Some thoughts/clarifications
 

First of all, I'd like to say that I don't mean to appear "overly critical" of AC, as if I have some sort of agenda against it or whatnot. I don't. I like AC, and some of the AC posters here are very, very, smart, and I can honestly say I have a world view I'm more comfortable with because of reading what you say.

This post might start off slow, but hear me out.

I had never been all that into politics until maybe a year or two ago (and still am basically only interested for entertainment's/discussion's sake). I wouldn't say I've "changed" much, but a lot of the assumptions I had about what was good and what was bad are ones that make more intellectual sense to me now. From reading this forum.

I make occasional posts that tend to disagree with AC, and I think people assume (reasonably so) that I have some agenda against it. Really it's just that most other stuff that could be talked about on here doesn't interest me. Whether or not Rudy Giuliani is rising in the polls doesn't interest me (at least not as fodder for discussion). Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).

So all I have worth talking about is my mild disagreement with (maybe lack of understanding of) AC and how exactly you guys view the world.

Granted, this is a politics forum, so I guess the entire point is to convince people that your way is best. I guess maybe it's understood that you have some "agenda" when you open your mouth. So maybe that's what throws me off. If we're just talking about "Theoretically what's the best system" with the assumption that there is an answer, then I agree AC is the best answer. But, I don't see breaking the biases that would practically allow us to act on that as necessarily good.

Presently, most human beings are not comfortable with AC. It makes erroneous sense that they need to form a state. Is it good to try to persuade them until they agree, sure, if that's what you consider a good use of your time. But if I had a switch that could somehow make states disappear, while keeping our condition exactly the same, I wouldn't flip it (in the same vein that I wouldn't have my dog sleep on a clear glass floor, even if it was where I preferred him).

So to me, what I "stand for" is not anarchism. What I stand for is people (and by extension myself) being better off. And having a comfortable environment that makes sense contributes to that. So what I stand for is "Anarchy when it follows suit of a sentiment that believes anarchy is good." Or in other words, simply "people acting based on what they believe is best."

If you believe in AC in the sense that you believe it's best philosophically, then I don't disagree. But the practical effects of the application are a different issue. People talk about it as if ridding the biases that would allow for it does not happen without a cost.

So philosophically would it be best for the world in the long-run to flip the switch, sure. But it wouldn't be best *for me*. To me, myself, my friends, and my family are a higher value than the wellbeing of future generations whom I don't care about.

So for me to be comfortable "supporting" AC (which is essentially "flipping the switch" divided by a huge number) I would have to believe that ridding bias is without cost, or at least that it's always worth it. And I don't believe that.

I honestly laughed a little when I read Nielsio's reply in the other thread about how he would handle the rape hypothetical. Like, it really made me smile. Even though I philosophically agree that the freedom to carry guns as you wish is good for all the reasons you guys say it's good, having grown up in Joeshmoeville, Massachusetts, real world, 1983-present AD, I admit that a culture without gun laws (while objectively better) is not an idea I like.

So it seems silly to "support" something that I myself am not comfortable with and maybe never could be comfortable with. I admit the discomfort is a result of culturally indoctrinated bias. But that bias is not without significance to me. It's a part of me. And I'm comfortable with nature, rather than change of sentiment, correcting whatever burden the bias brings. Correcting it myself feels like a waste of life to me.

You can say I "should" learn about guns and become comfortable with them, since I realize that philosophically that's a "better" way to live. But basically, I don't think I should have to. If I feel like the good of breaking the bias doesn't outweigh the cost, then to me, a world that forces me to break the bias is not one I "support."

Why should I martyr myself to be an objectively good person when I can't be sure everyone else will do the same? Is that actually good? It seems destructive. Maybe I'll spend a lot of time, money, and effort breaking my biased aversion to guns, but what makes me think the progressive [censored] from Berkley California isn't working to break his bias that tells him taxation is effective?

So basically, if I can't guarantee you're not gonna be a dick to me, then I reserve the right to be a dick to you. Hence, the state.

I can look at the state and agree "Ya, that sucks, we're all dicks." But having these biases that are instilled in me at no fault of my own, it doesn't make sense to me to say "Now I don't want the state." That seems like destruction.

And like I said, the wellbeing of infinite future generations (while objectively more important than me and my people) is not something I value as much as being comfortable right now.


