Jump to content

We shouldn't waste our time advocating for slight adjustments to our fake economy


Recommended Posts

Posted

I would like to start by saying that you are all awesome. I have an idea that I would like to bounce off of everyone:

 

Under our current system, of course we do not have any sort of free market as the most foundational aspects of our economy is government controlled, which is the money supply and interest rates. With that being said, under the current paradigm, should we be advocating for policies within this system?

 

The system is set up fundamentally to benefit those closest to monetary distribution, while the poor are constantly being robbed by the never ending destruction of the dollar. So, my question, why should we rail against policies that benefit the poor? The system is fundamentally unbalanced because we have a controlled market, are we doing more harm than good by discrediting assistance to the less fortunate?

 

Of course there are many psychological problems associated with losing independence and having to rely on the robbing of your fellow citizens to survive, this ultimately destroys the human spirit. But, under the current system, we are all practicing immorality by being involved with the immoral economy. For example, using the roadways is immoral as they were built on thievery from your fellow mankind. The use of the public school system could be argued to be immoral of course. Using the dollar could be considered immoral as well along with any other government service that we often do not have a choice to use.

 

I guess my argument is, we should continue to advocate for foundational changes in society and the end of the state, but we should avoid getting involved in the statist debate of attempting to balance the current system.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

Posted

Using the dollar could be considered immoral as well along with any other government service that we often do not have a choice to use.

 

Choice is a requisite of morality. Where no choice is present, the behavior is amoral. If the behavior would be immoral if it were chosen, then the immorality accrues to whomever removed the choice from the actor engaging in that behavior.

 

By this same standard, I must reject your claim that use of government schools is immoral as children do not have this choice.

 

While not as clear, I do not have a choice in using the roads. It is true I could simply refuse to commute, but I cannot choose to use privately owned roads anyways. Plus, even if I were to refrain from making use of government roads, I would still have money taken from me for their use, creation, and maintenance.

 

Of course there are many psychological problems associated with losing independence and having to rely on the robbing of your fellow citizens to survive

 

If I am not partaking of any government programs, I am not relying on the robbing of other people. You mention survival, but the only part of a statist paradigm that is integral to survival is allowing ourselves to be robbed. I pay them their protection money so that I may otherwise live my life. This is different from tying survival to the theft of others. An accusation that would be more accurate in describing people who vote or who engage in activism for the purpose of altering HOW the theft takes place.

 

If you're interested in being even more precise, check out my propaganda to honesty dictionary.

Posted

So, my question, why should we rail against policies that benefit the poor? The system is fundamentally unbalanced because we have a controlled market, are we doing more harm than good by discrediting assistance to the less fortunate?

Posted

To your first question: we should rail against policies that help the poor for the same reason we rail against policies that help the rich, redistribution of wealth (theft) is immoral. Whether it be stealing from the poor (inflation) or stealing from the rich (taxation), stealing remains immoral. We can have something that the average statist cannot, consistency in our argument.

 

To your second question: I argue that policies that are supposed to help the poor, welfare, medicare etc; are in the long term at least, are destructive to the poor. They encourage dependence instead of self reliance. As a result, many poor become trapped in poverty and perpetual unemployment. If the poor didn't know that government provides a safety net, they would be far less likely to ever need one. They would make sure they remained valuable to employers, which would not only keep them out of poverty, but give them a feeling of being valued by society, something an unemployed person is unlikely to experience. Women would be less likely to choose deadbeats to father their children since the consequences of it would not be numbed by state handouts. So no, I dont think we do more harm than good by discrediting assistance to the less fortunate. I think the best thing we can do is to remove that which enables their lives of dependence.

Posted

Your comment addresses 2 different things -- (1) how to improve economic reality and (2) how to make anarchism more popular.

 

As for improving economic reality, the statists' laws on poverty are clearly not designed to end poverty, but to regulate and normalize it. Their main purpose and function is to ensure the poors stay on their side of town and fight amongst themselves. The effect (long term) is to extend and perpetuate poverty. The War on Drugs also helps keep them in a state of constant submission.

 

If everyone had the same access to security against violations of person and property, most poverty would end in 1-2 generations (about 20-30 years).

 

As a matter of how best to promote the popularity of anarchism, we should do what propagandists have always done -- promote the lifestyle, the ethos, the context for anarchism, not anarchism itself. You show how cool, positive, successful, interesting and moral anarchists are.

 

They didn't sell Apple Macintosh computers by showing commercials that explained the computers. They did it by hiring Ridley Scott to shoot a slick commercial depicting a colorful female athlete in a colorless androgynous dystopia, running in and smashing the face of Big Brother with a sledgehammer, thereby liberating the enslaved masses from conformity (i.e., IBM).

 

We should do videos (and graphics) showing attractive people living exciting, fun, cool, creative lifestyles, then mention at the end that anarchism is how to be a part of it.

 

We probably need a new label, too.

Posted

Wouldn't that be appealing to insecurities? A lot of marketing I see preys on those who cannot think.

