The religion of "Government."

[redblood_blackflag]

The belief in "government" is, in fact, a religion, with all the same structure of any other superstition dedicated to the worship of a supreme entity that has no basis in reality. It has:

1) a pope (president/prime minister)
2) councils (congress/parliament)
3) tithing (taxes)
4) commandments (laws)
5) sects (political parties)
6) heretics (anarchists)
7) protestant reformers (Libertarians)
8) adevil (any foreign bogeyman or dictator)
9) catechisms (party platforms)
10) doctrine (ideology)
11) rituals (voting)
12) prayer (pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths)
13) crusades (wars to make the world safe for "democracy," etc)
14) brainwashing (brainwashing)
15) blind faith (blind faith)
16)zealotry (zealotry)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Government does not exist.

Most people believe that "government" is necessary, though they also acknowledgethat "authority" often leads to corruption and abuse. They know that "government"can be inefficient, callous, unfair, unreasonable and oppressive, but they continue to believe that "authority" can be a force for good. What they fail to realize is that theproblem is not just that "government" produces inferior results on a practical level,or that "authority" is often abused, or that there is too much "authority." The problemis that the concept itself is utterly irrational and self-contradictory. It is nothing morethan a superstition, devoid of any logical or evidentiary support, which people holdonly as a result of constant cult-like indoctrination designed to hide the logicalabsurdity of the concept. It is not a matter of degree, or how it is used. The problemis that "authority" does not and cannot exist at all, and failure to recognize that fact hasled billions of people to believe things and do things that are horrendously destruc-tive. The truth is that there can be no such thing as good "authority"—in fact, thereis no such thing, and can be no such thing, as "authority" at all. As strange as thatmay sound, it is quite easy to logically prove.

In short, government does not exist. It never has and it never will. The politicians arereal, the soldiers and police who enforce the politicians' will are real, the buildingsthey inhabit are real, the weapons they wield are very real, but their supposed"authority" is not. And without that "authority," without ther right to do what they do,they are nothing but a gang of thugs. The term "government" implies legitimacy —it means the exercise of "authority" over a certain people or place. The way peoples peak of those in power, calling their commands "laws," referring to disobedience tothem as a "crime," and so on, implies the right of “government” to rule, and a corre-sponding obligation on the part of its subjects to obey. Without the right to rule ("authority"), there is no reason to call the entity "government," and all of the politicians and their mercenaries become utterly indistinguishable from a giant organizedcrime syndicate, their "laws" no more valid than the threats of muggers andcarjackers. And that, in reality, is what every "government" is: an illegitimate gangof thugs, thieves and murderers, masquerading as a rightful ruling body.

(The reason the terms "government" and "authority" appear inside quotation marksthroughout this book is because there is never a legitimate right to rule, so govern-ment and authority never actually exist. In this book such terms refer only to thepeople and gangs erroneously imagined to have the right to rule.)

All mainstream political discussion—all debate about what should be "legal" and "illegal," who should be put into power, what "national policy" should be, how"government" should handle various issues—all of it is utterly irrational and acomplete waste of time, as it is all based upon a false premise: that one person canhave the right to rule another, that "authority" can even exist. The entire debate abouthow "authority" should be used, and what "government" should do, is exactly asuseful as debating how Santa Claus should handle Christmas. But it is infinitely more dangerous. On the bright side, removing that danger—the biggest threat thathumanity has ever faced, in fact—does not require changing the fundamental nature of man, or converting all hatred to love, or performing any other drastic alteration to the state of the universe. Instead, it requires only that people recognize and thenlet go of one particular superstition, one irrational lie that almost everyone has beentaught to believe. In one sense, most of the world's problems could be solved over-night if everyone did something akin to giving up the belief in Santa Claus.

Any idea or proposed solution to a problem which depends upon the existence of "government" (and that includes absolutely everything within the realm of main-stream politics) is inherently invalid. To use an analogy, two people might engage in a useful, rational discussion about whether nuclear power or hydroelectric damsare the better way to produce electricity for their town. But if someone suggestedthat a better option would be to generate electricity using magic pixie dust, hiscomments would be and should be dismissed as ridiculous, because real problemscannot be solved by mythical entities. Yet almost all modern discussion of societalproblems is nothing but an argument about which type of magic pixie dust should be used to save humanity. All "political" discussion rests upon an unquestioned butfalse assumption, which everyone takes on faith, simply because they see and heareveryone else repeating the myth: the notion that some people can have the right torule others—the myth that there can be such a thing as legitimate "government."

The problem with popular misconceptions is just that: they are popular. And when any belief—even the most ridiculous, illogical belief—is held by most people, it willnot feel unreasonable to the believer. Continuing in that belief will be easy and willfeel safe, while questioning it will be uncomfortable and very difficult, if not imposs-ible. Even undeniable, widespread evidence of the horrendously destructive power of the myth of "authority," on a nearly incomprehensible level and stretching back for thousands of years, has not been enough to make more than a handful of people even begin to question the fundamental concept. And so, believing themselves to beenlightened and wise, human beings continue to stumble into one colossal disasterafter another, as a result of their inability to shake off the most dangerous superstition in the history of the world: the belief in "authority."

Offshoots of the superstition.

There is a large collection of terminology that grows out of the concept of "authority."What all such terms have in common is that they imply a certain legitimacy to onegroup of people forcibly controlling another group. Here are just a few examples:
"Government": "Government," as mentioned before, is simply the term for theorganization or group of people imagined to possess the right to rule. There aremany other terms, describing parts of "government," which reinforce the supposedlegitimacy of the ruling class. These include "president," "congressman," "judge,""legislature," and so on.

"Law": The terms "law" and "legislation" have very different connotations from thewords "threat" and "command." The difference, again, depends upon who is issuingand imposing such "laws" upon others, and whether they are imagined to have the right to give and enforce such commands. If "government" issues such commandsthrough the "legislative" process, nearly everyone calls such commands "laws." If astreet gang, on the other hand, issues commands to everyone in its neighborhood,no one calls that "law," no matter how it is done. In truth, every authoritarian "law"is a command backed by a threat of retaliation against those who do not comply.Whether it is a "law" against committing murder or a "law" against building a deck without a building permit, it is neither a suggestion nor a request, but a command, backed by the threat of violence, whether in the form of forced confiscation of property (i.e., "fines") or the kidnapping of a human being (i.e., "imprisonment").What distinguishes "law" from other threats is the perceived "authority" of the onesgiving the commands. What might be called "extortion" if the average citizen did itis called "taxation" if done by people who are imagined to have the right to rule.

What would normally be seen as harassment, assault, kidnapping, and other offenses against justice are seen as "regulation" and "law enforcement" when carriedout by those claiming to represent "authority."

(Of course, using the term "law" to describe the inherent properties of the universe,such as the laws of physics and mathematics, has nothing to do with the concept of "authority." Furthermore, there is another concept, called "natural law," which isvery different from statutory "law" (i.e., "legislation"). The concept of "natural law"is that there are standards of right and wrong intrinsic to humanity that do notdepend upon any human "authority," and that in fact supersede
all human "authority."Though that concept was the topic of many discussions in the not-too-distant past,it is rare to hear Americans using the term "law" in such a context today, and thatconcept is not what is meant by "law" in this book.)

"Crime": The flip side of the concept of "law" is the concept of "crime": the act of disobeying a "law." The phrase "committing a crime" obviously has a negativeconnotation. The notion that "breaking the law" is bad implies that the command(i.e., "law") being disobeyed is inherently legitimate, based solely upon who gave thecommand (namely, "government"). For example, if a street gang tells a store owner,"You give us half of your profits, or we hurt you," no one would use the term"criminal" to describe the store owner if he resisted such extortion. But if the samedemand is made by those wearing the label of "government," with the demand beingcalled "law" and "taxes," then that very same store owner would be viewed, byalmost everyone, as a "criminal" if he refused to comply.
The terms "crime" and "criminal" do not, by themselves, even hint at what "law" is being disobeyed. It is a "crime" to slowly drive through a red light at an empty intersection, and it is a "crime" to murder one's neighbors. A hundred years ago itwas a "crime" to teach a slave to read; in 1940s Germany it was a "crime" to hide Jews from the SS; a few decades back it was a "crime" in some states to let blacks andwhites sit together in a restaurant. Most people today, however, would viewcommitting those "crimes" as being perfectly moral.

Literally, committing a "crime" means disobeying the commands of politicians(“lawmakers”), and a "criminal" is anyone who does so. Again, such terms have anobviously negative connotation. Most people do not want to be called a "criminal,"and they mean it as an insult if they call someone else a "criminal." This gives a clear illustration of the fact that, in the eyes of most people, whether a command islegitimate and should be obeyed depends primarily upon who gave the command("authority" or not "authority") rather than upon whether the command itself was inherently justified. Those who disobey ("criminals") are looked down upon by mostpeople, while it is considered a virtue to be "law-abiding" Again, the popular feeling is that those who obey "authority" are good, and those who disobey are bad, whichimplies that the "authority" giving the commands has the legitimate right to do so.

"Lawmakers": There is a strange paradox involved in the concept of "lawmakers," in that they are perceived to have the right to give commands, impose "taxes," regulate behavior, and otherwise coercively control people, but only if they do so via the"legislative" process. The people in "government" legislatures are seen as having theright to rule, but only if they exert their supposed "authority" by way of certainaccepted political rituals. When they do, the "lawmakers" are imagined to have theright to give commands (and hire people to enforce them) in situations wherenormal individuals would have no such right. To put it another way, the generalpublic honestly imagines that morality is different for "lawmakers" than it is foreveryone else. Demanding money under threat of violence is immoral theft whenmost people do it, but is seen as "taxation" when politicians do it. Bossing peoplearound and forcibly controlling their actions is seen as harassment, intimidation andassault when most people do it, but is seen as "regulation" and "law enforcement"when politicians do it. They are called "lawmakers," rather than "threat-makers," because their commands—if done via certain "legislative" procedures—are seen asinherently legitimate. In other words, they are seen as "authority," and obedience to their legislative commands is seen as a moral imperative.

"Law Enforcement": One of the most common examples of "authority," which manypeople see on a daily basis, are the people who wear the label of "police" or "lawenforcement." The behavior of "law enforcers," and the way they are regarded andtreated by others, shows quite plainly that they are viewed not simply as people, but as representatives of a very different entity, something called "authority," towhich very different standards of morality are believed to apply.
Suppose, for example, someone was driving down the street, not knowing that oneof his brake lights had burned out. If another average citizen not only forced thedriver to stop, but then demanded a large sum of money from him, the driver would be outraged. It would be viewed as extortion, harassment, and possibly assault and kidnapping. But when one claiming to act on behalf of "goverment" ("authority")does the exact same thing, by flashing his lights (and chasing the person down if hedoesn't stop) and then issuing a "ticket," it is viewed by most as being perfectlylegitimate. This is because the "officer" is not seen as an individual acting on hisown, responsible for his own actions, but as an agent of the thing called "authority,"which (by definition) has the right to do things that average citizens do not.

In a very real sense, the people who wear badges and uniforms are not viewed asmere people by everyone else. They are viewed as the arm of an abstract thing called"authority." As a result, the properness of "police officer" behavior and the righteous-ness of their actions are measured by a far different standard than is the behavior of everyone else. They are judged by how well they enforce "the law" rather thanwhether their individual actions conform to the normal standards of right andwrong that apply to everyone else. The difference is voiced by the "law enforcers"themselves, who often defend their actions by saying things such as "I don't makethe law, I just enforce it." Clearly, they expect to be judged only by how faithfullythey carry out the will of the "lawmakers," rather than whether they behave likecivilized, rational human beings.

"Countries": The concepts of "law" and "crime" are obvious offshoots of the concepts of "government" and "authority," but many other words in the English language areeither changed by the belief in "authority" or exist entirely because of that belief. A"country," for example, is a purely political concept. The line around a "country" is, by definition, the line defining the area over which one particular "authority" claimsthe right to rule, which distinguishes that location from the areas over which other "authorities" claim the right to rule.

Geographical locations are, of course, very real, but the term "country" does notmerely refer to a place. It always refers to a political "jurisdiction" (another termstemming from the belief in "authority"). When people speak of loving "theircountry," they are rarely capable of even defining what that means, but ultimately,the only thing the word "country" can mean is not the place, or the people, or anyabstract principle or concept, but merely the turf a certain gang claims the right torule. In light of that fact, the concept of "loving one's country" is a rather strangeidea. In short, it expresses little more than a psychological attachment to the othersubjects who are controlled by the same ruling class—which is not at all what mostpeople envision when they feel national loyalty and patriotism. People may feel love for a certain culture, or a certain location and the people who live there, or tosome philosophical ideal, and mistake that for "love of country," but ultimately, a"country" is simply the area that a particular "government" claims the right to rule.That is what defines the "borders," and it is those borders which define the "country."


Larken Rose, The Most Dangerous Superstition (http://www.scribd.com/doc/86174715/The-Most-Dangerous-Superstition-by-Larken-Rose)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------



1.
"If you don't vote you can't complain." This is probably the number one self-perpetuating shibboleth in the state's propaganda arsenal. It looks like it makes sense -- after all, you had your chance to make your choice, right? The logical problem here is the failure to recognize a person's right to not choose someone to rule over him and everyone else. Just because person 'A' wants to belong to a group doesn't give the group the right to order person 'B' around, who refuses to join that group. It makes no more sense to say that than it would if the Baptists armed themselves and started ordering everyone around. So in that case, if you refused to get baptized, would you lose your right to complain about the Baptists ordering you around?

Second, where does the first amendment say that one loses his right to voice an opinion just because he doesn't participate in rituals he doesn't believe in?

Finally, when you vote, it is you voters who have no business complaining about the results. Didn't you agree to abide by the results of the election, no matter who won? Didn't you vote to give politicians your consent to be governed? Aren't your politicians merely representing you whenever they do their evil crap? If so, how can you then ***** when they act like politicians and lie, steal, cheat, and break their campaign promises? You gave them your permission to do whatever the hell they want to you, on your behalf. Otherwise, what is the purpose of voting, anyway? For more about the voting process, see Why I Don't Vot e by Larken Rose (http://nogov4me.net/archive/voting.htm).

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#1.)
2.
"Without government, there would be no roads." This is a tie for number one as the most often abused excuse for believing in "government." Roads are what people use to get from point A to point B. "Government" is an agency that supposedly has the right to make laws in order to protect you from the bogeyman. How on earth do those two match? People build roads, and people make laws, I guess -- except that people built roads before there were laws. What do you think -- people didn't go anywhere for thousands of years, they just sat around with their thumbs up their asses waiting and wishing someone would invent politicians to make roads legal? If people can't build roads without "government," who builds beaver dams -- beaver "governments"? This "government-builds-roads" thing is one of my pet peeves, especially because so many otherwise reasonable people fall for it.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#2.)
3.

"I can not be trusted to figure out right and wrong for myself." This is one of the five really loony beliefs I put here to keep some statists from looking completely insane. If you can't be trusted to determine morality for yourself, either you're an incompetent human being, or no one else is competent to tell you what to do either. Besides -- if you don't know right from wrong your own self, why in tarnation should you be voting to pick someone to rule over me or anyone else? Whose judgment do you think you use to pick someone to tell you right from wrong? Your own? You just claimed that your judgment sucks swamp water when you answered "True"!
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#3.)

4.
"People need to be controlled, lest they run amok." This is related to number three, except that it's directed at those other people -- you know, the ones who can't be trusted to determine right from wrong for themselves. Usually the authoritarian will admit that he uses his own judgment to live his life, and in some cases can even prove to a Christian why he doesn't need a bunch of old men in the bible making commandments for him to obey. Then he goes out of his way to insist that a bunch of old men in congress should make commandments for everyone to obey -- including him. Unfortunately, the inevitable result is a kakistocracy, meaning "government by the worst among us." The bad guys the authoritarians want to be saved from are most likely going to be running for office to have the power to make laws and enforce them. Who else but the worst among us would want to order us around and take our money? Bad guys make bad laws. They also lie, cheat, steal, and break promises -- pretty reliable evidence that they really are the bad guys. Yet the authoritarian winds up voting for them to control everyone.

On the flip side, virtually every authoritarian claims that he himself is capable of running his own life -- as above, it's just those other people who can't. Each one of them wants an agency based on force to control everyone else -- each one of whom likewise claims to be able to run his own life. It's as if no one liked broccoli, and everyone thought everyone else needed broccoli but him. So, everyone votes for everyone else to have broccoli. It's just as bad to say some people need broccoli, so everyone else must have it, too.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#4.)

5."Anarchy means chaos and destruction." Anarchy is simply the absence of "government." It has elements of both chaos and order, since it is part of the same universe that contains elements of both chaos and order. It is no more inherently destructive than evolution. Do animals eat one another? Of course. Is that chaos and destruction? Just for the one being eaten. It is order and justice for the one sustaining its life from the meal. Anarchy doesn't result in anything by itself. Only real human beings can act chaotic and cause destruction within the framework of liberty we call anarchy. Believing in putting some of them -- the worst kind, to boot -- in power, giving them guns, tanks, and nuclear weapons and telling them to order us around and take our money is an odd way to prevent "chaos."
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#5.)

6.
"If you don't pay taxes, you are stealing from society." Here is a classic case of blaming the victim. "You avoided being robbed, so the thief just takes more from us. Therefore you are the thief." The income tax is extortion. What difference is there between, a) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," and b) "Give us your money or we won't protect you from us," where 'a' is the Mafia and 'b' is the IRS? The IRS is an extortionist gang. Keeping our money out of their hands is self-defense.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#6.)

7."We all have a moral obligation to obey the law." This has been overruled by the same cult people claim to believe in when they enter the voting booth: see the Nuremberg trials following World War II for details, or the trial of Lieutenant William Calley over the US Army's massacre at My Lai, or the Ohio National Guard obeying orders to shoot unarmed college students at Kent State May 4, 1970, for examples of the bad effects of this belief. As if that isn't enough, review the notorious Obedience Experiments of Stanley Milgram (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment) who demonstrated repeatedly that most people will commit lethal violence on others merely because they are told to do so by someone in authority. When the law is immoral, we have a duty to humanity to ignore, disobey, or abolish it.
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#7.)

8."The United States is a democracy." Unsubstantiated belief based on societal conditioning, not fact or law. If the US is a democracy, why is George Bush president? Look for the word "democracy" in the constitution. It isn't there. The founders purposely left it out because they knew that it is a bad idea to let majorities have their way with the rest of us. The constitution purposely guaranteed a Republican form of government to the states. The US is ruled by one minority party elected by members of two rival sub cults, the Republicans and Democrats, divided for propaganda purposes by rhetoric only. The leaders of the two cults offer candidates and the voters vote. If the ruling party agrees with the voters, it lets their decision stand. If not, it overrules them through some legal legerdemain. Each of the two sub cults thinks the other is wicked and trying to destroy freedom, democracy, the constitution, and life as we know it. After the election, the leaders of the two cults get back together and decide how to rule everyone. If you voted, you have surrendered your right to complain about the results. You agreed to abide by them, and obey the winners until next election. Meanwhile, the majority of us made no such agreement. We voted for no one. If democracy existed, No One would be president.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#8.)

9."The constitution grants us our rights." Another civics class-inspired bit of propaganda. The guys who wrote the constitution assumed we all have the same rights as an inherent part of being human. They added the so-called bill of rights as a warning to people in government not to screw with some pretty obvious rights such as freedom of speech and religion (first amendment), self defense (second amendment), and privacy (fourth amendment). The reason they put them there is because they had just violently overthrown their previous government, and they knew what happens to governments that don't respect rights we already have. Therefore, the constitution does not grant us our rights -- it merely recognizes that we have them, and tells government to keep its hands off. (The fact that it doesn't work isn't relevant to this question.)
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#9.)


10."The government should determine what is right and wrong for us." This is related to question #7. It is so obviously insane that I put five such questions in the test to keep ordinary state-worshippers from being lumped in the same group with admirers of Genghis Kahn, Kim Jong Il, and Josef Stalin.
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#10.)

