Call for a Human Evolution! New World Order

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 19, 2010 at 2:28pm

1. You've got a few contradictions in there you should address (for example, wanting to end currencies but continue global trade).
2. You appear to have corporatism and capitalism confused. Not that surprising since most people including Engels & Marx made the same mistake.
3. How about a few line breaks to make it easier to read?
4. Why 2025? Why the wait?
5. How come there's nothing to do until then?
6. Why primitivism?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Traveling Zach on April 19, 2010 at 3:19pm

1.Though i had some problems following it too, these are actually pretty easy to answer. Currencies (especially in their current form) usually are the main creators of poverty, and create our cultures of scarcity. In addition, usually bolsters the idea of private property, which is the underlying cause of all inequality, literally creates the haves and have nots...

2.capitalism leads to corporatism, people and societies interested in the self-preservation of grab all you can have and always will use what little oppressive powers they have to gain more and more, no matter what form or name you want to give it.

6.though i can't answer the others, and wouldn't really have one anyway, this one is worth addressing. Never in history has there been a civilization (defining civilization as groupings of people who need to import resources for survival, all others are usually small enough to not classify as a civilization) that was truly sustainable. Though a good debate about what primitivism looks like and having good conversations about how to maybe maintain a technological basis in some of its forms, the basis of primitivism would both address returning and finding and creating a base to evolve a sustainable culture AND it would also address the overwhelming amount of oppression we inflict upon the rest of the world through the use of our inherited privilege to maintain and grow that privilege. Not to also mention it would be addressing the overwhelming violence and coercion in our society.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 19, 2010 at 4:43pm

1.Though i had some problems following it too, these are actually pretty easy to answer. Currencies (especially in their current form) usually are the main creators of poverty, and create our cultures of scarcity. In addition, usually bolsters the idea of private property, which is the underlying cause of all inequality, literally creates the haves and have nots...

OK, that's an interesting answer but it does not address my point. My point was if you end the use of common currencies then you make global trade effectively impossible. The problem is without currencies, you have to do barter trade for each negotiation. This means that for international deals you would need to know what you were trading for before you planned the deal. Then ship it, and do the trade. This type of direct one product for another doesn't work well at large scale. No one whats to trade a shipload of product A for an equivalent value of product B. Then you have to hope that the ship will take the new product (assume oil-tanker in and say cars traded out).

Large scale commerce requires either huge amounts of commonly accepted comodities (i.e. gold) or established currencies to work.

Now using gold itself for large transactions is inefficient (hard to move that much gold) and risky (could be stolen). So that would discourage many large transactions.

So you can make a choice, global trade or currencies. Which is it?

So if we want global trade, we have to have currencies. So how do we lessen the potential downsides? By not letting the state issue them. Allow many banks to issue competing currencies. Then the consumer can choose which is right for them (and may choose to own several to mitigate any risk).

2.capitalism leads to corporatism, people and societies interested in the self-preservation of grab all you can have and always will use what little oppressive powers they have to gain more and more, no matter what form or name you want to give it.

Actually corporatism can only happen under the state. Capitalism without the state is simply capitalism.

At it's core capitalism is nothing more than a seller and a buyer agreeing to the price on an item. Capitalism will happen without currencies and without the state. It doesn't matter if I agree to sell an item for $10 or 10 lbs of bananas. It's still capitalism.

6.though i can't answer the others, and wouldn't really have one anyway, this one is worth addressing. Never in history has there been a civilization (defining civilization as groupings of people who need to import resources for survival, all others are usually small enough to not classify as a civilization) that was truly sustainable. Though a good debate about what primitivism looks like and having good conversations about how to maybe maintain a technological basis in some of its forms, the basis of primitivism would both address returning and finding and creating a base to evolve a sustainable culture AND it would also address the overwhelming amount of oppression we inflict upon the rest of the world through the use of our inherited privilege to maintain and grow that privilege. Not to also mention it would be addressing the overwhelming violence and coercion in our society.

Lincoln Dryer and I had a long interesting debate on anarcho-primitivism previously. Now there are probably facets that we did not consider but I believe I made a very convincing case for anarcho-capitalism being a superior solution (starting at this comment).

Quote:

Which lead me to my next thought, that anarcho-primitivism is itself an unsustainable political philosophy (ironic given that it advocates a sustainable lifestyle). The problem is that people want what they don't have. Deprive them of modern conveniences (knives, stoves refrigerators, etc.) and they will want them. And you can't deny that the conveniences once existed, because the evidence will be all around us for centuries. And what if one group craves power? In a pure anarcho-primitivist society, that one group could quietly start acquiring metal weapons and tools that allow them to conquer the next tribe over. Then the next. Once the aggressive tribe becomes big enough, the other people still living the anarcho-primitivist lifestyle have no chance to resist because they won't be aware of the issue until too late (poor communication), no structures to organize in for resistance, and no few weapons to resist with.

