Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Worth Reading: Trevor Pott's editorial on NSA PRISM and its real ramifications
IainB:
Technology is not the problem. Laws are not the problem. PEOPLE in our GOVERNMENT are the problem.
-40hz (July 20, 2013, 09:21 AM)
--- End quote ---
...
...Should we be surprised that when we base our entire society on force and violence, that things always end up as force and violence?
-Renegade (July 20, 2013, 10:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure whether the above type of process of elimination even can, or does necessarily achieve anything particularly useful. The conclusion is arguably a truism - that the act or habit of violence for the purposes of control over others leads to Totalitarianism (which manifests as deliberate, necessary and systemic violence for the purposes of control over others to oblige them to conform to a given set of rules).
It is arguably the same for many/most of a society's religio-political ideologies - e.g., including such as Serfdom, Roman Catholicism, Islamism, Hinduism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Anarchism, Democracy, Capitalism, Fascism. However we might try to disguise it or use euphemisms for it, violence is an implicit and necessary factor running through the thing's structure, giving it strength and rigidity, like the grain in a piece of wood. The most successful religio-political ideologies, in terms of power or longevity, would seem to be those whose artificial framework of reference employs the most implicit violence and has as a basis one or more of some kind of real/imaginary ruling object or master-principle - e.g., a king, an idol, a God, a dictator or a concept such as "the people", "the workers" or "the State". The more the merrier.
Whittling away at a stick, looking for "a problem", will usually result in a stub of the stick held between your finger and thumb, and some wood shavings on the ground, and no major discovery of anything particularly new/useful. It was, after all, always nothing more than just a stick of wood. The "problem" (if you can call it that) with the stick is that it was made of wood. But what was the problem really?
All this talk of "the problem", but, do we have a discernible, clear definition of what the problem actually is?
* Is it "Technology"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly (unless you are a Luddite) could a collective noun for a set of hardware, software and methodologies be a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
* Is it our "Laws"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly could a collective noun for a set of rules that society has established for itself to observe be a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
* Is it the "People in our government"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly could a collective noun for any given set of people that society has appointed into government to manage that society be a "problem"? A stigmatisation, maybe, but a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
I could go on, but you probably get the idea, and in any event I don't wish to labour the point too much. The missing factor in this would seem to be the necessary articulation of a clear, useful, accurate and rational definition of the problem - whatever the problem may be. Once you have defined the problem thus, you are likely to be around halfway to identifying and articulating a rational solution.
Of course, if you don't need a clear, useful, accurate and rational definition of the problem, because you already know the solution is your preferred hammer belief or religio-political ideology - e.g., including such as Serfdom, Roman Catholicism, Islamism, Hinduism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Anarchism, Democracy, Capitalism, Fascism - then good luck. Go ahead and knock yourself out. If you don't study history, then you could save yourself some time by taking a leaf out of the the Egyptians' handbook on this - they seem to be really into this kind of thing at the moment.
Renegade:
Technology is not the problem. Laws are not the problem. PEOPLE in our GOVERNMENT are the problem.
-40hz (July 20, 2013, 09:21 AM)
--- End quote ---
...
...Should we be surprised that when we base our entire society on force and violence, that things always end up as force and violence?
-Renegade (July 20, 2013, 10:40 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm not sure whether the above type of process of elimination even can, or does necessarily achieve anything particularly useful. The conclusion is arguably a truism - that the act or habit of violence for the purposes of control over others leads to Totalitarianism (which manifests as deliberate, necessary and systemic violence for the purposes of control over others to oblige them to conform to a given set of rules).
-IainB (July 30, 2013, 01:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm with you there.
It is arguably the same for many/most of a society's religio-political ideologies - e.g., including such as Serfdom, Roman Catholicism, Islamism, Hinduism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Anarchism, Democracy, Capitalism, Fascism.
-IainB (July 30, 2013, 01:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
I don't think that you can insert Anarchism there. The point of anarchy is to eliminate force and coercion.
Similarly for Capitalism. How is it some kind of ideology that I should be able to enjoy the fruits of my labour? I make something. It's mine. This isn't an ideology - it's a simple fact. I then do what I want with it. If you and I have something that each other wants, we can trade. That's our business, and not an ideology. (see below)
It's the Communists (and similar) that have an ideology where when I make something, they somehow earn a right to steal what is mine.
The others stand out from those Anarchism and Capitalism in that they all try to dictate what people "should" do. Neither Anarchism nor Capitalism engage in that.
Now, for the bastard, deformed children of Capitalism... sigh...
I really, really would love to go on about an Occult ideology and its relationships to the others and its embodiment in society today. It's never talked about in the open but there are many examples of it out there.
However we might try to disguise it or use euphemisms for it, violence is an implicit and necessary factor running through the thing's structure, giving it strength and rigidity, like the grain in a piece of wood. The most successful religio-political ideologies, in terms of power or longevity, would seem to be those whose artificial framework of reference employs the most implicit violence and has as a basis one or more of some kind of real/imaginary ruling object or master-principle - e.g., a king, an idol, a God, a dictator or a concept such as "the people", "the workers" or "the State". The more the merrier.
Whittling away at a stick, looking for "a problem", will usually result in a stub of the stick held between your finger and thumb, and some wood shavings on the ground, and no major discovery of anything particularly new/useful. It was, after all, always nothing more than just a stick of wood. The "problem" (if you can call it that) with the stick is that it was made of wood. But what was the problem really?