11."Society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm." Society being an abstraction, it has no brain for decision making, no feelings, and no sense of values in and of itself. Therefore, by definition it can't have obligations. Only individuals can obligate themselves to a course of action. The question of whether you are your brother's keeper is essentially a religious one. Strictly speaking, obligations are self-imposed duties. When person 'A' imposes a duty on person 'B' by force or coercion, it's slavery. On the other hand, when you assume an obligation, youfreely give the other party a presumptive right to enforce it. A promise to pay later on for goods you bought today is an obligation you freely assumed, and if you don't pay up the other party has a legitimate claim to restitution.
Now, you can assume an obligation on your part to protect the weak and infirm, and you are the one enforcing it since the weak and infirm can't defend themselves in the first place. However, if you try to impose that obligation on others -- i.e., your self-appointed duty to protect the weak and infirm -- then you're enslaving them. This is exemplified by the state when politicians draft young men to go to foreign shores to kill their enemies for them. They will often use the excuse that they're defending the weak, usually by invoking the old canard about bringing them democracy.
I have a hierarchy of obligations. #1 to myself, #2 to my family, #3 to my friends, #4 to my neighbors, and #5 to everyone else. When deciding whether #2 outranks #4 in any given situation, I always pick #2. I might put #2 or #3 before #1 sometimes. We all play this game. It's called ordering priorities. Each of us uses his own judgment to decide what order to put them in. So, we cannot all have the same obligation to protect the weak and infirm collectively, since each of us determines our priorities differently.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#11.)
12."The majority rules." Obviously untrue. Not only does the majority not rule, the majority probably shouldn't always get its way. When the majority wanted slavery, they were wrong. When 60% of Californians wanted to keep illegal immigrants from taking advantage of generous social programs, they were the majority. Yet one judge overruled their plebiscite. In reality, politicians let you vote for the candidates and issues they already approved, and if they don't like the way the majority picked, they'll override you. "Majority rules" is nothing more than a euphemism for might-makes-right. Politicians know that if one has enough power, he doesn't need the majority's approval.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#12.)
13."Politicians are our servants." One of the more absurd examples of public school propaganda. Politicians are not your servants. They are your masters. They write the laws. You don’t. They force you to obey them, not the other way around. You think you have an obligation to obey their ‘laws.’ They agree. You do not institute any rules that restrict politicians, and neither does the majority. You politely ask the politician-gods to control themselves. They don’t. You lose. Tough. This servants of the people and public servant rhetoric is pure bunk. They aren’t there to serve you. They control you and rob you. And you can feel proud in that voting booth when you give them your sanction to do it.


top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#13.)

14."Taxes are the price we pay for civilization." This is an old quote from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Civilization requires extortion? Civilization means people cooperating and getting along peacefully with one another. That rules out stealing. What I get from that quotation is "We need to institutionalize routine mass theft to prevent random occasional theft." Not only is it contradictory, it doesn't even work. Freelance crooks commit random acts of thievery in spite of the law. Thanks to the widespread belief in politicians saving us from the bad guys, the cost to society imposed by ordinary thieves is now dwarfed by the billions of dollars the state steals every year. As Larken Rose says, taxes are the price you pay for being boneheads when it comes to economics (http://nogov4me.net/archive/econ.htm).
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#14.)

15."Democracy is the worst form of government -- except for all the others that have been
tried." --Winston Churchill. Another fine example of political sloganeering based on nothing at all. As was pointed out, democracy doesn't exist. Besides, if I have no obligation to obey an immoral command made by just one lone dictator, why would that change just because there were a whole lot of other jackasses making the command?


Here is a question that sends many an authoritarian into irrecoverable brain stall: Do you have a moral obligation to obey something politicians scribble on a piece of paper (i.e., a "law")? One answer makes you an anarchist - the other makes you a candidate for a room in the Bellevue Sanitarium. Besides, can you even know all the laws that might apply to you? Try reading just one piece of them, the tax code, Title 26 (http://www.fourmilab.ch/ustax/www/t26.html) sometime. Christians at least can name most of the commandments they insist we have an obligation to obey. What about the Cult of Legislation? Can you name all the laws of Congress? If not, what business do you have claiming to obey them? Even if they were inherently righteous commands, you still wouldn't know what they are. Enforcing them is plain wicked, when there's no evidence that they are even legitimate. Calling a set of innumerable, unfathomable commandments "democracy" doesn't make them any more legitimate.

This is better than democracy: self government.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#15.)

16."The police have a right to use lethal force in cases where it would be wrong for others to do so." Here is yet another dead giveaway that state-worship is insane. In what case should person 'A' have an exclusive right to inflict death on person 'B' just because he is wearing a shiny badge?
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#16.)


17."The state should have the right to monitor the populace in efforts to provide security." The state has no rights. While the state is very real, it is made up of lawyers, thugs, con artists, buildings, monuments, laws, traffic signs, and a host of other attributes. It doesn't have rights, though. Rights are only conceived by individual humans using their individual brains. There is no collective brain of the state. Even the founding document for the republic clearly ascribes rights to the people, while reserving powers (not rights) to government. Whether the state should monitor the population is another example of the Where-Do-You-Draw-the-Line game, based purely on individual judgment.
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#17.)


18."The lesser of two evils is better than none at all." In a presidential election, for example, if you settle for the second-worst evil, and the worst evil dies -- aren't you now stuck with the worst evil? Of all the justifications for evil, this is just about the most absurd.
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#18.)


19."We shouldn't abolish the state until we have something to replace it with." This is related to number 18, except that instead of settling for the least onerous of two evils, it suggests that we should embrace an evil because there's nothing to replace it. It's as if someone asked, "Would you approve of abolishing rape," and you answered, "Yes, but only if you can come up with something to replace it." The state represents institutionalized theft and threats of violence. Why would you need to replace theft and violence as a condition for doing away with it?
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#19.)


20."Government doesn't have to be moral, that's why it's the government." This actually came from my page "Every Once In A While An Authoritarian Tells The Truth (http://nogov4me.net/archive/truth.htm#danevans)," and it is a simplification of what a lawyer told me on the same page:
Me: (http://www.google.com/groups?q=+"fact,+when+you+come+right+down+to+it,+almost+every thing+that"+group:misc.taxes+author:dan+author:evans&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&[email protected] m&rnum=2)Can making [extortion] "legal" change the fact that it is WRONG? (http://www.google.com/groups?q=+"fact,+when+you+come+right+down+to+it,+almost+every thing+that"+group:misc.taxes+author:dan+author:evans&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&[email protected] m&rnum=2)



Dan Evans: Yes . . .in fact, when you come right down to it, almost everything that
governments do would be crimes if committed by individuals. (http://www.google.com/groups?q=+"fact,+when+you+come+right+down+to+it,+almost+every thing+that"+group:misc.taxes+author:dan+author:evans&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&scoring=d&[email protected] m&rnum=2)
This is one of the most glaring examples of authoritarian doublespeak. Even the obvious absurdity of such a statement fails to break through years of conditioning in the state-worshipper's mind.

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#20.)

21."Politicians are supposed to lie, when it is in the national interest." Yes, and who determines what the national interest is? [Clue: Not you.]
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#21.)


22."When in a war, it's 'my country, right or wrong!'" One more propagandistic slogan that makes sense only when one believes it can be right to do something wrong.
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#22.)

23."The government exists to protect the rights of the people." Give yourself 1/2 point if you thought it said "the government should exist to protect the rights of the people." In reality, rulers protect their own interests first, and when that conflicts with the rights of the people, the people get screwed. No piece of paper with lofty prose on it can stop those who rule by force and propaganda from acting like rulers who resort to force and propaganda. Here is a link to just one site that demonstrates what your government thinks about protecting your rights: The Police Have No Obligation To Protect You. (http://psacake.com/dial_911.asp)

top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#23.)
24.
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Right. If you tried to read the tax code at the link I mentioned in question #15, you might see how absurd this is. While in criminal law it is assumed that a person ought to know the law, even then the state admits it needs three lawyers and a jury to determine whether the defendant actually violated a law. Not only that, in some cases the judge tells the jury not to even look at the law, the judge himself will tell them what it says. Who among us is not ignorant of the law? I once asked a lawyer which amendment of the constitution abolished slavery, and he couldn't answer. The constitution is the supreme law of the land, yet it is only a few pages. How could one of the high priests in the Cult of Legislation not know something as fundamental as that? Yet we are required to know literally millions of words that comprise the laws we live under, local, county, state, and federal?


I'll test this theory: "It is hereby against the law to pass within three feet of my car while walking. The penalty: I will kick butt." Now, anytime someone gets within three feet of my car, he gets his ass kicked. Hey, he didn't know it was against the law. That's no excuse, right? Looks like anarchy to me.
top (http://nogov4me.net/demo_2.htm#24.)

25."We need a government that is strong enough to vanquish all enemies, yet can't trample on our rights." The contradiction here is obvious.


Here is the mistake the authoritarian makes when he tries to justify voting to conjure up authority. He thinks he is delegating the right to rule himself when he votes, where-
A = the right to rule one's self
B = the right to rule other people.
Where he gets confused is when he votes to delegate right 'A' to people in 'government,' thinking he is delegating his own right to rule himself. If Bob the statist wants George the Candidate to have the right to rule him, he votes for George to have Right 'A.' The problem is that George already has right 'A' -- the right to rule himself- while Bob mistakenly thinks he is giving George right 'B'- the right to rule others (i.e., Bob). Since Bob doesn't have Right 'B,' he cannot delegate it to someone else. Can he delegate the right to kick you in the shins if he himself doesn't have that right? Of course not.
Bob might be able to delegate 'A,' the specific right to rule himself (i.e., only Bob), in theory. Naturally, he would always have the right to take back his consent to be ruled, making that delegation null and void at Bob's discretion, which makes even that an absurdity. However, that is not the same as delegating the general right to rule others ('B'), with the resultant delegation (by voting) giving George the right to rule people that Bob has no right to rule. So, when Bob thinks he is delegating right 'A,' while actually attempting to delegate right 'B,' he is trying to delegate a right he does not have, which is impossible- and since everyone (including George) already has right 'A,' voting is really just a meaningless and superstitious cult ritual.

Jackney Sneeb, There's No Government Like No Government
www.nogov4me.net (http://www.nogov4me.net)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Frankly, I don't think the quote here is a class-based critique of capitalist governments.

As for capitalist governments being like a religion: in the sense of specific organized religion, the overlap is that the Roman church, for example, was at one point the main organization for maintaining the feudal order.

The capitalist nation-state is the way groups of capitalist collectivly organize their specific regions. So it is not control for the sake of control or "corruption" simply for personal gain or any of that fundamentally; it's control for the sake of ensuring a specific kind of order in society.

In the quote things like "autority" and "induvidual" are presented completely abstracted. If there is a society where no one has more power over another, then it is still some kind of power, some kind of "authority" ensuring that order: in the purest sense this can simply be the "power" of peer pressure and persuasion and social habit/custom (comunal band societies probably enforced a collective order in this way much of the time).

The problem though is that society is currently organized to ensure the separation of the population from the power to live this way. All the instiutions, all the ways of securing a living for the most part, and designed to protect a small group's monopoly on the wealth and the power that comes with it as well as to ensure a willing workforce for that small group. So all our relations to eachother are prevented from being on an equal basis; all "authority" is tied to ensuring the exploiters can continue exploitation.

[redblood_blackflag]

Frankly, I don't think the quote here is a class-based critique of capitalist governments.

As for capitalist governments being like a religion: in the sense of specific organized religion, the overlap is that the Roman church, for example, was at one point the main organization for maintaining the feudal order.

The capitalist nation-state is the way groups of capitalist collectivly organize their specific regions. So it is not control for the sake of control or "corruption" simply for personal gain or any of that fundamentally; it's control for the sake of ensuring a specific kind of order in society.

In the quote things like "autority" and "induvidual" are presented completely abstracted. If there is a society where no one has more power over another, then it is still some kind of power, some kind of "authority" ensuring that order: in the purest sense this can simply be the "power" of peer pressure and persuasion and social habit/custom (comunal band societies probably enforced a collective order in this way much of the time).

The problem though is that society is currently organized to ensure the separation of the population from the power to live this way. All the instiutions, all the ways of securing a living for the most part, and designed to protect a small group's monopoly on the wealth and the power that comes with it as well as to ensure a willing workforce for that small group. So all our relations to eachother are prevented from being on an equal basis; all "authority" is tied to ensuring the exploiters can continue exploitation.

I do not understand what you mean by "capitalist governments."
If "the capitalists own the mean of production," then the state claims it is the only "capitalist." They regulate the entire "market" in the first place, and are viewed to have the right to, in the name of whoever. They regulate what property can be used for what, what individuals can even create or trade, they demand a portion of everyones wealth simply to exist while throwing everyone into a situation of perpetual tenancy ("taxation"), "legal tender laws," etc.

The fundamental belief is that of "authority," and "government," which is usually (and in this context) considered the group to "be or have authority within society," not only "power" in the physical sense. Mostly everyone has, to some extent, at least the possibility to use "power" to coercively control others in some way, or by essentially bribing people, or by having something a person wants, etc. The issue being discussed is the "right" to control others by force.

"The problem though is that society is currently organized to ensure the separation of the population from the power to live this way." Indeed, That is "the state," entirely.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I do not understand what you mean by "capitalist governments."I mean as opposed to the forms of social order and management under differet kinds of society and geard towards different needs. Capitalists tend to organize society by nation-states; most of the time the governments of these capitalist zones make sure trade is rationalized for the capitalists, that privite property is protected, and things are socially stable enough for trade and profit-making. They do not organize things by custom or caste or master-slave relations.


If "the capitalists own the mean of production," then the state claims it is the only "capitalist." They regulate the entire "market" in the first place, and are viewed to have the right to, in the name of whoever. They regulate what property can be used for what, what individuals can even create or trade, they demand a portion of everyones wealth simply to exist while throwing everyone into a situation of perpetual tenancy ("taxation"), "legal tender laws," etc.I'm not entirely clear on what your argument is here. Capitalists generally do not directly dictate governance in most developed capitalist countries. The governmnet is somewhat autonomous in function, but they can only manage the system according to the logic of this system. Without revenue and support from the capitalist class, the state can not function and the beurocrats can not manage anything. So ultimately these institutions are set up to ensure the continuation of accumulation and circulation; for "managing the common affairs of the ruling class" as Marx put it - even if from time to time this means favoring one capitalist section over another or even supporting popular reforms that capitalists don't desire in order to prevent rising mass anger at the whole system.

There's also Nationalist governments and what I would call "state capitalist" governments of the USSR-style. These are sometimes different in form than "tradditional" parlementary-style capitalist governments, but it's a different approach due to different historical paths of economic development.


The fundamental belief is that of "authority," not "power."Belief has little to do with how societies function on a fundamental level.
Mostly everyone has, to some extent, at least the possibility to use "power" to coercively control others in some way. The issue being discussed is the "right" to control others.No. Someone being stronger than someone else or blackmailing someone else is at best some marginal induvidual power and qualitativly different than the kind of social power held by feudal lords or privite capitalists. If the Waltons really thought that Obama was a socialist, they could shut down Wal-Mart and cripple a chunk of the US economy.


"The problem though is that society is currently organized to ensure the separation of the population from the power to live this way." Indeed, That is "the state," entirely.That is part of the function of governments, to maintain the monopoly of power. But what power and for who? It is abstract to say, "power for power", it makes no sense and implies that power exists outside of society and the realtions of people within a society; as if power was some mystical force in of itself. But power is contextual: power to do what and for whom?

[redblood_blackflag]

I mean as opposed to the forms of social order and management under differet kinds of society and geard towards different needs. Capitalists tend to organize society by nation-states; most of the time the governments of these capitalist zones make sure trade is rationalized for the capitalists, that privite property is protected, and things are socially stable enough for trade and profit-making. They do not organize things by custom or caste or master-slave relations.

Are you saying the "government," who you say "maintains the monopoly of power," does not organize things by master slave relations? So the monopoly of power exists(?) outside of and regardless of "government" ?


I'm not entirely clear on what your argument is here. Capitalists generally do not directly dictate governance in most developed capitalist countries. The governmnet is somewhat autonomous in function, but they can only manage the system according to the logic of this system. Without revenue and support from the capitalist class, the state can not function and the beurocrats can not manage anything. So ultimately these institutions are set up to ensure the continuation of accumulation and circulation; for "managing the common affairs of the ruling class" as Marx put it - even if from time to time this means favoring one capitalist section over another or even supporting popular reforms that capitalists don't desire in order to prevent rising mass anger at the whole system.
I know.


There's also Nationalist governments and what I would call "state capitalist" governments of the USSR-style. These are sometimes different in form than "tradditional" parlementary-style capitalist governments, but it's a different approach due to different historical paths of economic development.
Can there be a "non-nationalist 'government'" ?



Belief has little to do with how societies function on a fundamental level.
What is society?






That is part of the function of governments, to maintain the monopoly of power. But what power and for who? It is abstract to say, "power for power", it makes no sense and implies that power exists outside of society and the realtions of people within a society; as if power was some mystical force in of itself. But power is contextual: power to do what and for whom?

Who elses "power" can perceived "power" be for? Someone who "power" decides?
So the capitalists have no power?

[redblood_blackflag]

I'm not entirely clear on what your argument is here.

They regulate the entire "market" in the first place, and are viewed to have the right to, in the name of whoever. They regulate what property can be used for what, what individuals can even create or trade, they demand a portion of everyones wealth simply to exist while throwing everyone into a situation of perpetual tenancy ("taxation"), "legal tender laws," etc.
Everything is viewed to be "state property."

[Blake's Baby]

If the state is seen as representing society, then that's reasonable enough, because all property is social property.

The argument about whether the the state should be seen as representing society is a different one though.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Are you saying the "government," who you say "maintains the monopoly of power," does not organize things by master slave relations? So the monopoly of power exists(?) outside of and regardless of "government" ?Specific governments are part of the way that ruling classes manage and maintain their hegeomony over society. This "authority" legitimizes and normalizes their class interests into (in capitalist states) "national interests".

And yes, specific governments can fall, there can even be revolutions, but the capitalist power potential remains if they maintain hold of their productive property and wealth.


Can there be a "non-nationalist 'government'" ?Feudal governments were not organized on the basis of "nation-states".


They regulate the entire "market" in the first place, and are viewed to have the right to, in the name of whoever.No, generally they have specific ways they can intervine in the economy and this is generally out of the needs of the capitalist class: even if that need happens to be reforms in order to try and ensure social peace so that accumulation and trade continue.


They regulate what property can be used for what,Within the logic of capitalism. They could not decide to reinstitute the commons and feudalism on their own, because there is no landed aristocracy and pesantry on which to base this.


what individuals can even create or trade, they demand a portion of everyones wealth simply to exist while throwing everyone into a situation of perpetual tenancy ("taxation"), "legal tender laws," etc.
Everything is viewed to be "state property." Yes, they manage the capitalist system. Capitalists themselves desire and require many of these programs.

Are you anti-capitalist?

[La Guaneña]

Are you anti-capitalist?

This guy said in the chat that he read the "classical anarchists and mises".

[Blake's Baby]

I've read a lot of non-communist and anti-communist stuff, I'm still a communist. Reading von Mises isn't a crime. Believing it might be an anti-revolutionary idiocy though.

[La Guaneña]

I've read a lot of non-communist and anti-communist stuff, I'm still a communist. Reading von Mises isn't a crime. Believing it might be an anti-revolutionary idiocy though.

He mentioned reading it as an "anarchist reference".

[redblood_blackflag]

He mentioned reading it as an "anarchist reference".

My concept of "revolution" isn't when the "government" or some specific "class" takes over everything. It would just be advocating the same thing that's going on now, while claiming it's different because a different "class" is perceived to be "in charge."

Resisting and cutting off a would-be ruler is one thing, trying to become the new ruler is another, as I've mentioned in other posts.

[redblood_blackflag]

Specific governments are part of the way that ruling classes manage and maintain their hegeomony over society. This "authority" legitimizes and normalizes their class interests into (in capitalist states) "national interests".

And yes, specific governments can fall, there can even be revolutions, but the capitalist power potential remains if they maintain hold of their productive property and wealth.

Feudal governments were not organized on the basis of "nation-states".

No, generally they have specific ways they can intervine in the economy and this is generally out of the needs of the capitalist class: even if that need happens to be reforms in order to try and ensure social peace so that accumulation and trade continue.

Within the logic of capitalism. They could not decide to reinstitute the commons and feudalism on their own, because there is no landed aristocracy and pesantry on which to base this.

Yes, they manage the capitalist system. Capitalists themselves desire and require many of these programs.

Are you anti-capitalist?

You can call someone who is claiming to be your "sovereign" a king, or a group a "nation," or a "class," or a "capitalist." It doesn't really matter what you call them, what matters is what is actually happening.

"generally they have specific ways they can intervine in the economy " in theory, but "authority" is always the final decider on how "authority" gets to intervene in "the economy." Nobody is even "allowed" to "enter the economy" without state permission. Obviously this would be advantageous to anyone in this position, whether youre calling them "capitalists" or whatever, and disadvantageous to everyone else.
capitalists dont tax the state and kick the state out if they dont pay- it's the other way around, obviously.
No matter who is behind the curtain operating the "state," the state is the group perceived to be the sovereign of the society. everyone else is viewed to be a subject to the state, and a perpetual tenant.
As long as people still think they need to pick people to be in charge of society, there will be people who take advantage of this belief, and you will always have some group of "capitalists" manipulating society.

"Are you anti-capitalist?"
I believe the worker is entitled to the full value of his labor.

[Blake's Baby]

...
"Are you anti-capitalist?"
I believe the worker is entitled to the full value of his labor.

Do you believe the elerly, sick, children and others who cannot work should be left to die then R_B? Because there's no way they can get food energy or anything else if only the workers are allowed to derive social wealth - without charity, that is.

