Anyone interested in philosophy/politics/psychology?
Join the #1 Art Workshop - LevelUpJoin Premium Art Workshop

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 79

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0

    Anyone interested in philosophy/politics/psychology?

    I've recently published my 2nd book, a short work of philosophy/politics/psychology. It is a general analysis of our society (The United States in particular, but I think it's applicable globally), from the point of view of the (lack of) freedom and equality of each individual. It's not just the system, but a variety of mental and emotional manipulation which allows the system to perpetuate itself.

    I've also made a chart that goes along with the book to explain the basic premise; our society is made of a series of monopolies. I'll attach it below.

    If any of my fellow artists here on CA.org want to check the book out, I'll send you a free, printable PDF of the book. Just shoot me an email michael at endlessunlimited dotcom.



    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    829
    Thanks
    304
    Thanked 213 Times in 150 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jetpack42 View Post
    I've recently published my 2nd book, a short work of philosophy/politics/psychology. It is a general analysis of our society (The United States in particular, but I think it's applicable globally), from the point of view of the (lack of) freedom and equality of each individual. It's not just the system, but a variety of mental and emotional manipulation which allows the system to perpetuate itself.

    I've also made a chart that goes along with the book to explain the basic premise; our society is made of a series of monopolies. I'll attach it below.

    If any of my fellow artists here on CA.org want to check the book out, I'll send you a free, printable PDF of the book. Just shoot me an email michael at endlessunlimited dotcom.

    Definitely interested. Would love to read, and see what I dis/agree with. I'll try to pick it up from Amazon regardless Still putting rather a lot of trust in some stranger online. Any one of the people who received the printable PDF could just spread it, and an exponential spread begins.

    "Never regret thy fall from grace, O' spirit of Icarian flight, for the greatest tragedy of them all to face, is to never feel the burning bright"
    Believe my lies, for I tell the truth about them. Or would you rather me lie about telling the truth?

    | Sketchbook | Live Stream | Portfolio | dA | Facebook | Tumblr |
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  3. #3
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Maledict View Post
    Still putting rather a lot of trust in some stranger online. Any one of the people who received the printable PDF could just spread it, and an exponential spread begins.
    Although my goal is to become a financially self-sufficient author, the first part of that is to establish a readership. As a relative unknown, writing an anti-establishment book, not having spent a lifetime acquiring establishment-worthy credentials.... that's a tough hill to climb! I'm actually hoping that the people who I send it to will read it AND spread it. I'm not aiming to make a million dollars with the book, but I am attempting to make room in the marketplace for my ideas and those I agree with.

    I've always enjoyed the Socratic model of meeting people in the marketplace and attempting to add value to their lives.

    In any case, I appreciate you checking out my work!

    I welcome any thoughts, even if any of you peeps passing through have thoughts on the chart or whatnot; like Courage Wolf, I keep the door open for any challengers.

    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    1,116
    Thanks
    111
    Thanked 690 Times in 417 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I am something of an anarchist. I have given up on politics. :-)

    ____________________________________________
    My sketchbook thread:
    http://www.conceptart.org/forums/sho...ight=blogmatix
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  5. #5
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    I am something of an anarchist. I have given up on politics. :-)
    It's been said that "war is politics by other means" and "politics is economics by other means".

    In truth, most people are anarchists most of the time. 95% of most people's lives are self-governing.

    "Giving up" on politics, and focusing on your own life, family, community, etc, is the best way to go, as far as I can tell. Resorting to using the violent arm of the state against people who disagree with you, even if they disagree non-violently, is a course existence, and I aspire, through my work, to help disillusion peeps of the fantasy notion that is the Institution. It doesn't end up benefiting anyone, and ultimately ends up manipulating everyone on the bottom into slave-on-slave violence with each other.

    But I think, through the book, I have added several key points to the discussion, and helped piece together a bigger picture view of the farce, how it works, and why.

    T'is a wretched way of living in the world, methinks.

    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Cape Town, South Africa
    Posts
    2,710
    Thanks
    2,942
    Thanked 1,819 Times in 936 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    I am something of an anarchist. I have given up on politics. :-)
    Me too. Don't think I could keep my sanity here otherwise.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,427
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 849 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by blogmatix View Post
    I am something of an anarchist. I have given up on politics. :-)
    Perhaps reading stuff like this will help you understand why your an anarchist. Personally I like reading stuff like this because it gives me ideas for villains and such. Too bad heroes never come out of this kind of material.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  8. #8
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    Perhaps reading stuff like this will help you understand why your an anarchist. Personally I like reading stuff like this because it gives me ideas for villains and such. Too bad heroes never come out of this kind of material.
    Alan Moore is an anarchist.

    I think the reason you don't typically see heroes to come out of this kind of material is addressed in the book...