So initially to maintain the primitive society will require a leadership group that decides what each individual subgroup should get and to prevent them from trying to acquire what they shouldn't. This really seemed similar to the critical flaw in communism (as practiced by the Soviets, Chinese, Vietnamese, Cubans, etc.) that while the ideology called for no leaders, there is no way to make sure that those that need get what they need from those that can without a body to decide who needs what and what goes where.

Ironically that leadership group would need all the advantages of a modern society (good communications, rapid transport, weapons) to enforce their rules. So it seems to me that anarcho-primitivism would simply create a bigger divide between the haves and have-nots.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Traveling Zach on April 21, 2010 at 12:29am

1.the choice between global trade or currencies is a false dichotomy, anytime someone says that you have two choices its either because they themselves lack the imagination to think of something different or usually is a slight of hand to hide how many options really are open to us.

2. "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." The main problem with anarcho-capitalism is the lack of both reflection on issues of privilege and a good critiques on private property. Which, again, is the basis of inequality. You should look into some true critiques...

6. This is a good example of how the libertarian rhetoric you use doesn't really deserve the title of anarcho. There is really no such thing as anarcho-capitalism. First, hopefully with the revision of values away from personal selfish gain to communal values you would be rid of these circumstances. However nothing being ideal, any true anarchist would tell you that while you can't promise a Utopian society, the fact that you have violence thats not under the monopoly of the state is a great achievement, being it wouldn't be on the incredible levels as state violence. Second its obvious from your criticism that you have a lack of anarcho values. One word, autonomy. Self-determination is essential, and true anti-authoritarians would easily reject any sort of hierarchical centralized system of redistribution. Lol, and your historical examples are always so lame, just more capitalists only hiding under a red flag. I find that to be a poor critique...


I also want to address the idea of a scarcity system, the most valuable things (while like you said are sometimes are in the eye of the beholder) are actually things that are plentiful. Air, water(sort of, becoming less and less), shelter, food, these things are what we should value as a society, these are the things we need to protect and share. The process of adding value to something just because it is scarce is a slight of hand, akin to a mysticism.

You use the example of food down here somewhere, and i'd like to use that as a microcosm. The crux to your argument is still the idea of private property. "land needs to be owned to grow food' thats a false dichotomy. food has been grown on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years with out us needing to own anything, the idea of owning land is really ridiculous, and we really could learn a lot from the indigenous. Seeds are free, especially living under anarcho-primitive values, and probably applying permaculture techniques, the land would pretty much take care of itself, we need to learn to take care of ourselves and learn to live WITH the earth. Plus, we live in such a culture of abundance, food IS free, check out freeganism, we throw out more enough food to feed most everyone who doesn't get enough... Then you said it needs to be transported to consumers, lol, such a capitalist pig, seriously dude, fuck consumers... really your idea of equality, especially without critiques of privilege and private property is really a sham... All attempts to acquire more for yourself is an exercise is using your privilege in taking from someone else...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 21, 2010 at 11:25am

1.the choice between global trade or currencies is a false dichotomy, anytime someone says that you have two choices its either because they themselves lack the imagination to think of something different or usually is a slight of hand to hide how many options really are open to us.

Actually it appears to be a false dichotomy but it's not. (note: it can be if you restrict yourself to only state issued currencies).

Lets consider long distance trade. When you are shipping out your goods, those goods can be stolen but they have a certain volume that makes this a little more difficult than if the robber wait until you've sold your goods & are returning with the money.

Now in a world without money, you would want to trade to valuable commodities (gold, gems, etc). This is beneficial on the return trip because you need less livestock to transport them and less workers to do the labor. However, it's also much easier to steal.

Now we add currencies into the mix. With currencies, I can use the services of a bank to deposit my money here and retrieve it somewhere else. So when I travel, I don't have to carry all my cash. This was done by the Knights Templar during the crusading era and it caused trade to grow by leaps & bounds. (Note: we also see similar things in the Mongol empire).

So for practical long distance trade, we need currencies and banks.

2. "Liberty without socialism is privilege, injustice; socialism without liberty is slavery and brutality." The main problem with anarcho-capitalism is the lack of both reflection on issues of privilege and a good critiques on private property. Which, again, is the basis of inequality. You should look into some true critiques...

What? Anarcho-Capitalism is philosophically based on property (and self) ownership. It spends a ton of time worrying about these issues.

As for privilege, well that is only a result of capitalism when the state is there to enforce it. Otherwise everything is just a deal between a seller & a buyer. No privileges.

