Our Most Important Community

[ClayBarham]

Throughout history, the interests of community, as seen by its rulers, have always been superior to the interests of single individuals. Most all societies operate upon this foundation. For most of the world, this is still the case. The few rule the many. Managers rule society from the top down, like any good corporation. Those on the bottom have the least say and least power. Americans were different, however, which accounts for their great prosperity. The only community in America superior to the individuals in it has been the family.

America’s prosperity came from individuals who were free to use their own interests, skills and talents to pursue their own aspirations. The only time individuals would sublimate their own self-interests to a community was to their own family. They ruled their family and shaped the values, interests and skills of the younger members of their families. They did not extend that rule beyond to the outside community, however. If the needs of the family required them to set their own interests aside, they did. Family was the most important community, and still is. The notion that a few educated, experienced and concerned elite should rule a community came from this model, the family. The family grew into a tribe, and the leader of the tribe was usually the most honored and experienced. As the tribes became nations, the leaders became kings and queens and ruled the nation, as they believed it should. As the distance between ruler and subject increased, the concern for individuals decreased, and tyranny was established.

In America today, we are asked to allow a few rulers of the many to manage our national community better than we can as individuals. We are told the good old days of self-interest are gone, and community interests are superior to individual interests. We know, however, that prosperity comes from individual interests and freedom, not from an ordered community. In the modern corporation, innovation and positive change are discouraged in favor of the status quo, and that the only challenges to the accepted and established ways come from free individuals. Challenging what the managers and rulers say is best, is dangerous to the stability of the community. It cannot be tolerated without proper bureaucratic examination, which by its nature discourages change.

American conservatives want to keep the American ideal of legitimate individual self-interest as superior to community interests. Rulers define community interests. America’s history proved only individual freedom works best, and tyranny stifles all change and growth. Liberals prefer a community-based ideology of equality of outcome and well-managed efforts of all hands, described as tyranny of the few over the many. In this coming election, what will be America’s choices, freedom or tyranny?

[Scorpion]

Clay:

In the US the community, i.e. the country, has always taken precedence over the good of the individual. The revolutionary war is a prime example. Individuals put their personal safety and ideologies aside and came together to address British tyranny.

[ClayBarham]

America was founded on individual freedom. The only community that had any real value, for which one sacrifices life, was family, and sometimes even the immediate community in which one lives. The British came back to reimpose their power on Americans long after they got used to being free, so they kicked them out and went back to being free individuals pursuing their own aspirations. Jefferson, in the Declaration, basically defined America as it had become since 1620. DeTocquiville said, of Americans, that wherever he travelled in America, he saw them getting together in small associations, but not to give up their liberty. Instead, they amplified their efforts in union, but gave nothing up beyond their just dues. If you look at my site, www.claysamerica.com, and the short numbered paragraphs, you'll find why I say legitimate individual self-interests are more important than community interests. Community interests being superior is communalism, otherwise, socialism, communism, modern liberalism, monarchy, those systems where the few who decide what is in the community interests rule the many who make up community. America is the only place on earth where individual self-interests, individual freedom, was ever tried, and it was a success.

[Elrathin]

American conservatives want to keep the American ideal of legitimate individual self-interest as superior to community interests.


You only want to keep self-interest of CONSERVATIVE values. Many conservatives could care less for self-interest of the community.

[Scorpion]

America is the only place on earth where individual self-interests, individual freedom, was ever tried, and it was a success.


Clay, you can slap whatever label you choose on our form of governemnt but in the US the common good supercedes that of the individual. The good of the many over the good of the one.

Individual freedom is not unique to the US. The UK, Canada, Australia, France, Germany all have individual freedom guarantees in their governing documents.

[moses2792796]

People are more oppressed in America than in the majority of traditional 'fascist' empires throughout history. Democracy uses a moral absolute like 'freedom' to justify an obvious failure. People like Clay who for some reason cannot see through this sentimental symbolic bullcrap are the main reason why America is in decline.

[ClayBarham]

Scorpion, that's what Hitler and Stalin and all the dictators wanted people to believe, that the good of the many, the whole is superior. But, the many has no brain or heart with which to think and feel. So what is the good of the whole? Whatever the ruler says it is, and that leaves the individual out. Liberty is for the individual. In a society of free individuals, people serve each other willingly, not be the command of a ruler. You seem to assume that free people are bad people, and they need a good leader to guide them, lest their lust for liberty offends someone. I think you need to change from conservative to liberal, more in keeping with your views.

