News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

My Basic Political Philosophy

Started by AnnaM, December 27, 2008, 01:32:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

AnnaM

"Whoever praises and wishes to strengthen the state, he is a fascist; whoever wants to give the state new tools and to make its bureaucracy mightier, he is a fascist." - Otto Strasser, Fascism

A community is composed of a people with common economic and spiritual values.  A community can not be 'built', no force can command one into being.  It depends for its existence upon the shared values of the individuals that compose it: it exists or it does not.

All attempts to impose a uniformity upon a heterogenous people does not produce communities, much less nations.  Instead, it destroys them.  The modern state, with its managerial bureauracy, despoils communities, tramples values and bloodies the streets in pursuit of power.  Whether this power is sought to monopolize political organization, or for its own sake, is irrelevant to this question.

No community is inherently violent.  Neither socialism nor capitalism have within their breasts the seeds of chaos or war.  Instead, these are traits of the State.  The State is often viewed as an agent of violent compulsion, and indeed this is true.  But this is not unique to the state, nor is it a defining characteristic.  The State is a bureacratic organization which attempts to impose a political monopoly over a territory.  This territorial monopoly is nothing unusual, we see it in gangs.  What makes the State unusually dangerous is that it has a veil of legitemacy.  This veil of legitemacy allows it to expropriate and undermine the communities over which it has appointed itself lord.  It must destroy those forces within communities which challenge its political monopolism.  It does this not simply out of expediancy - to protect itself from rivals, for example.  It does this out of necessity.  It does this because it is an agency of compulsory politics, which expropriates from the communities it has command over.  By depriving the communities of their economic means and imposing its political hegemony, it can not help but undermine the societies that exist.  If the State strengthens, the community weakens - it is as certain as algebraic proofs.

Until men are freed of their impulse to political monopolism, there can be no peace or harmony, whatever the nature of the hegemonic power.  Neither socialism nor capitalism can prevent war, so long as they are forced upon communities indifferent or hostile toward them.  The salvation of the world lies not in this or that political doctrine, but in the abolition of political monopolism, of territorial hegemony or - in other words - of the State.

"The joy of life, the Song of Songs whose strophes must be unfailingly sung to an impoverished, proletarianized, mechanized, and nihilistic mankind, will be the best prophylactic of the epidemic disease of suicidal impulse and militarism. When people have grasped the fact that
schools of cookery are much more important than schools of politics, and that the amount of laughter which can be heard is the best indication of the quality of their political and economic institutions, the spirit of militarism will have been definitively overcome." - Otto Strasser, Germany Tommorow

1. No community or nation can conduct itself harmoneously while its laws, its liberties and its ethical code are disunited.
2. The attempt to impose laws, liberties and codes by a political monopolist (the Nation-State) does not create unity, but must always result in the domination of the dissident by the powerful.  Such conditions create inevitable strife for the possession of the State machinery, and must result in either bloody revolution or bloody repression.
3. Accordingly, all communities must be at liberty to disunite themselves with the Nation-State and all individuals must be at liberty to choose the community of affiliation.  A compulsory community is a contradiction in terms.
4. Warfare is inevitably an attempt by one political community to impose itself upon another.  Warfare can bring no order, only strife.
5. Trade between willing communities must not be hindered.  The restraint of trade between willing communities is an attempt to impose political order on the willing, and creates strife both within communities and between them.
6. All communities must tolerate the laws, morals, spirituality and sovereignty of every other community.  The attempt to impose political systems and rules must inevitably reinitiate the strife which works to destroy communities, nations and civilization itself.
"Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

bowmore

Quote from: "AnnaM"1. No community or nation can conduct itself harmoneously while its laws, its liberties and its ethical code are disunited.
2. The attempt to impose laws, liberties and codes by a political monopolist (the Nation-State) does not create unity, but must always result in the domination of the dissident by the powerful.  Such conditions create inevitable strife for the possession of the State machinery, and must result in either bloody revolution or bloody repression.
3. Accordingly, all communities must be at liberty to disunite themselves with the Nation-State and all individuals must be at liberty to choose the community of affiliation.  A compulsory community is a contradiction in terms.
4. Warfare is inevitably an attempt by one political community to impose itself upon another.  Warfare can bring no order, only strife.
5. Trade between willing communities must not be hindered.  The restraint of trade between willing communities is an attempt to impose political order on the willing, and creates strife both within communities and between them.
6. All communities must tolerate the laws, morals, spirituality and sovereignty of every other community.  The attempt to impose political systems and rules must inevitably reinitiate the strife which works to destroy communities, nations and civilization itself.

