Anarchists and libertarians - Please click here

[Oddball]

Ah, so you're an anarchist. You're no more like an actual libertarian who wants to maximize liberty than a Marxist is. Instead of living in squalor because government oppresses us, you want to live in squalor because you want to sit in a tower protecting your land all day so you don't have time to ever do anything productive

Still haven't moved out of Strwmanistan, have you?

BTW, that ad hominem attack doesn't change the facts.

 

[kaz]

Ah, so you're an anarchist. You're no more like an actual libertarian who wants to maximize liberty than a Marxist is. Instead of living in squalor because government oppresses us, you want to live in squalor because you want to sit in a tower protecting your land all day so you don't have time to ever do anything productive

Still haven't moved out of Strwmanistan, have you?

BTW, that ad hominem attack doesn't change the facts.

You're going to have to highlight the "ad hominem" attack in there for me because I'm not seeing it.

As for strawman, again, that's lame. I'm talking about the effect of your policies. I am not saying you said you want to sit in a tower. I'm saying that's what you'll end up doing because bad people will endlessly threaten your property and your family.

Anarchy is something that can only exist for a moment, it's like the big bang. When you eliminate government, the weak, largely leftists, will join with warlords and form armies to conquer you. You will join with your neighbors to defeat them. At that moment, you have liberty. The next, you have a government again.

Anarchy is about liberty as much as Marxism is about equality. It's a talking point. That's not in any way what would happen

 

[Brian Blackwell]

The "option to revert back to violence" is the option to move contrary to the goal. My statement here is making a distinction between violence and defensive force, and I understood your statement to mean the latter. I believe you were referring to the option to overthrow a tyrannical government, which would be a defensive act, so my objection here likely does not apply to the intent of your statement, only the language. And I only trouble you with this fine distinction to make clear to onlookers that aggressive violence is never an option for moving forward, but that defensive force is a necessary component of a moral society.

Correct, in part. Let me clarify.

"Morality" is a fluid term. It inherently assumes an agreed set of rules within a society. A better way to examine my position is to look at other species.

Take for example a male lion. Is a male lion subject to morality or even understand the concept of morality? What is right and wrong to a lion?

Violence and breeding are the only rules by which or principles a male lion lives. He wants to eat. He kill prey or exerts force on others to allow him to eat. His only guiding principle is to satisfy his hunger, without regard for the hunger, will, safety, or survival of anyone else. He wants to fuck. Same guiding principle. Nothing else matters to him but getting some ass.

Set religion/metaphysics/philosophy aside and just view humans biologically.

What distinguishes humans from lions?

From purely a biological perspective, humans have the mental capacity to think beyond the base desires of food and sex. Humans have the ability to imagine themselves in the place of others who are suffering. Humans have the ability to weigh options and find a solution that all can live with in order to satisfy their individual desires to eat and fuck, while allowing others to do the same, without beating the shit out of each other.

Society or civilization is created from humans' ability to yield a base desire now or uninterrupted satisfaction of that base desire later without needing to engage in violence (offensive or defensive).

In SOCIETY, only defensive force is justified because justice is a product of society.

Once the government a society has establish no longer meets the needs of society, then yes, defensive force to remove it is justified. Governments can be removed without the complete erasure of society. See the American Revolution.

When I say the "truce" is ended, I am talking about the complete breakdown of society as a whole, which is a completely different level of reset.

In my opinion, it is important for all individuals to understand and keep in mind that right or wrong means jack shit when humans decide that society itself no longer serves the interests of the individual. Humans have the power to revert to that wild state, so ALL should respect the interests of the individual as much as possible before subjugating the individual's interest to that of the collective.

That is my point.

Statists/Communists/Collectivists take for granted the societal truce, and give much less regard for the interests of the individual, to a dangerous degree. They either don't understand or care that laws or rules only apply to individuals when the primal needs of individuals are being met to a satisfactory degree, or the individual subjectively believes he/she has the liberty to pursue those primal needs and to pursue all the tools or devices he/she believes are necessary in that pursuit (material possessions, etc.).