If you'd care to suggest what you consider a "true critique" I will read it. However I find your use of the word "true" there to be troubling because that implies a choice and not all choices will be the same for everyone. Therefore "true" is almost impossible to define for markets.

6. This is a good example of how the libertarian rhetoric you use doesn't really deserve the title of anarcho. There is really no such thing as anarcho-capitalism. First, hopefully with the revision of values away from personal selfish gain to communal values you would be rid of these circumstances. However nothing being ideal, any true anarchist would tell you that while you can't promise a Utopian society, the fact that you have violence thats not under the monopoly of the state is a great achievement, being it wouldn't be on the incredible levels as state violence. Second its obvious from your criticism that you have a lack of anarcho values. One word, autonomy. Self-determination is essential, and true anti-authoritarians would easily reject any sort of hierarchical centralized system of redistribution.

An-Archos means "No Rulers" in the greek. Anarcho-Capitalism is a system without rulers. It is a very accurate use of the word-root.

However many anarchists (especially early ones) come from socialist or communist backgrounds (hence the anarcho-syndicalists and the anarcho-communists). Many of them do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be anarchist because it does not live up to their communal ideals. And the reverse is true too. Many anarcho-capitalists believe that anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-communism are not possible because an equitable distribution of resources to those than need them would require a massive set of rules to decide the distribution. These rules would require someone to manage them and those people would effectively become rulers.

Anarcho-capitalists do reject all forms of redistribution. All transactions are required to be voluntary on the part of the participants.

It seems that you aren't very well informed about anarcho-capitalism. Perhaps I can suggest some resources? Maybe start with Murray Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State (link includes Power & Market but that was originally a separate book).

Lol, and your historical examples are always so lame, just more capitalists only hiding under a red flag. I find that to be a poor critique...

Please cite the examples in question and I will explain why they are apt. When we are discussing changing the world, it's important to understand what the world is and how people interact. An understanding of history is important to that.

And I don't recall ever defending redistribution or anything else that could be called "red flag". Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else's examples?

You use the example of food down here somewhere, and i'd like to use that as a microcosm. The crux to your argument is still the idea of private property. "land needs to be owned to grow food' thats a false dichotomy.

Please go back and read my argument. That is not at all what I said. I do believe in private ownership of land but not as a justification for why food is not free.

i said that LABOR had to be used to plant, cultivate and harvest the food. That LABOR needs to be compensated.

food has been grown on this planet for hundreds of thousands of years with out us needing to own anything, the idea of owning land is really ridiculous, and we really could learn a lot from the indigenous. Seeds are free, especially living under anarcho-primitive values, and probably applying permaculture techniques, the land would pretty much take care of itself, we need to learn to take care of ourselves and learn to live WITH the earth.

My critiques of anarcho-primitivism had nothing to do with owning land or how food would be acquired. Please go back and read them.

Basically, my arguments against anarcho-primitivism is that the transition to such a system would require the use of force and violence because most people do not want to live that way.

Additionally, anarcho-primitivism has no tools to prevent people from redeveloping the state and using violence to oppress others.

Now having said that, I believe that anarcho-primitivism would be an acceptable sub-community in an anarcho-capitalist society because the anarcho-capitalism would provide the checks & balances that are missing from anarcho-primitivism.

Plus, we live in such a culture of abundance, food IS free, check out freeganism, we throw out more enough food to feed most everyone who doesn't get enough...

I consider freeganism to be a parasitic culture because it cannot exist on it's own. It is entirely dependent on having a decadent society existing above it for it's members to survive. For that reason I do not consider it a rational basis for a completely new society. I feel the same way about Agorism so this isn't a unique or bad position to be in. We just need to recognize the limitations of the ideologies.

Plus, we live in such a culture of abundance, food IS free, check out freeganism, we throw out more enough food to feed most everyone who doesn't get enough... Then you said it needs to be transported to consumers, lol, such a capitalist pig, seriously dude, fuck consumers... really your idea of equality, especially without critiques of privilege and private property is really a sham... All attempts to acquire more for yourself is an exercise is using your privilege in taking from someone else...

Fuck consumers? wow.

Most of your critiques of what I have said are not really critiques of me but rather simple Straw Men that you use because they are easy to refute. If you would like to have this conversation I am willing but please stop twisting my words and making them fit what you think they should.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Traveling Zach on April 21, 2010 at 2:00pm

1.Again, you showed yourself how it is a false dichotomy, where there are many other ways that things can be done, though the convience is what you are arguing for. Convinece is what your are desiring. So the word NEED is completely false, but the arguement for curriencies is what you tend to fall back on cause you rely on them for the idea of private property. And again, in an anarcho-primitive society, you wouldn't have a ton, if at all international trade, its learning to live with your sourroundings. It is enevitably a bourgeois idea to aquire things that are beyond necessary and cannot be found in your immediate sourroundings.