It seems this completely ignores the competition for resources.
"Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

House M.D.

Will

Quote from: "bowmore"It seems this completely ignores the competition for resources.
Competition comes with baggage. For one, in a competition there are winners and losers and when we're talking about livelihoods, you're talking about a socioeconomic class system. We all know from experience that a socioeconomic class system breeds hostility and discomfort. Some have a great deal, and some have nothing. Second, competition assumes there are not enough resources for everyone. As much as I think the planet is overcrowded with humans, we have the ability to provide enough food, clean water, clothing, housing, health care and police for every man, woman and child. The problem is that the adversarial system means that we don't look out for the other people of the world or often even our community.

Bottom line: selfishness doesn't work with a social species like humans. Sure, we should all seek to survive, but we've seen in our history and in the behavior of other intelligent, social animals that cooperation is key to survival.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

AnnaM

QuoteIt seems this completely ignores the competition for resources.
Human society is a positive sum game; the State is a zero or negative sum game.  If this were not true civilization would be impossible, and politics would produce unlimited abundance.

Quoteselfishness doesn't work with a social species like humans. Sure, we should all seek to survive, but we've seen in our history and in the behavior of other intelligent, social animals that cooperation is key to survival.
Anyone who says he cooperates for anything other than selfish reasons is a liar or delusional.
"Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

Will

Quote from: "AnnaM"Anyone who says he cooperates for anything other than selfish reasons is a liar or delusional.
That's something you'll have to back up with at least some kind of argument or evidence.

I didn't speak as to the reason I cooperated, just the fact that I did. And yes, even the most altruistic act can be rooted in some level of selfishness, but frankly that renders the definition of the word altruism meaningless. I think it would be better for everyone if we could decide that helping other people without an active selfish result should be altruism. Say for example that I see someone getting mugged on the street. I intervene. Is there a selfish reason to do this? Yes. This may deter the criminal from future acts of mugging which will make my own environment safer. But, and this is the important point, there is no immediate or direct benefit to me. In fact, I'm putting myself at risk for the benefit of a stranger, the victim. Why would I do this? Simple: humans are a social species. We've been this way since long before we were even homo sapiens. The same instinctive devotion to the pack and intellectual understanding of the social contract that once developed in order to ensure our survival as a species still exists today.

______________________

Moving on to the idea that somehow having a government leads to war, I'll have to ask what you mean by war. By my understanding, the true definition of war is a violent conflict between true states (as opposed to incorrect uses of the term war, such as "war on terror", "war on drugs", or "war on poverty"). the first definition at Dictionary.com is:
Quote1.    a conflict carried on by force of arms, as between nations or between parties within a nation; warfare, as by land, sea, or air.
States are built into the definition, which makes you technically correct, but truthfully it's more complex.

What I think you mean by war is armed conflict between two or more groups of people, and if that's the case war has existed long, long before any nation or proper government. The first nations came about only about 5,000 years ago (Sumeria), but there have been recorded conflicts between tribes of humans dating back far before then. Human weapons intended to be used on other humans have been dated back nearly 40,000 years. As long as humans decided to compete instead of cooperate, violent conflict has existed.

All that said, I agree to a degree with each of your final conclusions. Free international trade only works with a single, planetary minimum wage and set of worker's rights laws.
I want bad people to look forward to and celebrate the day I die, because if they don't, I'm not living up to my potential.

McQ

Quote from: "AnnaM"Anyone who says he cooperates for anything other than selfish reasons is a liar or delusional.

