a philosophical question. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

HannahLynHeather -> a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:14:14 PM)

i am an anarchist. i believe that all laws and governments are inherently an evil thing and should be done away with. however my anarchism isn't so much a political philosophy as the political expression of my personal philosophy.

i believe that the rights of the individual are supreme, nothing takes precedence over them, and anything that abridges them is wrong. no person or organization, individually or collectively, has the right to dictate how i live my life or what i do. it is my right to do anything i want to. you have the same rights as well, so my exercising of my right to do as i please ends the moment it interferes with your right to live the way you want to. in practical terms i have no right to take your tv unless you wish to live without it.

in the political sphere, anarchism fulfills this philosophical view. as a political philosophy anarchism is a beautiful idealistic thing. the quest for real freedom. however, as a political movement, anarchism has as it's aim the overthrow of governments and the disruption of society. this is what led me to participate in the g20 riots in toronto and to assit those i know who are trying to escalate and take advantage of the riots in england.

through the help of heather, the girls, and two people here on cm, i came to realise that this wasn't compatible with my core beliefs. my actions were imposing my views on others and interfering in their exercising their right to live as they wish to. for this reason i stopped what i was doing.

further thought along these lines brought me to another realization. the political manifestation of my beliefs must be limited to persuasion, any more direct effort to effect change would be wrong. i do not have the right to dictate how others live their lives, this extends to their choice to live in a governed society. if others wish to have a government, i have no right to prevent others from doing so. if i am to be true to my beliefs, then i must allow others to live as they please.

unfortunately, those who wish an organized and governed society will not extend the same courtesy to me. this presents me with a huge dilemma. by my own beliefs i cannot pursue the fulfillment of those beliefs. i am in a quandary. in order to effect change i must compromise my beliefs, yet if i do not effect change i must compromise my beliefs.

i am not posting this in order to discuss the validity of my basic premise regarding the right of the individual, of that i am convinced. what i am interested in how others would face this dilemma.

so after all that wordy background and introduction, here is the question:
what would you do if you found yourself in a similar position one where if you wish to be able live by your beliefs, you must act contrary to those beliefs?



Termyn8or -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:35:09 PM)

I do not act in conflict with my beliefs - much. Ther is always something, nature for example. I want to cross a river I need a boat. But the whims of Man's government rarely cross my mind. They are no more than another force of nature, as the Protocols taught me. I still do whatever I want whenever I want as I have since I was twelve years old. Ask my Mother.

You can have the freedom, but you have to use it with responsibility. I have driven without insurance for near twenty years, so why I didn't lose my house ? Because I didn't get sued !. You have to be careful and no fucking matter how free you think you are you are still subject to the laws of nature. As such if you have a brain you must consider the existence of society and their laws, however foreign to you, A PART OF NATURE.

I will never comply, but I will not go against, at least not right now. When the revolution comes, I will be of high rank, that is already established,. If we fail, I die.

Let's get on with it already.

T^T



HannahLynHeather -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:40:14 PM)

i knew you couldn't resist the topic termy. [:D]

thanks. that's actually a really fucking useful idea.

hey. when your revolution comes, can i be like minister of intergovernmental affairs. i'd be really fucking good at that [;)]



MasterG2kTR -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:49:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

hey. when your revolution comes, can i be like minister of intergovernmental affairs. i'd be really fucking good at that [;)]


???.....but......you're an anarchist.....you don't believe in government.....



Termyn8or -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:50:09 PM)

Umm when I get around to it there will be no government.

We will have towns, bourroughs(sp) and shit like that. Not even states. The national Constitution will be enforced in EACH ONE SEPARARTELY, or I will blow up the world. There will be no coordinators. Each community is free to trade with whomever it pleases, and there are no taxes. If you want a new road, pay up. The water main breaks, pay up. Anything bad happens pay up. Got crime, go buy some bullets and take care of it, we don't have prisons, you want prisons PAY UP, and if people come and break all the people out of them prisons tough shit.

This is true anachry, I understand what it is and I want it. I would bet the east coast that you don't, now that you might think about it. I would LOVE anarchy.