    Quote Originally Posted by My book View Post
    History is written by the victors. The last one living gets the last word. And so the history that we revere—most of the history we read, the history that shapes our view of the world—was written, not by the most enlightened society, the greatest humanitarians, or the most advanced cultures, but by the people who perfected the use of violence in their times. From the phalanx's of Greece to the atomic bomb, history is a narrative of the nations who achieved the greatest success in obliterating other nations. Of course, those people who were destroyed were uncultured, uncivilized brutes; lives wasted in the mud anyhow, right? At least, according to historical record.
    We understand that history is written by the victors, but we haven't understood how history has tainted our understanding of victory. History portrays victory as the destruction of one's enemy. History is the triumph of good over evil (unless Nazi Germany had won WW2, in which case history would have been the triumph of....well, good over evil, because then the good guys writing history would have been Nazi's). History is (allegedly) a glorious legacy of noble warriors upholding civilization against the evil people of their day.
    History, in that respect, is nothing more than a narrative of violence. If I went to the apartment next door, shot my neighbor, and incorporated everything he owns into my own goods (let's call my “goods” my “empire”), would I be hailed as a man of my time? Civilizing my brutish neighbor who chose to live differently than me, haven't I just created a whole new era of peace and prosperity within my apartment building? We revile the man who murders his neighbors but praise the nations who murder theirs. Is it so different?
    Or what if I just knocked on every door in my apartment complex and told them that we had new rules for the complex. Everyone can do whatever they like, so long as I approve it, because it's the law (rules I wrote down on some paper). I own the building now (I bought it out, killed the owner, doesn't matter) and I am going to be enforcing the law with my gun. Even better, I'll get a friend or two with guns to patrol the complex and make sure everyone is obeying. Everyone has to do as the law says (I write the law, with the help of my friends, aka the “representatives”) or else we'll rip them out of their apartment and lock them in my empty closet (or kill them). Would you want to live in this apartment complex? Is this the paragon of civilized society? Is this the best way for people to live amongst each other?
    Then we decide that the neighboring apartment complex is brutish and uncivilized (or that they have a lot of stuff that we'd like for ourselves). I'll get my tenants fired up about how great our apartment complex is. Complex of the free. Complex of the brave. And then we'll go subjugate the other complex into our empire, or kill them. Whatever, just so long as we get some of their stuff. We're doing them a favor, really, opening up their apartment complex to trade and democracy; civilization. One building leads to another. We'll even let the tenants choose who they want to be the leader, from pre-approved choices. Who says tenants can't choose their own fate? Soon we'll bring peace, prosperity, and democracy to the whole neighborhood.
    If this really happened in your neighborhood, would you imagine these are civilized, peaceful people? How much mental and emotional manipulation has to take place for these people to be considered noble purveyors of peace and prosperity? The tenants who are subjugated at the point of a gun will know better, but their children or great grandchildren will eventually be persuaded differently.
    And somehow we all agree that this is the best way to live together in society. One group of people should be able to run everything at the point of a gun. Anyone who disagrees, regardless of whether they are peaceful and productive on their own, is jailed or killed.
    Violence is the best way to have a non-violent, peaceful, prosperous society? We're not capable of working out differences with our neighbors? We're not capable of coming together voluntarily to solve problems?
    It has been said that war is merely politics by other means and politics is merely economics by other means. Essentially, war replaces exchange. This is the fundamental misunderstanding in all of the political rhetoric about free markets. If governments understood the concepts and benefits of free markets, they would abolish themselves (and if people understood the nature of governments they would have abolished them themselves long before governments could come to this realization). There is no trading with governments; there is no peaceful exchange with violence.
    Instead we view victory as the slaughter of our enemies, instead of talking with them, reaching understanding with them, exchanging freely with them, and becoming mutually prosperous together. The goal of nations is victory, not peace and prosperity. If that weren't the case, wouldn't we have increasingly less enemies and wars? When people meet each other as equals, there can be trade and prosperity. When one is threatened with injury or death, there is only robbery, slavery, and murder.
    So life is reduced to a petty struggle to become the boss of the apartment complex; dominate or kill your neighbors, lest you be dominated and killed yourself. History, with few exceptions, is merely a record of the most successful gangsters; thugs. Civilizations that have risen to the top haven't done so because of freedom, prosperity, or whatever other concept they have been ennobled with after the fact, ours included. Civilizations that have risen to the top have done so because their bosses best succeeded at the use of violence; against other peoples, and against their own.


