Should protesters respect private property?

[Caleb]

Well, at the start, I must say that I agree with much of what you said, and I do think we are on the same page, not only with agreeing about much of the cause of our problems, but also with where we would like to see humanity ultimately.

Points of agreement:
1)"healthy notions of human interaction have been corrupted and people are indoctrinated from a very early age into irrational thinking."  (I think that was what I was getting at when I said that we tear down every conceivable tie between ourselves and other humans. And this is institutionalized, not really an individual choice.)
2)Our emotions can (and are) used against us to perpetuate the diseased system.
3)Love cannot be coerced.
4)Love comes naturally to humans.

Points where I disagree, or would modify:

a)     I think that once the irrational behavior becomes institutionalized, that our minds actually become a weapon against us. This is so because people *are* acting rationally within the current construct. And the ability to analyze the cause of the current distress requires a level of intellectual depth that is beyond the ability of most people. They *are* however, capable of emotionally feeling that it is wrong, and allowing their humanity to modify their behavior. This will, however, often result in actions that seem "irrational", partly because they are indeed the result of allowing our emotions to pull us up, not our mind, and partly because behaving irrationally in an irrational world is the surest sign of sanity.
b)     although our emotions can be used against us, I do not recommend the complete subjugation of our mind to our emotions (in general). I recommend not emotionalism, per se, but one specific emotion which is not easily corrupted or turned to the benefit of subjugators. When "love" is appealed to by oppressors, it is always in combination with hatred or control. (eg, "Love your children, so fear bad terrorists and help us kill them.") This is *not* the sort of love I am referring to, the type that divides, the type that says love for one person can come only at the expense of others, and I deny that that is even love. Nor is control love. I actually feel that control is more the opposite of love than hatred is.
c)     love cannot be coerced, but it can be *chosen*. And it is not coercion to ask people to make that choice.
d)     Although love comes naturally to humans, it does *not* come naturally towards those with whom we have been divided. Unfortunately, that is most of the world. Where natural systems are still in place, people show their innate capacity to love. (eg, parents/children). But since we have lost our connection to the rest of humanity, the same person who is filled with complete adoration for his wife can hear a report of a half million dead Iraqi children with a relative level of indifference.

I would also disagree that what I am talking about is a system where gratitude is not expected, where love is expected to involve self-sacrifice, or where it is a burden. When I say that love is demanded, I'm not saying we should go around demanding that people show love. I'm saying that love is the necessary fix, so that if people don't do it, things will not change. I'm also saying that we individually have an opportunity to fix that disastrous situation, by making the choice to love and healing the damaged and neglected archetypes which will allow love to come more naturally for people. And that *will* take effort, because the negative archetypes are also affecting me. You and I are not immune from them. To expect that love will come easily in the face of the demonic is a bit naïve I think. My ultimate faith is that we are up to the task.

[watershed]

My advise is dont tresspass, you might get bullets or hugs....you roll the dice. not everyone is on the same page and you cant tell them to be, not everyone.

Respect is mostly mutal under any situation

[David]

Quote <I am critical of christianity...more specificly paul....christianity should be called paulinity. or saulinity. I like the teachings of yeshua, but that isn't what christianity is based on.>

Agree entirely.  Jesus opposed authority, he generally respected women, almost as equals, something Paul did not do.

[J’raxis 270145]

Quote <I am critical of christianity...more specificly paul....christianity should be called paulinity. or saulinity. I like the teachings of yeshua, but that isn't what christianity is based on.>

Agree entirely.  Jesus opposed authority, he generally respected women, almost as equals, something Paul did not do.

Ever heard of Atheists for Jesus?

[MaineShark]

You know... maybe we can do an empirical examination of whether pacifism works.

Where in the US do you find the most support for pacifist ideologies?

Where do you find the most support for self-defense-oriented ideologies?

Yeah, something tells me I'd much rather live here in NH where we don't have many pacifists raising the violent crime rate...

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

My general take on pacifism is best summed up by the old Latin adage si vis pacem, para bellum. If you want peace, be prepared to fight and defend yourself for it.

[srqrebel]

One of my favorite sayings is, "Fighting for peace is like fucking for celibacy".

It is worth taking a moment to give careful thought to this.  There is some deep truth in it.

[MaineShark]

One of my favorite sayings is, "Fighting for peace is like fucking for celibacy".

It is worth taking a moment to give careful thought to this.  There is some deep truth in it.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense.

There's is peace under absolute tyranny.  Just toe the line, and you'll have peace.

Some of us want freedom, though.

If you love wealth better than liberty - the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom - go home from us in peace.  We ask not your counsels or your arms.  Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you.  May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen. (paraphrased from Samuel Adams)

Liberty has never been won by pacifists.  Never.

Liberty has never been won by tyrants.  Never.

Liberty has been won by those who are willing to do violence, but abhor the necessity and guard its use miserly.  Only.

Joe

[dalebert]

They *are* however, capable of emotionally feeling that it is wrong, and allowing their humanity to modify their behavior.

I can sort of meet you halfway on that point. I've often said that far left liberals are closer to being libertarians than most moderate conservatives. People who think their taxes are too high are further away than those liberals. The liberals (in the modern sense of the word) already sense something is wrong. They see that corporations are too powerful, little people can't earn a living except as wage slaves, wars are being started for absurd reasons, people are without health care, and so forth. In that sense, I think we tend to agree.

