The perfectly sovereign nation-state and the human individual are one

[Donnadogsoth]

The creation of the modern, [almost-] perfectly sovereign nation-state, as through the passion of Joan of Arc leading to the creation of modern France under Louis XI and later modern England under England's Henry VII, manifested an idea implicit in all of history to date, but which had been suppressed by oligarchal deployments of propaganda and terror since the dawn of time, and most specifically notably for relatively recent European history the Democratic Party of Athen's judicial murder of Socrates in the 4th Century BC.

 

The implicit idea, which is the basis for the nation-state as such; "nation-state" is a factual way of referring to this implicit idea.  The idea is the same as is embedded in the U.S. Constitutional Preamble, and similarly in the Constitution of Argentina.  It is the idea of the General Welfare, which is the most specifically uplifting political conception  man has ever known, for it, in the countries in which it has been enshrined, legally raises up  the masses of hitherto subjects implicitly living as livestock under the overlordship of their oligarchal and other forms of tyrannical masters, to the level of citizens, for whose benefit the government exists.

 

Prior to that innovation, the people, as in Fascist Italy under Mussolini, and similar modern expressions of the fraudulent, negative, oligarchal principle, existed for the benefit of the State.  Joan of Arc died defending the reverse case, died as one of the greatest heroes of history. Were her efforts and sacrifice in vain?

 

Now, you may ask, as an anarcho-capitalist, why should you care about the political shenanigans of centuries past?  The reason is simple:  You are sovereign.  You, and your property, as such, as defined by the non-aggresssion principle, are, when collected under the leadership of your mind, a creative, Agapic, potentially principled mind made in the living image of the Creator, and thus sacred, and with thereby a unique quality of meaning that makes mankind an end in himself, rather than a means to others' ends, then you are sovereign.

 

Until now, the best mankind has been able to do is to generate political sovereignties of groups of sovereign individuals, and this has led, at best, to great advancements in culture and technology, when liberty has been crafted like a work of beautiful art, and at worst, to the depredations of war and intentional democide. It is not hard to tell that there have been more and less benevolent incarnations of the nation-state, as is observed in the difference between the history of the Russia of the Soviet empire and the American republic, respectively. There is progress that is possible, that has been achieved, through the sovereign nation-state principle.

 

But, as American President, emancipator, and martyr Abraham Lincoln stated, the Constitution of the U.S., was intended to form a “more perfect union” between its constituents. And here is where anarcho-capitalism as such should be entering into history, not in a “Year Zero” manner of thinking, whereby all previous history of the principle of the nation-state is wiped away, but as an organic evolution and refinement of that principle.

 

For just as there is not a point at which a heap of sand, when removed grain by grain, ceases to be a heap, so there is not a point at which a nation-state, when its citizens are removed one by one, ceases to be a nation-state, until the points at which neither grains nor citizens remain.

 

So, in essence, in principle, you are a nation-state of one. You exist under the clause of the general welfare, referring not merely to your bodily aggrandisement but to the benefit of your social, loving soul, your higher, creative mind. This lack of political union between yourself and other people, is ironically the greatest union, because the more you embrace and embody principle, the more you will work to recreate, in simulacra, innovatively, those structures and institutions which serve as ligaments binding together human beings into a single condordianta catholica, “on all-embracing agreement,” as coined by the great pre-scientist, jurist, theologian, and philosopher Cardinal Nicolaus of Cusa.

 

This speaks not to the negative, "leave me alone" non-aggression principle, here, but what I call the ligamental principle, that humans need in order to avoid what Bruce K. Alexander in his book Globalization of Addiction, termed “psychosocial dislocation.” This, he argues, is a condition of vulnerability to deleterious addictive behaviour, in large part brought on by free market society as presently constituted. Man is not an island, he cannot exist apart from nourishing social structures that have hitherto worked to bind him in a multiply-connected nation-state, as by religion, culture, history, race, language, and territory.

 

The “concordianta catholica” is the ligament principle, the idea that we must, if we are to be free, sound, and progressing in art and science, grow connective structures and bodies among us, societies, institutions, and, especially, families and most especially fertile families. Anarcho-capitalism by itself without the ligament principle is a hopeless pipe-dream that plays into the hands of the oligarchs who want more psychosocial dislocation.

 

An anarcho-capitalist society, therefore, will necessarily be based on three principles: (1) the non-aggression principle which merges with the general welfare principle, and is a more logically thorough working out of that latter reflection of this principle; (2) the aforementioned ligament principle or principle of psychosocial integration; and (3) the principle of creative mentation, of being made in the image of the Creator, which is the basis for all discoveries of principle whether philosophical, artistic, or scientific.