Yes. That's an intractable problem. In order to get thoughtfulness and rationality to appeal to large numbers of people, one must abandon the thoughtfulness and rationality you are trying to promote. Individuals are capable of rationality. It's actually fairly rare, like a capacity for abstraction in general. In large numbers, however, the motivators of behavior are reduced (like a lowest common denominator operation) to a cluster of various emotions -- principally the drive for acceptance, to increase (or at least maintaining) social status, and the fear of loss and/or rejection.
Posted

I definitely agree with that. Statism isn't embraced as a rational conclusion, but as a conformity to social norms. If we can make using violence as a solution uncomfortable, more people would have greater incentive to think. I don't think we can reach that step by abandoning our values in order to sell them if that makes any sense. I have a sensible friend who is giving "government is immoral" a chance simply because he understands that such a conclusion comes from somebody utilizing a process that has affected very real and positive changes in me very quickly.

Posted

I entirely agree that the use of reason and evidence to persuade people is at best, marginally effective, and that using emotional 'manipulation' is far more effective. Your point leads us to the more important problem of why. Why are people so resistant to reason? How can we fix this underlying problem? Again we must look to the propagandists, the government and the major religions. It all seems to start with the mass indoctrination of the youth. We need to get in first, that is, show children reason, evidence and virtue, before their minds can be warped by propaganda and manipulation. What about libertarian schools? Is this a way to create masses of free thinking individuals who will be resistant to propaganda and control? We can also actively influence our own ychildren by using peaceful parenting and negotiation. We must alter the fundamental mindset of the population away from the use of force and violence as a means to achieve goals. Once this can be achieved, reasoning with people will be easier and the state will gradually fall away. Its a long haul I know, but I think this is our best bet. I just hope that I am still here to see it.

Posted

Why are people so resistant to reason?

 

because it's hard work.

 

Again we must look to the propagandists, the government and the major religions.

 

we should look at them for what not to do.

 

It all seems to start with the mass indoctrination of the youth.

 

yes.

 

We need to get in first, that is, show children reason,

 

beat them at their own game? but how can we do that if the game is immoral? does good ever come from evil? the problem of what's in the public schools has grown from the problem of having public schools in the first place. centralize our kids somewhere and someone will finagle a way to get to them. with computers self education has become efficient, easy and reliable.

 

Is this a way to create masses of free thinking individuals who will be resistant to propaganda and control?

 

they must hunger to learn. they must not be spoon fed. it will taste bad and they will resent it.

 

We can also actively influence our own children by using peaceful parenting and negotiation.

 

yes, parental input is the natural way.

 

We must alter the fundamental mindset of the population away from the use of force and violence as a means to achieve goals.

 

how would you define violence?

 

 

 

Posted

Yes, for most, reason it hard work, but so is running for 5 km if you are not in shape. What a mean to say is reason is hard work because people are not taught how to do it, and people are out of practice.

 

Yes, look at them for not what to do, propagandize/indoctrinate. I didnt mean that we should do the same. What I meant was; the minds of children are a blank slate and are easily influenced by either good or evil. The state

and the religious institutions know this all too well. They know that to push their aganda, they must indoctrinate the young before they learn to think, before they have the ability to resist, before they have learnt the truth. What they do is evil. When I say look to them, I mean that we should realise that they have figured out how to influence people, do it while they are young. They are clearly experts at what they do. Teaching children reason, evidence and morality is not evil. Teaching them lies and propaganda is.

 

I believe children naturally hunger to learn. You say spoon feed, if you say force feed, such as in public schools, then I agree with you point.

 

Violence-for children, spanking and the like by parents.

Violence-for adults, being assaulted, kidnapped, and locked in a cage by police.

 

Most parents use violence and the threat of violence to ensure obedience from their children.

All states use violence and the threat of violence to ensure obedience from their citizens.

 

Both are immoral.

 

Thanks for your reply :)

Posted

i think it is unnatural for anyone to not want to learn, adult or child. but we have had the desire beat out of us in many ways..

 

regarding violence.. i wanted you to define it, not just give examples. if we can't define violence, then we don't have much hope to end it.

 

an accurate definition should include everything that violence is, and exclude everything it is not.

 

thank you for your reply also.

Posted

Violence is the initiation of the use of force.

that's what many dictionaries say. but i think the definition is inadequate.

 

can't violence be running away, or inaction?

 

i read about a couple that were hiking in alaska. the wife was attacked by a bear. the guy could have got away clean, but he took out a pocket knife and attacked the bear. the chances of either surviving was small. but he couldn't leave his wife. to him, running away would have been violent to his wife.

Posted

Is running away or inaction the initiation of the use of force? What is the point of a definition if you can reject it when it doesn't suit a prejudice?

 

Did the wife willingly go someplace she knew she might encounter a bear?

Posted

Is running away or inaction the initiation of the use of force? What is the point of a definition if you can reject it when it doesn't suit a prejudice?

 

Did the wife willingly go someplace she knew she might encounter a bear?

is the use of force always violence? if so, what is the difference between violence and force?

Posted

While it could be theoretically argued that the bear owns it's habitat, and the couple violated property rights, and the bear was only defending its property, its think it strays from the point.

 

Running away is not violence, there is no force.