When solving problems as a society, the approach should first consider the primary purpose of society is the needs of the individual. Every decision must pursue, and keep as the primary goal, the least intrusive means. Otherwise, the individual loses the incentive to keep the truce and moves to a "fuck society" state of mind, where the complex notions of "right and wrong" (morals) are irrelevant.

My purpose in describing my "theory of human intercourse" (pun intended) is to explain the basis for reaching the conclusion that the principled approach of "maximizing liberty" when organizing and maintaining society and the form of government it chooses, is not perfect, but is the approach best suited for success.

Phenomenal explanation! Now I gotcha. Thank you for taking the time to lay that out so thoroughly. I never thought about it quite like this.

What I appreciate most is how you’ve highlighted the unity between moral philosophy and practicality. A division between these perspectives is all-too-common, and its validity is assumed, rather than explored. Wisdom is the height of practicality. Morality is the model for practical behavior.

Bravo! Fantastico! Grazie mille! Don’t be surprised if you hear me echoing these thoughts in future conversations. You’ve provided us all with another spoke pointing toward the hub of liberty. Much obliged, to be sure.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

Oxymoron.

The Marxist conception of communism is a society based on free association.

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Marxism, in practice, is rooted in compulsion. Implementing Marxist schemes without compulsion is like trying to go swimming without getting wet.

This is my concern too, but if they could figure out a way, go for it. I guess if everyone’s on the same page, maybe it can be done; but it’s beyond my understanding of the philosophy to see how.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hate to break the love, but the BIG L libertarians only started to make election progress by sending the anarchists to the back of bus. Really doesn't have anything to do with Liberty, freedom. It has to do with the absurd proposition that voters should consider Anarchists to RUN this country..

Gotta decide if you're gonna be a purist wonk or get out and fix things working from the Constitution and where we are...

Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.

Been here before. As an official party delegate and on panels. You don't NEED violence to run a country by the consent of the governed. You just need more CHOICES on the ballot and more open debates.

Violence happens when govts are HIJACKED by parties. In reality, the LParty doesn't EXIST to be a party. And has no intention of using violence either in administering govt.

What about the court systems? Is that govt violence to you? Prisons?

The Libertarian Party is way too much party. It has endless litmus/purity tests like the Democrat party.

Sure, it's a better party than the other parties, but it's too much party

When the LParty hits you up for funds or asks something of you -- it MAKES SENSE. It's a petition problem or getting space and desk chairs. It's not made up drama like the others. We do our OWN primaries. We don't badger members constantly with "polls" to fire them up.

And the litmus tests died when we started to recruit ACTUAL CANDIDATES and not purist wonks who thought marijuana was a platform. Last 15 years has been great actually.

Except for the strip tease acts at the conventions.

The Libertarian Party has gone three straight elections not nominating a libertarian.

And I don't see that their litmus tests of things such as opposing them on the war on terror, supporting limitless illegal immigration and free access to the country by criminals or opposition to the national ID have gone away.

Note I agree with them mostly on the war on terror. I don't agree to it being a litmus test. Neil Boortz has done more for the party than anyone in history and they treated him like shit. Their meltdown over the national ID is just flat out hysterical. That horse is already out of the barn and they don't say shit about SSN numbers which are way worse.

Then there is their moronic opposition to the Fair Tax.

And sadly, they still run circles around the other parties ...

Did we attack Neil Boortz? We do argue. That's a good thing.

I disagree in one sense here. MANY of our RECENT candidates had never flirted with the LP before. Like Bob Barr and Johnson/Weld. But they were always small "l" libertarians on most things.

BUT in both slates -- these folks STAYED Libertarian. And Johnson is now working his ass off -- doing his own genuine Libertarian thing. See my post awhile back.

A lot of politicians have no where to go when the party bosses muzzle them and threaten them. Many are just tired of being "extras" on the set to the 4 Congressional Party bosses. So recruiting experienced folks is getting easier and easier.

Heck John Boehner is a BIG WEED executive now. Maybe he'll get drafted next... LOL...........................

 

[kaz]

Anarchists can run a country, they don't believe in governmental authority (i.e. an inequality of rights). That is the fundamental distinction between anarchists and everyone else - the former does not condone the use of immoral violence (force used outside the scope of defense), everyone else does, to some degree. If a government does not employ such violence, it is no longer government. This is its distinguishing characteristic - the "authority" to do things that would be wrong if any individual did them.

