path. One does not have to choose between minarchism and hardline statism. Im not for either extreme (sorry to disappoint). Its all good that you don’t feel a need to initiate any force on anyone else but unfortunately not everyone is like you and that’s why we need, for example a strong police force to govern those who do want to force themselves on others. Or those who wants to do what they want unobstructed but doesn’t care if they walk over a few innocents in the process.

Top
#35852 - 02/20/10 06:45 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
This is a fact. Compare Sweden to the US for instance. We really don’t have problems with gunfire at all. It really is very rare. Hence no need to defend oneself with gunfire either. More guns means more people dead, in self defence or not and it leads to a more dangerous violent world.

You are forgetting one thing here.
The general way of thinking and acting differs from the one in Sweden (or other European countries). In Europe there are organisations people can use as a "back-up" when having lost property. In Europe there are organisations and funds or health-care and such, which are totally lacking in the US.

Small things which add up to the fact you can't compare it.
Maybe you should check out Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The legalization of guns doesn't imply the rates of deaths by gunfire are raising.

 Quote:
I don’t think people can handle freedom on a big scale. Individuals may but groups do not. We see this everyday in the big cities because that’s where the problems are worst. When lots of people live on top of each other people can’t seem to respect others freedoms and they cant take responsibility for their own actions either.

I doubt it, people seem to forget many things related to freedom or actions they can undertake. It is not the "handling with freedom" forming a problem, it is the "what to do with it".


 Quote:
A free market would lead to not only less government spending but lower taxes ultimately leading to a government with little to spend money on but things like defense and law enforcement, so your perceived response of uncontrolled idiocy would be quite under control.

Free market implies the introduction of the aspect called "competition" on economical level. While it has some positive aspects there also are a few lesser ones as well.
When investigating the economy a person would soon notice companies which are being closely related (not to say, totally sponsored) to a government. These companies (most of the time) are too economically weak to be interesting for a free market.
Yet, some of the services they provide are necesarry to maintain a healthy state/economy. Taking these away would result in a chain reaction in which many companies will collapse.

An example of such a company might be: the postal service.


To get back on the original topic; if I had the choice then I would, like Jake, go for the totalitarian regime with me on top of it. Taking a more realistic approach I wouldn't very much care since I have the nasty ability to adapt. I am happy in the political situation I am residing now.


Edited by Dimitri (02/20/10 06:58 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35853 - 02/20/10 08:03 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dimitri]
Nightmare Offline
pledge


Registered: 04/06/09
Posts: 58
Loc: San Antonio TX
The philosophy of power says all that needs to be said. A clan based governing type where the strong and powerful lead. with their hordes of followers, the weak they have proven their power to, those who will submit to a stronger man may live as a slave or die attempting to regain his own freedom. Granted the number of people would decrease but who says that is a bad thing? people need to be governed yes but not by these weak-minded puppets we put into power for our government. they need to be shown how the human mind is set up, our natural way to live is a clan like structure where leadership is unstable and likely to change with each new generation maturing, and ultimately overpowering the last. its mankind's natural way and should be followed. we (humans) are already the best animal we have proven it bears that attack are killed, dogs that bite are killed, and lions that escape from their cage are killed all because man is strong and he said they should die. this should apply to man as well, the strong should dominate and the weak should submit to them its the natural order of things.

Edited by Nightmare (02/20/10 08:05 AM)
Edit Reason: spelling error
_________________________
So can you tell me what exactly does freedom mean,
If I'm not free to be as twisted as I wanna be

Top
#35856 - 02/20/10 09:54 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Nightmare]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
The philosophy of power says all that needs to be said. A clan based governing type where the strong and powerful lead. with their hordes of followers, the weak they have proven their power to, those who will submit to a stronger man may live as a slave or die attempting to regain his own freedom.

I disagree with the way you are putting it.
The qualities of a leader are a bit more expanded then "being powerful and strong". A leader should have the charisma to bind people to him/her, he or she must have the intellectual capabilities to make the "right" (for the greater mass) decisions,...

Calling yourself a leader or trying to profilate yourself as a leader is one thing, being a leader is a whole different matter and much harder then it would seem on first sight.

 Quote:
people need to be governed yes but not by these weak-minded puppets we put into power for our government. they need to be shown how the human mind is set up, our natural way to live is a clan like structure where leadership is unstable and likely to change with each new generation maturing, and ultimately overpowering the last.

Weak-minded people?
I might disagree with most decisions politicians make and even hate certain laws/ duties I have to obey or perform this date. But when taking a look on the political side, these regulations, laws and duties are a must to perform actions to maintain a healthy state on long-term. Every action politicians made has been heavily debated, investigated and tested before being released on society (or being refused to release on..).

It is not because I disagree with certain actions and laws that I automatically label then "weak-minded". There is a reason why they are in control.

Modern problem is the pleasing of "minorities".


Edited by Dimitri (02/20/10 09:59 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35865 - 02/20/10 05:08 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dimitri]
TheInsane Offline
member


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

 Quote:
You are forgetting one thing here.
The general way of thinking and acting differs from the one in Sweden (or other European countries). In Europe there are organisations people can use as a "back-up" when having lost property. In Europe there are organisations and funds or health-care and such, which are totally lacking in the US.

Small things which add up to the fact you can't compare it.
Maybe you should check out Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. The legalization of guns doesn't imply the rates of deaths by gunfire are raising.


I don’t quite understand what you wrote in the first part of what I quote above have to do with legalization of guns. Please specify.
I have seen Bowling for Columbine but it was years and years ago. From what I remember it showed how many murders (by guns or just in general I cant remember) that differed in two cities really close to each other but one in the US and one in Canada. The difference was huge and the US city had loads and loads of more cases of fatal violence. But as I said it was a long time since I saw it. It is unfortunate that Michael Moore has been known to bend reality in his favor at times. It makes even the more truthful things he says mean less to more people.

 Quote:
I doubt it, people seem to forget many things related to freedom or actions they can undertake. It is not the "handling with freedom" forming a problem, it is the "what to do with it".


Whatever the reason there is a problem with people and freedom. I don’t believe one can give equal amounts of freedom to every individual because to many are not able to make it work in regards to society.

 Quote:

Weak-minded people?
I might disagree with most decisions politicians make and even hate certain laws/ duties I have to obey or perform this date. But when taking a look on the political side, these regulations, laws and duties are a must to perform actions to maintain a healthy state on long-term. Every action politicians made has been heavily debated, investigated and tested before being released on society (or being refused to release on..).


I agree with this wholeheartedly. There are things in politics that may not please me personally but is required to make a whole country work properly. Thinking long term is essential. This is also how I recognize intellectual egoism. The intellectual egoist tends to be one who understands that h acts in self interest but also realize that he must take into account the whole picture (including long term thinking of course). The other side of the coin is the egoist who doesn’t think long term and his actions of self interest seems to, in the long run, be counter productive.
I for one also do not believe that there is one way and one way only to govern a country. While I do believe some are better than others I’m pretty sure there are several systems that work if enough energy is put into it. And whoever the politician I believe if there is one thing most politicians are not its being weak-minded. I probably cant even begin to imagine the stress they put themselves through mentally by being in the position they are.

 Quote:

Modern problem is the pleasing of "minorities".


Words of truth my friend. In Sweden this is very clear. To many of the politicians are to concerned with different minorities that the big masses start to react to it negatively. They must start to realize that you cant please everyone and in a democratic society popularity is what is the basis of political power so if they loose the mass they loose the power as well.

Top
#35869 - 02/20/10 10:07 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
To help further my argument that people can "handle" freedom using gun control, I found this. This should shed light and counter the presented argument of Sweden as an example of successful gun control.


In Cities With Little Crime, author Marshall Clinard contrasts the low crime rate in Switzerland with the higher rate in Sweden, where gun control is more extensive. The higher Swedish rate is all the more surprising in view of Sweden's much lower population density and its ethnic homogeneity. One of the reasons for the low crime rate, says Clinard, is that Swiss cities grew relatively slowly. Most families live for generations in the same area. Therefore, large, heterogeneous cities with slum cultures never developed.

Proud to have the weakest central government in the West, Switzerlan is governed mainly by its 3,095 Einwohrnergemeinde (communes, sub-states of a canton). Several cantons still make their laws by the traditional Landsgemeinden system, whereby all eligible voters assemble in annual outdoor meetings.

Unlike the rest of Europe, the police force is decentralised. Judges and jurors are popularly elected. With less mobility, and more deeply developed community ties, there is less crime.

Most democratic nations impose long prison terms more frequently than does America, but Switzerland does not. For all crimes except murder, the Swiss rarely inflict a prison term of more than a year; most serious offenders receive suspended sentences. As in Japan, the focus of the criminal justice system is on the reintegration of the offender into the community, rather than punishment.

As for the non-criminal Swiss, the saying is that everyone is his own policeman. Foreign visitors are surprised to see Swiss pedestrians always waiting at traffic lights, even when there is no traffic. The mass transit systems successfully depends on voluntary payment.

Clinard infers that strong central governments weaken citizen initiative and individual responsibility. He concludes: Communities or cities that wish to prevent crime should encourage greater political decentralisation by developing small government units and encouraging citizen responsibility for obedience to the law and crime control."

http://www.guncite.com/swissgun-kopel.html

That's quite a bit of quote, so that's all for now.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#35884 - 02/21/10 03:53 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Dimitri Offline
stalker


Registered: 07/13/08
Posts: 3138
 Quote:
I don’t quite understand what you wrote in the first part of what I quote above have to do with legalization of guns. Please specify.

The only thing I am pointing out, is the difference in thinking.
An European citizen thinks differently then a Chinese, Russian, American,..
It has to do with the influences around the person. It has to do with the government of the country, censorship and social influences from media, persons around you,...
These factors differ from country to country, otherwise we wouldn't be able to stereotype certain people like:
- the French
- the Brits
- ...


Edited by Dimitri (02/21/10 03:53 AM)
_________________________
Ut vivat, crescat et floreat

Top
#35894 - 02/21/10 08:16 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I tend to resent and resist other people’s attempts to impose themselves on my liberties and my right to define myself, according to my standards and the standards I wish to adhere to. I am opposed to totalitarian doctrines and societies.

A herd of cats, rather than a column of marching SS is my ideal sort of society.

I don’t believe in the iron laws of history and I find the idea of inevitable class conflict and the necessary rise of a classless society to be rather ridiculous and impossible to attain given the examples we have at our disposal. The bureaucracy, in my opinion, generally becomes the reigning class in a so called “classless society.”

I do not agree that the individual and his or her freedoms must be somehow subsumed under the overwhelming power of the state. I don’t appreciate doctrines which call for obedience to The Leader, or The Party in order to preserve the future greatness of the nation.

I am pragmatic and realise that my society seems to be largely run and regulated by elite corporate and administrative interests. To resort to some form of anarchy in order to break this system of power apart seems to me to be ridiculous. If you can’t beat em, join em.

I am to a certain extent dependent on the society I live in and as a result I need to play ball in order to get what I want. I would, however, like minimal intervention by the government in my affairs.

I see myself at 5 on the Baron’s political spectrum.

Top
#35907 - 02/22/10 05:05 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3881
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
I have weighed in on this in the past, but I will sum up my political position in a nutshell here:
I think the functions of government..the necessary ones that people need, such as public transportation, protection, medical services, emergency services etc should be absorbed by the free market. All services on a subscription basis.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#35970 - 02/26/10 12:59 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dan_Dread]
seed Offline
stranger


Registered: 10/03/09
Posts: 7
When social wealth is concerned anarchism is much healthier than anarchic fascism, fascist anarchism, and fascism is much healthier than both.
Its naturally accepted by allh, that for an ideal long lasting anarchism to take place there has to be space for rotation, convenience of the parts of the oligarchy, and stability of positions and ranks (the performers enhance or disgust). This is the way anarchism balances power, which in other past circumstances, when not applied, it has resolved in dethronements, rebellions, and state failures (not that technology can’t influence the present facts).
When anarchism mixes with fascism, the rotation processes gets obstructed by the inadaptability of the non-desired groups. This obstruction will depend on the nature of the fascist reasons; decreasing in strength in this order: race, specie, religion, and culture. Been race and specie, the most obstructive, since by birth a person can be denied the rights of professional competitiveness. For example a born angel can be denied some right just because he was not born a demon; very different from religion, culture, or money, where by changing habits or gaining a few dollars the person becomes acceptable.
Not that it can’t be sustained, but in anarchic fascism, the undesired group will not feel or be part of the governing authorities, causing group opposition; different from anarchism alone, were the reasons for been less advantage is professional competition, and causes independent opposition (the majority wants the option for the position, not the position; that is the work of self capacity).
Fascism alone is the most productive and wealthier. Fascism alone doesn’t look for nothing else than the well being of a group of peers. What can be wrong about that?
It should be stated that fascism has parameters. A fascist group has a range of what can, and what can’t be accepted (The beauty, the cutie, the normal, the ugly, and the unacceptable detestable). Christians, Jews, Satanic, Buddhist, racist groups, evolutionist, Muslims, Atheist, anti-racial pro-mixture groups are all fascist. Among fascist groups: Christians are the most intolerant, among the most tolerant are the Satanic.
Not been fascist propose an erroneous equation predestined to be temporal. By indiscriminately accepting different groups, the playground is set for an increasingly systematical competition, in which every group in order to survive will work towards power. In the past, this imposition over the variant spectrum of groups was accepted through an anarchical imposition, made by a group that had the brilliant idea of obligating all groups to live together by force of state law.
By the law of the pyramid the larger group was the bottom; by convenience laws it was better an opportunity to compete than staying at the bottom; by the laws of discretion it was better to say: “I’m free”, than saying: “I’m partially free, now I’m stronger to make it permanent”. The stronger fascist believes are rooted deep into complex systems of thought that exist because the reasons exist. This reasons will permute through history until the strongest and most advanced group gets rid of the unacceptable detestable. Even gentle human Jesus, pretending to create a balance in the universe, accepted that the only way of reaching an understanding between fascist reasons was through the genocidal annihilation of the unacceptable detestable.
Loyal and sentimental as acceptance of all groups sounds, in real practice, this option is nothing but an unreal dream, which only considers: present, personal, and temporal facts; a group who doesn’t question the whys; the mammal that sucks the milk and stings the breast.
_________________________
Francis Hutchinson, An Historical Essay Concerning Witchcraft (London, 1718)

Top
#36881 - 03/22/10 12:24 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
This is tougher than it initially seems because I want a system that is advantageous for me to live in, yet good enough to account for human nature and the lowest common denominator. I would want to live in the freest society possible. A free market, so I could get ahead on my own merit without being treated as though I owed my inferiors something for the crime of being better. A socially free society, so I could live the lifestyle I wanted without being persecuted for the crime of being different.

On the other hand, I recognize that the vast majority of human beings are idiots and not only need to be herded like cattle, but WANT to be. People generally think that any given action should either be mandatory or prohibited, and cannot comprehend freedom as a viable or desirable option. A free society would scare people because they wouldn't know what to do without someone to tell them.

As ideal as a dictatorship in which I am the dictator sounds, it's not really likely to happen. If I were the leader, or I could choose the type of society I wanted to live in, I would pick minarchy (about a 2 or maybe a 3). The extent of the government's power would be police and military, and only acts of unwanted violence would be considered crimes. If people want to be enslaved, they can find some group (work, church, fashion) separate from government to do it for them. As ideal as this seems to me, the downside is that it's not sustainable. The masses seem to have a compulsive need to pass their opinions into laws.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#37057 - 03/26/10 05:14 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: XiaoGui17]
Room 101 Offline
member


Registered: 10/17/09
Posts: 262
Loc: Scotland
I haven’t a favourite. To be fair the Nazi’s have always been a firm favourite in my mind. Not so much for their ideals, but more for the fact that it was a potential utopia corrupted.
The theories concerning euthanasia and Eugenics had some validity, but, in the cold hard light of day, lacked any sense of moral centre.