[Elrathin]

I think you need to change from conservative to liberal, more in keeping with your views.


Did Clay just call Scorpion a "liberal"? :ecstatic::lmao:

[moses2792796]

Scorpion, that's what Hitler and Stalin and all the dictators wanted people to believe, that the good of the many, the whole is superior. But, the many has no brain or heart with which to think and feel. So what is the good of the whole? Whatever the ruler says it is, and that leaves the individual out. Liberty is for the individual. In a society of free individuals, people serve each other willingly, not be the command of a ruler. You seem to assume that free people are bad people, and they need a good leader to guide them, lest their lust for liberty offends someone. I think you need to change from conservative to liberal, more in keeping with your views.


So then wouldn't it make more sense to leave common people out of government, allow them to look after their self-interests, and allow a specialised leader to look after the good of the whole? What we have now is self-interests controlling the direction of the whole, which is an obvious road to destruction.

[ClayBarham]

Moses, of course, that's what Hillary wants to do, tell us all how to live and take from those who made it to give to those who won't, and why not live under tyranny, even a benevolent dictator....that's what the world is most experienced......As for me, I will stand for liberty as long as I breathe, in spite of you folks who prefer life on your knees.

[preservanation]

People are more oppressed in America than in the majority of traditional 'fascist' empires throughout history. Democracy uses a moral absolute like 'freedom' to justify an obvious failure. People like Clay who for some reason cannot see through this sentimental symbolic bullcrap are the main reason why America is in decline.
And liberal socialism would fix this?
Hooo Boy!

[ClayBarham]

No, it would sanction it.

[Elrathin]

Well we have already seen that Conservatism is all about the controlling of others. Requires that we worship the Christian God and no others, allows discrimination of gays, blacks, and women, along with pissing on all our veterans benefits while only caring about the war in Iraq, and is all about repressing freedom in the name of security

No thank you.

[moses2792796]

People are more oppressed in America than in the majority of traditional 'fascist' empires throughout history. Democracy uses a moral absolute like 'freedom' to justify an obvious failure. People like Clay who for some reason cannot see through this sentimental symbolic bullcrap are the main reason why America is in decline.
And liberal socialism would fix this?
Hooo Boy!


Nope, traditional fascism would.[hr]
Moses, of course, that's what Hillary wants to do, tell us all how to live and take from those who made it to give to those who won't, and why not live under tyranny, even a benevolent dictator....that's what the world is most experienced......As for me, I will stand for liberty as long as I breathe, in spite of you folks who prefer life on your knees.


No you're missing the point, you have made it clear that community interests and self-interests are both exist. As self interests are to do with individuals then they should not have a say in the direction of the entire country, why not let leaders look after community interests and individuals look after self interests, believe it or not fascist governments actually have less involvement in self interests and individual's lives than democratic ones.

[Red Dragon]

People are more oppressed in America than in the majority of traditional 'fascist' empires throughout history. Democracy uses a moral absolute like 'freedom' to justify an obvious failure. People like Clay who for some reason cannot see through this sentimental symbolic bullcrap are the main reason why America is in decline.
And liberal socialism would fix this?
Hooo Boy!


Nope, traditional fascism would. Is this an example of the thing that you call sarcasm?

[hr]
Moses, of course, that's what Hillary wants to do, tell us all how to live and take from those who made it to give to those who won't, and why not live under tyranny, even a benevolent dictator....that's what the world is most experienced......As for me, I will stand for liberty as long as I breathe, in spite of you folks who prefer life on your knees.