All this talk of "the problem", but, do we have a discernible, clear definition of what the problem actually is?
-IainB (July 30, 2013, 01:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
Violence and coercion. Done. ;)
* Is it "Technology"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly (unless you are a Luddite) could a collective noun for a set of hardware, software and methodologies be a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
* Is it our "Laws"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly could a collective noun for a set of rules that society has established for itself to observe be a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.
* Is it the "People in our government"? It might be, I suppose, but why? - and how exactly could a collective noun for any given set of people that society has appointed into government to manage that society be a "problem"? A stigmatisation, maybe, but a "problem"? It would presumably depend on your definition of the problem.-IainB (July 30, 2013, 01:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
There's an argument against technology in "Industrial Society and Its Future". It's very well written and has a lot of insight, but I don't buy the whole thing about technology being necessarily evil.
"Laws" are merely a mental cage backed up by coercion, violence, and fraud.
People? Well... I'll skip that.
I could go on, but you probably get the idea, and in any event I don't wish to labour the point too much. The missing factor in this would seem to be the necessary articulation of a clear, useful, accurate and rational definition of the problem - whatever the problem may be. Once you have defined the problem thus, you are likely to be around halfway to identifying and articulating a rational solution.
-IainB (July 30, 2013, 01:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
I do see one "problem"... People going out of their way to find problems to solve then forcing everyone else to go along with their solutions. It never ends well. What is the road to Hell paved with?
Of course, if you don't need a clear, useful, accurate and rational definition of the problem, because you already know the solution is your preferred hammer belief or religio-political ideology - e.g., including such as Serfdom, Roman Catholicism, Islamism, Hinduism, Marxism, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Progressivism, Anarchism, Democracy, Capitalism, Fascism - then good luck. Go ahead and knock yourself out. If you don't study history, then you could save yourself some time by taking a leaf out of the the Egyptians' handbook on this - they seem to be really into this kind of thing at the moment.
-IainB (July 30, 2013, 01:01 AM)
--- End quote ---
Again, leave the 2 I mentioned above out. The others all have in common a violent, coercive system where they dictate what people must do and what they must not do. And THAT is the problem.
I can sum that up as an "ideology" in 1 short sentence:
Leave me alone and don't tell me what to do. :P :D
IainB:
OK, so, if you define the problem as the necessary implicit prevalence/use of violence and coercion in a society's prevailing religio-political ideologies, and if you presuppose that Capitalism and Anarchy are the only two non-violent religio-political ideologies in that sense (just ignoring for the moment that there are probably more than two), then:
The Solution is to sweep away all the prevailing religio-political ideologies and implant Capitalism and Anarchy.
Of course, you are probably going to have to make a rule to prohibit the other bad religio-political ideologies as illegal or something, and then figure out how you will enforce that ... with violence.
No problem.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, right.
Renegade:
OK, so, if you define the problem as the necessary implicit prevalence/use of violence and coercion in a society's prevailing religio-political ideologies, and if you presuppose that Capitalism and Anarchy are the only two non-violent religio-political ideologies in that sense (just ignoring for the moment that there are probably more than two), then:
The Solution is to sweep away all the prevailing religio-political ideologies and implant Capitalism and Anarchy.
Of course, you are probably going to have to make a rule to prohibit the other bad religio-political ideologies as illegal or something, and then figure out how you will enforce that ... with violence.
No problem.
--- End quote ---
Yeah, right.
-IainB (July 30, 2013, 06:26 AM)
--- End quote ---
I'm getting way off topic, but having fun anyways! There will ALWAYS be violence. That is a given. The difference is between aggressive and defensive violence. Defensive violence is always morally permissible, and one could argue that it is a moral imperative.
The difference is that in (most of) the other religio-political ideologies you list, the INITIATION of violence is the basis of society and the basic rule. That's a very big difference from using violence for defense (i.e. Anarchism).
Anarchism doesn't preclude people from associating under some set of ideologies, e.g. anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-communism, etc. The only thing it precludes is the initiation of force/violence.
So, if you want to live under Communism, you can. Just as long as you don't force others to do the same. Ooops! Guess not, because that's what Communism is - violence.
So perhaps Democracy? Ooops! Nope. That's the tyranny of the masses. ;) A mob gets together and forces other people to do what it wants.
Then maybe Republicanism? Ooops... United States of America, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, etc. etc. They don't seem to turn out very well either. ;)
Etc. etc. etc.
But Anarchism doesn't prevent anyone from banging their heads against the wall. All the others FORCE you to bang your head against the wall. :D :P
Anarchism is almost always maligned and misrepresented. Grouping it with the likes of Democracy and Marxism is misleading. It has no resemblance to any of them.
"Capitalism", on the other hand, describes normal economic activity between people. It has many bastard, deformed children, with each one uglier than the last. Perhaps it's most popular bastard is "Corporatism". It bears a striking resemblance to its older sibling, "Fascism". Another ugly bastard is "Crony-capitalism", which really makes a mockery of it's descriptive parent. But really, they're all so ugly that they're almost impossible to tell apart.
HOWEVER -- All Capitalism's bastard children REQUIRE a religio-ideological framework to function. They cannot survive under Anarchy.
40hz:
Anarchy is the only slight glimmer of hope. - Mick Jagger
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
- H. L. Mencken
8)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version