Been here before. As an official party delegate and on panels. You don't NEED violence to run a country by the consent of the governed. You just need more CHOICES on the ballot and more open debates.

Violence happens when govts are HIJACKED by parties. In reality, the LParty doesn't EXIST to be a party. And has no intention of using violence either in administering govt.

What about the court systems? Is that govt violence to you? Prisons?

The Libertarian Party is way too much party. It has endless litmus/purity tests like the Democrat party.

Sure, it's a better party than the other parties, but it's too much party

When the LParty hits you up for funds or asks something of you -- it MAKES SENSE. It's a petition problem or getting space and desk chairs. It's not made up drama like the others. We do our OWN primaries. We don't badger members constantly with "polls" to fire them up.

And the litmus tests died when we started to recruit ACTUAL CANDIDATES and not purist wonks who thought marijuana was a platform. Last 15 years has been great actually.

Except for the strip tease acts at the conventions.

The Libertarian Party has gone three straight elections not nominating a libertarian.

And I don't see that their litmus tests of things such as opposing them on the war on terror, supporting limitless illegal immigration and free access to the country by criminals or opposition to the national ID have gone away.

Note I agree with them mostly on the war on terror. I don't agree to it being a litmus test. Neil Boortz has done more for the party than anyone in history and they treated him like shit. Their meltdown over the national ID is just flat out hysterical. That horse is already out of the barn and they don't say shit about SSN numbers which are way worse.

Then there is their moronic opposition to the Fair Tax.

And sadly, they still run circles around the other parties ...

Did we attack Neil Boortz? We do argue. That's a good thing.

I disagree in one sense here. MANY of our RECENT candidates had never flirted with the LP before. Like Bob Barr and Johnson/Weld. But they were always small "l" libertarians on most things.

BUT in both slates -- these folks STAYED Libertarian. And Johnson is now working his ass off -- doing his own genuine Libertarian thing. See my post awhile back.

A lot of politicians have no where to go when the party bosses muzzle them and threaten them. Many are just tired of being "extras" on the set to the 4 Congressional Party bosses. So recruiting experienced folks is getting easier and easier.

Heck John Boehner is a BIG WEED executive now. Maybe he'll get drafted next... LOL...........................

On Boortz, "arguing" would be a good thing. Trying to stop him from speaking at the Libertarian convention and silence him is a litmus test, which is my point.

And Johnson is a big L libertarian, sure. He joined the party. That's the definition. He isn't a small L libertarian though. It was comic listening to him and watching him trying to figure out what his position is supposed to be. He's not libertarian at all. And Barr was a conservative. I like Barr personally. I once lived in the district next to his in Georgia. But he's not a libertarian

 

[Brian Blackwell]

"Anarchy always evokes images of archaic or underdeveloped cultures, due to lack of modern advanced examples, and purposeful indoctrination to this effect. We are not like the people of 2,000 years ago. The people of today have advanced in many ways, and these advancements will not disappear."

Actually when I think anarchy my first thought is usually of the WWI and the anarchist who is said to have started it. It doesn't appear that he freed anybody.
Frankly I would argue that humans have changed very little in the last 2,000 yrs. and not necessarily for the better.
There are always lines of authority if there is a group humans. Goes with the territory. Like it? Don't like it? Doesn't matter; it is what it is. The only way to avoid it is to avoid other humans. Ask any married man.

My motivation for elucidating the moral and logical necessity of the anarchist position is not to see government overthrown. This would be both pointless and hopeless, for the reasons you’ve cited.

Man has changed in many ways (lifestyle, expectations, technology - at least in “leading” nations) but not sufficiently in the ways that would make a free society all that it could be. A significant minority must have a thorough understanding of the fundamental principles that make anarchy morally and practically necessary (morality and practicality are ultimately synonymous).

The anarchist’s most important work is to promulgate these principles and facilitate and promote this understanding. Without that, humanity will perpetually allow their fear to drive them into the open arms of a new master. So I agree that a shift in the cultural consciousness is required, but this cannot be done by waiting for others to take the first step.