No you're missing the point, you have made it clear that community interests and self-interests are both exist. As self interests are to do with individuals then they should not have a say in the direction of the entire country, why not let leaders look after community interests and individuals look after self interests, believe it or not fascist governments actually have less involvement in self interests and individual's lives than democratic ones. So to stop individuals from having a say on what other individuals are able to do you propose giving either one or more individuals all the power. Also Fascist regimes are almost always governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. But then again you might say that the leaders of my environmental, non-materialist government will prevent this from happening. This is a vulgar utilitarian view, especially seeing as every single individual acts in his perceived self-interest, and because of this there's no such thing as altruism. I mean humans operate basically out of selfishness, even our emotion issues bring are based on our own selfish desires of wanting to feel a certain emotion, or at least receiving it. Also I have to ask what would you think of someone who said, "I would like to have a cat provided it barked"? You would see them as a rather strange person, yet your statement that you favor a government provided it behaves, as you believe desirable is precisely equivalent. The biological laws that specify the characteristics of cats are no more rigid than the political laws that specify the behavior of government agencies once they are established. The way the government behaves and the adverse consequences are not an accident, not a result of some easily corrected human mistake, but a consequence of its constitution in precisely the same way that a meow is related to the constitution of a cat.

[ClayBarham]

RedDragon...excellent response to those who believe the great and powerful should rule us all, as is the usual for this blog.

[moses2792796]

Your views of fascism are warped by lingering fears instilled in the western mentality in the second world war. Leadership oriented empires have been successful since the dawn of civilisation, and all healthy societies will eventually return to a system where leadership is a specialisation, not a birthright. Being alive does not qualify one to make decisions that effect the entire society.

[Red Dragon]

Please the state suffers from the most fatal of flaws, the fact that it can obtain virtually unlimited resources by means of its coercive tax power. It can retain all it's power by just pointing a gun at someone's head and taking their money, government leaders don't have to be intelligent and in fact none of them are, they just have ether have all the weapons or give some thugs with weapons a cut of their ill gotten gains. Also I thought you were criticizing democracy not a monarchy, Besides Fascism is administratively inefficient and corrupt, heedless of true economic costs. It is concerned more with political rather then economic ends. Also Fascist states have been known to employ and promote an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning. How can you claim intellectualism out of this? Educated people as a social group have often been seen by totalitarian elements as a threat because of the tendency of intellectuals to question existing social norms and to dissent from established opinion. Thus, often-violent anti-intellectual backlashes are common during the rise and rule of authoritarian political movements, such as Fascism, Stalinism and Theocratic rule. Moreover, because many intellectuals refuse to embrace nationalism, they are also commonly portrayed as unpatriotic and subversive. The most extreme dictatorships, such as that of the Khmer Rouge, simply murdered anyone with more than a rudimentary education. Other expressions of anti-intellectualism range from the closure of public libraries and places of learning through to official declarations that intellectuals are prone to mental illness and enacting laws to have them placed under supposed psychiatric care. In addition, intellectuals in countries ruled by authoritarian governments are often subject to popular condemnation and used as scapegoats to divert the anger of the public away from those in power. The fascist society thrives on the inferiority complex. So really what you are advocating is not an intellectual leading a group of people. But instead are prescribing a monarch of the morons, a sultan of stupidity. Also your appeal to tradition does not help either, did not many of these empires ride upon horses and other animals? Shall we return to that? Many of them also thought the Earth to be the center of the universe shall return to that. Besides societies do not exist anyways so this point is really meaningless.

Society is just a figment of collectivist and bureaucratic imagination. Society is paradigmatic example of a refined concept, which is not objectively real. I mean ultimately only other individuals can influence other individuals, there is no social mind. While social groups exist ultimately anything done to or by the social groups can only be done to or by its individual members. What ever is said about any social group must at some stage be related to and explained by reference to its components. History shows us that all the ills inflicted upon humans have been done so in the name of collective lies. War, conscription, apartheid, compulsory contraception, ect, all have been done in the name of imaginary concepts like the "nation", "race", "proletariat", "church", or "space ship Earth". Whose interest are said to override those of the individual and so justify these coercive actions. A collectivist assumes that everyone has the same goal, its goal. Your support of society is merely the championing of primitive traditionalist views that destroys the individual on the premise of a fairy tale. The myth of society is the common thing that links Democracy with Fascism. And their theft of my liberty is morally, psychologically, and economically unjustifiable.

[moses2792796]

I think your faith in anarchy is misplaced, with the currrent state of humanity it cannot exist. Fascism is the only traditional political system that is capable of unifying a group. Democracy separates them.