I'm not sure I agree with this "either/or" statement, Anna (which is fine, I can agree to disagree easily). If you are correct and these are the only two choices, I am delusional, because I am not a liar about this. Sadly, although I'm not the paragon of virtue, or even perfect stability, I believe that I am not actually clinically delusional. That's where my source of disagreement is coming from. I think there is another option. Not sure what I'd call it though.
Elvis didn't do no drugs!
--Penn Jillette

Wechtlein Uns

Quote from: "AnnaM""Whoever praises and wishes to strengthen the state, he is a fascist; whoever wants to give the state new tools and to make its bureaucracy mightier, he is a fascist." - Otto Strasser, Fascism

A community is composed of a people with common economic and spiritual values.  A community can not be 'built', no force can command one into being.  It depends for its existence upon the shared values of the individuals that compose it: it exists or it does not.

All attempts to impose a uniformity upon a heterogenous people does not produce communities, much less nations.  Instead, it destroys them.  The modern state, with its managerial bureauracy, despoils communities, tramples values and bloodies the streets in pursuit of power.  Whether this power is sought to monopolize political organization, or for its own sake, is irrelevant to this question.

No community is inherently violent.  Neither socialism nor capitalism have within their breasts the seeds of chaos or war.  Instead, these are traits of the State.  The State is often viewed as an agent of violent compulsion, and indeed this is true.  But this is not unique to the state, nor is it a defining characteristic.  The State is a bureacratic organization which attempts to impose a political monopoly over a territory.  This territorial monopoly is nothing unusual, we see it in gangs.  What makes the State unusually dangerous is that it has a veil of legitemacy.  This veil of legitemacy allows it to expropriate and undermine the communities over which it has appointed itself lord.  It must destroy those forces within communities which challenge its political monopolism.  It does this not simply out of expediancy - to protect itself from rivals, for example.  It does this out of necessity.  It does this because it is an agency of compulsory politics, which expropriates from the communities it has command over.  By depriving the communities of their economic means and imposing its political hegemony, it can not help but undermine the societies that exist.  If the State strengthens, the community weakens - it is as certain as algebraic proofs.

Until men are freed of their impulse to political monopolism, there can be no peace or harmony, whatever the nature of the hegemonic power.  Neither socialism nor capitalism can prevent war, so long as they are forced upon communities indifferent or hostile toward them.  The salvation of the world lies not in this or that political doctrine, but in the abolition of political monopolism, of territorial hegemony or - in other words - of the State.

"The joy of life, the Song of Songs whose strophes must be unfailingly sung to an impoverished, proletarianized, mechanized, and nihilistic mankind, will be the best prophylactic of the epidemic disease of suicidal impulse and militarism. When people have grasped the fact that
schools of cookery are much more important than schools of politics, and that the amount of laughter which can be heard is the best indication of the quality of their political and economic institutions, the spirit of militarism will have been definitively overcome." - Otto Strasser, Germany Tommorow

1. No community or nation can conduct itself harmoneously while its laws, its liberties and its ethical code are disunited.
2. The attempt to impose laws, liberties and codes by a political monopolist (the Nation-State) does not create unity, but must always result in the domination of the dissident by the powerful.  Such conditions create inevitable strife for the possession of the State machinery, and must result in either bloody revolution or bloody repression.
3. Accordingly, all communities must be at liberty to disunite themselves with the Nation-State and all individuals must be at liberty to choose the community of affiliation.  A compulsory community is a contradiction in terms.
4. Warfare is inevitably an attempt by one political community to impose itself upon another.  Warfare can bring no order, only strife.
5. Trade between willing communities must not be hindered.  The restraint of trade between willing communities is an attempt to impose political order on the willing, and creates strife both within communities and between them.
6. All communities must tolerate the laws, morals, spirituality and sovereignty of every other community.  The attempt to impose political systems and rules must inevitably reinitiate the strife which works to destroy communities, nations and civilization itself.

Whoa there, you radical person, you. While I'm very impressed with individualist spirit, you need to put down the kool-aid.
The basic problem in organizing societies is who get's to use lethal force to accomplish goals. The thing is, if you forbid any government from using lethal force to acheive social cohesion, then you eliminate any way to stop people from killing each other in a state of anarchy.