We must be the change we wish to see in the world. I implore everyone I speak with to be guided by their reason, their conscience, and their courage; to abandon their adherence to the prevailing cultural paradigm and earnestly check their political position for inconsistencies, both logical and moral. From there, natural social networks will carry mankind into the next stage of its social evolution, and authority will wane as liberty breathes new life into the species.

 

[Tehon]

"Anarchy always evokes images of archaic or underdeveloped cultures, due to lack of modern advanced examples, and purposeful indoctrination to this effect. We are not like the people of 2,000 years ago. The people of today have advanced in many ways, and these advancements will not disappear."

Actually when I think anarchy my first thought is usually of the WWI and the anarchist who is said to have started it. It doesn't appear that he freed anybody.
Frankly I would argue that humans have changed very little in the last 2,000 yrs. and not necessarily for the better.
There are always lines of authority if there is a group humans. Goes with the territory. Like it? Don't like it? Doesn't matter; it is what it is. The only way to avoid it is to avoid other humans. Ask any married man.

My motivation for elucidating the moral and logical necessity of the anarchist position is not to see government overthrown. This would be both pointless and hopeless, for the reasons you’ve cited.

Man has changed in many ways (lifestyle, expectations, technology - at least in “leading” nations) but not sufficiently in the ways that would make a free society all that it could be. A significant minority must have a thorough understanding of the fundamental principles that make anarchy morally and practically necessary (morality and practicality are ultimately synonymous).

The anarchist’s most important work is to promulgate these principles and facilitate and promote this understanding. Without that, humanity will perpetually allow their fear to drive them into the open arms of a new master. So I agree that a shift in the cultural consciousness is required, but this cannot be done by waiting for others to take the first step.

We must be the change we wish to see in the world. I implore everyone I speak with to be guided by their reason, their conscience, and their courage; to abandon their adherence to the prevailing cultural paradigm and earnestly check their political position for inconsistencies, both logical and moral. From there, natural social networks will carry mankind into the next stage of its social evolution, and authority will wane as liberty breathes new life into the species.

A Utopian pipe dream if ever there was one. There is no way you are going to convince the ruling class to freely relinquish their power.

Have you never studied Marx? You think much the same, though his thoughts do not seem as Utopian.

"Hence, nothing prevents us from making criticism of politics, participation in politics, and therefore real struggles, the starting point of our criticism, and from identifying our criticism with them. In that case we do not confront the world in a doctrinaire way with a new principle: Here is the truth, kneel down before it! We develop new principles for the world out of the world’s own principles. We do not say to the world: Cease your struggles, they are foolish; we will give you the true slogan of struggle. We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to."

 

[Oddball]

You're going to have to highlight the "ad hominem" attack in there for me because I'm not seeing it.

"Instead of living in squalor because government oppresses us, you want to live in squalor because you want to sit in a tower protecting your land all day so you don't have time to ever do anything productive."


As for strawman, again, that's lame. I'm talking about the effect of your policies. I am not saying you said you want to sit in a tower. I'm saying that's what you'll end up doing because bad people will endlessly threaten your property and your family.

You're imputing a motives upon me and drawing a picture that I'm not arguing in favor of...Classic straw man and ad hominem arguments.....You're also invoking the fallacy of government solipotence.

Anarchy is something that can only exist for a moment, it's like the big bang.

When you eliminate government, the weak, largely leftists, will join with warlords and form armies to conquer you. You will join with your neighbors to defeat them. At that moment, you have liberty. The next, you have a government again.

Anarchy is about liberty as much as Marxism is about equality. It's a talking point. That's not in any way what would happen.

Platitudes aren't arguments.

 

[Oddball]

 

[bripat9643]

Freedom-minded Marxist here.

Oxymoron.

The Marxist conception of communism is a society based on free association.

"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Marxism, in practice, is rooted in compulsion. Implementing Marxist schemes without compulsion is like trying to go swimming without getting wet.

This is my concern too, but if they could figure out a way, go for it. I guess if everyone’s on the same page, maybe it can be done; but it’s beyond my understanding of the philosophy to see how.