[Red Dragon]

And I think your faith in Fascism is misplaced, all states create an “us vs. them” mentality. The human governments competing with each other are nothing more then just large gang wars, only with a lot more at stake. How does inciting war and hatred make people unified? How does the government unite people, when all it is a parasite on individuals, it provides no service, no product, yet it would take all just so it could stay alive. Also your idea of government being the only way to solve problem X is the fallacy of government solipotence. Also choosing between democracy and fascism is like choosing between being eaten by a rabid Lion and being eaten by a rabid Tiger, either way you will die. And when you choose one state to rule you, you are simply choosing which parasite will live off your productivity.

P.S. You spelled "current" wrong.

[ClayBarham]

Red Dragon, I assume you are taking an Anarchist position, which, for most people needs explaining. If you believe all people are rotten thieves and all one can do is sit behind the door at night with a shotgun, I'd have to cross the street and avoid your house. If you are taking the position that, in freedom, we can usually expect the best of people in their relations with each other, "I'm OK, you're OK," proven to a great extent in frontier America, when the only governing authority was more town hall local, than I am walking on your side of the street. That's the big difference, is in how we view each other, and that does reflect on your religious beliefs to a great extent, although I do not object to the Ayn Rand Objectivist view. For me, I am more the Albert Nock and Leonard Read variety of Libertarian, not the Ron Paul version, which is why only party home left to me, slightly, is the GOP because I like Lincoln and Reagan. Moses is a direct opposite, and I respect him for voicing his views without irrational tirades as is the custom for ElRath[/u]in and ECW and those like them who simply spit.

[moses2792796]

@RedDragon

Anarchy is simply democracy taken to its logical endpoint. Fascism is a system that allows a far more natural environment. Your views of fascism are distorted by a modern view, you need to look beyond the last hundred years.

[Red Dragon]

And I think you need to look back more then the last hundred years, what service has the state monopoly done that that voluntary organizations could not have done not only far better then by the incompetent morons that people called emperors. Also how can anarchy be related to democracy when all democracy is, is but a tyranny of the majority. It is the mystic concept of "the people" who rule in a democratic form of governance. Anarchy though is without rulers; it is without the coercive parasite of the state. Also I hold the system of democracy, of majority decision, null and void. For any impingement upon the natural rights of the person is unjust and a symbol of majority tyranny. So tell me how is Anarchism, democracy taken to it's logical extreme? You might have been better off claiming that state Communism is the logical extreme of American conservatism.

[AlanC]

Its interesting isn't it? You get this idea, this theory and you toss it around a bit and the more that you do, the better it sounds. Then you start talking to others about it and it keeps sounding better and better and pretty soon, you have convinced yourself that you know something that everyone has been missing for the last ...oh...say four thousand years.

Then you drag your idea out into the light of day and wonder what happened to it when you see it more clearly. Your beautiful silk purse has just turned into a sow's ear right before your eyes.

Red, you speculate about a state of anarchy being the ideal. You fume about the restraint of any government. You fantasize about what would be if only you were free to pursue whatever with absolutely nothing to restrict you from fullfilling your wants or desires. But the trouble is that it is a pure fantasy. An absolutely undiluted fantasy that is as applicable to real life and human beings as ... Plato's Republic or the writings of Karl Marx.

There has been times in history where individuals have lived in isolation or relative isolation and thrived. But there has never been a case of groups of individuals living in any unit that did not have a form of government either chosen or forced on them. And there never will be.

[ClayBarham]

AlanC....great post. Thanks. I am usually lonely on this blog.

[AlanC]

Clay,

Thanks, though I need to tell you that I try to stay away from political philosephy these days. But sometimes, it still grabs me. Old habits die hard as they say.


Oh, and while I am offering my views, I might add for moses, anarchy isn't the logical outcome of any structure, organization, theory or philosephy other than its own.

[moses2792796]

@ RedDragon...again

"tyranny of the majority. It is the mystic concept of "the people" who rule in a democratic form of governance"

This is correct, what you have realised is that the majority cannot make decisions that benefit a society, and if they do so it is purely by chance, for the simple reason that they are motivated by self-interest, and little else.

