Great Works and Human Achievement

[helot]

It is difficult to imagine the pyramids or other megalithic structures without a state dictating what a society does with its resources.  It is also difficult to imagine the advances in propulsion ans space exploration without states rattling their sabers.  It is easy to imagine people being free to chaotically knock about without direction or desire to create something unimaginably large or of epic scale.  If you want proof, just try to get a small group of people to decide on where to go for a meal.

 

This is not to say that I am a fan of states, but it leads to some questions that cannot be answered through shaming people into behaving a certain way, or offering some kind of monetary incentive to join forces.  Are the pyramids worth the life cost?  They have generated untold millions in revenue of the years and will continue to do so virtually indefinitely.  I suppose what my mind is trying to comprehend is some sort of compromise in ideology.

 

There are thousands of arguments against statism, and all of them are very valid.  What I would like to know is, does everyone here belive that there isn't a single aspect of statehood that has a positive outcome?  Is it that we choose not to accept that there is benefit to a power structure, or is it that there really is nothing good about people being persuaded to collectively focus their energy?

 

I imagine that given structure, groups of people can accomplish bigger tasks and do so more quickly, and I have a hard time believing that a corporation has the capacity to do that.  It wasn't the MoonCo Inc that sent a rocket into space and it took a long while before a corporation had the incentive to even try.  I am willing to bet that it would have taken a lot longer for a corporation to make that leap if the state hadn't put all the leg work in ahead of time killing astronauts and monkeys in the name of patriotism.

 

Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, crowd dancing.... I don't know if they can pull it off in the same way.

 

Reminder, during WWII there was a lot of voluntary effort, collecting tin cans and such that was used for a state effort.  Perhaps not the most beautiful effort, but it hints to a way to collectivise without violence.

 

Apologies for the rambling thoughts.

 

The underlying question I suppose is whether or not there is any possible positive aspect of a state and if so, how can it be implemented without violence to push the envelope of human potential?

[hannahbanana]

Interesting question, one that I struggled with for a while. The way I answered this question was to view the state/government in a purely moral way, as compared to a utilitarian sort of way as it seems you are viewing it. Something is either moral, or immoral. For example (and yes, I know it is very often used, but it's still a good example), slavery brought several benefits to many people in the world, and created large amounts of profit since slaves work without a wage. However, we can still say now, without a doubt, that slavery is immoral and should not be approved of. This is including all of the benefits that slavery brought along as well.

 

So even though you could say that a government has made things easier in some aspects, it doesn't address the moral part of the equation. This also doesn't say anything as to possible improvements and ideas that could fill the empty niche that a lack of government would create. To continue the example, using slaves was the best way to pick cotton in pre-civil war America, but then the cotton gin was invented, which was even MORE efficient than before, thus ending the "need" for slaves that the slave-owners insisted upon.

 

It should also be noted that certain programs that are adopted by the government (the environmentalism movement, for example) are only done so because it is shown that people care about it. And this interest is evidenced by trends in the market. So actually, people start the trends themselves, and only LATER is it picked up by the government. Many times, things get worse once the government takes control of it (look up the story of Boeing and his air-mail service, for example)...so it may even be that things would be even better if they were left alone by the government in many instances.

 

Not sure if this answers your questions, but I hope it could help in some way

[PGP]

It is difficult to imagine the pyramids or other megalithic structures without a state dictating what a society does with its resources.  It is also difficult to imagine the advances in propulsion ans space exploration without states rattling their sabers.  It is easy to imagine people being free to chaotically knock about without direction or desire to create something unimaginably large or of epic scale.  If you want proof, just try to get a small group of people to decide on where to go for a meal.

 

This is not to say that I am a fan of states, but it leads to some questions that cannot be answered through shaming people into behaving a certain way, or offering some kind of monetary incentive to join forces.  Are the pyramids worth the life cost?  They have generated untold millions in revenue of the years and will continue to do so virtually indefinitely.  I suppose what my mind is trying to comprehend is some sort of compromise in ideology.