On the other hand, if you limit the power to kill in a government, it is inevitable that that government will become a police state. Force wins, always. But what about another alternative? There is no alternative. If any number of people less than everyone can use lethal force, then you have a government which will become a police state. If everyone can, it's anarchy.

anarchy, or police state. Those are your choices. Oh, and don't give me any bs about communities being inherently peaceful. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, has a genetic predisposition to violence, as well as benevolence. You might want to re-think your political ideology. You know, just a suggestion.
"What I mean when I use the term "god" represents nothing more than an interactionist view of the universe, a particularite view of time, and an ever expansive view of myself." -- Jose Luis Nunez.

AnnaM

QuoteThe basic problem in organizing societies is who get's to use lethal force to accomplish goals.
Why not you yourself, or an agent thereof?  A real agent is better any day than the pseudo-agency of the State.
QuoteThe thing is, if you forbid any government from using lethal force to acheive social cohesion, then you eliminate any way to stop people from killing each other in a state of anarchy.
The thing is, being an anti-federal panarchist I am for all intents and purposes an anarchist.   The word does not scare me, and the Hobbesian theories do not convince me.  Apoliticalism is akin to atheism, no one has ever demonstrated why political organization - much less a particular political organization - is necessary.

Beyond that I find servility, in all its manifestations, whether to state, society, duty, morality etc. to be irrational to the point of absurdity, thus even if a State is 'necessary' for your conception of society, it would be nothing but a society of fools.

QuoteOh, and don't give me any bs about communities being inherently peaceful.
Not at all, but they are quite self-interested.  Tribalism simply does not work, it is a solution only for dogs and not men (or women).
"Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

bowmore

Quote from: "AnnaM"Why not you yourself, or an agent thereof?  A real agent is better any day than the pseudo-agency of the State.

Then we are at the point where he who can hire the most mercenaries has the most wealth and power. I'm not sure why you'd find the feudal system appealing.
"Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

House M.D.

Wechtlein Uns

Quote from: "AnnaM"
QuoteThe basic problem in organizing societies is who get's to use lethal force to accomplish goals.
Why not you yourself, or an agent thereof?  A real agent is better any day than the pseudo-agency of the State.
QuoteThe thing is, if you forbid any government from using lethal force to acheive social cohesion, then you eliminate any way to stop people from killing each other in a state of anarchy.
The thing is, being an anti-federal panarchist I am for all intents and purposes an anarchist.   The word does not scare me, and the Hobbesian theories do not convince me.  Apoliticalism is akin to atheism, no one has ever demonstrated why political organization - much less a particular political organization - is necessary.

Right. Sorry to burst your bubble, dear, but you're drinking from the kool-aid. You say anarchy doesn't scare you, but it should, specifically because great feats of science and technology are not possible without cooperation on large scales. The only way this works is because people can't kill each other when they dissagree with each other.

Anarchy is not a stable nor a workable state of things because in a state of anarchy the strong will kill the weak, and the weak, in an effort to avoid being killed, will gladly give up their freedoms. I know it's common to say, "give me liberty or give me death", well, the dude in charge will gladly give you death. And all the other flunkies will be trotted out in the courtyard to watch him blow your brains out. You really think they're going to want to go through the same fate? Of course, if they all refused to obey the leader, then it's a revolution. But all that's succeded in doing is bringing the situation back to anarchy, in which the guys who think they know what they're doing will kill the detractros, and the head honcho will end up being the dictator.

Basically, the first time in history when this situation did not occur, I would say, was when the people decided that they needed a leader, but that the leader would have to be bound by certain rules. The magna carta, and such. By allowing a government to use lethal force to stop murder, you prevent a state of anarchy, but by limiting it's power to only preventing murder, you allow the people to be free to develop capitalism and large scale cooperation that enables great feats to be done.