The idea that one man had such sway is also quite appealing to one as egotistical as myself, but, history speaks volumes when concerned with those that have followed such a path. Few are cleared of their crimes, and even fewer are venerated for their actions.

If I were to live in any society as a mere “civilian” (holding no powers/rights over my fellow man), I would unquestionably be in favour of a Democracy.

If on the other hand, if I could hold any position in a society of my making, I would be a fool to consider myself anything less than Emperor.

Let’s face it; democracy has its place...when there are lots of people that have their say. But when it comes down to what “I” want, fuck the people. In a democracy, many people get “kinda” what they want. In a totalitarian state, “I” always get what I want.

As for the matter of Anarchy, the less said the better. It’s a combination of Fascism and Communism. There would be those that would consider the fact that all social stature had been abolished as a sign that equality ruled. Mean while, there would be those that viewed the power vacuum as an opportunity for the strong to take control. So the term “equal” would never be more oxymoronic, as no one would protect the weak.

Humanity needs some kind of order...I would argue that all forms of government rule (national rule) are transitory; in the sense that nothing is forever. But, Anarchism is simply the stopgap between transient ideologies. Ergo, it is less than an Ideology. More of a space filler between regimes.


Edited by Room 101 (03/26/10 05:17 PM)
Edit Reason: Fat Hands
_________________________
"Nothing is your own except the few cubic centimeters inside your skull." - George Orwell (1984)

Top
#37094 - 03/27/10 06:07 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Room 101]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Room 101

Let’s face it; democracy has its place...when there are lots of people that have their say. But when it comes down to what “I” want, fuck the people. In a democracy, many people get “kinda” what they want. In a totalitarian state, “I” always get what I want.


I would argue that if you were to have power in a totalitarian state with that philosophy in mind your end would probably be rather violent. I think it is of utter importance in a well functioning totalitarian state (and democratic as well) so not piss off the people.

Its like the always occuring debate on egoism. I look down on people who think egoism is somehow about only doing what you feel at the moment - following every whim - and not caring at al about others. Step over bodies to achieve what you want basically. True egoism to me would be a non-short sightet egoism. We have to always take into account what others think and do and therefore to get what we want and live good long term has to involve treating othe rpeople good even if our own immediate needs will have to be put aside.

This goes for the ruling of a country as well. Just because one has total power at the moment doesnt mean its wise to do whatever one wants because in the end it will most often end with not getting what one wants.

I think I could live and thrive in both a democracy and a totalitarian state. As I said before it depends on the ideology that rules these states. It can eithe rbe really horrible or really good (both versions). Totalitarian states doesnt always mean suppressing the people. I do however believe that anarchy is to idealistic in its view on humans. I dont think such a system would work unfortunately. Its a good though in theory but if it cant be applied in practice in a good way it isnt really all that good.

Top
#37098 - 03/27/10 11:25 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
William Wright Offline
active member


Registered: 10/25/09
Posts: 862
Loc: Nashville
My government would provide basic services such as roads, schools and national security but would generally leave people the fuck alone.

I highly recommend a book by Peter McWilliams called “Ain’t Nobody’s Business If You Do: The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Society.” His premise is that adults should be able to do with themselves and their property whatever they choose, as long as they don’t physically harm others or their property. Thus, he argues against the criminalization of such things as drugs, prostitution, sodomy and gambling.

Unfortunately this idea is largely a pipe dream, shot down by the unwashed masses who insist that morality can be legislated. Oh well…
_________________________
In Minecraft all chickens are spies.

Top
#37141 - 03/30/10 03:29 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: William Wright]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Many seem to be confused about freedom and tie several things together with it that aren't really part of it. Freedom is the ability to do whatever you want or need to. That is it. As such, freedom isn't dependent upon or restricted by any form of government. If you have the ability to do whatever you want or need to, you can. The amount of freedom you have in a democracy or a totalitarian regime is identical. The eventual cost of an act or the severity of that cost has got nothing to do with your initial freedom at all. Considering the cost of an act as limiting to your freedom is comparable with complaining you got to do work to get your paycheck. So, if freedom is a given, there is only one that can limit your freedom and that is you. Nobody or nothing else can limit it. As such, government has no control over you unless you allow it to have.

Anarchists uphold the idea that they need no government. I prefer the idea that we can govern ourselves, which is quite different. Mind you, when I talk about ourselves, I do not include the whole human race. One of the fundamental mistakes in the anarchist's idea is that they ignore one of the very basics in human nature. Humans, like most other (pack) animals, are hierarchical. Throw a couple of humans together and within a short amount of time a hierarchy will be established. That is government, or the state if you like, in its crudest form. The current states are nothing but a complex answer to that very fundamental need. So I'm not a big fan of anarchism because anything that ignores the basics of human nature is destined to fail.

I'm not a fan of democracy either. For one, if humans are hierarchical, how illogical is it to have a system that provides the group that is destined to be ruled to have a say about how it should be ruled? If a company would be handling that same principle, most would go bankrupt quickly. All too many would decide to increase their paychecks while lowering their working hours. Most people suffer myopic tunnel vision and as such are not equipped to be a factor in decisions beyond their personal habitat. I'd say most are even too ill-equipped to decide in their personal habitat.
Another reason I dislike democracy is because it expects all to bow down to the weakest groups. It handles some flawed principle of equality and expects all to consider others as equal and respect or tolerate them as such. Unless they oppose that very idea of course. As we know very well, equality is an illusion and does not exist in nature. If there was equality, there would be no hierarchy.
Democracy is also more and more turning into a nanny, especially noticeable in Europe, which prefers to strip people of their own responsibility and decide for them what is best. Best in the same sense of how you treat children. As if they are not able to make up their own minds and accept the consequences. It is creating a culture of weakness. I won't go too deep into my dislikes of democracy because it doesn't contribute much to the essence of this reply.

When I mention I'm a fascist, most people think I do support totalitarianism or some sort of despotic hierarchy. It is as if it is the only way they can imagine a structure in which the state has control and decides the direction. Many also dislike that idea because they fear that if they aren't the despot, they will automatically live limiting and thus restricted lives. Or such they imagine. What is most remarkable about all that is that they automatically imagine themselves to be the one governed by that system and as such readily identify themselves with the populus. As I said before, freedom is a given and we are able to govern ourselves. Who is not able to govern themselves is the populus, or mass if you like. And for them we need a tool that provides direction.

What we need is a state which has vision. A state that redefines our culture of weakness into one of strength. What creates people like us is not only genes and nurture but also culture. There is a lot of raw material out there which only needs the right factors to turn into quality material. The state should not only provide but also stimulate those factors and reward those that excel. The state does not need to be totalitarian and affect every aspect of life. It can easily leave responsibility to the individuals and have them decide their path but at the same time it should control their culture and create something sacred for the mass. Something spiritual which not only will direct them but also work as a distillation process to create more of us. Think of the UK (or another country) during WW2 and you get the idea of such an organic state where people have their direction, know their position and contribution to the whole. A society like that is what we need but instead of another country as enemy, weakness and stagnation should be our new enemies.

D.

Top
#37153 - 03/30/10 07:54 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Consideration of the effect of actions and the potential legal ramification of actions is an important determining factor in an individual’s conception of their sense of freedom. This is particularly true if the individual is married and has children and is the sole bread winner in the family. The threat of punishment is an effective tool in binding and limiting actions.

I would not wish to have lived in the Soviet Union during the worst years of the Stalinist era. Why? Because freedom was deeply limited by the severity of penalties; by the enormous number of people subject to penalty; and by the enlarged number of laws, or dictates, or indiscriminate punishment of certain types of individuals.

Stratification and the creation and maintenance of hierarchy are the real and continuing cornerstones of political practice and of social reality whether the political system in place is democracy, communism, fascism or whether some other political system is in place or even whether anarchy reigns.

I do not like fascism very much in its traditional form. A deep study of the prominent fascist theorists of the 1920’s and 1930’s reveals that a core principle is the notion that the individual is to subordinate him or herself to the state in order to guarantee the future survival of the nation. I do not like the Fuhrer principle. I do not like the way women, children and young people were regarded.

At this stage I tend to like responsible federal cabinet government and support a certain conception of democracy, attacked by social critics like Noam Chomsky. This is the notion that democracy is a game for elites, where the mass of humanity are excluded from real and active participation and are held in place and have their consciousness manufactured to a certain extent by necessary illusions.

Democracy may cater to the masses and encourage rampant and dangerous consumerism, but at this stage nothing is going to really change until everybody starts feeling pain of some sort. Maybe in the future we will have a new political and social arrangement in place, which will be based around pragmatism, Social Darwinism and some form of apartheid. It will have to be environmentally responsible I think and I have no idea what sort of economic arrangements will be in place, but changes will be needed for sure.

I have always felt that the Satanist is the one behind the scenes pulling the strings of those on the big stage. Never mind the leaders. They take orders and take the abuse of the public and then take the fall when required. The key is to stay in the background and pull the strings.

Top
#37159 - 03/30/10 11:08 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
BloodRaven Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 12
Loc: Tucson, AZ
If I had a choice on what type of government to set up I'd pick a compartmentalized meritocracy within a constitutional framework. For example, if person A wants become an economist he/she could take a test and if he/she proved to be knowledgeable, responsible and creative in the area of knowledge of the economy that person along with the other people who prove their worth would run the state economy. If person B who is a brain surgeon doesn't like the economy the way it is being run he doesn't get any vote or input , unless he is able to pass the same economy test person A took. sociologist and lawyers would come up with the laws. Teachers would set academic standards so on and so forth. There would be no need for politicians but there would be foreign diplomats to maintain foreign relations/declare war. If somebody becomes inadequate at a job they once were good at they are stripped of their titles and have to pass a new job test.

The constitution would just say that no law could be passed that infringe upon personal freedoms. Freedoms being described as actions that do not hurt others. So, responsible drug use, sodomy, gay marriage, porn, prostitution, what have you would all stay legal and be untouchable by the lawyers.

The system we have now is similar in a lot of ways. You go to school for a degree and get a job in that field. Here are the ways my system would differ:
* No president and senators
* You would only be able to vote in the area you are proficient at.
* Distribution of power would be based on ability rather than wealth and or connection( right now I believe we live in a democracy ruled by plutocracy and nepotism)
*Stratification
*Laws would be passed based solely on logic by professionals instead of on political gain.

Top
#37163 - 03/31/10 12:47 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: BloodRaven]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Just to clarify: You would have a constitution, but no legislative or executive branch or judiciary in the traditional sense?

It would seem that this constitution has a comprehensive bill of rights which takes into account contemporary issues.

It also features departments or bureaucracies of experts, who have autonomy and sole authority to impose policy in their area of expertise.

I am assuming that you will require departments or bureaucracies for all areas of the public service and the private economy and all of the stakeholders within the private economy?

I am not sure how you can co – ordinate policy and action between bureaucracies, particularly in times of war or natural disaster? Also how do you levy monies for the running of the bureaucracies and determine who gets what?

How is it possible to build a consensus on national issues?

There must be some sort of meeting of the top minds, from all of the departments, in some specified place?

The heads of department are elected by their respective members?

Top
#37164 - 03/31/10 01:26 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Adversary Offline
pledge


Registered: 02/19/10
Posts: 93
All of the systems in play now ARE anarchy. It is a constant struggle for power. We(people) are crooked, backstabbing traitors with our own interest(or the interest of the person whos ideas we steal because we are too stupid to come up with our own)at heart. It is the numbers and the science/strategy experts you can assemble to enforce or coerce to make YOUR way successful. Every system will fail in time. Their is no perfect government or lack therof. What you see around the world and in history is everyone trying their method. There really is no success. If you had every man for himself, as we did in the past, you would have people establishing their own tribe, culture, ku, state, country, gov't. Wether voted for or shoved up your ass against your will.
Top
#37167 - 03/31/10 02:20 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Adversary]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



There seems to be two issues here:

1. All systems are anarchic in nature and we are engaged in constant viciously fought out power struggles with each other.
2. All systems fail in time – no social arrangement or organisation standeth sure.

These two issues may be derived from Redbeard I think.

Judeo – Christian propaganda and natural rights democracy as far as I can see led to the western social contract, at least at the theoretical level.

I am becoming more and more convinced that the political and social struggles or outcomes in western societies, in the modern period, are or have always been played out, via some sort of dialectical process between the Redbeardian and the Judeo – Christian/Natural rights model.

This constant struggle between human reality as defined by Redbeard and traditional religious and philosophical ethics seems to determine humankind and their institutions at so many levels?

I don’t know if there is any value in the above, but would very much appreciate any comments by any other interested members, particularly Maw, Dr. Aquino and Jake.

Top
#37170 - 03/31/10 03:02 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
XiaoGui17 Offline
active member


Registered: 10/21/09
Posts: 1137
Loc: Amarillo, TX
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
The eventual cost of an act or the severity of that cost has got nothing to do with your initial freedom at all. Considering the cost of an act as limiting to your freedom is comparable with complaining you got to do work to get your paycheck. So, if freedom is a given, there is only one that can limit your freedom and that is you. Nobody or nothing else can limit it. As such, government has no control over you unless you allow it to have.


You raise an excellent point. I think in this context what we're talking about is whether the consequences of our actions hinge upon the government or other forces. As I noted in my post before, I would want to live in a society where my financial success depended on my competence and diligence instead of my ideology.

In some cases, the type of government can enable or limit what a person is capable of. If I wanted to run a television show, our current system where citizens can sign up for local broadcasting would make it much easier than a country that monitors its airwaves and blocks signals they don't like. Yes, I'd still be free to make the attempt either way, but whether or not my efforts were futile would vary largely depending on the regime.

I'm very curious about your brand of fascism. I understand the idea of uniting people under a common banner and central authority. But fascism also usually entails socioeconomic control and censorship or suppression of opposition. I generally think that a market that is left alone naturally rewards what's valuable to people much better than any government interference could. I also feel that governments should not punish any form of consciousness or expression. Perhaps they should respond to allegations they consider false or misleading, but simply retaliating with punishment gives the impression that the government has something to hide.
_________________________
Wir halten uns an Regeln, Wenn man uns regeln lässt

Top
#37172 - 03/31/10 04:24 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
BloodRaven Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 12
Loc: Tucson, AZ
"You would have a constitution, but no legislative or executive branch or judiciary in the traditional sense?"

Yes I would. The United States Constitution is mostly about the structure our government and the bill of rights is the first 10 amendments (about our rights). The Constitution in my world would just serve as a simple untouchable law of personal freedom and a simple governmental outline. NO amendments or alterations could be made to the original constitution. The lawyer faction in conjunction with other departments(depending on the situation) would be able to establish any laws or regulation they wanted to, to adapt to modern circumstances as long as it did not conflict with the original constitution.

One major criticism of my form of government is that it would be very hard or even impossible to maintain a free market system. Also, who would decide where all the tax monies go? Would the education department get more money than the defense department so on and so forth. The first part of the problem would be solved by a bastardization of Communism and Capitalism as weird as that sounds. Here's how it would work, the government would own all of the businesses. Everyone knows that Capitalism has a lot of good points though, such as competition. So, the government would have to form a Capitalistic frame work within itself. For example, these days if you want to buy some headphones you can buy them at best buy or radio shack etc. and then you can select what make of headphones you want. Your decision is based on price, reliability and performance. Without competition, price, reliably, performance and most importantly innovation would be staggered. The revenue department (which I will get to later) would fund Radio Shack, Best Buy and all the different headphone companies based upon how much people buy from them. So there would still be competition because the Bose people would still want to produce a quantity product because they want more funding then the Skull Candy company, but both would still be owned by the government. The revenue department would just give a lump sum to the Bose people based on their sales. The Bose people would be able to independently decide how that lump sum be spent. Skull Candy would still get money but in proportion with Bose it would be smaller.