 

Thus, we have the basis for a successful, sovereign, and sacred society.

[Mister Mister]

nope.  you control your whole body with a thought.  a government can only control a whole population with force and fraud.  you don't have to threaten your pinky toe to get it to move, it just moves. so....nope

[Des]

 

And here is where anarcho-capitalism as such should be entering into history, not in a “Year Zero” manner of thinking, whereby all previous history of the principle of the nation-state is wiped away, but as an organic evolution and refinement of that principle.

Would you regard a contract actually signed by each citizen (substituted for the fictional social contract), as a refinement of the principle of the nation-state?

[Donnadogsoth]

 

Would you regard a contract actually signed by each citizen (substituted for the fictional social contract), as a refinement of the principle of the nation-state?

 

 

Yes.

nope.  you control your whole body with a thought.  a government can only control a whole population with force and fraud.  you don't have to threaten your pinky toe to get it to move, it just moves. so....nope

 

You are capable of going against your instinctive desires, are you not?  You can force yourself to do things you don't want to do, for the sake of a greater consideration.  Your body would rather not eat its vegetables, but you can force it to obey your will to eat them.

[shirgall]

You are capable of going against your instinctive desires, are you not?  You can force yourself to do things you don't want to do, for the sake of a greater consideration.  Your body would rather not eat its vegetables, but you can force it to obey your will to eat them.

 

Even when you "force yourself" to do something, you are doing it willingly. This is a problem with language, not free will.

[Mister Mister]

Yes.

 

You are capable of going against your instinctive desires, are you not?  You can force yourself to do things you don't want to do, for the sake of a greater consideration.  Your body would rather not eat its vegetables, but you can force it to obey your will to eat them.

 

Why don't you quit beating around the bush and tell us what it is you would force ME to do that I don't want to do, for the sake of greater consideration.

[luxfelix]

This reminds me of the idea of re-establishing monarchy and then expanding the concept so that every individual is a sovereign, resulting in anarcho-capitalism by default.

 

It's probably just a stylistic preference, but even if the result is the same it will be important to ensure the principles they're based on are rationally sound.

[Donnadogsoth]

Even when you "force yourself" to do something, you are doing it willingly. This is a problem with language, not free will.

 

One can be conflicted of mind and have to force, through will, oneself to act one way rather than another.  Example:  mustering the courage to oppose the State.  My language is correct.

Why don't you quit beating around the bush and tell us what it is you would force ME to do that I don't want to do, for the sake of greater consideration.

 

I wish to convince you of the principle of principle, so that you might thereby help me delve into the classics of literature and art and science, to elevate yourself toward greater political efficacy, for the benefit of yourself in your quest for liberty, and for that of all mankind. This convincing does not involve force, so long as you are not attacking the interests of civilisation as a whole or of sovereign individuals in particular, which are the same thing, ultimately.

[shirgall]

One can be conflicted of mind and have to force, through will, oneself to act one way rather than another.  Example:  mustering the courage to oppose the State.  My language is correct.

 

Your language is correct in usage, perhaps, but it is not objectively descriptive. A free agent decides what to do amongst possible alternatives that have costs and benefits. Anthropomorphizing conflicting minds within your own mind and having one force the other to its will may be poetic but devalues the term that should should be saved for describing an external actor using force to make you decide in a particular way.

[NotDarkYet]

Translation:

 

DO WHAT I WANT, OR I WILL DESTROY YOUR LIFE

[Donnadogsoth]

Your language is correct in usage, perhaps, but it is not objectively descriptive. A free agent decides what to do amongst possible alternatives that have costs and benefits. Anthropomorphizing conflicting minds within your own mind and having one force the other to its will may be poetic but devalues the term that should should be saved for describing an external actor using force to make you decide in a particular way.

 

I almost agree, but there is the issue of mastering the flesh, which is an ancient theme.  The body must be mastered by its sovereign mind, or else all manner of problems ensue.  That involves force of will, and is not poetic.  The flesh is different from the mind, and must be mastered by the external force of the mind if the mind is to do justice to the world's feast.

[shirgall]

I almost agree, but there is the issue of mastering the flesh, which is an ancient theme.  The body must be mastered by its sovereign mind, or else all manner of problems ensue.  That involves force of will, and is not poetic.  The flesh is different from the mind, and must be mastered by the external force of the mind if the mind is to do justice to the world's feast.

 

Lots of great philosophers have given reasons why the mind/body problem is a language problem and not a real problem. There is no material difference between the mind or body, the terms are abstractions for different aspects of the same organism.

