wilderness:What I see is the argument seems to always become not between the two people arguing it out: 'governmental advocate v. anti-statist'. The argument easily snowballs into 'how are logical arguments going to stop criminals', so, immediately it's not even about the government advocate and their position at all. They don't even try to refute the logical argument. They simply assert that logic doesn't stop bad, ruthless people, so, an institution needs to exist that 'goes down to their ruthless level'.
I agree, which is why now when I have convinced the other person that the government is unjust and the other person says "but we need government for blah, blah, blah" I respond with "Are you saying that you don't think society can function without mass slavery and extortion?"
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
wilderness: bloom, to give a little background on my perspective. I grew up with my grandfather telling me stories of living in a mountain village with plenty of good food. The only gov't was a policeman that came maybe once a year from Rome to check out what was going on in the region. Their village was high up in a mountain valley on the central-eastern part of Italy. And when the policeman came some people would gather in the place to drink lots of wine and listen to the news he shared of the going-on's in Rome and of his travels. He was more a news person than a policeman to them. He came to America and the first meal he had was a hot dog at a stand in New York City and thought it was disguisting and asked his father when they would be going back home to where there was good food. Of course though Mussolini was why he came here. People always needing to move out of the way of control freaks. Even as I grew up our focus was on family and I actually hardly ever thought that there was a gov't in the U.S. Then in my teen years I heard more and more about politics cause of the TV and it was easy to see politicans lied and it was all stupid. I never have been into talking about politics as much as I have been of recent when I first came to this forum in all honesty. And that's because I use my own mind and don't readily understand why some people need a father or mother figure in another person. I grew up learning more about spirituality, farming, family stories, good books, appreciation of the arts (I grew up learning how to play the piano, took some drawing classes, I sometimes write fictional stories for the fun of it, etc...) and most definitely the woods, ie. late teen years is when I began to hunt, fish, backpack, etc....but I had always walked in the woods from a very, very early age. I feel that I live without gov't all the time and the moments that the gov't shows up in my life is simply to take something away from me and to mess things up.
bloom,
to give a little background on my perspective.
I grew up with my grandfather telling me stories of living in a mountain village with plenty of good food. The only gov't was a policeman that came maybe once a year from Rome to check out what was going on in the region. Their village was high up in a mountain valley on the central-eastern part of Italy. And when the policeman came some people would gather in the place to drink lots of wine and listen to the news he shared of the going-on's in Rome and of his travels. He was more a news person than a policeman to them. He came to America and the first meal he had was a hot dog at a stand in New York City and thought it was disguisting and asked his father when they would be going back home to where there was good food. Of course though Mussolini was why he came here. People always needing to move out of the way of control freaks.
Even as I grew up our focus was on family and I actually hardly ever thought that there was a gov't in the U.S. Then in my teen years I heard more and more about politics cause of the TV and it was easy to see politicans lied and it was all stupid. I never have been into talking about politics as much as I have been of recent when I first came to this forum in all honesty. And that's because I use my own mind and don't readily understand why some people need a father or mother figure in another person. I grew up learning more about spirituality, farming, family stories, good books, appreciation of the arts (I grew up learning how to play the piano, took some drawing classes, I sometimes write fictional stories for the fun of it, etc...) and most definitely the woods, ie. late teen years is when I began to hunt, fish, backpack, etc....but I had always walked in the woods from a very, very early age. I feel that I live without gov't all the time and the moments that the gov't shows up in my life is simply to take something away from me and to mess things up.
This is a really great story, I'm glad I got to read it. I think it shows how unique each human experience is and why some people come to some conclusions and others come to other conclusions. I've been following a meme Thomas Sowell wrote about called "Conflict of Visions", it's also a book that I've yet to buy but fully intend to. He points out that human experience is so vast, so complicated, so unique and individual and those experiences ultimately influence worldviews so much that two people can look at the same situation, the same facts and come to totally different conclusions based on life experience. You know, another thing that occurs to me is that as a Jew, I grew up with the story about the Holocaust and Hitler and it really stuck with me that one bad apple, just one, can make life hell for a lot of people if that bad apple is given enough power. I've read some of Mussolini's Fascist Doctrine, the blueprint for totalitarian regimes, and it's just so disturbing. It's interesting how these tyrannical figures can have such an effect not just on one generation but the many who follow afterwards. Anyways, great post.
Spideynw:I agree, which is why now when I have convinced the other person that the government is unjust and the other person says "but we need government for blah, blah, blah" I respond with "Are you saying that you don't think society can function without mass slavery and extortion?"
I like that one!
edit: to add a bit more. I like that because it gets into why people in general think gov't is important to protect people from brute force, but what is usually not realized is the gov't also operates on that level as well, ie "mass slavery... extortion".
bloomj31: You know, another thing that occurs to me is that as a Jew, I grew up with the story about the Holocaust and Hitler and it really stuck with me that one bad apple, just one, can make life hell for a lot of people if that bad apple is given enough power. I've read some of Mussolini's Fascist Doctrine, the blueprint for totalitarian regimes, and it's just so disturbing. It's interesting how these tyrannical figures can have such an effect not just on one generation but the many who follow afterwards. Anyways, great post.
You know, another thing that occurs to me is that as a Jew, I grew up with the story about the Holocaust and Hitler and it really stuck with me that one bad apple, just one, can make life hell for a lot of people if that bad apple is given enough power. I've read some of Mussolini's Fascist Doctrine, the blueprint for totalitarian regimes, and it's just so disturbing. It's interesting how these tyrannical figures can have such an effect not just on one generation but the many who follow afterwards. Anyways, great post.
thanks.
Could you share, even a little bit about Mussolini's Fascist Doctrine? That guy was so much about fame it seemed. He was a different character than Hitler. The latter was all about domination, Mussolini seems to be somebody that loved to have his picture taken (obviously though he killed for it).
Here's a link to some really cool pictures that I found, actually last night. They are old pictures that a person blogged. The pictures are of ca. Germany, Japan (includes some of China), Spain, France, Bulgaria, and Italy 1914 to 1946.
Check this one out. That one guy looks so giddy, and awe-struck:
Adolf Hitler: meets with german sovial-democrates during 1914. Berlin, square “Odeon"
"Thus many of the practical expressions of Fascism such as party organization, system of education, and discipline can only be understood when considered in relation to its general attitude toward life. A spiritual attitude (3). Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists."
I think this was a central theme of italian fascism.
Hitler was certainly a different breed of tyrant but some of the themes of the annihilation of the self in favor of the fatherland were echoes of Mussolini. Mussolini was clearly a much brighter, more intellectual tyrant.
"The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only."
German concentracion camp
Adolf Hitler shows to Benito Mussolini the results of the explosion in the Cartographical hut.
Oh and it includes Japanese photos too from that era:
“The games” of the japanese officers. China, 1937.
Japanese soldier-suicide.
The banners of the countries from the “Anticomintern pact” on the Tokio`s street.
I found Spanish Civil War, same era, too:
---
W
In Warsaw`s citadel after the capitulation
Those pictures give me the shivers.
filc:Those pictures give me the shivers.
I can't help but wonder what is going on in that young mind of hitler in 1914. Look at that picture. His eyes are SO BIG. He is so go-go eyed there with his mouth wide open. Like a kid in a candy store.
those pictures are awefully scary. the symbols of the nazi flag in tokyo. "the games" the japanese played. those pictures say more than i could ever.
Hitler was a psychopathic megalomaniac. Unfortunately, he was also very charismatic and happened to come around at the right time and say the right things. I'm reading this book called The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt. She talks about all the cultural, economic, political and intellectual forces that lead to up to Hitler and Stalin. It's fascinating.
bloomj31: It's interesting how these tyrannical figures can have such an effect not just on one generation but the many who follow afterwards.
It's interesting how these tyrannical figures can have such an effect not just on one generation but the many who follow afterwards.
This struck me. I know Hoppe wrote about in "Democracy: The God That Failed" how the U.S. economically has been downward spiraling since WW1 except for one upspike ca. early-mid 1950's (not sure of exact date), which this upspike had to do with gov't cut spending AND taxes. Also the jobs that piled up as Europe needed rebuilt and the regimentation of the war effort returned to the private market again so lots of work to switch back the manufactoring focus, etc... Hoppe says in that book that WW1 was the beginning of the decline of the U.S. (maybe Europe too can't remember).
There is an on-going trauma noted in Americanindians to this day. It's the cultural beat-down. The brainwashing to totally destroy their culture. The on-going lack of self-worth which due to the conditions that Americanindians live in still for the most part leads to a destruction of their self, family, and community. There current story is one of extreme hardship, mental disorder, high rates of suicide, and alcholism, etc... Some, such in the southwest, are still strong culturally and thus have ways to build community strengths and help them feel not shame for who they are. Pow-wows are such a big part of their community life that sustains positive relational bonding.
"The prevalence rate of suicide for AI/ANs is 1.5 times the national rate. AIAN males ages 15 to 24 account for two-thirds of all AI/AN suicides. Violent deaths – unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide – account for 75% of all mortality in the second decade of life for AIANs."
--
I wonder if there have been any books or articles written on how destruction impacts what is usually considered a healthy human relations generationally. How people lived one way and then suddenly had to change their lifestyle to overcome a tragedy. And sometimes the depths of the impact can put a society in ruins with hardly a glimmer of hope. There is only so much people can take and then with seemingly no way out the impact can last for a long time. Especially when some of the same ruinuous actions continue, ie. Federal Reserve, War, Education Propaganda (for example; I don't know for sure but I heard Hitler learned a lot by the U.S. role-modeling treatment of Amerindians), etc....
z1235:....
I thought you had added something to the discussion z1235 that was worth working through. I had made some comments here to a post of yours due to the added inspiration in what you wrote and the kind of thoughts it gave me. It was good. I was waiting for a back-and-forth dialogue, but you didn't come back sadly. Maybe you misinterpretated something I wrote. I think what you had to say offered something of value. I was and still hoping that you would further discuss that train of thought that we were getting into.
I suppose it really depends on the statists. If they are using the same underlying ideas you are, then yes, they are illogical for being statist. If, on the other hand, they use different underlying ideas, then it is quite logical for them to arrive at a different conclusion.
As far as arguments from personal experience go, most occasions where I argue with anarchists (whether ancaps or ancomms) and I say I disagree with their starting axioms, I am usually accused of being illogical, at which point they push their favorite book like a Scientologist claiming Dianetics answers all my objections if I but think. Usually said book simply begins with the same starting axioms they did, amazingly enough. Apparently reading them in a more verbose form makes them true.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. -- River Tam
I aim to misbehave. -- Malcolm Reynolds
Aster_,
The focus was also on base-level decisions of gov't individuals. Truth, peace, negative liberty, justice, and love is not a policy of their; and if it is, then they are going about it illogically, thus, in an impossible manner. Gov't is destruction.
z1235: There's no such thing as a 'right of human existence devoid of sadness'. Z.
There's no such thing as a 'right of human existence devoid of sadness'.
Z.
This does not follow from anything anyone has said. In response, I shall say, "There is no such thing as a right of humans to make strawmen when arguing."
wilderness: Aster_, The focus was also on base-level decisions of gov't individuals. Truth, peace, negative liberty, justice, and love is not a policy of their; and if it is, then they are going about it illogically, thus, in an impossible manner. Gov't is destruction.
I think it is safe to say most statists on these boards aren't going to disagree that the current governments are a bad thing. What we question is whether any possible government would necessarily be a bad thing. Given that what we define as a "bad thing" may derive from different values than yours, it is logical to say yes. For example, I disagree with the axiom, "All violations of property rights are immoral." Consequently, the NAP doesn't hold nearly as much strength to me. So, I return to my original statement: It depends on the statist.
And yes, generally the ones in power now as you stated do not rule by truth, or peace, or justice, or liberty, or love, or if they do they are doing it wrong. You are right in that regard. I suspect there may be some who are pretty good at logically sticking to worthwhile principles, but they don't get re-elected because they pissed people off.
Aster_Lacnala:I think it is safe to say most statists on these boards aren't going to disagree that the current governments are a bad thing.
Oh yes, there are many who believe we just need the right group in power. They fool themselves though in expectation of an omniscient government capable of providing all of their needs along with everyone else.
Hayek once made an interesting point.
F.A. Hayek: In the first instance, it is probably true, in general, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and less likely they are going to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lowering moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and "common" instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people.
In the first instance, it is probably true, in general, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and less likely they are going to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lowering moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and "common" instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards. It is, as it were, the lowest common denominator which unites the largest number of people.
What are your thoughts on that?
Wilderness and I were also tossing around the important roll fear plays on statists.
Well, if we want the lowest possible denominator so we get uniformity, then anarchy is great! I'll grant you that fear plays much less a role in anarchist views.
Personally, I don't think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn't the system, it is the people.
Aster_Lacnala:The problem isn't the system, it is the people.
But why can't we isolate human error to the individuals who error? Rather then blanket the accident over an entire nation, or perpetuate known accidents indefinitely?
Aster_Lacnala:. Personally, I don't think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn't the system, it is the people.
Seconded.
bloomj31: Aster_Lacnala:. Personally, I don't think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn't the system, it is the people. Seconded.
filc:But why can't we isolate human error to the individuals who error? Rather then blanket the accident over an entire nation, or perpetuate known accidents indefinitely?
We're not just talking about individuals making errors here, we're talking about entire civilizations. Sure, Hitler was a bad apple. And I don't know that we would've gotten Nazi Germany the way we did without him. But the man was elected. That means that a lot of people supported him.
Obama is one man. And he has a huge effect on the path America is treading. But he has enormous support, even now. This isn't about individuals, this is about large groups of people.
bloomj31:We're not just talking about individuals making errors here, we're talking about entire civilizations.
Not to be rude but I won't accept the argument that civilizations, or society, can error. A civilization who votes for a man does not agree to genocide. Further more whats the difference between a civilization and the individual?
Excellent post Wilderness. Thank you for sharing.
This reminded me of a thought I had the other day while talking to my dad. I was trying to point out to him that there was a "gun in the room." He was basically agreeing with me that there was in fact a gun, however he said, we needed to have an organization that would grab the gun and be the first to use it.
This to me is exactly what you were saying about not looking at the state from a logical point of view, but instead making excuses for its "lower" behavior being needed.
This seems to me to be intellectually lazy. I have a few more dots about to be connected in my head, but they're moving slowly...... maybe later.
filc: bloomj31:We're not just talking about individuals making errors here, we're talking about entire civilizations. Not to be rude but I won't accept the argument that civilizations, or society, can error. A civilization who votes for a man does not agree to genocide. Further more whats the difference between a civilization and the individual? filc:But why can't we isolate human error to the individuals who error? Rather then blanket the accident over an entire nation, or perpetuate known accidents indefinitely?
Actually let me rephrase because I think you mis-understood my point and I may not have stated it very well.
What if did not have society and civilization. What if we only had individuals among individuals? Why couldn't we isolate individual error to the individuals who error. Rather then blanket an accident over all individuals or perpetuate known existing accidents indefinitely?
If you can't see that entire cultures, societies or civilizations can make errors, then we can't keep talking about this. Our viewpoints are too far apart.
Not to mention the fact that there is an implication that the individuals who make errors are just anomalies that do not, in any way, reflect something about the cultures, civilizations or societies or times that they occurred in. Which I can't agree with.
Hitler and Stalin didn't happen in a vacuum.
filc: filc: bloomj31:We're not just talking about individuals making errors here, we're talking about entire civilizations. Not to be rude but I won't accept the argument that civilizations, or society, can error. A civilization who votes for a man does not agree to genocide. Further more whats the difference between a civilization and the individual? filc:But why can't we isolate human error to the individuals who error? Rather then blanket the accident over an entire nation, or perpetuate known accidents indefinitely? Actually let me rephrase because I think you mis-understood my point and I may not have stated it very well. What if did not have society and civilization. What if we only had individuals among individuals? Why couldn't we isolate individual error to the individuals who error. Rather then blanket an accident over all individuals or perpetuate known existing accidents indefinitely?
You're making a philosophical distinction. And I understand that. But I think that Hitler represents a face of humanity. And for me to see that, I have to see people as groups as well as individuals. So our philosophies don't mesh here.
bloomj31:You're making a philosophical distinction. And I understand that. But I think that Hitler represents a face of humanity. And for me to see that, I have to see people as groups as well as individuals. So our philosophies don't mesh here.
And what if you removed the framework that fostered that group of people?
filc: bloomj31:You're making a philosophical distinction. And I understand that. But I think that Hitler represents a face of humanity. And for me to see that, I have to see people as groups as well as individuals. So our philosophies don't mesh here. And what if you removed the framework that fostered that group of people?
I'm not sure that I understand what you mean here, could you clarify for me please?
The problem with your point is that it is extremely non-sequitur and undermines the voices of people who may have been opposed to Hitler and opposed to the Holocaust at the time. You charge them as guilty as being a part of that civilization. A kind of guilty by association.
It does not follow that if a majority(not society) votes for a man they do not necessarily agree to the actions he takes afterwords.
This comes back to the fundamental point I brought up which you may have missed. You wrote...
bloomj31:If you can't see that entire cultures, societies or civilizations can make errors, then we can't keep talking about this.
I would argue to you that Societies cannot make errors. We could not coherently contend that a collective of individuals unanimously agreed to genocide? We'd have to contend that even the individuals being killed were also in agreement. Society is incapable of making errors, just as it is impossible to move the right hand of society and impossible for society to have a single coherent thought. Only individuals can error, as as only individuals can think, and move. In some cases larger numbers of individuals than others error. Why can't those larger groups of individuals pay for their errors as opposed to making all individuals pay for those errors?
Bloom what do you make of Hayek's point?
This statement seems to imply that we should make no effort in 'improving' the framework of society to foster an environment which promotes life and wellbeing?
If we were to take this hopeless statement seriously posting on this forum would be entirely done in vain. To be honest, making this comment here on this forum seems self defeating? Obviously you think there is hope, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Ok, there will always be dissenters. But if a majority of people are for tyranny, genocide, etc, how can we not say that they are just as much a reflection of humanity as the people who opposed these things?
Sure, maybe not everyone that supported Hitler was also in support of the Holocaust. But I'm sure quite a good bit of them were.
These incidents aren't just isolated incidents. They're political/social/economic/cultural phenomena that have a tendency to repeat themselves.
Why? Is it really because of government? Or is it because of humanity? The OP was exploring the foundations of the desire for government in what he calls the "base level" of human psychology.
Government isn't the problem, people are the problem.
In response to Hayek's point, I think that you will uniform beliefs within both intellectual and non-intellectual spheres. The incentive for uniformity is not unique to people of lesser intelligence.
bloomj31:if a majority of people are for tyranny, genocide, etc, how can we not say that they are just as much a reflection of humanity as the people who opposed these things?
These are functions of a state not functions of a human being.
