Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I don't want to live in anarchy and I get a vote too.
You are obviously quite passionate about Anarchy... good for you. I feel it would be just another stage for the same delusional actors and actresses... one with even less accountability.
exactly.. You think if there were no government that people wouldn't try to control you? <laughter>
how did the government become sovereign? how did it fulfill this will? murdering, stealing, raping, lying, and introducing intoxications and diseases to whatever stood in it's way. to people that lived in harmony with each-other and the land for thousands of years, the same process continues today.
murdering, stealing, raping, lying, and introducing intoxications and diseases to whatever stood in it's way.
Could you list some specific and contemporary examples? I'm not arguing ALL governments are just. I am simply arguing that people are also unjust in the absence of government which is probably why governments are formed. So there are codes of behaviour and some ramifications to deter antisocial behaviour...
murdering: some regimes punish political enemies... Maybe Waco or something but a government can't let people hole up with weapons. Capital punishment? War? What?
stealing: what taxes? grow up just think of all the good done with the money. No churches won't provide for the poor.
raping: which government is this?
lying: agreed but without government there would be lying anyhow
intoxications and diseases to whatever stood in it's way: biological warfare? Opium trade? What is this based on?
to people that lived in harmony with each-other
bullshit. I am guessing you are referring to native tribes, but no they raid and war too. Even without government people will resort to violence to settle ethnic and other difference and over resources.
mass murdering millions of native people. stealing the land, forced relocation to barren, small places, and then policed, forced to renounce their identity, slaughtered when for profit, having the land taken by force and made up laws whenever its wanted. raping the women, molesting 99% children in enforced missionary schools where they cannot speak their language or practice culture in any way. lying about land treaties, about intentions, etc. intoxication with alcohol, with smallpox, etc. natives didn't raid and war in at all the same way. there were no ethnic differences or issues over resources that resulted in violence as we know it. this is the european account. for example when they would war their would be a fight between one person in each tribe and if the other person was killed the killers family would have to pay the losers families reparations and send people to take care of them, and similar circumstances to that effect. contemporarily? regan's mass slaughtering, and all of what has been mentioned, in funding, training, and arming troops to takeover guatemala. black rock arizona, lakotah people, every standing native community that has any resources worth taking, and so on. because of the sort of arrogance, and ego that says my will over others, resulting in greed, hatred and delusion in all its manifestations, socially, politically, and spiritually...
I don't support that time in history. But at the same time I don't want to get rid of government. All of those warlike actions were 100% wrong. War is only for protection from other warlike peoples. Something that is in fact needed as the native americans discovered. Aztecs weren't too nice.
Native americans are 100% responsible for alcohol they drink. Nobody force them.
I think those times were based on a kind of racism where you don't value another sentient being. And you screw them.
don't cite the needles in the hay. it's an issue of critical mass, mainstream culture, of which this was absent. why do you think so many have drank themselves to death? destroyed families, communities with alcohol, meth, etc. continuing today? an escape from suffering and continued exploitation beyond anything in our comprehension. we need to look at the roots, as well as manifestations.
native people have governed themselves with a balance of gynocentric and matrifocal values, concensus, gift economy, functional familial structures, no genocide, no exploitation, etc. etc. and yet there was also leadership structure.
this sort of fixed views, arrogance, greed, hatred, delusion, hegemony, ideology and so on. peaceful people and cultures are destroyed without any remote trace of justice, for these reasons. government becomes out of our control, and what they do goes beyond comprehension, and so on. we need food, clothing, shelter, medicine, dignity, respect, and a system and culture based around dhamma rather than adhamma...
You say you want a technologically advanced anarchy without government and without corporations, but how do you propose this be done? How is technology to be fostered without large amounts of capital and resources that only corporations and government are capable of? Who, for example, is going to drill the oil and mold it into plastic to build the computer? Who is going to develop and maintain the electric grid?
Respectfully Jeffrey, I don't think there is any point debating with mettafou - his/her minds seems to be made up no matter what points you offer. Same goes for others on here. This is why it seems to me that this thread is now useless and just fostering disharmony on here. Perhaps that was the motive of the original post?
I'm sorry if that upsets anyone but that's what it seems to look like to the bystander.
As a genuine question to you Trans, why do you post threads like this? It appears to me (and I fully accept I may be misinterpreting your motives) that you may WANT to be a Buddhist but can't accept Buddhism for what it is and want validation to say it's something else. It's quite ok though. The Buddha told us to question everything not just accept it on blind faith alone.
I certainly don't want to start a flame war and if this is inappropriate then I'm ok with this post being deleted by the mods. I just don't get why you're so aggressive on here and appear to enjoy pushing buttons that's all Trans.
You say you want a technologically advanced anarchy without government and without corporations, but how do you propose this be done?
I have no idea how it would be achieved, nobody does. That question is asking for a simple answer to a hypecomplex problem.
I only have ideas how it could be started, and these may not be great ideas.
So we can see what kind of momentums would need to be started because we can see the root problems with governemnt. For example:
Voting every four years for a government is antiquated and a mockery of democracy. So we would use technology to allow people to vote securely on issues in much more local and real time ways. This technology exists now (and it aint (diebold etc)hardware systems used to great fraudulent effect in the USA).
That would perhaps be the first stage, to be able to translate real opinion on relevant issues into real democratic value.
Then tehre are fundamental issues with the scam money supply and banking systems that must be ended to escape the increasing slavery of state. Community banking, social credits, gold.... I don't know. I don't know this is to be done, only that it needs to be done.
In terms of things like "hospitals and roads" I would imagine an open free market would be able to do much better than a governed closed market as the world has now.
How is technology to be fostered without large amounts of capital and resources that only corporations and government are capable of
This isn't really a problem actually. The technology is there, distributed open systems have been shown to work in the real world, open source projects can clearly produce systems on par with systems produced by any corporation.
Who, for example, is going to drill the oil and mold it into plastic to build the computer? Who is going to develop and maintain the electric grid
The open free market, but one that isn't corrupted by pressures from governments....
The technical issues are the smallest issues of this. the hard issues are weaning we millions of media brainwashed people off the suckle of the dominating, disinterested nanny sate and greedy corporations.
I have no idea how it would be achieved, nobody does. That question is asking for a simple answer to a hypecomplex problem.
I only have ideas how it could be started, and these may not be great ideas.
So basically your idea is to cast away our current society with no idea of how or what to replace it with and just hope that everything turns out for the best? That's kinda what it's sounding like to me.
So we can see what kind of momentums would need to be started because we can see the root problems with governemnt. For example:
The root problems are with people. Government is an abstract, it is the people who make up the government.
Voting every four years for a government is antiquated and a mockery of democracy. So we would use technology to allow people to vote securely on issues in much more local and real time ways. This technology exists now (and it aint (diebold etc)hardware systems used to great fraudulent effect in the USA).
This doesn't really address any fundamental issues with the system however, it only alters the methods in which people elect those who comprise the government.
That would perhaps be the first stage, to be able to translate real opinion on relevant issues into real democratic value.
Then tehre are fundamental issues with the scam money supply and banking systems that must be ended to escape the increasing slavery of state. Community banking, social credits, gold.... I don't know. I don't know this is to be done, only that it needs to be done.
No offense, but I could take you more seriously if you had some ideas more substantial than "I don't know what to do but we ought to do something".
In terms of things like "hospitals and roads" I would imagine an open free market would be able to do much better than a governed closed market as the world has now.
Wait, are for for corporations or against them? You're confusing me here. Would not a market, completely free of government regulation, simply foster an environment where corporations could grow even larger and more hegemonic than now? And open-market roads? Seriously? Hope you enjoy paying for your road access on a per-mile basis.
This isn't really a problem actually. The technology is there, distributed open systems have been shown to work in the real world, open source projects can clearly produce systems on par with systems produced by any corporation.
I'm not simply talking about software here. Open source automobiles? Please, let me know if you have a thought out, plausible idea for this.
The open free market, but one that isn't corrupted by pressures from governments....
I don't see how one can be anti-corporate and yet pro-free market. I'm getting the feeling that you really haven't thought your ideology through very well.
The technical issues are the smallest issues of this. the hard issues are weaning we millions of media brainwashed people off the suckle of the dominating, disinterested nanny sate and greedy corporations.
Again, get back to me when you have some plausible idea for this.
So basically your idea is to cast away our current society with no idea of how or what to replace it with and just hope that everything turns out for the best?
No, you should re read what I said. Gradual and slow, thats how changes should be. Free and organic. Maybe start with hospitals or education. I dont have any answers:)
I just have a clear and considered direction, and that is away from government not increasing government.
What is your direction in these issues of government?
That's kinda what it's sounding like to me.
Be more mindful if you are critical! Its hard, I know!
The root problems are with people. Government is an abstract, it is the people who make up the government.
Some problems are to do with how people are organised etc, as well as how they are spiritually etc.
This doesn't really address any fundamental issues with the system however, it only alters the methods in which people elect those who comprise the government.
A four year democratic lag is too long. If you disagree with this please explain why.
No offense, but I could take you more seriously if you had some ideas more substantial than "I don't know what to do but we ought to do something".
No offence taken:) I really don't care if you believe me and I hope you doubt everything as much as you can.
Wait, are for for corporations or against them? You're confusing me here. Would not a market, completely free of government regulation, simply foster an environment where corporations could grow even larger and more hegemonic than now?
I dont know? What do you think?
How about if all citizens owned shares in the corporations, shares they couldn't sell..
I dunno. I have no answers, only a dreamer has answers.
I'm not simply talking about software here. Open source automobiles? Please, let me know if you have a thought out, plausible idea for this.
Its so easy to take a concept and criticise it. That way is called destructive, and it is easy to do. Anyone can do it about pretty much anything.
I don't see how one can be anti-corporate and yet pro-free market. I'm getting the feeling that you really haven't thought your ideology through very well.
Sure sure, again, its easy to criticise me. But can you do something interesting here and criticise the idea of a free and structured technological anarchy/open democracy?
Again, get back to me when you have some plausible idea for this.
I doubt Chompsky could persuade you of this. First you need to see the real state of the world above you, until you do that, your blind to the global reality.