    Last edited by jetpack42; September 29th, 2012 at 06:10 AM.
    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    55
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The concept is great, Jetpack. IMO you left out religious monopoly. Otherwise, or not otherwise, please dig up my email and send me the PDF. I'd take a read. If it's captivating and we all like it, or even anyone likes it, what do you plan to do with it?

    http://chronic.tempathy.net/page3.php

    This should allow for the largest I have of these images at the moment without re-scanning or even re-photographing them. I'll keep adding more.

    http://conceptart.org/forums/showthr...56#post3545456
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    So-Cal
    Posts
    3,427
    Thanks
    2,994
    Thanked 1,780 Times in 849 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Jetpack-
    One thing you are overlooking is that we are cooperative by nature. We actually have a progressive morality structure passed down from generation to generation. Sure violence is the universal language for "or else". But I'll say there are more positives than negatives that effect the average american life. We have free education, despite the vulnerability to brainwashing we all know our three R's. We have regulations that ensure our food is not poisonous and our drinking water is not THAT toxic. I could go on and on about the positives outweighing the negatives.

    As for the apartment analogy, I think it works for the broad stroke of the concept of an empire. But for instance the bush administration dipped it's toes in jacking apartments. The american people decided these apartments are not worth the upkeep, so we elected somebody to give them back.

    I think democracy is the most important weapon in history. I think the core problems could be handled slowly, but surely if the general public was interested. But as your graph shows, the majority of folks are too busy to give a fuck or too comfortable to give a fuck, but most of all giving a fuck is boring. As artists we have the ability to make giving a fuck fun.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  11. #11
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Thanks Dr. Shoot me an email. Religion wouldn't be considered a monopoly, since people are free to abstain. Also, religion (in many places) is not enforced by violence. Now, religious people might try to use the state, but they couldn't do it if the state didn't have a monopoly on law--land and violence.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raoul Duke View Post
    Jetpack-
    One thing you are overlooking is that we are cooperative by nature. We actually have a progressive morality structure passed down from generation to generation. Sure violence is the universal language for "or else". But I'll say there are more positives than negatives that effect the average american life. We have free education, despite the vulnerability to brainwashing we all know our three R's. We have regulations that ensure our food is not poisonous and our drinking water is not THAT toxic. I could go on and on about the positives outweighing the negatives.

    As for the apartment analogy, I think it works for the broad stroke of the concept of an empire. But for instance the bush administration dipped it's toes in jacking apartments. The american people decided these apartments are not worth the upkeep, so we elected somebody to give them back.

    I think democracy is the most important weapon in history. I think the core problems could be handled slowly, but surely if the general public was interested. But as your graph shows, the majority of folks are too busy to give a fuck or too comfortable to give a fuck, but most of all giving a fuck is boring. As artists we have the ability to make giving a fuck fun.
    Raoul,
    Thanks for the thoughts. My argument has never been that certain people have not derived some benefit. Surely, that is true. Although, as you will see in my chapter on school; the concept of school itself defies logic. It's not that nobody learns anything. It's that everyone could learn way more..

    As for food, if government didn't regulate it, who would? private actors would come up who would be interested in discovering the truth about foods, and people would pay for their service because they want to eat healthy food, and they would be inspired to do good work so they maintain their customers. Regulation happens quite naturally and much more efficiently without monopolies. We understand monopolies are bad in the marketplace.. they're just as bad, if not worse, when applied to important everyday issues such as security and health (and not just iPods).

    Problem is, people don't often hear about many of the absolute failings of government's ability to do it's own job, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz27ya0rUiv or we hear about it too late. The "security" provided by government is an illusion. They're as concerned for your security in as much as you can continue to be their tax-slave, and beyond that you're on your own.

    My argument is a moral one--if the initiation of force is wrong, then it continues to be wrong no matter how many papers you sign or how many badges are on your official costume. Might does't make right, and neither does the number of pieces of meat who agree with you (democratic elections). If me and the Dr can't vote for you to be our slave, why can 51% of the population vote to take goods and benefits from the 49%?

    While I completely reject democracy as a corrupt idea, I agree with your final sentiment. It can be boring, but the problem is that it affects all of our lives. Central bankers are pillaging the population on a daily basis, and people can't seem to be bothered to care. There are a lot of reasons that I think the issues have become compounded upon each other, to keep people within a cycle of slavery; you'll see in the book.

    I certainly agree that arguments for freedom and equality need to begin to resonate on an emotional level, rather than an intellectual one.

    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jetpack42 View Post
    * * *

    While I completely reject democracy as a corrupt idea. . .
    Well. . . OK. . . what do you want to replace it with?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  13. #13
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    Well. . . OK. . . what do you want to replace it with?
    You'll have to excuse the limits of the forum for presenting a nuanced view of psychology, emotions, accountability, and hierarchy in society. That's why I wrote a book

    Your question presupposes that democracy is like a fruit at a fruit stand and we're deciding what kind of pie to have for desert. As if it's a matter of preference and I need only to convince you of my fruit. Democracy is a system of might-making-right; mob rule. If two people can't vote to kill a third (morally), why can 51% of poor people vote to take money from 49% of the wealthiest? Why can't the wealthiest 51% just vote to take everything that the poorest 49% have? It's absurd. Voting doesn't change the principle of gravity, so does voting make murder any more or less moral?