2. Even by your responce, its pretty obvious that you have a lack of understanding of privilege on a functional, day to day basis. Its is not enforce by the state, its enforced by each and everyone of us from the time we wake up to when we go to bed, the patriarchal and hierarchical qualities of the state just benifit from it. Which then again leads to the point how privilege and private property go hand in had to be the very foundations of inequality. Say you have your state-less capital driven system, in only one or two generations do you begin to have class divisions again, with one set of business owners doing better than others, their progeny then begins with privilege, nothing earned or deserved, just based on the idea that ones value is in their ablity to consume and amass property. This new world that you are painting feels alot like the old one...
"The system of commercial exchange has come to govern all of man's everyday relations with himself and with his fellow men. Every aspect of public and private life is dominated by the quantitative.

The merchant in The Exception and the Rule confesses: "I don't know what a man is. Only that every man has his price." To the extent that individuals accept power and enable it to exist, power in turn judges them by its own yard-stick: it reduces and standardises them. What is the individual to an authoritarian system? A point duly located in its perspective. A point that it recognises, certainly, but recognises only in terms of the number that define its position in a system of co-ordinates.

The calculation of a man's capacity to produce or to make others produce, to consume or to make others consume, concretises to a T that expression so dear to our philosophers: the measure of man. Even the simple pleasures of a ride in the country are generally measured up in terms of miles on the clock, speeds reached and petrol consumption. With the rate at which economic 'imperatives' are buying up feelings, desires and needs and falsifying them, man will soon be left with nothing but the memory of having once been alive. Living in the past: the memory of days gone by will be our consolation for living on. How could even spontaneous laughter last in a space-time that is measured and measurable, let alone real joy? At best the dull contentment of the man-who's-got-his-money's-worth, and who exists by that standard. Only objects can be measured, which is why exchange always reifies"

You know and i've done my own research on AC and i reject the idea of setting up new hierarchical systems just to replace the old ones.

And you did you that as an example,
"Food: Needs to be planted, cared for and harvested. Land needs to be owned to do this. Then once it's harvested it has to be delivered to the consumers."

you know i don't really have time to add much more, but i do wanna reiterate, yes fuck consumers. You know i really just realized you're an apologist for the status quo if your own ideas don't even have any serious critiques on consumerism... this is really a waste of time. you know there's plenty of shit you can come out and organize with this website you dominate, why don't you come out and have these convo's face to face? See what they produce in real life? it would be great...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 21, 2010 at 5:11pm

1.Again, you showed yourself how it is a false dichotomy, where there are many other ways that things can be done, though the convience is what you are arguing for. Convinece is what your are desiring. So the word NEED is completely false, but the arguement for curriencies is what you tend to fall back on cause you rely on them for the idea of private property. And again, in an anarcho-primitive society, you wouldn't have a ton, if at all international trade, its learning to live with your sourroundings. It is enevitably a bourgeois idea to aquire things that are beyond necessary and cannot be found in your immediate sourroundings.

Wrong. There is no false dichotomy.

When I trade I can trade for two things money or other commodities. Then I showed why money is a preferential choice for long distance trading.

While I would agree that no one NEEDS long distance trading, we all desire it. Since we desire it, it is an issue that will need to be addressed by any political/social system. Therefore it moves from a desire to a need for the community.

Is "false dichotomy" the only argument you know how to make? Or does the term just scare off the ignorant?

I do agree that anarcho-primitivists would limit themselves to what they can acquire locally. I just don't think most people desire to live that lifestyle and I have no interest in forcing them to do so.

2. Even by your responce, its pretty obvious that you have a lack of understanding of privilege on a functional, day to day basis. Its is not enforce by the state, its enforced by each and everyone of us from the time we wake up to when we go to bed, the patriarchal and hierarchical qualities of the state just benifit from it. Which then again leads to the point how privilege and private property go hand in had to be the very foundations of inequality. Say you have your state-less capital driven system, in only one or two generations do you begin to have class divisions again, with one set of business owners doing better than others, their progeny then begins with privilege, nothing earned or deserved, just based on the idea that ones value is in their ablity to consume and amass property. This new world that you are painting feels alot like the old one...

I agree that the world is unfair. Unfortunately no system can change that. Not even anarcho-primitivism. For example would anarcho-primitivism be very fair for the people living in a desert or the arctic vs someone living in Florida? It's a lot easier to live in Florida. So do the people in Florida then need to feel guilty for their "privilege" of being born there?

No. The whole concept is one that cannot ever be fully remediated and one that really isn't anyone's fault.