But in any event, I plan to put my disagreements with AC to rest, both because it is exhausting and because my "disagreement" is so semantical that it's very hard to discuss without exaggerating why exactly I disagree (and thus I end up implying support for something that I don't actually support, which is a bad thing to me).

Since this thread stands a reasonable shot of being moved to SMP, I'll conclude by stating that I posted this in politics, if you're not sure which "other thread" I was referring to. EDIT: Or if you weren't sure why I boldly declared "this is a politics forum."

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

Haven't read the rest yet, just a short reply to this.

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly laughed a little when I read Nielsio's reply in the other thread about how he would handle the rape hypothetical. Like, it really made me smile.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand. I won't hesitate for a second before shooting you in the knees if you are in the act of raping someone (if that's what it takes). What is there to smile about?

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

The fact that your first instinct to stop the rape of a stranger is to use a gun, rather than call the police. It demonstrates an enormous lack of bias to act that way. It made me smile because that's so very different than what my first instinct would be.

But in any event, I'd prefer if you read the whole post before we discuss fairly insignificant parts of it.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
So all I have worth talking about is my mild disagreement with (maybe lack of understanding of) AC and how exactly you guys view the world.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think most the best debaters against AC here are minarchists. This board is predominantly pro free market.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

Honestly your position is fine. I have absolutly no problem with AC isn't in my direct interest today and spending time finding out about it and pushing it forward isn't going to be profitable for me, you do'nt have to play the game but get off the field. Being disinterested isn't evil is isn't even bad but please don't try to trip up or tie up in minutia those of us who are trying (futily perhaps) to change some things. If I'm genuinly trying to convince people to live better and freer lives dealing with tortuous hypotheticals probably isn't the best use of my time. Do you agree? THis is n't antagonistic but if you've expressed a preference to be disinterested be disinterested.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

Fair enough, but it's not so much that I'm disinterested in the philosophical aspects of it. It's just that my philosophy is one that makes me disinterested to change people's minds (but still enjoy discussing it).

But basically I agree that I see you as the "good guys," and that it might be harmful in a way to nit points just for the sake of something to talk about.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
First of all, I'd like to say that I don't mean to appear "overly critical" of AC, as if I have some sort of agenda against it or whatnot.

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense taken. It's pretty clear that you are hungry for clarity of thought/worldview and that you're going through a storm lately.


You may like this:

Jonah and the Whale
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtuinWQkTfY


[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).

[/ QUOTE ]

Nice.



[ QUOTE ]
So all I have worth talking about is my mild disagreement with (maybe lack of understanding of) AC and how exactly you guys view the world.

Granted, this is a politics forum, so I guess the entire point is to convince people that your way is best. I guess maybe it's understood that you have some "agenda" when you open your mouth. So maybe that's what throws me off. If we're just talking about "Theoretically what's the best system" with the assumption that there is an answer, then I agree AC is the best answer. But, I don't see breaking the biases that would practically allow us to act on that as necessarily good.

Presently, most human beings are not comfortable with AC. It makes erroneous sense that they need to form a state. Is it good to try to persuade them until they agree, sure, if that's what you consider a good use of your time. But if I had a switch that could somehow make states disappear, while keeping our condition exactly the same, I wouldn't flip it (in the same vein that I wouldn't have my dog sleep on a clear glass floor, even if it was where I preferred him).

So to me, what I "stand for" is not anarchism. What I stand for is people (and by extension myself) being better off. And having a comfortable environment that makes sense contributes to that. So what I stand for is "Anarchy when it follows suit of a sentiment that believes anarchy is good." Or in other words, simply "people acting based on what they believe is best."

If you believe in AC in the sense that you believe it's best philosophically, then I don't disagree. But the practical effects of the application are a different issue. People talk about it as if ridding the biases that would allow for it does not happen without a cost.

So philosophically would it be best for the world in the long-run to flip the switch, sure. But it wouldn't be best *for me*. To me, myself, my friends, and my family are a higher value than the wellbeing of future generations whom I don't care about.

So for me to be comfortable "supporting" AC (which is essentially "flipping the switch" divided by a huge number) I would have to believe that ridding bias is without cost, or at least that it's always worth it. And I don't believe that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, I see what you're getting at.

Three points:

* 1. As I've said a number of times before in this forum: the strategy towards freedom is for the zeitgeist to change. As long as people believe in the state/domination then that's what is going to exist. What ACists try to do is transform people's eyes. It tries to show people what actually is good (voluntarism) and what actually is bad (coercion). It's really a red pill blue pill situation. We don't really want to 'flip the switch'. What we want is for The State Delusion to fly away as if it never existed. And as the ideas of people change, so will society. Just look at those polls lately. How many hundreds of millions of Americans now think Congress are a bunch of crooks? Do you see the change happening before your eyes?