    As far as what to replace it with, it's open to discussion. The point I attempt to espouse is that if we want the most moral, intelligent system of governance, that would express itself in living on principle. If we are born free and equal, what can Presidents do for people that they couldn't do for themselves? If we are born free and equal, can the mob force you to be a slave? A decentralized, voluntary society is going to be the most productive, prosperous, and free, and the most advanced society of people would utilize advancements in technology, polycentric law, localized communities, competing currencies.... etc. Basically, the exact opposite direction that everything is heading now. Apparently, nobody learned any of the mistakes of the last century, where government were centralizing, growing, and consolidating power for themselves. That model hasn't worked for any large countries, and it certainly didn't work out well for the 170 MILLION people who were murdered by their own governments. Yes, that's a statistic http://www.fff.org/freedom/1094f.asp

    In short, I'd replace it with principled living, self-government, decentralized communities, polycentric law based on Natural Law, and the like. Government, even democracy, is the antithesis of humanity. Just like it is not the natural state of any animal to be kept in a zoo, or for a cow to be kept on a dairy farm, it is not the natural state of a human to be a cog in the Institution. It is also worth noting that advocating a removal of corrupt law is not advocating for lawlessness, chaos, or destruction. Much to the contrary, all of the best solutions I have heard for many of societies problems are all based on non-violent solutions; they don't rely on the violence of the state to implement.

    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jetpack42 View Post
    * * *

    In short, I'd replace it with principled living, self-government, decentralized communities, polycentric law based on Natural Law, and the like. Government, even democracy, is the antithesis of humanity. . .
    So, basically, you're an anarchist.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Cambridge UK
    Posts
    5,460
    Thanks
    6,454
    Thanked 4,516 Times in 2,456 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    sb most art copied to page 1
    Weapons of Mass Creation 2011 ::: Add your favourites!
    skype: velocitykendall
    facebook: Alface Killah
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,002
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,010 Times in 539 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Velocity Kendall View Post
    Interesting read.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  17. #17
    Brashen's Avatar
    Brashen is offline Ralph Abou Raad - Professional Level 9 Gladiator: Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    1,498
    Thanks
    230
    Thanked 491 Times in 271 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    To be interested in philosophy one must possess a mind devoid of the tribulations that plague an earthly life.

    To be interested in politics one must possess a mind devoid of the virtues that safe keep morality.

    To be interested in psychology one must possess a mind devoid of the aforementioned.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,002
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,010 Times in 539 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    You seem to be reaaaally focusing on the beating and tasing thing. Kind of feeling like a strawman argument here. Kamber mentions one little sentence on not thinking he'll be beaten for anything he does in his everyday life so you run with that an make it so suddenly that he thinks people should be beaten or tased if they disagree with him? Or that he's changing his everyday behavior to fall in line? Kind of pushing it to an emotional argument here then running with it, really putting words in peoples mouths (as you said) then attacking them.

    I don't know where you live, but the U.S. is a veeeery big place the culture shock from one state to the next can be staggering. I've moved around a lot growing up and have yet to meet a place where police are even remotely as bad as your making them. Your kind of portraying them as mindless monsters that follow the state to go around beating and tasing people, no conscious of their own when they're people same as you or I. Most people don't even think twice about getting a beating or getting tased, because the events of their daily life don't even remotely deal with things that would get them beaten or tased.


    Also exactly what kind of government DOESN'T have this sort of issue or possibility with law enforcement? Anyone with power can abuse it. Anyone. A cop beats you and nothing happens to him? Hell I live near Baltimore, cops die on the streets everyday with no repercussions. Anything can happen off the records. On the records how many cops get sued as well. Quite a lot. It's not exactly black and white. There's the same issues with judges, and law in general on a local level.



    I'm not really sure what kind of society your advocating here though really. All societies have the same basic principles protection and service/communal law. There will always be those with some sort of power over another and those that abuse it. Say the U.S. was broken into sub cultures people deciding their own laws on a more local level. Who's going to enforce it? Who's going to stop those who do enforce it from growing too large and abusing its power?



    (Should throw in here that no we aren't in a perfect society in the U.S. quite the opposite. Plenty of fucked up shit going on.)

    Last edited by JFierce; October 6th, 2012 at 03:35 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Whoa! A lotta intermingled concepts from jetpack.

    Re rights: I have no problem with the idea of "human rights" or political equality. I'm just pointing out that in a radically individualist society that you aim towards the physically lame and mentally retarded are going to have a hard go of it. What of orphaned retarded kids? Who looks out for them in the absence of family, community, or the modern Welfare State?