Should I feel guilty that my father put himself through college? And was the first in his family to get a Phd? Should I feel bad that he used what he made to help me out? No. Should I refuse his help? Well that's between the two of us.

Is it my fault that someone else's father wasn't able to provide as much for them? No. Is it unfortunate? yes.

However any attempt to regulate this doesn't make us all equally rich. It simply makes us all equally poor.

If all you care about is equality then that's fine, but my primary concern is freedom. I recognize that allowing people to be free will allow them to make different decisions that will result in other differences. That's just how freedom works.

So I'm not ignorant of privilege. I just don't consider it as important as freedom.

As for consumerism, well that's just an unfortunate choice that many make with their freedom. I hope that when we are freed of the state that it (along with many other bad habits) will eventually go away as people realize what a distraction they were from the important things in life.

And you did you that as an example, "Food: Needs to be planted, cared for and harvested. Land needs to be owned to do this. Then once it's harvested it has to be delivered to the consumers." you know i don't really have time to add much more, but i do wanna reiterate, yes fuck consumers. You know i really just realized you're an apologist for the status quo if your own ideas don't even have any serious critiques on consumerism... this is really a waste of time. you know there's plenty of shit you can come out and organize with this website you dominate, why don't you come out and have these convo's face to face? See what they produce in real life? it would be great...

Wait, you're challenging me to come out in public to defend my views? This is from an anarcho-primitivist who argues online? You can't even live up to the philosophy you claim is best for EVERYONE and yet you think you can challenge someone else. Wow that's arrogance.

As for why I don't come out in person, well simply I have yet to find a project that interests me and I consider many of the projects to be a waste of time and doomed to failure. However, other people may decide differently and I may be wrong. So I simply quietly don't participate. I am involved in other groups and I do meet with them. FWT is only one of the ways I am active.

Second as for debating complex topics, I find that forums are much more efficient for that. Not only do we have access to google & other sites, but we can spend more time crafting our message.

Now I have a question for you. Why so aggressive? No one else has felt the need in this conversation to do so. No one has attacked you.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Traveling Zach on April 22, 2010 at 3:02pm

I stuck to false dichotomy argument cause that is exactly what you were doing, there is no need to change my argument when i've already refuted the pretense of your argument. You said "So you can make a choice, global trade or currencies. Which is it?" If you don't know what it means heres the Wiki- The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

Your right, i am being agressive, i think its time for someone to point out the self-serving, entitled, rasist ideology that you continue to spew on here. This libertarian bs is based upon the privilege you asmass for yourself, despite what it might mean for others. The oppression that is piled upon those, who were just as trivially born in a third world country as those in your example that were born in florida, bare the weight of YOUR privilege and mine. They are effected by your DAILY decissions, only the concequences are exported, so you may sit comfortably. And you wouldn't care about equality or privilege, cause, like i said, you only spew a self-serving ideology.

What all other men are is of the greatest importance to me. However independent I may imagine myself to be, however far removed I may appear from mundane consideration by my social status, I am enslaved to the misery ofthe meanest memberofsociety. The outcast is my daily menace. Whether I am Pope, Czar, Emperor, or even prime Minister, I am always the creature of their circumstance, the conscious product of their ignorance, want and clamouring. They are in slavery, and I, the superior one, am enslaved in consequence.

For example if such is the case, I am enlightened or intelligent men. But I am foolish with the folly of the people, my wisdom stunned by their needs, my mind palsied. I am a brave man, but I am the coward of the peoples' fear. Their misery appals me, and every day I shrink from the struggle of life. My career becomes an evasion of living. A rich man, I tremble before their poverty, because it threatens to engulf me. I discover I have no riches in myself, no wealth but that stolen from the common life of the common people. As privileged man, I turn pale before the people's demand for justice. I feel a menace in that demand. The cry is ominous and I am threatened. It is the feeling of the malefactor dreading, yet waiting for inevitable arrest. My life is privileged and furtive. But it is not mine. I lack freedom and contentment. In short, wishing to be free, though I am wise, brave, rich, and privileged, I cannot be free because my immediate associates do not wish men to be free; and the Mass, from whom all wisdom, bravery, riches, and Privileges asend, do not know how to secure their freedom. The slavery of the common people make them the instruments of my oppression. For we to be free, they must be free. We must conquer bread and freedom in common.

The true, human liberty of a single individual implies the emancipation of all: because, thanks to the law of solidarity, which is the natural basis of all human society, I cannot be, feel, and know myself really, completely free, if I am not surrounded by men as free as myself. The slavery of each is my slavery.

