This only proves that I must have the best endurance of all, taking on at least two men in several different threads at one time, over time.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
Has anyone mentioned that there are a lot of rich, world-wide corporations that are the heart of our quickly globalizing economy/government, and that it’s money that stands in the way of anarchism, not ethics?[/quote]
What do you mean by “money standing in the way?” Money is just an exchange medium.
Anarchism has only to do with the actions of individuals and for that you need an understanding of ethics. If you did you could see that what we are dealing with is the fact that coercion and violence are the only thing that stand in the way of freedom.
I’ll give you bonus points if you can tell me why that might be…I have already given the reasons further back in the thread.
I was implying that there are some very powerful people hording resources at the top of our social structure right now and I don’t think they are going to give up their power so easily. Money=resources=power.
I didn’t mean that anarchism isn’t a nice, rosey, ethical idea, but in the real world human power dynamics always manage to find themselves outside the ethical ideal they claim to promote.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oleena wrote:
Has anyone mentioned that there are a lot of rich, world-wide corporations that are the heart of our quickly globalizing economy/government, and that it’s money that stands in the way of anarchism, not ethics?
What do you mean by “money standing in the way?” Money is just an exchange medium.
Anarchism has only to do with the actions of individuals and for that you need an understanding of ethics. If you did you could see that what we are dealing with is the fact that coercion and violence are the only thing that stand in the way of freedom.
I’ll give you bonus points if you can tell me why that might be…I have already given the reasons further back in the thread.[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:
I didn’t mean that anarchism isn’t a nice, rosey, ethical idea, but in the real world human power dynamics always manage to find themselves outside the ethical ideal they claim to promote.
[/quote]
Yes, you explain it exactly. It is the “power” structure that is the problem. Once people become convinced that there is no such thing as “power” they cannot be ruled over.
The hording of resources is pretty irrelevant as long as it isn’t done through coercion and violence; and that fits into what we are trying to change by ending the dominion of government.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I didn’t mean that anarchism isn’t a nice, rosey, ethical idea, but in the real world human power dynamics always manage to find themselves outside the ethical ideal they claim to promote.
Yes, you explain it exactly. It is the “power” structure that is the problem. Once people become convinced that there is no such thing as “power” they cannot be ruled over.
The hording of resources is pretty irrelevant as long as it isn’t done through coercion and violence; and that fits into what we are trying to change by ending the dominion of government.[/quote]
Ok, lets say we all agree to go anarchical, how do we educate the masses with this new program, how do we disassemble the power structures?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I didn’t mean that anarchism isn’t a nice, rosey, ethical idea, but in the real world human power dynamics always manage to find themselves outside the ethical ideal they claim to promote.
Yes, you explain it exactly. It is the “power” structure that is the problem. Once people become convinced that there is no such thing as “power” they cannot be ruled over.
The hording of resources is pretty irrelevant as long as it isn’t done through coercion and violence; and that fits into what we are trying to change by ending the dominion of government.
Ok, lets say we all agree to go anarchical, how do we educate the masses with this new program, how do we disassemble the power structures?[/quote]
Now you are asking the right questions. To answer it…I don’t know for sure.
The best idea I can think of is that we just collectively ignore it; don’t take part in the system; train our minds to believe the exact opposite of what (those that try to coercively convince us that they are) authority figures tell us.
The most important thing we can do is refuse to commit acts of aggression against other people (as well as commit to understanding what exactly constitutes aggression) and hold all people to these same standards in kind.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
pittbulll wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I didn’t mean that anarchism isn’t a nice, rosey, ethical idea, but in the real world human power dynamics always manage to find themselves outside the ethical ideal they claim to promote.
Yes, you explain it exactly. It is the “power” structure that is the problem. Once people become convinced that there is no such thing as “power” they cannot be ruled over.
The hording of resources is pretty irrelevant as long as it isn’t done through coercion and violence; and that fits into what we are trying to change by ending the dominion of government.
Ok, lets say we all agree to go anarchical, how do we educate the masses with this new program, how do we disassemble the power structures?
Now you are asking the right questions. To answer it…I don’t know for sure.
The best idea I can think of is that we just collectively ignore it; don’t take part in the system; train our minds to believe the exact opposite of what (those that try to coercively convince us that they are) authority figures tell us.
The most important thing we can do is refuse to commit acts of aggression against other people (as well as commit to understanding what exactly constitutes aggression) and hold all people to these same standards in kind.[/quote]
If we collectively ignored the problems tha would result from this kind of change. We would have pandemonium, donâ??t you agree. Maybe if we started from scratch meaning all members of our community were part of the program, it could work. But even then, I can not get past the part of society that most describe as business savvy. Meaning if I put a fellow contractor out of work, I will get his business. Or if I pay more money to the DRO than you do, why would they settle in your favor.
As far as the most important thing being refusing to commit acts of aggression on our fellow man. , I believe most people do that any way, so there would be little change
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I didn’t mean that anarchism isn’t a nice, rosey, ethical idea, but in the real world human power dynamics always manage to find themselves outside the ethical ideal they claim to promote.
Yes, you explain it exactly. It is the “power” structure that is the problem. Once people become convinced that there is no such thing as “power” they cannot be ruled over.[/quote] How are you going to convince someone that they wont have more power if they have more resources at their disposal, including violence and means thereof. How are you defining power here?
[quote]The hording of resources is pretty irrelevant as long as it isn’t done through coercion and violence; and that fits into what we are trying to change by ending the dominion of government.[/quote] So you believe that a society can exist where one kid doesn’t hit the other kid over the head and take his lunch?
I’m pretty unconvinced that there will never be bullies or people who are willing to use coercion and violence gain even more resources for themselves. There’s always a cheater.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oleena wrote:
I didn’t mean that anarchism isn’t a nice, rosey, ethical idea, but in the real world human power dynamics always manage to find themselves outside the ethical ideal they claim to promote.
Yes, you explain it exactly. It is the “power” structure that is the problem. Once people become convinced that there is no such thing as “power” they cannot be ruled over. How are you going to convince someone that they wont have more power if they have more resources at their disposal, including violence and means thereof. How are you defining power here?[/quote]
I define power as nothing more than in the physical abstract sense – the rate at which work is done; the rate at which energy transfers from one form to another.
In the authoritative sense there is no such thing therefore there is no definition that would justly describe its reality. In fact if we use the physical definition of the word to help clear up our understanding it becomes fairly obvious that it could never last in one form. It can only transfer from one form of “energy” to the next.
[quote]
So you believe that a society can exist where one kid doesn’t hit the other kid over the head and take his lunch?[/quote]
I believe in the possibility; however it shouldn’t be necessary that society cannot exist in this state – after all, it already does. I am just suggesting it is not preferable for the majority of people.
Here you make a fallacy that I am suggesting the “evil” within man’s heart goes away in an anarchistic society. I make no claim to this.
I only suggest that the playing field would be more fair without a power structure making up the rules that give the ruling class the advantage over everyone else. In a free society cheaters will not be protected by the majority of people. I am willing to bet that there would be more people willing to stand up to bullies instead of waiting for Big Brother to do it on their behalf.
People who stand by and watch others doing wrong knowing that what they are witnessing is wrong, who also wait for someone else to put a stop to it are immoral. Once you properly understand morality you become bound by that knowledge.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
It sure seemed to Karl, Friedrich, Leon, and Vladimir that their hypothetical model was logical too.
[/quote]
You bring up a good point. Marx deliberately distorted history so that he could frame class struggle as the central theme of history so that he could further polarize people into classes.
Anyone can go back in time and look for themes in the history to help validate ones world view. Does that sound like a philosophically sound way to frame a correct world view?
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
As far as the most important thing being refusing to commit acts of aggression on our fellow man. , I believe most people do that any way, so there would be little change[/quote]
It only changes as people start to understand aggression in all its forms.
As I have already discussed with Push, the unintentional anarchy that results from government killing itself will not last because there will be people fighting over the bits and pieces of power they can grab. This is most certainly undesirable.
I don’t think there would be pandemonium if it is brought about slowly…kind of how culture can positively change over time through learning and better understanding. Make no mistake…I don’t see this happening fully in my lifetime – especially if our government collapses. That will just set us back.
However, I don’t see any changes being made that will save the American government either…
[quote]Oleena wrote:
This only proves that I must have the best endurance of all, taking on at least two men in several different threads at one time, over time.[/quote]
nope just that some of us have a low tolerance for how many juvenile comments we choose to deal with at one time . . . 
[quote]pushharder wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
…I don’t think there would be pandemonium if it is brought about slowly…
How do you envision it happening slowly?
[/quote]
Through the normal channels of culture…one person’s mind is changed, that person then changes the mind of someone else…and so on.
It is no different than how any cultural changes happen: they all start as ideas and then purvey themselves as actions once rightly understood. For example, imagine how silly the first slave owner must have looked to all the other slave owners when he freed his slaves.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Oleena wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
You must have missed Varq’s post earlier where he expressed “hope” that this wouldn’t happen. This whole idea is built on hope. Nothing wrong with hope, don’t get me wrong. That’s why I said Marx and Trotsky (and Engels) had hope but it didn’t work out. That’s why I keep asking for a real life model and the only one anybody can come up with is Somalia.
LIFTI says logic is the model and more importantly he says history can’t be relied upon to repeat itself so I guess that is how he can dismiss the failure of Marx’s experiment. It sure seemed to Karl, Friedrich, Leon, and Vladimir that their hypothetical model was logical too.
[/quote]
Finally something we agree on! This is why I have a problem with ethical philosophy; it distracts people from practical application.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Oleena wrote:
People who stand by and watch others doing wrong knowing that what they are witnessing is wrong, who also wait for someone else to put a stop to it are immoral. Once you properly understand morality you become bound by that knowledge.[/quote]
I agree with your logic behind how ethical the idea of anarchy is. My objection is with your definition of power- power as defined in politics is the ability of one person to make another person do something.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Oleena wrote:
This only proves that I must have the best endurance of all, taking on at least two men in several different threads at one time, over time.
nope just that some of us have a low tolerance for how many juvenile comments we choose to deal with at one time . . . :)[/quote]
This from the guy that first states that animals have souls, then claims to know with certainty what happens to those souls after they die, and then refuses to answer further questions about the matter because he doesn’t want to look silly.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
My objection is with your definition of power- power as defined in politics is the ability of one person to make another person do something. [/quote]
And I call that coercion – NOT power.