It occured to me earlier today that there are actually billions of people that want freedom, but because the gov't structure is the only way they know to organize society, and in many cases it is the only one they will trust, they end up with something very similar to what they were challenging. All the organized resistance in the last century, resulted in a slightly less dangerous gov't, but the result has been somewhat shortlived.
The need has never been higher for a workable alternative to gov't than now. Theories and past examples will not work, as there is no way to prove it. No one, will endanger their lives challenging gov't for something that they do not firmly believe. And believing usually means seeing.
What do you suggest?
I agree David. That is why I keep bringing up the questions regarding what can we do and are there any solutions.
So fornow, I resort to just taking care of me and seperating from the system (as much as I can)
There is power in numbers but it is the FEAR that keeps people from banding together and creating positive change.
It seems hopeless and that disturbs me.
Kola
Quote from: kola on January 23, 2008, 11:38 PM NHFT
I agree David. That is why I keep bringing up the questions regarding what can we do and are there any solutions.
So for now, I resort to just taking care of me and separating from the system (as much as I can)
What can we do? We can build non-governmental solutions to problems that people insist only government can solve:
- create our own money - like some are trying to do with shiresilver.org (http://shiresilver.org)
- build our own or enhance existing non-government charities
- create or enhance existing "regulation agencies" like UL and the group that does kosher certification
- create our own media or improve on media that is currently whoring the government line
- ... fill in your own
This is a call to all anarchists to
show that anarchy works by example.
If you want people to believe that government is not needed,
prove it. Create the solutions, don't just talk about it. Pick one and run with it.
I think part of the problem is that we all want all the solutions to be implemented, and it is too big a task for one person, so we tend to not get started. Well, screw that - pick one thing you are really interested in and work on that one thing. My big thing is money, so I am working on trying to prove that a free market, non-governmental currency system is workable.
If you truly believe in freedom, you have to believe that others will handle the rest on their own accord.In other words; don't just try to run and hide, shut the fuck up, and
do something positive.
I think you have the right idea, Ron. It's difficult because the government doesn't appreciate it when people threaten their monopolies but we should start. Even when the government tries to horn in, that's a media opportunity that should be taken advantage of to reach people about what's going on.
Gack! Where's my monkey? I lost my monkey! :o
What monkey? Or is this one of those I-don't-really-want-to-know things?
Quote from: David on January 23, 2008, 10:06 PM NHFT
It occured to me earlier today that there are actually billions of people that want freedom, but because the gov't structure is the only way they know to organize society, and in many cases it is the only one they will trust, they end up with something very similar to what they were challenging. All the organized resistance in the last century, resulted in a slightly less dangerous gov't, but the result has been somewhat shortlived.
The need has never been higher for a workable alternative to gov't than now.
:clap:
Well said!
Quote from: David on January 23, 2008, 10:06 PM NHFT
Theories and past examples will not work, as there is no way to prove it. No one, will endanger their lives challenging gov't for something that they do not firmly believe. And believing usually means seeing.
Of course, theories have to be acted upon in order to obtain results, and there are no past examples of genuine, 100% free market-based voluntary societies to point to.
This experiment would merely establish a
pocket of anarchism
within an aggression-based society. It is most certainly true that no one will endanger their life for something they do not firmly believe -- so when outsiders observe the inevitable aggression it will draw from the prevailing crime syndicate,
why would they want to endanger their lives by following suit?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on January 24, 2008, 09:48 AM NHFT
What monkey? Or is this one of those I-don't-really-want-to-know things?
;D ;D
Quote from: kola on January 23, 2008, 11:38 PM NHFT
I agree David. That is why I keep bringing up the questions regarding what can we do and are there any solutions.
So fornow, I resort to just taking care of me and seperating from the system (as much as I can)
There is power in numbers but it is the FEAR that keeps people from banding together and creating positive change.
It seems hopeless and that disturbs me.
Kola
My sentiments also. :(
Quote from: MobileDigit on January 23, 2008, 10:42 PM NHFT
What do you suggest?
It may be a crappy idea, but it is what I have.
Most believe, in the usa anyway that the constitution is some sort of 'social contract'. Of course it isn't, but the idea that it is somehow legitimizes the gov't.
A while back I found a website called contract for liberty. It was exactly that. (it seems to be gone now) The basic idea here http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Contract_for_liberty
It isn't gov't that I actually hate, it is their violence, and threats that I vehemently hate. So if it would be possible to create a working governing group, or club, that functions without the very things that make traditional gov'ts so bad, I would be happy. Instead of an investment club, it would be a governing club.