And you are truely ignorant or believe in some strange mysticism to think that the destrution of 'the state' will also usher in a era of anti-consumer setiments even when the very mechnisims of its existance, production and distribution, remain in place. We in our inheriant nature are more that pieces to a factory, a means for production, more than just gears in a 'market'... you can have the methods of reschackling yourself, i'd rather be apart of removing the shackles of others...

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 22, 2010 at 3:27pm

I stuck to false dichotomy argument cause that is exactly what you were doing, there is no need to change my argument when i've already refuted the pretense of your argument. You said "So you can make a choice, global trade or currencies. Which is it?" If you don't know what it means heres the Wiki- The logical fallacy of false dilemma (also called false dichotomy, the either-or fallacy) involves a situation in which only two alternatives are considered, when in fact there are other options. Closely related are failing to consider a range of options and the tendency to think in extremes, called black-and-white thinking. Strictly speaking, the prefix "di" in "dilemma" means "two". When a list of more than two choices is offered, but there are other choices not mentioned, then the fallacy is called the fallacy of false choice, or the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses.

So you define false dichotomy but don't address the substance of my argument. You are continuously avoiding it to stay focused on irrelevant details.

I addressed why my comment is not a false dichotomy for practical purposes. Why do you avoid the substance of my argument?

You use this argument so often that I believe it's just another straw man.

Your right, i am being agressive, i think its time for someone to point out the self-serving, entitled, rasist ideology that you continue to spew on here. This libertarian bs is based upon the privilege you asmass for yourself, despite what it might mean for others. The oppression that is piled upon those, who were just as trivially born in a third world country as those in your example that were born in florida, bare the weight of YOUR privilege and mine. They are effected by your DAILY decissions, only the concequences are exported, so you may sit comfortably. And you wouldn't care about equality or privilege, cause, like i said, you only spew a self-serving ideology.

This comment is entirely yet another straw man. It does not address anything I have said but rather simply sets up an easy target you can claim to have refuted.

An ideology that says that all relationships should be voluntary and that all transactions between people should be voluntary is evil.

On the other hand, an ideology (like anarcho-primitivism) that cannot exist without violence is OK? NO, it's not. It's unethical and immoral. Just as the current state is.

In anarcho-capitalism, no one is forced to do what they do not want to do.

In anarcho-primitivism, everyone is required to live ONE way. Whether they like it or not.

In anarcho-capitalism, there are tools to prevent future abuses and to address any harm caused by another.

In anarcho-primitivism, there are no tools to prevent anyone from reinventing the state or to redress harm to another.

Seems that your ideology is the one with the problems. Care to address the argument that I am making and not the one you imagine?


---

What all other men are is of the greatest importance to me. However independent ....if I am not surrounded by men as free as myself. The slavery of each is my slavery.

Interesting quote in the middle but I already explain that I consider freedom more important than addressing privilege. And once again you avoid commenting on the substance of anything I have said.

And the interesting part is anarcho-capitalism does create a world were everyone is just as free as the next person. We all end up on the same playing field. So no one is slave to another.

And you are truely ignorant or believe in some strange mysticism to think that the destrution of 'the state' will also usher in a era of anti-consumer setiments even when the very mechnisims of its existance, production and distribution, remain in place. We in our inheriant nature are more that pieces to a factory, a means for production, more than just gears in a 'market'... you can have the methods of reschackling yourself, i'd rather be apart of removing the shackles of others...

No, I don't think that destroying the current state is all that it will take. We need to destroy the urge to form other states. We need people to realize that at best, the state is completely unnecessary and at worst, the state is the biggest criminal out there.

So I believe that education and an understanding of ethics & philosophy will bring about a new rational system of working together. It's not mysticism but hey good job setting up yet another straw man to knock down.

So 3 straw men in one short reply. When do you want to get down to actually addressing anything I have said?

Permalink Reply by Infinity on April 20, 2010 at 2:37am

1. You've got a few contradictions in there you should address (for example, wanting to end currencies but continue global trade).

What i am suggesting as far as ending currencies and a global trade is simply this. Put no value on any service or product. Radical thinking i know. Why should a car be more valuable than a book? Why should a rocket that sends a space shuttle into the expanse of space be more expensive than a modern convenience of toilet paper of the same weight as the rocket?

I move to dissolve the value of everything. Make survival the number one reason of our people. That is what we were designed to do. We weren't meant to fight and kill over material items. We were given the powers of reason and creation to avoid that sort of barbaric behavior. Currencies of the world lead to greed, and greed leads to oppression, oppression leads to depression.

There we are faced with our greatest challenges, poverty, meaningless existences, debt. Why should i stress so much over the bills I have to pay? Because the person who owns the company has created his company to provide me with a service? A service that could be free from natural resources other than polluting resources? A service that isn't really a service at all. It's an illusion designed to control the flow of that very currency into the pockets of those who control it so they don't have the same worries that I do. So they can choose to expand their control?