    Re force: I spend 7 or 8 hours of my day sleeping; I spend another 8 to 12 hours of my day engaged in productive labor not likely to attract the attention of law enforcement whatsoever; otherwise I engage in dainty gentlemanly pursuits such a sketching from life and flailing around with my watercolors; add in laundry, grocery shopping, my occasional forays into dating, walking, working out, hiking, etc.

    I'm really really not doing anything either likely to bring me into a violent confrontation with my fellow citizens-- certainly a precursor to a call out of the Deputies, guns drawn, clubs a swingin'-- or likely to provoke "the man" directly. I suppose I could get pulled over for the occasional traffic violation. But, I'm not likely to fight or run-- what sense would it make? Thus, the cops are not likely to blast me or club me. Re traffic infractions, I generally obey the traffic laws not out of fear of the State's agents putting a .40 caliber round through my midsection but because they make sense!

    I concur with JFierce-- my own unlikely-hood of getting beat down by the Deputies in no way means I believe those who are illegally attacked by law enforcement deserve what they got!

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  20. #20
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    Whoa! A lotta intermingled concepts from jetpack.

    Re rights: I have no problem with the idea of "human rights" or political equality. I'm just pointing out that in a radically individualist society that you aim towards the physically lame and mentally retarded are going to have a hard go of it. What of orphaned retarded kids? Who looks out for them in the absence of family, community, or the modern Welfare State?......
    Kamber, if my last response came off harsh or personal, I apologize. But I think the ideas hold up.

    1- You raise a valid point, and I certainly sympathize with the plight of the less-fortunate (which is why I advocate what I advocate from the beginning, I believe our society is actually designed around the destruction of the most unfortunate) but then your argument is that all people should be enslaved so that way the handicapped have a more fair shake?

    2- Many people have found themselves on the wrong side of a police confrontation for no reason whatsoever. It's not a "likely" occurance, but SWAT teams have tried to serve no-knock warrants in the middle of the night....at the wrong address and ended up shooting a completely uninvolved person. I don't disagree with what you're saying, and this is all a tangental distraction, the main point is that the monopoly of violence CREATES as many problems as it solves, if not more. You can't exactly war your way to peace, in any moral sense, so why is it any different on a societal level?

    The bottom line of the argument is that our society is built on violence. If the initiation of violence is wrong... well then conclusions draw themselves.

    You say "I think your error, here, is this-- societies "in nature" are NOT "completely violent." Rather, society/government exists to mitigate the inherently violent tendencies of humankind so that the greatest amount of peace and good may exist for the greatest number of people in those societies/governments."

    So...we have to use violence on everyone to make sure that the most violent people don't abuse everyone else? This argument overturns itself, as Socrates explained 2000 years ago by saying that politics attracts money and power--what kind of person wants money and power? An evil person. As to your point again, if people are evil, and they need to be managed, they cannot be managed by the same evil people who need managing....can they? Who decides the greatest good? Who decides what people? Just as an example (and I am tired of it, but it's a simple one) why should the colonists decide what is best for the indigenous Americans? Is it any different today? Everyone is hoping that their party gets into power so they can change the laws to force other people to behave like them. If you don't like it, then you get a visit from some cops, and then you're in all sorts of legal entanglements. Comply or have violence used against you.

    If people are evil and destructive, then the argument for more management completely falls apart (or falls back onto mob rule, aka "democracy") backed by more violence. And if people don't need to be managed, then there wouldn't be an argument against voluntary association.

    Thanks for the questions and discussion. I've enjoyed thinking through your points. If you have any more ideas, I'm happy to entertain them.

    Last edited by jetpack42; October 8th, 2012 at 01:44 AM. Reason: made a mistake
    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  21. #21
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JFierce View Post
    You seem to be reaaaally focusing on the beating and tasing thing. Kind of feeling like a strawman argument here. Kamber mentions one little sentence on not thinking he'll be beaten for anything he does in his everyday life so you run with that an make it so suddenly that he thinks people should be beaten or tased if they disagree with him? Or that he's changing his everyday behavior to fall in line? Kind of pushing it to an emotional argument here then running with it, really putting words in peoples mouths (as you said) then attacking them....
    If the reply was harsh, I apologize, and I will in my response to Kamber. It's not an emotional argument, though, because it boils down to violence. I also have lived all over the country, and having had this experience, it is clear to me how absurd it is to imagine all people following the same laws, as they do now. The same is exhibited in countries that fracture along ethnic lines despite being straight bordered leftovers of colonialism.

    So you're saying that since you haven't encountered police brutality, it's not a significant problem? Or you're saying that this is no big deal? http://www.policemisconduct.net/ This whole concept is allowable because of the monopoly of violence, which is the point of the argument. A monopoly of violence is evil.

    (as an aside.. don't make me chuckle about cops getting sued. Who pays for that? Not the cops. The taxpayers! The taxpayers pay for the cops to do shiesty crap, then the taxpayers pay for the trial and the defense, and then the taxpayers pay the settlement or the award. Cops are ALMOST NEVER held personally responsible for their actions, contrary to you and I.)