Any pet issue that someone has can be included in their little 'club', welfare, care for the old and or disabled, free (to the user) school, etc.
The authoritarians could make one that has their idea of authority and freedom as they see it to their hearts content.
A person choosing to submit to something I would find objectionable is not bad, so long as they don't hurt me or encroach on me.
If a real alternative to gov't can be found, then the near religious belief in gov't can maybe be cracked.
Quote from: David on January 25, 2008, 09:08 AM NHFT
Quote from: kola on January 23, 2008, 11:38 PM NHFT
I agree David. That is why I keep bringing up the questions regarding what can we do and are there any solutions.
So fornow, I resort to just taking care of me and seperating from the system (as much as I can)
There is power in numbers but it is the FEAR that keeps people from banding together and creating positive change.
It seems hopeless and that disturbs me.
Kola
My sentiments also. :(
Quote from: MobileDigit on January 23, 2008, 10:42 PM NHFT
What do you suggest?
It may be a crappy idea, but it is what I have.
Most believe, in the usa anyway that the constitution is some sort of 'social contract'. Of course it isn't, but the idea that it is somehow legitimizes the gov't.
A while back I found a website called contract for liberty. It was exactly that. (it seems to be gone now) The basic idea here http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Contract_for_liberty
It isn't gov't that I actually hate, it is their violence, and threats that I vehemently hate. So if it would be possible to create a working governing group, or club, that functions without the very things that make traditional gov'ts so bad, I would be happy. Instead of an investment club, it would be a governing club.
Any pet issue that someone has can be included in their little 'club', welfare, care for the old and or disabled, free (to the user) school, etc.
The authoritarians could make one that has their idea of authority and freedom as they see it to their hearts content.
A person choosing to submit to something I would find objectionable is not bad, so long as they don't hurt me or encroach on me.
If a real alternative to gov't can be found, then the near religious belief in gov't can maybe be cracked.
The Authoritarian Model stems from the Parent/Child relationship. The child is supported, and thus the parent has control over them. Children would grow and become more self-sufficient and the 'control' would diminish. Unfortunate many children now move from parental support to government support.
The 'governments' authority is force (might makes right). Constitutions (even the local Native Americans had one before Europeans arrived) are 'social contracts' limiting that authority. A King (sovereign) only remained King if his might was enough to hold the lands, and life, from outside force.
The constitution never was a 'social contract', contract means choice.
Maybe a possible way to 'market' or sell, anarchy, is to promote the contract for liberty idea as a social contract that really gives you a choice. It would differ from gov't in that there would be no initiation of force. This may work because most people genuinely believe the gov't is a social contract. Of coarse the gov't benefits enormously from that belief.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 25, 2008, 05:53 PM NHFT
The Authoritarian Model stems from the Parent/Child relationship. The child is supported, and thus the parent has control over them. Children would grow and become more self-sufficient and the 'control' would diminish. Unfortunate many children now move from parental support to government support.
::) I love unsupported statements.
Quote from: Caleb on January 28, 2008, 11:26 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 25, 2008, 05:53 PM NHFT
The Authoritarian Model stems from the Parent/Child relationship. The child is supported, and thus the parent has control over them. Children would grow and become more self-sufficient and the 'control' would diminish. Unfortunate many children now move from parental support to government support.
::) I love unsupported statements.
The factual basis of this statement is actually pretty self-evident.
The AMOG is most definitely supported by the Parent/Child relationship: Each of us is conditioned as an easily impressionable child to suppress our inherent self-authority and right to exercise our
own judgement in all things, and instead submit to the "higher authority" and "better judgement" of others (parents, teachers, clergy, and other "experts"). While this
is a natural condition for a young child, since it shields the tender child from the harmful (even fatal) results of uneducated bad choices, the AMOG makes it possible for the individual to remain unnaturally dependent on others once an adult, instead of learning to exercise his own inherent authority and judgement.
Cattle are a good analogy for this. It is perfectly natural for a newborn calf to be dependent upon its mother for nourishment. Eventually, the mother's milk dries up, and the growing calf must learn to fend for itself. However, it is possible to keep the calf dependent on milk into adulthood, and beyond -- by simply substituting a lactating surrogate.
The AMOG serves as this unnatural surrogate, that keeps humans dependent upon the "better judgement" of others, instead of learning to exercise their own judgement and operate on their own authority the way nature intended.