In the end, we believe that the proposition 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' is a reasonable way to organise society. Do you not?

[redblood_blackflag]

Do you believe the elerly, sick, children and others who cannot work should be left to die then R_B? Because there's no way they can get food energy or anything else if only the workers are allowed to derive social wealth - without charity, that is.

In the end, we believe that the proposition 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' is a reasonable way to organise society. Do you not?

Do you believe you should be forced, or force people to help the elderly, sick, etc? Wouldn't that be laying claim to the labor of another?
What do you mean by "social wealth" ?

Did you read the opening post?
I'm not sure what you mean by "society." Do you mean people and their interactions?

[Monkeyboy]

I thank you for putting time in your first post. I'll try my best to do aswell.

If we are to consider government as religion, it is important to know what religion is:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I reject the latter. Ritual observances and moral code are in my opinion part of our social being. They are practiced in religion, yes, but they do not define religion.


1) a pope (president/prime minister)

The pope has nothing to do with religion in my opinion. People in power abuse religion. It has more to do with leadership I think, and is enforced by the belief in religion. Most scientists seem to agree religion tightens bonds, and religious leaders use this, better said; abuse it.

I believe presidents have more to do with leadership, however if you read Obama's speeches they seem biblical. I don't agree leadership is a trait of religion, they are however connected, so in a way I agree.


4) commandments (laws)

I believe this is moral, and I believe moral and religion are loose. Religion knows morals, but if religion didn't exist I think we would still have moral.

So I don't believe moral is a trait of religion. I believe morality is a trait of our social evolution.


5) sects (political parties)
6) heretics (anarchists)
7) protestant reformers (Libertarians)

These are social groups. Ingroup and outgroup comes to mind. Nothing to do with religion but with tribes, these are just "tribes".


11) rituals (voting)

I would suggest to read the article Social evolution: The ritual animal. It says rituals are “the glue that holds social groups together". So again I think it's not a trait of religion, but rather something that tightens social groups, be it religious, cultural, or what not.


12) prayer (pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths)

This would also be rituals, and rituals tighten the group.


13) crusades (wars to make the world safe for "democracy," etc)

War is not something religious. But religion can tighten the group, and because of that way you can get more support if your war is a religious one, I believe.

__________________________________________________ _______________

So, what I'm trying to say, government and religion isn't the same, however they are connected.


The belief in "government" is, in fact, a religion, with all the same structure of any other superstition dedicated to the worship of a supreme entity that has no basis in reality.

The structure has nothing to do with religion, but with our social being. This may seem like nitpicking, but I think it's important.

And I don't think the idea that people believe in government like they do in religion is such a bad idea.

This article which I can't link, may be of your interest: Apple brand triggers brain reaction similar religious devotion. However I think these scientists may confuse social bonding with religion; it could be a brain reaction to social beloning; culture.

More to come.

[La Guaneña]

Do you believe you should be forced, or force people to help the elderly, sick, etc? Wouldn't that be laying claim to the labor of another?
What do you mean by "social wealth" ?

Did you read the opening post?
I'm not sure what you mean by "society." Do you mean people and their interactions?

So by this do you mean that the elderly and sick should depend only on their own savings and charity?

Do you mean that public hospitals, education and other assistance networks are authoritarian?

sure is liburhtarian here

[redblood_blackflag]

I thank you for putting time in your first post. I'll try my best to do aswell.

If we are to consider government as religion, it is important to know what religion is:

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I reject the latter. Ritual observances and moral code are in my opinion part of our social being. They are practiced in religion, yes, but they do not define religion.



The pope has nothing to do with religion in my opinion. People in power abuse religion. It has more to do with leadership I think, and is enforced by the belief in religion. Most scientists seem to agree religion tightens bonds, and religious leaders use this, better said; abuse it.

I believe presidents have more to do with leadership, however if you read Obama's speeches they seem biblical. I don't agree leadership is a trait of religion, they are however connected, so in a way I agree.



I believe this is moral, and I believe moral and religion are loose. Religion knows morals, but if religion didn't exist I think we would still have moral.

So I don't believe moral is a trait of religion. I believe morality is a trait of our social evolution.



These are social groups. Ingroup and outgroup comes to mind. Nothing to do with religion but with tribes, these are just "tribes".



I would suggest to read the article Social evolution: The ritual animal. It says rituals are “the glue that holds social groups together". So again I think it's not a trait of religion, but rather something that tightens social groups, be it religious, cultural, or what not.



This would also be rituals, and rituals tighten the group.



War is not something religious. But religion can tighten the group, and because of that way you can get more support if your war is a religious one, I believe.

__________________________________________________ _______________

So, what I'm trying to say, government and religion isn't the same, however they are connected.



The structure has nothing to do with religion, but with our social being. This may seem like nitpicking, but I think it's important.

And I don't think the idea that people believe in government like they do in religion is such a bad idea.

This article which I can't link, may be of your interest: Apple brand triggers brain reaction similar religious devotion. However I think these scientists may confuse social bonding with religion; it could be a brain reaction to social beloning; culture.

More to come.

I agree, structure doesn't have anything to do with the belief in "government" itself, the first part is just an opener showing how the structure is essentially the same as "the church." the second part goes further into disproving the existence of "authority/government."
The third part is a set of arguments against common state propaganda which "supports" the belief in "government.'

[redblood_blackflag]

So by this do you mean that the elderly and sick should depend only on their own savings and charity?

Do you mean that public hospitals, education and other assistance networks are authoritarian?

sure is liburhtarian here

How do you figure "public education," or anything funded by the state, is not "authoritarian" ? they demand you fund it regardless of if you use/want, attendance or completion to some degree regarding their "schooling" is considered compulsory, etc.

[La Guaneña]

How do you figure "public education," or anything funded by the state, is not "authoritarian" ? they demand you fund it regardless of if you use/want, attendance or completion to some degree regarding their "schooling" is considered compulsory, etc.

So education and health services should be private?

[redblood_blackflag]

And I don't think the idea that people believe in government like they do in religion is such a bad idea

Holocaust and gulag survivors, "japanese americans," "american slaves," and millions upon millions of people might disagree with you on that.

[redblood_blackflag]

So education and health services should be private?

Are you asking me if I feel people shouldn't be forced to fund things they don't want/use?

[La Guaneña]

Are you asking me if I feel people shouldn't be forced to fund things they don't want/use?

I'm asking you if education and health must be regulated by the private sectors, and the services sold to the interested population.

[redblood_blackflag]

So education and health services should be private?

Do you believe you should be forced, or force people to help the elderly, sick, etc? Wouldn't that be laying claim to the labor of another?

[La Guaneña]

Do you believe you should be forced, or force people to help the elderly, sick, etc? Wouldn't that be laying claim to the labor of another?

I support that property should be collectivized. That means that the hospitals and schools belong to society, that uses those services as needed.

Your liberalism is showing.

[redblood_blackflag]

I'm asking you if education and health must be regulated by the private sectors, and the services sold to the interested population.


I dont know about "must be regulated by the private sectors."
I wouldnt put it that way.
I just dont think people should be forced to pay for and fund things they don't want or use, and I don't support that idea, as it would essentially be laying claim to the labor and thus life of another.

[redblood_blackflag]

I support that property should be collectivized. That means that the hospitals and schools belong to society, that uses those services as needed.

Your liberalism is showing.

Who is society?

[La Guaneña]

Who is society?

Well, everybody.

[redblood_blackflag]

"liberals" are statists. they believe in "government" just the same, and advocate a state. They (historically) liked to call it "limited government," but that makes about as much sense as saying "a master which the slave controls."

[La Guaneña]

"liberals" are statists.

So, to condense your thinking, you support the abolishing of the state, or government, but not the collectivization of property?

[redblood_blackflag]

So, to condense your thinking, you support the abolishing of the state, or government, but not the collectivization of property?

"Government" doesn't exist. That is the whole point of this post. How can you aboliish something that doesnt exist?
"The State" exists as a group of people calling themselves "the state," running around demanding everyones obedience and initiating force against those who disobey. It can't be "abolished" until at least some relatively significant percentage of people feel no obligation to obey them, and no longer view their commands as "legitimate," and outright resist/disobey.

[La Guaneña]

"Government" doesn't exist. That is the whole point of this post. How can you aboliish something that doesnt exist?
"The State" exists as a group of people calling themselves "the state," running around demanding everyones obedience and initiating force against those who disobey. It can't be "abolished" until at least some relatively significant percentage of people feel no obligation to obey them, and no longer view their commands as "legitimate," and outright resist/disobey.

And what about private property?

[Blake's Baby]

Do you believe you should be forced, or force people to help the elderly, sick, etc? Wouldn't that be laying claim to the labor of another?...

Of course I do. Of course it is. Anything else I believe to be utterly inhuman.

Actually, it's not laying claim to their labour as such, but it is at least claiming the products of labour. All production is social (including the production of people, which are also social products) and therefore belongs to society, not to individuals. If you don't believe me, try to reply without using anything made by other people (a computer, electricity, communication satellites, microwave transmission towers or fibre-optic cables, the energy you derived from food grown by others, the English language, the education you have received in political concepts from other people, etc).



...
What do you mean by "social wealth" ?...

That which is produced by society.


...Did you read the opening post?...

Of course not, it was 400 lines of you quoting other people I've never heard of. I'm debating with you not them, that's why I'm asking you about your views not emailing other people to find our theirs.



...
I'm not sure what you mean by "society." Do you mean people and their interactions?

I'm not sure why you don't know what society means. We are social beings, humans have to live in social groups; the point of politics is to find a way that we can live together. Politics is about the organisation of our social groups.

So; I consider it reasonable that those who cannot work are supported by those that can, and I consider it reprehenisble that anyone could think otherwise.

[redblood_blackflag]

redblood_blackflag: Do you believe you should be forced, or force people to help the elderly, sick, etc? Wouldn't that be laying claim to the labor of another?
Blake's Baby: Of course I do. Of course it is. Anything else I believe to be utterly inhuman.
:(

http://nogov4me.net/archive/truth1.htm

[Blake's Baby]

Do you want the elderly, sick, and children to die, because if they can't work they're expendable?

A yes/no answer would do.

[redblood_blackflag]

No.




You don't see anything inhuman about this:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2573935&postcount=34
?

[Blake's Baby]

Anything 'inhuman' about society deciding that people who cannot help themselves need to to be helped? Of course I can't, I think it's the absolute basis of civilised behaviour and anything else is below animalistic.

So, you don't think the old, sick, and chldren should die because they can't work, how are they going to be fed, clothed, heated, sheltered, and looked after medically, etc, if only the workers are allowed to derive social wealth, because only they create social wealth?

[redblood_blackflag]

? Of course I can't, I think it's the absolute basis of civilised behaviour and anything else is below animalistic.



Forcing people to help others is the absolute basis of civilized behavior?
:confused:

[Blake's Baby]

The absolute basis of society is recognising that some cannot help themselves, and agreeing that it is the duty of those that can, to do so.

You know, solidarity, co-operation, self-help, all those things the Anarchist movement has been really into for nearly 170 years.

It is our shared humanity that compels us.

[redblood_blackflag]

The absolute basis of society is recognising that some cannot help themselves, and agreeing that it is the duty of those that can, to do so.

You know, solidarity, co-operation, self-help, all those things the Anarchist movement has been really into for nearly 170 years.

It is our shared humanity that compels us.

anarchists are all about forcing people to help others? what does forcing people to help others have to do with solidarity, cooperation, or self help ? how is it civilized, advanced or humane?
who imposed this duty on you?

[Blake's Baby]

The fact that I am a human being living in a society of other human beings compels me to help those who cannot help themselves.

That's what 'solidarity, co-operation and self-help' means.

So, you don't think the old, sick, and chldren should die because they can't work, how are they going to be fed, clothed, heated, sheltered, and looked after medically, etc, if only the workers are allowed to derive social wealth, because only they create social wealth?

[redblood_blackflag]

The fact that I am a human being living in a society of other human beings compels me to help those who cannot help themselves.

That's what 'solidarity, co-operation and self-help' means.

So, you don't think the old, sick, and chldren should die because they can't work, how are they going to be fed, clothed, heated, sheltered, and looked after medically, etc, if only the workers are allowed to derive social wealth, because only they create social wealth?

So you think it is humane to force people to carry out what you are compelled to do?

[Blake's Baby]

So, you don't think the old, sick, and chldren should die because they can't work, how are they going to be fed, clothed, heated, sheltered, and looked after medically, etc, if only the workers are allowed to derive social wealth, because only they create social wealth?

[redblood_blackflag]

Society doesnt have a body with which to create things of value to others, or a mind with which to attribute value to things. There is no "social wealth," or "wealth created by society," no wealth is created by this thing "society," a stand-alone entity in and of itself.
My answer would be voluntarily, myself, or with others who wish to do so, as opposed to forcing people to do what i think is "right," and saying theyre inhumane.
Your position reduces everyone (including yourself) to a meaningless cog in this machine you call "society," a slave to it.

[La Guaneña]

Your Ayn Rand is showing.

[redblood_blackflag]

Your Ayn Rand is showing.

Blake's blatantly oppressive, irrational authoritarianism is showing.

ayn rand believed in "limited government."

[Blake's Baby]

Society doesnt have a body with which to create things of value to others, or a mind with which to attribute value to things. There is no "social wealth," or "wealth created by society," no wealth is created by this thing "society," a stand-alone entity in and of itself.
My answer would be voluntarily, myself, or with others who wish to do so, as opposed to forcing people to do what i think is "right," and saying theyre inhumane.
Your position reduces everyone to a meaningless cog in this machine you call "society," a slave to it.

We are human beings, we are social animals.

Your 'voluntary charity' would result in the deaths of millions, perhaps billions.

All wealth is created socially. Try creating something without using language, tools, knowledge, materials, derived from the labour of others. While you are doing it, live on food that has only been grown, processed and cooked by you, on land that has not been worked, cleared or otherwise improved by other people; wearing clothes only made by you from materials gathered by you, and not the labour of any other people; using the health of your body that has been kept in a healthy state only by your effort and skill, not that of any other people; and when you have done all that, come back and show me and I'll admit you're an 'individual'. If you can't then I'm quite happy that you, just like me, just like everybody else on the planet, is a product of society. Most liekly however, you'd be dead within a fortnight. One human being is not a valid unit of survival. It is pointless to posit a society of 'individuals'.

[redblood_blackflag]

We are human beings, we are social animals.

Your 'voluntary charity' would result in the deaths of millions, perhaps billions.

All wealth is created socially. Try creating something without using language, tools, knowledge, materials, derived from the labour of others. While you are doing it, live on food that has only been grown, processed and cooked by you, on land that has not been worked, cleared or otherwise improved by other people; wearing clothes only made by you from materials gathered by you, and not the labour of any other people; using the health of your body that has been kept in a healthy state only by your effort and skill, not that of any other people; and when you have done all that, come back and show me and I'll admit you're an 'individual'. If you can't then I'm quite happy that you, just like me, just like everybody else on the planet, is a product of society. Most liekly however, you'd be dead within a fortnight. One human being is not a valid unit of survival. It is pointless to posit a society of 'individuals'.

a 'society of individuals' is all that has ever existed, if it ever has. how do you have a society with no individuals?
"wealth" is created by "individuals." not "society." i don't know how to articulate this in another way.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

So you think it is humane to force people to carry out what you are compelled to do?

I think you don't really understand what the whole "left" thing is about.

Do you mean force as in tax people and use that money to help those who can not help themselves? That's not what we are about, socialism isn't about whether we tax the rich 10% or 80%.

Socialism is about seizing the means of production from those who own it, and giving it back to those who they rightfully belong to, the working class. The state we speak of is nothing more than the working class exerting it's physical force upon the economy rather than allowing our species to be governed by market factors which can destroy livelihoods and cultures without a concern for whether we desire it or not. The State is an institution we use to continue class struggle against the bourgeois, since they won't give up their privilege voluntarily. Marxist's don't propose that we copy the bourgeois model of liberal democracy and the police state and just add the word "socialism" to the constitutions. We envision a state where the working class exerts complete democratic control over the body politic and managed every aspect of their live democratically. We want a state where "every chef is a czar and a bureaucrat, and thus there are no kings nor bureaucrats, A state that can not help but to wither away" ~Lenin

I advise you read Lenin's State and Revolution to understand what we mean by state. Please debate Lenin's conception of the state, because quite frankly we don't care all that much about the liberal state "forcing" millionaires to spare some pennies so us proles don't have to starve to death. Is that immoral? Good. I do not care that much about the bourgeois, nor do I see them as the subject of revolutionary morality. They are a category unto themselves and should be dealt with thusly, this is called class morality. Taxation of their kind is simply irrelevant to me. Heck, Socialist Albania even abolished taxes, and to me that is a commendable socialist action. But of course, the abolition of taxation in that context coincided with the violent abolition of the bourgeois as a class.

Here is Lenin's State and Revolution

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

This poster is clearly an Anarcho Capitalist, or one of those Agorian tendencies that doesn't identify it's self as capitalism and calls it's self libertarian socialist. I say we don't ban him because the debates around here are just circle jerks around useless theoretical bullshit, where no attempt to articulate an argument against capitalism is made. So I think having him here would serve to revive the intellectually dead atmosphere of this website.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

a 'society of individuals' is all that has ever existed, if it ever has. how do you have a society with no individuals?

Determinism my good sir. We are nothing but the result of the environment around us, and like everything else in this universe we are subject to the law of causality, that is cause and effect. What you call the individual consciousness, is simply the consciousness of the external as reflected in it's particular manifestation of you as an individual. There is no dichotomy between individualism and collectivism, because neither exist.

[redblood_blackflag]

I'm a "state should wither away" kind of "socialist."

[Blake's Baby]

a 'society of individuals' is all that has ever existed, if it ever has. how do you have a society with no individuals?
"wealth" is created by "individuals." not "society." i don't know how to articulate this in another way.

Illegitimate answer. You're using language that you derived from othern people. Cease and desist, you're robbing them of their labour.

Labour power is produced by individuals, who are themselves produced by society, but that which is laboured upon, and that which guides the labour 9polanning, co-operation, recognition of mutual needs) is a social venture.

Prove me wrong by doing what I asked you to do before. Go into the wilderness with absolutely nothing produced by the rest of society (I'll rather genourously say you get to keep the language - though it'll be useless to communicate with other people as there aren't any - and skills you've already learned from us) and come back in seven years of complete isolation, if you're not dead, and then we can pick up this conversation again.

[redblood_blackflag]

Determinism my good sir. We are nothing but the result of the environment around us, and like everything else in this universe we are subject to the law of causality, that is cause and effect. What you call the individual consciousness, is simply the consciousness of the external as reflected in it's particular manifestation of you as an individual. There is no dichotomy between individualism and collectivism, because neither exist.

Well, how do you propose changing the cause of the effect if you are subject to the effect?

[redblood_blackflag]

Illegitimate answer. You're using language that you derived from othern people. Cease and desist, you're robbing them of their labour.

Labour power is produced by individuals, who are themselves produced by society, but that which is laboured upon, and that which guides the labour 9polanning, co-operation, recognition of mutual needs) is a social venture.

Prove me wrong by doing what I asked you to do before. Go into the wilderness with absolutely nothing produced by the rest of society (I'll rather genourously say you get to keep the language - though it'll be useless to communicate with other people as there aren't any - and skills you've already learned from us) and come back in seven years of complete isolation, if you're not dead, and then we can pick up this conversation again.

Youve already admitted you lay claim to the labor of others.
I don't know how to further articulate the reality that the thing you call "society" is made up of "individuals," and only "individuals" are capable of manipulating nature, creating and valuing things, etc. Because "wealth" is created via social interaction, it doesn't follow that there is some imaginary entity called "society" which owns it all, in my view, something beyond the "individuals" actually laboring.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't know why you're not restricted yet, I'm sick of seeing your posts.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I'm a "state should whither away" kind of "socialist."

I'm not sure if you understand what that concept entails. Lenin explains this quite brilliantly in my opinion:

Democracy for the vast majority of the people, and suppression by force, i.e., exclusion from democracy, of the exploiters and oppressors of the people--this is the change democracy undergoes during the transition from capitalism to communism.


Only in communist society, when the resistance of the capitalists have disappeared, when there are no classes (i.e., when there is no distinction between the members of society as regards their relation to the social means of production), only then "the state... ceases to exist", and "it becomes possible to speak of freedom". Only then will a truly complete democracy become possible and be realized, a democracy without any exceptions whatever. And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims. They will become accustomed to observing them without force, without coercion, without subordination, without the special apparatus for coercion called the state.

The expression "the state withers away" is very well-chosen, for it indicates both the gradual and the spontaneous nature of the process. Only habit can, and undoubtedly will, have such an effect; for we see around us on millions of occassions how readily people become accustomed to observing the necessary rules of social intercourse when there is no exploitation, when there is nothing that arouses indignation, evokes protest and revolt, and creates the need for suppression.

