FriendlyHacker Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 We keep talking about NSA abusing their power and about Internet safety, without ever considering that a sane society has no need for password protection. We live in a world of bold claims, claims of democracy, freedom, safety and privacy, but consider the following quote: "If you're truly free, you don't need anyone telling you how free you are." Jacque Fresco The NSA issue is not an issue of privacy or freedom, it's fundamentally about God like powers and monkey brains, it's the issue of alpha male monkeys hungering for more power than they can deal with. Political/economic systems are technologies for managing societies, there's nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy, anarchy, communism or a resource based economy, as long as there are people who will abuse power, nobody is truly free. As always the issue is not in technology itself, technology can't harm anyone, it's the people who abuse their power we have to worry about, the scary part is that today you don't need to be a computer genius to hack into anything and everyday it becomes easier, to the point of a 5 year old having as much power as Obama in the near future.I have no idea what will happen when both government and money stop making sense, simply because every individual is as powerful as governments and corporations, but I know that we are dealing with technologies far beyond our monkey brain capacity to safely deal with them. We will either learn how to properly educate our 5 year olds, or die in their hands.
Soren Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 Great when will I get my own carrier group? I don't get what you are trying to say here?
FriendlyHacker Posted January 7, 2014 Author Posted January 7, 2014 If you don't get what I'm saying, you will in the future. If you don't understand the technology involved, you can only understand what I said when you see it happening. Going to the Moon was considered impossible, until it actually happened, then it becomes a common thing humans are known to do.
Josh F Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 I remember a comic book called Johnny the Homocidal Maniac. He goes to heaven, and everyone has the ability to think and create nuclear explosions. But the way it looks is a bunch of people rocking in rocking chairs, not talking to each other, for fear of angering someone and setting off a chain reaction. He of course begins mauling the people until the chain reaction begins killing everyone.
Kevin Beal Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 If we don't kill the children first under the weight of an enormous debt. I almost wouldn't blame kids being born today for being resentful of previous generations. But you're totally right about the times we're living in. We're actually getting close to true artificial intelligence, to disease invulnerability, to anti-aging technology, to space colonization, to androids, to all sorts of crazy shit that no one ever thought of. The amount of damage that sociopaths in power will be able to wield will be beyond any sci-fi ever predicted. It's a crucial time for peaceful parenting to be certain. (I'd upvote, but I'm maxed out on that today.)
Wuzzums Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 It's seems to me you're rephrasing the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. Which I agree with but I seriously doubt future 5 year olds will be inclined to start nuclear wars, assuming someone would make a future app for that. They'll be too busy collecting pokemons and playing with their future legos.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 7, 2014 Author Posted January 7, 2014 I remember a comic book called Johnny the Homocidal Maniac. He goes to heaven, and everyone has the ability to think and create nuclear explosions. But the way it looks is a bunch of people rocking in rocking chairs, not talking to each other, for fear of angering someone and setting off a chain reaction. He of course begins mauling the people until the chain reaction begins killing everyone. Holy shit brick in a cone Batman, I hope this guy has no Jules Verne powers.
dsayers Posted January 7, 2014 Posted January 7, 2014 there's nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy, anarchy, communism or a resource based economy It is true that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with fire. Sure you could burn your neighbor's house down, but you could also cook a life-sustaining meal. That is to say that the object is neutral and its use is good or evil. I don't think this is the case with democracy, communism, or RBE as they require the initiation of the use of force.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 It is true that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with fire. Sure you could burn your neighbor's house down, but you could also cook a life-sustaining meal. That is to say that the object is neutral and its use is good or evil. I don't think this is the case with democracy, communism, or RBE as they require the initiation of the use of force. As someone who has been a volunteer for about 4 years without ever hearing about initiation of force, I find it intriguing this idea people have about RBE, they certainly haven't heard it from Jacque Fresco or Roxanne Meadows.Initiation of force is something people do in order to abuse power. You have to remove the abusive people mindset in order to see things like communism as a real option, it's only really bad if it ends under control of complete nut jobs like Stalin. Corrupted and abusive societies are reflections of corrupted and abusive people, no matter the socio-economic system you have, you can have the most perfect system in the world, if the people are insane the new system will reflect their insanity, the breaking point in technology is the user itself.
dsayers Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 All you did was contradict what I said and reassert the challenged claim. These things you're talking about violate self-ownership. If it doesn't violate self-ownership, then it's not a government. If it's a "way to organize society," then it violates self-ownership. There's no such thing as good rape.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 You need to understand about why people want to own anything, in order to see ownership as a reflection of abuse. You only care about owning things, about protecting them, because people are willing to steal it and make your life miserable for it. As I said before, try removing the abusive people mindset and see if it still makes sense. You don't want to own anything, you don't want to care about protecting anything, all you want is access to things when you need them, and if you can't have that because it was stolen from you, that's abuse.