 

There are thousands of arguments against statism, and all of them are very valid.  What I would like to know is, does everyone here belive that there isn't a single aspect of statehood that has a positive outcome?  Is it that we choose not to accept that there is benefit to a power structure, or is it that there really is nothing good about people being persuaded to collectively focus their energy?

 

I imagine that given structure, groups of people can accomplish bigger tasks and do so more quickly, and I have a hard time believing that a corporation has the capacity to do that.  It wasn't the MoonCo Inc that sent a rocket into space and it took a long while before a corporation had the incentive to even try.  I am willing to bet that it would have taken a lot longer for a corporation to make that leap if the state hadn't put all the leg work in ahead of time killing astronauts and monkeys in the name of patriotism.

 

Crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, crowd dancing.... I don't know if they can pull it off in the same way.

 

Reminder, during WWII there was a lot of voluntary effort, collecting tin cans and such that was used for a state effort.  Perhaps not the most beautiful effort, but it hints to a way to collectivise without violence.

 

Apologies for the rambling thoughts.

 

The underlying question I suppose is whether or not there is any possible positive aspect of a state and if so, how can it be implemented without violence to push the envelope of human potential?

 

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

 

This question appeals to me. I am not conversant with all of the anti-statism arguments, but the question of structure intrigues me. Firstly, the issue of the megalithic structures. I have been to and I am familiar with the the heritage of these structures in mega and neolithic times here. And indeed, these structures draw large crowds to this day, generating wealth for those stakeholders involved. The history and rationale of these structures is, of course, down to a question of historical interpretation. Nonetheless, enormous quantities of human and natural resources were expended in their construction, often to what could be thought irrational and wasteful extents. Relatively aswell as quantitatively. Positioning of these structures seemed to relate to an aesthethic sensibility and significance aswell as belief (pagan and later Christian) tradition. The structure of these communities was along hierarchical lines of family and dominance etc.

 

The question of structure is paramount IMO. Motivation toward a particular goal is an issue of emotional impulse. Now, the question of what determines the direction of the impulse is determined by the framing of the reality or more precisely, the perception of the reality. For instance, the neolithics here would site Cairns in beautiful and prominent locations, one would imagine as a mark of honour and recognition and remembrance and also as a dominant marker on the landscape as an occupation of territory by a particular tribe at a particular time. A select few benefitted and their offspring benefitted based on a win/lose paradigm.

The question of hierarchical structure is a question of the relationship of the individual and the surrounding individuals to the unknown. How exploration and understanding of the unknown should be gained. The state is not even a consensus, it is a consensus of selection of individuals whom determine direction and allocation arbitrarily and expediently based on current concerns. The framing of the existence and perception and responsibilities of the citizens is limited by the parameters of the state  construct ie a selective decision-making structure of a few for all. 

What a different hierarchy could have achieved is unknowable. A question I have thought of is: do the ends justify the means (as in statism, the "best" compared to all the other systems, so to speak) or do the means justify the ends (as I posit, the anarchist, rules-based, aspiration to virtue society.).

There are of course within a particular social framework, possible benefits to statism. The existence of statism in it's current form is a testament to this. It has endured. Going back to the question of motivation, one of the basic problems with the state is that it is "limiting". It limits potential as a compromise.

The very same social framework that produced the pyramids under slavery and waste and fear could, if based on virtue and justice broaden out the imperative and creativity of the human race greatly. Currently, I am struggling with the issue of faith in humanity. Is the state a necessary limit on the the creativity and variability of choice of humanity as a mitigation of risk/the unknown/capacity for violence? Is the alternative of an anarchistic approach to the unknown based on virtue an achievable goal? Should we know the end-point but never have the possibility of reaching it without coercion and violence, or not know the end-point but use the very best and peaceful aspects of our being to reach it?

Perhaps it is the framework of the decision-making process in pursuit of the goal of the motivation that matters. Fear or courage. Subjugation or freedom. Expediency or truth.