The revenue department would distribute the wealth based on current needs. For example, if there is a war going on the revenue department would give more money to the defense department. In times of peace they may give more money to education or social services. The revenue department would not be able to decide what each department does with their money but only hand out a lump sum. How does each department distribute their funding then? It would be a system of direct democracy. So for example, say the education department gets 5 billion dollars for the year. Everyone in the education department would be able to directly vote how that money be spent. In each department their would be ranks based on ability and experience. Lets say ranks 1-10. A rank 1 would be minimum experience and knowledge while a 10 is the best of the best. Rank would be the deciding factor of pay and how many votes you get. So lets say the education department is voting on how much money will be spent on new books for the year, rank 10 gets 10 votes rank 1 gets 1 vote. The most potentially powerful departments in my government would be the revenue department, the labor department and lawyer department. There would have to be a form of checks and balances between these 3 departments to keep them in line. For example, the revenue departments funding to itself would have to be capped off at a certain level.

Top
#37175 - 03/31/10 06:29 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: BloodRaven]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
You seem to be almost talking about herding cats.

Getting a bunch of people to decide on anything would take FOREVER.

You are talking about maybe 1 million people with god knows how many votes deciding one which textbook would be best for a math class in a single state. Would it have to be decided by a majority vote or with everyone in perfect agreement.

How would you stop religion from playing a major role in textbook choices since older more religious people have more votes?

Who would decide on how much to tax, and on what?

So with the government owing everything, where is the desire to create a new product if the government is going to come in and just take control of your ideas.

Plus if you need to sue a business which the government owns, you will be represented by the government. So that is a major conflict of interest.

Plus giving monies to corporations that have a larger profit margin than others? If the government already owns them, why would they give them more money instead of rolling over the profits into the national piggy bank?

What about highway and bridge upkeep? Who votes on monies to them? Everyone in connecting states? Street cleaners? Boat captains? With no one in control or taking responsibility for such important issues, things will break down.

Plus, family influences, money payoffs, under the table deals, black market economy, sign-offs, no show jobs, theses things happen. Your system looks likes a fairy tale with no real basis in reality.

What about health care, hospital's, and emergency services? Does the government own them as well? Do they get money depending on how many they treat or don't treat? What about research? What would be the point of innovation if the government is just going to come in and take whatever you create, pimp it and bitch slap you?

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



Top
#37185 - 03/31/10 12:01 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: XiaoGui17]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
 Originally Posted By: XiaoGui17

I'm very curious about your brand of fascism. I understand the idea of uniting people under a common banner and central authority. But fascism also usually entails socioeconomic control and censorship or suppression of opposition. I generally think that a market that is left alone naturally rewards what's valuable to people much better than any government interference could. I also feel that governments should not punish any form of consciousness or expression. Perhaps they should respond to allegations they consider false or misleading, but simply retaliating with punishment gives the impression that the government has something to hide.


I find it interesting that you especially link fascism to socioeconomic control, censorship and suppression of opposition while all three are part of any form of government. Even when you look at democracy (take a close look at Europe) they are in plain sight. Maybe not over the top as in past totalitarian systems but still. I do support all three and think they should be part of any clever government. What you should understand is that the government of my brand of fascism does not serve the many and as such, it is inevitable it has to control them when it desires a certain direction.

D.

Top
#37188 - 03/31/10 01:27 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Caladrius Offline
member


Registered: 07/25/09
Posts: 320
Loc: SoCal
As I understand it [and I may be wrong], Freedom and Control or Liberty and Tyranny are not two different "things" but two points of a circular continuum.

So that if we take tyranny too far we end up with freedom, in the sense that if a government takes tyranny/control too far people will revolt and gain their freedom.

But if we take freedom too far then we end up with the tyranny, in the sense that chaotic anarchy comes into being.

The key would be to learn to figure out the "right" combination of freedom/control or liberty/tyranny or incoherency/coherency in such a way that the end result is the most productive.

Like a nuclear power plant where the extreme radioactive heat and the cooling system are both used to acquire the right mix so that the most energy is produced.

So there must be a right mix of [personal] liberty and [mass]'control' so that in the end the advancement of the people/citizens involved is optimal.

This right balance between control and freedom reminds me of a painter. If we have a painter who is tried of painting inside the lines, and he lets his brush just do whatever it wants he will end up with scribbles, i.e.: modern art; which looks very different from a piece by Michael Angelo. But if you control the freedom of your brush too much, you may end up with a Picasso where everything looks ridiculously boxy.

Or a better example to explain how I see liberty and control would be Music. There are only 7 real music notes [not considering it's octaves].

We hear these notes out in nature everywhere in an incoherent form, which is the state of these notes existing in a state of uncontrolled freedom. It's chaotic, it's gibberish, it's mostly just every day noise. But when a composer uses his intelligences to bring these same notes into order ["control"] music is produced.

So, it would be more sensible to approach the art and science of governance backwards by first asking ourselves what the End Result is that we desire.

If the End Result is the progression and advancement of its citizens: technological, social, intellectual advancement; then we need to ask ourselves how the incoherent collective raw force of the people can be intelligently controlled to produce the synergy needed to manifest such an End Result.

After we have come to understand what needs to be done to produce such synergy, then we must ask ourselves if we are each willing to give up some of our incoherent "freedom" to contribute to this syngery. In other words, if giving up some of our liberty worth human advancement?

It took the synergy of the US to put some of our people on the Moon. Certain people had to give up the freedom of certain aspects of daily life to live in a rigid environment of college and universities to become scientists.

Certain people had to give up a small portion of their income in the form of taxes which collectively paid for the NASA's effort.

Certain people had to give up the freedom of unemployment and doing what they wanted to work 40 hours a week building things.

All that intelligent control of raw force manifested as productivity which yielded a great end result: the literal advancement of our species into space. Was it all worth it?

If tomorrow the American government said: "Ok, we've had enough, you people are on your own, we're following Rush to Costa Rica."

What would become of us 300 million people and our descendants 100 years from now? If we had absolute freedom.
_________________________
Chloe 352

Top
#37191 - 03/31/10 02:21 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
BloodRaven Offline
stranger


Registered: 08/12/09
Posts: 12
Loc: Tucson, AZ
Morgan, I've given some considerations to your comments.

"You are talking about maybe 1 million people with god knows how many votes deciding one which textbook would be best for a math class in a single state. Would it have to be decided by a majority vote or with everyone in perfect agreement."

This is a major and valid criticism of the system of direct democracy. Firstly, in my system as previously stated you would only be able to vote on an issue if it is in your department. That would shave off an enormous amount of votes because you would only be able to vote in your area of expertise. The majority number of votes would be the deciding factor of any budget allocation. People would also have varying numbers of votes for any issue. If you are one of the most experienced teachers out there you get 10 votes to cast on any individual education issue. Another thing to consider is there would be no individual states in my government. So, the textbook they get in Seattle would be the same in New York. Secondly, you would not be forced to vote so local issues could be addressed. Lets say there is a bridge needing repair in L.A.. The vote to allocate funds would go up in the transportation department. People in the transportation department in NYC have better things to do than vote on LA bridge repair. I know what your thinking. Then what is stopping big cities from just taking all the money? That would be a concern that the lawyer department would have to address. They would have to pass some sort of law where local funds would only be able to draw from the national funds in proportion to their population size.

"How would you stop religion from playing a major role in textbook choices since older more religious people have more votes?"
I'm going to get some flack for this but I've always thought teaching religion in schools is a good thing. I would have loved to have had a religious studies class in high school. Religion is one of those things that really has woven itself into a lot of aspects of our culture(like it or not). More education would lead better recognition of that. The problem would occur when they start replacing biology books with intelligent design books, which have no place in a science class. Here's how I would solve the problem. Let's say every year one biology book is chosen for the 8th grade. The education department would vote in conjunction with the biological research department to decide which book would be best. A book on math would go to mathematical research department and education department so on and so forth.

"Who would decide on how much to tax, and on what?"
Taxes would be levied by the revenue department in conjunction with the economy department. Both would use their expertise to decide how much and what taxes should be levied on depending on current department needs and economic concerns.

"So with the government owing everything, where is the desire to create a new product if the government is going to come in and just take control of your ideas."

Each government owned company would be completely independent upon itself. There would be no government department for taking over ideas. Laws would be put in place to prevent that.

"Plus if you need to sue a business which the government owns, you will be represented by the government. So that is a major conflict of interest."

This is an interesting concern to address. You have to understand in my government there wouldn't be a central government like we have now. Technically, the public would own the companies, the revenue department would fund the companies based upon their sales and the companies themselves would be independent to allocate funds towards research funding etc. So really, a person suing a company has the same stake in the company as the lawyers arguing the case. Bribes between the lawyer faction and a given company would have to be strictly forbidden as they are already.

"Plus, family influences, money payoffs, under the table deals, black market economy, sign-offs, no show jobs, theses things happen. Your system looks likes a fairy tale with no real basis in reality."

Yes Yes. I'm not saying that no bad things would ever happen but I am saying I think I can minimize these things by:
*stringent regulation of education and testing standards that would decide a persons department.
*direct democracy inside departments.
*economic regulations put in place by the lawyer and economic departments based upon current need.
*Labor department would remove any "no shows" or incompetent people from their department.

"What about health care, hospital's, and emergency services? Does the government own them as well? Do they get money depending on how many they treat or don't treat? What about research? What would be the point of innovation if the government is just going to come in and take whatever you create, pimp it and bitch slap you?"

Yep, the public owns the medical services. Healthcare would be decided by the medical department. The medical department would get one lump sum from the revenue department and then they could decide what to do. The best and most experienced doctors would have the most votes to make regulations on how to allocate funds, patient care regulations so on and so forth.

Like I said before, the government would not be taking any products from the companies. If you wanted to buy a Ford car you could. The money you spent on that car would immediately go to the revenue department, then taxed, then end back up at Ford. It's like the free market system we have now but there is an extra step of money movement going on. Ford still gets their money and still gets to choose how they spend it. Having that extra step there makes sure nobody is not paying their taxes. The labor department has an indirect role in companies because they get to choose what company gets what employee and what pay/vote level they are. The labor department would strive to make the companies up in a way that creates the most competition. Remember back in elementary school when you had to pick your team? One person would be picked at a time by each team to insure that each team was balanced. That way a competitive game was sure to ensue.

I know my government may be a dream. Im just so sick of politicians running the country. I want a country that makes decisions based upon what's best not what looks good for re-election. Politicians are very good at talking (manipulating) and thats about it. The teachers should run education, doctors should run heathcare, the generals the military.

Now that I think about it I really don't know where my government would fit into the whole original 1 to 10 question. 1 being anarchy 10 being totalitarian.

Top
#37203 - 04/01/10 12:54 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: BloodRaven]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
BloodRaven, this government is quite bureaucratic and the idea that government will own companies and give them back money based on what they owe is just a reversal of taxation, where people earn money and pay the government a share for local/national upkeep.

If we ask, what system works in a way that gives individuals incentives to work hard, the answer is capitalism. Individuals who work for themselves to succeed in a system that benefits others.

Caladrius, if the whole government decided to leave, each and every position, other than the less desirable bureaucratic ones, would be filled. There is always a desire for power that leads to government. This is why anarchy rarely exists for a long period of time.

In my opinion this discussion has become funny, because we're all wondering what framework would allow the most freedom and still provide safety. Just because America has become quite statist does not mean that it is not the best system of government to have ever been created. It's lasted the longest amount of time as the freest nation and the solution is a Constitutional Democratic Republic. We simply need to have greater defense for Constitutional rights, as it is only a complacent population that has to fear oppression.

There is no perfect Utopian system, as competition will always have some degree of strife, but competition is by all means, whether evolutionary or satanically, the best way to achieve the best results, and the free-market system, where voluntary participation benefits individuals and society, is by far the best. The only problems are people becoming lazy and electing politicians who aren't held accountable, but we have only ourselves to blame for that.

Sure I am an anarchist at heart, and if we could minimize the role of government and replace each aspect with a more effective and efficient private sector, I would completely support that. But until we have reached a level of economic prosperity and stability, it won't happen.

Those claiming support of fascism are overlooking the way that government collusion with the free market inherently fails and is as bad as government interference. It's the boom and bust cycle. Unbalance the economy in one way and there is an equal and opposite reaction somewhere else. It is an economic truth that one cannot simply print more money without taking value from somewhere else. Lower interest rates and subsidize housing markets, expect things to go great until people stop investing, then everything will collapse. Fascism is not only a failure economically, but by preaching that a select group of people is better than another, the government will naturally start taking the rights of all. Unless you just want to benefit the inner party, in which case there will be an eventual uprising.

Democracy is the best form of government, and that which requires the most citizen participation, because it does not go through the same cycle of taking power until it collapses. One cannot make more rules to legislate behavior either; No amount of rules can make up for actual involvement and effort. Decentralization is key to effective government that respects rights and allows the most prosperity. Equality is not self-evident, but Oppression's greed for more and more power is.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37431 - 04/06/10 05:04 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Caladrius]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I agree that Liberty and Tyranny or Freedom and Control are not two different things or opposites. I myself prefer to see them as a matter of perspective. I even think they are one and the same. Mind you, I'm talking about the sense of freedom or sense of control here which is, when it comes to government, what most call freedom or control.

The problem (in perception) is that there is always control but close to never freedom. It can be the State which controls but culture, society, family or environment can control as much. Free speech is a nice example. Many people think it is a sign of freedom if the State allows free speech but forget that, even if the State allows it, your culture, society or family still control you and can make you suffer the consequences when going down a path they don't prefer. Even living in a (human) deserted area, which many equate with total freedom, at the same time implies you're controlled by your environment. We tend to call it control when it is obviously control and freedom when control is not so obvious.
It's a bit like advertising where we buy something at "half price" and fool ourselves into thinking we saved half the cash while we actually spend it. As such, freedom is a bargain too which might seem free because we imagine there could be a more severe cost and in doing that, often ignore the actual cost. When the actual cost shows up, we mostly tend to call it unfair while it was the very price which was always attached to it.

But when it comes to government, I agree that to rule the mass, a right mix has to be found between their sense of control and their sense of freedom.

D.


Edited by Diavolo (04/06/10 05:05 PM)

Top
#37442 - 04/07/10 06:40 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I'm amused by this thread and it's because I'm amused I reply because otherwise I think all this is probably a big waste of time.

I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Satanism sustains as principles "the survival of the fittest" (and as a consequence the extinction of the unfitted) and justice.

So the question is what form of government would best implement these satanic principles?

From justice, the meritocracy seems to be the best form of government: the more you do, the more you get. This seems perfect, ideal I would almost say.

But every government claims for justice and pretend to be just.

A communist state will pretend it's just that every people get the same salary whatever his job is.
An Islamic state will claim sharia is just and will punish the sinners.

A democratic state will claim that it's just that the majority rules
An aristocratic state will claim it's just the nobles decide
And a tyrant will claim he's just.

And what if I think it's unjust?

Here enters the other principle: the survival of the fittest.
In every society, whatever the form of government is, the more you're clever, courageous, self-honest... the easier you'll manage to get what you want. That's the only justice I know and it has nothing to do with a form of government it's just a natural law.

Because in a communist state, you don't need to be a good communist but just to convince others you're. And in an Islamic state, it's not the better Muslim who gets the reward but the one who convince the others he is!
In a democracy, you just have to be popular and in a tyranny to make the tyrant your friend... or to kill him.

