Re: Heathian Anarchism Is Neo-Feudalism

[LP101A]

Resources are always available with total and complete knowledge-sharing and with no technological suppression.

Life is on many levels and dimensions - you aren't supposed to know; it is for your betters.

Limitations are set by the 1) PTB and 2)the brainwashed mindset of the masses who are the most staunch defenders of their slavery

Most shortages are planned. No surprises here

The problem is that the persons driving this - want you dead because you're taking up space and breathing good air

[ericfontainejazz]

Thanks for addressing these issues. I have always been concerned about blind obedience to the homesteading principle granting perpetual rights to a plot of land. I do think that use and occupancy do need to be taken into consideration by DROs to some limited degree. I get frustrated when many of my hard core anarcho-capitalist friends place too much emphasis on deontology and dismiss any concerns about consequentialism as irrelevant.

[1x93cm]

how can you have infinite resources on a finite planet

[MstrirSage]

@1x93cm I can't tell if you're agreeing or disagreeing with the content of this video. But yes, all resources are finite.

[sausage4mash]

this confuses me as soon as you talk about rules , for pragmatic reasons rules need to be in-forced through a centralized body and to be fair those rule need to be democratically accountable , that's what we kind of have now in the west .

[MstrirSage]

@sausage4mash, there are historical examples of rules being enforced without a centralized body. These include the medieval Commonwealth of Iceland, medieval Ireland, private protection in Anglo-Saxon England, and Xeer law in Somalia.

[sausage4mash]

@MstrirSage medieval Ireland was barbaric from what i know of history ,is living in a western democracy so bad ? my life is a little dull , I could do with earning a bit more and would like a few more weeks holiday a year but .... I've never gone hungry in my life I do not fear for my life ,my Dad did go hungry when he was a kid , but we have progressed ,I used to have to ware my brothers hand me downs ,that is rare nowadays ,your problem is ?

[MstrirSage]

@sausage4mash I didn't give these as examples of longevity and plenty, I gave them as examples of legal orders where rules are agreed to and enforced without the use of a centralized government - that's what I thought you were referring to.

[sausage4mash]

@MstrirSage yes but the reason you're discussing all of this is to propose making the lot of man better some how ? or is it just mental masturbation or have I missed the point .

[MstrirSage]

@sausage4mash, I doubt the "barbarism", as you put it, was the result of a decentralized political system. A lot of the backwardness comes from the fact that these political systems existed in the Middle Ages, as are the cases of Ireland, Iceland, and Anglo-Saxon England, or are present in third world countries where the benefits of modern life just haven't come yet.

[MstrirSage]

@sausage4mash It's a real stretch to say that the luxuries we enjoy today are the result of a centrailized body enforcing positive law; our luxuries come from innovation, not centralized enforcement. The concern you raised was about whether a legal system can exist without a centralized body to enforce commonly-agreed-upon rules, and I just gave you examples of that.

[MstrirSage]

@sausage4mash  If you want to argue about whether living in the Middle Ages is better than living in a modern country, then you're going to have a quiet conversation.

[sausage4mash]

@MstrirSage I've had some argue that ,lol, I just don't see that centralizing is such a bad thing ,in a way that's how higher organisms work , centralization can at its best focus effort , men to the moon, space telescopes, LHC and in the future nuclear fusion big big leap forward ,these things cost billions apon billions ,in a nut shell I think western democracy's work far from perfect but they are progressing ,I don't see a reason to change ?

[devourage]

@sausage4mash The only reason you believe this is because the guns wielded by western democracies have never been pointed at you. If you lived in one of the many countries destroyed by said democracies, you might feel different. Or if you lived in Mexico, where the international drug war has given control of many towns over to drug cartels. Or if you were one of the many aspiring entrepreneurs who have had their potential fortune destroyed by a broken education and economic system.

[devourage]

"in a way that's how higher organisms work"

No, higher organisms are not centralized, they are organized. There was no authority that brought higher organisms together. Higher organisms emerged through evolution, a bottom-up process, the opposite of centralization, really. I find it very strange that an atheist is claiming that higher organisms are centralized. As to your other statement, historically, the nations that have generated wealth have had their centralization heavily curbed.

[sausage4mash]

@devourage higher organisms have a brain ,a way to focus and organize the resources of an organism that's what I was getting at .

anyways you would have to write out you proposed new system and give a good reason why it is better than or current system ,I'm very dubious ,most anarchists I've spoken to are very biased and lack in my opinion any rational perspective .