Now perhaps fascism is the wrong word to use when describing my political philosophy, after all, I have made it clear before that I believe most political systems can function under the right circumstances eg. democracy worked for a time in ancient Greece. Fascism (or a leadership oriented government) is what I see as the most likely system to have a genuine spiritual origin. Fascism, in this context is not a dictatorship in the sense that the leader cannot be questioned, a leader is accountable for his decisions and should they turn out to be bad that leader can be removed. This is the critical advantage is has over democracy, in democracy no one can be held accountable for wrong decisions and so nothing can ever be changed. Fascism, while it has fallible leaders can constantly improve itself, whereas democracy is a gradual decline as long as it exists. In a fascist system leadership is a specialisation, not a birthright. Plurality is acceptable, and each individual is able to pursue their self interests to a greater degree than in a moral democracy which forces a narrow dualist view of the world onto all its citizens coersively and aggressively. Leaders are able to make decisions that they are qualified to make, free of the restrictions of what may be popular at the time with people who are probably ignorant of the full extent of the issues at hand.

Anarchy is a rejection of organisation. Every single organisation of animals, wolf packs, early human tribes, gorillas, they all have some form of leadership. This principle is fundamental to any form of organised living. Anarchy is an assertion of an unnatural way of life that can only lead, at least in the near future to the speedy collapse of civilisation. Democracy undermines the principles of human organisation in its own more subtle way, assuming that leadership is a role for every person and not a select few who are suited for the role. No one would claim that every person could be an astronaut, or an engineer, or even a cleaner, so why the assumption that citizenship qualifies one as a leader, it is madness. Fascism remains true to nature, and true to reality itself. It has no need for the moralist view that democracy needs to defend its failure.

RedDragon, if you would be so kind as to offer a more detailed view of your politics I may be more open-minded, but as long as all you say is that you wish for the dissolution of the state, then I'm afraid I'd prefer democracy...never thought I would say that.

[Red Dragon]

Its interesting isn't it? You get this idea, this theory and you toss it around a bit and the more that you do, the better it sounds. Then you start talking to others about it and it keeps sounding better and better and pretty soon, you have convinced yourself that you know something that everyone has been missing for the last ...oh...say four thousand years.

Then you drag your idea out into the light of day and wonder what happened to it when you see it more clearly. Your beautiful silk purse has just turned into a sow's ear right before your eyes.

Red, you speculate about a state of anarchy being the ideal. You fume about the restraint of any government. You fantasize about what would be if only you were free to pursue whatever with absolutely nothing to restrict you from fullfilling your wants or desires. But the trouble is that it is a pure fantasy. An absolutely undiluted fantasy that is as applicable to real life and human beings as ... Plato's Republic or the writings of Karl Marx.

There has been times in history where individuals have lived in isolation or relative isolation and thrived. But there has never been a case of groups of individuals living in any unit that did not have a form of government either chosen or forced on them. And there never will be.
Ah yes the common argument of utopianism, I find this a strange one for supporters of the state to use. Seeing as they believe that if you give one-organization massive amounts of power and then a monopoly on that power it won't use it to monstrous ends. I mean is not history filled with accounts of governments breaking free of weak and poorly made restraints on its power, allowing them to oppress and even murder as they see fit? Now as for your claim of they’re never being any anarchist institutions, this is partially correct. There have probably been no places in any historical period, which fully satisfy any anarchists' ethical ideals, but there have been a number of suggestive examples. One is the American "Wild West", it offers an excellent illustration of anarcho-capitalist institutions springing up only to be later suppressed and crowded out by government. And lets not forget medieval Iceland. In this much-neglected period of history there was a competitive supply of defense services, rather then the state monopoly. So we have seen that people have chosen more anarchistic practices in the past, but as you said they were always destroyed by barbaric criminal organization making illegitimate claims of being rulers. But then again I don't see you making the claim that since violence is inevitable between humans that we should let it continue unopposed. But then again you allow the state to continue to exist, and what is the state but a criminal organization?


@ RedDragon...again

"tyranny of the majority. It is the mystic concept of "the people" who rule in a democratic form of governance"

This is correct, what you have realised is that the majority cannot make decisions that benefit a society, and if they do so it is purely by chance, for the simple reason that they are motivated by self-interest, and little else. Self-interest is a motivation for all humans the rule of the one is interested only in the one; the rule of the many is only interested in the many. Humans are ruled by self-interest, constantly striving to think of new ways to achieve our ambitions and protect our interests. And nothing has nor will ever change that in us.

