Philosophy Discussion Forums

Posted: **January 3rd, 2015, 4:07 pm**

Belinda wrote:It is confoundingly difficult for huge societies to understand the machinery of economic survival

An understated position, Belinda. I reckon "impossible" might fit the bill better than "confoundingly difficult". This is why our economic systems are so notoriously wasteful, ineffective and environmentally destructive. Don't forget that a third of all the food produced in the world is chucked away uneaten while billions go hungry.

Regards Leo

Posted: **January 4th, 2015, 8:42 am**

Obvious Leo wrote:
Belinda wrote:It is confoundingly difficult for huge societies to understand the machinery of economic survival
An understated position, Belinda. I reckon "impossible" might fit the bill better than "confoundingly difficult". This is why our economic systems are so notoriously wasteful, ineffective and environmentally destructive. Don't forget that a third of all the food produced in the world is chucked away uneaten while billions go hungry.

Regards Leo

This is my main reason to cling to the simplicity of the Christian myth. A feeble straw but what else is there?

Posted: **January 4th, 2015, 8:45 pm**

Belinda. I would have no issue with the Christian myth if only it could be seen as such, or any myths for that matter. It's when we take our myths too literally that the cracks in the plaster begin to show and the house of cards begins collapsing around our ears.

Regards Leo

Posted: **January 5th, 2015, 8:30 am**

Obvious Leo wrote:An understated position, Belinda. I reckon "impossible" might fit the bill better than "confoundingly difficult". This is why our economic systems are so notoriously wasteful, ineffective and environmentally destructive. Don't forget that a third of all the food produced in the world is chucked away uneaten while billions go hungry.

Regards Leo

This is the pitiless indifference of the cosmos, isn't it? Your nihilism is straw-nihilism, Leo. I can tell that you really belief in an ought-ness beyond all this is-ness.

Posted: **January 5th, 2015, 9:15 am**

Theophane wrote: I can tell that you really belief in an ought-ness beyond all this is-ness.

Fine. You're a psychic seer. However you should get out your dictionary and look up the meaning of the word "nihilism". How you can extract such a conclusion from my words is beyond me.

Regards Leo

Posted: **January 5th, 2015, 6:42 pm**

Obvious Leo wrote:
Belinda wrote:It is confoundingly difficult for huge societies to understand the machinery of economic survival
An understated position, Belinda. I reckon "impossible" might fit the bill better than "confoundingly difficult". This is why our economic systems are so notoriously wasteful, ineffective and environmentally destructive. Don't forget that a third of all the food produced in the world is chucked away uneaten while billions go hungry.

Regards Leo

In 2006, there were 5.46 acres per person, world-wide (i.e. 36.48 billion acres / 6.68 billion people).

In Manila there are approximately 173 people per acre of city space. 8960 acres make up the area of the city. There's about 1.5 million people there.

So in a modern city like Manila in 5.4 acres you'll have about 1000 people at 173 people/acre.

So that's a 1000:1 ratio of world wide land to urban land. IE. If each one of us gets 5.4 acres, Manila says "Okay, here's a thousand dwelling spots."

So imagine your in your 5.4 acres and 999 people leave. That's plenty of breathing room.

People are all cramming into the cities, running around like there's a big rush to do something "meaningful to the rest of the city". The reason the economies of the world's cities are hard to comprehend amounts to the ridiculous ends we go to in order to make a dollar. From selling scented bath oils to paint brushes made from goat hair - it's all a farce. The whole lot of it is worth no intrinsic value. The value is "social".

God bless the water works and railroads and prisons for the work they do. But the rest of it? Nothing more enlightening than walking down some city street with three barber shops, one grocery store, two jewelry stores, some clothing outlets. If you want to make it, you've got to put all your hopes and dreams on putting ornaments over your body and beautifying the rest with dyed fabrics and nice hair cuts. IE. You've got to be "social". You don't want to be "antisocial". You don't want anyone to know that diamonds and haircuts aren't your deepest philosophical interests - but you'll devote your life to them.