QuoteBeyond that I find servility, in all its manifestations, whether to state, society, duty, morality etc. to be irrational to the point of absurdity, thus even if a State is 'necessary' for your conception of society, it would be nothing but a society of fools.

oh, sure, serve no one on this planet but yourself. *glug glug glug...*
In reality, you're not supposed to go off half-cocked and try to impose your will to get what you want, and not give anyone else what they want. That's stupid, because your going to get shot. Ever heard of, "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours"? Cooperation. You work as part of a group to reach a shared goal, or, if your goal is different from the groups, then you find someone who can help you achieve your goal, and make it worthwhile for him. You know what happens when people refuse to serve anything[/i]? They go off into the wilderness, alone, and get eaten by lions. Or bears. You see this computer? Not possible without a government. You know the ancient roads of rome allowing safe passage through mountains without getting eaten by lions? Not possible without a government. You think a spear alone and your own strength is enough to kill a bear? That bear will have you for breakfast.

Truth is, this isn't about political theory. It's about information theory. If you have a group of computers all connected to each other, you need to find away to use them all in order to function correctly. Thus a server is created that coordinates and directs the individual computer's requests. If you think of the people like computers, then you need a leader that will facilitate the information coming from individual people, and distribute it to the rest of the group in an efficient way that enable the group to reach a shared goal. It's the same thing as a group of computers. Do you know what happens when there is no server? You get latency errors. System crashes due to page faults. Two or more computers try to access the same hard drive and corrupt the data. If computers were smarter, I'd bet they'd act more like humans and elect computer representatives too!

Quote
QuoteOh, and don't give me any bs about communities being inherently peaceful.
Not at all, but they are quite self-interested.  Tribalism simply does not work, it is a solution only for dogs and not men (or women).

Tribalism works fine for the scale on which it exists. Tribes are interested in ritual and revelation, which they get in abundance due to the tribal elders/chief. On the same token, if you want something else, like, say, giant urban metropolises, then you need organization on a higher scale. Once again, it has nothing to do with political science, everything to do with information theory.

Here's something you might find interesting: What happens when the "leader" decides to run everything himself and become a dictator?
Well, what happens when the server tries to dictate to the computers what their requests are and what data they are requesting? The server will almost inevitably predict the wrong request on a number of different levels. So it sends the wrong data, and the computers can't work with it. As time goes on, the data packet errors snowball in size and complexity, and eventually the whole system goes offline due to massive communication errors. If a government does this, the same thing will happen. NO GOVERNMENT CAN ACCURATELY PREDICT THE NEEDS AND WANTS OF IT'S CITIZENS. This is why a communistic government like Soviet russia failed. Either there will be an armed revolution of the citizens overthrowing the government, or the government should simply protect freedoms and let the people do what they want.

I believe that's what the libertarian party is trying to do, no?
"What I mean when I use the term "god" represents nothing more than an interactionist view of the universe, a particularite view of time, and an ever expansive view of myself." -- Jose Luis Nunez.

AnnaM

QuoteThen we are at the point where he who can hire the most mercenaries has the most wealth and power.
Let no mistake be made on this point, I am advocate for nothing but power and, really, my own power.  Anyone who appeals to anything other than power is engaging in a futile gesture.
A bath-tub for Diogenes and a trust for Rockefeller - if they can get it.
"Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

bowmore

Quote from: "AnnaM"
QuoteThen we are at the point where he who can hire the most mercenaries has the most wealth and power.
Let no mistake be made on this point, I am advocate for nothing but power and, really, my own power.  Anyone who appeals to anything other than power is engaging in a futile gesture.
A bath-tub for Diogenes and a trust for Rockefeller - if they can get it.

Ironically it is not within your power to enforce this  :D
"Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

House M.D.

AnnaM

Quote from: "bowmore"
Quote from: "AnnaM"
QuoteThen we are at the point where he who can hire the most mercenaries has the most wealth and power.
Let no mistake be made on this point, I am advocate for nothing but power and, really, my own power.  Anyone who appeals to anything other than power is engaging in a futile gesture.
A bath-tub for Diogenes and a trust for Rockefeller - if they can get it.