[Mister Mister]

I would say that, within a person, there are multiple desires, which can sometimes be in conflict, in the same way that there are conflicts of interest between people in  a society..  And learning to reasonably negotiate the conflicting desires within yourself, is similar to learning to negotiate conflicts of interest in society.  But none of this requires a State or authoritarian ruler.  Once we have rational and consistent methodology for validating truth, exposing falsehood, and resolving conflicts, you don't need the false authority of gods and States.  The only authority is reason and evidence, to which we subject ourselves willingly for integrity and happiness.

[Des]

Yes.

Okay, if each member/citizen signs a contract, then each one's participation in the system is in terms of that signed contract. Then my focus shifts to advising people what contract terms will endanger their lives. For example, I would advise: don't sign if there is to be a class of citizen/member who is exempt from any of the rules, especially in the case of a rule prohibiting a form of aggression.

 

Members can agree to a monthly subscription, can agree to rules, can agree to a voting system.

I would advise prospective members to be careful how the subscription fee is calculated, to insist on 100% consensus before adoption of a new rule, to insist on being able to sell the share of communal assets (and emigrate), and to choose a community with a voting system where each member votes his share of communal assets (as with company shareholder agreements).

 

Naturally, all are free to disregard my advice and join a commune where you can be cast out without your shirt - I can put advice out there - I can't insure people against what happens.

 

I predict that societies like this will be small (a few thousand people in an area of suburb size, or in a bigger area of rural territory). That is a guess which I make while thinking how much people like to try different ideas, and guessing an answer to: "How many people with very similar preferences - does it take to make a community which does not feel so small and stifling that it will probably dissolve?".

 

Having 319 million people agree to one contract with many specific terms: Unlikely, I say. Billions of people agreeing to just not aggress: possible, and I hope it will happen.

[Donnadogsoth]

Lots of great philosophers have given reasons why the mind/body problem is a language problem and not a real problem. There is no material difference between the mind or body, the terms are abstractions for different aspects of the same organism.

 

Lots of great philosophers have or would have disagreed with Leibniz, whom I rank among the greatest, particularly for his theory of monads, whereby the mind is a monad (unity), and the body-as-a-whole is a separate monad, and they exist and coöoperate in a preëstablished harmony.  The body can live without the mind, with the help of machines, but the mind dematerialises ("passes away") without the body.  View it like this:

 

Mind | Body..........O | O

 

The key thing to understand is that the mind is a unity, it is indivisible.  You can't have half a mind.  Your mind may be cloudy to knowledge or clear, but it remains an indivisible unity regardless.  If the mind and the body were one, the problem would arise where the limits of the body are?  Isn't Terra herself part of my body?  She's my immediate life support system, my bodily cycles are related and comingle with hers.  And what about the Solar winds that shield me from terrible cosmic rays?  Isn't that like another skin for me?  We can't say it's not part of me because I can't feel it; I can't feel my appendix either, is it not a part of my body?  We face the prospect of my body extending to infinity, and overlapping and merging with your body and everyone else's.

 

Unlike the mind, the body is divisible, in the following manner:  The monad of body-as-a-whole begins to dematerialise when the body is divided, such as with an amputation; that body monad, or ideal body, is partly hidden, like how you can hold up a catenary chain and have a third person grasp midway up the curve, when you release one end of the chain:  the curve is still there in full, but part of it has become invisible.  So your amputated foot, for example, is its own monad, but your body's full monad is partly dematerialised.  Of course the foot will die and its own monad dematerialise into the multiplicity of putrefaction, until only a volume of dust remains.

Okay, if each member/citizen signs a contract, then each one's participation in the system is in terms of that signed contract. Then my focus shifts to advising people what contract terms will endanger their lives. For example, I would advise: don't sign if there is to be a class of citizen/member who is exempt from any of the rules, especially in the case of a rule prohibiting a form of aggression.

 

Members can agree to a monthly subscription, can agree to rules, can agree to a voting system.

I would advise prospective members to be careful how the subscription fee is calculated, to insist on 100% consensus before adoption of a new rule, to insist on being able to sell the share of communal assets (and emigrate), and to choose a community with a voting system where each member votes his share of communal assets (as with company shareholder agreements).

 

Naturally, all are free to disregard my advice and join a commune where you can be cast out without your shirt - I can put advice out there - I can't insure people against what happens.

 

I predict that societies like this will be small (a few thousand people in an area of suburb size, or in a bigger area of rural territory). That is a guess which I make while thinking how much people like to try different ideas, and guessing an answer to: "How many people with very similar preferences - does it take to make a community which does not feel so small and stifling that it will probably dissolve?".

