Main Menu

The Political Thread

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

Previous topic - Next topic

IndigoPrime

So how does law work in your future version of the world? People just do whatever they like? Or are there courts for wrongdoing? Who decides what's wrong? How is that dealt with? How big are these groupings/areas?

Funt Solo

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 03 October, 2018, 02:42:58 PM
It isn't their power to share, or wield exclusively, that's my point. The only power anyone has is over themselves or, by contract, over willing participants. Whatever convoluted shenanigans these people undertake in order to "take power" are essentially meaningless. It's like entering into a competition to win a unicorn.

Voluntarily giving up ones right to vote by pretending that it has no effect is delusional and feckless.  The idea that political power is a figment of our collective imaginations is delusional.  The public services we enjoy are not fucking unicorns: they have a real effect

The only thing that is meaningless is a presentation of a vacuous entitlement and a tirelessly repetitive posture: if only we could all just believe in nice things, nice things would happen.  Tell that to the fucking Rohingya. (Oh yes: if they would all just hold hands and stop believing in the military junta, everything would be just dandy.)   
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark


Law works the same way as it is supposed to. There are courts and judges and police and investigators and forensic experts and all that jazz. However, the purpose of courts is to examine cases, discover the pertinent law and foster harmony. Not taking legislation and interpreting words and meanings, enforcing them regardless and focusing on punishment.

No rulers does not mean no rules.

Funt, in my view believing that some people have the right to tell you what to do is delusional. And I never said governments don't have an effect, of course they do - or rather, the people pretending to be above everyone else in the name of government do. Belief can kill. For example, if a fundamentalist Christian decided to shoot up an abortion clinic and one got caught in the crossfire, the fact that one doesn't believe the same thing will not stop the bullets.

Governments murder, steal, lie and cheat - the consequences of which are real - the delusion is that these people (who are the same as everyone else) have the right to murder, steal, lie and cheat and those whom they murder, steal from, lie to and cheat must accept it because they're lesser people than the rulers. That's the delusion. That's where the unicorns live - not in the real world effects but in the illogical belief that drives those effects.

I don't know where people get the idea that the only alternatives to a coercive government are either total chaos or holding hands and singing Kum ba yah because that's simply not the case. Non-coercive government means taking on responsibility for yourself, which requires education, imagination and hard work. It is far from the easy option. The easy option is leaving all the decisions to somebody else, whether they're qualified to make them or not and whether one likes them or not.

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




Funt Solo

I think (at first glance) that I agree with all of that.

But didn't you advocate for abstaining from voting in elections?  You did say "It's like entering into a competition to win a unicorn".  My point is that voting can and does make a difference, because it drives policy, which has real effects.

How can you, on the one hand say "unicorn" and on the other say "the consequences of which are real"?  The two are inconsistent.  Baldly.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

The Legendary Shark

#14569

The reason I don't vote is because I do not believe that I have the right to impose my views on anyone else. Further, I do not have the right to demand money or services from other people just because I need them. If I do not have this right, then it follows that I also do not have the right to authorise other people to make these demands on my behalf. I believe that voting for people who believe in unicorns they have the right to coerce my fellow humans into giving me what I need, whether they want to or not, is an act of violence.

I do not believe in violence or coercion, therefore, morally, I cannot vote.

The way I see it, belief in€€€(s) unicorns€(/s) the validity of violence and coercion is not inconsistent with those beliefs having real world effects. How many people has belief in a magic sky Santa killed over the centuries?

If other people want to vote then there's nothing I can, or have the right, to do to stop them. People who do vote, however, believe they have the right to force me to obey the winner - although I don't think they do this consciously or maliciously because they see coercive government as necessary or "just the way things are." I have to agree that this is the way things are but that doesn't mean I agree it's the only way or, indeed, a particularly good way.

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




The Legendary Shark

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




IndigoPrime

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 03 October, 2018, 05:48:13 PMLaw works the same way as it is supposed to.
So does this work on a local level, or a national level? How are the actual rules that everyone follows arrived at, if this is a society without a traditional means of democratic representation? Especially when you say:

QuoteFunt, in my view believing that some people have the right to tell you what to do is delusional.
How can this tally with the rule of law?

QuoteThe easy option is leaving all the decisions to somebody else, whether they're qualified to make them or not and whether one likes them or not.
It's the only viable option. We must delegate in life, because there isn't time to do anything else.

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 03 October, 2018, 08:34:01 PMThe reason I don't vote is because I do not believe that I have the right to impose my views on anyone else.
So, again, how can your society function? Who decides on rules, if there is no voting, and no willingness to impose views?

Funt Solo

Anarcho-pacifism: is it viable?  Film at 11.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Proudhuff

so like you don't believe in unicorns?
DDT did a job on me

Hawkmumbler

As a Bi man I gotta tell you the experiences i've be on the receiving end of, while bigotry is remain a basic principle of the human condition, Sharkys ideal world is impossible.

The Legendary Shark


All ideal worlds are impossible. All I want is a better one.

One might praise governments for decriminalising homosexuality, but it was they who criminalised it in the first place.

IP, I've answered all those questions before, most likely in excruciating detail. Instead of asking me, try to imagine a world without coercive government, with courts and police and roads and all the things we have today, where education includes classes on how things work and the media tells the truth, and answer them for yourself.

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




Hawkmumbler

Quote from: The Legendary Shark on 04 October, 2018, 04:36:05 PM
One might praise governments for decriminalising homosexuality, but it was they who criminalised it in the first place.
To say thats a simplification and more than a little bit wrong, is an understatement. Criminalisation and mistreatment of LGBTQ folks predates organised government and reduces the systemic nature of homophobia to a government construct, which it isn't.

The Legendary Shark


I never said it was a government construct. Just like religion before it, government stirs up division by supporting and condemning any faction they can, often in very simplistic, A or B ways. Being gay is bad, being gay is good - when it's bad, government (with its magical powers) makes homosexuality illegal, punishes those who defy it and rewards those who support it. Debate is encouraged, but mainly in simplistic, binary terms - and actual gay human beings get caught up arguing, with others and amongst themselves, whether something that's perfectly Lawful should be legal or not. This constant tension causes division and violence as legislation, which is the illusion of Law, is debated. When it's good, government (with its magical powers) makes homosexuality legal, punishes those who defy it and rewards those who support it. Debate is encouraged, but mainly still in simplistic, binary terms - and actual gay human beings get caught up arguing, with others and amongst themselves, whether something that's perfectly Lawful should be illegal or not. This constant tension causes division and violence as legislation, which is the illusion of Law, is debated.

And meanwhile the ruling class, who don't give a shit about whether the peasants are gay or not, get on with the business of quietly feathering their own nests. And, of course, there are more differences than sexuality to stir up. How about gender? Lawfully complementary, legally apart. Race? Lawfully inconsequential, legally distinctive. Class? Lawfully irrelevant, legally maintained. In every case, our fundamental natures and rights are twisted by the black magic of legislation and reflected back at us as distorted illusions.

Divide and rule. This is how it's always worked. If I define myself as a heterosexual male, or any such description, I'm erecting barriers automatically, cutting myself off from other people who define themselves differently. Government legislation provides ample quantities of definitions, enough for everyone and more. The more definitions I choose, the more barriers I erect and the fewer people I interact with. Divide and rule. Legislation is a distortion of base reality - it's the world as the ruling class wants the peasants to see it.

But when I call myself just "human," all the barriers disappear. You are just like me, basically - the most important similarity is that we are both unique, just like everyone else. And so long as we're not hurting each other, why should we give a toss about how each of us lives our lives? That's the base state of humanity but, unfortunately, we are not perfect and part of our survival instinct is to be wary of the unknown, where we instinctively start to build barriers of our own - some of which persist and some of which get broken down. We all know of people, things or ideas we've rejected, realise we've misunderstood and subsequently re-adopted. Education and experience tends to break down barriers. So politicians stir up differences, keep those broken barriers in check by creating new ones and enforcing them whenever possible.

Do you prefer A or B? Tell you what, give me access to the entire alphabet, and the numbers as well just to be on the safe side, and I'll decide for myself, okay?

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




Professor Bear

Democracy is a form of violence because it involves imposing your will on the majority.  The only good bug is a dead bug.

The Legendary Shark


And the minority.

Let's keep the brain bug alive.

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