    If anyone with power can abuse it (and history shows that almost everyone with power has) then why would anyone with a working brain agree to giving people in power MORE POWER? Doesn't that defy common sense? And that's the point.

    This is a forum, and the argument is very simple, but can get quite complex. Slavery is wrong. If using force against other people is wrong, then it needs to be stopped. Who is going to enforce all that stuff you mentioned? Each person will decide how to enforce it. There's plenty of theory available on decentralized systems, but before we can discuss it seriously, we'd have to agree that centralization is wrong. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw

    Last edited by jetpack42; October 8th, 2012 at 01:18 AM.
    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    2,002
    Thanks
    891
    Thanked 1,010 Times in 539 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Just going to reply to my little bit on the topic of police since no way I'm reading all that's in this thread right now no time lol. Either way I'm enjoying the discussion.


    Quote Originally Posted by jetpack42 View Post
    I also have lived all over the country, and having had this experience, it is clear to me how absurd it is to imagine all people following the same laws, as they do now. The same is exhibited in countries that fracture along ethnic lines despite being straight bordered leftovers of colonialism.

    So you're saying that since you haven't encountered police brutality, it's not a significant problem? Or you're saying that this is no big deal? http://www.policemisconduct.net/ This whole concept is allowable because of the monopoly of violence, which is the point of the argument. A monopoly of violence is evil.
    Oh no police brutality is certainly bad and steps need to be taken with it, but your still putting it in a way where it seems like A) it's rampant and still portraying cops in general as mindless zombies of the state and B) making it seem like "because police brutality happens in areas in this country, then therefore the government is bad". When I still could probably type in any country. Any country on this planet in simply google which surely doesn't have every news article or source and there would be links to articles and reports on police brutality. Every country has this issue.

    Like I've said before all society has two universal points, these are the most simplistic ways I put society it's an immensely complex topic but all societies have protection and service which as Kamber pointed out I believe if there is no sort of law enforcement or government to stop violence then it's up to the farmer and his gun to protect his family while on the other side if those same people abuse their power then it's oppressive. and communal law being the other point which is pretty obvious.



    If anyone with power can abuse it (and history shows that almost everyone with power has) then why would anyone with a working brain agree to giving people in power MORE POWER? Doesn't that defy common sense? And that's the point.
    Well I typed something but then I realized there's two sides to this. The physical side aka weapons and the political side aka the laws. I typed long paragraphs but then I also realized that for every long paragraph you get two long paragraphs in return. I'll just state it as it's a viscous cycle no matter what. On the physical side if local government only has pistols and someone comes in with machine guns they're either usurped or get away and then get machine guns themselves so something bad doesn't happen again. Societies have done that locally and even on the grand scale until we're at the point where we could blow each other up. Law wise it's similar, there's an issue in an area where a school shooting or something happens the public freaks, suddenly these schools over here have metal detectors or camera's. Many laws happen in reaction which is an issue with corruption or setting up an incident to sway public opinion into changing a law etc or slipping a law in. But that's another topic entirely past where I wanna debate lol.


    This is a forum, and the argument is very simple, but can get quite complex. Slavery is wrong. If using force against other people is wrong, then it needs to be stopped. Who is going to enforce all that stuff you mentioned? Each person will decide how to enforce it. There's plenty of theory available on decentralized systems, but before we can discuss it seriously, we'd have to agree that centralization is wrong. For example, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw
    Of course slavery is wrong though it's a bit of an exaggeration imo using that term, since slavery by definition is people being bought and sold for work while there are variations it usually deals with forced labor or being treated as property which I simply just don't agree.

    But my whole spiel is since your suggesting new types of society or how it should change. How is society B) going to prevent problems A through J while also dealing with problems K through Z that society A) deals with already. Since most of these problems your bringing up aren't just in centralized governments they're in human society/nature as a whole.

    Edit: Didn't see the part about every one will decide how to enforce it. I'm sorry but that just sounds like chaos, unless someone expands on it.

    Last edited by JFierce; October 8th, 2012 at 03:55 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  23. #23
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JFierce View Post
    Of course slavery is wrong though it's a bit of an exaggeration imo using that term, since slavery by definition is people being bought and sold for work while there are variations it usually deals with forced labor or being treated as property which I simply just don't agree.

    But my whole spiel is since your suggesting new types of society or how it should change. How is society B) going to prevent problems A through J while also dealing with problems K through Z that society A) deals with already. Since most of these problems your bringing up aren't just in centralized governments they're in human society/nature as a whole.