The "withering away of the state" does not mean the immediate abolition of the state. It merely means creating a state that simultaneously achieves the practical necessities for it's abolition, that is continuing the class struggle against the bourgeois, and that is presumes the political form that allows it to gradually abolish it's self by the mere form it takes (being direct democracy, where the workers learn how to rule over production).

So no, you aren't a socialist by the Leninist definition. nor do I think you are by the Marxist definition either but I can not speak for every school of Marxism

[redblood_blackflag]

I don't know why you're not restricted yet, I'm sick of seeing your posts.

Who is making you read them? The "government?"

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Well, how do you propose changing the cause of the effect if you are subject to the effect?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. I am merely saying that for actions to be immoral due to the use of force then this implies the inverse that there is such a thing as a voluntary action, which in turn implies free will which does not exist.

[Blake's Baby]

Youve already admitted you lay claim to the labor of others...

And you claim you don't, which is why I'm pointing out it's hypocrisy on your part to say one thing and do another. Your entire life has been furnished by the labour of others. I don't mind, I think that's fine, that's what humans do. You, however, think it's not fine, but you've done it anyway. If you're right - then you've stolen however many years of labour you've been alive from the rest of us. Either, give it back, or stop whining about how you don't think you should have to give a monkey's about other people. Pick one. Be a human being, part of society, and step up to your obligations to others, or give back what you've stolen from us (the investment of our labour in you).


...
I don't know how to further articulate the reality that the thing you call "society" is made up of "individuals," and only "individuals" are capable of manipulating nature, creating and valuing things, etc. Because "wealth" is created via social interaction, it doesn't follow that there is some imaginary entity called "society" which owns it all, in my view, something beyond the "individuals" actually laboring.

Which is fine. But because wealth is created through social interaction, there is no way of seperating out who 'owns' or 'has made' what. It's all made by all of us. Get over it.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Youve already admitted you lay claim to the labor of others.
.

Capitalism is based on extracting the surplus labor from the working class and distributing it to the boss in the form of profit. So this is a bit of a non arguement since labor will always be extanged in some matter or another whether it be under socialism or capitalism. The sole difference being that under socialism labor exists for the betterment of the working class rather than for profit

[DancingEmma]

Margaret Thatcher once said "there is no such thing as society," and I guess redblood_blackflag agrees with her on that. Redblood and I had a several hour, in-depth discussion in the chat room before he was banned from it. I agree that he could accurately be described as an "anarcho-capitalist" or "market anarchist," although he identifies himself only as an "anarchist," because he erroneously believes his version of anarchism is the only version that exists. But in fact, his form is anarchism is a minority position among anarchists, and in my opinion, his position is neither leftist nor particularly coherent. He spent about an hour trying to convince me about what seems to be his central tenet: "the government does not exist." I don't really get that one.

In any event, redblood_blackflag rejects that there are social rights to food, shelter, health care, and so on. I told him that believing in an individual right to property, as he does, while rejecting social rights to the basic necessities of survival, is sloppy theory, not compassionate, and incompatible with his stated objective of abolishing the state. But he continues to believe in his John Locke-style, property is sacred bullshit. Oh well.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I don't think we ought to frame it as rights in the liberal sense however. We should instead redefine rights as what man needs to realize his full potential as a creative and productive being, it should be based on what objectively makes him better off rather than philosophical bullshit

[DancingEmma]

I don't think we ought to frame it as rights in the liberal sense however. We should instead redefine rights as what man needs to realize his full potential as a creative and productive being, it should be based on what objectively makes him better off rather than philosophical bullshit

I certainly agree with this. I admit I do believe in human rights, and that my belief in these is certainly influenced by my liberal background. I like to think that I've jettisoned most of the liberal baggage associated with such beliefs though. I do believe in those rights that allow human beings to realize their full potential--that allow all of us to be better off. That's why I don't believe in a right to property, because I believe the institution of property is destructive to society as a whole. I do believe, however, that people have a right to eat, to be clothed, to be sheltered, to be educated, to receive health care, to decide with others through consensus how their society will function, and so on. I don't think this is a "liberal" conception of human rights, though, and if others come to broadly similar conclusions about what a desirable society looks like without using the language of "rights," that's fine by me.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I certainly agree with this. I admit I do believe in human rights, and that my belief in these is certainly influenced by my liberal background. I like to think that I've jettisoned most of the liberal baggage associated with such beliefs though. I do believe in those rights that allow human beings to realize their full potential--that allow all of us to be better off. That's why I don't believe in a right to property, because I believe the institution of property is destructive to society as a whole. I do believe, however, that people have a right to eat, to be clothed, to be sheltered, to be educated, to receive health care, to decide with others through consensus how their society will function, and so on. I don't think this is a "liberal" conception of human rights, though, and if others come to broadly similar conclusions about what a desirable society looks like without using the language of "rights," that's fine by me.

I guess it is a matter of where you came from. I was once an Anarcho Capitalist and what drove me to Marxism was not it's mortality but it's through critique of capitalist economics. Still I think that perhaps it would do you good to read this small little essay by JMP to get what I mean.

Sorry to make you read, I know it's kinda rude in some respects. But I would like the discussion and yet I should be doing homework so I can't outline every point I have that distinguishes class morality from socialist humanistic morality.

http://moufawad-paul.blogspot.com/2011/11/we-have-not-yet-passed-beyond-class.html

"We have not yet passed beyond class morality…"
Recently I have been reflecting on an anecdote at the beginning of Mobo Gao's The Battle For China's Past regarding a presentation on the Cultural Revolution at a conference in South Korea. After one presenter attacked the Cultural Revolution because of her parents' negative experience, an audience member stood up and asked the presenter about her family's background. When the presenter admitted that her parents were members of a privileged intellectual class––a class whose privilege was targeted during this confusing period––the audience member replied, "So no wonder. My father used to be head of the production team leader in my village. He still recalls the Cultural Revolution with fond memories because that was his most brilliant years. Those were years when the farmers felt proud and elated." Gao's overall point was that our understanding of the past, and how we assess significant historical moments, is always filtered through our social position and the consciousness this position produces.

Furthermore, our ability to make moral judgments about the past and present––to call something like the Cultural Revolution, despite its clear failures, the high point of revolution, or to dismiss it as either a lamentable tragedy or heinous "abuse of human rights"––is never objectively separate from our class position or consciousness. If we morally side with mass movements on behalf of the oppressed than we have to side with those great revolutions that empowered the oppressed masses and disempowered the exploiters and oppressors; if we morally side with business as usual, and accept that the liberal capitalist state of affairs is not synonymous with terrible violence and oppression but is in fact "liberating", then we will always be drawn to those liberal and conservative historical accounts that morally condemn this century's world historical revolutions. As Engels argued in Anti-Duhring:
"[A]ll moral theories have been hitherto the product, in the last analysis, of the economic conditions of society obtaining at the time. And as society has hitherto moved in class antagonism, morality has always been class morality; it has either justified the domination and the interests of the ruling class, or ever since the oppressed class became powerful enough, it has represented its indignation against this domination and the future interests of the oppressed. […] But we have not yet passed beyond class morality. A really human morality which stands above class antagonisms and above any recollection of them becomes possible only at a stage of society which has not only overcome class antagonisms but has even forgotten them in practical life." (Engels, Collected Works of Marx and Engels vol. 25, p. 88)
So when we make moral assessments and judgments we are always making them according to a class position and to believe otherwise is to imagine that there is a morality outside of history, Platonic notions of the good and the just, rather than to understand that ethics is eminently historical. If we can speak of ethical universality, and I think we can, then it has to be based on a socio-historical understanding of the material nature of the human species, and since humans are currently not outside of class conflict, or free from historical structures of oppression, then we have to accept that such a universal understanding of ethics is an ethics in development, a morality that only become "really human" once humanity has been freed from the oppressive structures it itself has produced.

And yet there is a common sense understanding of morality that, often naturalizing liberal moralism, imagines there can be objective ethical judgements. Amnesty International, regardless of what it sometimes is able to accomplish, functions according to the dogma of "human rights", a liberal understanding of morality based on the notion of individual rights bearers, calculating death statistics, and relying on dubious sources that they imagine to be objective. The fact that Amnesty representatives in Nepal during the height of the Peoples War were seen as collaborators, supported the Royal Army, is something ignored when people assessed the statistical reports Amnesty produced during that period: believers in liberal morality did not ask questions about the sources, about whether or not an organization like Amnesty could really exist outside of the imperialist world system, or critically engage with the possibility that NGOs work, to greater or lesser degrees, in propping up global capitalism. The organization can pass as "neutral", as if there can be neutrality in class war, and its statistics as "scientific", as if they were produced in a laboratory, under a microscope, by an observer who was not embedded in the larger class-divided ethical terrain.

I was again reminded of this failure to understand morality as a class-contested terrain when, a couple nights ago, I was talking to a comrade about the Sendero Luminoso (the Shining Path) and she was rightly complaining about a classmate who was presenting the normative North American mainstream media understanding of this organization. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Peru produced a thorough report human rights report about abuses in Peru during the Peoples War and, representing itself as an "independent" body, concluded that the Sendero Luminoso was responsibility for the majority of the violence. And yet, a cursory investigation of this Commission should indicate, to anyone who is critical enough to examine the source they repeat without reflection, that it was far from "independent"––in fact, it was even less independent than other class-embedded Human Rights groups. The Commission's chairman, for example, was Salomón Lerner Ghitis, a Peruvian businessman and politician who would eventually become Peru's Prime Minister. And the rest of the Commission was stacked with former Peruvian military representatives (including an Airforce General), conservative Catholics, and Evangelical Missionaries. There is no representation of the Peruvian peasantry in this commission; they were a priori barred since the majority of them (who make up the majority of Peruvian society) supported the Senderistas. So trusting such a group to honestly assess a revolutionary war, when the majority of its members were anti-communist, is like filling an "independent commission" with members of the IDF and Kahanist settlers and then asking them to give us an accurate assessment of the Palestinian Intifida.

I am not arguing that the Sendero Luminoso was beyond reproach. I think the organization degenerated in various areas due to an erroneous political line on the national question, and the cult of personality around Abimael Guzman ("Gonzalo Thought") that actually served to prevent the Sendero Luminoso from winning the Peoples War. Nor am I arguing that they were not responsible for excesses. What I am arguing, however, is that to use the supposedly "independent" Truth and Reconciliation Commission as a rational measurement of the activities of the Shining Path is in itself an ethical judgment made from a position of class. Moving away from the Sendero Luminoso example, I would argue that so many leftists make this type of ethical judgment without even realizing they are ethically deciding to side with the morality of the ruling class which will *always* present every failed revolution as a crime against human rights––human rights understood, in this context, as a violation of the rights of the oppressor by those masses who don't want to be oppressed.

Even worse, so many people rely on these ruling class sources without even understanding what sources they are using. Whenever I argue with irate liberals about Mao and the Chinese Revolution, I am shocked by how many of them do not understand that they are relying on the anti-communist, and extremely dubious, arguments originally made by John Foster Dulles (and later repeated, without any other sourcing, by Chang and Halliday), one of the pre-eminent USAmerican Cold Warriors (known for his "domino theory" of East Asia and for engineering the Shah's coup in Iran). The source is forgotten, the argument normative because it is an argument that defends the state of the world as is––it is part of the common sense that treats capitalism as the end of history. I have always argued that without investigation there should be no right to speak: if you're going to uncritically accept the ethical position of the ruling class, at least know your sources. Simply arguing something is "common sense" only means that it is common sense for the moral sensibilities you have uncritically adopted––it is not common sense for those of us who support class revolution, it is not common sense for the majority of the world's oppressed populations who still believe that your villains are their heroes.

None of this is to say that the left should not be critical about its mistakes, failures, and excesses, let alone to simply accept every act of revolutionary violence as "moral". But if the point is to critique from the left rather than the right, then we also have to critically engage with the necessity of revolutionary violence from the standpoint of the oppressed's morality. This engagement, however, not only teaches us that the greatest violence is what is made normative by global capitalism––and that all revolutionary violence is primarily a tragic response to a context of ongoing terror––but forces us to ask difficult questions that are not always easily solved, are not clear-cut in the way that liberal ethicists would want them to be, and do not rely on the uncritical acceptance of bourgeois morality. So when we understand that the oppressor at every stage of history has charged hir rebellious slaves with being "oppressive" and "violent" and "immoral", and that this charge is an insult for the slaves who make history, we will begin to understand ethics.

And pardon me for citing JMP. Some people don't like him around here because a couple of years ago his blog was basically about making strawmen points against Trots, but as this article will demonstrate he's moved past that stage

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Society doesnt have a body with which to create things of value to others, or a mind with which to attribute value to things. There is no "social wealth," or "wealth created by society," no wealth is created by this thing "society," a stand-alone entity in and of itself.
My answer would be voluntarily, myself, or with others who wish to do so, as opposed to forcing people to do what i think is "right," and saying theyre inhumane.
Your position reduces everyone (including yourself) to a meaningless cog in this machine you call "society," a slave to it.
And you're just totally ignorant about how things operate in a society. You're really good at abstracting but that's about it.

Wealth of course is created by individuals but only through individuals working in society is it created. Workers have the right to the full value of their labor? How is value created? Value itself is social by nature. A worker creates car doors for a living. What is he going to do with a car door? He can't eat a car door, car doors don't make comfortable clothing, etc. His labor is valuable from a social point of view because it contributes to society.

What Blake's Baby brings up is a good question, if workers are the only ones that can lay claim to the value created by them, what of those that don't create value? Kids, elderly, the sick. What if the workers get greedy and don't want to help those people out? They just die?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

And to go off of A Revolutionary Tool's point. Who is to say that the differently abled (yes I hate that term as much as you but there is no better word for it) aren't valuable? Surely in the age of the division of labor, the inability to do one task does not make them useless, it merely means that we ought to give them the means to achieve their creative potential in what area they are capable of. And as for the elderly, it is not as if they were never workers at some point. We all have relatives and for the most part we love them, and likewise we all want to preserve them and ensure that they can live a happy life for whatever is left of their time on earth. So the idea of taking care of the elderly as a part of the social can fit into both altruism and mutual egoism.

[DancingEmma]

Yet_Another. . .I just read the article you linked. I must say that for the most part I disagree, which is not too surprising, since as an anarchist I strongly reject both Marxist-Leninism and Maoism. I don't believe that Mao advocated for the interests of the oppressed in any significant way; I believe rather that he and his party took the place of the aristocracy and capitalists and became the new oppressor. So I choose to stand by my own personal conception of what's right and what's wrong, rather than taking the word of vanguardists who claim they're standing up for the class interests of the bulk of society (regardless of whether the bulk of society has any say in it or not). This doesn't mean I take the side of liberal or capitalist institutions such as the Peruvian government or Amnesty International either. I'm fully capable of looking at ALL institutions critically and coming to conclusions for myself, whether those institutions are capitalist or ostensibly "socialist." Finally, I'm not even a Marxist or a historical materialist, and I reject the simplistic dichotomy the article posits between "the morality of the oppressor" and "the morality of the oppressed." Our social position doesn't just slot us into one of two groups--workers or capitalists. Our social position is complex and involves not merely our economic class but also our race, nationality, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability status, and so on. All of these contextual factors (among others) influence the nature of our individual ethical views and how those ethical views impact our treatment of other people for good or ill.

[Ocean Seal]

I don't think it's that simple, nor do I find that its a 1:1 transfer. Certainly I'm more inclined to believe that capitalism rather than government is the religion, but y'all know I'm the most type of authoritarian, so this isn't impartial.

[Blake's Baby]

So, R_B:

do you believe in the right to have the necessities of survival, which exists by virtue of being human?

do you believe in any other kind of right to property?

[redblood_blackflag]

Margaret Thatcher once said "there is no such thing as society," and I guess redblood_blackflag agrees with her on that. Redblood and I had a several hour, in-depth discussion in the chat room before he was banned from it. I agree that he could accurately be described as an "anarcho-capitalist" or "market anarchist," although he identifies himself only as an "anarchist," because he erroneously believes his version of anarchism is the only version that exists. But in fact, his form is anarchism is a minority position among anarchists, and in my opinion, his position is neither leftist nor particularly coherent. He spent about an hour trying to convince me about what seems to be his central tenet: "the government does not exist." I don't really get that one.

In any event, redblood_blackflag rejects that there are social rights to food, shelter, health care, and so on. I told him that believing in an individual right to property, as he does, while rejecting social rights to the basic necessities of survival, is sloppy theory, not compassionate, and incompatible with his stated objective of abolishing the state. But he continues to believe in his John Locke-style, property is sacred bullshit. Oh well.
"Anarchism... holds that god, society, and the state are non-existent." - Emma Goldman.
I never said you don't have a right to shelter. We Must be having a huge miscommunication, or, something........ Blake lays claim to all your labor, positing you are all his slaves essentially... and yet, your social class? Society is non existent, but there is social class? Society has wealth? And rights?
It's not like I can "tell" you this, though. You have to reason and give up the myth yourself. Did you read the opening post?

[DancingEmma]

"Anarchism... holds that god, society, and the state are non-existent." - Emma Goldman.
I never said you don't have a right to shelter. We Must be having a huge miscommunication, or, something........ Blake lays claim to all your labor, positing you are all his slaves essentially... and yet, your social class? Society is non existent, but there is social class? Society has wealth? And rights?
It's not like I can "tell" you this, though. You have to reason and give up the myth yourself. Did you read the opening post?

That quote you cite from Emma Goldman is egregiously out of context as anyone with good reading comprehension skills will realize if they read the entire essay, "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For." It's a rhetorical flourish, and she is not literally saying that the state and society do not exist, as the rest of her essay makes clear. I'm glad you think I have a right to shelter. I think all people have a right to shelter, and also a right to food, education, health care, and so on. . .and I distinctly remember you arguing against such a notion in our chat, although perhaps I misunderstood you. And Blake isn't saying we're his slaves. He's saying that labor is a collective endeavor, and the products of it belong to everyone in the community, and I happen to agree with him on that. One's labor couldn't produce much on its own without the help of others, as Blake has repeatedly pointed out to you.

And to be honest, I did not read your opening post because I'm already familiar with your views and your opening post was incredibly long and partially a repetition of what you've already told me. So I saw no point in reading it, no offense.

[Blake's Baby]

... Blake lays claim to all your labor, positing you are all his slaves essentially...

If you like, as I must be the slave of everyone else. If you think 'being human' is the same as 'being a slave', then we are all slaves to each other.

Do you believe in the right to have the necessities of survival, which exists by virtue of being human?

Do you believe in any other kind of right to property?

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

redblood_blackflag

You are very keen on the use of "quotation marks"
Just a pointless observation, carry on.

[redblood_blackflag]

Society exists as groups and, primarily, individuals interacting. Only individuals create and value things. Maybe two or more individuals create something. It's still individuals doing it. The state exists as a group of people calling themselves the state and claiming everyone is their "subject." Either way, individuals manipulate nature, and turn it into something they value or needed, or others do. There's no central bank allotting all "social wealth," there are just individuals with needs and wants, who attribute value to things. I'm not sure how else what Blake said could be interpreted. I clearly asked specifically, he clearly answered.

[redblood_blackflag]

Health care isn't a right, it's a service. You have the right to seek health care. Or to go and get what you need to be well, but to say health care, or anything which another human must provide you, is your right is to say others are inherently obligated to serve you, that they are your slaves and must labor for you, inherently, not because they CHOSE to obligate themselves (the only actual legitimate obligations anyone can have- which are null and void at the individuals discretion- and are self imposed)

[redblood_blackflag]

And you're just totally ignorant about how things operate in a society. You're really good at abstracting but that's about it.

Wealth of course is created by individuals but only through individuals working in society is it created. Workers have the right to the full value of their labor? How is value created? Value itself is social by nature. A worker creates car doors for a living. What is he going to do with a car door? He can't eat a car door, car doors don't make comfortable clothing, etc. His labor is valuable from a social point of view because it contributes to society.

What Blake's Baby brings up is a good question, if workers are the only ones that can lay claim to the value created by them, what of those that don't create value? Kids, elderly, the sick. What if the workers get greedy and don't want to help those people out? They just die?
What if the workers get greedy? Good question!
I could ask you guys the same thing.
The thing is, I believe the worker is entitled to the full value of his labor, therefore, I don't view it as being greedy by keeping what is theirs. I think it's greedy, and intellectual sloth to demand everybody else take care of people because you want to (if that is the case)

[redblood_blackflag]

If you like, as I must be the slave of everyone else. If you think 'being human' is the same as 'being a slave', then we are all slaves to each other.

Do you believe in the right to have the necessities of survival, which exists by virtue of being human?

Do you believe in any other kind of right to property?

