🇳🇱
Republican: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear red ties
Democrats: fascist, authoritarian, Mostly rich old white dudes being racist towards blacks and telling them how they know whats best for them. Their politicians wear blue ties
@freemo
The longer we keep a two party system the further we will keep this red v blue mentality. I wonder if I will ever see an independent sworn in before I die of climate change.
@Darkayne While the two party system isnt helping , and yea partly the cause I think people becoming polarized is such a deep rooted issue at this point im not sure if we will ever truely see sanity
Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Everyone that votes for party that has an agenda of "doing something" other than dismantling the gang of thieves, known as government, are Authoritarian Tyrant Worshipers.
It is useless semantics what to call it.
> Democracy is by definition forcing the will of the majority onto the rest of the population. A.k.a. Authoritarianism.
Except its literally not. The primary definition of democracy doesnt even use the word majority:
"a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections"
In fact while there are other secondary definitions that include majority, those definitions apply only when used more generally (as in not specific to the context of national governments)
In fact we only need to look at example to know what you said is false, The USA, the UK, and effectively every nation in the world, doesnt have a simple majority to win. In fact all these nations are designed to have some mechanism to ensure a simple majority, a tyranny of the majority, isnt possible.
> You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
You can, and we do. The electorial college is an example of that, it ensures that most disseperate cultures and their regions have some agreement on votes... it isnt purely majority based (you need to get close to a majority but can win even without one)... but also is fairly balanced so fringe ideas cant win either.
It is a prime example of democracy that is not a simple majority.
I don't object to Libertarians or libertarians, I was one in practice (didn't know the terms) when I was young. But I can't reconcile "law" with "freedom", no matter how it is "legislated". All laws we agree on are not needed, hence other laws are enforcing some people's will on others, and that is what I finally realized, maybe 15 years ago or so.
There are two aspects to this... one is that laws are vastly over used to negative effect... sure we agree here.
The other is if ALL law is counter to freedom... and the answer is, no, unless you getinto rediculous things like "Making murder illegal infringes on my freedom to murder people"
+bonifartius 𒂼𒄄
i think lysander spooner put it quite fittingly
>If justice be not a natural principle, it is no principle at all. If it be not a natural principle, there is no such thing as justice. If it be not a natural principle, all that men have ever said or written about it, from time immemorial, has been said and written about that which had no existence. If it be not a natural principle, all the appeals for justice that have ever been heard, and all the struggles for justice that have ever been witnessed, have been appeals and struggles for a mere fantasy, a vagary of the imagination, and not for a reality.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, then there is no such thing as injustice; and all the crimes of which the world has been the scene, have been no crimes at all; but only simple events, like the falling of the rain, or the setting of the sun; events of which the victims had no more reason to complain than they had to complain of the running of the streams, or the growth of vegetation.
>
>If justice be not a natural principle, governments (so-called) have no more right or reason to take cognizance of it, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance of it, than they have to take cognizance, or to pretend or profess to take cognizance, of any other nonentity; and all their professions of establishing justice, or of maintaining justice, or of rewarding justice, are simply the mere gibberish of fools, or the frauds of imposters.
>
>But if justice be a natural principle, then it is necessarily an immutable one; and can no more be changed—by any power inferior to that which established it—than can the law of gravitation, the laws of light, the principles of mathematics, or any other natural law or principle whatever; and all attempts or assumptions, on the part of any man or body of men—whether calling themselves governments, or by any other name—to set up their [PAGE 12] own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion, in the place of justice, as a rule of conduct for any human being, are as much an absurdity, an usurpation, and a tyranny, as would be their attempts to set up their own commands, wills, pleasure, or discretion in the place of any and all the physical, mental, and moral laws of the universe.
Murder can never be morally acceptable, since it is violence. Burglary is violence, theft is violence. Threat to hurt you unless you comply, is violence. And the above is with one large caveat; "unless it is defending against violence".
Why is that so hard to get?
From my PoV, you can set up your commune with laws and rulers, and people can agree to obeying with threat of caging and death if they don't... as long as I and others are not required to live there.
> Murder can never be morally acceptable, since it is violence. Burglary is violence, theft is violence. Threat to hurt you unless you comply, is violence. And the above is with one large caveat; "unless it is defending against violence".
>
> Why is that so hard to get?
It isnt hard to understand, it also isnt what I asked or said.
> From my PoV, you can set up your commune with laws and rulers, and people can agree to obeying with threat of caging and death if they don't... as long as I and others are not required to live there.
Oh so you are actually all for governments that use for an coercion. So long as you can leave.
Ok so how is it inforced that they let you? I mean they decide according to their rules you arent allowed to leave cause they dont like your face and instead you will be tortured for life... Since you said the rule here should be that you are allowed to leave, so when that rule is broken, who, in your system comes in and forces that commune to let you go?
Wrong order; If you AGREE then it is up to you and your fellows in that group of people do together. It is voluntary, making agreements and collaboratively working together.
It is not so much as "leaving" as it is "joining". I doubt people would join a classic slave farm where you sign over the right of the master to whip you without reason. And rational people wouldn't sign up for a classical government either.
I don't have all answers. But violence is immoral.
Ues but I am talking about before you get to the point where you have your own crew and set off...
You are born to a deadbeat commune, they are abusive... by the time you are old enough to realize they are abusive you say "I wanna leave and find my own people I trust and start my own"... the others hear you aand go "fuck you" then lock you up in the basement and torture you.... Thats where you are at right now...
Explain either what would have prevented this from happening at all (some govt regulating whats right or wrong and saving you)... or, how you'd get out of it... Or is your scenario and world one where now you just die ?
I see that you basically say "You are there now. So now what?"
Well, morally speaking; I can kill everyone trying to stop me from leaving. Will I succeed? Probably not. Will I try? Probably not. But I could also convince a critical mass about how wrong it is (for those born into it), that we do it together.
The only "cause" we need to agree to, is that "other people have no right to use violence against us". Then we can disagree on everything else how it should be.
Ok so far answer... not much you could do, youll probably die, but might inspire change through your death... Ok not sure that is a desirable way for that to go down but ill accept that at least.
Ok so the main idea is, anyone can leave or join a commune at their own risk.. they may rape and torture you they may just be mean and let you go... who knows...
Ok sot hat makes these communes as small nations, they can set any rules, and internally support eachohter and potentially fight with other communes or trade with them.
Ok so what stops one commune from getting so large it takes over all the space, and this commune sets rules that you arent allowed to leave, but even if you could leave they take up the whole country now so it wouldnt matter... you are back at a counter.
This sounds like modern day countries just with extra steps and starting from scratch again... But the end result (As it always has been hsitorically) is 100% of space will be owned and controlled by countries (or communes as you state it).
No. Morally speaking, they can't fight with others.
Why wouldn't history repeat? Good question. That is asking for predicting the future.
The France revolution reverted to an emperor once, but not a second time. Why?
I think that people are getting wiser to "rulers" and with equalization of fighting power through modern weapons it should be much harder to re-establish the State.
Your question is equally damning to the libertarian position; "Guns can take control."
>No. Morally speaking, they can't fight with others.
Well people are very much not moral, at least not all of them, and certainly not a majority. So if your only relying on morality to stop that, then im afraid the system can work IMO.
> Why wouldn't history repeat? Good question. That is asking for predicting the future.
Im not asking you to predict the future. But its happened hundreds of thousands of times across the globe every time where a no-rules group of people eventually formed individual communities and over time those evolved into goverments.
So unless your doing something different, and it doesnt sound like you are other than hitting the reset sqitch on governments. Then the only rasonable conclusion is youll get the same results int he end.
> The France revolution reverted to an emperor once, but not a second time. Why?
And yet not a single place int eh world has ever not formed into a single massive government you arent allowed to leave freely with.. like never, not in france or any other nation...
The way i see it if governments have always formed and become pervasive then there is simply no logical reason thinking doing it again will somehow not result in that same ending.
> I think that people are getting wiser to "rulers" and with equalization of fighting power through modern weapons it should be much harder to re-establish the State.
They might get wiser to rulers, sure, but your system still relies on rules, the commune is your ruler now and whatever rules they impose..
I can say this, if people in their currently mentality tried this, you'd have a national government back in place by the end of the week. PEople are violent and intolerant of other people with different views... cant see this working more than a few days at best.
Regarding France; My point was that humanity is slowly evolving. It took a couple of attempts (Napoleon I & III) of stepping away from emperors/dictators there.
And I think you have misunderstood "the commune". IF (I never said I would) you join a commune (as in communism) you have the right to AGREE to any absurdity you want. I don't think many would.
Over time, I think incentives will work better than coercion.
the bottom line is mutual willingness to take "no" for an answer in respect to each others' person and property. when one or more of the two lack it, violence is the natural outcome.
Dr Freemo is of the opinion that most people are bad, and my opinion is that most people are good.
And I think bad people are
a) drawn to politics, power centers (police, military, corporations)
b) highlighted in propaganda to scare the rest of us. "Without government to protect you...", when the majority of all violence is governments against ordinary people.
@niclas
I want to believe this part of people being good by default. However, religion seems to direct our history in the opposite of good. While I could have missed something in this conversation, I can’t seem to agree. We need a universal law that prevents such dogmatic groups of people gaining too much power via superstition or a North Korea. I don’t see this happening in any scenario you provided. Unless I’ve missed something in past replies? Mastodon is hard to follow sometimes.
Yes, voluntaryism is the only conclusion the question about "initiation of violence is wrong" and that no gang of people can ever get a right that each and everyone of us already have.
Unfortunately, most people don't know what anarchism is, mostly associate it with "chaos and mayhem" (plus some authoritarian communists claim the term for their ideology), but just about everyone are voluntaryists at heart, and need "schooling" to think otherwise.
@freemo
You can't have "exercised by [the people] directly or indirectly through a system of representation" without in principle violate "freedom of any given individual", and to me that is "forcing the will"...
Remove the "majority" if you like, it is still Authoritarian, just a matter "how much".
@Darkayne