    Edit: Didn't see the part about every one will decide how to enforce it. I'm sorry but that just sounds like chaos, unless someone expands on it.
    I've already made the point that maybe society has dealt with these problems....for you. Who is endless monetary inflation serving? Who is the drug war serving? Who is the endless foreign entanglements serving? Who is the Patriot Act serving? Who is the mainstream media serving? Who is the housing collapse serving? Who is the crappy economy serving?

    As you answer those questions, (if you're remotely honest) you'll see there is a consistent few who continually benefit from the vast mechanisms of "society". Why? Because they maintain monopolies and everything funnels upward.

    As for your comment on "that sounds like chaos until somebody expands on it", I already posted a link to one theoretical discussion if you are interested. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd_MzGCw This deals with how law and law enforcement would be not-centralized.

    Of course, the first thing anyone says is "Well, without the current system everyone would just be throwing molotov cocktails at each other!" which is absurd. When the tsunami wiped out sections of Japan, were people running around throwing molotov cocktails at each other? The structures in society broke down. No, they started working together as efficiently as they could, and they would continue to do so if centralized governments didnt step in and play sides against each other, as always happens in the modern world now.

    One man's chaos is another man's freedom. Believing that people are so horrible that they need to be managed by the same horrible people that need to be managed....is nonsensical.

    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    759
    Thanks
    656
    Thanked 367 Times in 244 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    The utopic society you describe cannot exist, because its citizen would have conflicting interests. Laws are designed to keep our rights from stepping on the rights of others. I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I don't see that there is a viable alternative. The problem is human nature. How would you stop might makes right?.. with more might?.. or reasonable discussions maybe?

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    the Netherlands - Rotterdam
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 209 Times in 127 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    I think that there isn't really any difference between what has
    been said by JFierce and Jetpack. Both arguments are based on
    the fact that society's are in nature completely violent.
    You could say they are indiscernible in that fact.

    One presents a society that is completely succumbed by violence in its most extreme form.
    The other presents the same society which has that extreme form as well but adds
    that there is a lot of variation in how violence presents itself.
    Both say that this 'violence' has existed and always will exist in our society.
    Ergo, one key ingredient for our society to function is violence, violence has a purpose.
    Because violence has a purpose in our society the act of violence should be in a way beneficial,
    this goes for both parties really, the victim and the aggressor. You could talk about the economy of violence.

    But I rather think that Jetpack has a point in his diagram when he displays economy
    as an initiator of monopolizing violence. I'd be more extreme and say that in current
    society's economy is a simulacrum for violence just like politics is a simulacrum for economy.

    I think both are wrong in taking examples out of real life. They only tell us
    that some acts of violence are more brutal than others. The extremity is not in
    how it manifests itself into life but more the dominating presence of violence everywhere.

    When people talk about an Utopian non-violent society and say that that is
    impossible they aren't telling the complete story. It is true that with current
    rules and social constructions violence is a necessity.

    An Utopian non-violent society is impossible because the social constructions
    we have put our faith in and trust as true need it to exist. I think that if
    you do dream of a non-violent society you should put your efforts in deconstructing or
    radical complicating these social constructions.

    I think that the question that spur this discussion is wrong in the first place.
    'What do you want to replace it with' should have been 'what will it be replaced with
    and can we influence this process?'
    I don't think that current society's are or ever will be the end of history.

    Last edited by D.Labruyere; October 7th, 2012 at 02:58 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by D.Labruyere View Post
    * * *

    I think that there isn't really any difference between what has
    been said by JFierce and Jetpack. Both arguments are based on
    the fact that society's are in nature completely violent.
    You could say they are indiscernible in that fact. . .
    I think your error, here, is this-- societies "in nature" are NOT "completely violent." Rather, society/government exists to mitigate the inherently violent tendencies of humankind so that the greatest amount of peace and good may exist for the greatest number of people in those societies/governments.

    Thought Experiment: If D.Labruyere is a peaceful farmer eking out a living in the Hobbesian State Of Nature-- a place where there are no courts or Deputies to drag malefactors to court-- he becomes a law unto himself-- the Glock .40 on his hip is all that stands between himself and those other denizens of the State Of Nature who might steal his crops, rape his woman, murder his children, and set him to a state of chattel bondage.

    In Social Contract Theory, those residing in the State Of Nature relinquish the ability to deal out violence to the violent-- one on one-- for the greater security of a civil State that promises to maintain order so that the citizenry might go about its business of making a living without each citizen having to constantly look over his shoulder to stave off the onset of evil.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  28. The Following User Says Thank You to Kamber Parrk For This Useful Post:


  29. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    the Netherlands - Rotterdam
    Posts
    1,716
    Thanks
    157
    Thanked 209 Times in 127 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Kamber Parrk View Post
    I think your error, here, is this-- societies "in nature" are NOT "completely violent." Rather, society/government exists to mitigate the inherently violent tendencies of humankind so that the greatest amount of peace and good may exist for the greatest number of people in those societies/governments.