Do you need an "expert" to support this observation
for you? :icon_pirat:
The cattle analogy goes even further. Cattle is highly dependent on the feed and protection provided by the rancher. As you move to a more natural state you get bison.
Government is not a 'social contract'; it is a party to that contract. It subjects the 'might makes right' of majority democracy to restraints. Without it, individuals would be 'tread upon' to a much greater degree.
I agree that the constitution is not a social contract. But I believe that most people believe it is.
Quote from: David on January 28, 2008, 02:06 PM NHFT
I agree that the constitution is not a social contract. But I believe that most people believe it is.
I don't think most people give it much thought. The best they can come up with is the love it or leave it argument, which is predicated on the idea that aggressing against people is alright as long as they can leave the area of aggression. No matter that the aggression is illegitimate in the first place.
The US Constitution is a social contract. The US Government is not... it is a party to that contract.
They were first used to protect individuals within a society from the sovereign rule of monarchs. The sovereign rule of monarchs being based on 'might makes right'. The various social contracts (Charter of Liberties, Papers of the Magna Carta Libertatum) placed restrictions on the 'might makes right' proponent of sovereignty.
The US Constitution is (supposedly) an individuals protection against 'might makes right' of the majority.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 28, 2008, 02:25 PM NHFT
The US Constitution is a social contract.
As far as I'm aware, a contract can only bind those who voluntarily consent to it.
I know I have never voluntarily consented to any "social contract", so whatever else it is, the US Constitution is certainly
not a
comprehensive "social contract".
Its an 'implied' contract written for (more) clarity.
The ZAP is a social contract... which as discussion on this forum has shown is not always clear either.
Its application is not total, as witnessed by the number of murders, assaults, and rapes... but it attempted outcome is roughly the same. To limit the force of might on the individual.
The problem becomes when this 'social contract' aspect is not understood. The original version of Constitutions are to bind the force of government and protect the individual. But later amendments of such can do just the opposite. An example was the 16th. This was an attempt to bind individuals (the wealthy) that freed government force to be used on the masses.
:BangHead:
The "social construct" is an ex post facto rationale invented to justify the existence of the State.
I don't think so. As I said the Native Americans in this area had a confederation of tribes and a Constitution prior to the arrival of Europeans. Since a non-aggression policy is just a social contract, does it justify the State?
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 30, 2008, 01:15 PM NHFT
I don't think so. As I said the Native Americans in this area had a confederation of tribes and a Constitution prior to the arrival of Europeans. Since a non-aggression policy is just a social contract, does it justify the State?
But the Wyandot refused to join the confederacy and warred with it.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on January 30, 2008, 01:15 PM NHFT
Since a non-aggression policy is just a social contract, does it justify the State?
Sovereignty, or self-dominion, is the natural state of the conscious individual. Anyone who has made the paradigm shift required to understand this,
will not aggress --
regardless of anyone else's opinion, and regardless of opportunity.
Self-dominion is held in equal status between all conscious individuals. Rational self-interest dictates decisively that this nature must be honored at all times. When one fully comprehends the implications of the equally held status of self-dominion between all conscious individuals, it becomes clear that one's own self-dominion cannot ever be separated from the equal self-dominion of others.
In essence, violating the nature of another conscious individual is a simultaneous violation of one's own nature. Anyone who has fully undergone this paradigm shift, is
naturally prevented from aggressing by the powerful force of rational self-interest -- just as a business owner is naturally prevented from shooting his customers by the powerful force of rational self-interest.
The most intrinsic, inseparable characteristic of the conscious individual is the priority of self. This can be disguised, but
never, ever overcome. Any attempt at establishing a "social contract" is futile, because it is an irrational attempt to override this intrinsic nature, and compel the individual to give priority to the best interest of others.
The only way a peaceful civilization can ever exist, is for each participant to instinctively grasp that honoring the self-dominion of others is ultimately the most effective and efficient way to act in
their own best interest. This can only occur through a widespread paradigm shift.
Abandon the branches... forget striking the root --
disconnect the taproot and be free!
That goes against human history and animal nature.
Sovereignty has existed, it seldom is without aggression.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 01, 2008, 07:58 AM NHFT
That goes against human history and animal nature.
Sovereignty has existed, it seldom is without aggression.
Those are all very lucid observations, and they underscore everything I am saying.
It goes against
human history because up to now, humans have not completely abandoned their
animal nature.