* 2. What's 'best'. Talking about the problems of ridding the state is fine and all, but you must realize that you're talking about troubles with the radio adjustment while your car is heading for a cliff, and it's on fire, and the engine is about to explode, and ... I think you get it. The United States is heading straight for bankruptcy/fascism/WWIII.

* 3. Don't underestimate the people's natural ingenuity. You won't believe how quick people are going to come up with brilliant solutions for problems once they get the FREEDOM to do so. Also don't underestimate just how much people's ingenuity and freedom has been absolutely crushed. If you think Apple is a wonder of the free market then you ain't seen nothing yet.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
I honestly laughed a little when I read Nielsio's reply in the other thread about how he would handle the rape hypothetical. Like, it really made me smile. Even though I philosophically agree that the freedom to carry guns as you wish is good for all the reasons you guys say it's good, having grown up in Joeshmoeville, Massachusetts, real world, 1983-present AD, I admit that a culture without gun laws (while objectively better) is not an idea I like.

So it seems silly to "support" something that I myself am not comfortable with and maybe never could be comfortable with. I admit the discomfort is a result of culturally indoctrinated bias. But that bias is not without significance to me. It's a part of me. And I'm comfortable with nature, rather than change of sentiment, correcting whatever burden the bias brings. Correcting it myself feels like a waste of life to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say that you're comfortable with it, but all your posts lately say something different. I would encourage you to keep chugging at it until you finally have a peace of mind.



[ QUOTE ]
You can say I "should" learn about guns and become comfortable with them, since I realize that philosophically that's a "better" way to live. But basically, I don't think I should have to. If I feel like the good of breaking the bias doesn't outweigh the cost, then to me, a world that forces me to break the bias is not one I "support."

Why should I martyr myself to be an objectively good person when I can't be sure everyone else will do the same? Is that actually good? It seems destructive. Maybe I'll spend a lot of time, money, and effort breaking my biased aversion to guns, but what makes me think the progressive [censored] from Berkley California isn't working to break his bias that tells him taxation is effective?

So basically, if I can't guarantee you're not gonna be a dick to me, then I reserve the right to be a dick to you. Hence, the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is extremely honest of you. Well done. And yes, I completely feel your pain of waking up to a society that has betrayed you.



[ QUOTE ]
I can look at the state and agree "Ya, that sucks, we're all dicks." But having these biases that are instilled in me at no fault of my own, it doesn't make sense to me to say "Now I don't want the state." That seems like destruction.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really hurts your identity doesn't it? But on the other hand you're finally starting to HAVE an identity. This is brilliant.


"[Neo] My eyes hurt. [Morpheus] That's because you've never used them before".
-The Matrix

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

Nice hand, Nielsio. I'm honestly not really sure how to respond to you.

I mean, I tend to think there is a difference between intellectually removing bias (my posts lately), and then truly being comfortable with the change of environment. It is a good point that you shouldn't underestimate the way people will solve problems. So, the belief that my bias is such that the new environment would be uncomfortable is probably a biased assumption in its own right.

I mean, when I wrote the OP, that was as "comfortable" with my world view as I'd ever been. It was the reconciliation I was looking for. You make a convincing presentation though.

I think the biggest difference between "me" and "you" is that I know I could never act like an ACer, so I don't call myself that. And I guess maybe that's why I look for reasons to disagree. I want to find the intellectual justification to my actions. If there was theoretically a chance to vote for something that mattered to me, I'd vote. I mean I've never voted before but it's mostly out of laziness and disinterest. I can't honestly say I wouldn't if it was to my best interest. Treat others how you want to be treated. Oh? You're gonna go vote? OK, I will too. So I don't feel comfortable calling myself an "ACist" because it implies a degree of principle that I don't have. I don't care about the objectivity of what's best as much as I care about being comfortable right now. I'm a statist who agrees we are all [censored] each other over. I guess in a way, the state is a function of time preference.

But, intellectually I don't really disagree with anything you guys say. It's never made sense to me that government can make things better. And it wasn't like a political/moral thing, it was just a strictly logical thing. It's a barrier. How can that be better? How can your decision now to stereotype behavior and restrict decisions actually be better than another human being's decision based on his first hand analysis and unique judgment at a particular time? So if you asked me what was best, I'd always say less, less, less government.