Must you?
No, I'm not your or anyone else's slave.
I don't think being human is the same as being a slave, I think your position equates to slavery and is entirely anti-human, as is all belief in "government," statism, and "authority." . You seem to think forcing people generally to help others is the same as caring, but it isn't. It's reducing everyone into a slave. you imply forcing people to help others is humane and said not forcing people to help others is inhumane.
Did you happen to click the link I posted in reply to your comment about how you think laying claim to the labor of others is the only humane way to, whatever, help the needy basically- ? The "every once and a while an authoritarian tells the truth" page?

[redblood_blackflag]

If you like, as I must be the slave of everyone else. If you think 'being human' is the same as 'being a slave', then we are all slaves to each other.

Do you believe in the right to have the necessities of survival, which exists by virtue of being human?

Do you believe in any other kind of right to property?

Probably not what you mean. Nobody has a "right to food," as in, someone giving them food, or education, in someone teaching them, etc, or shelter in someone else giving them shelter. This might be tricky, since you guys seem to think these things are created by "society," whoever that is, but, they're not. They're created and facilitated by specific individuals within society.
My belief is that Individuals have the right to what they produce. And to seek education from those willing to teach, the right to shelter themselves, build their own, sustain themselves, etc. You don't have a right to other people's labor, or what they create with it. To say so is just to say you're the master, and, you're not.

[redblood_blackflag]

You guys keep calling me an anarcho capitalist, but I never have. I used to consider myself a democratic socialist, then a libertarian socialist, then I gave up the myth of authority.if anything other than anarchist, agorist, market anarchist, voluntaryistfree market anarchist, or mutualist are other things people have used and which I suppose would apply to me. Maybe not in some of your opinions.


You cannot properly say anyone stole something from you, if you do (more for "anarcho communists" who take "property is theft" literally- if any... I noticed there are some good posts here discussing that, though), without implying/supporting the right to property, regardless of what you want to call it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Society exists as groups and, primarily, individuals interacting. Only individuals create and value things. Maybe two or more individuals create something. It's still individuals doing it. The state exists as a group of people calling themselves the state and claiming everyone is their "subject." Either way, individuals manipulate nature, and turn it into something they value or needed, or others do. There's no central bank allotting all "social wealth," there are just individuals with needs and wants, who attribute value to things. I'm not sure how else what Blake said could be interpreted. I clearly asked specifically, he clearly answered.

Induvidual labor contributes to wealth in this society, but past feudalism, most people don't make wealth in isolation. Modern techniques developed under capitalism for rapid profit-making on the one hand is much better than induvidual production on a small scale because while induviduals can produce enough to live on and maybe a little more, the concentration of labor efforts with capitalism has created a great deal of surplus to the point where we could all have more than we would need. The problem is the way this collective process is managed and put to use: managed by privite owners for the sole purpose (in the large scale) of accumulating profits. This dirve and the inherently undemocratic nature of the set up also create all sorts of other problems for workers and even the capitalists themselves, but in short that is modern production in society.

You say you don't want to be anyone's slave, but a workforce dependant on wages to survive is inherent in capitalism. If profits rates shrink, then innovation may give a short-term edge to one capitalist firm over another, but as soon as the other companies adapt, that advantage goes back to zero and so the only way to beat other relativly equal capitalist production efforts is to either speed up work done by workers or reduce their pay. When the "natural" wage-supressing effects of the system have been inadaquate, capitalists always turn to legal authroity, the state, to encolse common lands, outlaw vagrancy, concript labor outright, or as in the most recent era use monitray policies to drive down living standards and wage expectations.

The only way to be able to produce enough for us to live decent and healthy lives is to combine our labor, but the capitalist method for this is anti-democratic and relies on the majority being dependant on the owning class for wages, housing, food and everything else basically.

To have real equality where no one has power over others requires changing this arrangement in society; esentially democratizing production and having people self-direct the use of resources.

The full value of a wage-worker's labor is all the wealth of society. Because all the roads and cities and industries are the product of a whole system of labor, it is simply impossible in the modern world to say that X worker get full autonomous control of X birdhouses he made but worker Y who provides a service or an support role in production doesn't get anything because they didn't produce anything. Or is the "full value" of their labor the "use value" of that labor in which case janitors will be paid more than a receptionist because people value not getting infections from dirty places more than leaving a message with a person and not a machine. But then that would require a huge government beurocracy to determine who gets what. So what I think you are really saying is: let the "market" decide how much workers get paid.


Must you?
No, I'm not your or anyone else's slave.
I don't think being human is the same as being a slave, I think your position equates to slavery and is entirely anti-human, as is all belief in "government," statism, and "authority." . You seem to think forcing people generally to help others is the same as caring, but it isn't. It's reducing everyone into a slave. you imply forcing people to help others is humane and said not forcing people to help others is inhumane.
Did you happen to click the link I posted in reply to your comment about how you think laying claim to the labor of others is the only humane way to, whatever, help the needy basically- ? The "every once and a while an authoritarian tells the truth" page?

Production is cooperative and as a whole impacts the entire society. It is absurd to try and break down this collective effort. If you are driving on a road, are road crews "your slaves"? No, this is absurd. The only viable way to have eveyone be an autonomous producer is to return to feudalism and give eveyone a little plot of land and access to the commons. But no one brought up under capitalism would want to live that way and at least a thrid of us would just die from bad weather conditions and whatnot.

So cooperative production is just a fact of modern life - the question though is how is this cooperative process organized, by whom, and for what purpose.

If all those who are able, and want to live and enjoy the surplus that's possible, worked and cooperativly and equally organized that work, then why would they not want to use the extra surplus they have created to make a better life for themselves and by extention everyone? Why would they want their infirmed parents or sick children not to enjoy a home and food and luxuries if this surplus exists? Would it be that these productive induviduals are "slaves" or that they are simply directing the efforts of their labor towards "useful" production, to make life better?

This is the difference between a potential society based on worker's power and the current societies of capitalist power. Capitalists and their governments don't have authority over people just because they are assholes, they don't persue policies which create inequality out of simple greed alone. Inequality in wealth and power are fundamental to capitalism as a system because for profits to be made, some people must be kept dependant on working for capitalist. In feudal societies, repression also wan't because the aristocrats were assholes, it was to ensure the continueation of a ridged caste system which kept people tied to the land and the landed nobility. The forms of governance that these ruling groups developed revolve around maintaining these imbalences so their systems of exploitation can contine. Workers, however, do not need to exploit people, they don't need to force anyone else to work and enrich them; instead better coordinating efforts, more control over the conditions of work, making labor less soul-crushing and alienating would be drives built into a worker-driven organization of society. They would have no material or ideological need to deny the sick or old anything. Capitalism does this because our "worth" as workers is only how well we can work at the pace and in the manner that will make the most profits for capitalists. If someone can only work 2 hours a day regularly, or if someone is manic-depressive and can't work some months out of the year, then this labor is less profitable. It's not that a slower-working worker couldn't contribute, it's just that they can't contribute to a production-process based on maximizing exploitation and so generally in capitalist societies, such people are disfavored on the "job market" and "thrown away" by capitalist society.

[Blake's Baby]

Must you?
No, I'm not your or anyone else's slave.
I don't think being human is the same as being a slave, I think your position equates to slavery and is entirely anti-human, as is all belief in "government," statism, and "authority." ...

If you think living in a community is the same as being a slave, then you do think being human is slavery, because humans are animals that live in social groups ie communities.

Of course, if you believe a single human being is a viable unit of survival, go away and prove it. Live by yourself with nothing that has been produced by anyone else for seven years, then come back and tell us how individual you are. Fact is, without the rest of us and what we've done for you and continue to do for you, you'd be dead in 2 weeks.


... You seem to think forcing people generally to help others is the same as caring, but it isn't. It's reducing everyone into a slave. you imply forcing people to help others is humane and said not forcing people to help others is inhumane...

Anyone who doesn't care about other people is inhumane, because 'humane' means caring about other people.


...Did you happen to click the link I posted in reply to your comment about how you think laying claim to the labor of others is the only humane way to, whatever, help the needy basically- ? The "every once and a while an authoritarian tells the truth" page?

Yes I did, it seemed to be some badly-laid-out, out-of-context, badly-editorialised drivel. Point?

[redblood_blackflag]

If you think living in a community is the same as being a slave, then you do think being human is slavery, because humans are animals that live in social groups ie communities.

Of course, if you believe a single human being is a viable unit of survival, go away and prove it. Live by yourself with nothing that has been produced by anyone else for seven years, then come back and tell us how individual you are. Fact is, without the rest of us and what we've done for you and continue to do for you, you'd be dead in 2 weeks.



Anyone who doesn't care about other people is inhumane, because 'humane' means caring about other people.



Yes I did, it seemed to be some badly-laid-out, out-of-context, badly-editorialised drivel. Point?

That wasn't produced by anyone else? Do you mean that wasn't produced by "society" ? I didn't say living in a community equates to slavery, I said your position in which you claim forcing people to help others is humane, and lay claim to the labor of all others, equates to slavery.

People who don't care about others are not humane, because humane means caring about other people-? I refer you to the post in which you admit you lay claim to the labor of others and think forcing people to help others is humane.
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2573924&postcount=33

Oh, it's drivel, alright. No arguments there.
Here it is again, in case you'd like to refresh: http://nogov4me.net/archive/truth1.htm

[Blake's Baby]

That wasn't produced by anyone else? Do you mean that wasn't produced by "society" ? I didn't say living in a community equates to slavery, I said your position in which you claim forcing people to help others is humane, and lay claim to the labor of all others, equates to slavery...

if you posit youself as a single lone individual, then everone who isn't you constitutes 'society'. So, do without the rest of us, and everything we have produced that you use (our electricity, our computers, our food, our language, our clothes, our houses, our roads, our language, our knowledge, none of which was created by you so you must realise that by using it you are appropriating our labour) and live by yourself removeed from society. Or, be exposed as a hypocrite.


...
People who don't care about others are not humane, because humane means caring about other people-? I refer you to the post in which you admit you lay claim to the labor of others and think forcing people to help others is humane...

Our humanity forces us. The fact that we are social beings forces us. To deny our human nature and pretend that we are not connected to everyone else is both 'inhuman' and 'inhumane'.


Oh, it's drivel, alright. No arguments there.
Here it is again, in case you'd like to refresh: http://nogov4me.net/archive/truth1.htm

Post it as many timjes as you like, it's still unreadable.

Instead of relying on other people's work (you don't believe in that, right?) why don't you do some work yourself and explain to the rest of us why it's important or what it means?

While you're on, you can explain what happens to the children, elderly and sick, who are not able to find people to care for them in your wonderful new world?

[redblood_blackflag]

Your humanity forces you to force humans to help others. Alright.

I can't tell you what it means. You have to reason through it yourself. I can say it's contradictory because you're just putting yourself in the position of self proclaimed master and degrading all humans, but I can't make you understand it, or realize it.

[Blake's Baby]

Humanity forces all of us to help each other.

Therefore, if you don't help, you're denying your on humanity. And denying the fact that we helped you all these years. Face it, without us, you wouldn't have lasted a fortnight.

[Jimmie Higgins]

That wasn't produced by anyone else? Do you mean that wasn't produced by "society" ? I didn't say living in a community equates to slavery, I said your position in which you claim forcing people to help others is humane, and lay claim to the labor of all others, equates to slavery.


People who don't care about others are not humane, because humane means caring about other people-? I refer you to the post in which you admit you lay claim to the labor of others and think forcing people to help others is humane.

Oh, it's drivel, alright. No arguments there.
Here it is again, in case you'd like to refresh: http://nogov4me.net/archive/truth1.htm

There is pleanty of surplus that is (and could potentially be even more) created through modern production. The question is, why should this be rationed out in ways controlled by the eliete of capitalists desire? If this collective surplus is controlled by the majority who create it, why would they deney it to their family members and neighbors who can't work for one reason or another.

If you want to be cynical about it, maybe a society where these workers could live and not have to worry about being attacked by those in desperate poverty, not catching illnesses from those who are denied health service, would be incentive enough.

But really it comes down to what I said in my last post. Inequality is inherent to capitalism because it is a system that needs to be able to exploit wage-workers - otherwise profits couldn't be made. So we all have to compete for scraps so that the capitalists can put most of the surplus towards other profit-making ventures. If we aren't fighting over scraps to enrich the eliete, then there is no reason whatsoever to deney people a decent materal life if they can't work. It would not be "slavery" because the non-working hold NO POWER over the working!

[redblood_blackflag]

There is pleanty of surplus that is (and could potentially be even more) created through modern production. The question is, why should this be rationed out in ways controlled by the eliete of capitalists desire? If this collective surplus is controlled by the majority who create it, why would they deney it to their family members and neighbors who can't work for one reason or another.

If you want to be cynical about it, maybe a society where these workers could live and not have to worry about being attacked by those in desperate poverty, not catching illnesses from those who are denied health service, would be incentive enough.

But really it comes down to what I said in my last post. Inequality is inherent to capitalism because it is a system that needs to be able to exploit wage-workers - otherwise profits couldn't be made. So we all have to compete for scraps so that the capitalists can put most of the surplus towards other profit-making ventures. If we aren't fighting over scraps to enrich the eliete, then there is no reason whatsoever to deney people a decent materal life if they can't work. It would not be "slavery" because the non-working hold NO POWER over the working!
I didn't say they would deny it.

[redblood_blackflag]

Humanity forces all of us to help each other.

Therefore, if you don't help, you're denying your on humanity. And denying the fact that we helped you all these years. Face it, without us, you wouldn't have lasted a fortnight.

I am obligated to care for you, yes or no
You are obligated to care for me, yes or no
I don't even know you. How have you helped me?

[Blake's Baby]

We've cared for you all these years haven't we? We provided your food, education, house, roads, transport, healthcare, the computer you're typing your reply on, the elctricity it's using, the fibre-optic networks that are going to take the reply from your machine... everything around you was built by other people; the civilisation that you're taking advantage of (in your terms, stealing from us) was built by other people. Yes, you are obliged to care about other people, if for no other reason than we've cared for you for the entire time you've been alive.

[redblood_blackflag]

We've cared for you all these years haven't we? We provided your food, education, house, roads, transport, healthcare, the computer you're typing your reply on, the elctricity it's using, the fibre-optic networks that are going to take the reply from your machine... everything around you was built by other people; the civilisation that you're taking advantage of (in your terms, stealing from us) was built by other people. Yes, you are obliged to care about other people, if for no other reason than we've cared for you for the entire time you've been alive.

You've cared for me my entire life? :confused:
I thought it was built by society?
I thought I was entitled to all of that, how can I be stealing?
You provide my electricity and computer, house,roads, and food? :confused:

[redblood_blackflag]

We've cared for you all these years haven't we? We provided your food, education, house, roads, transport, healthcare, the computer you're typing your reply on, the elctricity it's using, the fibre-optic networks that are going to take the reply from your machine... everything around you was built by other people; the civilisation that you're taking advantage of (in your terms, stealing from us) was built by other people. Yes, you are obliged to care about other people, if for no other reason than we've cared for you for the entire time you've been alive.

You are obligated to take care of me, yes or no
I am obligated to take care of you, yes or no (your answer for this one is meaningless. You cannot obligate me to anything or anyone, nor can I obligate you to anything. No, I am not obligated to take care you, unless I choose to be obligated to you, which I do to the extent of not violating your rights. In the first post, there is a section dealing with this to an extent under "society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.")

[Luís Henrique]

You are obligated to take care of me, yes or no

Of course we are.


I am obligated to take care of you, yes or no

Of course you are.


(your answer for this one is meaningless. You cannot obligate me to anything or anyone, nor can I obligate you to anything.

Are you denying reality?


No, I am not obligated to take care you, unless I choose to be obligated to you, which I do to the extent of not violating your rights.

What do you do for a living?

How is what you do for a living not "caring" for the rest of us?


In the first post, there is a section dealing with this to an extent under "society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.")

I stopped reading the OP when I met this:


Government does not exist.

It wasn't a pleasure at all to read it up to that point. It looked, sounded, and smelled like bullshit. But it was tolerable, in the sence that what we feel when the dentist uses that wheezing machine on us is tolerable. That sentence surpassed my ability to stand stupidity though.

And so I stopped, lest my neurones started committing suicide.

Luís Henrique

[Blake's Baby]

You've cared for me my entire life? :confused:
I thought it was built by society?
I thought I was entitled to all of that, how can I be stealing?
You provide my electricity and computer, house,roads, and food? :confused:

Oh, were you under the impression that you fed and clothed yourself when you were a baby, looked after your own medical needs, grew your own food all the way through childhood, built your own house, taught yourself to read and speak, drove yourself to school in a car or bus you built yourself, invented art philosophy breakfast cereal and television, invented the computer, generated all your electricity and developed the necessary software to establish the world wide web? Obviously all these things were provided by other people. What we call, 'society'.

I think you're entitled to that on the quid pro quo that you also give everyone else the same rights you've had. Either no one is entitled, or everyone is entitled. You don't get to decide that you're entitled but no-one else is. It's all or nothing, you decide. Have you stolen from us, in which case you have to pay us back, or were you entitled, in which case, so is everyone else?

[Monkeyboy]

I thought this could be an interesting discussion, but I'm kind of confused what it is about now.

Culture and religion have similar "traits" like I said, I explained I believe that some traits (like rituals, morals) are indeed cultural, part of our social being. I might be wrong though! What I can say for sure is that both are connected.

__________________________________________________ _____________

Government is interesting, why do we have governments, how did they become? I have a theory, I think you can distinguish two types:


people who seek high social status, high rescources and better mating opportunities; the selfish who just want to spread their genes.
people who seek to improve their ingroup; who want to spread it's ingroup genes; the altruistic.


This is very simplistic. There would be types mostly in between. When I think of kings I think of type 1, they would mostly care about their own genes and kin. This type of government doesn't care about the people, well they do care, they want to keep the people happy so they can keep their high social status, high rescources and better reproduction.

The Nazi's would be in between. They did seemed to care about their ingroup (the ingroup being ethnic Germans. Jews, gypsies and others were seen as the outgroup; enemies of the ingroup, a threat.), they also seemed to form a elite covered in wealth. I would say both. The Nazi's wanted both to attain wealth (social status, high rescources, better change of reproducing) but they seemed also to care about their ingroup as seen by their horrifying atrocities.

When I think of Che Guevara I think of a very altruistic being. To me it seemed like he did only care about the ingroup, not himself, I would say. I'm not sure if I can say the same about Fidel Castro.

I myself would prefer no government. Because I think most politians have traits of power hungry type 1's, some may care about close friends, but we don't see a lot of altruistic politians.

Does government attract these types; narcistic, sometimes megalomanic, selfish individuals? (We do get to vote.) Or is this problem of society*?

Ingroup is problematic too, but these have grown larger (from tribe, to nation, to religion, and hopefully to mankind)

Without government would the problems that in my opinion these type 1 individuals cause be solved without government?

I hope this wasn't too offtopic. I thought of this and wanted to get it out.

*I'm going to read a book by Frans de Waal to hopefully better understand.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

You've cared for me my entire life? :confused:
I thought it was built by society?
I thought I was entitled to all of that, how can I be stealing?
You provide my electricity and computer, house,roads, and food? :confused:

"We" not "I". See there's a huge difference.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What if the workers get greedy? Good question!
I could ask you guys the same thing.
The thing is, I believe the worker is entitled to the full value of his labor, therefore, I don't view it as being greedy by keeping what is theirs. I think it's greedy, and intellectual sloth to demand everybody else take care of people because you want to (if that is the case)

No you can't because everybody is entitled to food, shelter, etc. If we have enough food, everybody should be fed(we do). I don't agree with the right of the farmer to let the community starve because he decides so. Plus how do you decide what the the value of someone's labor is and how do they keep it? For example if you work making car doors how is your labor decided to be this or that amount of value?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You are obligated to take care of me, yes or no

Yes.


I am obligated to take care of you, yes or no

Yes.


(your answer for this one is meaningless. You cannot obligate me to anything or anyone, nor can I obligate you to anything. No, I am not obligated to take care you, unless I choose to be obligated to you, which I do to the extent of not violating your rights. In the first post, there is a section dealing with this to an extent under "society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.")

Your post dodges the question by making the false assertion that society does not exist, when it clearly does. Language and culture, which you are self-evidently making use of, are the products of society, not single individuals.

[Luís Henrique]

For example if you work making car doors how is your labor decided to be this or that amount of value?

Obviously you pile door cars in your home until you die because you can't eat them.

Luís Henrique

[Jimmie Higgins]

You are obligated to take care of me, yes or no
I am obligated to take care of you, yes or no (your answer for this one is meaningless. You cannot obligate me to anything or anyone, nor can I obligate you to anything. No, I am not obligated to take care you, unless I choose to be obligated to you, which I do to the extent of not violating your rights. In the first post, there is a section dealing with this to an extent under "society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.")

It's a question about how society, civilization, whatever you call the associations of people, is organized.

If we want to live in a world where we have the kind of techology and production we have now - or even something better than what we currently can produce in society - then some kind of collective effort is required. I don't think most people are bound to want to or even be able to produce their own food, clothing, entertainment, transportation, computers etc induvidually. So we must combine our efforts to produce more than we can induvidually.