[Kaki]

What I would like to know is, does everyone here belive that there isn't a single aspect of statehood that has a positive outcome?  Is it that we choose not to accept that there is benefit to a power structure, or is it that there really is nothing good about people being persuaded to collectively focus their energy?

 

 

Statehood is nothing more than the monopoly of the use of force in a certain geographical area. It has nothing to do with "people being persuaded to collectively focus their energy", it is people being forced to do something which they by definition do not want to do. (Otherwise there would be no need to force them.)

There is no compromise or middle ground between initiating force against peaceful people or dealing voluntarily with each other.

[LovePrevails]

the moon landing would have cost a fraction of what it cost if they'd just waited 10, 20 years until the technology moved on

I mean the computer was like what a nokia phone could do

[dsayers]

helot, your post is rife with dishonesty whether you meant it to be or not.

 

It is difficult to imagine the pyramids or other megalithic structures without a state dictating what a society does with its resources.  It is also difficult to imagine the advances in propulsion ans space exploration without states rattling their sabers.  It is easy to imagine people being free to chaotically knock about without direction or desire to create something unimaginably large or of epic scale.  If you want proof, just try to get a small group of people to decide on where to go for a meal.

 

You claim that pyramids and space travel wouldn't exist without a state, which logically isn't true. There's only one thing that you can accomplish with violence that you cannot accomplish without violence: violence.

 

You assume that the free market WOULD produce these things. While space travel I'm sure is something we would get to eventually for reasons of species preservation and learning about our environment, the idea that we'd build these great big, inefficient buildings just to honor a single person so that their stuff could be taken with them into a fairy tale? Not so much.

 

You offer as "proof" a small group of people being indecisive on where to share a meal. Which to actually serve as proof of the point you were making would require those people to starve as a result of their indecision. The indecision comes from being considerate of others, but would never lead to NOT eating.

 

There are thousands of arguments against statism, and all of them are very valid.  What I would like to know is, does everyone here belive that there isn't a single aspect of statehood that has a positive outcome?  Is it that we choose not to accept that there is benefit to a power structure, or is it that there really is nothing good about people being persuaded to collectively focus their energy?

 

Belief is of no use to a philosophical discussion.

 

"Positive outcome" says in no uncertain terms that the moral consideration is inconsequential compared to utilitarian consideration. The problem with that position is that it contradicts reality. In the real world, the simultaneous acceptance and rejection of property rights (immorality) is internally inconsistent. You cannot escape this. 

 

Most offensive was your use of the word "persuasion." If I point a gun at your head to get you to do something, I have not persuaded you. I have initiated the use of force against you. This deception in particular leads me to believe that your dishonesty was deliberate.

 

 

As hannah pointed out, the initiation of the use of force is either immoral or it is not. If it is, then there's no reason to abide the State. If it is not, then there's no reason to alter the State. Why do you need for the single greatest destructive force in human history to be justified?

[hannahbanana]

 

Currently, I am struggling with the issue of faith in humanity. Is the state a necessary limit on the the creativity and variability of choice of humanity as a mitigation of risk/the unknown/capacity for violence?

 

 We already know that people have a capacity for violence, and it makes no sense to me why it would then be GOOD to have an organization of individuals who have a MONOPOLY of violence against others. This argument is commonly addressed in other areas of this forum, but I'm just saying it doesn't make sense to give such power to people who are drawn to power and violence.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/13/psychopathic-personality-traits-president_n_1874567.html

 

Even the Huff Post, one of the most liberal news sources there are, admits that political positions are more likely to be filled by sociopaths.

So IMO, having a government does not mitigate unknown capacities for violence, it aids KNOWN capacities for violence.

 

 

Is the alternative of an anarchistic approach to the unknown based on virtue an achievable goal? Should we know the end-point but never have the possibility of reaching it without coercion and violence, or not know the end-point but use the very best and peaceful aspects of our being to reach it?