Voting every four years for a government is antiquated and a mockery of democracy. So we would use technology to allow people to vote securely on issues in much more local and real time ways. This technology exists now (and it aint (diebold etc)hardware systems used to great fraudulent effect in the USA).
Very few have the required minimum knowledge to understand even the most basic political decision.
(you do realize that Sarah Palin had a following? you do also realize that Fox news exist and some people actually watch it and believe it?)
This is actually a big part of the problem in the USA.
Many people are completely uneducated and just plain stupid. (no offense intended, just stating the fact)
To illustrate this: "If you are against the war, you are not an American!"
These kind of things were so absurd but did create enormous momentum for the masses of cognitively incapable Americans.
So the whole game have become a parody of politic before Obama.
Instead of debating issues, they were debating personalities.
like an American idol show.
On top of that,
to have an election every 4 years mean that the government have to be somewhat resposible for it's actions, as they will begin to see the result of their strategies before the end of their term.
If you had an election every year, the government could then simply take every actions that sound good and please the masses but that are extremely irresponsible without having to face the consequences...
Like reducing the taxes too much and getting a country in bankruptcy.
I had an idea to solve these problems; people vote for a regional representant (1 group of 50k people get to vote for one person).
Then each representant, which should have a higher education in general, get to vote for the higher representants.
So like a pyramid, the mass only get to vote for the next step. Not for the higher ones.
To solve this, let me ask: Does Buddha approve of humans having authority over others? Did he subject himself to authority? Did he not rebel against and completely disregard the Indian Caste Government? He was likely considered an Anarchist by the government power structure.
Very few have the required minimum knowledge to understand even the most basic political decision.
So you believe in buddha nature but think most of us are thickies?
Many people are completely uneducated and just plain stupid.
It is very important to your understanding of this system if you think that most people are inately stupid... or just under privilaged (It aint just education, don't ya know)
To illustrate this: "If you are against the war, you are not an American!"
These kind of things were so absurd but did create enormous momentum for the masses of cognitively incapable Americans.
I don't see you exactly using your intelectec to decimate the idea that less government is better than more government.
Any system i suggest, you can find problems with. Any. Thats a fact. We are dealing with very complex things here, deep and complex. Of course you can find faults. Just as I can, or anyone with a mind. But that isn't wise.
Wisdom is constrictive not disruptive. Wisdom doesn't take away, it replaces, extends, changes...
Its pretty easy to be a smart ass, but a wise ass takes a little thought;)
Maybe put your wise hat on and ask yourself about the world that governs you?
So you believe in buddha nature but think most of us are thickies?
It is very important to your understanding of this system if you think that most people are inately stupid... or just under privilaged (It aint just education, don't ya know)
I don't see you exactly using your intelectec to decimate the idea that less government is better than more government.
Any system i suggest, you can find problems with. Any. Thats a fact. We are dealing with very complex things here, deep and complex. Of course you can find faults. Just as I can, or anyone with a mind. But that isn't wise.
Wisdom is constrictive not disruptive. Wisdom doesn't take away, it replaces, extends, changes...
Its pretty easy to be a smart ass, but a wise ass takes a little thought;)
Maybe put your wise hat on and ask yourself about the world that governs you?
namaste
my previous post was only about what i quoted.
not commenting about the whole anarchy thing. Sorry if it was a bit of a side step.
And i wasn't making points to counter you specifically; not being a "wise ass" either.
ps: again, you are presuming way too much and you are arriving to many wrong conclusions on a constant basis.
not commenting about the whole anarchy thing. Sorry if it was a bit of a side step.
And i wasn't making points to counter you specifically; not being a "wise ass" either.
ps: again, you are presuming way too much and you are arriving to many wrong conclusions on a constant basis.
Sorry! I thought i was replying to Transmataphysical (??) So In trying to be a wise ass by calling you a smart ass I actually just ended up being a dumbass.
No, you should re read what I said. Gradual and slow, thats how changes should be. Free and organic. Maybe start with hospitals or education. I dont have any answers:)
I just have a clear and considered direction, and that is away from government not increasing government.
Apparently you don't have a clear and considered direction if you have no answers. It's hard for me to come to any other conclusion other than you simply wanting to rebel for the sake of rebellion. That might be putting it somewhat crudely, but it's the only term I can't think of right now.
What is your direction in these issues of government?
I have no problems with our system of government. With certain people within it perhaps, but those people can be changed. But the system itself I have no problem with. I am as free as I have ever been, and as free as I would be under any anarchic system.
Be more mindful if you are critical! Its hard, I know!
I love being told to be mindful by someone who appears to lack the mindfulness to fully think out the ideas he proposes.
Some problems are to do with how people are organised etc, as well as how they are spiritually etc.
Which still comes back to the problems being with the people, not the system itself.
A four year democratic lag is too long. If you disagree with this please explain why.
Four years is fine. Any less of a term and I fear our politicians may be rendered ineffective, especially on the national level.
No offence taken:) I really don't care if you believe me and I hope you doubt everything as much as you can.
I only doubt that which I have a reason to doubt.
I dont know? What do you think?
I think you're confused.
How about if all citizens owned shares in the corporations, shares they couldn't sell..
So what, we force people to be involved in business and commerce?
I dunno. I have no answers, only a dreamer has answers.
I'd say you're a dreamer who visualizes some grand utopian idea that isn't very realistic. Try being a little more pragmatic.
Its so easy to take a concept and criticise it. That way is called destructive, and it is easy to do. Anyone can do it about pretty much anything.
You've presented no real concept here, only vagueries.
Sure sure, again, its easy to criticise me. But can you do something interesting here and criticise the idea of a free and structured technological anarchy/open democracy?
It's hard to criticize an abstract, which is all you've presented. You've given an abstract idea, but with no notion as to what that idea might actually consist of apart from vague ideas of this and that.
I doubt Chompsky could persuade you of this. First you need to see the real state of the world above you, until you do that, your blind to the global reality.
I love the ever reliable debate tacit of dismissing your opposition as "blind". I usually take this as a concession that the other person has no further argument.
Apparently you don't have a clear and considered direction if you have no answers. It's hard for me to come to any other conclusion other than you simply wanting to rebel for the sake of rebellion. That might be putting it somewhat crudely, but it's the only term I can't think of right now.
That'ts fine. I think you are wrong.
I have no problems with our system of government.
Its a two pronged thing. One is how your government effects you and two how it effects others, eg the poor and the developing world.
I love being told to be mindful by someone who appears to lack the mindfulness to fully think out the ideas he proposes.
I think you don't undertsand what I say.
Four years is fine. Any less of a term and I fear our politicians may be rendered ineffective, especially on the national level.
Gawd. Really?
So what, we force people to be involved in business and commerce
No silly, we let the system self organise:)
I'd say you're a dreamer who visualizes some grand utopian idea that isn't very realistic. Try being a little more pragmatic.
Guilty as charged. And in accepting that this ideal is possible and that the current is unwholesome I feel far less deluded than those who think everything is OK and the direction doesnt need changing.
It's hard to criticize an abstract, which is all you've presented. You've given an abstract idea, but with no notion as to what that idea might actually consist of apart from vague ideas of this and that.
Read chomsky., Listen to free domain radio. I cant pursued you, whatever I say.
Nor do I care to. be your own light.
I love the ever reliable debate tacit of dismissing your opposition as "blind". I usually take this as a concession that the other person has no further argument.
So stop talking:) Note I am not trying to tell you you are wrong about anything, I am merely telling you I don't agree with you in your attempts to criticise this very well accepted position.
Do your own research into what anarchism is, criticise it, not one of countless supporters.
To solve this, let me ask: Does Buddha approve of humans having authority over others? Did he subject himself to authority? Did he not rebel against and completely disregard the Indian Caste Government? He was likely considered an Anarchist by the government power structure.
He created a very specific set of rules for laypeople and monks. He did not rebel against anything... he simply set up and taught what he saw as right way. I doubt he approved or disapproved of much. Do you think he disapproved of the cold northern wind? He saw what was.
People also saw him as a god, which he also was not. People see crazy things when they want to see them, and stable things when they don't want.
He created a very specific set of rules for laypeople and monks.
Actually the evidence suggests that the vinyana was formulated much after the Buddha's death, and it is documented there were matters of dispute in the rules during their formulation.
non-intervention=anarchism. minding your own interest and working directly with your conflicts with your neighbors. modern anarchism admits for some govt. to moderate to a certain degree; to coordinate activities, not to govern not to tax not to rule.
Most modern anarchists advocate a kind of communial or village approach to neccesary collective action, where needs and values are socially defined by the individuals.
To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-ridden, regulated, penned up, indoctrinated, preached at, checked, appraised, seized, censured, commanded, by beings who have neither title, nor knowledge, nor virtue. To be governed is to have every operation, every transaction, every movement noted, registered, counted, rated, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, refused, authorized, endorsed, admonished, prevented, reformed, redressed, corrected.
To be governed is, under pretext of public utility and in the name of the general interest, to be laid under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, exhausted, hoaxed and robbed; then, upon the slightest resistance, at the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, annoyed, hunted down, pulled about, beaten, disarmed, bound, imprisoned, shot, judged, condemned, banished, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and, to crown all, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored.
~Proudhon
To better understand what anarchism is:
definition of govt. is the "subjugation of the non invasive individual or a band of individuals assuming to at as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area."
the main role of the state is aggression.
the essence is control ^.
the ideal social contract would be to agree not to hamper and restrict each other to the degree to which all of us can enjoy similar freedoms.
(what the individual gains is only in proportion to the freedom of the society. with fewer restrictions on our actions we will help each-other more... this form of agreement excludes all forms of aggression and conflict & all invasion of every kind.)
so by its very nature as aggressive invader the state cannot enter the ideal social contract. (without the state, we will can still have defense; anarchism doesn't prevent individuals from banding together in mutual defense.)
non-intervention=anarchism. minding your own interest and working directly with your conflicts with your neighbors. modern anarchism admits for some govt. to moderate to a certain degree; to coordinate activities, not to govern not to tax not to rule.
Most modern anarchists advocate a kind of communial or village approach to neccesary collective action, where needs and values are socially defined by the individuals.
To better understand what anarchism is:
definition of govt. is the "subjugation of the non invasive individual or a band of individuals assuming to at as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area."
the main role of the state is aggression.
the essence is control ^.
the ideal social contract would be to agree not to hamper and restrict each other to the degree to which all of us can enjoy similar freedoms.
(what the individual gains is only in proportion to the freedom of the society. with fewer restrictions on our actions we will help each-other more... this form of agreement excludes all forms of aggression and conflict & all invasion of every kind.)
so by its very nature as aggressive invader the state cannot enter the ideal social contract. (without the state, we will can still have defense; anarchism doesn't prevent individuals from banding together in mutual defense.)
therefore the best govt. option is no govt.
(tucker's basic argument)
That was a great read. I wish you had said that earlier!:)
the ideal social contract would be to agree not to hamper and restrict each other to the degree to which all of us can enjoy similar freedoms.
(what the individual gains is only in proportion to the freedom of the society. with fewer restrictions on our actions we will help each-other more... this form of agreement excludes all forms of aggression and conflict & all invasion of every kind.)
isn't this what we aim toward with most democratic governments (exept usa, which seem to want to take over the world)
non-intervention=anarchism. minding your own interest and working directly with your conflicts with your neighbors. modern anarchism admits for some govt. to moderate to a certain degree; to coordinate activities, not to govern, not to tax, not to rule.
Most modern anarchists advocate a kind of communial or village approach to neccesary collective action, where needs and values are socially defined by the individuals.
yep, so you got to have a police, and an army.
So someone has to pay for this = taxes
Then you have to elect a bunch of people to decide what the police and army will do. more government = more taxes
Then you have to have more people to deal with other countries who want to sell you stuff, or ask you for stuff etc = more taxes
Then we figure we should have schools and universities to educate the kids (at least so they can learn to count and read.)
more taxes...
so here is your typical government.
Who said anything about currency and taxation?
Anarchism (at least in the anarcho-communist/collectivist traditions) must be more or less a global system for it to work, in order for networks of decentralized mutual aid to be carried out.
I am against all forms of communism and socialism, since I have a slavic background and I am not a fan of what they've done to my ancestors. Anarchy on the other hand I would support all the way. However, if the government was overthrown somehow, it would only be a generation or two before we're in the same boat again. I try to be politically aware. I know how the political and legal systems are structured and work, who the different figures are and what they stand for/against. At the same time, I try to stay out of political arguments as they are never-ending and are fueled by ignorance.
I am against all forms of communism and socialism, since I have a slavic background and I am not a fan of what they've done to my ancestors. Anarchy on the other hand I would support all the way. However, if the government was overthrown somehow, it would only be a generation or two before we're in the same boat again. I try to be politically aware. I know how the political and legal systems are structured and work, who the different figures are and what they stand for/against. At the same time, I try to stay out of political arguments as they are never-ending and are fueled by ignorance.
Anarchism is communism (but don't let anarcho-capitalists/Libertarians tell you otherwise).
The communism you refer to is the result of a barrage of material conditions and social circumstances, and also mainly under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, a specific branch of communism that is much more authoritarian than others. It is not inherently evil, though obviously history has shown us that it is not inherently good either. It depends on its activists to determine the course it takes.
As for the "my background makes me feel x" argument, my grandparents were persecuted by Communist forces back in the Chinese Revolution, but I am still a supporter of socialism/communism. Much like with most things, it is about critical support, and not blind adherence to a set of ideals.
How do you get to the 'anarchism is communism' line?
It may not be inherently evil and thus appeals to many well intentioned people. However it's not practical based on emotionally charged ideals and flawed economics, thus it will always fail.
I know, I was just saying how I felt about it. No need to take it further (unless you really want to).
Anarchism is nice in theory, but I don't feel it's realistic. Humans need leadership. Even in the most egalitarian societies people gravitate towards leaders.
The sad truth is that decent people don't want leadership roles. Whether you are a communist, anarchist, republican, democrat or anything else... your leadership will end up in the wrong hands. I can see how the initial fight may be started by decent people, but ultimately corruption, power and leadership all go hand in hand.
The sad truth is that decent people don't want leadership roles. Whether you are a communist, anarchist, republican, democrat or anything else... your leadership will end up in the wrong hands. I can see how the initial fight may be started by decent people, but ultimately corruption, power and leadership all go hand in hand.
That's one of the reasons why Plato argues in the Republic that, ideally, those with the best natures (i.e., philosophers) need to be compelled to become rulers/leaders after they complete the necessary training, which consists of an initial eduction in music, poetry and physical training, three years of compulsory physical training (kind of like military service), then ten years of education in mathematical science, five years of training in dialectic and fifteen years of practical political training.
That's one of the reasons why Plato argues in the Republic that, ideally, those with the best natures (i.e., philosophers) need to be compelled to become rulers/leaders after they complete the necessary training, which consists of an initial eduction in music, poetry and physical training, three years of compulsory physical training (kind of like military service), then ten years of education in mathematical science, five years of training in dialectic and fifteen years of practical political training.