But then how is this organized? Capitalism organizes this through the monopolization of productive property and then those owners can set the terms of labor for a population which has been made propertyless (this doesn't mean homeless although that has frequently been the, often forced, entrance point for populations of pesants and small induvidual farmers entering into the working class) it just means only having about enough wealth to survive on - and in the U.S., about 40% of the population holds practically no wealth after living expenses, debt, and so on. So it is a collective process of labor, but under autocratic and hierarchical control (how one could so oppose the tyrannies of states but ignore the daily 8-hour dictatorships most people have to sell themselves to is beyond me) both in production methods and conditions and in control of the wealth produced by this collective process.

What Marxists and revolutionary Anarchists propose is a different arrangement where production is done not because we will starve without wages and the people entering into the productive project can collectivly set the terms of their labor in association with others: communism, where not one has any more structural or economic power than anyone else. In such a society the basis for what is produced would be based on what is needed and desired, rather than what is most profitable. So there would be no point in rationing out services based on their ability to work. Some kind of prioritization may be necissary immediately during and after a revolution due to emergency shortages caused by initial disorganization or just pre-existing deficiencies already in capitalism (infrastructure would need to be built in neglected areas and so on). But, considering it is currently possible to feed more than the world's population and all the wealth wasted in capitalism on militaries and advertising and so on, it would not take too much effort to reorganize producrtion to feed everyone, house everyone, build education and health infrastructure and the most desired conviniences, entertainment, and so on.

In capitalism, our lives are only as valuable as our ability to help the system make profits. Many people with disabilities that make them unemployable today are perfectly capable of being productive if labor was focused on "use" and not etracting the most work out for the lowest wage-cost. So on the one hand, the whole concept of "disabilities" would be radically altered and so more people would be able to develop skills and contribute. And on the other, there would be no need to ration out all the wealth of society because it isn't held by a exploiting group who need to maintain conditions where we are willing to work for what they offer.

The point of health care wouldn't be insurance profits, it would be "health". The point of producing entertainment would be to entertain. So on. Deteriming who has access to these things once set up just wouldn't come into it because the point of the activity wouldn't be to squeeze some profits out.

[DancingEmma]

Jimmie, that was a wonderful description of what sounds like a wonderful world. Given that such a world is possible, I don't know why anyone would prefer redblood_blackflag's utopia, where even the most basic necessities of life are always up for grabs, and people must be constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of being out-competed and out-scrambled for resources. A world where doctors sometimes simply refuse to help patients on a whim? No thanks.

[Dean]

You are obligated to take care of me, yes or no
I am obligated to take care of you, yes or no (your answer for this one is meaningless. You cannot obligate me to anything or anyone, nor can I obligate you to anything. No, I am not obligated to take care you, unless I choose to be obligated to you, which I do to the extent of not violating your rights. In the first post, there is a section dealing with this to an extent under "society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm.")

Thread moved to OI because that's what it is. I'm not convinced yet that you are necessarily a reactionary, so I'll hold off on restriction.
----------------------------------------
If you don't want the responsibility to take care of other human beings in some fashion, even by appropriating some of your labor value alone to their care, then you have no business advocating for progressive or revolutionary change.

There is a very good reason that Marx says "...to each according to their need." It is because he is describing society as has existed historically - forever - as a social institution. There is one other option - go live alone with the animals. But if you want to use language, technology, roads, etc, you are appropriating the labor of others for your own benefit. There is no avoiding it. You are being social even now by discussing your utopianism. Each of us are using the labor of each other simply by being involved in this discussion. That is the nature of things.

The sick, the elderly, those unable to care for themselves, deserve decent existence because as a society we are able to provide it, and there is nothing short of selfish exploitation that could justify using technology produced by the labor of millions of humans over millennia to provide for yourself only.

[redblood_blackflag]

I'll expect you all here by next Tuesday.

"The sick, the elderly, those unable to care for themselves, deserve decent existence because as a society we are able to provide it -- then go provide it for them. I am not your slave.
Even in the face of your comrades bringing you down to the level of slave, you support your own slavery.

[redblood_blackflag]

.
MY utopianism. That's rich.

“Anarchism is not a romantic fable but the hardheaded realization, based on five thousand years of experience, that we cannot entrust the management of our lives to kings, priests, politicians, generals, and county commissioners.” -Edward Abbey

[redblood_blackflag]

Oh, were you under the impression that you fed and clothed yourself when you were a baby, looked after your own medical needs, grew your own food all the way through childhood, built your own house, taught yourself to read and speak, drove yourself to school in a car or bus you built yourself, invented art philosophy breakfast cereal and television, invented the computer, generated all your electricity and developed the necessary software to establish the world wide web? Obviously all these things were provided by other people. What we call, 'society'.

I think you're entitled to that on the quid pro quo that you also give everyone else the same rights you've had. Either no one is entitled, or everyone is entitled. You don't get to decide that you're entitled but no-one else is. It's all or nothing, you decide. Have you stolen from us, in which case you have to pay us back, or were you entitled, in which case, so is everyone else?

You didn't do any of those things (unless I don't remember you from my days as a wee babe), so I dont know who the hell this "we" is that you're talking about

No one is entitled to what other people produce. That is my entire point. To say otherwise is to say everyone is a slave to whoever you are saying is entitled to the product of the labor of others. The fact that you say it's "everyone" doesn't change that.

How could I have stolen from you when you're basically saying I am entitled to what you produce?

[redblood_blackflag]

there is nothing short of selfish exploitation that could justify using technology produced by the labor of millions of humans over millennia to provide for yourself only.

this isn't even my position.

[redblood_blackflag]

Jimmie, that was a wonderful description of what sounds like a wonderful world. Given that such a world is possible, I don't know why anyone would prefer redblood_blackflag's utopia, where even the most basic necessities of life are always up for grabs, and people must be constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of being out-competed and out-scrambled for resources. A world where doctors sometimes simply refuse to help patients on a whim? No thanks.

I'm not looking for utopia. Doctors already can refuse patients on a whim, you just believe it's "against the law," or something, I'd imagine.
Who is going to decree that the doctors guild cant refuse patients on a whim in your classless, stateless society?

I refer you to Luis' post in which he asks "Are you denying reality?"


redblood_blackflag: you cannot obligate me to anyone or anything
luis henrique: are you denying reality?

My friend just obligated you to give her a pedicure, Luis. Seems legit, right?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm not looking for utopia. Doctors already can refuse patients on a whim, you just believe it's "against the law," or something, I'd imagine.No, not on a whim, but on the basis of Insurance Company profits. This is what you fail to understand, that the world is ordered in a certain way and the state exists not just to "enslave" people in the abstract, but to protect that particular (class-divided, profit-driven) order.

If states were just whip-crackers in the abstract, why don't we all just live in a kind of state-capitalism like the USSR where the government and economic management are one and the same? Hell, why are not just actual slaves being directly exploited?

States are not abstractions in this sense of yours, they are specific tools for specific purposes - control, yes, but control for what ends? In feudalism, control to keep people giving thithings to the lords; in capitalism to ensure that trade happens "smoothly" and that people work for the enrichement of capital.

Slavery is a system of exploitation. It is direct exploitation where minimal food, clothing and shelter are provided at no cost, but all your labor efforts are directed and controlled by exploiters. If I grow some carrots and give them to my neighbor, this is not the same as being forcibly compelled to grow carrots for fear of loosing my house or my own food or even my life. Capitalism is also a system of exploitation, but indirect. Wage workers are not the same as exploited under proper slavery, but for the vast majority, we still don't have food, shelter, and clothing and so on if we do not sell our labor.

Honestly, as a fulltime "precarious" worker taxes are the lest oppressive thing in my life (and a lesser expense - hell I probably pay more in Bank fees for having a low balence than I do in taxes). The cops are a much better example of "state slavery".

[Blake's Baby]

You didn't do any of those things (unless I don't remember you from my days as a wee babe), so I dont know who the hell this "we" is that you're talking about

No one is entitled to what other people produce. That is my entire point. To say otherwise is to say everyone is a slave to whoever you are saying is entitled to the product of the labor of others. The fact that you say it's "everyone" doesn't change that.

How could I have stolen from you when you're basically saying I am entitled to what you produce?

Pick one of these options:

You are entitled to what I produce, and I am entitled to what you produce.

I am not entitled to what you produce, and nor is anyone else, and you are not entitled to what anyone else produces.

If you pick the first, you are a socialist.

If you pick the second, you have stolen from the rest of the population of the planet everything that they produced and you have used over the course of your life. It also makes you a massive hypocrite, unless you plan on making amends.

So, are you a thief and a hypocrite, or not?

[redblood_blackflag]

Pick one of these options:

You are entitled to what I produce, and I am entitled to what you produce.

I am not entitled to what you produce, and nor is anyone else, and you are not entitled to what anyone else produces.

If you pick the first, you are a socialist.

If you pick the second, you have stolen from the rest of the population of the planet everything that they produced and you have used over the course of your life. It also makes you a massive hypocrite, unless you plan on making amends.

So, are you a thief and a hypocrite, or not?

"I am not entitled to what you produce, and nor is anyone else, and you are not entitled to what anyone else produces" - but you miss the other option. I don't take what you produce without your consent, as you are entitled to it, not me. We offer something in return for what each other has produced, and if we don't agree, we don't make the exchange.
the first one amounts to "everyone is everyone elses slave."

and, no, i am not the hypocrite if i say you are not entitled to what i produce, and i am not entitled to what you produce, and i don't take what you have produced, but you attempt to force me to take what you produced. i am not obligated to you because you chose to give me what you produced, even though I didn't ask you for anything. is that your view of "charity" ?
you'd be contradicting yourself if you said you believe everyone is entitled to what eevryone else produces, but i stole something.

[Blake's Baby]

... you miss the other option. I don't take what you produce without offering you something in return...

But you have, you've taken from us the entire time you've been alive, and what we want back is the same rights for other people. The rest of the world (ie 'society') fed and clothed and looked after and educated and protected you all the time you were a child and continued to supply you with everything you have and have ever had through into adulthood.

What we will take in return is you extending the same courtesy and opportunity to everyone else. That's what stops you being a thief and a hypocrite.


...
If you pick the first, you're delusional.

Your 'other option' that I missed is the first.

[redblood_blackflag]

But you have, you've taken from us the entire time you've been alive, and what we want back is the same rights for other people. The rest of the world (ie 'society') fed and clothed and looked after and educated and protected you all the time you were a child and continued to supply you with everything you have and have ever had through into adulthood.

What we will take in return is you extending the same courtesy and opportunity to everyone else. That's what stops you being a thief and a hypocrite.



Your 'other option' that I missed is the first.

You are the part of the rest of the world: yes or no
you have protected me at any time in my life: yes or no

who is we again?
you will take, but i clearly owe you nothing. i dont even know you, and as far as i do know, you have not provided me with any specific good or service.

[Blake's Baby]

You are the part of the rest of the world: yes or no...

That isn't a question, so I have no idea how to answer it 'yes or no'. If you mean, am I a part of the rest of your world, then of course I am.


...you have protected me at any time in my life: yes or no

Let's say 'yes'. But I'm not asking you to work out what you owe me (I'll tell you anyway, 1/7 billion of whatever you have), but what you owe to everyone in the whole world (7 billion/7 billion of what you have).

[redblood_blackflag]

That isn't a question, so I have no idea how to answer it 'yes or no'. If you mean, am I a part of the rest of your world, then of course I am.



Let's say 'yes'. But I'm not asking you to work out what you owe me (I'll tell you anyway, 1/7 billion of whatever you have), but what you owe to everyone in the whole world (7 billion/7 billion of what you have).

Good luck trying to figure that one out.

Why would you say yes?
You know you have never actually protected me, or fed me, or clothed me.
Obviously I don't owe "everyone in the world" anything, as I don't even owe you anything, other than, in my view, the courtesy of not violating your rights, laying claim to what you produce, claiming you are obligated to take care of me (any of you on a plane yet?), saying you should be forced you to take care of others then claiming it's my humanity that compels me to control you, etc, etc.

[Blake's Baby]

Good luck trying to figure that one out...

Figuring what out? I already know that everything you have, you owe to all the rest of us. Like we all owe 1/7 billion of what we have to you. What's hard about that?



...
Why would you say yes?
You know you have never actually protected me...

Do you remeber that time in the park in 1994 when you weren't hit in the face by that frisbee, and you didn't go to hospital and lose an eye? Of course you don't, I stopped it happening. You're welcome.


...
... or fed me...

You didn't ask, but, as I used to work in the catering trade, and you used to eat, I'm pretty sure I did. You're welcome.


...
... or clothed me...

Well, you didn't ask about that either, but as you ask, I didn't make the t-shirts themselves but I'm responsible for the designs, so though it was someone else's work - you're welcome on their behalf too, I checked, us humans - I'm sorry, 'slaves' - gotta look out for each other - so I made your clothes more interesting. you're welcome.



...

Obviously I don't owe "everyone in the world" anything, as I don't even owe you anything, other than, in my view, the courtesy of not violating your rights, laying claim to what you produce, claiming you are obligated to take care of me (any of you on a plane yet?), forcing you to take care of others then claiming it's my humanity that compels me to control you, etc, etc.

Obviously everything you have or have ever had has been produced by other people. You're welcome.

Or do you wake up in the morning, build your own house, kill your own breakfast, build a road from your front door to where other people live, then bawl at them in a language of your own devising, as they throw rocks at you for being a naked destroy-y man bawling 'Naarg! Naarg!' at them?

[redblood_blackflag]

Wow.

[Blake's Baby]

OK, deleted to give you time to respond.

[redblood_blackflag]

"Do you remeber that time in the park in 1994 when you weren't hit in the face by that frisbee, and you didn't go to hospital and lose an eye? Of course you don't, I stopped it happening. You're welcome.
lol thanks god

[Blake's Baby]

No, not god, just a guy who happened to catch a badly-thrown frisbee before it caused a nasty accident to someone passing. You're welcome.

The thing is, you're taking the piss, which rather implies that you don't think you owe everything you are to other people. Though, to be accurate, you owe, on average, 6,999,999,999/7,000,000,000 of everything have, are, or have ever had or been, to other people.

In other words, you're just the same as everyone as everyone else. I know you're a unique snowflake, and all that, but so are we all, and a snowflake doesn't count for anything. A snowstorm, however, means something.

[DancingEmma]

I'm not looking for utopia. Doctors already can refuse patients on a whim, you just believe it's "against the law," or something, I'd imagine.
Who is going to decree that the doctors guild cant refuse patients on a whim in your classless, stateless society?

My reference to your "utopia" was sarcasm. And actually, doctors rarely refuse patients "on a whim" currently. Most doctors take seriously their obligation to provide people with medical care. To expand on what Jimmie was saying, however, there are reasons why doctors refuse patients. One of the biggest reasons is that treating some patients is often not considered profitable under capitalism. The other reasons have to do with various kinds of social prejudice. Transgender people are often denied medical care because they are transgender; fat people are often denied medical care because they are fat; people with mental illness and various disabilities are often denied medical care because they are disabled; and so on. All this is happening, and much of it is not against the law, actually. But regardless, as a radical, revolutionary anarchist, in my utopia, of course, no one is going to be "decreeing" anything. Doctors will serve patients because of their natural internal feeling of responsibility toward their fellow humans. And any systemic cause that might have led doctors to deny patients medical care will have been eliminated from the world through collective social revolution. Capitalism and money will no longer exist, so people will no longer care if something is "profitable" or not. In fact, the mere concept of "profit" will no longer exist, except in history books. Likewise, all forms of bigotry will be gone. People will no longer be racist or sexist, and they will also no longer have prejudices against transgender people, or fat people, or disabled people. So no decrees will be necessary because the root causes of denying people medical care will have been removed organically.

[redblood_blackflag]

No, not god, just a guy who happened to catch a badly-thrown frisbee before it caused a nasty accident to someone passing. You're welcome.

The thing is, you're taking the piss, which rather implies that you don't think you owe everything you are to other people. Though, to be accurate, you owe, on average, 6,999,999,999/7,000,000,000 of everything have, are, or have ever had or been, to other people.

In other words, you're just the same as everyone as everyone else. I know you're a unique snowflake, and all that, but so are we all, and a snowflake doesn't count for anything. A snowstorm, however, means something.

Even if you caught some frisbee, I'm not obligated to you for anything, though that doesn't mean I wouldnt thank you or offer something in thanks.
Like I asked, is your concept of "charity" doing things for other people, and then claiming they owe you?
How does you catching a frisbee mean I am obligated to everyone else for catching the frisbee?

A snow storm is a bunch of snow flakes. It's seeming like you think the storm comes first, or that the storm exists as it's own entity, separate from the flake(s).
The snowflakes count for everything, without them there can't even be a storm.
Do I owe society royalties every time I use language?

[DancingEmma]

"I am not entitled to what you produce, and nor is anyone else, and you are not entitled to what anyone else produces" - but you miss the other option. I don't take what you produce without your consent, as you are entitled to it, not me. We offer something in return for what each other has produced, and if we don't agree, we don't make the exchange.
the first one amounts to "everyone is everyone elses slave."

As has been explained to you, labor is social. By yourself, you produce nothing. You have internalized liberal, capitalist conceptions around individuality, labor, money, and exchange so deeply that you can't see this. The world you desire isn't even possible, however, because there is no way to determine who produces what without the state. In the current system, who produces what--and is therefore entitled to its rewards--is determined through the system of wage labor for capitalists, but as this is propped up by the state and state-printed-and-backed money, I assume you want to do away with it. Without the state to ensure the perpetuation of capitalism, though, there is literally no way to determine who actually produces what, especially in a complex, interdependent economy such as ours.

[redblood_blackflag]

As has been explained to you, labor is social. By yourself, you produce nothing. You have internalized liberal, capitalist conceptions around individuality, labor, money, and exchange so deeply that you can't see this. The world you desire isn't even possible, however, because there is no way to determine who produces what without the state. In the current system, who produces what--and is therefore entitled to its rewards--is determined through the system of wage labor for capitalists, but as this is propped up by the state and state-printed-and-backed money, I assume you want to do away with it. Without the state to ensure the perpetuation of capitalism, though, there is literally no way to determine who actually produces what, especially in a complex, interdependent economy such as ours.

good thing society made all this stuff for us before the first individuals got here.
I'm not talking about the world I desire, I thought I've made that clear. I'm not looking for "utopia," I don't make the claim that somehow, some way, if we only had the "right" system, everyones needs can/would be taken care of.
government doesnt exist. that is the whole point of this post, though it's been all over the place. Most of you didn't even take the time to read the opening post by your own admission, so I don't expect you to understand what I'm talking about here, but, c'mon now. This guy claims I am obligated to him because of what other people made. It's insane.
It's seeming impossible for you guys to not look at the world in this collectivist mind-state of "we're all one." We're not. That guy didn't build the house I reside in, or any of the clothes I wear, etc. I owe him nothing for the things I have willingly traded for, because he didn't make any of them.


people coming together to complete mutual tasks, or achieve goals, doesnt mean that every single other person on the damn planet had anything to do with what they have done.

[DancingEmma]

good thing society made all this stuff for us before the first individuals got here

Individuals living together and collaborating with each other=society. Please explain how single individuals by themselves produce things through labor. Use real world examples.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

redblood_blackflag I don't know if you're just being obtuse at this point on purpose or if you're really this dense. You really don't get the difference between saying "I" helped you out your entire life and "we"(society) helped you out your entire life. "We" is not me, "we" is society, "we" is the community, "we" are the people that made you your food, "we" are the people that made you your house, "we" are the people that made you your clothes, "we" are the people that made you your computer. Look around your house, millions of people labored so your house could be filled with whatever you have. People from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, etc, working so that you could have what you have. Why would you go to a place of work and exert your labor only for yourself? You don't walk into a factory, make your own shirt, and walk out. You don't go to McDonald's, get on table and make yourself a Big Mac. Production is mostly for social use now and realistically will be from here on out.

[redblood_blackflag]

Individuals living together and collaborating with each other=society. Please explain how single individuals by themselves produce things through labor. Use real world examples.

:confused:
they go out and manipulate nature. take braches, make a shelter, turn soil, plant seeds, dig up ore, forge it, whatever. Social interaction does not even = individuals do not produce things. Individuals are the only ones who do produce things. if individuals dont produce anything on their own, then neither does society.
who is helping the individuals produce things? society?