Perhaps it is the framework of the decision-making process in pursuit of the goal of the motivation that matters. Fear or courage. Subjugation or freedom. Expediency or truth.

 

Interesting question. What comes to mind for me when I think of this question is a scientific setting:

When a scientist is working in the lab, they may spend years doing research before getting an outcome. Sometimes they don't get anything at all. This is sort of like your scenario of people working towards a free society, even though they may not know if it is achievable or not.

Now, back to the science example...

Even though the scientist may not know whether they will achieve the outcome they are trying to research, there is certainly a right and a wrong way to conduct the research. If they spend two years working diligently at their research, using all the proper protocols and scientific method to analyze and modify their approach, they will have made much more progress than if they spent those two years goofing off in the lab and blowing things up for fun. So even if both situations end up not reaching the desired outcome, at least in the first case the scientist made the attempt, and might have even made smaller progress in other areas besides what their main goal was. In the second case, absolutely nothing would have been gained; more would have probably been lost instead (money, resources, people's time, etc.)

In the same way people are striving towards a free society; even if it never happens in their lifetime, at the end of the day they can say that at least there was a benefit for them, and they may have possibly even helped others by spreading ideas like peaceful parenting and nonviolent, non-coercive behavior.

 

Maybe this comparison can give you some food for thought, and possibly help answer your questions.

[PGP]

 

 

Maybe this comparison can give you some food for thought, and possibly help answer your questions.

 I have a few points but I will be posting something on this in the near future, just my own analysis pulling info from different disciplines.

 

Firstly, I didn't say it in the comment, but perhaps the issue is not violence of the state or of the individual sans state, but the "framing" ie the predictability of violence by the state. People fear chaos. Without the moral guide of UPB or some similar moral system, that does not rely on violent structures and systems, most people currently(I have to assume) fear the unknown (or chaos), greater than they fear statist violence.

An analogy being, people do not mind the gun to the head as long as they know it won't go off if they hand over the money and "play the game" so to speak. 

Fear of the unknown is a real existential nightmare for most people, that's why we get ideologies. After religion, we get communism, statism or any other such ideology. These -isms narrow the range of concerns of the individual and promise a kind of abundance. They have moral codes but part of the moral code is the necessity for violence. It is the price people seem to be willing to pay.

 

It's a good many years since I did labwork, but one of the questions that preoccupied me was this: Is it better to use existing methods to study a particular research subject and see what results, or, is it better to determine  the goal (what is useful to find out) and to design or even develop the new methodology to this end? To ask an existing question and get a relatively predictable answer or to ask a new question and get an unpredictable answer (if you get one at all)?

In general, I would imagine, the former is much more likely to get funding.

This question/dichotomy has alot of implications for me. In a way, it relates to the UPB/every other moral system dichotomy. In the existing system and indeed all before, the same general attitude to the unknown was taken. Wash, rinse, repeat gives us culture, safety and predictable outcomes. 

UPB is perhaps an effort at the latter strategy. The goal is a peaceful society that has not existed. The method is UPB. But the answer is unpredictable for people. It opens up the possibility of chaos and an expansion of what they have to pay attention to and take responsibility for. 

Most people prefer the gun to the head.

[dsayers]

most people currently(I have to assume) fear the unknown (or chaos), greater than they fear statist violence

 

If this were true, they wouldn't need words like taxation, arrest, imprisonment, war, fiat, etc. It's not that people don't fear violence in the name of State, it's that they don't see it. Think about this for a second as it's REALLY important to understand. Our daily lives are filled with empirical evidence of people meeting their goals without the use of violence. The narrative is so strong, that people are tricked out of their own experiences! This could never happen if people actually understood that taxation is theft, war is mass murder, etc. Most people would be upset at $50 being taken by a mugger and don't even notice that their unborn children have been enslaved.