There is no IDEAL government; they're all corrupted in some way because humans are always corruptible to some extent.

Whatever the form of a government, if there is an ideology behind it stinks! Would it be communism, Islamism, Christianity, Egalitarism... or Satanism.

That's why I say my ideal form of government is anarchy: stricto sensu, no government. I personally share the view of Dan (free market) but I’m conscious it’s probably an ideal. There will always be cheaters, robbers, lazy and corrupted people for reminding us all men are not men of valor. And for them, just leave them alone, let them fuck their lives and die !

Top
#37451 - 04/08/10 04:52 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
I think you caught my point Maw ;-)

For answering your question (again) I think free market would be the ideal circumstances.

Finaly, I'll quote Ayn Rand (in substance):

"Every dictator is a mystic and every mystic is a potential dictator."

Top
#37452 - 04/08/10 11:19 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Of course the 'fit' would prosper under any form of government. Government (in this shape) is never necessary for the 'fit' but it should be there for those that need control. And that group is pretty huge. And, of course, an ideal government would eliminate the dross or at least reward those that eliminate them, instead of, as is too often done now, punish them to the equivalent of telling them they're a naughty boy".

D.

Top
#37453 - 04/08/10 12:11 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Why is it necessary to fullfill the need of the dross? Why just not let them die?

And how will you decide a particular individual needs control and an other one doesn't.

What are the objective criterii to distinguish the dross from the others ?

And finally how do you avoid the risk of cronyism inherent to any for of government ?

Top
#37454 - 04/08/10 04:01 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think you are confused because I wasn't talking about fulfilling the need of the dross as much as eliminating them from the gene pool. Do not confuse the mass with the dross.

The second question I find rather strange. Why would anyone need to decide whether an individual needs control or not if that very individual can be perfectly capable deciding that himself?

About objective criteria; objective criteria are for people that desire affirmation.

About cronyism; why would I need to be bothered about it?

D.

Top
#37456 - 04/08/10 05:14 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Ooops, you're right, I made a confusion.

So for the dross, do you think a government is necessary to eliminate them? I mean, don’t you think vengeance of victims (or victim friends) would not do the work? For instance, suppose such a dross would hurt or rape my beloved, do you think I need a government for killing him? They’re the more unfitted; they would not be long to survive…

For the mass, the sheeps, why is needed to fulfill their need of control?

About cronyism, if you don’t bother, then it’ll not be a meritocracy anymore. It’ll not be the one who merit it who will get the reward, it’ll not be the most competent who will get the job…

Top
#37458 - 04/08/10 07:00 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



I think Diavolo may be talking about a form of Fascism where society is highly stratified from top to bottom – from the most intelligent and creative right down through to the producers or followers and finally to the so called dross, or those who contribute nothing and survive by criminal actions or other forms of parasitism?

I dislike the Fuhrer principle as I have stated above. The only way something like this could ever work (as far as I am concerned) is if power is invested in an elite party or aristocracy of some sort and if the members of that party or aristocracy are not compelled to regard a single individual as the all powerful instrument of the will of the people. I do not trust a single individual to determine policy, particularly during wartime. This has been borne out by the experience of World War Two.

Ideally a Fascist system of this sort would involve the party or aristocracy ordering the society from top to bottom along military lines and than determining the quality and utility of those in the society and than either eliminating or locking up the so called dross; and than subjecting the producers to thorough forms of regimentation and control; and allowing the elite at the top to enjoy all the black magic, magnificence and luxury, super cool sex and adulation and power that they want.

Sounds good for those at the top – problem is that such a society will never be put in place, merely imperfect copies now and then.

Those producers and consumers, who are the backbone of every society, will not accept such an arrangement even if you are trying to run a permanent war economy; are engaging in constant foreign entanglements and propaganda, and are running an empire.

I like the opposition to established overwhelming power.

Top
#37459 - 04/08/10 07:27 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
I always thought one of LaVey's best writings was "Control, religious or political, must exist because the populace demands to be enslaved. Only when it feels sufficiently enslaved can the dissenters produce their collective grunt. Dissension is a weak form of assertion. Assertion is a weak form of creation."

I think to maintain order and progress a government has only to give the illusion of authority and control. And illusion of authority is the only tool a government not willing to harm it's own people really has. As long as the majority buys into the illusion it's real in practicality.

I think the people have to be misled and deceived just enough to keep followers productive but let it be transparent to the intelligent and give them an unspoken but obvious path to success and fulfillment. It's a dead end to try and educate sheep so let them produce resources while the goats progress the civilization.

I remember as a child reading a book that mentioned putting a mouse in a maze. The mouse was smart enough to see there was no ceiling to the maze so instead of trying to navigate it the mouse simply hopped up on top of the walls and walked a straight line to the cheese. My idea is to put all the mice in the maze and tell them climbing the walls is morally wrong... but place the cheese outside the maze. (The realization that I was just speaking of satanic mice just gave me a chuckle)

Punishing the weak followers is just pointless to me. You'll never win. They'll never change. They're always going to breed more than the intelligent. Just give them what they want (it's easy to tell them what that is) and let them work. Give them no power but let them be satisfied and productive while you enjoy your naughty success.

Top
#37464 - 04/09/10 11:24 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Vengeance is nice but how many are really up to it? I know; when we're daydreaming, we all are up to anything but out there it is something completely different. Let me tell you a story I heard last week. A guy's son gets stabbed and dies. The attacker gets convicted and spends four years in jail. The father patiently waits four years until the guy is released, buys a gun and shoots him. He is sentenced to seven years. He didn't care. For who or what are you prepared to go to the monastery for seven years? You don't need to answer me, answer it to yourself.

The mass needs control because it is essential for them in order to function. Those people need someone to give them direction and set up the rules to make them feel safe and comfortable. Hierarchy is about leaders and followers. It doesn't imply I promote a brute force sort of fascism. You can treat people in a honorable manner and still lead them into a certain direction. If you create something sacred for them; a shiny star to follow and at the same time influence their culture to such an extent that you provide the opportunities for quality to rise out of the raw material. Make the mass feel safe and comfortable and at the same time make them aspire the very direction you provide.

I am not too bothered about cronyism. What I see as the leading class, and you shouldn't solely interpret leading as in governing a State, is a class which bases their living upon honor. Imagine it somewhat the likes of dignitas during the Roman Empire. In such an environment cronyism isn't a problem because you don't have friends who have no honor and you certainly don't reward those.

D.

Top
#37473 - 04/09/10 05:44 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Well, first let me precise my position for avoiding misunderstanding:
- I'm not for egalitarism and stratification is just a fact - we're not all equal!
- The mass it too massive, I think a drastic reduction of the world population would fix many issues we face.
- Life is not sacred. The current main stream idea about that is the every life must be saved. If we go on like that we'll have to eat 1 bowl of rice a day because there'll not be enough for everybody. Shitty view! I prefer privileging lives of better quality than saving each and every miserable life.

My point is just and simply, why do we need an authority, a government?

For instance, that vengeance story demonstrates how a ruler can cause problems. Without jail the father would have killed the stabber – end of the story… I should add that I would surely not wait the murdered in front of jail the day he’s out for killing him. There are cleverer ways… And punishing more the father is obviously unjust. Where’s the cause of that injustice?

For the mass, why do you need to have them to function? We just do not need them. Perhaps in the past the mass was to be ruled because we could get the resource only by using manual work. But nowadays, and it’ll be a tendency that will go on; more and more is produced by machines. I don’t need masses for producing; I just need intelligence for designing better machines!
It’s a dream man pursues since man is man: living without needing to work. For realizing his dream man invented progress. From Stone Age through Bronze and Iron ages we’re now in the information era. We’re now close of realizing this dream but who is ready to accept the consequences? Surely not the mass!

And Diavolo, I’m not against leadership ;\) But as you said, it’s about leaders and followers. Something happening quite naturally. Why is it necessary to institutionalize that? I like your “vision” and share it but to which extend isn’t it and ideal? How am I sure your sense of honor is not an utopy?
And are you sure you need a government for implementing that vision?

About cronyism I do not think it’s the same as friendship or networking. I know I must have a social network to make it and choosing the right individuals matters. Is not a friend of me who wants but who merit it. For sure I have honor and I exchange my friendship as a reward for the valor of my friends. All of my friends are not leaders, there are followers having honor. I offer them my friendship and my guidance.
Cronyism is giving a job to your friend even if he’s not the more competent to do the job. It’s an issue an in a governmental environment I think it can become a big issue…

As a conclusion, if a leading class naturally emerges, why do we need institutionalizing it?

Top
#37492 - 04/10/10 01:51 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Oh but I agree; egalitarianism is a rather silly idea, "all men are equal" is a Leftist continuation of the religious "all men are equal… before god" idea. There is no basis for this idea in nature and even at an abstract level it is pretty funky at the least.

I also think there are too many of us but I don't think a drastic reduction will happen any soon. Unless, for the first time, the 2012 doom happens to be an accurate prediction. Even when a drastic reduction would happen, remember it will most likely be a blind process. Blind in the sense that there will be no selection in what will be reduced. In such a scenario it is probable the only survivors are those in some remote mental institution, to give a radical example. On the grand scale of things; as in the continuation of life, it matters little but I personally rather not see us drop from the first steps of space exploration into having to reinvent the wheel again. Survival of the fittest might very well be survival of the luckiest, which in some sense is probably more accurate. So a catastrophe is maybe not that grand for reduction and the last time some partook in the artificial reduction of our species, they were not received that well either. Yes there are indeed too many of us but I fear that it is a problem not that easy to solve.

Life is indeed not sacred. Nor is it precious. I fully agree.

I think the idea that we can create enough intelligent machines that can do all labor for us so we don't have to do anything but live happily our lives is close to impossible. I don't think that machines will ever be capable of fulfilling all requirements that are needed for us to leech of their labor. And I certainly think we should not even aspire that direction. It's worse enough as it is seeing how people turn into helpless creatures when their technology fails. A computer crashing, a dead cell phone battery, a broken calculator or a navigation system that fails is enough to trigger a nervous breakdown in many. If we'd fully deliver us into the care of machines, we'd not only grant full control to someone, we'd likely also turn into a despicable fat, lazy and mind numb species. I'd prefer a nuclear holocaust above that scenario. It's worse enough as it is, the last thing we need is even more reason for people to do nothing.

So we need the mass. If you prefer to wipe your ass with toilet paper instead of leaves, you need people fabricating that very toilet paper. What we don't need is to waste a lot of energy and potential at trivial or plain idiotic things and to accomplish this, one needs to direct the mass. Therefore we need government. My idea of government might be utopian but that does matter very little to me. I do not aspire things to come as much as I prefer to act now.

I see the path towards realizing fascism somewhat like gardening. First you prepare the soil, you let it grow, wait for the gardener to come and harvest what has been planted; Pontifex, Vindex, Imperator.

The very problem we are facing today is that ridiculous concept of an egalitarian democracy. It is quite irrelevant to concern ourselves with things to come or if they will ever come when what we despise is in the here and now in front of our noses. This is the stage which I call Pontifex. We build paths and bridges. You abandon the isolation and seek common ground with others. Fascists, neo-Nazis, radicals; you name it. It's a means to an end and a source to discover others which are more alike us but are stuck in "the next best thing". It's not important that it might not accomplish a great change or the big contra-revolution. What you do is prepare the soil, change the probabilities; create a wave. One should not be concerned about result as much as that one should act against that what one despises. The main area to act is in your very culture, your town, your neighborhood. That is your realm, your universe and that is where you prepare the soil.

What the question should be is "if weakness disgusts me that much, why not do something about it?”

D.

Top
#37511 - 04/11/10 11:13 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Mmmmmmh, I’m still amused but it finally might be not the waste of time I thought. Thanks Diavolo \:\)

I don't think a drastic reduction will happen any soon.

I don’t believe in accurate predictions.

I didn’t follow the mass for watching the 2012 movie. And if a catastrophe would arise, whoever will die; after that it will just results in harder conditions raising the pressure of natural selection for those who survive.

Creating enough intelligent machines that can do all labor for us so we don't have to do anything but live happily our lives is impossible as it’s a dream man pursues since man is man: living without needing to work. But we should aspire to progress. If you fear to be dependent on you GPS, buy a paper map, if you fear to be dependent on calculators, buy an abacus and if you fear being dependent on a paper map, limit your travels to the little area you know, if you fear being dependent on an abacus, enhance you capability of mental calculus. But then you also have to accept to lose all the benefits brought by GPS, calculators, computers…! It’s regression, not progression. You continue in that direction and you’ll finish with schools teaching kids how to shape flint!

There must be a clear distinction between the dream we pursue and the reality which emerged from mankind's pursuance of this dream. As a result of this pursuance, we’re now close being able to do without manual work (that’s a fact, a reality that cannot be denied) and this enable us to spend more time to think. It’s a twisted view to believe stopping working will make us happy, a misconception of reality, a kind of unreal paradise. But on the other hand, the more we progress the less we have to spend time on dumb activities and the more time we have for noblest activities: thinking, creating, inventing (note there are interesting manual activities such as painting, sculpting…).

Look, in the pre-industrial period most of the men were in agricultural sector. There had to hard work much more than 8 hours a day for having what we consider now as the vital minimum. Once the day was over, man was just too exhausted for being able to do anything else than sleeping. Then came the industrial revolution, at the beginning the agricultural labor power was used for doing the dumb repetitive tasks machines were not able to do yet. But quickly, reality demonstrated that because of industrialization, the total amount of necessary manual labor decreased. As it decreased, there was free time available and instead of willing to do noblest activities, the mass, through the unions, claimed for leisure. And indeed, few of those who gained this free time used it in a constructive way. What most are doing on their free time now? Thinking, learning and reading as we’re doing it right here? No they kill their time at passive activities like watching TV. There are movies which could eventually make them think. But thinking is requiring effort so the mass believing in his lazy dream prefers to watch stupid people doing stupid think seeking comfort in the reassurance that they’re not so stupid themselves: this is called reality show.

You say you need the mass, do you really believe TUC engraving is manual work? \:D

About the ridiculous concept of egalitarian democracy, I do believe it’s more a question of egalitarianism than a question of democracy. It’s more a question of culture and main stream ideas than a question of a form of government. If the values promoted by our culture were more in excellence and competition rather than in mediocrity and equality, I’m convinced things would be better whatever the form of government would be.
You see Diavolo, I think we share more than it seems. I think we share this view about the mass and we share more values we could think. We probably share similar ideals but we just diverge on the mean: you propose to control the mass and I propose to let them die. What’s the best, I don’t know for sure but I think it’s less difficult controlling machines than controlling people and it causes fewer problems…
May be the mass is still useful for a while and during this time but when (and I don’t say if) we’ll have machines able to do almost all dumb tasks; you’ll control the mass for making them doing what? Useless things because they need a work? Or just entertaining them because if you don’t entertain them they risk to do stupid things and causing problems??? I’m not a clown; I don’t want spending my time in entertaining the mass!
May be I’m a little in advance on my time but the you’re in late: panem et circenses time is over. We can make our bread ourselves! Soon we won’t need the mass anymore and thus we won’t need a government. Why do you want to keep them alive?

About the means to realize the “vision” there are many options amongst which totalitarianism and anarchy.

About the “vision” it’s about controlling this


or that

Top
#37527 - 04/11/10 07:54 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



The below quote is from Hitler:

“National socialism is the determination to create a new man. There will no longer exist any individual arbitrary will, nor realms in which the individual belongs to himself. The time of happiness as a private matter is over.”

Quoted in Joachim C. Fest, Hitler. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974, p. 533.

The below quote is from Ernst Huber:

“The concept of personal liberties of the individual as opposed to the authority of the state had to disappear; it is not to be reconciled with the principle of the nationalistic Reich. There are no personal liberties of the individual which fall outside of the realm of the state and which must be respected by the state. The member of the people, organically connected with the whole community, has replaced the isolated individual; he is included in the totality of the political people and is drawn into the collective action. There can no longer be any question of a private sphere, free of state influence, which is sacred and untouchable before the political unity. The constitution of the nationalistic Reich is therefore not based upon a system of inborn and inalienable rights of the individual.”

Huber, Verfassungsrecht des grossdeutschen Reiches (Hamburg, 1939), in Raymond E. Murphy, et al., ed., National Socialism, reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, selected by Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1952, p. 90.

The below quote is from Hitler:

“The State must act as the guardian of a millennial future in the face of which the wishes and the selfishness of the individual must appear as nothing and submit.”

Hitler, Mein Kampf, translated by Ralph Manheim. Houghton Mifflin: 1971, p. 404.

“THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-INTEREST.”
—NDSAP Program, Point 24, 1920

The below quote is from Alfredo Rocco:

“For Fascism, society is the end, individuals the means, and its whole life consists in using individuals as instruments for its social ends.”

Rocco, “The Political Doctrine of Fascism” (address delivered at Perugia, August 30, 1925), reprinted in Readings on Fascism and National Socialism, selected by Department of Philosophy, University of Colorado. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1952, p. 35.

Can somebody explain to me how Satanism, which values individualism above all else can be reconciled with Fascism?

How can a character or symbol such as Satan, who I see as the opposition to established power be related to a Fascist outlook on the world?

If the so called “Fascism” being promoted here in this thread is different than the Fascism advocated by people such as Hitler, Mussolini, Huber, Gentile, Rocco, Rosenberg etc. etc. than maybe some other word or term should be used to define it. Maybe a better definition of this strange new doctrine needs to be articulated as well.

I can understand that Satanism naturally is a philosophy which privileges elitism and social Darwinism of some sort and to some degree, but does the Fascism as defined above by Hitler, Huber and Rocco really sound attractive to Satanists. Keep in mind that everybody submits, not just the so called masses.

Are you prepared to submit as instructed?

Top
#37540 - 04/12/10 11:36 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
You can reread my posts but as far as I know, I didn't use the S-word in them when talking about fascism. Maybe some interpreted my use of the word us with the idea I might have concluded them too but I can assure you, in most cases, I didn't.

As I explained before, fascism is there for them. We (don't get confused ;\) ) don't need government. We can govern ourselves. It is not because we live amongst them that we live like them. If you are afraid you will have to submit under fascism, you already identify yourself with them. I don't, so what is the difference between us? We probably live different lives.

I find it amusing you dislike the word fascism because of the common interpretation. It amuses me to use it for that very reason. I could easily speak of an organic state, to soften the concept but why would I? Isn't it a common thing in Satanism to use words according their own definition instead of the general interpretation? The S-word itself directly comes to mind, ironic isn't it?

To Fabiano; I'd not mind debating the technological system you dream about but I don't think this is the thread to go into a long debate whether a system of techno-slavery is a desired direction or not. Maybe create a post about your views and I'll happily smash them to pieces. ;\)

D.

Top
#37543 - 04/12/10 01:36 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
Diavolo, don't misunderstand me. I don't have a dream, mankind has one...

And I still don't have an answer to my question (which is not off topic) : why do you need a government/state ?

About S-word, I know Satanists like to be "shocking" but if you call this

a dragon, don't be surprise it causes some confusion and misundertanding. If you could give a definition of an organic state (or Fascism) it would clarify. \:\)


Edited by Fabiano (04/12/10 02:00 PM)

Top
#37547 - 04/12/10 04:39 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
TV is God Moderator Offline
Moderator
member


Registered: 08/11/08
Posts: 273
Loc: The Cornhole
Government is a naturally forming entity. Government is just another piece of the social darwinist clockwork. In an anarchy you'll inevitably get a group of power hungry people that get together and start calling themselves revolutionaries. They'll talk to the people and tell them all the problems in their life are from the lack of order. They'll write laws, their followers will enforce the laws they wright. Who the hell's going to stop them? Nobody but other gangs looking for the same thing.

Anarchy just turned into a government. A weak government is just asking for a stronger gang to take over. No government is just begging to be controlled by the first gang that wants it.

The closest thing to a lasting anarchy is when multiple gangs are fighting over power and nobody is clearly in control. Places like that aren't known for their extraordinary living conditions.

Top
#37548 - 04/12/10 05:04 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I think I answered the question before but to give a short and sweet answer; I prefer a State because it is effective where I am not. I think that sums it up pretty good.

Now to explain my fascism, I think it is handy if you first read this book. Yeah goddamn, effort required, don't we all hate that. ;\)

Julius Evola - Men Among the Ruins

If you make an account there, you can download it in several formats. Or you can buy it and read the real thing. They got a shipload of other quite interesting books too, that is, if you search a bit. Mind you, Evola isn't the easiest read and he can get lost into mysticism but his views upon fascism are quite interesting. Also keep in mind that the book is written quite some time ago.
I know most will quickly google or wiki some basic info but not until you struggle through this, you'll have a fair idea of the basics of an organic state. Of course you are free to not read it and continue the very ideas our brothers of the Left have been spoonfeeding for decades.

D.

Top
#37550 - 04/12/10 05:34 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
to TV: You're right, nothing is eternal. This applies to everything...

To Diavolo: I just finished reading the last sentence of "Atlas Shrugged", right now. Wasn't really an effort, I would rather say a pleasure \:\) Ca tombe à pic, I just need another book now. ;\)

Knowledge is never bad...

Top
#37551 - 04/12/10 08:25 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



The meaning of Fascism is the meaning of the word as defined by scholars, politicians and other stakeholders (who first conceived this word and determined its specific meaning in the 1920’s and 1930’s); and a specific type of political, social and military practice, which took place during the 1920’s and 1930’s.

The notion of an organic state is considered to be one of the components of Fascism, particularly the content of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right, but it is not Fascism. Irrationalism, nationalism, aspects of European history and questions related to racial superiority or the myth of the blood were also considered key components.

To use the word Fascism (without careful efforts at re – meaning or re – articulating the content), in any context, is to draw on and dwell within that meaning, which the word received from its original source. It is also to draw on all aspects of the words constitutive components, including racism, irrationalism, nationalism and the organic state.

The organic state itself is not Fascism. Words can be re - interpreted and re – meant, but the onus is on the one who is re – interpreting and altering the meaning of the word to provide the new definition and the why of the re – interpretation and then to get some sort of agreement, or at least understanding, on the new definition.

In relation to the word Satanism: this word was re – interpreted and its revised or new meaning was very carefully explained through a series of works, public statements and interviews by Dr. LaVey and others who understood the new meaning and could explain it.

There is a reference made to Satanism or the S-word in the above post. On, the one hand, the claim is made that the S-word has not been used in relation to the conversation about Fascism in any prior posts. Then, in the very next paragraph, the point is made that Fascism is there for them and that this had been explained before. This dodgy relationship between Satanism and Fascism is addressed all the way along in these posts.

Our current political arrangements are not going to be overturned in favour of Fascism no matter how the meaning of that word is re – articulated and this is definitely for the best. It is stated that might and victory are the basis of right, if this is so, than the Fascist’s lost all of their rights at the end of the war.

I strongly disagree with the presumption that honest working people who are actually working hard, aspiring to better themselves and paying societies bills need to be regarded as pawns and objects to be controlled by some Fascist authorita

Top
#37573 - 04/13/10 02:54 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Thus in short; you don't like the fact that I use fascism differently than you, the dictionary and the majority and therefor I should either adapt to your standard of interpretation or completely explain what I talk about?
If I'm not mistaking, I gave the very basics on which my views are based upon in the previous post to Fabiano but it seems that might have required too much effort.

Don't be offended that, even when I post this in public, I will admit that I am not necessarily communicating with you. In that context you should also see my use of "us" and "them", as I have explained before. It's not because I talk about a group of people that I therefor talk about Laveyan satanists or satanists in general. I think that might be causing the confusion here.
Whether or not Laveyan Satanism goes hand in hand with fascism isn't something which really interests me. If you think it doesn't, good for you but a yes or no riddle doesn't really keep me awake at night.

About the presumption of those honest hard working people.
Look, most out there are closer to cattle than us. Oops, there's that "us" again. ;\) There is raw material which might get somewhere when guided but a lot will never get anywhere and their sole purpose is to fulfill our needs. It doesn't imply one therefor has to treat them in a dishonorable manner (if they don't deserve it) but one should never forget they are a different species. I don't consider myself equal to them but if anyone else wants to bow down to their level, let them feel free.

D.

Top
#37579 - 04/13/10 07:26 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
MatthewJ1
Unregistered



Diavolo, you have provided a link to a book about your views, which I would like to read when I get a chance.

I am certainly interested in how the doctrine of Fascism may have changed over time and how your views are shaped.

I am negative about Fascism as you have probably surmised from my posts. One reason: I always remember that Australian, American and English forces (including my own family members) were risking their lives to fight German and Italian Fascists. Too many died as a result of Fascism.

I believe that water should be allowed to seek its own level naturally, but I believe the process should take place within a more open and less regimented form of society, where elitism is exercised somewhat more humanly and where necessary illusions are active.

I would be interested in what other members think.

Top
#37585 - 04/14/10 12:58 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Fascism, as does all statism, operates off of the concept that some people cannot be trusted with freedom because they are somehow inferior.
While there are certainly criminals and the mentally ill, this dichotomy is a simplistic way to look at humanity. All people are capable of achieving their happiness through the natural abilities that have evolved into our being, and when any state attempts to limit freedom in order to enhance it for others, it increases the problem.
Satanists aren't elite because we are the only ones capable of looking at reality objectively and doing as we please- we are simply more capable of succeeding in our environment because we hold the truth as an absolute value- the truth being an unforgiving, materialistic animal world. This isn't a bad thing.

I will read that book you posted the link to Diavolo, but historical precedent has shown fascism to be a major fail. To evoke Ayn Rand, "Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off."
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37592 - 04/14/10 05:47 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: ]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: MatthewJ1
If the so called “Fascism” being promoted here in this thread is different than the Fascism advocated by people such as Hitler, Mussolini, Huber, Gentile, Rocco, Rosenberg etc. etc. than maybe some other word or term should be used to define it. Maybe a better definition of this strange new doctrine needs to be articulated as well.


I think I shared my view enough on the matter at hand in different posts throughout the forum but couldnt resist on comment on it again. Basically Im not for unlimited personal freedoms for every man. Not every man is capable of dealing with it. Humans in groups certainly arent. I think a strong government is required for things not to get out of hand (not saying it cant get out of hand to the other extreme though).

Satanism generally doesnt care about every mans freedoms (or politics) but to create an envoiroment where the individual Satanist will flourish. I believe that a country ruled by some of the fascist doctrines would provide such a thing. For one, crime would decrease. Mussolinis Italy managed to pretty much destroy the mafia for instance. Then again there are parts I dont like which includes colonisation - which was indeed a great part of original fascism.

Not all fascist regimes have been failures but there was a little thing called WW2 which naturally put an end to a lot of the progress some countries had made as fascist countries. I put the blame on Hitler for wanting to much to soon. As we know the victors write the history so even though some countries wasnt bad under fascism it is portrayed as the worst thing ever because of the war and because of the nazis (mainly).

And while on the topic your quotes are mostly from national socialists which I would actually put in a seperate branch from fascism since it is based on blood and thus race. Fascism (Mussolini) never really had that as a foundation (they prefered cultural nationalism which one could become a part of despite being jewish for example - Mussolini had a longtime jewish lover for example). Sadly they felt they had to please Hitler because of the unfortunate alliance they made with Germany. Before that alliance Italy was indeed doing very well under fascist rule and did not include hitlers anti-semitism or racism.

And indeed even democratic countries in the 30's held anti-semitic and racist views. The war did make people re-think and now many makes it sound as if they were always anti-race biology and it was only "those fascists" that were for it - which just isnt true.

This article is quite interesting. I may not agree with everything but considering the topic at hand its well worth a read: http://apodion.com/vad/article.php?id=30&aid=242&template_file=printfriendly.html

Top
#37735 - 04/17/10 11:58 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I don't think the herd is much of a factor in the changes at a political level. The mass in itself is inert and only moves into a certain direction when pushed by others. What are behind changes are forces that take advantage of a certain climate. Those forces, which might consist out of groups of people, or individuals, which might or might not know the others or even consciously cooperate with them and not necessarily need to be in the same period of time, are not always that easily identified and often remain hidden to most. If you take the development of Nazi Germany, as an example, most put a causal link between Hitler and the Third Reich as if it all was his idea but if you'd explore most parts of the whole Nazi-culture and ideas, you'd be able to detect all kinds of influences which at a certain point made the realization of the Third Reich possible. As such, I do think the causal link between Hitler and Nazi Germany is not as important in this as all the factors that contributed to the very preparation of the soil. The mass its only role is being available to move in whatever direction it is desired.

I liked how you mentioned taxable drugs. I am pro drugs; nothing should be forbidden at that level, no matter what type or kind of drug, and it should be a normal consumer product, available to the public just like anything else. Many oppose this idea but knowing the World of Weakness pretty well, it got me thinking a while back and as a result, even changed my approach. At times we dream of a weapon or virus which would eliminate the weak and only make the strong survive. It's one of those daydreams which are pretty hard to realize. How are you even going to decide who is weak or strong is one of the very problems attached to it. The solution is actually very simple. Let them decide it for themselves. Let everything that can cause addiction be available out there under the principle of responsibility to the responsible. Let those that can handle it enjoy it and those that can't eliminate themselves; let them sink down the social level or eliminate themselves when they are weak enough. In doing so, you give people the opportunity to decide for themselves how far they want to take things or how much they can handle and at the same time, you clean up the gene pool and move the undesired toward the lower caste they were destined to be in to begin with. It's time we kick the saints of their pedestal and put the dealers and pushers on it. ;\)

D.

Top
#37738 - 04/17/10 02:43 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3881
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Well said Dia. The arms that have been cradling the weak and inept could really be put to better use. Pulling that particular carpet out from under the herds feet would be a move towards natural selection, the tried and true method of social and species advancement. I have been singing this song for years, remove the stops from this stagnant basin and let the water flow where it will, seeking its own level.

\:\)
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37746 - 04/17/10 04:03 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dan_Dread]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
I am very unsure about the legalization of drugs. It may sound alright from the way you put it but there is no denying that drugs doesnt just effect the person taking it. If it was only a matter of individual choice I wouldnt really have a problem with it. Now however we have to deal with crimes related to drug-use that I personally would not like to see.

We have the basic statistic that the risk for unprovoced violence increases dramatically as well as dangers in traffic. On top of that we all know that drug abusers generally cant hold their own and thus arent able to work and earn money. This of course leads to stealing of different kinds. While the undeground illegal drug scene might dissappear we get a whole new set o problems when more people will start abusing drugs (because believe me if it was for anyone to buy legally it would increase).

I tend to think that its better to ban drugs and hit hard towards the (relatively) small group that deal with that kind of thing. This does of course require a stronger police force (or maybe even a specialized force dealing only with drugs).