dsayers Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 I don't know what you're talking about. Self-ownership isn't a want, it is literally inescapable. I do know that you have thrice asserted the exact same claim that it is the use and not the item that is immoral. Are you interested in the truth or furthering a conclusion even if it's false? If the truth isn't what you're interested in, then I'll leave it be. If you are interested in the truth, you have to recognize that the truth value of your claim is now for a 3rd time being challenged. Please explain how theft, assault, rape, or murder can be used in a good way.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 Sure, I will change my mind, but first you need to properly explain your position and make sure you understand mine, but so far I find us talking at each other and not to each other, for instance: "Please explain how theft, assault, rape, or murder can be used in a good way." Why would you even ask a pacifist such a question?
dsayers Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 there's nothing fundamentally wrong with democracy, anarchy, communism or a resource based economy This claim is not consistent with pacifism. This is a claim that violence is not fundamentally wrong, but misusing violence can be.
FriendlyHacker Posted January 8, 2014 Author Posted January 8, 2014 Please refer to where I said: "violence is not fundamentally wrong". Because I don't remember ever saying it. If you don't understand how something like communism can be non violent, that only means you don't understand it and not that I accept violence. And if you start talking about RBE being based in violence, that only means you don't understand RBE. You should stop assuming things, disagreeing with your political views does not automatically equate to violence and immorality.
dsayers Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 You should stop assuming things, disagreeing with your political views does not automatically equate to violence and immorality. Aren't you assuming that my pointing out the inherent violence means I disagreed with you or didn't understand the material? An ironic accusation since the conclusions I've arrived at came after the consideration of the ideas while your conclusions come from no consideration even in the face of repeat, resolute challenging. Democracy is mob rule. It is the majority initiating the use of force to bind those who do not consent. This is violence. Communism is a small group of people owning all of the means for production while denying most others the means for production. Read: illegal. Meaning that if you make your own loaf of bread, you're getting abducted, caged, and/or murdered. This is violence. When you call things by their proper names, things become clearer and the truth is easier to discern. Like your continued use of RBE, which is socialism, which is also violence.
PatrickC Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Hacker is right, to the extent that in theory communism can be non-violent. If people voluntarily accept it as a way to live their life. However, the disagreement probably lies within the practical application of communism, since it relies entirely on the consensus of the governed. Even anarchic decentralized communism is prone to hierarchical structures, albeit much smaller than at state level. But this still makes it susceptible to tyranny. And since decentralized communism has never existed before, the opposition to it is understandable, given communism has created some of the worst tyrannies in human history. However, I do concede that because it has never existed, doesn't necessarily mean it could never happen.
Armitage Posted January 8, 2014 Posted January 8, 2014 Aren't you assuming that my pointing out the inherent violence means I disagreed with you or didn't understand the material? An ironic accusation since the conclusions I've arrived at came after the consideration of the ideas while your conclusions come from no consideration even in the face of repeat, resolute challenging. Democracy is mob rule. It is the majority initiating the use of force to bind those who do not consent. This is violence. Communism is a small group of people owning all of the means for production while denying most others the means for production. Read: illegal. Meaning that if you make your own loaf of bread, you're getting abducted, caged, and/or murdered. This is violence. When you call things by their proper names, things become clearer and the truth is easier to discern. Like your continued use of RBE, which is socialism, which is also violence. I have difficulties understanding you, because the way you think is something like... Freedom of ownership is the basic moral principle. Self-ownership is derived from ownership. Some systems limit ownership or do not even define ownership, which is a violation of freedom, which is violence, ergo, they're violent systems. I think that may sound appealing, but it's not a natural hierarchy of values. I'd say this is something that Ayn Rand believed, yet her philosophy was not objective at all, it was a rebound from the Communists. It's not freedom, it's anti-Communism. It's about as objective, as Satanists parodying Christian sacraments in order to piss them off. If you recover from the trauma of Communism and from the over-compensation of emphasis on private ownership, you can begin to think on what really matters in life. Does ownership of ore mines and other means of production matter in life? Or is it just another hoop to jump through in order to get what you want? One thing you can't buy in Capitalism is simplicity. To buy anything you have to earn, to produce, to advertise, to compete and in that simplicity is lost. People work all their life, looking forward to the retirement when they'll finally have simplicity, yet then they die from a lack of activity, because they lost the ability to simply know what they really want to do and just do it.
Recommended Posts