You would maybe be my Woman MAYBE, but so would Oldhen. And a couple of others. And we need some guys too, for this anarchist government :-).

T^T



pahunkboy -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:53:17 PM)

I dont think you should burn down your city.   Pick a plan B instead. 



gungadin09 -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:55:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather
what would you do if you found yourself in a similar position one where if you wish to be able live by your beliefs, you must act contrary to those beliefs?


Why does limiting yourself to persuasion compromise your beliefs? It is possible to make political change thru persuasion. Gandi liberated an entire country without lifting a finger.

pam



Arpig -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:56:48 PM)

quote:

???.....but......you're an anarchist.....you don't believe in government.....
I think that's the reason for that choice of portfolio. [:D][:D][:D]



xssve -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 6:59:43 PM)

The rights of the individual are dependent on the ability of the individual to enforce them - a right is only a right in theory unless it is recognized, and/or enforced - even your right to walk down the street without being molested. If it can be abrogated at will, it isn't really a right in praxis.

Thus, government by consensus, or consent of the governed, which is incidentally, very similar to the organization of primates in general, if we did not have a formal construct to argue about, it would arise spontaneously, and we'd argue about it anyway.

Flat management schemes are philosophically seductive, but notoriously difficult to implement, largely because ambition and self interest are simply human traits, hence capitalism, which is a moral philosophy intended to harness private ambition in the service of group fitness, by confining human ambition within acceptable consensus boundaries, and limiting the competition to market competition, and reasonably civilized means.

i.e., you can't just shoot the competition in the back of the head, as occurs in unregulated economies like crack dealers, you have to offer a better product or service at a lower price.

And, it works, if you follow the rule, and prevent monopolies from forming, which is all that would happen in anarchy, i.e., feudalism which we just escaped from not so long ago, but threatens continually to re-emerge, it being the natural form of political economy - it's just that it really, really sucks serious balls if you happen to be at the bottom and not the top, because there's no way out - hereditary rule is also a primate normative, there are meritocratic traits and patterns, but for the most part, it just the rule of the largest/first in line.

And there you go, full circle back to consensus rights and enforcement - doesn't matter if you're the smartest chick the world, if any moron can just walk up, knock your fucking teeth out, and chain you to a stove.

It's a step forward, trust me.



HannahLynHeather -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:06:13 PM)

oh fuck pam's disagreeing with me!!![sm=alarm.gif][sm=alarm.gif][sm=couch.gif]

i guess it doesn't really, does it? but i still won't be able to live by my beliefs, fuck that, i can't anyway.

yea i like that. between you and termy there's something there, something that might just fucking work.



Icarys -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:16:16 PM)

quote:

even your right to walk down the street without being molested. If it can be abrogated at will, it isn't really a right in praxis.

That's why we have the right to bear arms. Smart fellas, the founding fathers.



xssve -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:16:40 PM)

Probably the best system prior to the adoption of consensus government, would have been the Chinese Confucian bureaucracy - it at lest set some standards for bureaucrats, since they are the one constant that never seems to change, and and they can make or break any system.

Even the British aristocracy isn't always the villain, I've read of people going broke becuase they inherited some land with historical building on it that they have to pay to maintain.

Anyway, if the hooligans played their card right, they could turn the whole thing into a tourist attraction, that's how capitalism works.

I hear there are bus tours of East LA now. [:D]



pahunkboy -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:23:36 PM)

OP,

your stated goal is fuzzy.  it would be easier to answer the question if it was more specific. Tho up to you if you want to pose it.  



HannahLynHeather -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:24:11 PM)

that's very interesting xssve, but has no bearing on the question whatso-fucking-ever.




<and yes icky, there is a certain "strength" to one's convictions when you're packing [:D]>



gungadin09 -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:29:10 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather
but i still won't be able to live by my beliefs, fuck that, i can't anyway.