 

Having 319 million people agree to one contract with many specific terms: Unlikely, I say. Billions of people agreeing to just not aggress: possible, and I hope it will happen.

 

The answer may be cellular.  Consider the healthy nuclear family like a cell:  2 sovereigns agreeing to mutually beneficial alliance in order to raise 3 wards.  That family unit can then sign a contract with its small, immediate community, as you say.  Now that community, like a tissue, can work on confederating to form a larger entity, like an organ.  All of this depends on principle, the more principled people are, the more classically cultured, the more they will see their common interests and begin to view their mutual General Welfares as best served through a harmony of interaction.  And this process could continue, carefully, ligament by ligament, block by block, up to the level of a body of a pseudostate, and finally an interaction of pseudostates in a concordianta catholica.

[shirgall]

Lots of great philosophers have or would have disagreed with Leibniz, whom I rank among the greatest, particularly for his theory of monads, whereby the mind is a monad (unity), and the body-as-a-whole is a separate monad, and they exist and coöoperate in a preëstablished harmony.  The body can live without the mind, with the help of machines, but the mind dematerialises ("passes away") without the body.  View it like this:

 

Mind | Body..........O | O

 

The key thing to understand is that the mind is a unity, it is indivisible.  You can't have half a mind.  Your mind may be cloudy to knowledge or clear, but it remains an indivisible unity regardless.  If the mind and the body were one, the problem would arise where the limits of the body are?  Isn't Terra herself part of my body?  She's my immediate life support system, my bodily cycles are related and comingle with hers.  And what about the Solar winds that shield me from terrible cosmic rays?  Isn't that like another skin for me?  We can't say it's not part of me because I can't feel it; I can't feel my appendix either, is it not a part of my body?  We face the prospect of my body extending to infinity, and overlapping and merging with your body and everyone else's.

 

Unlike the mind, the body is divisible, in the following manner:  The monad of body-as-a-whole begins to dematerialise when the body is divided, such as with an amputation; that body monad, or ideal body, is partly hidden, like how you can hold up a catenary chain and have a third person grasp midway up the curve, when you release one end of the chain:  the curve is still there in full, but part of it has become invisible.  So your amputated foot, for example, is its own monad, but your body's full monad is partly dematerialised.  Of course the foot will die and its own monad dematerialise into the multiplicity of putrefaction, until only a volume of dust remains.

 

The answer may be cellular.  Consider the healthy nuclear family like a cell:  2 sovereigns agreeing to mutually beneficial alliance in order to raise 3 wards.  That family unit can then sign a contract with its small, immediate community, as you say.  Now that community, like a tissue, can work on confederating to form a larger entity, like an organ.  All of this depends on principle, the more principled people are, the more classically cultured, the more they will see their common interests and begin to view their mutual General Welfares as best served through a harmony of interaction.  And this process could continue, carefully, ligament by ligament, block by block, up to the level of a body of a pseudostate, and finally an interaction of pseudostates in a concordianta catholica.

 

To date no one has split the mind into two separate consciousnesses, nor have they split the body into two separate independently acting sentient beings. Thus, I think the argument that the body *can* be split doesn't really overcome the idea that mind and body are experiences of the same physical self, and the distinction is drawn by language and not by the physical world.

 

Nor do I think that being able to kill one aspect of the self, the mind, means it is a physically separate thing. There are physical aspects of the brain that support consciousness, yes, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is separable from the brain.

 

Finally, you need to limit your context to those things we would normally attribute to having a "mind" to address the "mind/body problem." Individual cells do not rise to this distinction.

[Donnadogsoth]

To date no one has split the mind into two separate consciousnesses, nor have they split the body into two separate independently acting sentient beings. Thus, I think the argument that the body *can* be split doesn't really overcome the idea that mind and body are experiences of the same physical self, and the distinction is drawn by language and not by the physical world.

 

Nor do I think that being able to kill one aspect of the self, the mind, means it is a physically separate thing. There are physical aspects of the brain that support consciousness, yes, but that doesn't mean that consciousness is separable from the brain.

 

Finally, you need to limit your context to those things we would normally attribute to having a "mind" to address the "mind/body problem." Individual cells do not rise to this distinction.

 

Human creativity is directly connecting with the Universe as a whole, and obtaining a thought-object or idea that corresponds exactly with a universal physical or other principle. In this, the person is outside of time, where past, present, and future merge into a single instant. That is immortality, regardless of bodily death.

 

EDIT:  Anonymous -1's really are cowardly and stupid, without the individual bothering to mount an argument or give an explanation for their displeasure.  Vox populi et vox Dei, eh, Brutus?