Now perhaps fascism is the wrong word to use when describing my political philosophy, after all, I have made it clear before that I believe most political systems can function under the right circumstances eg. democracy worked for a time in ancient Greece. Fascism (or a leadership oriented government) is what I see as the most likely system to have a genuine spiritual origin. Gods are concerned with the actions of puny mortals; strange I never thought that any gods would have such an interest in something as boring as the human race.

Fascism, in this context is not a dictatorship in the sense that the leader cannot be questioned, a leader is accountable for his decisions and should they turn out to be bad that leader can be removed. And if the government did not wish for the ruler to be removed, or the ruler himself did not wish to be removed and had followers who felt the same way. What would become of the people?


This is the critical advantage is has over democracy, in democracy no one can be held accountable for wrong decisions and so nothing can ever be changed. Governments being held accountable for their actions the only way that ever happens is if the rulers are threatened with death. Are you proposing a death penalty for bad rulers that would certainly be interesting?

Fascism, while it has fallible leaders can constantly improve itself, whereas democracy is a gradual decline as long as it exists. Strange I always figured it would be hard to turn a parasite into a mutalist symbiosis.

In a fascist system leadership is a specialisation, not a birthright. So you are proposing an autocratic Meritocracy, I take it.

Plurality is acceptable, and each individual is able to pursue their self interests to a greater degree than in a moral democracy which forces a narrow dualist view of the world onto all its citizens coersively and aggressively. Hmm a benevolent government, I have never seen one before describe it to me.

Leaders are able to make decisions that they are qualified to make, free of the restrictions of what may be popular at the time with people who are probably ignorant of the full extent of the issues at hand. And who determines the rulers merit, may I ask?
Anarchy is a rejection of organisation. Every single organisation of animals, wolf packs, early human tribes, gorillas, they all have some form of leadership. This principle is fundamental to any form of organised living.[quote=moses2792796] Anarchists are not opposed to leadership only rulership, in other words you can lead or follow whoever the hell you want as long you don't force anyone else to. Although there are some anarchists who might disagree, but they mostly belong to the collective branch of anarchism.

[quote=moses2792796]Anarchy is an assertion of an unnatural way of life that can only lead, at least in the near future to the speedy collapse of civilisation. The most common criticism, shared by the entire range of critics, is basically that anarchism would swiftly degenerate into a chaotic Hobbesian war of all-against-all. Which is strange since humans like many other species of animals, cooperation is more common, natural, and likely. Also the free market could provide any form of security. And lets not forget rational self-interested individuals find aggression to be a dangerous and unprofitable practice.

Democracy undermines the principles of human organisation in its own more subtle way, assuming that leadership is a role for every person and not a select few who are suited for the role. Strange I always saw democracy as the majority electing a leader and forcing his and their ideas on the minority, because there "the people" and they can do that.

No one would claim that every person could be an astronaut, or an engineer, or even a cleaner, so why the assumption that citizenship qualifies one as a leader, it is madness. Fascism remains true to nature, and true to reality itself. It has no need for the moralist view that democracy needs to defend its failure. Any moron can run a state, and many have mind you. But now I must ask, how is the modern state natural? Have you ever seen lions set up a judicial branch, or a court system?

RedDragon, if you would be so kind as to offer a more detailed view of your politics I may be more open-minded, but as long as all you say is that you wish for the dissolution of the state, then I'm afraid I'd prefer democracy...never thought I would say that.
Well in short I advocate the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily funded competitors in a free market rather than through compulsory taxation. In other words the complete deregulation of nonintrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market is what I support. I reject the state, because states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of defensive and/or punitive force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, and restrict trade. Those are my views in a nutshell, and please don't make that joke about the emphasizing of the word "nut". After one hear's and tells it about three dozen times, it gets old.

[Shintao]

Moses, of course, that's what Hillary wants to do, tell us all how to live and take from those who made it to give to those who won't,

You don't seem to mind taking from the community, and then turning into the individual who gives nothing back. You see America is "WE THE PEOPLE," not "ME THE INDIVIDUAL."


and why not live under tyranny, even a benevolent dictator....that's what the world is most experienced......As for me, I will stand for liberty as long as I breathe, in spite of you folks who prefer life on your knees.