I just, being so accepting of the reality where governments exist, never really considered the option of them not existing as a plausibility until I started reading this board. (I mean, I still don't consider it plausible in the sense that it might actually happen any time soon, but I never realized people actually stood for that and were pushing its cause.) And for a little while (I didn't include this in the OP but) I basically was an ACer. I didn't know all the fancy mumbo jumbo that you guys know, but it all basically hit me like a ton of bricks, and I started to see government's functions with moral disdain. Like I'd look at cops and growl, I even started looking at postmen and growled.

But then that just started to feel silly to me for no explicable reason. I guess like you say, it's part of my identity. And being emo is pretty lame. So I don't know. I guess I don't *want* to see the majority of the world around me as something I disagree with. It's just hard to disagree with everything. But at the same time... I do disagree!

So then where does that leave me. What I expressed in the OP is, I think, basically a reconciliation. It's one I'm comfortable with. It basically says to me, lack of government is objectively good, but removing the bias that would allow for it is not easy, and I do not fault myself or someone else for "playing along." A state police officer is also part hero. The things that drove him to be a cop in this society would often mean he'd be a full fledged hero in a free society. I do fault people (intellectually at least) if they don't admit that they're being dicks.

The way I see it, government's legs are a function of people who won't admit they're dicks, and not so much people like me who play along anyways. Cause I'm laying it on the table that "I'll stop if you do."

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

Another hurdle that keeps me from "acting like an ACer" which I meant to add is that people will interpret what you stand for in a way that makes sense to them, and there's no changing that. And people's opinions matter to me, to some degree. Someone can say "The government needs to do more of [X]!" and I might agree that X is a good thing that socially I would approve of and encourage. But I just don't approve of the idea that the government should do it. But that's lost on them.

Moreover, let's say anarchy was an ideal that I had no doubts about. I want to help make it happen in every way possible. The ways you do this (not voting, not paying taxes, exposing the corruption, etc.), while objectively good, are things people will interpret as deviant and bad. And I don't want to be interpreted like that. The ideal is not as important to me as practical perception.

So I guess you could say that sort of leaves me with what I believe is borodog's position, that it's best to avoid talking about politics with anyone you care about. I'm just not entirely sure what I think of that. I enjoy talking about what I value with people I value. It's easy enough to avoid talking about "Who do you want to be President," but inevitably you'll want to talk about life, assumptions, etc., with people you care about. And to do this, for me, I prefer to adjust my language to reconcile with their reality.

So then what am I? Am I an ACer? I don't think so. Because like I said, I think it implies more dedication to the principle than I actually have.

But anyways, thanks for your reply Nielsio. If you have any more thoughts please share.


EDIT: I think an important question is "Does hypocrisy actually exist?" In the interest of not starving to death though, I must play poker now and may elaborate later.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).


[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. How ignorant you are for posting this. You may disagree with socialism, but, thinking that no "logicall defence" of it can be made is preposterous. You really have missed out on some of the greatest writing of all time regarding politics and philosophy if you have never heard a logical argument supporting socialism. You don't have to agree with it- but your cutting your own throat by not accepting there are super-intelligent, convincing people out there who support it and are able to provide a 'logical defense of it'.

The idea of Nazism (or ironically National Socialism) repulses me. But it would be very idiotic of me to make the claim that no "logical defense" could be made and would consequently be false as there have been plenty.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).


[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made it that far? That's pretty good considering this post is of no consequence to someone who is not an ACer or something close to it.

If there is a logical justification, I don't see it. So what I said is it doesn't interest me to talk about it. Hence why I had been dwelling on anti-AC minutia.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
What we want is for The State Delusion to fly away as if it never existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

...yes, and replace the evils of state capitalism with something that has the inevitable implication of creating a more oppressive, exploitative, evil system encouraging greed, slavery and the systematic control and manipulation of the masses by an unobligated disproportionately wealthy minority.

Surely if we are to look for alternative ways to prosper and create a free society in the absense of the state we should avoid opening ourselves up to even greater evils of a same vein to those perpetrated by any state.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Whether or not socialism can be logically defended doesn't interest me (cause it's so obvious to me that it can't be).


[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here.

[/ QUOTE ]

You made it that far? That's pretty good considering this post is of no consequence to someone who is not an ACer or something close to it.

