Main Menu

The Political Thread

Started by The Legendary Shark, 09 April, 2010, 03:59:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Funt Solo

Quote from: TordelBack on 12 December, 2018, 04:26:05 PM
I see where you're coming from Funtington, and I sympathise, but I also suspect similar arguments were made about introducing universal suffrage, ending slavery and abolishing the death penalty: all were critical suposedly inescapable means of managing society and economy. Human behaviour isn't fixed, we can and will change. Not fast enough to usher in Sharkyworld next week or next year, but no reason to believe such a major shift isn't possible.

I entirely agree that change is possible.  But our friend the Shark tends to state that the power of government is illusory right now, rather than in a potential future society.

There is another point, which is that governance is not necessarily a bad thing.  Isn't it just another word for an organizational hierarchy?  Susan the Accountant (with her Calculator +1, +5 vs. Tax Calculations) should be in charge of the accounts, rather than, say, Harold the Oaf (with his Cursed Pitchfork -1, +3 vs. Chickens).
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

sheridan

Quote from: Funt Solo on 12 December, 2018, 05:26:43 PM
Quote from: TordelBack on 12 December, 2018, 04:26:05 PM
I see where you're coming from Funtington, and I sympathise, but I also suspect similar arguments were made about introducing universal suffrage, ending slavery and abolishing the death penalty: all were critical suposedly inescapable means of managing society and economy. Human behaviour isn't fixed, we can and will change. Not fast enough to usher in Sharkyworld next week or next year, but no reason to believe such a major shift isn't possible.

I entirely agree that change is possible.  But our friend the Shark tends to state that the power of government is illusory right now, rather than in a potential future society.

There is another point, which is that governance is not necessarily a bad thing.  Isn't it just another word for an organizational hierarchy?  Susan the Accountant (with her Calculator +1, +5 vs. Tax Calculations) should be in charge of the accounts, rather than, say, Harold the Oaf (with his Cursed Pitchfork -1, +3 vs. Chickens).

I bet Harold the Oaf would have a good saving throw against rod, staff or wand though!

TordelBack

QuoteThere is another point, which is that governance is not necessarily a bad thing.  Isn't it just another word for an organizational hierarchy?

This would be my general feeling too. My main argument with TLS is that I want to be able to delegate decision making and bean counting to people who are (or at least should be) good at it, rather than having to think about every damn thing. I have enough trouble keeping on top of the choices that every day brings.  How that delegation comes about, at what scale, and how quality of delegates is assured are questions I'm happy to discuss, but if I have to personally select private security, sewerage contractors, train operators, food safety inspectors... 

That said, you can seldom go wrong following Chomsky's line on anything, and his anarcho-syndicalism trends in a similar direction (the necessity for all power to justify its existence).

The Legendary Shark


The illusory power of government, or any perceived authority, is that certain people - through divine right, social status or popularity - have the right to order "lesser" individuals to perform actions or behave in certain ways, even if those actions or behaviours are morally repugnant.

For example, if I ordered another person to murder a third party for any reason, that person would (in the vast majority of cases) rightly refuse to comply. Government (and also monarchs and religion), however, assume the right to do this very thing, usually cloaking the order in ceremony and special robes (uniforms, flags) and special words (war, execution). They tell their "subjects" that they have the right to issue such orders and that the rest of us are obligated to comply when, in truth, they have only the same rights as any other human being.

The illusory power is just that.

The tragedy is, of course, that the people, by and large, also believe in this illusion (as demonstrated by Stanley Milgram in his famous 1963(?) experiments). This basic illusion, of course, leads to actual pain, suffering and death. If people can learn to see through this illusion and understand that each of us is responsible for our own actions then the damage authorities can do will eventually be largely eliminated.

That is the revolution of the mind - not some mystical esoteric download requiring thousands of hours of meditation and divine revelations but simply the realisation that "no" is a perfectly valid and moral response to a repugnant directive from "above."

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Funt Solo

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 12 December, 2018, 05:43:49 PM
..."no" is a perfectly valid and moral response to a repugnant directive from "above."

My point, which I keep repeating and you keep skirting, is that "no" may be, as you say, "a perfectly valid and moral response", but it doesn't stop you getting, say, put into a gas chamber.  Or shelled to death.  Or unfairly imprisoned.  Etc.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark


On Tordel's point, I have no problem delegating certain tasks to specialist bodies or individuals. We live in a complex world and there is simply too much to do for each of us to be involved in every aspect of it.

What I object to is the government's belief that it has the right to impose solutions and systems on society. Most of us suspect, I suspect, that the government wishes to privatise the entire NHS (to privatise something, first destroy it). Whilst I have no fundamental objections to an affordable private healthcare system, I do object to being denied the right to choose between an effective NHS and a possibly superior but prohibitively expensive private system.

Because of its illusory power, the government imposes the "right" to do with public services and utilities as it pleases - and to force the people into paying for it (through theft and extortion disguised as taxation) no matter how poor the service is.

Of course, the other major illusion believed in by the authorities and the people - the illusion of money, a simulacrum of energy - at this moment in time makes any reforms extraordinarly hard to achieve.

The three main illusions holding society back, and in many cases constraining and even retarding progress are, in my opinion:
Government power.
Debt-based money.
Legislation (a simulacrum of Law) - an offshoot of government power but a danger in its own right.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




The Legendary Shark

Quote from: Funt Solo on 12 December, 2018, 06:01:11 PM
Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 12 December, 2018, 05:43:49 PM
..."no" is a perfectly valid and moral response to a repugnant directive from "above."

My point, which I keep repeating and you keep skirting, is that "no" may be, as you say, "a perfectly valid and moral response", but it doesn't stop you getting, say, put into a gas chamber.  Or shelled to death.  Or unfairly imprisoned.  Etc.

This is exactly right. I have been unfairly imprisoned myself (only for 26 hours, so I'm no Nelson Mandela by any stretch of the imagination) and so I have first-hand experience of how ineffective just one person saying "no" can be. But this does not mean that saying yes is the only viable option.

Imagine if the police officer had understood my position and said "no" to the council official demanding my arrest or if the council official had understood my position and said "no" to his boss. Or if half of my neighbours had said no, or half of the street, or half of the village, or half of the county, or half of the country, or half of the kingdom, or half of the continent, or half of the world.

One person saying "no" today makes no difference, neither does two saying it tomorrow or four saying it the day after. If the numbers continue to rise, however, and more and more people recognise the illusions, there will come a time when violent revolution becomes less and less likely - that is the time I hope to live long enough to see.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Funt Solo

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 12 December, 2018, 06:22:33 PM
...One person saying "no" today makes no difference...

I agree with your premise that we can evolve into a fairer way of structuring our society.  It seems we also agree that evolution takes time: and knowing that we can evolve doesn't necessarily help an individual navigate any particular situation they may find themselves in today.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark


That's why the very first thing to do is recognise the illusions. This must come first - knowledge leads to action.

I look on my role, arrogant is it may be, to draw attention to the illusions. I have no control over whether people can see them or not, or whether they want to see them or not, or even if they believe these things are illusions are not. Whether people see the illusions or not, what they do with that knowledge is up to them. Whatever happens next is, likewise, beyond my control. I have some ideas, sure, but there are billions of people who can have better ones.

For myself I can only say this; I will not cooperate with the illusions or allow them, through me, to harm anyone else.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Professor Bear

Be interesting to see how the completely fair and impartial BBC covers Theresa May's confidence vote compared to how they cover uhhh other party leaders' confidence votes.  Probably no difference at all.
Also Tories have reinstated suspended MPs supportive of May so they can vote, including one who was suspended while rape claims against him are investigated.

I'm glad Brexit is happening.  You wouldn't want the political thread being uneventful.

sheridan

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 12 December, 2018, 06:22:33 PM
Imagine if the police officer had understood my position and said "no" to the council official demanding my arrest or if the council official had understood my position and said "no" to his boss. Or if half of my neighbours had said no, or half of the street, or half of the village, or half of the county, or half of the country, or half of the kingdom, or half of the continent, or half of the world.

As happened in Leipzig in 1989.

The Legendary Shark


Very interesting, Sheridan, thank you. I would nit-pickingly point out, however, that the protesters were basically petitioning the government for rights, labouring under the misapprehension that those "above" have the right to decide what the rights of those "below" should be.

[move]~~~^~~~~~~~[/move]




Frank




The look on Faisal Islam's face.  Kuenssberg was asking Tezza if it was time for her to resign.



Professor Bear

He's trying to figure out if her mouth is coming or going.

Frank

Quote from: Professor Bear on 14 December, 2018, 08:41:24 PM
He's trying to figure out if her mouth is coming or going.

Kuenssberg's mouth is like Momentum's Brexit strategy; just when you think you've figured it out, it goes all weird and wrong again.