It's a big game show. I hang off the side of building's and wash windows. That's the meaning of my social existence. And it's a damn fine one. People gotta see thru those windows! Roght? Anyhow. Pfff. The "World"

Posted: **January 6th, 2015, 11:27 pm**

==> Let's grant that scarcity and large populations are part of the initial case of the formation of the state and move on.

==> Scarcity still exists, but there is plenty to meet everyone's needs. (Not everyone's whims.)

Please see: distinguishing needs from strategies,

http://www.mytrueplace.com/2013/05/28/n ... trategies/

Increasingly, material scarcity is perceived and designed scarcity. Improvements in technology will eventually eliminate remaining real material inequality.

==> Anarchism is not opposed to leadership and administration, anarchism rejects the state and all the necessary systems that entails.

==> The 1 state, 2 egoic self, 3 sexual taboo, and 4 "naive realism" together form the integrated statist system. If any one is jeopardized, the structure grows back as each element reenforces and informs the others.

The whole thing evaporates instantly as soon as anyone realizes spiritual love. But a more realistic approach is gradualism approaching the problem of state from all sides. 1 Dissolve the big state institutions: reduce military, lessen nationalism and borders, work against prisons, national school, and state universities, move away from money, coinage and banking, educate against gender, sexism, racism, and classism. 2 Relax psychology: inform people about mind-training, about how thought and emotion work to keep ego locked into a false reality based on reward and punishment rather than compassion, relax the muscles which are widely believed to hold psychic stress with massage and hot tubs. 3 Limit the sexual taboos oppose marriage, homophobia, and taboos against incest, pedophilia, and transgenderism. 4 Teach spiritual enlightenment and philosophical idealism.

Posted: **January 8th, 2015, 9:57 am**

Vlad wrote: ...

==> Anarchism is not opposed to leadership and administration, anarchism rejects the state and all the necessary systems that entails...

Vlad, I see a point here that may be causing my misunderstanding of your point. please define 'state' and 'leadership/administration' , their simularities and differences.

Posted: **January 8th, 2015, 11:20 am**

David_the_simple wrote:
Vlad wrote: ...

==> Anarchism is not opposed to leadership and administration, anarchism rejects the state and all the necessary systems that entails...
Vlad, I see a point here that may be causing my misunderstanding of your point. please define 'state' and 'leadership/administration' , their simularities and differences.

The state is a system of rewards and punishment. It's earliest beginning is with the discovery of animal training 8000 years ago in central Asia. The Urstaat is the result of the sacking of the early Mesopotamian agrarian settlements by the Central Asian nomands leading up to the Sargon the Great period. Essential features of states include: territorial boundary, standing army, and monetarism. "Egoic consciousness", "naive realism", and "incest-taboo" are necessary machinery of the state. (The state is a colonial super-organism, a macrocosm of the cell.) That's what I mean when I use "state"/"statism".

That's very different from leadership or an administration which have different histories and totally lack the threat of violence and emotional coercion which are integral to statism.

Posted: **January 8th, 2015, 11:46 am**

Vlad wrote:
David_the_simple wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

Vlad, I see a point here that may be causing my misunderstanding of your point. please define 'state' and 'leadership/administration' , their simularities and differences.
The state is a system of rewards and punishment. It's earliest beginning is with the discovery of animal training 8000 years ago in central Asia. The Urstaat is the result of the sacking of the early Mesopotamian agrarian settlements by the Central Asian nomands leading up to the Sargon the Great period. Essential features of states include: territorial boundary, standing army, and monetarism. "Egoic consciousness", "naive realism", and "incest-taboo" are necessary machinery of the state. (The state is a colonial super-organism, a macrocosm of the cell.) That's what I mean when I use "state"/"statism".

That's very different from leadership or an administration which have different histories and totally lack the threat of violence and emotional coercion which are integral to statism.

Thanks, this make a great foundation for further discourse. Using the definition of leadership, the next two questions are logical progression and entanglements.

1) Is it possible to extend it to the position of leading an entire city/region/nation ?

2) Given that not all people are willing to cooperate, how would leadership handle those individuals that do not cooperate (for example, drive on the opposite side of the road) and gross acts of non-cooperation (for example grand theft or murder)?

Posted: **January 8th, 2015, 1:07 pm**

David_the_simple wrote:
Vlad wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

The state is a system of rewards and punishment. It's earliest beginning is with the discovery of animal training 8000 years ago in central Asia. The Urstaat is the result of the sacking of the early Mesopotamian agrarian settlements by the Central Asian nomands leading up to the Sargon the Great period. Essential features of states include: territorial boundary, standing army, and monetarism. "Egoic consciousness", "naive realism", and "incest-taboo" are necessary machinery of the state. (The state is a colonial super-organism, a macrocosm of the cell.) That's what I mean when I use "state"/"statism".

That's very different from leadership or an administration which have different histories and totally lack the threat of violence and emotional coercion which are integral to statism.
Thanks, this make a great foundation for further discourse. Using the definition of leadership, the next two questions are logical progression and entanglements.

1) Is it possible to extend it to the position of leading an entire city/region/nation ?

Maybe start with a small example to further clarify. There are two kinds of education: one is training, which uses reward and punishment. The other is imitation based on admiration. Think about a disciplinary school that uses grades, shame, the principal's office, and even the cane versus an alternative school with cool and knowledgeable teachers who inspire curiosity and discovery. Or think of an abusive and manipulative bully of a father, versus a cool admirable older brother.

Archon from which anarchy is derived means political ruler or lord, it's the same root in monarch; that's quite different from the leader of a mushroom collecting group who organizes meetings, has a breadth of knowledge about poisonous and edible varieties, and makes up phone lists and meeting locations.

2) Given that not all people are willing to cooperate, how would leadership handle those individuals that do not cooperate (for example, drive on the opposite side of the road) and gross acts of non-cooperation (for example grand theft or murder)?

There are I think three usual replies to this question of crime:

1. The inequalities and violence of the state itself produce the crime which it then (supposedly) attempts to eradicate. For example, Joe steals a designer jacket to meet his desire for status which the state inculcated in him; or Mary steals the proverbial loaf of bread because her family is unemployed and starving.

2. Most crimes are really crimes against the maintenance or mechanisms of the state. For example, Joe shoots junk and thereby escapes the punishing emotions the state had needed for him to feel; or Mary robs a bank and ruptures the membranes that maintain pressure, valves, and flow of emotion in the state.

3. Punishment is the cause of crime and therefore is obviously futile as a corrective measure. For example, Joe goes to prison for possession of a joint and comes out mean and hooked on junk to numb the boredom and fear he suffered while in chains and cages; meanwhile, Mary goes into an alternative West Coast recovery program where she receives education in emotional life and tons of hugs and support and and comes out with an MA in counseling and a circle of close friends.

Posted: **January 8th, 2015, 2:01 pm**

Vlad I agree . However what you explain is insufficient. Some individuals are incapable of the sort of person- centred education that you describe as ideal. I wish it were so, and many good teachers work over and above the call of duty to free children into autonomy.

Some criminals, for instance can probably never be re-educated so as to be safe to be let out into the community. Although I note that you'ld agree with me that it is scandalously inefficient as well as horribly inhumane to imprison criminals in conditions that either destroy them or turn them into cleverer criminals.

Posted: **January 8th, 2015, 2:14 pm**

Vlad wrote:
David_the_simple wrote: Thanks, this make a great foundation for further discourse. Using the definition of leadership, the next two questions are logical progression and entanglements.