So at least 30+ years of training. Considering the average lifespan of Plato's time it doesn't seem like that leaves much time for those folks to govern.
So at least 30+ years of training. Considering the average lifespan of Plato's time it doesn't seem like that leaves much time for those folks to govern.
Yes, but it should be remembered that this is said in the context of a thought experiment in which Plato via Socrates is constructing what he considers to be the ideal city in order to uncover the nature of justice and discover whether the just man is happier than the unjust man.
How do you get to the 'anarchism is communism' line?
Stateless, classless society typically based on a gift economy (this aspect I personally have some issues with but that's a side note). I highly recommend you read The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin, you'll see what I mean.
It may not be inherently evil and thus appeals to many well intentioned people. However it's not practical based on emotionally charged ideals and flawed economics, thus it will always fail.
Politics in general is based on ideals. Free-market capitalism was (and still is) an ideal, trickle-down economics is an ideal, etc. And within every political movement there will be emotionally charged individuals as much as there are grounded people who make careful, deliberate statements.
Anarchism is nice in theory, but I don't feel it's realistic. Humans need leadership. Even in the most egalitarian societies people gravitate towards leaders.
Anarchism isn't against all forms of leadership, just institutionalized leadership/authority.
What I mean by this is that if Joe is a good shoemaker, it's obvious to elect him to be the leader of shoemaking operations. But this is due to his ability, and he can be recalled by the community that elected him at any time.
What is not okay is to have someone "rise up the ranks" as it were and have authority just because he/she is a certain rank within the workplace.
The Anarchist FAQ is a great resource if anyone is more interested in the topic matter.
Comments
exactly.. You think if there were no government that people wouldn't try to control you? <laughter>
You could give up your citizenship possibly but the government is still sovereign in this land and thats what I want. My will.
murdering: some regimes punish political enemies... Maybe Waco or something but a government can't let people hole up with weapons. Capital punishment? War? What?
stealing: what taxes? grow up just think of all the good done with the money. No churches won't provide for the poor.
raping: which government is this?
lying: agreed but without government there would be lying anyhow
intoxications and diseases to whatever stood in it's way: biological warfare? Opium trade? What is this based on?
bullshit. I am guessing you are referring to native tribes, but no they raid and war too. Even without government people will resort to violence to settle ethnic and other difference and over resources.
Native americans are 100% responsible for alcohol they drink. Nobody force them.
I think those times were based on a kind of racism where you don't value another sentient being. And you screw them.
Was interesting:)
namaste
You say you want a technologically advanced anarchy without government and without corporations, but how do you propose this be done? How is technology to be fostered without large amounts of capital and resources that only corporations and government are capable of? Who, for example, is going to drill the oil and mold it into plastic to build the computer? Who is going to develop and maintain the electric grid?
I'm sorry if that upsets anyone but that's what it seems to look like to the bystander.
As a genuine question to you Trans, why do you post threads like this? It appears to me (and I fully accept I may be misinterpreting your motives) that you may WANT to be a Buddhist but can't accept Buddhism for what it is and want validation to say it's something else. It's quite ok though. The Buddha told us to question everything not just accept it on blind faith alone.
I certainly don't want to start a flame war and if this is inappropriate then I'm ok with this post being deleted by the mods. I just don't get why you're so aggressive on here and appear to enjoy pushing buttons that's all Trans.
Respectfully,
Raven
I have no idea how it would be achieved, nobody does. That question is asking for a simple answer to a hypecomplex problem.
I only have ideas how it could be started, and these may not be great ideas.
So we can see what kind of momentums would need to be started because we can see the root problems with governemnt. For example:
Voting every four years for a government is antiquated and a mockery of democracy. So we would use technology to allow people to vote securely on issues in much more local and real time ways. This technology exists now (and it aint (diebold etc)hardware systems used to great fraudulent effect in the USA).
That would perhaps be the first stage, to be able to translate real opinion on relevant issues into real democratic value.
Then tehre are fundamental issues with the scam money supply and banking systems that must be ended to escape the increasing slavery of state. Community banking, social credits, gold.... I don't know. I don't know this is to be done, only that it needs to be done.
In terms of things like "hospitals and roads" I would imagine an open free market would be able to do much better than a governed closed market as the world has now.
This isn't really a problem actually. The technology is there, distributed open systems have been shown to work in the real world, open source projects can clearly produce systems on par with systems produced by any corporation.
The open free market, but one that isn't corrupted by pressures from governments....
The technical issues are the smallest issues of this. the hard issues are weaning we millions of media brainwashed people off the suckle of the dominating, disinterested nanny sate and greedy corporations.
namaste
So basically your idea is to cast away our current society with no idea of how or what to replace it with and just hope that everything turns out for the best? That's kinda what it's sounding like to me.
The root problems are with people. Government is an abstract, it is the people who make up the government.
This doesn't really address any fundamental issues with the system however, it only alters the methods in which people elect those who comprise the government.
No offense, but I could take you more seriously if you had some ideas more substantial than "I don't know what to do but we ought to do something".