    Thought Experiment: If D.Labruyere is a peaceful farmer eking out a living in the Hobbesian State Of Nature-- a place where there are no courts or Deputies to drag malefactors to court-- he becomes a law unto himself-- the Glock .40 on his hip is all that stands between himself and those other denizens of the State Of Nature who might steal his crops, rape his woman, murder his children, and set him to a state of chattel bondage.

    In Social Contract Theory, those residing in the State Of Nature relinquish the ability to deal out violence to the violent-- one on one-- for the greater security of a civil State that promises to maintain order so that the citizenry might go about its business of making a living without each citizen having to constantly look over his shoulder to stave off the onset of evil.
    I have some problems with Social Contract Theory. There have been quite a lot of feminist arguments against the reliance of social contract theory on this economic man. This liberal person, that is a rational individual before he even enters society. He is gendered and seems to portrait a rather specific person in history.
    Also, this economic man fails to give us any meaningful moral relation between people. Seeing human relations as a simple cost-benefit contract between two people who can identify themselves only as one type of person is an impoverished view of our complexity .

    Because a social contract is so reliant on both people entering the contract being this economic man its main purpose is not to include people into society but to exclude those who are the other. It excludes women, children and people with another race, essentially preventing pluralism, one of the key factors for a good and healthy democracy.

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  30. #29
    jetpack42's Avatar
    jetpack42 is offline Registered User Level 15 Gladiator: Spartacus' Hoplomachi
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Jet City Suburbs
    Posts
    3,509
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 120 Times in 60 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by D.Labruyere View Post
    When people talk about an Utopian non-violent society and say that that is
    impossible they aren't telling the complete story. It is true that with current
    rules and social constructions violence is a necessity.

    An Utopian non-violent society is impossible because the social constructions
    we have put our faith in and trust as true need it to exist. I think that if
    you do dream of a non-violent society you should put your efforts in deconstructing or
    radical complicating these social constructions.

    I think that the question that spur this discussion is wrong in the first place.
    'What do you want to replace it with' should have been 'what will it be replaced with
    and can we influence this process?'
    I don't think that current society's are or ever will be the end of history.
    (responded by paragraph quoted)

    1- The initiation of violence is only necessary to continue the exploitation of most of the people on the planet. You can't force people into ponzi-schemes like Social Security or the US Dollar and then let them opt-out... that's bad for business.

    2- That's why I've written the book.

    3- I addressed that above in saying it's not so much a replacing of one system with another, as the dissolution of monopolies, without which, more natural and peaceful methods of living together would arise. Nothing about my ideas is Utopian, even though you have referenced it as such, because I don't believe there will be NO violence. There will always be evil people. The argument isn't that people are perfect (from my point of view). Evil people have a tendency toward state power. As displayed comically in this brilliant movie https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mugRSdjdMi4

    Americans imagine that the State provides security, but it only does so at the expense of a lot of other people; most of whom are innocent. If the corruption and oppression were removed, so would be the illusion of security; then people could get about creating lives for themselves, instead of the lives the state allows them to have (on both sides).

    I self-published a book on the fundamentals of drawing from life.

    http://www.amazon.com/Fundamentals-D...8951905&sr=8-1

    http://www.endlessunlimited.com
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

  31. #30
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    WA State
    Posts
    2,364
    Thanks
    796
    Thanked 1,273 Times in 887 Posts
    Follows
    0
    Following
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by jetpack42 View Post
    * * *

    I addressed that above in saying it's not so much a replacing of one system with another, as the dissolution of monopolies, without which, more natural and peaceful methods of living together would arise. Nothing about my ideas is Utopian, even though you have referenced it as such, because I don't believe there will be NO violence. There will always be evil people. . ."
    jetpack: No offense taken.

    I do believe you are confusing/conflating "violence" with "force." Violence-- "an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. . ." http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/violence

    We can't "throw the baby out with the bath water"-- yes there are corrupt and/or violent cops-- but, overall, I think our system of laws works pretty well here in the States. (We certainly have nowhere near the level of corruption and violence of Mexico or Columbia.) Re abuses by American law enforcement, I see no justification for scrapping a couple hundred years of some of the most humane and effective government on the face of the planet.

    D.Labruyere: Yes, Social Contract Theory has its problems. But, it's generally considered an underlying principle upon which the legitimacy of Western democracy is built-- voluntary consent of the governed.

    The cops and the courts-- controlled by statutes passed by the legislature which is elected by the people-- ARE creatures of voluntary consent in our Western democracies.

    If we take Thomas Hobbes' theory as a controlling aspect of human nature, jetpack's goal will fail. If the existing institutions were somehow undermined to his satisfaction, Hobbes tells us that human nature is to fill the void by cedeing some amount of control to some mutually agreed upon "sovereign" so that force may be effectively brought to bear against enemies both "foreign and domestic."

    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote  

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •