powder

only had time to hear the first 15 min, so far so good. I'll be back...

What does it matter what the cause of 'structural violence' is? People simply have to say 'no thanks' to their overlords and any control system that would seek to steer society and human behavior. I think everyone agrees that no one has power over anyone that is not given to them by the one willing to being controlled. Sure, it will take time to retrain the brains of the masses to accept the NAP. Can someone explain to me how structural violence and the pyscho-biological need to acquire stuff to survive (competition for resources), which PJ says it at the root of all that is bad with the world, be a significant factor for people that live in a voluntary non-coercive society?

thanks, STer, I will read those threads. just noticed a youtube video of Stefan's response to the debate. I am looking forward to hearing it. I imagine it will have much of the stuff I was hoping he would bring up in the debate. we'll see...

I was looking forward to the debate as they are both intelligent and articulate thinkers, I came away frustrated. PJ was unnecessarily verbose and obtuse, as well as condescending and insulting, that behavior I expected. Stefan frustrated PJ, and me, by not addressing the main theme of Peter's position and instead spent his time challenging assumptions and definitions, which is important, but they never got to the meat of the debate imo. Peter's idea to make the world better: scarcity creates competition (bad) because of human's drive to survive - a psychological position. Stefan's idea: Non Aggression Principle - volunteer and cooperative interaction instead of coercion - an ethical position. I need to hear round two where Stefan gets to work on the central issue of the zeitgiest proposal. Or maybe you folks who are more familiar with these issues can pick it up...

good stuff, thanks, keep em comin' I would like to track down those pod casts if anyone has an idea of how to pinpoint them.

I have very little experience debating issues like anarchy and am still learning a lot about the topic myself. I do enjoy the banter and I think it is a very important topic. I was hoping I could get some tips on debating from some of you clever anarchists. In general I am interested in simple, direct and concise arguments that will at least give people pause or jar their thinking to counteract the automatic slogan stuff like: 'government is a necessary evil'; 'at least we get to choose our leaders' 'I don't want to live in a Mad Max world' etc. It is like having a debate with a religious person who just responds with, 'the bible says...' even though it is totally unrelated to anything you have said. I don't want to get into specifics of answering how every little thing in society will be handled like roads and national defense, etc. mainly because I don't have all the answers and I don't think anyone does and they will likely be fluid and changing. the problem there too is that if you offer ideas and solutions people often focus on those and miss the larger issue and then dismiss the whole premise as a result. Still, those seem to be the most common questions that are raised. "what would we do about...?" what are some good ways to respond to valid concerns about anarchy (change) without getting into too much detail but still keeps people engaged and focused on the main issue, ie. government is unethical. perhaps there are a series of good, simple questions that you folks like to use to get people to think about, and have to defend their positions.

I totally agree with this STer, I am not as concerned about whether the news is 'negative' or not. Relevant, important information can be a useful tool to help people wake up and move forward. Just read Stefan's book 'Everyday Anarchy', not what I would call happy and uplifting but a darn good eye opener. Right on LP, I'm gonna check out the links Daniel gave above.

I don't think it is like the free market, certainly not the kind of free market discussed here, anymore than the oil or pharmaceutical companies are that offer the same product and service at the same price, protected by gov policy. I don't see any real competition in the media either, and I believe there is another motive besides profit.

cool, thanks Daniel!

You claim the 'majority' of the population thrives on the negative and that the media exploits this for ratings and profit. How can we be sure that the majority thrives on it when they are offered little or no alternative. Its like saying people prefer pasta when that is all that is offered. The study simply shows that from a neurological standpoint the brain reacts more strongly to negative news, perhaps a biological survival imperative like jp points out. Still, the study does nothing to address the central question and certainly does not indicate that we somehow prefer negative information over positive or that it is a 'healthier' option when given the choice. I read an interesting book a couple of years ago called "Zebra's Don't Get Ulcers" where the author demonstrated that, unlike animals, we have the capacity to create the physiological effects of the 'fight or flight' response in our bodies simply by thinking ourselves into a state of fear, anxiety or panic. He goes on to site all the negative health effects of prolonged exposure to that state. The gist of the metaphor is that if a Zebra narrowly escapes capture by a lion, it would simply return to its normal routine when out of danger. A human response would more involve years of post traumatic anxiety issues with all the kinds of blood pressure rising thoughts like: WTF was that? How can I avoid that again? etc. bottom line, like I said above. energy follows thought. Like with your diet, I think it is important to 'consume' healthy and relevant information as much as possible.

good points 2bits. Curiosity is one thing, but I would like to learn more about how humans are drawn to the tragic and negative. It really is true that the changes come from the bottom up, just like we want the state to change and fix everything or a new 'master' that will treat us better, we just need to stop agreeing to be lorded over. That is why I am not trying to influence the producers anymore than an anarchist wants to influence a politician.