You got a dictator in the White House, and as to your knee pads, it ain't over till the fat lady sings. :jammin:

[AlanC]

Ah yes the common argument of utopianism, I find this a strange one for supporters of the state to use. Seeing as they believe that if you give one-organization massive amounts of power and then a monopoly on that power it won't use it to monstrous ends. I mean is not history filled with accounts of governments breaking free of weak and poorly made restraints on its power, allowing them to oppress and even murder as they see fit?

I think I said that the fantasy of anarchism is as likely to come about in real life terms as the Utopian ideals. In other words, it won’t. As to history, there have been precious few governments formed with built in restraints. It is a relatively recent phenomena and its kind of a work in progress as to whether those restraints will work or not.

. One is the American "Wild West", it offers an excellent illustration of anarcho-capitalist institutions springing up only to be later suppressed and crowded out by government.

Thank you, this is an excellent illustration of what I was saying. Early explorers existed in a mostly anarchistic state. But they had to still engage with conformed or governed society. Their Isolation was always limited. As their numbers grew and as they developed wider means of commerce, they formed what trappings of government they needed to allow such commerce to take place. Inevitably the best such societal structures will fall prey to a practitioner of the ‘might makes right’ philosophy. At that point, people will either capitulate to be governed or ruled, or they will organize to oppose such power.

Once that is done, they will have adopted your self rule scenario and they will hire the means to protect their lives and environment. Who the agent is that does the hiring will depend on the size of the unit. It will go from one or two individuals, to an association, to a town, to a state. Government of some sort is always the eventuality. The more prosperous the unit, the more inevitable will be the size and strength of the government that allows it to exist.


But then again I don't see you making the claim that since violence is inevitable between humans that we should let it continue unopposed. But then again you allow the state to continue to exist, and what is the state but a criminal organization?

Violence of some sort is inevitable among humans in some form or another. This is simply because in an environment where everyone seeks only their self interest, sooner or later there will be a conflict of those interests. Minor conflicts can be negotiated away. Conflicts that affect survival or that affects more deeply ingrained needs will necessarily become more violent. As soon as two people agree to rules written or unwritten they have formed a sort of primitive government.

A government, any government, only needs two things to exist; the authority to make rules and the means to enforce them. The authority can be given, or it can be taken. But the lack of such authority is a vacuum that will always be filled by one of those two means.

[moses2792796]

@ RedDragon...again

"tyranny of the majority. It is the mystic concept of "the people" who rule in a democratic form of governance"

This is correct, what you have realised is that the majority cannot make decisions that benefit a society, and if they do so it is purely by chance, for the simple reason that they are motivated by self-interest, and little else. Self-interest is a motivation for all humans the rule of the one is interested only in the one; the rule of the many is only interested in the many. Humans are ruled by self-interest, constantly striving to think of new ways to achieve our ambitions and protect our interests. And nothing has nor will ever change that in us.


This is little more than an excuse used by modern people to not look into alternatives. Self interest is inherent in human nature, that does not mean that a civilisation must be ruled by it, in fact this has only really occured in the years since the industrial revolution.

Now perhaps fascism is the wrong word to use when describing my political philosophy, after all, I have made it clear before that I believe most political systems can function under the right circumstances eg. democracy worked for a time in ancient Greece. Fascism (or a leadership oriented government) is what I see as the most likely system to have a genuine spiritual origin. Gods are concerned with the actions of puny mortals; strange I never thought that any gods would have such an interest in something as boring as the human race.


You have misunderstood. Man must always work to maintain a connection with the divine. The idea of an 'all loving' God which we must devote ourselves to is a purely modern idea with no spiritual basis.

Fascism, in this context is not a dictatorship in the sense that the leader cannot be questioned, a leader is accountable for his decisions and should they turn out to be bad that leader can be removed. And if the government did not wish for the ruler to be removed, or the ruler himself did not wish to be removed and had followers who felt the same way. What would become of the people?

It's an easy situation to manage when the government is structured in the right way. What is important is that a ruler can make a decision regardless of its popularity at the time. The people should not be the ones to make the judgement but rather the ruler's peers.

This is the critical advantage is has over democracy, in democracy no one can be held accountable for wrong decisions and so nothing can ever be changed. Governments being held accountable for their actions the only way that ever happens is if the rulers are threatened with death. Are you proposing a death penalty for bad rulers that would certainly be interesting?


I am not opposed to it, although regicide can certainly have consequences. I would say it would make more sense simply to remove a bad leader from office, and possibly exile them, death seems a bit extreme.