If there is a logical justification, I don't see it. So what I said is it doesn't interest me to talk about it. Hence why I had been dwelling on anti-AC minutia.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said a "logical defense". You did not say in the post that you hadn't heard a logical justification. This changes things completely.

I certainly havn't read anything that gave a legitmate justification of exerminating me and my family to create a utopian/ Aryan Fatherland. Nor do I think anyone could ever do so. I do, however, acknowledge that over the past 200 years there has been some very well written 'logical defenses' of such ideology that would result in such an injustice.

Perhaps you should edit your post with the amendment you have made in the consequent post (justification instead of defence) as to save you from the embarrassing stigma of the implication of your wording suggesting that you have never read any of the greatest political/philosophers of all time that have written some of the most wonderfully convincing logical defenses of socialism. I for one am highly appreciative of their efforts which have allowed me to critique and develop my ideas on society that I believe grant even more meaningful "logical defenses" than that of state socialism.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
The ways you do this (not voting, not paying taxes, exposing the corruption, etc.), while objectively good, are things people will interpret as deviant and bad. And I don't want to be interpreted like that. The ideal is not as important to me as practical perception.

[/ QUOTE ]


Bingo! You've hit it right on the nail.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/comm...4/23458408.jpg


That is exactly what it is. What you are saying here holds true for almost everyone.

The difference however is that in your case, you have taken it from a more subconscious level of processing to a more conscious level of understanding. The pressure of this kind off social approval is ENORMOUS, and breaking loose from it is an incredible struggle.


The choice is clear: either you conform your opinion to the judgment of others, or you develop your opinions on your own, by your own evaluation and your own personal strength.

It's the choice between being alive, being actually alive and having a personality, a self. Or it is disappearing in the masses of collectivism and socialism, social conformism, of dying, of literally dying to your true nature.

And yes, the choice has massive affects on your personal relationships. And that is exactly what you are affraid of. And there lies the beauty of it all. Once you get rid of comformist relationships you will realize how beautiful your life will finally become, when you can FINALLY be yourself, WITHOUT having to fear ridicule from people who CANNOT be themselves, because THEY TOO are affraid of being true to their nature and their natural freedoms.


My advice would be to start listening to some podcasts on deleted and where he talks about liberty applied to personal relationships. You will be amazed at what you'll hear.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What we want is for The State Delusion to fly away as if it never existed.

[/ QUOTE ]

...yes, and replace the evils of state capitalism with something that has the inevitable implication of creating a more oppressive, exploitative, evil system encouraging greed, slavery and the systematic control and manipulation of the masses by an unobligated disproportionately wealthy minority.

Surely if we are to look for alternative ways to prosper and create a free society in the absense of the state we should avoid opening ourselves up to even greater evils of a same vein to those perpetrated by any state.

[/ QUOTE ]


Hahaha. lol. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]


People interacting voluntarily and peaceful after they have given up moral support of criminal gangs such as the state.

That sounds like an 'oppressive, exploitative, evil system encouraging greed, slavery and the systematic control and manipulation of the masses by an unobligated disproportionately wealthy minority'.

What was your suggestion again? Worldwide communism?

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
[your cutting your own throat by not accepting there are super-intelligent, convincing people out there who support it and are able to provide a 'logical defense of it'

[/ QUOTE ]

There are super smart people who make their livings as cable news anchors. When there exist certain misconceptions there exists demand to feed those misconceptions. The smartest bears will find a way to do that in a satisfying way (and the laws of social darwinism are such that often the best way to do this is to actually believe it yourself... so the people who have some deeply seated misconception but also a great ability to defend it will be the ones that are selected).

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

Zast, you may not have read the other thread, but I was explaining why I might seem so critical of AC. I see no logical merit to socialism. Sorry, I don't. Do you want me to lie and say I do?

My point was merely that I was dwelling on the differences I have with AC because it interests me, and not because I am actively against it.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
What was your suggestion again? Worldwide communism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if we must engage in sophisticated debate using sarcasm then i'll try: yes, searching for an alternative way to create a free society in the absense of the state is definetly going to lead to the assumption that 'worldwide communism' is the way forward?!!!?!?!???! Seriously Nielso, you resort to sarcasm and McCarthyism in one thread.
[ QUOTE ]

I see no logical merit to socialism. Sorry, I don't. Do you want me to lie and say I do?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, but I think it is ignorant (and incorrect) to dismiss all pollitcal phillosophy that defends socialsim as failing to be "logical" in its defense. Certainly your amendmet that you don't think anything could ever 'justify' socialism to you is perectly understandable and your personal opinion.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
My advice would be to start listening to some podcasts on deleted and where he talks about liberty applied to personal relationships. You will be amazed at what you'll hear.