I won't contest that unhealthy, heavily programmed people will make unhealthy choices, especially when given little or no options. That is a no brainer. It still does not jive with my experience or understanding of basic human goodness. To me, the idea that producers and publishers exploit that sickness for profit is like saying it is OK to abuse a child because that is what they grew up with and all they understand.

I see your point jp, there are some positive and uplifting shows on TV, and even though I don't watch TV, I think you would be hard pressed to say that it represents even a significant percentage of it, esp during prime time. It seems to me it is mostly social drama (like Desperate Houswives), crime, lawyer and police stuff, or sitcoms which are like Desperate Housewives with comical situations and laugh tracks - none it of my idea of positive and uplifting programming. I have coached and taught for many years and I found it is simple human nature that if you only focus on the positive, you get much better results and people feel much better about themselves and their endeavors. You never have to point out what is wrong, people get it. If you are teaching someone to hit a tennis ball you can coach them with: "No, your swing is late" or; "Take the ball earlier, there you go!" the difference is profound. Like carlip says. Point people in the positive direction, and give positive reinforcement when progress is made towards that end.

Why do you think that people prefer bad news over good, jp? or negative or positive stuff for entertainment? It does not fit my understanding of human nature or my experience with people in general. I hear that a lot and it reminds me of the frequently repeated argument/assumption that we need government because people are stupid and violent and must be controlled. We have never been offered much of a choice in the media, just like, historically, we have rarely had the freedom to live without a ruling class. I remember watching a short docu on a TV news channel, in Texas I think it was, and the producer decided that they would only report on negative news if it was relevant and helpful/informative. At the time, all the other channels in the city were focused on a court case of a mother who had killed her child, the produced argued, rightly, that it was the business of the family and no good could come from exposing it, so they left it out. the ratings of their news program topped all others within a few months. that was a few years ago and don't know what became of it though...

I think that the news (media) deliberately focuses on bad news, the tragic and the unfortunate, to brainwash us into believing the lie that humans are inherently evil and destructive and we need to be controlled and subdued by the state (church) or absolute chaos and mayhem will ensue. It is perhaps the most ardent argument against a stateless society. I remember being disgusted with the news when I was a kid and refused to watch it, even to this day I don't go there. It seems clear to me that over 95% of the people in the world are good folks with the best of intentions just trying to do their best to do the right thing. Yet the news focuses exclusively on the dark stuff. I am happy to learn more about a stateless society and I think Stefan is doing great work. I must say though, I am disappointed to see all the negative news reports about all the crazy stuff happening in the world posted on this site - like so many other conspiracy/alternative news sites and forums. We get it, the system is messed up, the oligarchs are psychopathic control freaks. It is one thing to learn about and understand the current system to better learn to detach from it. Still, I really think that energy follows thought, what you focus on expands.... I would like to hear more about the positive stuff that is happening.

I think this is understood and obvious to most, but it is not pertinent to the point of the thread as I see it. But I am a bit baffled by the intent of the OP now anyway, so I guess I am done here.

Catfood, you a claiming a lot of things in this thread that just don't add up for me. agnostism and ignostism are not at all the same as aetheism. not sure what to make of the stuff about evil aetheists. I affect all kinds of people, and I do have beliefs, just not ones based on 'blind faith' and religious or political dogma. I believe that love and compassion will work every time I test them, no blind faith required. same holds true of gravity and many other laws of nature and human behavior. I still don't need to choose a 'story' made up by a priest class to control the masses (insert religion of choice here:____________) to be a happy, productive and positively contributing member of society. So the bottom line is that you are afraid that if you don't have the most popular religious label attached to your name (insert name favorite religion here:__________) that people won't like you and your children? Seriously? or are you just being argumentative?

Right on. Is it the actual definition of the scientific method that things are accepted as not existing until proven so, even in the presence of evidence? This is not my understanding of the scientific method. Lack of proof does not mean that something does not exist, rather, simply, that it has not been adequately demonstrated. There are many things that were not known to exist (germs, other planets) because we didn't have the means to verify their existence. Sure, you are allowed to accept (believe) that something does not exist because of lack of proof, but that is then a belief, not a scientific position. That is my take on it, is it not consistent with accepted scientific thinking? This is very well put. Still, how would you address the OP's concern that it is better to subscribe to a belief system for social reasons?