[redblood_blackflag]

redblood_blackflag I don't know if you're just being obtuse at this point on purpose or if you're really this dense. You really don't get the difference between saying "I" helped you out your entire life and "we"(society) helped you out your entire life. "We" is not me, "we" is society, "we" is the community, "we" are the people that made you your food, "we" are the people that made you your house, "we" are the people that made you your clothes, "we" are the people that made you your computer. Look around your house, millions of people labored so your house could be filled with whatever you have. People from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Americas, etc, working so that you could have what you have. Why would you go to a place of work and exert your labor only for yourself? You don't walk into a factory, make your own shirt, and walk out. You don't go to McDonald's, get on table and make yourself a Big Mac. Production is mostly for social use now and realistically will be from here on out.

this isnt even my argument. I know i didnt make everything I use. My argument is that I am not obligated to you, because other people made something I use, and they are not obligated to give me something they made just because they made it.
Which is what your position seems to amount to here.

No, you're not. you're just claiming this thing called "society" is, which just so happens to include you.
I understand the difference between saying "we" and "i," but "we" implies "i."

[A Revolutionary Tool]

:confused:
they go out and manipulate nature. take braches, make a shelter, turn soil, plant seeds, dig up ore, forge it, whatever. Social interaction does not even = individuals do not produce things. Individuals are the only ones who do produce things. if individuals dont produce anything on their own, then neither does society.
Good job, you found out that society is made of individuals. Now explain to me how someone on a assembly line produces things.

[redblood_blackflag]

Good job, you found out that society is made of individuals. Now explain to me how someone on a assembly line produces things.

dont you mean how society produces things on an assembly line?
:laugh:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

dont you mean how society produces things on an assembly line?
:laugh:
Exactly my point actually.

[DancingEmma]

:confused:
they go out and manipulate nature. take braches, make a shelter, turn soil, plant seeds, dig up ore, forge it, whatever. Social interaction does not even = individuals do not produce things. Individuals are the only ones who do produce things. if individuals dont produce anything on their own, then neither does society.
who is helping the individuals produce things? society?

This is real life, not the Boy Scouts. In case you weren't aware, it's not possible for a individual to survive on his own. To begin with, all of us were small children once and totally dependent on the care of others. And the individuals who "dig up ore" generally haven't produced the tools with which they dig up the ore. The individuals who "turn soil" generally haven't produced the tools with which they turn the soil. Labor is a social endeavor. We work together to accomplish things. By ourselves, as single individuals, we do not make or accomplish anything.

The belief of the people on this site, as socialists and communists, is that the results of labor should be equally shared among all people, rather than disproportionately going to capitalists. Your idea that the results of labor should be retained by the particular individuals who did that labor (all by themselves) is nonsense because a single individual is not capable of getting any productive work done at all.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

this isnt even my argument. I know i didnt make everything I use. My argument is that I am not obligated to you, because other people made something I use, and they are not obligated to give me something they made just because they made it.
Which is what your position seems to amount to here.

No, you're not. you're just claiming this thing called "society" is, which just so happens to include you.
I understand the difference between saying "we" and "i," but "we" implies "i."
You are not obligated to the community which raised you, which taught you, which fed you, which clothed you, which sheltered you, which continues to produce things for you, which keeps you alive to this very day?! I think it's pretty obvious to anybody that this thing called society exists, but okay you don't believe that it does exist, please leave then. We(society) don't need you(a tiny inconsequential part of the universe) because we've got each other.

[Blake's Baby]

Even if you caught some frisbee, I'm not obligated to you for anything, though that doesn't mean I wouldnt thank you or offer something in thanks.
Like I asked, is your concept of "charity" doing things for other people, and then claiming they owe you?
How does you catching a frisbee mean I am obligated to everyone else for catching the frisbee?...

I caught the frisbee because I saw it was going to hit a passer by. I did that because being helpful is better than not being helpful. I could have let it hit you and caused an accident. Is that what you would have done, because you are under no 'obligation' to be helpful? Is your concept of 'charity' allowing accidents to happen that you could have prevented, then wondering whether to give the victim some lose change?

You are not obligated to everyone for catching a frisbee. You are obligated to me for catching the frisbee, you are obligated to everyone else for 6,999,998 other things. You are obligated to everyone else to the tune of 6,999,999,999/7,000,000,000 of everything. But as that's too difficult to count, it's easier to say every single person is obligated to 'everyone else' to the tune of 'everything' and not worry about the odd 7-billionth of everything change.


...A snow storm is a bunch of snow flakes. It's seeming like you think the storm comes first, or that the storm exists as it's own entity, separate from the flake(s).
The snowflakes count for everything, without them there can't even be a storm.
Do I owe society royalties every time I use language?

I said a snowflake doesn't mean anything, not that it didn't exist. A snowstorm is a bunch of snowflakes. As a society is a bunch of people. When was the last time a snowflake caused a significant change to your routine? When was the last time a snowstorm caused a significant change to your routine? Do you see the difference here? a single snowflake, beautiful annd individual as it is, means nothing outside of a snowstorm, and it won't last long. As part of a snowstorm, it can shut down an airport, make some children very happy or devastate a whole country. And it survives much longer.

I'd be happy if you paid to use the language you have acquired from other people and that was made by them yes. I also think you should pay intellectual property rights every time you use glass (to the people of Syria), brick, pottery or other baked clay (Iran), any kind of metal (Turkey), the wheel (Khazakstan), anything electrical or any form of writing (Iraq) the bag, or any knife or other chopping/cutting tool (Tanzania). You've used these ideas (someone else's work) without giving anything in exchange and you don't do that remember?


... I think it's pretty obvious to anybody that this thing called society exists, but okay you don't believe that it does exist, please leave then. We(society) don't need you(a tiny inconsequential part of the universe) because we've got each other.

And when you do leave, please leave behind everything that we produced for you, or alternatively pay for it on your way out, thanks. We are still living in capitalism, after all. You don't get a free ride. What you were obviously too self-absorbed to realise was that all that social investment in you was not a gift, it was a bargain - we look after you, and you in turn extend the same courtesy to everyone else. If you're not going to fulfill your side of the bargain, you need to buy your way out. Or kill yourself, that'll piss us off, because then you'll have wasted all that effort we spent on trying to make you into a decent human being.

[redblood_blackflag]

This is real life, not the Boy Scouts. In case you weren't aware, it's not possible for a individual to survive on his own. To begin with, all of us were small children once and totally dependent on the care of others. And the individuals who "dig up ore" generally haven't produced the tools with which they dig up the ore. The individuals who "turn soil" generally haven't produced the tools with which they turn the soil. Labor is a social endeavor. We work together to accomplish things. By ourselves, as single individuals, we do not make or accomplish anything.

The belief of the people on this site, as socialists and communists, is that the results of labor should be equally shared among all people, rather than disproportionately going to capitalists. Your idea that the results of labor should be retained by the particular individuals who did that labor (all by themselves) is nonsense because a single individual is not capable of getting any productive work done at all.


"Your idea that the results of labor should be retained by the particular individuals who did that labor (all by themselves) is nonsense because a single individual is not capable of getting any productive work done at all" --

If im not on that assembly line Revolutionary Tool mentioned, am I part of that "society" ? Did I have anything to do with any of that? Did you if you weren't?

"And the individuals who "dig up ore" generally haven't produced the tools with which they dig up the ore." - Who did? Society?


"Labor is a social endeavor." I'm not exactly denying this, I'm denying that I am obligated to someone who didn't do something, because someone else did something.
Sure, when you lump every single human and action together. The people who built the tools arent turning the soil, unless they are. Did the people who turn the soil build the tools? Well, only if they did, eh?

"The State is that great legal fiction by which everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else." -Bastiat.

[redblood_blackflag]

You are not obligated to the community which raised you, which taught you, which fed you, which clothed you, which sheltered you, which continues to produce things for you, which keeps you alive to this very day?! I think it's pretty obvious to anybody that this thing called society exists, but okay you don't believe that it does exist, please leave then. We(society) don't need you(a tiny inconsequential part of the universe) because we've got each other.

No, because "the community" is a floating abstraction that doesn't do anything, it has no mind, it has no body, etc.
The community didnt raise me, or you.

" I think it's pretty obvious to anybody that this thing called society exists"
I know.

"but okay you don't believe that it does exist, please leave then" o.O

[redblood_blackflag]

I caught the frisbee because I saw it was going to hit a passer by. I did that because being helpful is better than not being helpful. I could have let it hit you and caused an accident. Is that what you would have done, because you are under no 'obligation' to be helpful? Is your concept of 'charity' allowing accidents to happen that you could have prevented, then wondering whether to give the victim some lose change?

You are not obligated to everyone for catching a frisbee. You are obligated to me for catching the frisbee, you are obligated to everyone else for 6,999,998 other things. You are obligated to everyone else to the tune of 6,999,999,999/7,000,000,000 of everything. But as that's too difficult to count, it's easier to say every single person is obligated to 'everyone else' to the tune of 'everything' and not worry about the odd 7-billionth of everything change.



I said a snowflake doesn't mean anything, not that it didn't exist. A snowstorm is a bunch of snowflakes. As a society is a bunch of people. When was the last time a snowflake caused a significant change to your routine? When was the last time a snowstorm caused a significant change to your routine? Do you see the difference here? a single snowflake, beautiful annd individual as it is, means nothing outside of a snowstorm, and it won't last long. As part of a snowstorm, it can shut down an airport, make some children very happy or devastate a whole country. And it survives much longer.

I'd be happy if you paid to use the language you have acquired from other people and that was made by them yes. I also think you should pay intellectual property rights every time you use glass (to the people of Syria), brick, pottery or other baked clay (Iran), any kind of metal (Turkey), the wheel (Khazakstan), anything electrical or any form of writing (Iraq) the bag, or any knife or other chopping/cutting tool (Tanzania). You've used these ideas (someone else's work) without giving anything in exchange and you don't do that remember?



And when you do leave, please leave behind everything that we produced for you, or alternatively pay for it on your way out, thanks. We are still living in capitalism, after all. You don't get a free ride. What you were obviously too self-absorbed to realise was that all that social investment in you was not a gift, it was a bargain - we look after you, and you in turn extend the same courtesy to everyone else. If you're not going to fulfill your side of the bargain, you need to buy your way out. Or kill yourself, that'll piss us off, because then you'll have wasted all that effort we spent on trying to make you into a decent human being.

It isnt a "bargain." You are saying i am obligated to care for you, that i inherently owe YOU because OTHER people make things. It isnt an offer.
It's you saying everyone is everyone elses slave.
No, YOU DONT LOOK AFTER ME.
I don't know how else to say it. To say YOU have actually done anything for me (outside of interaction here, which is just as much for you as it is for me or anyone else) is insane. We've never even met, and the chances that you had anything to do with making anything I use (other than this forum perhaps) are pretty damn low.

[redblood_blackflag]

11."Society has an obligation to protect the weak and infirm." Society being an abstraction, it has no brain for decision making, no feelings, and no sense of values in and of itself. Therefore, by definition it can't have obligations. Only individuals can obligate themselves to a course of action. The question of whether you are your brother's keeper is essentially a religious one. Strictly speaking, obligations are self-imposed duties. When person 'A' imposes a duty on person 'B' by force or coercion, it's slavery. On the other hand, when you assume an obligation, youfreely give the other party a presumptive right to enforce it. A promise to pay later on for goods you bought today is an obligation you freely assumed, and if you don't pay up the other party has a legitimate claim to restitution.
Now, you can assume an obligation on your part to protect the weak and infirm, and you are the one enforcing it since the weak and infirm can't defend themselves in the first place. However, if you try to impose that obligation on others -- i.e., your self-appointed duty to protect the weak and infirm -- then you're enslaving them. This is exemplified by the state when politicians draft young men to go to foreign shores to kill their enemies for them. They will often use the excuse that they're defending the weak, usually by invoking the old canard about bringing them democracy.
I have a hierarchy of obligations. #1 to myself, #2 to my family, #3 to my friends, #4 to my neighbors, and #5 to everyone else. When deciding whether #2 outranks #4 in any given situation, I always pick #2. I might put #2 or #3 before #1 sometimes. We all play this game. It's called ordering priorities. Each of us uses his own judgment to decide what order to put them in. So, we cannot all have the same obligation to protect the weak and infirm collectively, since each of us determines our priorities differently.
Jackney Sneeb, There's No Government Like No Government
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2573611&postcount=1

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Let's frame this differently, going back to the example of the frisbee, let's remove alturism since communists shouldn't base their ideology on moral constructs whose material base no longer exists. Why did he prevent you from getting hit by the frisbee? Because you would do the same in his position. Why would you do the same in his position? Because he would do the same thing in yours. This concept extends to alot of things. Say the entire world was just you and another person. Why shouldn't you kill him and steal his things? Because you don't want him to do the same to you, and because it is easier to cooperate with him than to compete with him.

Now, remove all profit from the world for a hypothetical scenario. Why should anything do anything for anyone? Because we all need things, food, shelter, water, medicine, and cooperating for these things is much better than having to wage war on everyone else. Doesn't it make alot more sense to help your neighbor build his house so he can help you than to kill him and steal his food? Why should we live in a state of war when we can live in a state of peace?

But of course, we live in a complex world that requires a division of labor. "We" as a homogeneous mass can not collaborate as one for the maximum productivity. Certain people need to specialize in certain tasks. We need people to learn medicine, to learn physics, (and I mean we as in everyone, last time I checked there are no super humans that eat nor drink, except for Kim Jong Il maybe) to perform specific tasks to better our lot as a species. This entails that we each contribute our own skills to receive the labor of others in return, hence labor becomes a social act because being a doctor is worthless without those who mine the minerals needed for the pills and study the chemistry to understand how to make the pills. No labor is of value without other labor.

All of this leads to a social contract where you have agreed to perform your share of the labor in extange for the labor of others. Did you sign it? No, but like any other contract it is enforced when broken. Why? Because if one person breaks the "law" (contract that is, I think most anarchists agree that anarchy doesn't mean that someone who poisons the water supply doesn't get the shit beaten out of him) then why shouldn't everyone break the law? Why should I work if there are no repercussions for not working? Why shouldn't I steal if there is no reason for me not to steal? The reason why this force exists is not to serve some idea of society in abstract, but because force maintains the social nature of labor that is concretely necessary for us to survive. "Social"ism is in the best interest of all of us when the social charcther is maintained, and to maintain that social charcther you need force.

[redblood_blackflag]

Let's frame this differently, going back to the example of the frisbee, let's remove alturism since communists shouldn't base their ideology on moral constructs whose material base no longer exists. Why did he prevent you from getting hit by the frisbee? Because you would do the same in his position. Why would you do the same in his position? Because he would do the same thing in yours. This concept extends to alot of things. Say the entire world was just you and another person. Why shouldn't you kill him and steal his things? Because you don't want him to do the same to you, and because it is easier to cooperate with him than to compete with him.

Now, remove all profit from the world for a hypothetical scenario. Why should anything do anything for anyone? Because we all need things, food, shelter, water, medicine, and cooperating for these things is much better than having to wage war on everyone else. Doesn't it make alot more sense to help your neighbor build his house so he can help you than to kill him and steal his food? Why should we live in a state of war when we can live in a state of peace?

But of course, we live in a complex world that requires a division of labor. "We" as a homogeneous mass can not collaborate as one for the maximum productivity. Certain people need to specialize in certain tasks. We need people to learn medicine, to learn physics, (and I mean we as in everyone, last time I checked there are no super humans that eat nor drink, except for Kim Jong Il maybe) to perform specific tasks to better our lot as a species. This entails that we each contribute our own skills to receive the labor of others in return, hence labor becomes a social act because being a doctor is worthless without those who mine the minerals needed for the pills and study the chemistry to understand how to make the pills. No labor is of value without other labor.

All of this leads to a social contract where you have agreed to perform your share of the labor in extange for the labor of others. Did you sign it? No, but like any other contract it is enforced when broken. Why? Because if one person breaks the "law" (contract that is, I think most anarchists agree that anarchy doesn't mean that someone who poisons the water supply doesn't get the shit beaten out of him) then why shouldn't everyone break the law? Why should I work if there are no repercussions for not working? Why shouldn't I steal if there is no reason for me not to steal? The reason why this force exists is not to serve some idea of society in abstract, but because force maintains the social nature of labor that is concretely necessary for us to survive. "Social"ism is in the best interest of all of us when the social charcther is maintained, and to maintain that social charcther you need force.



"This entails that we each contribute our own skills to receive the labor of others in return" that isnt what these guys are saying. they are saying you obligated to labor for them, and give up what you produced, simply "because," "everybody needs food to live." they say they would do the same for you- after they already imposed their perceived obligation on you.
it doesnt even matter if you want to offer your skills, they demand you do.

a contract isnt a contract when it's forced on you, it's slavery.
"Did you sign (agree) it? No." Then it's not a valid "contract." It isnt a contract at all. It's basically just someone claiming you're their slave.

Why would you punish someone for poisoning their own water?
I know this isn't what you mean, but it's the same idea as property.
The "contract" you mention here is that of "not violating other peoples rights."
That isn't the same as saying "I'm going to force you to help other people," or "what you produce belongs to everyone," or "you owe me for what i forced on you. ("tax cheat, stealing from society, whatever")"

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Everything is slavery if you bend slavery into such an immaterial construct such as you have. Even in a perfect wilderness, you still must work. Why? Because other wise you would die. That isn't tyranny, that's just reality. No getting around it

[redblood_blackflag]

Everything is slavery if you bend slavery into such an immaterial construct such as you have. Even in a perfect wilderness, you still must work. Why? Because other wise you would die. That isn't tyranny, that's just reality. No getting around it

I dont deny that, in fact I often say that to "bob black let's abolish work anarchists" (i may be misunderstanding their position, or they may have different meanings for these words- but they don't really seem to make any sense. Yeah, well, go ahead and "abolish work" then.)


My argument specifically involves one individual claiming that every other individuals productive activities belong to them ("everyone else"), simply because they were born into "society."
I am not inherently obligated to any specific individual, and nor are you. Obligations are self-imposed, and if theyre not, theyre not obligations, theyre slavery, someone claiming your existence and productive activity belongs to them.

Like I said to Luis, my friend obligated him to give her a pedicure. She's still waiting.

[Skyhilist]

Damn, this dude is still at it...
You sound a lot like a Randian "rational self-interest" (AKA "greed is good") type.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

My argument specifically involves one individual claiming that every other individuals productive activities belong to them ("everyone else"), simply because they were born into "society."

Well, the fact is that if humans completely absolved themselves of collaborating with others in solving problems faced by everyone, then there would be a surfeit of misery and death which nobody would want.


I am not inherently obligated to any specific individual, and nor are you. Obligations are self-imposed, and if theyre not, theyre not obligations, theyre slavery, someone claiming your existence and productive activity belongs to them.

So if you fall ill and do not have the personal resources to treat the malady, you think it good and proper that you should suffer and quite possibly die in consequence?

Why do you hate yourself so much?

[redblood_blackflag]

Well, the fact is that if humans completely absolved themselves of collaborating with others in solving problems faced by everyone, then there would be a surfeit of misery and death which nobody would want.



So if you fall ill and do not have the personal resources to treat the malady, you think it good and proper that you should suffer and quite possibly die in consequence?

Why do you hate yourself so much?

I'm not talking about not collaborating, I'm talking about forcing people to collaborate with you.
It seems apparent that far more misery and death has happened due to and at the hands of people who try to force others to collaborate with them, than by people not choosing to collaborate.

And the argument here is about the essence of the position that because people might die, everyuone should be everyone elses slave.
Combatting exploitation is one thing, resisting tyranny is another, saying everyone should be everyone elses slave, that I am basically in debt to Tool because he worked in the 'catering business' somewhere is insanity.

Is the only reason you feel the need to help people because other people try to force you?

[Skyhilist]

^This point has been rationally rebutted many times in this same thread.
We're not getting anywhere using reason it seems, should we really continue to butt our heads against the wall with this guy?

[redblood_blackflag]

^This point has been rationally rebutted many times in this same thread.
We're not getting anywhere using reason it seems, should we really continue to butt our heads against the wall with this guy?

What point is that?

[redblood_blackflag]

redblood blackflag: do you think you should be forced, or force other people to help others? isnt that laying claim to the labor of others?
blake's baby: of course i do. of course it is. i think anything else is inhumane.
redblood blackflag: that's slavery.
noxion: why do you hate yourself?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'm not talking about not collaborating, I'm talking about forcing people to collaborate with you.

So if you come across an unconscious six year old girl on an active railway track, are you "forced" to help her by moving her to safety and calling for medical assistance, or does your conscience compel you to do so?

If one applies the same principle to the rest of society, that results in a better situation for everyone.


It seems apparent that far more misery and death has happened due to and at the hands of people who try to force others to collaborate with them, than by people not choosing to collaborate.

I'm not up for playing the numbers game, but what is apparent is that people die and suffer for want of food, medicine, shelter, and so on.


And the argument here is about the essence of the position that because people might die, everyuone should be everyone elses slave.

You don't know what "slave" means. If one isn't bought and sold as a piece of property, then one isn't a slave.


Combatting exploitation is one thing, resisting tyranny is another, saying everyone should be everyone elses slave, that I am basically in debt to Tool because he worked in the 'catering business' somewhere where ever is insanity.

You're mistaking reciprocity for slavery. You help others because others have helped you before, and will help you in the future.