Ironically it is not within your power to enforce this  :D
Enforcement is the child of revolutionaries, I do not seek to 'enforce' anything but myself, I do not promote or practice revolution (aim at becoming something 'better' or devoting myself to perfecting 'mankind).  I am an insurrectionist, I recognize no right or authority before me, all right and all authority proceed from me, are predicated upon me, in other words they are me; the 'higher ideal' is nothing but an idea, a false idea for woman is 'commanded' by nothing but the reality.
One is never outside the relations of power and selfness, one either admits it or one is wrong (in the sense of fallaciously informed, as opposed to morally 'wrong').
Diogenes and Rockefeller will get a trust if it is within their power to do so, if not, they lacked the power and could not do so, and this is 'right', IE things go as they go.

James L. Walker demonstrates my view of 'social questions' in his work, "What is Justice?"
QuoteTo utterly dismiss the idea that there is any other justice in nature than force ' seeking the least line of resistance is to dismiss at the same time the Idea that there is any injustice. This may save generations of complaining and begging. In short we want to perceive the as the laws of society and the State, one of its forms are tyrannies or disagreeable impediments, to me (but I need not give any reason except to influence you) , and I see no difficulty in discarding, them but your respect for ideas such as "right", "wrong", "justice", etc., I would have you consider that these are merely words with vague, chimerical meanings, as Is there is no moral government of the world, but merely an evolutionary process, and it depends upon perception of this fact, ,and self-direction of our individual powers united an we shall agree, how we can succeed in obtaining and enjoying more or less of the things of this world.

Do you feel fully conscious of this? Then you and I can perhaps join our forces, and I begin to have an appreciable interest in you. Nothing that I could do for you (without setting you in power over myself) could fail to be agreeable to me. I think vie will not act very benevolently towards outsiders. They might take all we offered, an tile ox takes the grass in his pasture. Disinteredness is said to feed on unreciprocating self-indulgence in those upon whom it is spent.

Do you not begin to think that by suiting only myself I am really doing far better towards others then by throwing myself away to serve them? If so, it is a lucky coincidence, for I only serve and amuse myself. And I really do not care If you call that unjust. I shall begin to work 'for you when I see you are able to work for me. But if you are afraid to be free - stay in slavery. I must have the satisfaction of seeing that you do not wholly escape sufferings, if you are so unfit to aid me when I would aid you. And If you are thus lacking In stamina or sense, it will be no harm If you do get over-worked and your existence is shortened.

But I hope better things from you.
"Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

bowmore

Quote from: "AnnaM"Enforcement is the child of revolutionaries, I do not seek to 'enforce' anything but myself, I do not promote or practice revolution (aim at becoming something 'better' or devoting myself to perfecting 'mankind).  I am an insurrectionist, I recognize no right or authority before me, all right and all authority proceed from me, are predicated upon me, in other words they are me; the 'higher ideal' is nothing but an idea, a false idea for woman is 'commanded' by nothing but the reality.
One is never outside the relations of power and selfness, one either admits it or one is wrong (in the sense of fallaciously informed, as opposed to morally 'wrong').

In the mean time the state is a fact and it is beyond your power to change that fact. And in reality the state will impose it's authority and power over you, whether you recognize it or not.
"Rational arguments don’t usually work on religious people. Otherwise there would be no religious people."

House M.D.

AnnaM

Quote from: "bowmore"In the mean time the state is a fact and it is beyond your power to change that fact. And in reality the state will impose it's authority and power over you, whether you recognize it or not.
Nonsense, I do not recognize any 'authority' of the state, all 'authority' is a delusion in the mind, no specter of 'lawfulness' or 'patriotism' or 'good citizenship' haunt my thoughts.  The State has power, and I must apprehend with this power, but I do not recognize it as 'sovereign' thereby any more than the moon is 'sovereign' because I can not get at it.  And anyone who is not blind will see that he can (and does) ignore and spite the State quite frequently, let us not forget that the largest 'tax revolt' in human history occurs from simple passive resistance on the part of those who the State demands revenue from.
"Liberty and equality are in essence contradictory." - Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn