Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
11-27-2012, 05:59 AM,
#76
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
Quote: fujiinn wrote:

That video is anarcho-capitalist propaganda. I really can't understand why anarchists really care about the various "flavors" that are out there. All true anarchists are first and foremost against the state. How they choose to organize beyond that is irrelevant.

The first objection to anarcho-communism in that video is that it encourages central planning. I guess that the family as well encourages central planning. No wonder that the Bolsheviks killed all the anarchists they could lay their hands on (mostly anarcho-communists).

Anarchy or at least libertarian anarchy does not mean no order or even no government.

It just means no order or government imposed by initiated force but order imposed only, if necessary, by self-defence force against the initiated force of one or more groups over the individual.

This is the only order which is fair and moral.

How many of you would hang around Conspiracy Central here if the Mods, who are the governors of this little cyber realm, came to your house, put a gun to your head and forced you to pay them their 'donations.' Or used extortion and refused to post your contributions unless you 'donated' at least $20 a month ? There would be a big uproar over the 'bullshit' and injustice of such a method of running things in no time.

Taxation without consent is, of course, absolutely immoral, as it has always been, by principle. Nothing that is not freely chosen can possibly be moral since morality implies the ability to choose in the first place. If you can't choose, like an animal, then you can't be moral or immoral, you just are, you live by instinct.

When you give your money freely to a cause you believe in or a group of governing body you believe in, then that is no longer even taxation, it's your right to do with your money what you please.

People are free to start as many groups, governments, local, regional or larger as they freely consent to support and to follow any leader they freely consent to follow. They are free to ostracize anyone from their groups for any reason.

What they are not free to do is to impose their morality and their values on other individuals who do not agree with it. Any idea or set-of-values which cannot sell itself based upon its own virtues to someone's free consent and requires forcing other individuals to act against their own free will is by that major defect alone already immoral.

Whenever a monarchy of old or the modern monarchies of fascism or National Socialism has ever worked is when the vast MAJORITY of the people have agreed with the monarch or leader and would have done by free choice anyway whatever duties they were required to follow by law 'for their own good,' imposed by the 'father of the nation' in that extended family.

[Image: Ruling-monarchs.jpg]

[Image: monarchs-of-europe-nine-kings-May-1910.jpg.w560h408.jpg]
Nine Monarchs of Europe at Windsor Castle for the funeral of King Edward VII - 1910

"We are convinced that liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; and that socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality."~Mikhail Bakunin

"I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each — an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being — they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom." ~Mikhail Bakunin - quoted from "La Commune de Paris et la notion de l'état" (The Commune of Paris and the notion of the state)


Bakunin on Marx and Rothschild:

“Himself a Jew, Marx has around him, in London and France, but especially in Germany, a multitude of more or less clever, intriguing, mobile, speculating Jews, such as Jews are every where: commercial or banking agents, writers, politicians, correspondents for newspapers of all shades, with one foot in the bank, the other in the socialist movement, and with their behinds sitting on the German daily press — they have taken possession of all the newspapers — and you can imagine what kind of sickening literature they produce. Now, this entire Jewish world, which forms a single profiteering sect, a people of bloodsuckers, a single gluttonnous parasite, closely and intimately united not only across national borders but across all differences of political opinion — this Jewish world today stands for the most part at the disposal of Marx and at the same time at the disposal of Rothschild. I am certain that Rothschild for his part greatly values the merits of Marx, and that Marx for his part feels instinctive attraction and great respect for Rothschild.

This may seem strange. What can there be in common between Communism and the large banks? Oh! The Communism of Marx seeks enormous centralization in the state, and where such exists, there must inevitably be a central state bank, and where such a bank exists, the parasitic Jewish nation, which. speculates on the work of the people, will always find a way to prevail ….”

Source: Michael Bakunin, 1871, Personliche Beziehungen zu Marx. In: Gesammelte Werke. Band 3. Berlin 1924. P. 204-216. [My translation - UD].



[Image: Mikhail_Bakunin_and_Antonia.jpg]
Mikhail Bakunin and Antonia Kwiatkowska, circa 1861


BAKUNIN'S COLLECTED WORKS

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/bakunin/BakuninCW.html

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mikhail_Bakunin
Reply
11-27-2012, 06:05 PM,
#77
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-27-2012, 05:59 AM)Negentropic Wrote: Anarchy or at least libertarian anarchy does not mean no order or even no government.

It just means no order or government imposed by initiated force but order imposed only, if necessary, by self-defence force against the initiated force of one or more groups over the individual.

This is the only order which is fair and moral.
[...]

I don't disagree with you, my earlier mention of the "state" was referring to an organization established to maintain control over a territory using coercion. A suitable synonym is "mafia".

About the initiated aggression over the individual, there's a lot of nuances that fall under this generic term. Anarchists that believe in property rights (libertarians or communists) might consider individual aggression an act conducted by someone who doesn't believe in property rights, such as trespassing. This brings us to this:

(11-27-2012, 05:59 AM)Negentropic Wrote: [...]
What they are not free to do is to impose their morality and their values on other individuals who do not agree with it.
[...]

This looks like you don't actually believe in property rights at the point of punishing people that transgress against you using as proxy some of your belongings, as long as they don't believe in property rights. Why is this important?

Ayn Rand Wrote:Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

I hope I don't need to describe how fucked up this world view of hers is.

(11-27-2012, 05:59 AM)Negentropic Wrote: [...]
Whenever a monarchy of old or the modern monarchies of fascism or National Socialism has ever worked is when the vast MAJORITY of the people have agreed with the monarch or leader and would have done by free choice anyway whatever duties they were required to follow by law 'for their own good,' imposed by the 'father of the nation' in that extended family.
[...]

Authoritarianism doesn't need a vast majority to work:

Stanley Milgram Wrote:I would say, on the basis of having observe a thousand people in the experiment and having my own intuition shaped and informed by these experiments, that if a system of death camps were set up in the United States of the sort we had seen in Nazi Germany, one would find sufficient personnel for those camps in any medium-sized American town.

It needs only civilized people and propaganda.
Reply
11-28-2012, 06:24 AM,
#78
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-27-2012, 06:05 PM)fujiinn Wrote:
Ayn Rand Wrote:Now, I don't care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you're a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn't know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights--they didn't have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal "cultures"--they didn't have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It's wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you're an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a "country" does not protect rights--if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief--why should you respect the "rights" that they don't have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too--that is, you can't claim one should respect the "rights" of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let's suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages--which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their "right" to keep part of the earth untouched--to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it's great that some of them did. The racist Indians today--those who condemn America--do not respect individual rights.

I hope I don't need to describe how fucked up this world view of hers is.


It's her moralizing that is "fucked up", her talk of "rights", who had them and who didn't, is inane. The indigenous people had no more "right" to the land than did the Europeans, and the Europeans didn't have any "right" at all, they just had power, and as it turns out, power was all they needed.
Reply
11-28-2012, 07:04 AM,
#79
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 06:24 AM)macfadden Wrote: It's her moralizing that is "fucked up", her talk of "rights", who had them and who didn't, is inane. The indigenous people had no more "right" to the land than did the Europeans, and the Europeans didn't have any "right" at all, they just had power, and as it turns out, power was all they needed.

I agree, rights don't exist. But still, her moral system is driving progress today. It's just hidden by political correctness.
Reply
11-28-2012, 07:34 AM,
#80
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
Anarchism can never work. It goes against nature itself.
Reply
11-28-2012, 08:06 AM,
#81
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 07:34 AM)GasseGeir Wrote: Anarchism can never work. It goes against nature itself.

Undecided So we're not having this conversation since most of human history we were organized in anarchic societies. And since that is impossible, we don't exist.
Reply
11-28-2012, 08:50 AM,
#82
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 08:06 AM)fujiinn Wrote: since most of human history we were organized in anarchic societies.

Untrue.
Reply
11-28-2012, 05:50 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2012, 05:56 PM by macfadden.)
#83
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 07:04 AM)fujiinn Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 06:24 AM)macfadden Wrote: It's her moralizing that is "fucked up", her talk of "rights", who had them and who didn't, is inane. The indigenous people had no more "right" to the land than did the Europeans, and the Europeans didn't have any "right" at all, they just had power, and as it turns out, power was all they needed.

I agree, rights don't exist. But still, her moral system is driving progress today. It's just hidden by political correctness.


Perhaps the system's middle managers may rationalize their actions in such a way but I think the top dogs are unapologetic predators who 'make no bones about it'. Morality is just a convenient excuse, it is naked greed and ambition that is driving progress.

I think the politically correct interpretation of colonialism is to cast the colonizers as villains and the indigenous as victims, which is laughably simplistic and naive. It is this interpretation that heavily features in the green propaganda narratives being churned out by the NWO neo-feudalists.
[Image: 10911201_det.jpg]
Reply
11-28-2012, 05:59 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2012, 06:07 PM by fujiinn.)
#84
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 08:50 AM)GasseGeir Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 08:06 AM)fujiinn Wrote: since most of human history we were organized in anarchic societies.

Untrue.

Laconic. Nice.

If you want proof, I have some proof:
1. Barclay, People without government available here.
2. Do a search for peer reviewed anthropological studies of human societies. Unfortunately most quality results are available only by being associated with the Academia or by throwing money at the likes of Jstor.
3. Logic: how does a band of hunter-gatherers get a chieftain/king? Why would they do that? If some member of the band doesn't like the authority of the chief/king he can just leave. How does such an authority figure impose his will on those that most likely are members of his extended family?

(11-28-2012, 05:50 PM)macfadden Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 07:04 AM)fujiinn Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 06:24 AM)macfadden Wrote: It's her moralizing that is "fucked up", her talk of "rights", who had them and who didn't, is inane. The indigenous people had no more "right" to the land than did the Europeans, and the Europeans didn't have any "right" at all, they just had power, and as it turns out, power was all they needed.

I agree, rights don't exist. But still, her moral system is driving progress today. It's just hidden by political correctness.


Perhaps the system's middle managers may rationalize their actions in such a way but I think the top dogs are unapologetic predators who 'make no bones about it'. Morality is just a convenient excuse, it is naked greed and ambition that is driving progress.

I think the politically correct interpretation of colonialism is to cast the colonizers as villains and the indigenous as victims, which is laughably simplistic and naive. It is this interpretation that heavily features in the green propaganda narratives being churned out by the NWO neo-feudalists.
[Image: 10911201_det.jpg]

Of course that it depends on what you accept as morality. Morality is subjective. Most cultures have no problem killing outsiders, including indigenous people. If you accept the Golden Rule, or the non-aggression principle, killing indigenous people is murder, not development or progress.

About the NWO remark, if the middle managers are pushed by greed to do what they do, why is there a need for a global conspiracy investing in successful box office movies like Avatar to brainwash people into feeling guilty for being white and at the top of the food chain?
Reply
11-28-2012, 07:07 PM,
#85
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 05:59 PM)fujiinn Wrote: Of course that it depends on what you accept as morality. Morality is subjective. Most cultures have no problem killing outsiders, including indigenous people. If you accept the Golden Rule, or the non-aggression principle, killing indigenous people is murder, not development or progress.

Master–slave morality

(11-28-2012, 05:59 PM)fujiinn Wrote: About the NWO remark, if the middle managers are pushed by greed to do what they do, why is there a need for a global conspiracy investing in successful box office movies like Avatar to brainwash people into feeling guilty for being white and at the top of the food chain?

The middle managers are driven by greed, but they have also been programmed with a type of slave morality.

Manipulating society with guilt is a very effective technique. The Catholic Church sold indulgences and the green eco fascist neo-feudalists sell carbon credits.

You don't think Avatar was a propaganda piece?

You don't think the green "sustainability" movement was created by elitists with a neo-feudal agenda?
Reply
11-28-2012, 07:19 PM,
#86
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 05:59 PM)fujiinn Wrote: how does a band of hunter-gatherers get a chieftain/king? Why would they do that? If some member of the band doesn't like the authority of the chief/king he can just leave. How does such an authority figure impose his will on those that most likely are members of his extended family?

This is not anarchism.
Reply
11-28-2012, 07:23 PM, (This post was last modified: 11-28-2012, 07:34 PM by fujiinn.)
#87
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 07:19 PM)GasseGeir Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:59 PM)fujiinn Wrote: how does a band of hunter-gatherers get a chieftain/king? Why would they do that? If some member of the band doesn't like the authority of the chief/king he can just leave. How does such an authority figure impose his will on those that most likely are members of his extended family?

This is not anarchism.

What is anarchism according to you?

(11-28-2012, 07:07 PM)macfadden Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 05:59 PM)fujiinn Wrote: Of course that it depends on what you accept as morality. Morality is subjective. Most cultures have no problem killing outsiders, including indigenous people. If you accept the Golden Rule, or the non-aggression principle, killing indigenous people is murder, not development or progress.

Master–slave morality

(11-28-2012, 05:59 PM)fujiinn Wrote: About the NWO remark, if the middle managers are pushed by greed to do what they do, why is there a need for a global conspiracy investing in successful box office movies like Avatar to brainwash people into feeling guilty for being white and at the top of the food chain?

The middle managers are driven by greed, but they have also been programmed with a type of slave morality.

Manipulating society with guilt is a very effective technique. The Catholic Church sold indulgences and the green eco fascist neo-feudalists sell carbon credits.

You don't think Avatar was a propaganda piece?

You don't think the green "sustainability" movement was created by elitists with a neo-feudal agenda?

I don't understand what you mean when referencing Nietzsche's opinion.

The rest of your reply is unresponsive to my question. Maybe I've phrased it wrong. Let me try again: If people are mainly driven by greed or lust for power and material goods, why would a theory implying occult forces and known simply as NWO is needed to explain what is happening in the world? The point of this question has to do with Occam's Razor.
Reply
11-28-2012, 07:35 PM,
#88
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 07:23 PM)fujiinn Wrote: What is anarchism according to you?

No authority.

Anarchy is usually interpreted as no government, but with tribal communities in the traditional sense we can't exactly speak of governments. There's always a leadership though. And you're right: the chieftain principle is the universal one. Nazi Germany was based upon this principle.

At the same time it's fascism: everybody working together for the benefit of the community, the tribe, the nation.

And there's always the principle of the hierarchy. At least in a more advanced tribe or community/culture/nation. The strongest and the smartest have a larger say than the not so strong and not so bright.

Anarchism says "everybody's equal," but this is a fantasy. Some are best fit to lead and others are fit to follow. This is also the most practical way. Authority/power must be centralized for several good reasons. I do however agree that the tribe has the natural right to replace their old chieftain with a new and better one if this is what they want.

Maybe we're just arguing about the interpretation of words. It could be that we don't really disagree that much about the important things.
Reply
11-28-2012, 07:48 PM,
#89
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 07:35 PM)GasseGeir Wrote:
(11-28-2012, 07:23 PM)fujiinn Wrote: What is anarchism according to you?

No authority.

Anarchy is usually interpreted as no government, but with tribal communities in the traditional sense we can't exactly speak of governments. There's always a leadership though. And you're right: the chieftain principle is the universal one. Nazi Germany was based upon this principle.

At the same time it's fascism: everybody working together for the benefit of the community, the tribe, the nation.

And there's always the principle of the hierarchy. At least in a more advanced tribe or community/culture/nation. The strongest and the smartest have a larger say than the not so strong and not so bright.

Anarchism says "everybody's equal," but this is a fantasy. Some are best fit to lead and others are fit to follow. This is also the most practical way. Authority/power must be centralized for several good reasons. I do however agree that the tribe has the natural right to replace their old chieftain with a new and better one if this is what they want.

Maybe we're just arguing about the interpretation of words. It could be that we don't really disagree that much about the important things.

You're probably right about nitpicking and semantics. I don't see anarchism as a rejection of authority but as a rejection of coercion. For example: if a welder goes to a dentist because he has a tooth ache he is submitting to the medical authority of the doctor. It might be that the dentist needs some help with welding something. He might call his former patient for help. Does that mean the doctor is submitting to the authority of the welder in every personal matter? No. They participate in voluntary interactions because humans are social animals and cooperation is in our case the winning strategy for survival, at the individual and species level.

If you look at my list of proofs for anarchism in light of my clarification you'll probably see why I don't view anarchism as impossible since it existed and still exists in remote communities, to poor to tempt civilization gobbling them up.
Reply
11-28-2012, 08:00 PM,
#90
RE: Individualism vs Collectivism, The True Debate of Our Time IMG INT
(11-28-2012, 07:48 PM)fujiinn Wrote: If you look at my list of proofs for anarchism in light of my clarification you'll probably see why I don't view anarchism as impossible since it existed and still exists in remote communities, to poor to tempt civilization gobbling them up.

We're actually very much in agreement. Trouble is, however, that many anarchists also reject the chieftain principle. What they seem to want is a kind of "extreme democracy" and extreme relativity. There is a natural order and Common Sense, and they seem to want to go against this.

Anarchists can't do business very well. David Rockefeller, Bill Gates and Donald Trump can. Not because they might have been born rich, but because they understand structure and organization. They're definitely not anarchists. You can hardly build a large hotel chain or run an airline on an anarchist principle. You need centralization of power and hierarchy. You need a whole buch of rules and punishments for those that don't follow them. Anarchists think we can do without rules, except the old "just be nice to everybody and they'll surely be nice to you." Try to introduce anarchy in f.ex. the USA today. People would run amok and kill each other. You need someone who stands for order and leadership.

One sad fact that at least is very true today - is that most people seem to be quite dumb. They cannot be responsible for themselves. It'd be like the children running the kindergarten. A total dictatorship ruled with an iron hand would actually maybe be the best today. Provided that the dictator has the best interests for his people in mind. We could use someone like Ghaddafi - with all the guns in the world behind him. Then we could really see some positive changes. Smile
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Hidden Systems That Have Frozen Time and Stop Us Changing The World nofunclub 0 1,275 07-30-2014, 04:58 AM
Last Post: nofunclub
  CNN - Piers Morgan vs Larry Pratt - Gun laws "debate" fujiinn 9 3,179 01-12-2013, 01:12 AM
Last Post: R.R
  GMO Ticking Time Bomb datars 0 1,026 10-05-2012, 12:30 PM
Last Post: datars
  Ron Paul Owns Warmongers During Fox News Debate - 12/15/11 Solve et Coagula 0 887 12-25-2011, 11:05 PM
Last Post: Solve et Coagula
  The great thermate debate JFK 82 38,159 12-04-2011, 08:05 PM
Last Post: nwo2012
Information Google pulls the same shit it bashes China for... (this is worth your time to read) h3rm35 3 2,057 10-20-2010, 01:21 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Oil of Wight: Under-fire BP boss Tony Hayward takes time out to enjoy Cowes Week --- 2 1,411 06-19-2010, 07:56 PM
Last Post: ---
Question What is a True Manchurian Candidate? NickHedge 0 3,762 04-29-2010, 10:56 PM
Last Post: NickHedge
  Extra! Extra! Read All About It!!! The Truth About Al Qaeda Told For the First Time! NickHedge 2 1,476 04-26-2010, 04:09 AM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Kucinich Forces Congress to Debate Afghanistan h3rm35 0 976 03-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Last Post: h3rm35

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)