Marxists claim they are against compulsion, but they invariably support every massive scheme of government compulsion that comes down the pike, like public schools and socialized medicine.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Phenomenal explanation! Now I gotcha. Thank you for taking the time to lay that out so thoroughly. I never thought about it quite like this.

What I appreciate most is how you’ve highlighted the unity between moral philosophy and practicality. A division between these perspectives is all-too-common, and its validity is assumed, rather than explored. Wisdom is the height of practicality. Morality is the model for practical behavior.

Bravo! Fantastico! Grazie mille! Don’t be surprised if you hear me echoing these thoughts in future conversations. You’ve provided us all with another spoke pointing toward the hub of liberty. Much obliged, to be sure.

Thank you.

Your summary of my perspective is both brief and on point. As Shakespeare's Polonious from Hamlet said about being brief:

This business is well ended.
My liege and madam, to expostulate
What majesty should be, what duty is,
Why day is day, night night, and time is time,
Were nothing but to waste night, day, and time.
Therefore, since brevity is the soul of wit
And tediousness the limbs and outward flourishes,
I will be brief: your noble son is mad.
Mad call I it, for, to define true madness,
What is ’t but to be nothing else but mad?
But let that go.


Before this thread, the word "morality" or "moral" to me was a loaded word that I always avoided. I come away with a broadened perspective and the ability to apply the term more comfortably. To me, acting morally is contemplating how the exercise of individual liberty can be maximized without sacrificing the individual liberty of others. If individuals living in society can constantly examining and adjust their own attitudes and behavior in the mutual pursuit of maximizing the liberty of each individual, there is no need for authority. Personal reflection is the authority. In fact, authority frustrates that purpose because individuals will default to the bare-ass minimum. .

Of course, the lack of authority can only happen theoretically. No two people honestly pursuing maximum liberty will reach the same conclusion on issues. Others will need to intervene and make decisions, which is authority. But, the dispute is much easier to resolve when both have made an honest effort to adhere to the liberty goal. The mere pursuit of a society constructed in that fashion will yield much better results for the benefit of each individual, which is the purpose of society.

I agree that the duty falls on us to constantly examine, and encourage other to examine our own political views to root out positions that do not promote the liberty ideal. It is a rigorous challenge, but once one starts making breakthroughs and actually harboring a genuine respect for the liberty of other individuals, the bliss experienced is a high that no drug can provide.

I began to seriously examine my political and social biases about 12 years ago, which has seriously transformed me. I had the hardest time throwing off my social-conservative attitudes indoctrinated within me for as long as I can remember. One was my attitude toward same-sex individuals and their right to enter a marital contract. I was frustrated by the open campaigning for Marxism in all its dirty forms.

I hated the thought of the fruit of my efforts not going to my family, but to some asshole who did nothing to deserve it. I hated the gross disrespect for my life and liberty, which was exclusively promoted by the Democrats. Same-sex individuals mostly wanted the same economic freedom but were under the Democrat tent because only the Dems respected and promoted their personal liberty. Same-sex individuals who love all manner of freedom were trapped under the tent of a party that sought to infringe on their economic liberty. They had to make a hard choice, but personal liberty prevailed because the dog-shit GOP gave those individual the collective finger. They were backed into a corner with no options.

That is when I made an honest effort to put myself in the position of same-sex individuals and see the world as they see it. I asked myself:

1. Would you fight to protect the liberty of same-sex couples to marry each other if they agreed to fight for your economic liberty?

2. Forget what everyone else wants. Forget religion and the rules associated. Forget what mom and dad taught you. What freedoms are really important to you, personally, that you want others to help you promote and protect?

With that exercise, I realized that I really don't give a fuck who marries whom, as long as the liberties important to me are respected and protected. That was the moment that was able to shake that religious and social aversion to same-sex couples and their rights. I realized that I was in error. The realization was the most refreshing experience of my adult life. I felt the weight of my own destructive attitudes lifted from my shoulders at the realization that if same-sex couples fought for my economic freedom I would take pride in fighting for their right to marry or whatever they need.

Since that transformation, I am constantly checking my own attitudes for those that may fall short. The hardest part is to be willing to consider another perspective and be pliable enough to let go of long-held positions that may be inconsistent.