MatthewF: bloomj31:if a majority of people are for tyranny, genocide, etc, how can we not say that they are just as much a reflection of humanity as the people who opposed these things? These are functions of a state not functions of a human being.
Humans create states. Human beings do this stuff. States are just the means by which they do them.
bloomj31: But if a majority of people are for tyranny, genocide, etc, how can we not say that they are just as much a reflection of humanity as the people who opposed these things?
Its the other way around. How can you call a society murderers because 1 man or 1 government participated in genocide? Going down this road eventually brings us to various forms of xenophobia. By voting for Hitler did the majority agree to genocide? Do you see the disconnect? WOuld it be a fair assessment to call all Germans murderers?
bloomj31:Sure, maybe not everyone that supported Hitler was also in support of the Holocaust. But I'm sure quite a good bit of them were.
People simply voted as best they could with the information provided to them. This is a fundamental problem with democracy, rational ignorance.
bloomj31: These incidents aren't just isolated incidents. They're political/social/economic/cultural phenomena that have a tendency to repeat themselves. Why? Is it really because of government? Or is it because of humanity? The OP was exploring the foundations of the desire for government in what he calls the "base level" of human psychology. Government isn't the problem, people are the problem.
Exactly. So why do we create a social apparatus of coercion for bad people to be employed in? What better spot for a murderer to place himself in other than government? I'm not saying Hitler wouldn't exist in the absence of a state. I'm asking you if Hitler could have done that scale of harm had he not been in that position of power?
Again from the same book, you should read it
F.A. Hayek: The probability of people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation
The probability of people in power being individuals who would dislike the possession and exercise of power is on a level with the probability that an extremely tender-hearted person would get the job of whipping-master in a slave plantation
The Road to Serfdom.
Obviously you think there is hope, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Hope? Not that people will get better. I think there is the opportunity to minimize and sometimes reverse damage, which is why I'm here. In other words, we can't stop the degeneration, but we might be able to slow it down for a time, or even pull it back, but it requires things to get bad enough to motivate people that change is needed.
Alright, I can't continue this conversation, we're not speaking the same language. Which is fine.
bloomj31:Humans create states. Human beings do this stuff. States are just the means by which they do them.
Humans also murder, kill, and plunder. If you beleive we should support this than why continue posting here on this forum? Why not admit defeat and retreat back to the shadows, nooks and crannies. I won't be joining you but your stance on this matter bloggles me, because yet you are still here posting. Had you truely been in a state of hopelessness I doubt you would be here.
Your actions seem to contradict what your writing.
filc: bloomj31:Humans create states. Human beings do this stuff. States are just the means by which they do them. Humans also murder, kill, and plunder. If you beleive we should support this than why continue posting here on this forum? Why not admit defeat and retreat back to the shadows, nooks and crannies. I won't be joining you but your stance on this matter bloggles me, because yet you are still here posting. Had you truely been in a state of hopelessness I doubt you would be here. Your actions seem to contradict what your writing.
Again, you're misunderstanding me, this conversation cannot continue, we're speaking different languages.
Aster_Lacnala:Personally, I don't think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn't the system, it is the people.
Aster_Lacnala:Hope? Not that people will get better. I think there is the opportunity to minimize and sometimes reverse damage, which is why I'm here. In other words, we can't stop the degeneration, but we might be able to slow it down for a time, or even pull it back, but it requires things to get bad enough to motivate people that change is needed.
filc: This statement seems to imply that we should make no effort in 'improving' the framework of society to foster an environment which promotes life and wellbeing? If we were to take this hopeless statement seriously posting on this forum would be entirely done in vain. To be honest, making this comment here on this forum seems self defeating? Obviously you think there is hope, otherwise you wouldn't be here.
Arn't we saying the same thing? I was confused by your prior statement where you stated that no 'Archy' would be beneficial for us. You seem to indicate that altering or introducing new systems would be useless. Your second statement seems more along the lines of what I was getting at.