Top
#37752 - 04/17/10 05:08 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
@TheInsane,

While your claim that a total legalization of drugs would likely lead to increased use, at least temporarily, there is significant evidence that decriminalization would have a much more beneficial impact than continuing criminalization. It turns out that letting people be responsible for themselves actually works- once drugs were decriminalized, the number of addicts seeking help for rehabilitation increased Four-fold. When a User is caught, it is no longer a criminal charge but an administrative offense, where the defendant sits in a circle with counselors at the same level, rather than being looked down upon by a Judge. The maximum amount of respect is given towards the individual, and they are offered help and evaluated carefully.
The report on this vastly successful political decision can be found here, provided by the libertarian CATO Institute.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10080

Satanists seem to like the idea that the weak will fall through the cracks and only the strong will remain. It turns out that more people than we might think are capable of helping themselves, given the right incentives and circumstances. Ultimately, a more individualist political philosophy is something that the masses can be convinced to adopt. Just give it time. Ron Paul is working hard, as are all libertarians pushing for a smarter national drug policy.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37755 - 04/17/10 05:34 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Well, naturally the reports from a liberal institute such as CATO will indicate that legalization of drugs is a positive thing. Frankly numbers and statistics can be twisted and turned in whatever ways desireable and since I willingly admit that Im not well read on the topic of drugs I decide to not get to involved in deeper discussion about it.

I would however recomend people to not just look at the information that organisations who are for legalization of drugs (or have an ideology closely related to pople who think so) produce. The same is of course true the other way around for all of us who take a stand against legalization.

Top
#37756 - 04/17/10 06:13 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
The Cato Institute's information comes from reports from the Portuguese government themselves. A government that made the decision not because it doubted an increase in crime(an increase that was insignificant and temporary), but solely as a way to combat the growing problems of addiction. Cato is libertarian, not liberal. And it was about decriminalization- a far cry from legalization.

Deciding to believe something with lack of proof, especially in spite of proof, is a stupid thing we call faith.
"Numbers and statistics can be twisted"
So we might as well ignore anything that doesn't satisfy out bias?

The same report also shows that marijuana use increased. It's not a biased report. It is, as we say, "fair and balanced".

If you wish not to lead this thread towards a tangent about drug policy, that is fine, but I cite it because the individualist philosophy of Satanism is not simply one I have accepted due to a self-interested preference- it is backed up by reason and scientific fact. In a world where I seek fulfillment through survival and pursuit of happiness, truth is a value that cannot be set aside.
That is why we cannot simply say, which do we prefer- anarchy, fascism, or communism- there is a system, or a range of, systems of government that are most effective and efficient in guaranteeing individual civil liberties. It is, in my educated opinion, a system of small government with proper, sensible laws. I do not expect to convince anyone of this without legitimate scientific, psychological, political and historical proof. But the conversation is for nothing if one is not willing to look objectively at the facts and admit when or where they may be mistaken. To do any less is intellectually dishonest, to deny one's full potential, and only takes away from the benefits of openly discussing systems of government and the policies that make them.

The definition of Insanity has been known as, "doing the same thing and expecting different results".
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37871 - 04/19/10 01:17 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
The reason I didnt want to turn this thread into a discussion on drugs was because I am not well read on the subject. If Portugals approach does work then Im all for it. If it does make the use of drugs less common thats great. We do have to consider the circumstances as well though and not try to think of an idea as universal.

Personally I tend to think that several political ideologies can work if properly executed. That way you could say Im no idealist in the Platonic sense of the word (and indeed most fascists would never agree with me on this). I do however have preferences on what I think is needed today and what direction I would like to see politics in general take. And of course my own philosophy includes certain ideas that makes me lean towards specific political ideas. Anti-egalitarianism for example.

Top
#37879 - 04/19/10 05:45 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Fabiano Offline
member


Registered: 09/06/08
Posts: 374
 Originally Posted By: Diavolo
Whether or not Laveyan Satanism goes hand in hand with fascism isn't something which really interests me.

Really? I'm confused then. I thought you was defending a strong state/government as an effective way to promote some values and assumed those values were quite satanic... Did I missed something?

Regarding the drugs, we all know the result of prohibition... Legalizing drugs is indeed a good way to eliminate the criminality around it and to eliminate the weaks who doesn't have a will strong enough for managing drugs usage.
I think this would happen quite "naturally" under anarchy so I do not see the need of an authority (again).

Top
#37941 - 04/20/10 04:24 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Fabiano]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
I'm not a Laveyan, so what the philosophy permits or not isn't any of my concerns. Let's leave it at that.

D.

Top
#37944 - 04/20/10 06:46 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
TheInsane, please explain why you are anti-egalitarian. It seems to me that after hundreds of years of organizations of all sorts developing and advancing, they have greatly moved towards egalitarianism, where more members are accountable and more gets done because individuals feel more personally involved. It seems to make sense that if one care's for their own interests above all, that participating in an organization they believe upholds their values will be more beneficial to the organization as well as themselves. I base this knowledge off of numerous things I have read and learned in an Organization Science class.

Top-down economic policies have certainly been shown to fail and cause more problems than does the free market in responding to problems itself. The greatest problems nations face occur when the government attempts to aid the market, and end when the top-down imbalance can no longer stand.
Sure hierarchy has its place, but indeed the government usually creates or utterly fails to address problems in which it takes an active involvement.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37967 - 04/21/10 03:17 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
It is quite a strong statement to claim that "Top-down economic policies have certainly been shown to fail and cause more problems than does the free market in responding to problems itself". We have thousands of years and probably just as many different systems of top-down economic politics to compare to very short time of free market economics. I am not an economist so Id rather leave the discussion at that or Id make a fool out of myself ;\)

On the non-equality of humans I choose to quote Julius Evola from his work "men among the ruins" (chapter 3 "Personality, freedom, hierarchy"). These parts of the book corresponds with my view on the matter at hand:

 Quote:
Let us begin with the egalitarian premise. It is necessary to state from the outset that the "immortal principle" of equality is sheer nonsense. There is no need to comment on the inequality of human beings from a naturalistic point of view. And yet the champions of egalitarianism make equality a matter of principle, claiming that while human beings are not equal de facto, they are so de jure: they are unequal, and yet they should not be. Inequality is unfair; the merit and the superiority of the liberal idea allegedly consists of not taking it into account, overcoming it, and acknowledging the same dignity in every man. Democracy, too, shares the belief in the "fundamental equality of anything that appears to be human.". . .

. . .Concerning the first point, the notion of "many" (i.e., a multiplicity of individual beings) logically contradicts the notion of "many equals." First of all, ontologically speaking, this is due to the so-called "principle of undiscernibles," which is expressed in these terms: "A being that is absolutely identical to an-other, under every regard, would be one and the same with it." Thus, in the concept of "many" is implicit the concept of their fundamental difference: "many" beings that are equal, completely equal, would not be many, but one. To uphold the equality of the many is a contradiction in terms, unless we refer to a body of soulless mass-produced objects.

Second, the contradiction lies in the "principle of sufficient reason," which is expressed in these terms: "For every thing there must be some reason why it is one thing and not another." Now, a being that is totally equal to another would lack "sufficient reason": it would be just a meaningless duplicate.
From both perspectives, it is rationally well established that the "many" not only cannot be equal, but they also must not be equal: inequality is true de facto only because it is true de jure and it is real only because it is necessary. That which the egalitarian ideology wished to portray as a state of "justice" is in reality a state of injustice, according to a perspective that is higher and beyond the humanitarian and democratic rhetorics. In the past, Cicero and Aristotle argued along these lines. . .


. . .These references clarify what is truly a person and personal value, as op-posed to the mere individual and the mere element belonging to a mass or to a social agglomerate. The person is an individual who is differentiated through his qualities, endowed with his own face, his proper nature, and a series of at-tributes that make him who he is and distinguish him from all others—in other words, attributes that make him fundamentally unequal. The person is a man in whom the general characteristics (beginning with that very general characteristic of being human, to that of belonging to a given race, nation, gender, and social group) assume a differentiated form of expression by articulating and variously individuating themselves.

Top
#37970 - 04/21/10 04:35 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: SkaffenAmtiskaw]
Diavolo Offline
RIP
stalker


Registered: 09/02/07
Posts: 4997
Freddy surely can't be accused of being a democrat or an egalitarian. His view is pretty aligned with mine; the State as a distillation process in which the great can climb and the rest serves as fertilizer.

D.

Top
#37974 - 04/21/10 08:02 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Diavolo]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
Ok, in regards to egalitarianism, I seemed to be referring to horizontal organizational structures as opposed to solely vertical ones. However, the fact that people are naturally unequal does not mean that a structure where individuals come together in voluntary participation is any less capable. It simply means that those capable of one role fulfill it while those capable of others fulfill those. They can be held as equals in principle not in spite of, but because they are capable of different things. Don't make your opposition to horizontal structures based on the fact we're different- anyone can oppose blanket equality, but the concept of treating people equally is in seeing that they all have abilities to potentially contribute. The fact that some people are entirely incapable of anything does not bear on the efficacy of horizontal structures because incapable individuals would be held accountable by the rest of the group, rather than allowed to pass by or reinforced as happens in vertical structures.

"We have thousands of years and probably just as many different systems of top-down economic politics to compare to very short time of free market economics. I am not an economist so Id rather leave the discussion at that or Id make a fool out of myself"

To briefly and conclusively make my point-
"Adam Smith pointed out the enormous increases in material
production that came about through the division of labor.
The example with which Smith opens The Wealth of Nations
is pin manufacturing. A lone workman could “scarce, perhaps,
with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day.” But even
225 years ago, when Smith was writing, a small pin shop,
dividing the manufacture into eighteen distinct tasks, allowed
a ten-man shop to produce 48,000 pins in a day, or 4,800 per
man." Economics for Real People, by Gene Callahan

As a Satanist I think one might prefer Free-Market Competition, where all have a generally equal opportunity to pursue success, than to support oppressive government policies that "separate the strong from the weak". Let people succeed on their own- a true meritocracy does not artificially or unnecessarily reward the successful, nor does it give them "a tree to climb above the canopy". It is indifferent and will only reward those who earn it, the exact amount they have earned, and will let the water find its own level with no biased preference. This is why fascism, communism, and all forms of statism Fail. They do not address the human potential of capitalism. That is why I say with such vigor that nothing can or has outmatched the Free Market that has only recently but quite significantly come into being. Competition is the greatest drive for economic success.

Another thing that I think Satanists overlook- the Law of Comparative Advantage- what it basically states is that even if I'm better at everything than you are, we can both still profit by working together by me doing the one thing I am best at and you doing the thing you are best at- in the end each of us individually and mutually benefits significantly more than if I tried to do everything myself. It seems that there is a pronounced disdain for the mediocre and less capable- indeed, we can work with them to be better off than alone, things don't have to be this dramatic "strong rise weak fall". In Capitalism, a rising tide lifts all boats. It's a waste of time and energy to hold disdain for those who might not succeed in a top-down economy, because if things were free, everybody would be better off individually and in total.

Economics is the study of the Consequences of Choice, and I am finding it quite relevant to Satanism and how principles are applied to reality.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37982 - 04/22/10 12:10 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
Dan_Dread Offline
stalker


Registered: 10/08/08
Posts: 3881
Loc: Vancouver, Canada
Egalitarianism posits that all people are inherently of the same basic value and entitled to the same rights, treatment and opportunities.

Satanism posits stratification, might makes right, and elitism through personal achievement.

These are pretty much opposite concepts.
_________________________
ADM
ideological vandal

Top
#37985 - 04/22/10 12:32 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Dan_Dread]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
I believe you are correct, Dan, and I mixed up the concept of egalitarianism with horizontal authority. Mostly because I read an article that treated them as the same thing. My fault.
However, the political system that most benefits personal achievement is a government that first ensures basic individual civil liberties.
It is here I would like to stress the difference between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Results. We must be committed to one entirely, not both, and no compromises. We must uphold the Equality of Opportunity by keeping government's hands off the Free Market. It is then that individuals can reach their full potential, whatever it is they imagine that to be.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#37993 - 04/22/10 05:01 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:
It simply means that those capable of one role fulfill it while those capable of others fulfill those. They can be held as equals in principle not in spite of, but because they are capable of different things.


I don’t disagree that different people should do different things because they are different and do not hold the same knowledge or capabilities. This is something that makes man UNEQUAL. I do not support any weeding out the strong from the weak by the State. I realize both is needed but in different places. Different people can contribute in different ways. This doesn’t make them equal though. Fascism actually supports people working with what they do best (it wants to keep the classes) but it is also for class collaboration. That mans that everyone can help each other in their own field to make the nation great.
The very foundation of democracy is that every man has an equal right and an equal say in who will rule a country. I only understand this idea if it’s explained in a way that because of this system the masses will be kept in check because they think they can wield power. I don’t think any man is capable of making good political decisions and looking how people most often vote (either out of tradition – “I always voted for X” – or out of the currently most popular idea) it is even more illogical to let them have a say in a country’s political climate. An idea shouldn’t have to be popular to be the dominating one. It should be the best possible idea for the time. I don’t think a democratic system supports this. Democracy and indeed capitalism supports popularity and whims over anything else.

 Quote:

To briefly and conclusively make my point-
"Adam Smith pointed out the enormous increases in material
production that came about through the division of labor.
The example with which Smith opens The Wealth of Nations
is pin manufacturing. A lone workman could “scarce, perhaps,
with his utmost industry, make one pin in a day.” But even
225 years ago, when Smith was writing, a small pin shop,
dividing the manufacture into eighteen distinct tasks, allowed
a ten-man shop to produce 48,000 pins in a day, or 4,800 per
man." Economics for Real People, by Gene Callahan


As I said I am no economist but since I just read the Julius Evola book that does deal with this I thought it was appropriate to answer your quote with another quote from the same book I quoted before:

The "social question" and various "political problems" are increasingly losing any higher meaning, and are being defined on the basis of the most primitive conditions of physical existence, conditions that are then made absolute and removed from any higher concern. The notion of justice is reduced to this or that system of distribution of economic goods; the notion of civilization is measured mostly by that of production; and the focus of people's attention tends to be on topics such as production, work, productivity, economic classes, salaries, private or public property, exploitation of the workers, and special-interest groups. . .

What must be questioned is not the value of this or that economic system, but the value of the economy itself. Thus, despite the fact that the antithesis between capitalism and Marxism dominates the background of recent times, it must be regarded as a pseudo-antithesis. In free-market economies, as well as in Marxist societies, the myth of production and its corollaries (e.g., standardization, monopolies, cartels, technocracy) are subject to the "hegemony" of the economy, becoming the primary factor on which the material conditions of existence are based. Both systems regard as "backward" or as "underdeveloped" those civilizations that do not amount to "civilizations based on labor and production"— namely, those civilizations that, luckily for themselves, have not yet been caught up in the feverish industrial exploitation of every natural resource, the social and productive enslavement of all human possibilities, and the exaltation of technical and industrial standards; in other words, those civilizations that still enjoy a certain space and a relative freedom. Thus, the true antithesis is not between capitalism and Marxism, but between a system in which the economy rules supreme (no matter in what form) and a system in which the economy is subordinated to extra-economic factors, within a wider and more complete order, such as to bestow a deep meaning upon human life and foster the development of its highest possibilities. This is the premise for a true restorative reaction, beyond "Left" and "Right," beyond capitalism's abuses and Marxist subversion. The necessary conditions are an inner detoxification, a becoming "normal" again ("normal" in the higher meaning of the term), and a renewed capability to differentiate between base and noble interests. No intervention from the outside can help; any external action at best might accompany this process.


 Quote:
Let people succeed on their own- a true meritocracy does not artificially or unnecessarily reward the successful, nor does it give them "a tree to climb above the canopy". It is indifferent and will only reward those who earn it, the exact amount they have earned, and will let the water find its own level with no biased preference. This is why fascism, communism, and all forms of statism Fail. They do not address the human potential of capitalism.