Posted

While it could be theoretically argued that the bear owns it's habitat, and the couple violated property rights, and the bear was only defending its property, its think it strays from the point.Running away is not violence, there is no force.

and is doing nothing when someone is being raped also not violence? if you see a woman being raped and you do nothing to help her, even if it's just a phone call, isn't it another violence on her by you?

Posted

if so, what is the difference between violence and force?

 

What is the difference between "the initiation of the use of force" and "force"? Or, put more simply:

 

the initiation of the use of force - force = ?

 

The answer is "the initiation of the use of."

 

 

if you see a woman being raped and you do nothing to help her, even if it's just a phone call, isn't it another violence on her by you?

 

What force are you initiating the use of in this scenario?

 

You keep asking the exact same question. Are you interested in the truth or a way of making a prejudice true? I haven't seen you make the case for inaction as the initiation of the use of force, nor have I seen you describe how the logic of counterpoints has been faulty.

Posted

What is the difference between "the initiation of the use of force" and "force"? Or, put more simply:

 

the initiation of the use of force - force = ?

 

The answer is "the initiation of the use of."

 

 

 

What force are you initiating the use of in this scenario?

 

You keep asking the exact same question. Are you interested in the truth or a way of making a prejudice true? I haven't seen you make the case for inaction as the initiation of the use of force, nor have I seen you describe how the logic of counterpoints has been faulty.

the initiation of the use of force - force = ?

 

so then the first punch in a fight is violent, and the rest of the punches are force?

 

What force are you initiating the use of in this scenario?

 

none, but i'm not the one saying the initiation of force is violence. as Stefan has asked, are you using violence or force when you push someone out of harms way? it seems to me that i would be initiating force without it being violent.

Posted

No, not intervening is not violence, but that doesn't mean it's (doing nothing) the right thing to do.

No, not intervening is not violence, but that doesn't mean it's (doing nothing) the right thing to do

 

then ask a woman who was raped with bystanders watching, if she didn't feel she was being violated by them also.

Posted

are you using violence or force when you push someone out of harms way? it seems to me that i would be initiating force without it being violent.

 

This was the first effort you made towards "making a case" for your position. It got me thinking quite a bit and I even reversed my previous stance on the "guy walks in front of a bus" moral scenario. However, the thoughts I had on the matter were numerous enough that I thought it warranted its own topic. Here it is.

 

then ask a woman who was raped with bystanders watching, if she didn't feel she was being violated by them also.

 

Ask that same woman if her perception is that the world is flat. Doesn't make it so. Appeals to emotion are not sound argumentation. It doesn't appear that you're interested in the truth or are at all open to the possibility that your prejudice could be wrong.

Posted

 

This was the first effort you made towards "making a case" for your position. It got me thinking quite a bit and I even reversed my previous stance on the "guy walks in front of a bus" moral scenario. However, the thoughts I had on the matter were numerous enough that I thought it warranted its own topic. Here it is.

 

 

Ask that same woman if her perception is that the world is flat. Doesn't make it so. Appeals to emotion are not sound argumentation. It doesn't appear that you're interested in the truth or are at all open to the possibility that your prejudice could be wrong.

However, the thoughts I had on the matter were numerous enough that I thought it warranted its own topic.

 

then as you know, whatever your position is, it will become stronger.

 

Ask that same woman if her perception is that the world is flat.

 

non-sequitur 

 

It doesn't appear that you're interested in the truth or are at all open to the possibility that your prejudice could be wrong.

 

i have considered this question for years, always looking for where i might be wrong.

 

Appeals to emotion are not sound argumentation.

 

correct. but asking her how she felt is relevant.

Posted

Appeals to emotion are not sound argumentation.

 

correct. but asking her how she felt is relevant.

 

The reason why your argument isn't sound, is because you cannot universalise this behaviour. For instance, if I were tied to a post and watched my wife being raped. There is nothing I can do. Of course if I cheered them along whilst physically able to intervene, then my wife would no doubt want to divorce me and rightly so.

 

Violence requires either some physical attack or restraint. Stop confusing good dictionary terms please.

Posted

The reason why your argument isn't sound, is because you cannot universalise this behaviour. For instance, if I were tied to a post and watched my wife being raped. There is nothing I can do. Of course if I cheered them along whilst physically able to intervene, then my wife would no doubt want to divorce me and rightly so.

 

Violence requires either some physical attack or restraint. Stop confusing good dictionary termas please.

For instance, if I were tied to a post and watched my wife being raped. There is nothing I can do.

 

if there's nothing you can do, then you're not being violent by doing nothing.

 

Violence requires either some physical attack or restraint.

 

i say it requires neither.

 

Stop confusing good dictionary termas please.

 

the dictionary is under constant revision. not only are new words added, but old words get revised with better definitions. violence needs a better definition.

Posted

the dictionary is under constant revision. not only are new words added, but old words get revised with better definitions. violence needs a better definition.

 

Ah, we have a relativist I see.

 

BTW, violence doesn't need a better definition, it's you that wants it to have a better (different) definition. I would like my fridge to be filled with bars of gold. But alas wishes are indeed for the stars.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.