I still find myself examining and adjusting attitudes. It's a process worth pursuing. What liberties are important to me? What liberties are important to that guy? Can we both preserve our liberty without diminishing the other? If not, who has the greater burden? Who should yield and to what extent? How can we compensate?

I have developed an intolerance for others who lack the decency to at least consider a way to preserve my liberty. Most of them are closet communist/leftists, which should explain some of my attitudes expressed on USMB.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Marxists claim they are against compulsion, but they invariably support every massive scheme of government compulsion that comes down the pike, like public schools and socialized medicine.

I have little tolerance for Marxists. The ideology itself promotes the involuntary servitude of the diligent to serve their masters, the useless. It frustrates the primary purpose and mutual benefit of society.

Why would productive individuals agree to maintain the societal truce when it is nothing more than a burden?

Why do productive individuals need society under those conditions? They can do much better on their own. But, a common theme in Marxist societies is to make the individual's inclusion in the societal truce compulsory. Consent is removed.

The very thought of being subjugated in such a fashion stirs within me a primal instinct to revoke society and revert to deadly violence in pursuit of my basic needs to eat and fuck. I am 100% certain that I will revoke the truce if communists get control. It will be my death, but I will take some commies with me.

 

[toobfreak]

"State of disorder" is an opinion, not etymological nor epistemic fact....Absence of rulers does not automatically mean chaos, violence, and disorder.

Don’t you just love how “cooperation with a central authority” flies right through people’s filter? Authority is the antithesis of cooperation. Euphemisms abound. I think the word they’re looking for here is “obedience”

Man, your head is crammed full of more crap than a waste car on its way to a shit landfill in Alabama---- let me tell you, I'm about as much against big government as anyone, but you cannot have law and order to a society, ie, a hedge against chaos and anarchy, without some officially recognized hierarchy of authority. Local authority, state and federal jurisdiction, each with a different set of responsibilities each to govern by law. People abide by laws as a central foundation to the very essence of civilization; the very word anarchy defines a state where there is no law, no central authority, and it is every man for himself.

Someone sure did a fuck job on your head, man, you are really messed up. Most telling was when I gave you that video and rather than focusing on the CONTENT, you triggered on the background music and images that were a mere video accompaniment to go along as illustration for what the dialog was about, as if it were some sort of "conspiracy." I don't know where your brain went wrong, if your parents dropped you on your head as a baby, but you have some seriously bad wiring. Another USMB Loon added to my list of idiots.

 

[Tehon]

Correct, in part. Let me clarify.

"Morality" is a fluid term. It inherently assumes an agreed set of rules within a society. A better way to examine my position is to look at other species.

Take for example a male lion. Is a male lion subject to morality or even understand the concept of morality? What is right and wrong to a lion?

Violence and breeding are the only rules by which or principles a male lion lives. He wants to eat. He kill prey or exerts force on others to allow him to eat. His only guiding principle is to satisfy his hunger, without regard for the hunger, will, safety, or survival of anyone else. He wants to fuck. Same guiding principle. Nothing else matters to him but getting some ass.

Set religion/metaphysics/philosophy aside and just view humans biologically.

What distinguishes humans from lions?

From purely a biological perspective, humans have the mental capacity to think beyond the base desires of food and sex. Humans have the ability to imagine themselves in the place of others who are suffering. Humans have the ability to weigh options and find a solution that all can live with in order to satisfy their individual desires to eat and fuck, while allowing others to do the same, without beating the shit out of each other.

Society or civilization is created from humans' ability to yield a base desire now or uninterrupted satisfaction of that base desire later without needing to engage in violence (offensive or defensive).

In SOCIETY, only defensive force is justified because justice is a product of society.

Once the government a society has establish no longer meets the needs of society, then yes, defensive force to remove it is justified. Governments can be removed without the complete erasure of society. See the American Revolution.

When I say the "truce" is ended, I am talking about the complete breakdown of society as a whole, which is a completely different level of reset.

In my opinion, it is important for all individuals to understand and keep in mind that right or wrong means jack shit when humans decide that society itself no longer serves the interests of the individual. Humans have the power to revert to that wild state, so ALL should respect the interests of the individual as much as possible before subjugating the individual's interest to that of the collective.