I’m all for people realizing their own potential. I’m also against rewarding someone artificially or unnecessarily as you would put it. The problem with capitalism is that it values humans in relation to the amount of profit they make. I do not believe this is an ideal situation as it only supports those things that can be profitable. Needless to say there is a huge amount of people who have inner qualities equally or more important to society than any businessman but the capitalist system does not support it because it cant profit from it economically.
Fascism didn’t fail because of lack of realization of human potential or the economic questions. Fascism failed because there was a world war and the axis nations lost.

 Quote:
Competition is the greatest drive for economic success.


What about “human success” outside of the economic field? The main problem with capitalism is that it only takes into consideration the economic profit. We have to heavily regulate it because it continuously disregards humans interests or environmental issues for example.




Edited by TheInsane (04/22/10 05:02 AM)

Top
#38003 - 04/22/10 10:59 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"The problem with capitalism is that it values humans in relation to the amount of profit they make. I do not believe this is an ideal situation as it only supports those things that can be profitable. Needless to say there is a huge amount of people who have inner qualities equally or more important to society than any businessman but the capitalist system does not support it because it cant profit from it economically."

All value is based on the subjective perception of the person who desires something. This isn't just my fanciful philosophy, this is how economics works. It is up to us to start valuing "inner qualities" if we wish to see more. Capitalism is the system most capable of changing, since anyone with money has a vote on influencing which businesses prosper and which don't. Nestle did something years ago that people thought was wrong, and it had to start being moral and change its behavior in order to earn that trust and business back. To be dissatisfied with society is ignoring that you have the power to change it.

Indeed, while you point out that Capitalism is inadequate in supporting moral value, it is the US that is the most charitable nation in the world. Walmart is the 7th greatest charitable donor in the world, and the Walden family is the #2 most charitable family in the world, right behind Bill and Linda Gates. It is the ability to effectively run a business that fulfills the basic needs of millions of people at a profit that allows charity to other organizations that also run like a business.

In addition, it is Capitalism that has allowed a significant movement in the US and worldwide to start using recycled materials more and eco-friendly products. Capitalism gets the most done because money talks.

"What about “human success” outside of the economic field? The main problem with capitalism is that it only takes into consideration the economic profit. We have to heavily regulate it because it continuously disregards humans interests or environmental issues for example."

How would you regulate it in a way that would support these "human successes"?
Did you know that the government, at least here in the US, is a greater contributor to pollution than corporations? Are you saying we should tax companies and give the money to artists or something? What constitutes a legitimate human interest worthy of stealing the population's hard-earned money?

In regards to the environment, as people were moving into cities around the late 19th to 20th century, horses were becoming a serious problem. The amount of manure was literally piling 60 feet high in vacant lots, causing insect-born illnesses in summer and horse crap streaming down streets in the winter and rainy season. Issues with traffic were increasing, and the environmental impact of that much methane being given off by a significant horse population was unknown, but large. Yet it was capitalism that invented the automobile, allowing cities to prosper without the deadly diseases, no more traffic issues from injured or dying horses, a lot less pollution from vehicles, and a more convenient way to get around.

As long as people are intelligent animals, we will have basic and sophisticated needs based on what helps us survive and what makes us happy. Capitalism is simply the system where everybody freely participates to get what they want, and every individual is free to decide how much something is worth to them. Sure, if you want to buy a guitar and aren't offering enough for me to sell it, you will miss out on something great, but it is my choice to sell it for what I think it is worth. This is just basic human interaction, Capitalism isn't guilty of anything.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38007 - 04/22/10 12:37 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:
It is the ability to effectively run a business that fulfills the basic needs of millions of people at a profit that allows charity to other organizations that also run like a business.


The problem with capitalism is that it values work and money over everything else. It is a matter of worshipping work however meaningless it may be. People don’t work at pin-factories to fulfill their potential but because money is what matters if they want to be able to live a “worthy life” and then, if time allows, do something on the side.
And its just a plain lie to claim that businesses are here to fulfill the basic needs of millions of people. Business under capitalism creates artificial needs for millions of people and often “exploit every natural resource as well as enslave human possibilities productive and socially” in the process.

 Quote:
In addition, it is Capitalism that has allowed a significant movement in the US and worldwide to start using recycled materials more and eco-friendly products. Capitalism gets the most done because money talks.


Really? So you would seriously argue that if we indeed had a capitalist free market devoid of political intervention the marked would have an eco-friendly production? Give me a break. The market wants as much profit for the lowest production cost. They would use the most cheap way of production which unfortunately today would mean environmental as well as human disasters. It is because the market is regulated that we have eco-friendly products and it is because of that we have a minimum wage. Without it businesses would still keep on doing what they did 50 years ago. And even I some tried to go another route it would be hard for them to succeed because their production would cost much more.

 Quote:
How would you regulate it in a way that would support these "human successes"?
Did you know that the government, at least here in the US, is a greater contributor to pollution than corporations? Are you saying we should tax companies and give the money to artists or something? What constitutes a legitimate human interest worthy of stealing the population's hard-earned money?


If there was a good way to support the truly creative, like the artists, above mindless mass production I would be the first in line to support it. Quality over quantity. How it would be done I dont know but I know for sure that in my ideal society that would be regarded as of higher worth rather than sellers and bussinessmen selling us mindless trash.

And please elaborate on “how capitalism invented the car” because I find it to be a totally ridiculous notion based on historical revisionism.


Edited by TheInsane (04/22/10 12:39 PM)

Top
#38024 - 04/23/10 12:54 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"If there was a good way to support the truly creative, like the artists, above mindless mass production I would be the first in line to support it. Quality over quantity. How it would be done I dont know but I know for sure that in my ideal society that would be regarded as of higher worth rather than sellers and bussinessmen selling us mindless trash."

If people want to buy more of one thing and less of another, that is up to them. You have no idea what you're talking about but say that in "your ideal society" those things would be more valued. Have you ever been to a museum? They're great, you should go. Paintings can sell for a lot. Yet admission to museums is pretty inexpensive. What are you complaining about? That more people aren't like you? Be a Satanist and stop giving a fuck.

"And please elaborate on “how capitalism invented the car” because I find it to be a totally ridiculous notion based on historical revisionism."
Are you trying to not understand? Here's the simplified version.
A dude made a car. It took forever and was too expensive because he did it an expensive way. Then, he started doing it a different way as mentioned previously about the division of labor, and people bought this crazy contraption because it obviously worked better than the way they used to do things. If it wasn't worth it, no one would have bought it. That's Capitalism.

"Really? So you would seriously argue that if we indeed had a capitalist free market devoid of political intervention the marked would have an eco-friendly production? Give me a break."

Technically what we have is Corporatism, which works against these goals. But anyway, who cares whether we are more or less eco-friendly? I do not hold the continuation of the world or the human race as an inherently valuable thing. If people care enough to change their lifestyle to aid the earth, that's great. But there's nothing wrong if they don't want to spend their money that way. They will take the consequences either way, and either way, there is a lot of evidence that Climate Change is much ado about nothing. The world is getting hotter with or without us. Eco-friendly measures, however, are a different thing, as there are notable effects of pollution in cities and such, but again, these changes are up to the people to pay for.

"And its just a plain lie to claim that businesses are here to fulfill the basic needs of millions of people. Business under capitalism creates artificial needs for millions of people and often “exploit every natural resource as well as enslave human possibilities productive and socially” in the process."

If businesses didn't fulfill people's needs they wouldn't stay in business. What needs are "created" by businesses that people don't all ready have or are voluntarily willing to accept? You sound like someone who's mad that people shop at Wal-Mart.

It is government assisted business that exploits people. An unaided business would not be able to. And it is always because government is trying to help by reaching into the market and screwing things up.

As a Satanist, wouldn't you be ok with the weak killing themselves off and the rest inheriting the earth? Why do you care if the majority is too stupid to help itself?
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38027 - 04/23/10 06:20 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

 Quote:
If people want to buy more of one thing and less of another, that is up to them. You have no idea what you're talking about but say that in "your ideal society" those things would be more valued. Have you ever been to a museum? They're great, you should go. Paintings can sell for a lot. Yet admission to museums is pretty inexpensive.


I work in one of the worlds largest and most influential museums in the world so I get to go every week thank you. It is indeed inexpensive to go since the admission is free.

See you only think of things and value things in regards to money and that’s my problem and that is what I have a problem with. I think society should shift focus away from the all importance of the new god called money. The new god everyone obeys in from of.

 Quote:
Are you trying to not understand? Here's the simplified version.
A dude made a car. It took forever and was too expensive because he did it an expensive way. Then, he started doing it a different way as mentioned previously about the division of labor, and people bought this crazy contraption because it obviously worked better than the way they used to do things. If it wasn't worth it, no one would have bought it. That's Capitalism.


You didn’t once say how capitalism invented the car as you claimed a couple of posts back. You merely explained how it was introduced to the market. And what you don’t seem to understand is that even communities with less focus on the capital would look for ways to make it easier to build and cheaper to make (because just because we have capital doesn’t mean we're capitalist you see).

 Quote:
But anyway, who cares whether we are more or less eco-friendly? I do not hold the continuation of the world or the human race as an inherently valuable thing. If people care enough to change their lifestyle to aid the earth, that's great. But there's nothing wrong if they don't want to spend their money that way. They will take the consequences either way, and either way, there is a lot of evidence that Climate Change is much ado about nothing. The world is getting hotter with or without us. Eco-friendly measures, however, are a different thing, as there are notable effects of pollution in cities and such, but again, these changes are up to the people to pay for.


Just because one is a Satanist doesn’t mean one have any morals. I know you claim to not have and I think it is ridiculous because you obviously have (if anything you’ve shown it in this thread). However I do care about our environment. It is important to me. I live in one of the largest cities on earth atm and the pollution is pretty bad and you notice it as soon as you walk down one of the high streets just when you breathe. I plan to start a family and I want the world t be a better place for my children that it was for me.

It’s also funny how you in the other thread goes on and on about needing to prove thing when most science agrees that the climate change is to a large part caused by humans. Even so you decide to go against this majority of scientists. So the base you hold in science only applies when they say things you agree with?

I don’t think it’s up to the people to take action on their own. People are in general (and in groups specifically) without much action unless they see everyone else doing it. Therefore I’m all for an environmental taxation and government control to make sure changes are being made. I don’t trust people - the mass - with such a responsibility.

 Quote:
If businesses didn't fulfill people's needs they wouldn't stay in business. What needs are "created" by businesses that people don't all ready have or are voluntarily willing to accept? You sound like someone who's mad that people shop at Wal-Mart.


Do you seriously mean that we need everything that is trying to be sold? GO to your local shopping mall and then go into the first store (that isn’t a food store) and think of the products they sell. Do we really have a need for it or is it a try to create a need for it. I cant even fathom that you sit here and claim that businesses doesn’t create needs but only serve needs that are already here. Why do you think there is advertising? It is to create a need in people to buy a certain thing.

 Quote:

It is government assisted business that exploits people. An unaided business would not be able to. And it is always because government is trying to help by reaching into the market and screwing things up.


Yeah? So all the businesses who exploit non-western workers in their home countries are not included? Or businesses moving their factories to other countries that don’t have the same regulation in regards to how much pollution a certain factory releases into nature?

 Quote:

As a Satanist, wouldn't you be ok with the weak killing themselves off and the rest inheriting the earth? Why do you care if the majority is too stupid to help itself?


This is quite immature in its reasoning. I wouldn’t want the weak to kill them selves off. They are needed in a society as long as they are in the right place. And if the weak were indeed to kill themselves off there would develop a new weak population in regards to the new standards set. One can fantasize about a world of only kings but in reality we need the hierarchy if we are to live in a functioning society. Everyone can't be on the same level which is also why I am anti-egalitarian. People are not equal but most people weak or strong are needed in different layers of society.

Top
#38039 - 04/23/10 06:22 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Morgan Offline
Princess of Hell
stalker


Registered: 08/29/07
Posts: 2956
Loc: New York City
From your post it would seem that you live in New York City, and work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art or live in Washington and work at the Smithsonian Museums. Unless I am wrong those are the largest museums in the United States. Within these institutions there are huge amounts of artwork. Some I could see paying millions for, others I would walk on by if they were free.

That is the thing about art that makes it great in a way. It's beauty is in the eye of the beholder. No one can ever make you think an object is beautiful if you really think it sucks ass. Oh, and I have a BA in Fine Arts too.

"I think society should shift focus away from the all importance of the new god called money"

The use of money is not new. It has been used for centuries, and even in Ancient Egypt they have records of money and taxes being collected. No one is ever going to give you something for nothing. Money serves a purpose, it motivates people.

Yes, communes have people who work together for the common good, but those hippy places are usually farms, and don't really look to make their lives any different. If they need something like medicine unless they have something of value to trade or cash, they are screwed. You still need money to buy the first cow or goat or seeds to plant.

Being a Satanist, part of it mean choosing who to love, care about, or decide to waste your energy, and feeling on. If he decided not to care about the planet in the great scheme of things, he can. The climate has been screwed by the volcano big time, should we shut everything down and wait a few months to offset the effects of it?

"Therefore I’m all for an environmental taxation and government control to make sure changes are being made. I don’t trust people - the mass - with such a responsibility."

Have you read the Kyoto Protocols? I trust the government less, and they will screw you more.

People have free will, and will buy whatever junk they want because they can. Advertising just makes the packaging pretty, thus why all the 99 cent stores do so well. Maybe you don't like the little ceramic mermaid, but someone else does.

Businesses are motivated by money. If they can make a buck or save a buck they do it. If it will cost them money, forget about it. Businesses don't have a soul or a heart, they are a corporation based upon the idea of providing a service that will make them the most amount of money with the least amount of effort of cost.

All of the political systems mentioned have their good and bad points. I just happen to be fond of the relative free market, capitalistic, republic that we have here in the United States. You have the choice of what you can do, how far you can push yourself, and what kind of an empire you might want to create. Just like you can decide to take it easy, and coast under the radar dealing with under the table businesses all your life.

No one knocking on your door telling you what to do or who you have to be.

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



Top
#38052 - 04/23/10 11:17 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Morgan]
bds23 Offline
stranger


Registered: 04/04/10
Posts: 7
Loc: Texas
I tend to agree with Morgan on this question. Although, it seems that as the years march by the good ol U.S.of A. is becoming a place with less and less economic and personal freedom.

I want the freedom to earn as much comfort and luxury in life as I desire, but I do not want to see giant corporations slowly but surely taking over damn near everything.
I want to live in a neighborhood where it is safe for my wife to go jogging without needing a concealed carry permit. However, I am disturbed by the steady rising of what more and more appears to be a sort of police state.

I am a proponent of western, liberal, democracy. I find all the talk of totalitarianism and gladiator rings a bit distasteful. In my opinion the weak and simple should be given a basic, descent standard of living and where possible, some meaningful, uplifting work. I would rather contribute taxes to provide the poor with a small apartment, some food, and entertainment as opposed to them attempting to steal mine. In no way do I desire to see executions for sport or slavery of any kind.

Top
#38054 - 04/24/10 01:01 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: bds23]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
TheInsane,
Morals are values that you think everybody else should have. I do not have any such beliefs. Therefore, I have no morality.
That's different than deciding to do whatever you want, and a philosophy of doing whatever you want has implications that form the way I make decisions. But the values I base decisions on are not morals because in no way do I think everybody else should have to conform to the standards I have chosen. If you want to call "doing whatever you want" morality, that's fine, go ahead and change the meaning as you will. But I'm pretty sure anybody would say that my philosophy is definably amoral.

"of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes. "

"having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person."

I'm not quite immoral as defined here, either.

violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
2.licentious or lascivious.


I also do not believe in any definable good or evil. So while I may like or dislike certain things, it is not because they are "right" or "wrong", and such thinking is in my view outdated and ineffective.