Fascism, while it has fallible leaders can constantly improve itself, whereas democracy is a gradual decline as long as it exists. Strange I always figured it would be hard to turn a parasite into a mutalist symbiosis.

[quote=moses2792796]In a fascist system leadership is a specialisation, not a birthright. So you are proposing an autocratic Meritocracy, I take it.


Close enough

Plurality is acceptable, and each individual is able to pursue their self interests to a greater degree than in a moral democracy which forces a narrow dualist view of the world onto all its citizens coersively and aggressively. Hmm a benevolent government, I have never seen one before describe it to me.


Again this is because you are only thinking in modern terms. Most traditional governments were not tyrannical, and all those who were, were quickly destroyed. Modern views of these governments are warped by the 'if it's not democracy it's evil' mentality.

Leaders are able to make decisions that they are qualified to make, free of the restrictions of what may be popular at the time with people who are probably ignorant of the full extent of the issues at hand. And who determines the rulers merit, may I ask?
Anarchy is a rejection of organisation. Every single organisation of animals, wolf packs, early human tribes, gorillas, they all have some form of leadership. This principle is fundamental to any form of organised living.[quote=moses2792796] Anarchists are not opposed to leadership only rulership, in other words you can lead or follow whoever the hell you want as long you don't force anyone else to. Although there are some anarchists who might disagree, but they mostly belong to the collective branch of anarchism.


No one is forced to follow America...

[quote=moses2792796]Anarchy is an assertion of an unnatural way of life that can only lead, at least in the near future to the speedy collapse of civilisation. The most common criticism, shared by the entire range of critics, is basically that anarchism would swiftly degenerate into a chaotic Hobbesian war of all-against-all. Which is strange since humans like many other species of animals, cooperation is more common, natural, and likely. Also the free market could provide any form of security. And lets not forget rational self-interested individuals find aggression to be a dangerous and unprofitable practice.


I don't like the idea, I look to nature for my philosophy and this is most definately anti-natural, as I said, leadership is essential to every form of organisation.

Democracy undermines the principles of human organisation in its own more subtle way, assuming that leadership is a role for every person and not a select few who are suited for the role. Strange I always saw democracy as the majority electing a leader and forcing his and their ideas on the minority, because there "the people" and they can do that.

The masses decide on a leader, who tries to conform to what is popular so that they will be re-elected, sometimes they spend too much time doing what 'they' believe to be right (GW Bush) and then they become hated and lose their office.

No one would claim that every person could be an astronaut, or an engineer, or even a cleaner, so why the assumption that citizenship qualifies one as a leader, it is madness. Fascism remains true to nature, and true to reality itself. It has no need for the moralist view that democracy needs to defend its failure. Any moron can run a state, and many have mind you. But now I must ask, how is the modern state natural? Have you ever seen lions set up a judicial branch, or a court system?


I think you missed the point, just because we are more advanced materially does not mean we can overlook fundamental principles that have got us to where we are today.

RedDragon, if you would be so kind as to offer a more detailed view of your politics I may be more open-minded, but as long as all you say is that you wish for the dissolution of the state, then I'm afraid I'd prefer democracy...never thought I would say that.
Well in short I advocate the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily funded competitors in a free market rather than through compulsory taxation. In other words the complete deregulation of nonintrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market is what I support. I reject the state, because states are aggressive entities which steal property (through taxation and expropriation), initiate aggression, are a compulsory monopoly on the use of defensive and/or punitive force, use their coercive powers to benefit some businesses and individuals at the expense of others, create monopolies, and restrict trade. Those are my views in a nutshell, and please don't make that joke about the emphasizing of the word "nut". After one hear's and tells it about three dozen times, it gets old.


Now I think I finally understand your position RedDragon. Like so many others you have recognised that there is a problem with modern society, but have failed to pinpoint it and unfortunately direct your anger towards the wrong place. This is also the case with neo-nazis, radical atheists and virtually every other reactionary group in modern society. If all these people could be united then maybe we would have a chance to really make a change. For now I will suffice to say that government is not the enemy, now is it inherently evil, this is the narrow dualist view that democracy encourages. Remember, nothing is inherently bad, some things are destructive, like democracy, and intelligent people always work to replace these processes with something better. For more information visit www.corrupt.org