According to Julian Jaynes, in his book
The Origin Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind, mankind made a giant evolutionary leap from the 100% reactionary bicameral/animal mind approximately 3000 years ago.
In
The Neo-Tech Discovery, Dr. Frank R. Wallace identified that ever since then, man has operated as a partially conscious, partially reactionary being -- only spending as much effort on conscious thought as necessary to "get by", while remaining in the primitive reactionary mode most of the time.
We are now entering the next evolutionary leap toward 100% conscious thought, which is the source of control.
During man's original animal nature, there was no self-awareness, and aggression was the rule of the game. Just as in the animal world today, right made right, the weak succumbed to the strong, and that was just the harsh reality of life. This is the most primitive order in nature, no different from a tree succumbing to the more powerful force of a forest fire, or a deer succumbing to a pack of wolves.
When man made the evolutionary leap to the present biconscious mind, new rules of the game arose. With self-awareness came empathy, and it suddenly made sense to live and let live, and only employ violence in self-defense. Out of this arose a higher order that better served the needs of the individual, which we call civilization.
Yet
because of the vestige of our reactionary animal nature remaining in the present order, there are (at least) two seriously flawed premises: 1) The notion that in some cases might still makes right (self-defense), and 2) the notion of "external authority".
The most heinous consequences of these flawed premises are the widespread destruction of
war, and the existence of an elite class of
parasites. Both of these now threaten the very existence of human civilization, making it imperative to enter the next evolutionary leap to the Civilization of Peace and Prosperity
now.
Quote from: David on January 25, 2008, 09:08 AM NHFT
It may be a crappy idea, but it is what I have.
Most believe, in the usa anyway that the constitution is some sort of 'social contract'. Of course it isn't, but the idea that it is somehow legitimizes the gov't.
A while back I found a website called contract for liberty. It was exactly that. (it seems to be gone now) The basic idea here http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Contract_for_liberty
It isn't gov't that I actually hate, it is their violence, and threats that I vehemently hate. So if it would be possible to create a working governing group, or club, that functions without the very things that make traditional gov'ts so bad, I would be happy. Instead of an investment club, it would be a governing club.
Any pet issue that someone has can be included in their little 'club', welfare, care for the old and or disabled, free (to the user) school, etc.
The authoritarians could make one that has their idea of authority and freedom as they see it to their hearts content.
A person choosing to submit to something I would find objectionable is not bad, so long as they don't hurt me or encroach on me.
If a real alternative to gov't can be found, then the near religious belief in gov't can maybe be cracked.
Any thoughts?
There is always government... in that being sovereign you are in essence self-governed. The problem becomes the absolute of the societal-based relationship.
Quote from: David on February 04, 2008, 07:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: David on January 25, 2008, 09:08 AM NHFT
It may be a crappy idea, but it is what I have.
Most believe, in the usa anyway that the constitution is some sort of 'social contract'. Of course it isn't, but the idea that it is somehow legitimizes the gov't.
A while back I found a website called contract for liberty. It was exactly that. (it seems to be gone now) The basic idea here http://wiki.freetalklive.com/Contract_for_liberty
It isn't gov't that I actually hate, it is their violence, and threats that I vehemently hate. So if it would be possible to create a working governing group, or club, that functions without the very things that make traditional gov'ts so bad, I would be happy. Instead of an investment club, it would be a governing club.
Any pet issue that someone has can be included in their little 'club', welfare, care for the old and or disabled, free (to the user) school, etc.
The authoritarians could make one that has their idea of authority and freedom as they see it to their hearts content.
A person choosing to submit to something I would find objectionable is not bad, so long as they don't hurt me or encroach on me.
If a real alternative to gov't can be found, then the near religious belief in gov't can maybe be cracked.
Any thoughts?
So how do we transition to it?
Quote from: MobileDigit on February 08, 2008, 01:09 PM NHFT
So how do we transition to it?
See my post here:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12951.msg223265#msg223265
freedom .... git er dun
Quote<So how do we transition to it?>
Working on it. ;)
People want gov't. So as an entrepreneur, How do we get it without reinventing the wheel, and without comprimising the non agression means.
Government is largely a group of services, so as those services find a more pragmatic outlet the grip loosens.
You betcha!
That is a large part of how it will come about: Build freedom, and as the AMOG-based "services" are increasingly rejected, the AMOG itself retreats into oblivion.
At the risk of taking this thread off on a tangent ... I always think of this Seinfeld clip when I see this thread
http://www.teenwag.com/playvideo/2395 ;D