[devourage]

@sausage4mash Brains have evolved to regulate the organism. Brains and bodies have a symbiotic relationship, that emerged over millions of years. The same cannot be true of a centralized political system, as there is always a high degree of separation between the rulers and the populace, irregardless of the "democratic control" given to the masses. The brain analogy would work if you were talking about how bees organize themselves, not people.

[devourage]

Don't try to understand anarchism by talking to people on the internet, read anarchist philosophers and economists. Until you do that, I consider your opinion that anarchists are irrational as null and void.

[devourage]

"is the this the fault of democracy"

That's not what I'm saying. You said western democracy spreads prosperity and wealth, I'm saying the only reason you think that is because of your individual circumstances. If you were born in a different country, your opinion would be quite different. It's kind of like Dawkin;s argument, that if a Christian was born in India, he'd likely be a Hindu.

[devourage]

"in doing so you seem to be agreeing..."

I am agreeing to no such thing, nor do I see why you would think I am agreeing to it. Once you give an elite group of individuals control over trillions of dollars of other people's money, and control over weapons that can destroy the world, I don't think there's any way to stop corruption and tyranny from arising. I certainly don't think that giving power over to the masses changes this at all.

[sausage4mash]

@devourage most dictatorships theologys and communist systems in the world seem to be technologically backwards ,the only distinction I can see between them and us, is we are liberal democracy's (will add most Americans conflate democracy with capitalism ,two different things ,but I'm guessing you know that as you seem well read ) ,so yes I would say the free exchange of Ideas inherent in a democracy has a correlation to a country's wealth .

[devourage]

The free exchange of ideas is NOT inherent in a democracy. Nations that have a free market of ideas have such a thing precisely because democracy is limited. Democracy just means majority rule. America has free speech because the constitution says that people can't vote it out. In a pure democracy nothing stops 51% of people from stripping the rights of the other 49. Freedom exists where democracy cannot take it away.

[devourage]

As for your comments about wealth, Hong Kong is one of the most prosperous economies in the world, if not the most prosperous. It is far easier to become wealthy living in Hong Kong than most western nations. Yet the region exists under a highly coercive state. Wealth creation is spurred by economic systems, not political systems. The reason that (some) democracies are wealthy, is that, once again, democracy is at least somewhat limited when it comes to acquiring wealth.

[sausage4mash]

@devourage sophisticated Democracy's have provision against the tyranny of the majority ,America is not that democratic you only have two party's but your written constitution is something to be proud of ,anyways this conversation is getting silly ,if you can see no Good at all in western Democracy's then you have a warped perspective ,end of , on that note I'm off to bed :)

[devourage]

Translation: You can't counter any argument I've made, so you're leaving. There's nothing silly about this conversation, and I never said nothing good came from western democracies. It's better than most forms of statism, I just don't think it's particularly good, or necessarily conducive to freedom or wealth. The provisions against majority tyranny is where democracy is limited. That was my point in my last post. You have failed to rationally argue anything I've said. Good night.

[Mastikator]

I sort of suspect that trying to own an entire city (or the land therein) would be incredibly hard since it would be impossible to guard, a lot of people would live on it and not pay "rent". It doesn't seem like a sustainable system without some religion statism where people enforce payment themselves. But even in those scenarios many choose to ignore the rules of the land and not pay the taxes. If nobody believed in the inherent rightness of the system it would seize to be.

[MstrirSage]

@Mastikator, true, private ownership of an entire city is not sustainable, but neither is the state, and states have been able to subsist despite their unsustainability. All you need for it to subsist is, as you pointed out, a civil religion of statism. And in a culture of conventional hard-line property rights, where all claims on property got through voluntary means are considered legitimate, private ownership of an entire city may be defended by the civil religion.

[brainpolice2]

@MstrirSage To be honest, I don't even think you need that. All you need is for people to asquiesce to the power structures in their circumstances - even if they don't ideologically recognize it as legitimate. I don't think it's exactly accurate to think of systems as being purely upheld through belief, since power has its own inertia. People are simply born into these power structures and asqueisce to social coercion.

[brainpolice2]

I'll be uploading a video response soon.

[brainpolice2]

I agree with you that Chartier, Long, Spangler, Carson, etc., aren't talking about the whole problem with capitalism. However, I think that they have made important contributions to that critique. My main problem has been with folks like Spangler, who seem to treat it almost entirely as semantic issue of redefining Rothbard's position as anti-capitalist. Carson seems to have more substantive criticisms, although I might go even further than him.

[MstrirSage]

@brainpolice2 yes, they have made very important contributions.