Wait, are for for corporations or against them? You're confusing me here. Would not a market, completely free of government regulation, simply foster an environment where corporations could grow even larger and more hegemonic than now? And open-market roads? Seriously? Hope you enjoy paying for your road access on a per-mile basis.
I'm not simply talking about software here. Open source automobiles? Please, let me know if you have a thought out, plausible idea for this.
I don't see how one can be anti-corporate and yet pro-free market. I'm getting the feeling that you really haven't thought your ideology through very well.
Again, get back to me when you have some plausible idea for this.
No, you should re read what I said. Gradual and slow, thats how changes should be. Free and organic. Maybe start with hospitals or education. I dont have any answers:)
I just have a clear and considered direction, and that is away from government not increasing government.
What is your direction in these issues of government?
Be more mindful if you are critical! Its hard, I know!
Some problems are to do with how people are organised etc, as well as how they are spiritually etc.
A four year democratic lag is too long. If you disagree with this please explain why.
No offence taken:) I really don't care if you believe me and I hope you doubt everything as much as you can.
I dont know? What do you think?
How about if all citizens owned shares in the corporations, shares they couldn't sell..
I dunno. I have no answers, only a dreamer has answers.
Its so easy to take a concept and criticise it. That way is called destructive, and it is easy to do. Anyone can do it about pretty much anything.
Sure sure, again, its easy to criticise me. But can you do something interesting here and criticise the idea of a free and structured technological anarchy/open democracy?
I doubt Chompsky could persuade you of this. First you need to see the real state of the world above you, until you do that, your blind to the global reality.
namaste
(you do realize that Sarah Palin had a following? you do also realize that Fox news exist and some people actually watch it and believe it?)
This is actually a big part of the problem in the USA.
Many people are completely uneducated and just plain stupid. (no offense intended, just stating the fact)
To illustrate this: "If you are against the war, you are not an American!"
These kind of things were so absurd but did create enormous momentum for the masses of cognitively incapable Americans.
So the whole game have become a parody of politic before Obama.
Instead of debating issues, they were debating personalities.
like an American idol show.
On top of that,
to have an election every 4 years mean that the government have to be somewhat resposible for it's actions, as they will begin to see the result of their strategies before the end of their term.
If you had an election every year, the government could then simply take every actions that sound good and please the masses but that are extremely irresponsible without having to face the consequences...
Like reducing the taxes too much and getting a country in bankruptcy.
I had an idea to solve these problems; people vote for a regional representant (1 group of 50k people get to vote for one person).
Then each representant, which should have a higher education in general, get to vote for the higher representants.
So like a pyramid, the mass only get to vote for the next step. Not for the higher ones.
All problems solved!
To solve this, let me ask: Does Buddha approve of humans having authority over others? Did he subject himself to authority? Did he not rebel against and completely disregard the Indian Caste Government? He was likely considered an Anarchist by the government power structure.
.
So you believe in buddha nature but think most of us are thickies?
It is very important to your understanding of this system if you think that most people are inately stupid... or just under privilaged (It aint just education, don't ya know)
I don't see you exactly using your intelectec to decimate the idea that less government is better than more government.
Any system i suggest, you can find problems with. Any. Thats a fact. We are dealing with very complex things here, deep and complex. Of course you can find faults. Just as I can, or anyone with a mind. But that isn't wise.
Wisdom is constrictive not disruptive. Wisdom doesn't take away, it replaces, extends, changes...
Its pretty easy to be a smart ass, but a wise ass takes a little thought;)
Maybe put your wise hat on and ask yourself about the world that governs you?
namaste
not commenting about the whole anarchy thing. Sorry if it was a bit of a side step.
And i wasn't making points to counter you specifically; not being a "wise ass" either.
ps: again, you are presuming way too much and you are arriving to many wrong conclusions on a constant basis.
Sorry! I thought i was replying to Transmataphysical (??) So In trying to be a wise ass by calling you a smart ass I actually just ended up being a dumbass.
All is pointless,
namaste
Apparently you don't have a clear and considered direction if you have no answers. It's hard for me to come to any other conclusion other than you simply wanting to rebel for the sake of rebellion. That might be putting it somewhat crudely, but it's the only term I can't think of right now.
I have no problems with our system of government. With certain people within it perhaps, but those people can be changed. But the system itself I have no problem with. I am as free as I have ever been, and as free as I would be under any anarchic system.
I love being told to be mindful by someone who appears to lack the mindfulness to fully think out the ideas he proposes.
Which still comes back to the problems being with the people, not the system itself.
Four years is fine. Any less of a term and I fear our politicians may be rendered ineffective, especially on the national level.
I only doubt that which I have a reason to doubt.
I think you're confused.
So what, we force people to be involved in business and commerce?
I'd say you're a dreamer who visualizes some grand utopian idea that isn't very realistic. Try being a little more pragmatic.
You've presented no real concept here, only vagueries.
It's hard to criticize an abstract, which is all you've presented. You've given an abstract idea, but with no notion as to what that idea might actually consist of apart from vague ideas of this and that.
I love the ever reliable debate tacit of dismissing your opposition as "blind". I usually take this as a concession that the other person has no further argument.
That'ts fine. I think you are wrong.