[/ QUOTE ]


The link was www.freedomainradio.com before it got removed and I got mistakingly banned for blog spamming (fdr is not a blog nor am I affiliated with it). The ban has been reversed, so I assume I can post the url again.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
A state police officer is also part hero. The things that drove him to be a cop in this society would often mean he'd be a full fledged hero in a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wait, what?

The police/military are the ones who have completely sold their soul to the system at the expense of their fellow man. That's the complete opposite of being a hero. It's only a 'hero' in the statist/double think sense of the word.

A real hero is one who has moral integrity and says NO despite how people judge him.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A state police officer is also part hero. The things that drove him to be a cop in this society would often mean he'd be a full fledged hero in a free society.

[/ QUOTE ]


Wait, what?

The police/military are the ones who have completely sold their soul to the system at the expense of their fellow man. That's the complete opposite of being a hero. It's only a 'hero' in the statist/double think sense of the word.

A real hero is one who has moral integrity and says NO despite how people judge him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the desire and the willingness to defend yourself is admirable. I do not think the state does this effectively (and thus the result is not admirable).

What I mean is that the instincts that tell a marine to be a marine (since he lives in a world where he is led to believe that protection of his state is so very right) are the same instincts that would make him more likely to act in what I would consider a "heroic" way in a free society. He's probably more likely to be the guy jumping in the lake to save the old lady. Do you disagree with that assumption?

So I'll look at the big picture (state law enforcement) and say, well that's not heroism. But I think most of the individual actors have a heroic nature, but are misguided.


(Which leads me to wonder if people who act "bravely" are actually more likely to follow a path of misguidance in the first place. Maybe it requires a certain disregard for yourself as an individual to ever act as a "hero".)

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What was your suggestion again? Worldwide communism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if we must engage in sophisticated debate using sarcasm then i'll try: yes, searching for an alternative way to create a free society in the absense of the state is definetly going to lead to the assumption that 'worldwide communism' is the way forward?!!!?!?!???! Seriously Nielso, you resort to sarcasm and McCarthyism in one thread.
[ QUOTE ]

I see no logical merit to socialism. Sorry, I don't. Do you want me to lie and say I do?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, but I think it is ignorant (and incorrect) to dismiss all pollitcal phillosophy that defends socialsim as failing to be "logical" in its defense. Certainly your amendmet that you don't think anything could ever 'justify' socialism to you is perectly understandable and your personal opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zast, three things:

First, please don't attribute quotes to me that are not mine. Make two separate replies, rather than use quick reply, if you also want to quote Nielsio.

Secondly, what part of "to me" did you not understand in the original sentence? When I changed my wording from "defensible" to "justifiable" I didn't even realize I had done this let alone that it meant anything. Not sure why you think one is palatable and the other isn't. Yes there are ways to argue in socialism's favor, but I consider those arguments myopic. All I've been saying the entire time is that I'm convinced socialism has no merit, so broad "capitalism vs socialism" discussion is of no interest to me.

Third, spelling.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What was your suggestion again? Worldwide communism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, if we must engage in sophisticated debate using sarcasm then i'll try: yes, searching for an alternative way to create a free society in the absense of the state is definetly going to lead to the assumption that 'worldwide communism' is the way forward?!!!?!?!???! Seriously Nielso, you resort to sarcasm and McCarthyism in one thread.
[ QUOTE ]

I see no logical merit to socialism. Sorry, I don't. Do you want me to lie and say I do?


[/ QUOTE ]
No, but I think it is ignorant (and incorrect) to dismiss all pollitcal phillosophy that defends socialsim as failing to be "logical" in its defense. Certainly your amendmet that you don't think anything could ever 'justify' socialism to you is perectly understandable and your personal opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Zast, three things:

First, please don't attribute quotes to me that are not mine. Make two separate replies, rather than use quick reply, if you also want to quote Nielsio.

Secondly, what part of "to me" did you not understand in the original sentence? When I changed my wording from "defensible" to "justifiable" I didn't even realize I had done this let alone that it meant anything. Not sure why you think one is palatable and the other isn't. Yes there are ways to argue in socialism's favor, but I consider those arguments myopic. All I've been saying the entire time is that I'm convinced socialism has no merit, so broad "capitalism vs socialism" discussion is of no interest to me.