I think that the accepted definition of Atheism is that it claims that there is no god(s): "...a disbelief in the existence of deity. b : the doctrine that there is no deity." Merriam Webster So, since there is no way to prove that claim, it is a belief. I have come to the place where I do not see the need to chose to believe anything. It is more interesting to me that people feel it is important to choose to believe something they have no way of verifying through direct experience? Be they atheists or theists. In response to the OP's concern, I have lots of Christian friends that I am very close to, I just don't discuss religion with them.

thanks Wesley. I came away from the RC religion by simply questioning and challenging the dogma. being dismissed and patronized, or told, you just need to have 'faith' (believe) really put me off. I explored alternate concepts of spiritual life, eastern religions and philosophies, shamanism (Castaneda), and so on. I like to learn about 'alternative' concepts of the world and what life is all about, especially historical stuff. I listen to Redice Radio and first heard Stefan on there. I like his take on the stateless society. Mostly because I think it is important that we all free ourselves of the notion that some humans should have rights (authority) that others don't - as that gives rise to control systems - be they secular or not. As a teenager I began to see that government and democracy was a corrupt system and a joke at best. I have never voted in my life. That really peeved my dad who was in WWII and ranted on about how they fought for our freedom - "How would you like to be a Nazi or a Communist?"

agreed, after studying and researching all of the control systems (religion, government, etc) and their historical roots I was convinced that they were (are) the source of all human strife in the world. Still, it is clear that getting rid of them would not solve the problem people aren't ready to give up the crazy idea of authority, they will just look for another 'lord' to tell them what to do. The powers the be are more than happy to provide a new system when they see the sheep getting restless. When the subjects realized that they could cut the head off the evil king if they were too oppressed, it was time to introduce democracy - ie. we will let you choose your oppressor (or the face thereof) to give you the illusion of freedom - bring on the revolution! certainly the babylonian/roman cult is the oldest organization of control the 'civilized' world has ever seen. the road can be traced back thousands of years and the cults, symbols and rituals are that old, and that road does end up in Rome for sure. I don't think it is a happy coincidence that the roman church rose up out of the ashes of the roman empire and that the first pope was an emperor, that their title is the same 'pontifex maximus' the head of the spiritual cult of rome, that almost every capital building in the western world is a replica of st peter's and has an obelisk in front, etc, etc. the Jesuits, yeah, they are scary beyond imagination. "The Jesuits are a MILITARY organization, not a religious order. Their chief is a general of an army, not the mere father abbot of a monastery. And the aim of this organization is power – power in its most despotic exercise – absolute power, universal power, power to control the world by the volition of a single man [i.e., the Black Pope, the Superior General of the Jesuits]. Jesuitism is the most absolute of despotisms [sic] – and at the same time the greatest and most enormous of abuses…" Napoleon Bonaparte

a fascinating topic for me, I have been studying that kind of stuff for years. haven't seen the 'bomb in the brain' docu yet so I don't know how that is relevant. a study of history clearly shows that since the time of the earliest 'civilizations' they have all been characterized by the presence of a ruling class with special rights who control and lord over us - which is why I like the work on anarchy. in that sense I would say that it doesn't matter who is at the top of the pyramid of control in society if we just ignore the insane idea that anyone has authority over our lives.

Hi everyone, just landed here. I discovered Stefan's work on anarchy, which I really like, and thought I would check in here to see if I can learn more and get to know some of the community. I don't have a belief system. after growing up catholic and rejecting that doctrine I spent most of my life studying and searching for answers to what I consider big questions of life. I just like that stuff. I don't feel the need to choose to believe anything that I cannot experience and verify through direct experience, ... don't like labels, 'anarchist', 'athiest' etc... they are too easily hijacked or used to judge and generalize. I like intelligent, rational discussions of relevant practices and thoughts that affect our lives. The ideas behind the stateless society (the belief in authority) have always been fascinating to me, perhaps because I am so independent minded, and I am looking forward to sharing and learning more about this stuff. It sure is a very foreign and uncomfortable paradigm shift for most people top contemplate - so many blank stares..., it seems we have been so thoroughly brainwashed over the centuries to accept without question the 'divine right to rule'. cheers! just noticed under my avatar, "1 post" and "0 warning points". huh, better go read the guidelines...