Everybody else has said the rest. In regards to global warming, I indeed got my information from scientists in the book SuperFreakonomics. I read your post and decided to google the name of one of the nobel prize winning climatologists it mentioned for more support when I came across this article- "Why Everything in SuperFreakonomics About Global Warming is Wrong"
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/10/why_everything_in_superfreakon.php

It is my mistake for championing the hackneyed opinions of these 2 sensationalist writers without doing my own research, and for that, I sincerely apologize. I shall take this lesson with me into the future.
It is still up to people to decide to spend their money in an eco-friendly way, and until people as a whole start valuing whatever practices you think will benefit the world, things won't change. And you continue to look at government as a cure when it rarely does anything not in it's own self-interest, most of all regarding money.

Cheers to you for working in a Museum, that's pretty awesome. I also dislike the widespread consumerism but recognize it as a product of a government that keeps the economy artificially stable, never allowing it to crash. As long as it never crashes, people will never see the consequences of their actions involving spending. But people will spend their hard-earned money however they want, and there's no way to stop a market without infringing on civil liberties. Even then, the black market rears its head. You can only live your own life and try to influence others, but you can't make decisions for them, and even if you try you will not be able to override the power of their self-interest forever.
That's why capitalism is the best system- it is one that aligns different people's self-interest and allows them to enjoy the profits. Only a government that ensures individual civil liberties and stands behind contracts is necessary, and anything more(or less) will fall in due time. The power rests with the people and one of the only laws that will never be broken is this: "People will do what they want, if they can, as long as they can".

As for this economic argument I am frustrated by the amount of MSM opinions and amateur misunderstandings of economics and politics that you present. We will walk away with whatever opinions we may have of these issues and each other, and witnesses will make their opinions. That's all that needs to be said, we'll discuss other things in other threads. Peace.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38077 - 04/24/10 03:47 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
 Originally Posted By: Morgan
The use of money is not new. It has been used for centuries, and even in Ancient Egypt they have records of money and taxes being collected. No one is ever going to give you something for nothing. Money serves a purpose, it motivates people.


Of course it’s not a new thing. What is somewhat new however is how money is the only thing valued in a lot of ways. And it is money that decides what is alright and what is not alright as in regards to environmental issues for example. So I am not against the use of money in itself only the deification that has happened in regards to it in so far as it rules everything and it is accepted, good or bad.

 Quote:

Being a Satanist, part of it mean choosing who to love, care about, or decide to waste your energy, and feeling on. If he decided not to care about the planet in the great scheme of things, he can. The climate has been screwed by the volcano big time, should we shut everything down and wait a few months to offset the effects of it?


Well we can’t really do much about natural disasters but we can do something about the human aspect of pollution. Did you know for example that there were blueprints for a eco-friendly car a very long time ago but the rights to those were bought by some oil company because they felt it was a risk if that was given to the car manufacturers. These are the bad things capitalism does. Just because you have money somehow means you’re allowed to do anything.
And in regards to what someone can and cant do as a Satanist (or as a human being) of course one can choose whichever path he or she chooses (unless we don’t have free will as we’ve been discussing before). This doesn’t mean that I want every person that is to have that freedom. I want a society that I like and in which I and my family can prosper and feel safe. If we were to let everyone have a go at their own will it would end in chaos.
I’m fighting for what I believe is right because I believe it’s the right path to take. I can’t nihilistically stand on the sidelines and think “Oh well he has every right to do *insert action* if he wants”. I don’t want a society where everyone has total freedom. I think it’s gone to far already. On the small scale it seems like things are getting worse in regards to crime for example (compare the 50’s to today). On the bigger scale is the people with a lot of money using it to get away with environmental pollution or hiring cheap workers in poor countries etc. I would much rather live in a clean world with more governmental control over businesses rather than what we have today.

 Quote:

People have free will, and will buy whatever junk they want because they can. Advertising just makes the packaging pretty, thus why all the 99 cent stores do so well. Maybe you don't like the little ceramic mermaid, but someone else does.


I could have written that as a reason as to why I think todays capitalism is bad ;\)

Oh and on the museum thing you’re not even close. Not even on the same continent ;\)

bds23

 Quote:
I would rather contribute taxes to provide the poor with a small apartment, some food, and entertainment as opposed to them attempting to steal mine. In no way do I desire to see executions for sport or slavery of any kind.


No one in this thread has ever said we wanted that as far as I know. I sure don’t want to execute anyone.

Doomsage680

 Quote:
Morals are values that you think everybody else should have. I do not have any such beliefs. Therefore, I have no morality.


No. Morals can be personal as well. The word comes from latin and means “proper behavior” and it can refer to personal, cultural or national values of what is right and wrong and what is proper behavior. This doesn’t mean that one has to believe in a static definition or explanation of what is right and wrong. In fact most morals in countries today consciously change over time and depending on the situation.
Amoralism is the indifference to questions of right and wrong and still in our other discussions you have defended your belief in capitalism. In the thread where it was discussed originally you also held it wrong to kill your mother. I would however agree that in large the world is amoral. I do not believe that there exists any static moral laws. Morality is in human nature and human nature is, like everything, ever changing. Therefore ones morals not only depends on where one lives or under what regime one comes from but also from ones own family and the personal experiences one is encountered with.
Since it can refer to personal values and since I have actually seen you defend some of your values here I would say that you do have your own morality system. However if you were to say “I’m a moral person” in an everyday conversation I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t agree since in everyday conversation a sentence like the one above has come to mean a specific set of morality (most often in regards to Christian values).

 Quote:
I also dislike the widespread consumerism but recognize it as a product of a government that keeps the economy artificially stable, never allowing it to crash. As long as it never crashes, people will never see the consequences of their actions involving spending. But people will spend their hard-earned money however they want, and there's no way to stop a market without infringing on civil liberties.


That’s right and I would like to infringe on civil liberties if it meant a way to stop what I consider to be bad about todays system.

 Quote:
As for this economic argument I am frustrated by the amount of MSM opinions and amateur misunderstandings of economics and politics that you present. We will walk away with whatever opinions we may have of these issues and each other, and witnesses will make their opinions. That's all that needs to be said, we'll discuss other things in other threads. Peace.


Please elaborate. It’s easy to criticize but without me knowing what specific parts you refer to I don’t have a chance to defend myself.

Top
#38084 - 04/25/10 01:09 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
"Amoralism is the indifference to questions of right and wrong and still in our other discussions you have defended your belief in capitalism. In the thread where it was discussed originally you also held it wrong to kill your mother. I would however agree that in large the world is amoral. I do not believe that there exists any static moral laws. Morality is in human nature and human nature is, like everything, ever changing. Therefore ones morals not only depends on where one lives or under what regime one comes from but also from ones own family and the personal experiences one is encountered with."

Capitalism- the system where I benefit depending on how hard and how intelligently I work. Also, a system of capitalism allows me to buy what I want, and any other system will fail to uphold my long-term security.
I also am an animal evolved to care about others a little, and capitalism allows the best life for the most people- anyone benefiting benefits the whole. This sounds like a system that no only allows the most growth, but the most reward for ingenuity and adaptability- certainly a favorable thing.
But it is not a moral. There is no good or evil.

I never said killing my mother was "wrong" because "wrong" has no meaning. I said I don't want it, I won't allow it if I can help it, I won't like it, it will hurt me emotionally and in my life. This is not a moral, this is me wanting my mom to keep being my mom. Morals cloud the realistic logic-based reasons people think, speak, and do things.
If you want to say that human nature is always changing, that morals are always changing, and that morals are really just preferences, that's fine. But that's not what moral means. Moral has to do with good or evil, in which I don't believe.

Human nature is the same time and time again, that's what makes it our nature. Having my own wants and needs is not a moral.

I am indeed amoral because decisions are not made based on right or wrong. There is no such thing. You can say that I have my own definition of right and wrong, but that is you continuing to think in this restrictive paradigm. I think with reason. You can call reason good, but when it leads me to make decisions that someone would call anything but good, it loses it's applicability.

I said you had an
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38086 - 04/25/10 03:09 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680

You are wrong my friend. There is nowhere said that to be moral you have to adhere to and believe in universal and eternal moral principles. Some authors believe in it and they try to make a case for their views. Other don’t and they try to make a case for their view. Nowhere does it say anything about morals having to be objective. Nietzsche proclaimed that we should reevaluate all values. This is also a sign of a relative morality and an individual one as opposed to absolute morality and collective. This is all about what we consider to be good or bad, true or untrue or even good or evil.

If we are to take the LaVeyan approach “what is right is what I like and what is wrong is what I don’t like” (the LaVeyan moral code foundation) you certainly fit in. You don’t like anyone trying to kill your mother, you don’t like a political system that reduces the free market and personal liberty and you like the thought that capitalism proved the best life for the most people (very utilitarian of you) etc. Hence these would be your “rights” in the debate of right and wrong.

 Quote:

Human nature is the same time and time again, that's what makes it our nature. Having my own wants and needs is not a moral.


It is the foundation of your values (and you do have values) and these are the foundations of your morals.

 Quote:

I am indeed amoral because decisions are not made based on right or wrong. There is no such thing. You can say that I have my own definition of right and wrong, but that is you continuing to think in this restrictive paradigm.


Again where does it say morals have to be collective, objective and absolute? Your rights and wrongs, your definitions, are the basis of your own personal morality. It’s not harder than that and I don’t restrict a paradigm because the paradigm never said morals can’t be personal and subjective. That is also why we define morals differently. There is such a thing as moral relativism. You should look it up. [Again the Wikipedia entry is a quite nice one for beginners: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism ]

Top
#38109 - 04/26/10 06:22 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: TheInsane]
Doomsage680 Offline
member


Registered: 10/01/09
Posts: 111
Loc: NJ, USA
TheInsane,
I guess if values make morals, then sure, I have morals.
I know about moral relativism but I find it to be quite flaky and self-contradicting(though I will read up on it after this post if I am indeed misunderstanding it).

That said, I have to wonder, what would be amoral? What if I were to abandon, say, all principles, and do things that entirely contradicted themselves on any conceivable scale? Like, one day I do what I want, and the next, I do things I don't want(would I still have wanted to do them)? I walk into a ghetto at night and get robbed, then the next day I kill a best friend. How might I be amoral under this definition of morality? It would have to be inconsistent, but then, making decisions based on randomness might itself be the moral of ridiculous spontaneity.
So maybe it would have to be a little consistent for limited amounts of time, but then inconsistent. It might involve becoming subservient to another person, but then that would have to be limited too, as my moral would just be whatever they wanted.

It seems that to have morals there have to be absolutes, and the only one that I hold as absolute is rationality in its ability to help me survive and achieve happiness.

In regards to capitalism, I might add that it is the only form of utilitarianism that does not require you to adhere to utilitarianism. As in, doing what I want will necessitate paying people the amount of money they require to sell me something, and doing otherwise makes it likely I will suffer more greatly in the long term for the consequences. I can pursue whatever I want without regard for others and this will naturally benefit others with whom I interact.

You made the point earlier that businesses indeed have little incentive to be environmentally aware. But the burden of awareness is then passed on to me as the consumer, and I personally might not have an alternative to supporting the wasteful companies that hurt the environment. Like if I cannot afford a hybrid, how might I avoid the damage that oil causes?

And on this note, the methane released by rudiments(cows and livestock that fart methane) is severely more detrimental than the entire auto industry(at least in the US if not world wide) in terms of climate change. Shall I be a vegetarian, or shall we stop with the nonsense of blaming cars when anyone who likes cheeseburgers is clearly a greater threat?

I do want and would support any viable solution, but the reason that people don't value other things more than money, the reason they are often so apathetic towards taking action, is because Capitalism is a system that works off of utilizing people's self interest. Until a solution is provided in alignment with my self interest, it will be infinitely less likely that I go out of my way to solve a problem even as big as global catastrophe. Blaming self interest is immature. Not acknowledging people's self interest as a natural tool, one that can be used for or against a solution, is just immature and idealistic. If people value money so much, make the solution something we can easily buy into. It's worked so far as people buy more and more goods made from recycled materials, and its potential is unlimited if one takes capitalism into account.

I mean, look at LiveStrong. People bought 4 bracelets just to support cancer and a growing fashion trend. I work at a shoe store that sells a LiveStrong version of a running shoe. People love a cause if it makes financial sense.
_________________________
"I who have nothing but the comfort of my sins"
- Vinny Paz

Top
#38118 - 04/26/10 07:00 PM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Doomsage680]
TheInsane Offline
member


Registered: 09/16/09
Posts: 356
Doomsage680
 Quote:
That said, I have to wonder, what would be amoral?
. . . It seems that to have morals there have to be absolutes. . .


As I said before this is no necessity for morals to exist as a linguistic category. Now some authors claim there are absolute morals but that’s quite another discussion.
Funny thing is I used to call myself an amoralist but I regarded it, like you, as a denial only of objective values. I have come to believe however that using the word amoral does miss the target since it also implies that on have no morals whatsoever. And I do believe all humans have that and I did even when I myself used the term amoralist.
I do agree that the world I amoral – there are no objective values – I also think that man can’t really live without creating values and thus create some kind of moral system. I am not a huge fan of Ayn Rand but I do like parts of her work and Id like to recommend an essay she wrote called “selfishness without a self”. I’m not saying I totally agree with her in this case either but she makes a few good points: http://freedomkeys.com/withoutaself.htm

 Quote:

And on this note, the methane released by rudiments(cows and livestock that fart methane) is severely more detrimental than the entire auto industry(at least in the US if not world wide) in terms of climate change. Shall I be a vegetarian, or shall we stop with the nonsense of blaming cars when anyone who likes cheeseburgers is clearly a greater threat?


I don’t think one can compare eating a cheeseburger to taking a drive with a car. I don’t think the amount of damage they do procentually are equal. However you are right, it does seem like the cows produce a lot of unhealthy gases \:\) While I’m at it I also dislike the treatment of animals that do eventually end up on our tables. I can’t imagine how people can work in some of these environments where animals are crammed into tight spaces almost never seeing the sun.

 Quote:
I do want and would support any viable solution, but the reason that people don't value other things more than money, the reason they are often so apathetic towards taking action, is because Capitalism is a system that works off of utilizing people's self interest.


This is probably true to an extent. Although of course I believe the market creates a lot of peoples so called “self interests”. This is the problem really. Everything is commercialism. To be honest this is probably the aspect I should have focused on all along in this debate. It is commercialism that is my main problem with capitalism as it is happening today.

 Quote:
Blaming self interest is immature. Not acknowledging people's self interest as a natural tool, one that can be used for or against a solution, is just immature and idealistic. If people value money so much, make the solution something we can easily buy into.


I never denied peoples self interest as tools for or against a solution. I do question people’s ability to think long term and I do think most people, probably me included to some extent, can’t ever escape commercialism that created “unnecessary needs” in people continuing to exploit a lot of the raw materials for example. In general people tend to be stupid and why would I support a system that needs to sell and idea to the people (with risk of failure) instead of a system that would be able to actually do something about it?

Overall though it seems like we both rehash a lot of out opinions so I’m not sure how much more this debate will bring (unless you have some new angles to it) \:\/

Top
#38567 - 05/15/10 07:58 AM Re: Your preference: Anarchy - Republic- Totalitarian [Re: Baron dHolbach]
Sycorax Offline
stranger


Registered: 05/12/10
Posts: 6
Loc: Dublin, Ireland
A though one to answer, because all have its pro's and con's. I would go for a near totalitarian State without a social safety net for the social and biological weak. But one that still gives its citizens the freedom to develope artistically and where there is a healthy form of capitalism that enables growth and wealth.
_________________________
~Behind every kiss a potential Judas~

Top
Page all of 7 12345>Last »


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

Generated in 0.118 seconds of which 0.005 seconds were spent on 107 queries. Zlib compression disabled.