Third, spelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, I addressed Nielso in the first quote: reading comprehension.

Secondly, its very hard to get through to you. Again, saying that something can not be defended logically is completely different to saying something can not be justified. Justification is subjective to your morality: the arguments logic is not subjective to you. If you say that there has never been a logical defense of socialism I can confidently say YOU ARE WRONG (note; i am not a state socialist). This is very basic stuff and I provided the Nazis analogy to prove this.

Thirdly, sorry I dont always have time to proof read. Ironically, I just got back from a scrabble match which I won; so my feelings regarding my spelling aren't hurt too much.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, I addressed Nielso in the first quote: reading comprehension.

[/ QUOTE ]

::rolls eyes::

It's just annoying to see your name in the 'Re:' field, and then immediately see a quote from someone else.

[ QUOTE ]
If you say that there has never been a logical defense of socialism I can confidently say YOU ARE WRONG

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure, there have been logical defenses. They've all been myopic. If I wrongly assume A, I can logically prove B and then C. Sure. But in the end, as is all I meant in the OP, my conclusion is that socialism does not hold. If you have a different conclusion, you're entitled to it, but I don't see it.

I'm sorry if a sentence that is irrelevant to the rest of my post bothers you because it might be semantically inaccurate.

[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, sorry I dont always have time to proof read. Ironically, I just got back from a scrabble match which I won; so my feelings regarding my spelling aren't hurt too much.

[/ QUOTE ]

Congrats. I bet that 9-year-old didn't know what hit him. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
And yes, the choice has massive affects on your personal relationships. And that is exactly what you are affraid of. And there lies the beauty of it all. Once you get rid of comformist relationships you will realize how beautiful your life will finally become, when you can FINALLY be yourself, WITHOUT having to fear ridicule from people who CANNOT be themselves, because THEY TOO are affraid of being true to their nature and their natural freedoms.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that's the thing though. I don't want to rid myself of my current relationships. I value my friends and family as ends and not means to an end; so riding myself of those relationships (if you meant it so literally) is not pleasant.

Something I don't quite get about Ayn Rand (and that's not to say that you or any ACer necessarily is a "Randian", but I think it's worth saying) is that the whole belief system (correct me if I'm wrong, all I know of her is some Youtube clip someone linked in SMP) revolves around the idea that suicide or waste of life is understood to be bad. Well, my idea is that maybe suicide (in the literal sense) is the ideal, but we are too biased by our human condition to act on it. Life must be biased to think life is good, right? It seems like all other actions are just meant to approach but never reach comfort.

What does that mean regarding this discussion? I don't know. But I feel like we're so biased by our condition anyways that comfort wins out over my motivation to do good things.

You've basically convinced me. Well, I don't know if "you" have convinced me or if posting and thinking made it inevitable, but you certainly helped. I just know I can't act on it and would be a hypocrite to call myself that. So, I keep coming back to the idea that maybe comfort even if seemingly objectively destructive is OK or even good.

But basically, I am on your side. The rest is just rationalizations for why I probably won't ever act that way.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

"And yes, the choice has massive affects on your personal relationships. And that is exactly what you are affraid of. And there lies the beauty of it all. Once you get rid of comformist relationships you will realize how beautiful your life will finally become, when you can FINALLY be yourself, WITHOUT having to fear ridicule from people who CANNOT be themselves, because THEY TOO are affraid of being true to their nature and their natural freedoms."

LMFAO. Youve managed to take pomposity to a new level. Youve also managed to find your way to my ignore list with this drivel.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
"And yes, the choice has massive affects on your personal relationships. And that is exactly what you are affraid of. And there lies the beauty of it all. Once you get rid of comformist relationships you will realize how beautiful your life will finally become, when you can FINALLY be yourself, WITHOUT having to fear ridicule from people who CANNOT be themselves, because THEY TOO are affraid of being true to their nature and their natural freedoms."

LMFAO. Youve managed to take pomposity to a new level. Youve also managed to find your way to my ignore list with this drivel.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a good example of the ridicule I was talking about.

Re: Some thoughts/clarifications
 

[ QUOTE ]
But basically, I am on your side. The rest is just rationalizations for why I probably won't ever act that way.

[/ QUOTE ]


Give it time [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Once the eyes are transformed, the rest follows naturally.