That is my point.

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

 

[gipper]

Correct, in part. Let me clarify.

"Morality" is a fluid term. It inherently assumes an agreed set of rules within a society. A better way to examine my position is to look at other species.

Take for example a male lion. Is a male lion subject to morality or even understand the concept of morality? What is right and wrong to a lion?

Violence and breeding are the only rules by which or principles a male lion lives. He wants to eat. He kill prey or exerts force on others to allow him to eat. His only guiding principle is to satisfy his hunger, without regard for the hunger, will, safety, or survival of anyone else. He wants to fuck. Same guiding principle. Nothing else matters to him but getting some ass.

Set religion/metaphysics/philosophy aside and just view humans biologically.

What distinguishes humans from lions?

From purely a biological perspective, humans have the mental capacity to think beyond the base desires of food and sex. Humans have the ability to imagine themselves in the place of others who are suffering. Humans have the ability to weigh options and find a solution that all can live with in order to satisfy their individual desires to eat and fuck, while allowing others to do the same, without beating the shit out of each other.

Society or civilization is created from humans' ability to yield a base desire now or uninterrupted satisfaction of that base desire later without needing to engage in violence (offensive or defensive).

In SOCIETY, only defensive force is justified because justice is a product of society.

Once the government a society has establish no longer meets the needs of society, then yes, defensive force to remove it is justified. Governments can be removed without the complete erasure of society. See the American Revolution.

When I say the "truce" is ended, I am talking about the complete breakdown of society as a whole, which is a completely different level of reset.

In my opinion, it is important for all individuals to understand and keep in mind that right or wrong means jack shit when humans decide that society itself no longer serves the interests of the individual. Humans have the power to revert to that wild state, so ALL should respect the interests of the individual as much as possible before subjugating the individual's interest to that of the collective.

That is my point.

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

 

[Tehon]

Correct, in part. Let me clarify.

"Morality" is a fluid term. It inherently assumes an agreed set of rules within a society. A better way to examine my position is to look at other species.

Take for example a male lion. Is a male lion subject to morality or even understand the concept of morality? What is right and wrong to a lion?

Violence and breeding are the only rules by which or principles a male lion lives. He wants to eat. He kill prey or exerts force on others to allow him to eat. His only guiding principle is to satisfy his hunger, without regard for the hunger, will, safety, or survival of anyone else. He wants to fuck. Same guiding principle. Nothing else matters to him but getting some ass.

Set religion/metaphysics/philosophy aside and just view humans biologically.

What distinguishes humans from lions?

From purely a biological perspective, humans have the mental capacity to think beyond the base desires of food and sex. Humans have the ability to imagine themselves in the place of others who are suffering. Humans have the ability to weigh options and find a solution that all can live with in order to satisfy their individual desires to eat and fuck, while allowing others to do the same, without beating the shit out of each other.

Society or civilization is created from humans' ability to yield a base desire now or uninterrupted satisfaction of that base desire later without needing to engage in violence (offensive or defensive).

In SOCIETY, only defensive force is justified because justice is a product of society.

Once the government a society has establish no longer meets the needs of society, then yes, defensive force to remove it is justified. Governments can be removed without the complete erasure of society. See the American Revolution.

When I say the "truce" is ended, I am talking about the complete breakdown of society as a whole, which is a completely different level of reset.

In my opinion, it is important for all individuals to understand and keep in mind that right or wrong means jack shit when humans decide that society itself no longer serves the interests of the individual. Humans have the power to revert to that wild state, so ALL should respect the interests of the individual as much as possible before subjugating the individual's interest to that of the collective.

That is my point.

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

Exactly. Now we know our enemy.

Take away a tool of the ruling class and they will use other means to subjugate you. You will still not be free.

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Pineapple​

.​

 

[gipper]

Correct, in part. Let me clarify.

"Morality" is a fluid term. It inherently assumes an agreed set of rules within a society. A better way to examine my position is to look at other species.

Take for example a male lion. Is a male lion subject to morality or even understand the concept of morality? What is right and wrong to a lion?