1) Is it possible to extend it to the position of leading an entire city/region/nation ?
Maybe start with a small example to further clarify. There are two kinds of education: one is training, which uses reward and punishment. The other is imitation based on admiration. Think about a disciplinary school that uses grades, shame, the principal's office, and even the cane versus an alternative school with cool and knowledgeable teachers who inspire curiosity and discovery. Or think of an abusive and manipulative bully of a father, versus a cool admirable older brother.

Archon from which anarchy is derived means political ruler or lord, it's the same root in monarch; that's quite different from the leader of a mushroom collecting group who organizes meetings, has a breadth of knowledge about poisonous and edible varieties, and makes up phone lists and meeting locations.

For the sake of discourse, Lets entertain that this type of leader is possible and can lead/administrate up to a national level. Using a Iriquios Great Law of Peace like constitution could achieve this.

2) Given that not all people are willing to cooperate, how would leadership handle those individuals that do not cooperate (for example, drive on the opposite side of the road) and gross acts of non-cooperation (for example grand theft or murder)?
There are I think three usual replies to this question of crime:

1. The inequalities and violence of the state itself produce the crime which it then (supposedly) attempts to eradicate. For example, Joe steals a designer jacket to meet his desire for status which the state inculcated in him; or Mary steals the proverbial loaf of bread because her family is unemployed and starving.

2. Most crimes are really crimes against the maintenance or mechanisms of the state. For example, Joe shoots junk and thereby escapes the punishing emotions the state had needed for him to feel; or Mary robs a bank and ruptures the membranes that maintain pressure, valves, and flow of emotion in the state.

3. Punishment is the cause of crime and therefore is obviously futile as a corrective measure. For example, Joe goes to prison for possession of a joint and comes out mean and hooked on junk to numb the boredom and fear he suffered while in chains and cages; meanwhile, Mary goes into an alternative West Coast recovery program where she receives education in emotional life and tons of hugs and support and and comes out with an MA in counseling and a circle of close friends.

I understand that these are part of the cause of crime, and with good leadership, these types of crimes would be nearly eliminated. This would be a good thing and I'd expect a 20 year lag for its manifestation. However, there are those who commit crime for other reasons or under other mechanisms. How would a 'good' leader be expected to deal with this type of criminal without initiating a 'state-like' municipal system ?

Posted: **January 9th, 2015, 12:36 pm**

David_the_simple wrote:
Vlad wrote:There are I think three usual replies to this question of crime:

1. The inequalities and violence of the state itself produce the crime which it then (supposedly) attempts to eradicate. For example, Joe steals a designer jacket to meet his desire for status which the state inculcated in him; or Mary steals the proverbial loaf of bread because her family is unemployed and starving.

2. Most crimes are really crimes against the maintenance or mechanisms of the state. For example, Joe shoots junk and thereby escapes the punishing emotions the state had needed for him to feel; or Mary robs a bank and ruptures the membranes that maintain pressure, valves, and flow of emotion in the state.

3. Punishment is the cause of crime and therefore is obviously futile as a corrective measure. For example, Joe goes to prison for possession of a joint and comes out mean and hooked on junk to numb the boredom and fear he suffered while in chains and cages; meanwhile, Mary goes into an alternative West Coast recovery program where she receives education in emotional life and tons of hugs and support and and comes out with an MA in counseling and a circle of close friends.

However, there are those who commit crime for other reasons or under other mechanisms. How would a 'good' leader be expected to deal with this type of criminal without initiating a 'state-like' municipal system ?

For example...?

Posted: **January 9th, 2015, 1:43 pm**

Vlad wrote:
David_the_simple wrote: (Nested quote removed.)

For example...?

Some are pathological criminals, there mechanism is founded on genetics.

Some are thrill seekers, some want more than what they are willing to work for (lazy or a delusion that the world owes them a living), etc.

Good leadership is invaluable, no question there. However, how do we handle these other cases in a way that would be endorsed through anarchism?

Philosophy Discussion Forums

Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism

Re: Anarchism