Its a two pronged thing. One is how your government effects you and two how it effects others, eg the poor and the developing world.
I think you don't undertsand what I say.
Gawd. Really?
No silly, we let the system self organise:)
Guilty as charged. And in accepting that this ideal is possible and that the current is unwholesome I feel far less deluded than those who think everything is OK and the direction doesnt need changing.
Read chomsky., Listen to free domain radio. I cant pursued you, whatever I say.
Nor do I care to. be your own light.
So stop talking:) Note I am not trying to tell you you are wrong about anything, I am merely telling you I don't agree with you in your attempts to criticise this very well accepted position.
Do your own research into what anarchism is, criticise it, not one of countless supporters.
namaste
He created a very specific set of rules for laypeople and monks. He did not rebel against anything... he simply set up and taught what he saw as right way. I doubt he approved or disapproved of much. Do you think he disapproved of the cold northern wind? He saw what was.
People also saw him as a god, which he also was not. People see crazy things when they want to see them, and stable things when they don't want.
With warmth,
Matt
Actually the evidence suggests that the vinyana was formulated much after the Buddha's death, and it is documented there were matters of dispute in the rules during their formulation.
Most modern anarchists advocate a kind of communial or village approach to neccesary collective action, where needs and values are socially defined by the individuals.
To better understand what anarchism is:
definition of govt. is the "subjugation of the non invasive individual or a band of individuals assuming to at as representatives or masters of the entire people within a given area."
the main role of the state is aggression.
the essence is control ^.
the ideal social contract would be to agree not to hamper and restrict each other to the degree to which all of us can enjoy similar freedoms.
(what the individual gains is only in proportion to the freedom of the society. with fewer restrictions on our actions we will help each-other more... this form of agreement excludes all forms of aggression and conflict & all invasion of every kind.)
so by its very nature as aggressive invader the state cannot enter the ideal social contract. (without the state, we will can still have defense; anarchism doesn't prevent individuals from banding together in mutual defense.)
therefore the best govt. option is no govt.
(tucker's basic argument)
That was a great read. I wish you had said that earlier!:)
namaste
yep, so you got to have a police, and an army.
So someone has to pay for this = taxes
Then you have to elect a bunch of people to decide what the police and army will do. more government = more taxes
Then you have to have more people to deal with other countries who want to sell you stuff, or ask you for stuff etc = more taxes
Then we figure we should have schools and universities to educate the kids (at least so they can learn to count and read.)
more taxes...
so here is your typical government.
so anarchy is a simple democracy? So we already have anarchy?
Who said anything about currency and taxation?
Anarchism (at least in the anarcho-communist/collectivist traditions) must be more or less a global system for it to work, in order for networks of decentralized mutual aid to be carried out.
Anarchism is communism (but don't let anarcho-capitalists/Libertarians tell you otherwise).
The communism you refer to is the result of a barrage of material conditions and social circumstances, and also mainly under the banner of Marxism-Leninism, a specific branch of communism that is much more authoritarian than others. It is not inherently evil, though obviously history has shown us that it is not inherently good either. It depends on its activists to determine the course it takes.
As for the "my background makes me feel x" argument, my grandparents were persecuted by Communist forces back in the Chinese Revolution, but I am still a supporter of socialism/communism. Much like with most things, it is about critical support, and not blind adherence to a set of ideals.
It may not be inherently evil and thus appeals to many well intentioned people. However it's not practical based on emotionally charged ideals and flawed economics, thus it will always fail.
I know, I was just saying how I felt about it. No need to take it further (unless you really want to).
Yeah, I often think the same thing about enlightenment.:D
That's one of the reasons why Plato argues in the Republic that, ideally, those with the best natures (i.e., philosophers) need to be compelled to become rulers/leaders after they complete the necessary training, which consists of an initial eduction in music, poetry and physical training, three years of compulsory physical training (kind of like military service), then ten years of education in mathematical science, five years of training in dialectic and fifteen years of practical political training.
So at least 30+ years of training. Considering the average lifespan of Plato's time it doesn't seem like that leaves much time for those folks to govern.
Yes, but it should be remembered that this is said in the context of a thought experiment in which Plato via Socrates is constructing what he considers to be the ideal city in order to uncover the nature of justice and discover whether the just man is happier than the unjust man.
Stateless, classless society typically based on a gift economy (this aspect I personally have some issues with but that's a side note). I highly recommend you read The Conquest of Bread by Peter Kropotkin, you'll see what I mean.
Politics in general is based on ideals. Free-market capitalism was (and still is) an ideal, trickle-down economics is an ideal, etc. And within every political movement there will be emotionally charged individuals as much as there are grounded people who make careful, deliberate statements.
Tomayto, tomahto.
Anarchism isn't against all forms of leadership, just institutionalized leadership/authority.
What I mean by this is that if Joe is a good shoemaker, it's obvious to elect him to be the leader of shoemaking operations. But this is due to his ability, and he can be recalled by the community that elected him at any time.
What is not okay is to have someone "rise up the ranks" as it were and have authority just because he/she is a certain rank within the workplace.
The Anarchist FAQ is a great resource if anyone is more interested in the topic matter.