Violence and breeding are the only rules by which or principles a male lion lives. He wants to eat. He kill prey or exerts force on others to allow him to eat. His only guiding principle is to satisfy his hunger, without regard for the hunger, will, safety, or survival of anyone else. He wants to fuck. Same guiding principle. Nothing else matters to him but getting some ass.

Set religion/metaphysics/philosophy aside and just view humans biologically.

What distinguishes humans from lions?

From purely a biological perspective, humans have the mental capacity to think beyond the base desires of food and sex. Humans have the ability to imagine themselves in the place of others who are suffering. Humans have the ability to weigh options and find a solution that all can live with in order to satisfy their individual desires to eat and fuck, while allowing others to do the same, without beating the shit out of each other.

Society or civilization is created from humans' ability to yield a base desire now or uninterrupted satisfaction of that base desire later without needing to engage in violence (offensive or defensive).

In SOCIETY, only defensive force is justified because justice is a product of society.

Once the government a society has establish no longer meets the needs of society, then yes, defensive force to remove it is justified. Governments can be removed without the complete erasure of society. See the American Revolution.

When I say the "truce" is ended, I am talking about the complete breakdown of society as a whole, which is a completely different level of reset.

In my opinion, it is important for all individuals to understand and keep in mind that right or wrong means jack shit when humans decide that society itself no longer serves the interests of the individual. Humans have the power to revert to that wild state, so ALL should respect the interests of the individual as much as possible before subjugating the individual's interest to that of the collective.

That is my point.

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

Exactly. Now we know our enemy.

Take away a tool of the ruling class and they will use other means to subjugate you. You will still not be free.

Problem is few Americans know the tool of the ruling class, is government. They are stuck believing their government is good and looking out for their best interests. This fraudulent belief is instilled in them by government schools and the state run media.

 

[Tehon]

Correct, in part. Let me clarify.

"Morality" is a fluid term. It inherently assumes an agreed set of rules within a society. A better way to examine my position is to look at other species.

Take for example a male lion. Is a male lion subject to morality or even understand the concept of morality? What is right and wrong to a lion?

Violence and breeding are the only rules by which or principles a male lion lives. He wants to eat. He kill prey or exerts force on others to allow him to eat. His only guiding principle is to satisfy his hunger, without regard for the hunger, will, safety, or survival of anyone else. He wants to fuck. Same guiding principle. Nothing else matters to him but getting some ass.

Set religion/metaphysics/philosophy aside and just view humans biologically.

What distinguishes humans from lions?

From purely a biological perspective, humans have the mental capacity to think beyond the base desires of food and sex. Humans have the ability to imagine themselves in the place of others who are suffering. Humans have the ability to weigh options and find a solution that all can live with in order to satisfy their individual desires to eat and fuck, while allowing others to do the same, without beating the shit out of each other.

Society or civilization is created from humans' ability to yield a base desire now or uninterrupted satisfaction of that base desire later without needing to engage in violence (offensive or defensive).

In SOCIETY, only defensive force is justified because justice is a product of society.

Once the government a society has establish no longer meets the needs of society, then yes, defensive force to remove it is justified. Governments can be removed without the complete erasure of society. See the American Revolution.

When I say the "truce" is ended, I am talking about the complete breakdown of society as a whole, which is a completely different level of reset.

In my opinion, it is important for all individuals to understand and keep in mind that right or wrong means jack shit when humans decide that society itself no longer serves the interests of the individual. Humans have the power to revert to that wild state, so ALL should respect the interests of the individual as much as possible before subjugating the individual's interest to that of the collective.

That is my point.

You don't even realize that you just summarized, to a degree, a Marxist perspective.

The Marxist perspective is that the government, which no longer meets the needs of society, is nothing less than the instrument of the ruling class.

History shows that "government" almost always becomes an instrument of the ruling class. It is certainly true for the governments of the West, but particularly of the USA.

Exactly. Now we know our enemy.

Take away a tool of the ruling class and they will use other means to subjugate you. You will still not be free.

Problem is few Americans know the tool of the ruling class, is government. They are stuck believing their government is good and looking out for their best interests. This fraudulent belief is instilled in them by government schools and the state run media.

The ruling class derives its power from the consent of the governed. It stands to reason that we would be a heavily propagandized society.