Is the only reason you feel the need to help people because other people try to force you?

No, it's a recognition that the labour of others is what keeps me alive and comfortable.

[redblood_blackflag]

So if you come across an unconscious six year old girl on an active railway track, are you "forced" to help her by moving her to safety and calling for medical assistance, or does your conscience compel you to do so?

If one applies the same principle to the rest of society, that results in a better situation for everyone.



I'm not up for playing the numbers game, but what is apparent is that people die and suffer for want of food, medicine, shelter, and so on.



You don't know what "slave" means. If one isn't bought and sold as a piece of property, then one isn't a slave.



You're mistaking reciprocity for slavery. You help others because others have helped you before, and will help you in the future.



No, it's a recognition that the labour of others is what keeps me alive and comfortable.

Im not mistaking "do you think others should be forced to help people?" -- "yes." as "reciprocity." If you want to live up to "reciprocity," I suggest you get on a plane and come over here to take care of me, as you are obligated (so everyone here seems to claim). Unless we want to change what these words mean every other post.
I am not talking about reciprocity- that is a given. It's obvious that many people, if not most, tend to operate based on this idea to some extent or another. I am specifically talking about forcing people to take care of others who they cannot possibly be obligated to (as obligations are either self-imposed, or a claim to slavery). Of course, if an individual lumps all humans and all human action into one big pile and calls it "society," then I can see why this would be difficult to comprehend.
Apparently I am indebted to The Revolutionary Tool for my existence since he worked in the "catering business" who knows where.

I think you're mistaking that for "caring about others."

You are obligated to move the unconscious child because someone else ordered you to: yes or no.
obviously the answer is no. you choose to do it. someone else telling you that you are obligated to move the child or they will force you to do it is someone essentially claiming you are their slave.
you can talk about "humanity" and "reciprocity" all you want, it's the same idea at it's core.
Someone being forced to help the child isnt charity, not on anyones part.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Im not mistaking "do you think others should be forced to help people?" -- "yes." as "reciprocity." If you want to live to "reciprocity," I suggest you get on a plane and come over here to take care of me, as you are obligated. Unless we want to change what these words mean every other post.

I'd help you if I could (is there anything in particular that you require assistance with?), but I'm afraid that since I cannot afford a plane ticket, I can only help you from a distance.


I think you're mistaking that for "caring about others."

Mistaking what? Others help me, I help them in turn, and so the cycle continues. That's reciprocity.


You are obligated to move the unconcious child because someone else said so: yes or no.

Yes.

Why? Because I was taught from an early age that helping others is a good thing. We are all better off for it.

[Hexen]

1) a pope (president/prime minister)
2) councils (congress/parliament)
3) tithing (taxes)
4) commandments (laws)
5) sects (political parties)
6) heretics (anarchists)
7) protestant reformers (Libertarians)
8) adevil (any foreign bogeyman or dictator)
9) catechisms (party platforms)
10) doctrine (ideology)
11) rituals (voting)
12) prayer (pledge of allegiance, loyalty oaths)
13) crusades (wars to make the world safe for "democracy," etc)
14) brainwashing (brainwashing)
15) blind faith (blind faith)
16)zealotry (zealotry)

Yep, looks like our society's Christian predominance is showing, that's what I was trying to point out all along with the fact those two are interchangeable which shows that everything in our society can be traced back to it's roots which is Christianity but all Capitalism did was 'secularized' it (much like "Divine Right to Kings"/"Original Sin" has been turned into the Human Nature argument) but they're still the same thing in the end.


I believe presidents have more to do with leadership, however if you read Obama's speeches they seem biblical. I don't agree leadership is a trait of religion, they are however connected, so in a way I agree.

And That's exactly the point, Christianity is the superstructure of the US and the Western world which is why they're connected.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

This getting a lot like showing a Creationist a display of fossils and saying 'See? Do you see it now?' and all they can do is shake their head and go 'Nope, not real, nuh uh'.
redblood has decided that we're all being secretly, or openly, forced into giving a shit about other people and wanting to share and behave in an egalitarian way. We're slaves to empathy. We're all doomed to continue having an interest in people other than ourselves...*sigh*

[GPDP]

I know this statement won't contribute much, but who honestly splits this many hairs over being "forced" to care for others?

Please, I want to understand the mindset, but it's hurting my head. Why wouldn't you want the guarantee that society will care for you if you honestly require it due to not being able to provide for yourself? I sure as fuck don't want to leave it just to the off-chance that others will feel charitable enough to care for me.

If appropriating some of society's surplus "forcibly" to set it aside for the welfare of others is "slavery" now...

...I give up. Seriously, dude, get some goddamn perspective.

[redblood_blackflag]

This getting a lot like showing a Creationist a display of fossils and saying 'See? Do you see it now?' and all they can do is shake their head and go 'Nope, not real, nuh uh'.
redblood has decided that we're all being secretly, or openly, forced into giving a shit about other people and wanting to share and behave in an egalitarian way. We're slaves to empathy. We're all doomed to continue having an interest in people other than ourselves...*sigh*


Funny, I sort of feel like I'm talking to people who believe 'government' exists, or.. something.

"redblood has decided that we're all being secretly, or openly, forced into giving a shit about other people and wanting to share and behave in an egalitarian way." -Hrm. No. I have asked directly and am going off of answers which have been given to me directly.
The individuals specifically said they believe in forcing others to help people.
I dont know who would be "secretly forcing you to giving a shit..."
I'm really not sure what you mean by this.

"We're slaves to empathy. We're all doomed to continue having an interest in people other than ourselves...*sigh"
--- That's interesting. I'm not even debating this, or arguing against the concept of reciprocity, etc, etc.
I am discussing forcing people to help others, I am discussing a belief which essentially amounts to, and would result in actions akin to one person acting as the master of another.
You being a slave to your sense of empathy has nothing to do with forcing other people to obey your would-be "empathetic commands"
nor does it have anything to do with "egalitarianism"

[redblood_blackflag]

I know this statement won't contribute much, but who honestly splits this many hairs over being "forced" to care for others?

Please, I want to understand the mindset, but it's hurting my head. Why wouldn't you want the guarantee that society will care for you if you honestly require it due to not being able to provide for yourself? I sure as fuck don't want to leave it just to the off-chance that others will feel charitable enough to care for me.

If appropriating some of society's surplus "forcibly" to set it aside for the welfare of others is "slavery" now...

...I give up. Seriously, dude, get some goddamn perspective.
"but it's hurting my head" that might be congnitive dissonance.

" Why wouldn't you want the guarantee that society will care for you if you honestly require it due to not being able to provide for yourself?" Who is going to guarantee this? Society? Society will guarantee that society will take care of me? This quite simply isn't possible. It amounts to nothing, basically.
And I've been accused of utopianism?

"If appropriating some of society's surplus "forcibly" to set it aside for the welfare of others is "slavery" now..." Society has no surplus. It doesnt make or have anything.
At best, all you can do is forcefully appropriate what others have produced(theft, laying claim to labor of others, etc), or help people yourself(selves), and there's no guarantee either way.

[redblood_blackflag]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2573611&postcount=1

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Since you didn't answer this question when I last asked it, I'll ask again:

If you fall ill and do not have the personal resources to treat the malady, do you think it is good and proper that you should suffer and quite possibly die in consequence?

[redblood_blackflag]

If I die, I die "good and proper" rather than live as a thief, exploiter, or tyrant.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If I die, I die "good and proper" rather than live as a thief, exploiter, or tyrant.

It's not all about you though, is it? You're perfectly free to refuse assistance should you feel that is right.

But what about the old? The ill? The very young? If they're reliant only on charity, then all but the lucky ones will experience substantial decreases in quality of life and a greatly increased rate of death. We know this because there was once a time when there was no social provision of services and charity was the only option.

We've tried your way before, and it resulted in mass movements that lead to the provision of things like universal healthcare services and welfare. What you propose would simply put us all back at square one.

[Pessimist]

The problem here is that redblood has found "The Truth" and so this isn't a real discussion. This is him propagating his semi-religious moralistic belief system about what is right in a totally ahistorical and idealist way (ironically behaving in a way that he criticized with his original post - yes I read it!).

redblood, it seems your set of beliefs is premised on the idea that the existing distribution of resources is based on everyone's work (or would be if it weren't for those meddling governments that apparently don't really exist...) so those who dare to tamper with it through welfare etc. are stealing the value of one's labour. But, redblood, that isn't the way things work at present. Taxation of labour could arguably be considered "theft" but so also could profit, since capitalists are taking resources they did not work for.

What I don't get is where your definition of "existence" comes from. You keep saying governments don't exist. Of course they do. You can hate them and claim they are illegitimate - with much justification - but that does not stop them from existing. Legitimacy and existence are completely unrelated concepts. If we use your logic can I claim property doesn't exist because I see it as illegitimate? After all it is just a set of institutions that is backed up by the guns of the state, and shouldn't really have any more real existence then the government does.

[redblood_blackflag]

The problem here is that redblood has found "The Truth" and so this isn't a real discussion. This is him propagating his semi-religious moralistic belief system about what is right in a totally ahistorical and idealist way (ironically behaving in a way that he criticized with his original post - yes I read it!).

redblood, it seems your set of beliefs is premised on the idea that the existing distribution of resources is based on everyone's work (or would be if it weren't for those meddling governments that apparently don't really exist...) so those who dare to tamper with it through welfare etc. are stealing the value of one's labour. But, redblood, that isn't the way things work at present. Taxation of labour could arguably be considered "theft" but so also could profit, since capitalists are taking resources they did not work for.

What I don't get is where your definition of "existence" comes from. You keep saying governments don't exist. Of course they do. You can hate them and claim they are illegitimate - with much justification - but that does not stop them from existing. Legitimacy and existence are completely unrelated concepts. If we use your logic can I claim property doesn't exist because I see it as illegitimate? After all it is just a set of institutions that is backed up by the guns of the state, and shouldn't really have any more real existence then the government does.

States, as groups of individuals calling themselves states and claiming everyone is their "subject," and getting people to believe it, exist.
"Government" is the belief in a superhuman entity which is or should be "in control," more or less- a group with "authority," the "right to rule," over "society" (everyuone?), etc
Most people seem to use them synonymously when they speak of "institutions,"
but nobody says "I live in the government of ______." They usually say "I live in the state of _____," but they also say "the state and the government makes the laws."
It's an irrational, self-contradictory belief system backed by a bunch of nonsense propaganda which at this point is perpetuated to keep up peoples "support" of the state.

The state is the group of people most call "the government," though sometimes people differentiate between the state, the institution or apparatus viewed to have/weild "political power(force)," and the "form of government," i.e, democracy, republicanism, etc (how they decide why theyre going to do force to everybody).
To call that group "government," is to say they are your rightful master. That their commands are "laws," and that when they impose they are not actually imposing, as it is their perceived right. It implies they own everything, even while an individual may argue that it upholds "property of the individual"
To call them "government" implies they have "authority," the right to rule- when they do not, and cannot possibly have the "right to rule," yet this is the root of the belief in "government." Without the "right to rule," they are not "government," they are not the "sovereign," there is no and cannot possibly be a "sovereign," they are utterly indistinguishable from any other aggressor.

My personal concept of morality doesn't change what is happening when authoritarians throw people in cages or kill them for disobeying them, no matter what they call it ("law, crime, enforcing the law, etc")


The state claims everything is it's property. This has been discussed already. The "institutions of property" you are talking about operate UNDER the boot of the state, not the other way around.
The only "property" the state can ACTUALLY protect is what it claims as it's own, which is everything perceived to be in the jurisdiction of the state.

It is inherently aggressive against everything and everyone else as it claims the right to rule them.
The first thing the state does is demand subservience from all within it's perceived territory, which it claims by force (from OTHERS), this means it is logically impossible for "the state" to protect "property of the individual*," as by it's very methods it violates these principles.
This also means that if nobody has had their rights violated by the group or institution, the group or institution cannot possibly be a "state."

Capitalists dont "tax" the state, or you, the state taxes "capitalists" and everybody else.
Capitalists dont kick the state out for not paying 'taxes,' the state kicks 'capitalists' out for not paying 'taxes,' and everyone else.
"Capitalists" dont "draft" or conscript people to go and fight in their wars, the state does
(whoever is "behind" the state egging war on for profit is besides the fact. You can call anybody a 'capitalist' at the point they go "behind the scenes" and manipulate the "state" to gain profit by war, or though the coercion that is the so-called "monopoly on force/violence" which the state claims it has.. "Capitalists" are not viewed to have the "authority" to "declare war," the state is.)
Capitalists dont claim the "authority" to regulate every single aspect of your life, what you can/cant do on "your" property, who you can/cant trade your labor to, what people can/cant create and trade, etc, the state does.

* The state's primary bit of propaganda is "protection." At times, people perceived to be agents of the state will show up and actually protect people and what they say is "their" property- but this does not change the fact that first, the state imposes this "protection" on the "society," the "individuals," and the "property" via "taxation."
If you never wanted or used their "protection," the state still imposes it upon whatever would be considered "your" property, and removes you by force if you do not comply. Statism is perpetual tenancy.
-- it's just the belief that some people have the right to do violence to others

[Pessimist]

Okay, first I will admit I was sloppy: you're right government and state are not the same thing.

But then you go on to say that the "government is the belief in a super human entity..." when it is neither a belief or super human. I also don't know why you think the word "rightful" is tied up in the definition of government.


The state claims everything is it's property. This has been discussed already. The "institutions of property" you are talking about exist UNDER the boot of the state, not the other way around.


Well, I don't want to be annoying by repeating the comments others have made about power not existing for the sake of power, but the state's existence is really the rule of the propertied - demonstrated by, for example, workers paying much higher tax rates than capitalists.


Capitalists dont "tax" the state, or you, the state taxes "capitalists" and everybody else.

This part is just plain wrong since profit would not exist if workers were getting the full value of their labour (other than state taxation, of course). Why would a capitalist employ a worker if they intended to give them the full value of what they produce?

The state exists because capitalism would not survive without it. Let's say you achieve your world. By your own admission (correct me if I'm mistaken), this would be a world where many people would suffer poverty, lack of health care, malnutrition, etc (of course we have that today too). Now let's say these have-nots out number the haves. How do you prevent them from taking from you without the state? Or let's say you own a factory and the workers there believe they are not being paid their fair share, why should they not take it from you by force and how would you stop them?

The state uses a combination of guns, thugs, and social reforms. What have you got to work with?

[redblood_blackflag]

Okay, first I will admit I was sloppy: you're right government and state are not the same thing.

But then you go on to say that the "government is the belief in a super human entity..." when it is neither a belief or super human. I also don't know why you think the word "rightful" is tied up in the definition of government.

The belief that they have the "right to rule" is what makes it/them "government" in their minds.
I've never heard anybody call a mugger, or some random person barking orders to everyone on the street, "the government"



Well, I don't want to be annoying by repeating the comments others have made about power not existing for the sake of power, but the state's existence is really the rule of the propertied - demonstrated by, for example, workers paying much higher tax rates than capitalists.
This isn't actually a refutation of my point that the "state" claims to regulate and "tax" the "market/capitalists/everyone" in the first place.






This part is just plain wrong since profit would not exist if workers were getting the full value of their labour (other than state taxation, of course). Why would a capitalist employ a worker if they intended to give them the full value of what they produce?
I'm not sure what you mean by profit here.



The state exists because capitalism would not survive without it.
Then get rid of the state.


Let's say you achieve your world. By your own admission (correct me if I'm mistaken), this would be a world where many people would suffer poverty, lack of health care, malnutrition, etc (of course we have that today too).



Now let's say these have-nots out number the haves. How do you prevent them from taking from you without the state? Or let's say you own a factory and the workers there believe they are not being paid their fair share, why should they not take it from you by force and how would you stop them?
How do you defend yourself against aggression?
Who "owns" the factory? Who says?
The state is the one taking from everyone.



The state uses a combination of guns, thugs, and social reforms. What have you got to work with?

the state uses guns, thugs, and propaganda.

[Pessimist]

The belief that they have the "right to rule" is what makes it/them "government" in their minds.
I've never heard anybody call a mugger, or some random person barking orders to everyone on the street, "the government"

It's the government because of its ability to rule, not its right to do so. While that ability is based on a combination of power and social acceptance (from a sufficient percentage of the population) that doesn't make it less real.


I'm not sure what you mean by profit here.

Profit is the surplus that goes to the employer after deducting the cost of wages, raw materials, and other costs. This surplus can only exist because there is a gap between what the employees are paid and the value that they produce.


Then get rid of the state.

Yes, we are all in favour of that. But what I mean is that the world you propose could not exist because you want people to accept norms and principles without force that will often be detrimental to their interest.


How do you defend yourself against aggression?
Who "owns" the factory? Who says?
The state is the one taking from everyone.

Well the question of who owns the factory and "who says" are really for you to answer, since this is your world. How does one own property legitimately in your vision? My point was only that however this "legitimacy" is established it will be challenged - and how will those challenges be met? You opted not to answer and instead answered a question with a question. I do know that however I "defend [myself] against aggression" won't work if I'm outnumbered 100:1 or even 10:1 and don't have state suppression forces to call in.


the state uses guns, thugs, and propaganda.

Yes propaganda too. You didn't answer what you've got that would work as well as all that to keep your vision from collapsing when the have-nots want from the haves.

[Jimmie Higgins]

The belief that they have the "right to rule" is what makes it/them "government" in their minds.
I've never heard anybody call a mugger, or some random person barking orders to everyone on the street, "the government"Your view is completely idealistic. States did not form out of abstract "will to states" - there are pleanty of people who feel they "should" rule, but that doesn't create a state.


This isn't actually a refutation of my point that the "state" claims to regulate and "tax" the "market/capitalists/everyone" in the first place.Taxes everyone for what purpose? To raise a military. Why? To prevent pirates or competing companies from disrupting trade; to prevent a nationalist government from overthrowing a forign colony and cancelling contracts with domestic companies. To build infrastructure. Why? To have roads and ports and services and educated workers to "attract" investment and business. To deal with the social reform programs? Why? Because movements forced states to adpot some of them, fear of unrest and revolt motivated the creation of others.

Capitalists do not rule directly - the big ones don't even manage money directly - instead they set up institutions, boards, foundations, fund PACs and buy politicians. Even then these sorts of political measures are only when there is some specific project that their industry wants - most of the time it's all on auto-pilot because the whole system is set up around ensuring privite property and the flow of capital. Without capitalism, what is the state to Tax? People won't have mortgage and rents so where's that revenue? No income, no income tax, no business, no Tax. Capitalism is a "system" not governance, states are a part of that system. They are to "keep order" as you argue, but that order they are keeping is an order around reproducing society, populations, and so forth on the basis of capitalist relations.



How do you defend yourself against aggression?
Who "owns" the factory? Who says?
The state is the one taking from everyone.

Taking from everyone for what purpose?

[redblood_blackflag]

Your view is completely idealistic. States did not form out of abstract "will to states" - there are pleanty of people who feel they "should" rule, but that doesn't create a state.

What view? "Government" doesn't exist.
How do you figure that's idealistic?

the state is a group of people sanctioning themselves in the name of the people to do violence to the people for disobeying the people.. and getting people to believe they are the rightful sovereign.


Taxes everyone for what purpose? To raise a military. Why? To prevent pirates or competing companies from disrupting trade; to prevent a nationalist government from overthrowing a forign colony and cancelling contracts with domestic companies. To build infrastructure. Why? To have roads and ports and services and educated workers to "attract" investment and business. To deal with the social reform programs? Why? Because movements forced states to adpot some of them, fear of unrest and revolt motivated the creation of others.

What's the purpose of saying "obey me and give me a cut of what you produce or whatever I say you owe me for, or I do violence to you" ? I guess you'd have to ask the individual doing it. To me it seems pretty obvious.
You think nobody went anywhere for thousands of years waiting for someone to think up "politicians" and "states" to make roads legal?
What social reform? it's just a bunch of people saying "do this or we hurt you"


Capitalists do not rule directly - the big ones don't even manage money directly - instead they set up institutions, boards, foundations, fund PACs and buy politicians. Even then these sorts of political measures are only when there is some specific project that their industry wants - most of the time it's all on auto-pilot because the whole system is set up around ensuring privite property and the flow of capital. Without capitalism, what is the state to Tax? People won't have mortgage and rents so where's that revenue? No income, no income tax, no business, no Tax. Capitalism is a "system" not governance, states are a part of that system. They are to "keep order" as you argue, but that order they are keeping is an order around reproducing society, populations, and so forth on the basis of capitalist relations.

yeah, the state does.
who cares? it's like saying "the master wants to keep his system in place, so we need to get rid of the system before the master"
the order they keep is their own. you can call it whatever you want.
What is the state to tax? In the old days the state used to show up and forcefully take grain, cattle, etc. I don't assume you want to get rid of grain and cattle.
A tax is a levy on production.


[QUOTE]Taking from everyone for what purpose?
o.O