You may hate me for this, but did you honestly think you ever could? i mean, you criticise others for their lack of realism (delusions, i think you said.) Did you ever honestly believe that anarchy was a attainable political goal? Or was it just fun to pretend? i mean, liberating India was a modest goal compared to what you're talking about.

i have an enormous amount of respect for you, and the way you try to live by your beliefs. You have real integrity, and i gotta give you props for it. But this idea that you can live without hypocrisy, without compromising your beliefs AT ALL... it is a fantasy. You can't draw a breath without interfering with other people's lives. There is no way around it, and you will drive yourself nuts trying to find one. LIFE is a series of compromises. If you can't accept that, you're going to be miserable.

Having said that, i hope you work it out.

pam



HannahLynHeather -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:30:49 PM)

hunky, i have a huge fucking long winded op explaining my goal, that and hundred other posts. it couldn't be less fuzzy if i shaved the motherfucker as bald as a porn star's cunt.



Termyn8or -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:40:36 PM)

"your stated goal is fuzzy.  it would be easier to answer the question if it was more specific."

Nope, you take your pick. Anarchy, lesse, I drive wherever and whatever I want, I will also fly planes but though I do know the basics I wouldn't be stupid enough to solo right now. That is MY choice. I have to do some serious digging on my property this years, they say you need a permit. You know what happens if they fuck with me about it ? Even RealO has no idea. I am not worried about them.

I want a new deck put out IN FRONT. You know what I think about a permit ? You want to know what I would tell some city asshole what to do with their ass if they walked up on me ? And you know what, they will not put me in jail for it. I bet I could kill someone and they would just say "don't do it again" unless it was the wrong preson. Don't let them foolya. l

And what's more I am going to stop payng the rest of their rent on my propeerty. I am going to give it up.

You see I have realized that I own nothing. None of us own anything. So why should I HAVE anything ? It is a paradigm shift for me, but I think I can handle it. Take it. I will take my few grand and be done with it. Done with the maintainence costs, done with the heating and the cooling, done with the water and the sewage. Done with the phone or internet bill, or for those of you who partake of it, the cable bill. You know free TV is over in the US. I didn't want it anymore anyway. There is nothing stopping me from getting rid of this place. Nothing at all, in fact LESS than nothing at all.

My name wil never be on another title or deed or anything of the sort as long as I live. It is nothing but a slave contract.

T^T



HannahLynHeather -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 7:47:22 PM)

it gave me a purpose, a goal towards which to work. if you look at the world and the way its going, collapse isn't an unreasonable prospect and then all fucking bets are off. so compromises could be accepted as required for the greater good of the goal.

but if i cannot justify compromising in order to try further that goal, then how the fuck can i justify compromising to not do so? if i accept society's rules in order to make my life easier, then i have abandoned my core beliefs for convenience. if i'm going to do that, then fuck it i may as well abandon them altogether and start throwing bombs and shooting people.

if i can't abandon my core beliefs in order to achieve the ability to really live by them, then surely i can't do so just to get along.



Icarys -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 8:12:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

hunky, i have a huge fucking long winded op explaining my goal, that and hundred other posts. it couldn't be less fuzzy if i shaved the motherfucker as bald as a porn star's cunt.

Speaking of fuzzy..where is that gem?

Link? Could you add it to your tagline so we can know just how crazy you are?[8D]



Arpig -> RE: a philosophical question. (8/10/2011 8:12:06 PM)

So don't compromise if it means that much to you. Live the way you want, and when society demands something of you that you can't in good conscience agree to, just refuse. Do it quietly, without fanfare, just refuse. There will be consequences, they may imprison you, but so what. Accept it, not the justice of it, but the reality of it. Society and the government cannot make you do things their way, only you can do that.

To use Pam's example of Gandhi again, he went to jail willingly because he knew in his heart that he was right, and to do the right thing in the face of unjust power and acept the consequences is in and of itself the right thing to do. It's damned noble, and a little nobility never hurt, the world could use more of it.

You like poems and lyrics, so here's one for you.

Stone Walls Do Not A Prison Make

Stone walls do not a prison make,
Nor iron bars a cage;
Minds innocent and quiet take
That for an hermitage;
If I have freedom in my love,
And in my soul am free,
Angels alone that soar above
Enjoy such liberty.

Richard Lovelace 1618 - 1657



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875