However, they don't need to be motivated. They need to understand how they're misdiagnosing the problem. They have good intentions and they have the seed of rebellion, and yet they're contributing to the violence without realizing it. I think they're closer to "getting it" than most of us realize. They're not going to "feel" how they're contributing to the violence. Collectivism hides that from them. It displaces the violence and delegates it making it more comfortable.

[srqrebel]

Liberty has been won by those who are willing to do violence, but abhor the necessity and guard its use miserly.  Only.

Joe

Then your definition of liberty and mine are worlds apart, because the condition I call liberty has never existed as a characteristic of human civilization anywhere -- and once it does, it will be permanent.

Violence is merely the symptom of a faulty paradigm, nothing more and nothing less.  Liberty is the pure, natural state of human civilization, and can only be attained through a massive paradigm shift at the individual level, for to be defined as a paradigm shift it has to be based on personal conviction.

There is of course a distinction between the paradigm shift itself which occurs at the individual level and is transmitted virally, and the mass transition to the Voluntaryist/Free Market Model of Government a.k.a. natural civilization -- which is simply the rate at which individuals make the paradigm shift.  In other words, the transition is merely the appearance of a "collective paradigm shift", even though it actually takes place at the individual level.

As an analogy, think of the transition as a friendly 'pandemic', and the paradigm shift as the 'infection' which occurs on an individual-by-individual basis.

If all individuals made the decisive shift to the new (and accurate) paradigm concurrently, it would be a flawless transition.  This is not the way I see it happening, though.  It may take decades, or could take only a year or two.  Since it is a transition occurring through a paradigm shift, its very nature and effect in the world is the opposite of mindless revolutions of the past, all of which occurred under the old, faulty paradigm that falsely legitimizes aggression.

The faster this transition occurs, the smoother it will be.  It is the AMOG that poses the only real danger, every moment it continues to exist.

[J’raxis 270145]

I've often said that far left liberals are closer to being libertarians than most moderate conservatives.

Indeed—the far left is just as anti-statist as libertarians on the right, composed of people identifying themselves as "libertarian socialists," "anarcho-syndicalists," "agorists," and similar.

[MaineShark]

Then your definition of liberty and mine are worlds apart, because the condition I call liberty has never existed as a characteristic of human civilization anywhere -- and once it does, it will be permanent.

No.  It has existed.  Merely not on a large scale.  It was, in many cases and places, the natural state of humans prior to conquest by authoritarians.

Which is not to support the "noble savage" mythos.  Many "savages" were no less savage than their conquerors.  But some were noble, and simply out-gunned.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

Liberty has been won by those who are willing to do violence, but abhor the necessity and guard its use miserly.  Only.

Joe

Then your definition of liberty and mine are worlds apart, because the condition I call liberty has never existed as a characteristic of human civilization anywhere -- and once it does, it will be permanent.

Violence is merely the symptom of a faulty paradigm, nothing more and nothing less.  Liberty is the pure, natural state of human civilization, and can only be attained through a massive paradigm shift at the individual level, for to be defined as a paradigm shift it has to be based on personal conviction.

There is of course a distinction between the paradigm shift itself which occurs at the individual level and is transmitted virally, and the mass transition to the Voluntaryist/Free Market Model of Government a.k.a. natural civilization -- which is simply the rate at which individuals make the paradigm shift.  In other words, the transition is merely the appearance of a "collective paradigm shift", even though it actually takes place at the individual level.

As an analogy, think of the transition as a friendly 'pandemic', and the paradigm shift as the 'infection' which occurs on an individual-by-individual basis.

If all individuals made the decisive shift to the new (and accurate) paradigm concurrently, it would be a flawless transition.  This is not the way I see it happening, though.  It may take decades, or could take only a year or two.  Since it is a transition occurring through a paradigm shift, its very nature and effect in the world is the opposite of mindless revolutions of the past, all of which occurred under the old, faulty paradigm that falsely legitimizes aggression.

The faster this transition occurs, the smoother it will be.  It is the AMOG that poses the only real danger, every moment it continues to exist.

Quite true that true liberty has never existed, at least since the beginning of civilization.

However, when this paradigm shift is underway, how do you propose to deal with the inevitable violence that is initiated by those who don't wish to go along with the shift—those in power who stand to lose it as true freedom is finally realized? Such aggression must be defended against, no?

If you want peace—a just and free peace—prepare to defend it.

[MaineShark]

However, when this paradigm shift is underway, how do you propose to deal with the inevitable violence that is initiated by those who don't wish to go along with the shift—those in power who stand to lose it as true freedom is finally realized? Such aggression must be defended against, no?

If you want peace—a just and free peace—prepare to defend it.

Indeed.  As well as the small percentage of those who are simply neurologically defective, and will attack others, who will be born regardless of the prevailing paradigm.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

... the condition I call liberty has never existed as a characteristic of human civilization anywhere ...

No.  It has existed.  Merely not on a large scale.  It was, in many cases and places, the natural state of humans prior to conquest by authoritarians.

Quite true that true liberty has never existed, at least since the beginning of civilization.

Interestingly, I don't see these three statements as particularly contradictory. My own theory, based on various anthropological and sociological theories that I've read about, is that "civilization" came after authoritarianism, as a reaction to it. Long story short, people banded together to defend themselves against the authoritarians, built cities and so forth, and the higher level of organization and specialization that this made possible was basically the "birth of civilization."