[PGP]

If this were true, they wouldn't need words like taxation, arrest, imprisonment, war, fiat, etc. It's not that people don't fear violence in the name of State, it's that they don't see it. Think about this for a second as it's REALLY important to understand. Our daily lives are filled with empirical evidence of people meeting their goals without the use of violence. The narrative is so strong, that people are tricked out of their own experiences! This could never happen if people actually understood that taxation is theft, war is mass murder, etc. Most people would be upset at $50 being taken by a mugger and don't even notice that their unborn children have been enslaved.

Firstly, I want to say that I am currently in the exploratory stage of getting my mind around this stuff. I know enough to know that I know almost nothing. I am speculating and playing around with this stuff here in an effort to understand it. Secondly, cheers for the reply and to Hannah above. I really need this feedback.

My points are not a refutation of the desirability of the peaceful world talked about on FDR. They relate more toward what the actual position that gov currently fulfills and how it fulfills it and why.

I want to suggest this: ok, people would be upset with the mugger but this is going to be an isolated incident within the current framework of police and the state etc. After all, the gov doesn't like competition!!!

People do pursue goals everyday without violence. But, it occurs within the perceptual framework of the state. It's not limited to statism, it relates similarly to religion. The structures act as limiting factors on the things people have to concern themselves with. Through this "narrowing of the field of vision" so to speak, people are capable of making a limited number of decisions and taking on a limited weight of responsibility. Everything else is "assumed" based on the empirical evidence that they are alive today because of behaving/existing in the same state (existentially) as their parents and all before. ie it is advantageous to success.

That is not to say people cannot think they act morally atm. They can. Like someone who works for an ambulance service funded by a government. They are saving lives but they are doing it within the rotten framework. But they don't have to think about it, so they inhabit a "state" of success and are "moral" to the extent that they can/choose to, exert moral agency.

The historical and present "moral framework" could be described as a codified strategy for success at a particular time and in a particular culture. It is a way of dealing with the unknown that has proven successful therefore it perpetuates or it fails to deliver success (even relative to another moral framework) so it implodes or is abandoned. 

So, for instance, alot of people here have asked certain questions of themselves, applied standards to themselves and then asked these questions and applied these standards to others in their lives and this has had consequences. I t has risks and it has no guarantee of success. Indeed, it may even have meant giving up the "known" and "secure" , limited and narrow and prison-like such as it was for something unknown. It's a dangerous business but it's the only business worth doing IMO. 

I think Nietzsche said somehting like "truth is that which adds to life". For people here, the truth that adds to life is NAP etc. But, for alot of people, the truth that adds to life may be a cowardly yet prudent truth of a gun to the head and a hand in their pocket. Even if they choose not to recognise it assuch.

Just my ramblings!!! 

[helot]

Since I can only post twice a day, I want to thank all of those who offered constructive feedback.  I apologize in advance that I cannot address and quote every piece of this thread and respond accordingly, but I do have something further to say.

 

And now for the vitriol.

 

Okay,  so it is apparent some people are locked into semantics.  Perhaps I need to play by some unknown set of rules and get a list of definitions, sort of like a legal dictionary to be able to participate in a meaningful way and not be misunderstood.

 

Apparently "the state" is explicitly defined as "violence" which in itself has a very narrow definition that I am not yet privy to.  I will distill that one out later.

 

"Persuade" has many definitions, and I apologize for not taking the time to set my definition.  The problem is, if you need me to explain every word I use because your definition does not meet the dictionary definition, we could be here for a very long while.  I do see that jumping directly to "persuasion" being solely a reference to the use of force says more about you than it does me.

 

persuade

1.  to prevail on (a person) to do something, as by advising or urging:

2.  to induce to believe by appealing to reason or understanding; convince:

 

Advising.  Urging.  Appealing to reason...  Oh the horror!  Put the gun of understanding away you brute!

 

Of course you are entitled to your interpretation.  If you prefer, I can choose a different word, but again, we are going to get into a lot of trouble with definitions.

 

Coax, enlist, urge, woo, cajole, incline, seduce, wheedle....

 

Pick your poison, an argument over semantics is futile but I will engage if you like.

 

I mean seriously folks.  I am not trying to convince you that the state is good, or that I like violence.  I have even said as much, yet I am misunderstood and slathered with contempt for exploring an idea.  I suppose the abhorrence of violence does not pertain to intellectual sparring.  Let me just say, I am offended by "posturing", and I will leave that definition open for interpretation.  

 

I wonder if anyone has ever posited that sarcasm or accusation is a form of violence.  Dang it.  I am not ready to distill that word quite yet.

 

Regardless, it is difficult to coax, enlist, urge, woo, cajole, incline, seduce, wheedle or otherwise persuade a large number of people to work together to produce something unimaginable, something wondrous, something not explicitly designed to benefit a corporate interest or personal ego.

 

Perhaps the use of the pyramids as an example was a bad choice because it appears the focus wants to be on why it was built and for whom.  Somehow that makes it worthless despite the money being generated via tourism and trinket sales 6000 years later.  Maybe I need another example...  People didn't like the whole moon landing thing...  Hoover Dam?   Nope.  Utilitarian, but an argument exists there that some corporation might build something like that.  Interstate Highway System...  Probably should go there either...  Fine.  You got me.  There isn't a single worthwhile thing that has ever come from the state, or violence, or the boogeyman, or whatever word you need to feel you have triumphed over this post.

 

Beat your chest and tell your friends.  You won the Internet.  Violence BAD!   Napster GOOD!

 

To those who felt inclined to attack, I apologize if you thought my questions were somehow a respect and desire for violence because that was not the intention.  I will choose my words more carefully in the future.  Do you prefer canoodling?  How about globule?  I know lots of words.  I might just find one you agree with.

 

Anyway.

 

The pyramids had an unintended consequence, and learning from that reality the question was, can that occur again without violence?  If you believe it can, I would like to know the mechanism you would employ.  I am asking because without the collective effort, the world is simply going to continue down its current path.  If you don't, that's fine.  I don't need you to explain why you don't.  You see I am in the business of trying to solve problems, not listen to people rehash problems.

 

So I ask that you take a moment and step outside of your fundamentalism and try to understand what I am asking.  You are not going to solve the issue of violence, of "the state", of your personal need to be intellectually superior to those who disagree with you, by being a snarky pseudointellectual to a stranger in an internet forum.  You cannot defeat this beast through philosophical pissing matches or the hope that your ideal is going to somehow magically transform thousands of years of momentum.

 

Humanity needs a pyramidain effort to turn this course, so how does that happen?  Obviously the use of "persuasion" is off the table, so how about some violence?  Somehow, according to the philosophy, it is okay to express violence in "self defense" so can it be argued that the state is attacking and the individual needs to react violently.  Oh so slippery the slope becomes when we begin the distillation.

 

If you don't have any positive ideas to contribute, then please don't come at me ad hominem.  While I can play this game all day, it is not benefiting the community.  I am also not interested in any possible future scenario tripe about how things would work if there was no state.  Let me explain it to you simply.

 

There is a state.

 

What do we do about it besides blowing hot air at each other and stroking our own egos through selectively choosing what ideas best support our dogma?

[dsayers]

People do pursue goals everyday without violence. But, it occurs within the perceptual framework of the state.

 

I understand I think, but I disagree. Go to any campus, market, restaurant, etc. People gladly move out of each others' way as opposed to running into one another. All sharing the same space, not initiating the use of force against one another. The State isn't there to referee this and nobody there could say that they'd be stabbing you for what's in your back pocket if they didn't think there was a government.

 

The initiation of the use of force is counter-intuitive to our own survival. If I steal your car, I now have to live a life of watching over my shoulder, not being able to sleep well out of fear of retribution, living every day wondering when you or somebody you know will find me, etc. It would be exhausting!

 

My point is that we don't peacefully co-exist because there is a State, we do so in spite of the State and all their various programs to dumb us down and render us fearful/feral towards one another.