From: glomerol@yahoo.ca
On Thursday, August 1, 2013 7:12:00 PM UTC-3, Beauvine wrote:
> Beauvine wrote in
>
> news:XnsA202E6525393Cmeadowmuffin@216.168.3.70:
>
>
>
> > creative1986@gmail.com wrote in
>
> > news:2ab55e03-d8bd-474a-b274-9f626012146f@googlegroups.com:
>
> >> In case you hadn't noticed, democracy has failed.
Democracy has not failed because there was no democracy to begin with. But I
think I get what you mean in any case.
> >> Maybe it's the lesions, I dunno, but anytime someone tries to attack
> >> the zero aggression principle they drag out that old canard Somalia.
> >> As if.
According to Mises, Somalia is or was doing *relatively* well, given the
vacuum implosion that likely (temporarily) happens when the state loses its
grip, such that it of course, should.
> >> Nevermind that the geographical area currently known as North America
> >> was free, in the real sense of the world, for a long time before
> >> tyrants enacted democracy - you know, the idea that some people get
> >> to rule over other people just because.
We evolved in relatively egalitarian, non-coercive bands/tribes. That's our
makeup, how we are wired.
> > A geographical area that's sparsely-populated with groups of hunter-
> > gatherers OF COURSE can manage quite well without a lot of
> > organization. That's a no-brainer.
Good. The issue is not organization, but coercive/non-opt-out organization.
> One additional point:
> If "tyranny" was only introduced with democracy, then I suppose you believe
> that the COnquistadores were not tyrannical? Furthermore, how do you
> explain the nearly-continual internecine wars of the Maya, and after they
> left their cities, the wars and human sacrifice of theAztecs?
Empires of scale... I suspect that it is in part about scale and
systemic/organizational complexity. For example, a tribe or band cannot be
nuclear-capable, and therefore cannot create out-of-scale/out-of-concept
nuclear energy, weaponry, or waste. Wage-
slavery and tax-theft pays for stuff like that.
> The "zero-aggression" principle, according to most who have commandeered
> the term "libertarian", was basically everything which preceded
> 'democracy', because the only "true" tyranny, according to their tunnel-
> vision, is when a group of people decides something as a group, as opposed
> to some monarch or invader or so on literally killing all who don't do as
> commanded.
One problem is when that 'group' of people become a governmob/governgang and
sell you the kool-aid for the blue pill. To make you think you are free in
your crony capitalist oligarchy.
"Since the nation-states are today's bullies, we can not rebuild the peace of
the tribe unless we build a global community that stands independent of these
nations, as William Ellis argues so well in the Summer 1983 issue of IN
CONTEXT...
2) Our societies need to decentralize to remove crucial pressure points. We
need to replace brittle systems of hierarchical power with resilient systems
of 'network semi-dependence.' "
~ Robert Gilman
"The state has moved into many new areas as they become significant, such
as... promoting nuclear power. This expanding role of the state helps prevent
the rise of any significant competing forms of social organisation...
The obvious point is that most social activists look constantly to the state
for solutions to social problems. This point bears labouring, because the
orientation of most social action groups tends to reinforce state power... By
appealing to the state,
activists indirectly strengthen the roots of many social problems, the problem
of war in particular...
Many people's thinking is permeated by state perspectives. One manifestation
of this is the unstated identification of states or governments with the
people in a country which is embodied in the words 'we' or 'us.'... It is
important to avoid this
identification, and to carefully distinguish states from people..."
~ Brian Martin, 'Uprooting War'
> And so, the current self-proclaimed so-called "libertarians" damn democracy
> as THE tyranny, and deride, denigrate, and demean as brain-damaged
> idiots any who see it as the best currently-practicable option.
> Oooooh kaaaayyyy......
If it were democracy, which it is not.
"The 'iron law of oligarchy' states that all forms of organization, regardless
of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably
develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and
theoretically impossible,
especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural
fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to 'social viscosity' in a
large-scale organization. According to the 'iron law', democracy and
large-scale organization are
incompatible." ~ Wikipedia
> > What's tricky and difficult is maintaining some semblance of order in
> > densely-populated areas, and the expanding human population is going
> > to add to the complexities, not subtract from them... (edited)
> > The point is that simple answers seldon are applicable to complex
> > problems.
The simple answer, if we as a species cannot figure it out ourselves, will be
die-off-- arguably, much of it self-inflicted, or inflicted in part via the
dynamics of scale and overshoot, etc..
> >> Yes, lesions.
> >> What other reason could there be for some people to choose to violate
> >> the natural rights of others?
>
> > "Rights" are not "natural", in the sense that the concept of rights is
> > a human invention. Nature is indifferent to human claims of "rights".
> > As far as Nature is concerned, you have no more "rights" than does a
> > mosquito, and claiming "natural rights" is a non-sequitur.
That's a slippery slope, Kris, which seems to rationalize away ethics. If we
wish to tread that slope, well, it's slippery, and we will likely all fall on
our asses and keep sliding downward. But that's ok, because there's always
die-off, and species
extinctions seem to be the rule rather than the exception. But I suspect that
Mother Nature might give us an easier time if 'we' or our systems, etc., care
about her and us.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