These things is why i say bring down currencies of the world and release the value of commodity.

2. You appear to have corporatism and capitalism confused. Not that surprising since most people including Engels & Marx made the same mistake.

Capitalism is the root of the problem of this world. It is the system that has developed to what it is by greed and gluttony. Their need for wealth is what i fear the most.

Do you see Donald Trump rebuilding all of Hati because he can? No, of course not, where would be his company's corporate gain if he did that? Why does he not pay off the properties of all his employees? Where will his money go when he dies? These are the things that stand in our way. These are the people that govern our lives. He has no use for the wealth that he has accumulated, yet he continues to accumulate it, for what purpose? Will he raise an army with it? Destroy his competition with that army?

Currency was created from capitalism. Capitalism was created from greed, not need. Capitalism has evolved into a form of control, to govern those who are too lazy to work to survive, or to lazy to think for themselves. Television ads and shows promote capitalism to keep every human intertwined into it's weave of control.

3. How about a few line breaks to make it easier to read?

You are right, i was in a rush to get everything out of my head. The problem should be corrected now.

4. Why 2025? Why the wait?

I say 2025 for two reasons.

First it takes time to organize a world evolution. We won't be able to change the worlds governments and forms of control next week. We won't even be able to shake a stick at them and them take us seriously. They would laugh at our little group of people and have us escorted off of Capitol Hill as they go back to their business of herding the cattle or counting their money. I'm thinking on a much grander scale than a little demonstration like those organized in the 1960's. I'm speaking of gathering an entire nation of people. Can you convince an entire nation to unplug and detach themselves from their government or their capitalism to stand up and take charge of their selves in months, or even a couple years? This discussion board is the first of many platforms I intend to stage to begin the movement to our evolution. In doing so I believe we can create an army of believers to stand as one and tell them no more. I give us 15 years to make our first attack on those who would see us sedated in our homes, in front of our televisions or computers. Taking our drugs and drinking our alcohol. Destroying ourselves and wasting ourselves away to nothingness.

Secondly I give a time and place. A deadline for everyone to strive towards. A date for those who would support this evolution to know when we shall take our stand publicly. A place to know where to gather to let the world know we will not stand idly by anymore. We shall stand and see them fall. Not by use of weapons or fists, but by numbers. If they were to loose half of their cattle, the blow would be so tremendous they wouldn't recover from it. That would leave the others who remain plugged in with no other choice but to unplug.

In order for this evolution to occur, it must be on a world wide scale. Rosa Parks took a small step and became a legend. She invoked courage into a group of people that were held down by control. One person can hardly take a big step to change the world. But one group of people can take a huge leap to reorganize a destructive world.

5. How come there's nothing to do until then?

Quite the contrary, everything i have suggested needs and immense amount of labor and sacrifices made in order to achieve the goal. I do not suggest that those of us who believe in this evolution shed our worldly possessions, or quit our jobs because I talk about destroying currency. In order to stage this 'coup' we will need to do it through the chains that bind us. We will have to use the means that we have established in our history of the world. We will have to use our money and gold to fund the movement. The charities that we donate to should still receive our aid. The people that are starving should still be handed food. There is plenty to do until then. As i said above. The date is set for a deadline and a statement. We have a mind boggling amount of people to gather for the cause, or the stand will falter and we will be corralled and redirected from our stand.

6. Why primitivism?

Firstly, what is primitivism? If you mean destroying technology and living like hippies, then you've misunderstood what i meant. I don't intend to lose all that we as a people have achieved. I merely intend to bring down the forces that control our lives and give the control back to the people. Our current government was supposedly founded by the people for the people. Looking at it under scrutiny, that is a lie. The people don't nominate candidates anymore. Candidates who wish for that power and control stand up against one another, and they call for a vote. The people who vote don't even have a say. When it comes to our president, who truly elects him into office? Is it the people? Do they put him into office from popular vote? Sadly they do not. He receives his position from an electoral college, who should follow the results of the popular vote. But they are free thinkers as well and choose to cast their vote how they see fit, whether it agrees with their popular voters or not.

I think our government needs to go through radical changes and be rebuilt from the ground up. The system we have in place today, though it works for all intensive purposes, is faulty and corrupt. Though some people in the positions they are in can be fair and just, there are those who are always faced with temptation. There are those who commit crimes against their fellow man for their own personal gain. The checks and balances that are currently in place are too minuscule to be as effective as they need to be.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 20, 2010 at 10:02am

1. You've got a few contradictions in there you should address (for example, wanting to end currencies but continue global trade). What i am suggesting as far as ending currencies and a global trade is simply this. Put no value on any service or product. Radical thinking i know. Why should a car be more valuable than a book? Why should a rocket that sends a space shuttle into the expanse of space be more expensive than a modern convenience of toilet paper of the same weight as the rocket?

No value? So a rocket wouldn't have a different value than a tomato? Not even if you were starving?

This seems to be logically impossible. Value is in the eye of the beholder.

A car is more valuable than a book because a car takes more resources to build. And a car is more valuable than a stack of books of the equivalent weight, because it takes more technology & know how to produce the car and the car provides more utility than a book (on average, some books maybe more valuable).

As for the space shuttle & toilet paper, the answer is scarcity. There are only a few space shuttles so their value is inflated by rarity.

I move to dissolve the value of everything. Make survival the number one reason of our people. That is what we were designed to do. We weren't meant to fight and kill over material items. We were given the powers of reason and creation to avoid that sort of barbaric behavior. Currencies of the world lead to greed, and greed leads to oppression, oppression leads to depression.

Survival? That's it? Is that all you see humans as capable of? What about great art and discoveries?

I would agree that we should use reason & rationality to create a better world but your solution seems very drastic.

As for currencies, they lead to nothing. Money is simply a tool that does what the one possessing it desires. It has no power of it's own. As Ayn Rand said "Money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver".

There we are faced with our greatest challenges, poverty, meaningless existences, debt. Why should i stress so much over the bills I have to pay? Because the person who owns the company has created his company to provide me with a service? A service that could be free from natural resources other than polluting resources? A service that isn't really a service at all. It's an illusion designed to control the flow of that very currency into the pockets of those who control it so they don't have the same worries that I do. So they can choose to expand their control? These things is why i say bring down currencies of the world and release the value of commodity.

Life is a series of choices. People make those choices based on their own preferences.

To take your example, what service are you currently paying for that is free in nature?

Food? No, that's not free. The farmer has to put time & effort into growing the crops. Shouldn't he be compensated for that effort?

Energy? There maybe free energy in the form of solar & wind but it's very difficult to make that energy do something useful without using a product provided by someone else (solar panels, windmills, electric wiring, etc.)

Water? There can be free water if you gather it from the sky yourself, but if you want it delivered to your house then the pipes, and their maintenance are not free. Why shouldn't you pay for the service of delivery?

So can be provided free to everyone and needs no distribution?

Next point in next comment for clarity.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lowkey on April 20, 2010 at 10:16am

2. You appear to have corporatism and capitalism confused. Not that surprising since most people including Engels & Marx made the same mistake. Capitalism is the root of the problem of this world. It is the system that has developed to what it is by greed and gluttony. Their need for wealth is what i fear the most.

OK, who is this "they" in the "their need"?

Capitalism has gotten a bad wrap over the years. At it's core, capitalism is nothing more than the voluntary exchange of goods & services between two individuals.

If I create something (say a wooden bowl) is it not mine? Now if you would like that bowl, are we not free to trade? And if you have a surplus of fish, what is wrong with you giving me 4 fish in exchange for a bowl?

Do you see Donald Trump rebuilding all of Hati because he can? No, of course not, where would be his company's corporate gain if he did that? Why does he not pay off the properties of all his employees? Where will his money go when he dies? These are the things that stand in our way. These are the people that govern our lives. He has no use for the wealth that he has accumulated, yet he continues to accumulate it, for what purpose? Will he raise an army with it? Destroy his competition with that army?
Wow, Donald Trump is a horrible example for your case because while we did not witness him doing anything, we did witness a lot of other rich people doing a lot of good with their money.

Now, money is also the easiest way to provide aid in a situation like Haiti because when people contribute money, they can then later decide what is most needed. If you weren't using money, then you would need to try and guess what commodities would be most needed and ship those. This would result in a lot of bad guesses and wasted shipments.

As for what Donald Trump does with his money, who should decide where it goes? By what standard? And who will enforce this decision? What if Donald doesn't play along? Do you jail him?

Currency was created from capitalism. Capitalism was created from greed, not need. Capitalism has evolved into a form of control, to govern those who are too lazy to work to survive, or to lazy to think for themselves. Television ads and shows promote capitalism to keep every human intertwined into it's weave of control.

Currency was not created from capitalism. It was created as a tool within it. Money is nothing more than a tool of exchange. The problem with the current system is the currencies are dominated and abused by the state. Not that the tool exists.

Does a hammer create the desire for a house? No. The hammer is a just a tool as the money is.

The desire comes from within.

Capitalism was not really created. Capitalism is merely a descriptive term for the process by which we trade what we have for what we desire.

As for capitalism being a form of control, well that appears to be an unsupported argument. Can you provide proof or examples of this control?

.....(more later)

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page