Playing Politics is Immoral and Stupid

in #anarchylast year

Two quick thoughts regarding people who decide to play in the immoral circus know as "politics":

    • If you're like most statists, then you call it "evil special interests" when someone else uses the violence of the state to serve their own interests at the expense of your freedom and prosperity, but you call it "legitimate representative government" when you use the violence of the state to serve your own interests at the expense of other people's freedom and prosperity. Either way, it's the same damn thing. Either way it's wrong, and if you complain about one while cheering for the other, you're a hypocritical, immoral statist.
    • Furthermore, when you run to "government" to beg it to use its power to serve your interests at the expense of other people's freedom and prosperity, and then you're shocked when someone else--someone with a lot more money than you--ends up getting the ruling class to serve their interests instead of yours ... well, then you're not only an immoral hypocrite, but you're also kind of stupid. Why would you ever think the politicians would sell their souls to the lower bidder (you)? How clueless do you have to be in order to be shocked and offended when you lose that immoral game?

But the roads.

The Road to Voluntaristic World:

  1. teaching others
  2. decentralization
  3. arming yourself and your loved ones
  4. taking care of your privacy
  5. ostracism towards the enemy and his supporters - at the same time informing them of the reason for this ostracism

"Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns." ~ Benjamin Franklin

Why arming yourself?

Democide is a real threat, and even absent that threat, the police have no obligation to protect anyone from any crime, so you need to take that responsibility upon yourself. That is where it belongs, anyway.

But arent you attracting violence by arming yourself and live under constant fear? I dont think you will attract something good with that.

Arming oneself doesn't attract violence, and is no more "living in fear" than is keeping a fire extinguisher in the house or a spare tire in the car. There is a non-zero threat that one may need to defend oneself from man or beast.

I'm not sure. I think it can be both. I see a lot of people attracting violence because they hold firearms and they want to "protect" themselves. Law of attraction.

Define this alleged "law of attraction." Also, beware the correlation fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, or, "With this, therefore because of this."

People who perceive a need to be armed for self-defense may need to actually defend themselves because there is a real preexisting need or higher probability of encountering threats, not because they're looking for trouble, or because some psychic voodoo magnetism pulls trouble to them.

Of course, cops are another story altogether, but we're talking about sane people here, not government goons who seek to inflict violence as a necessary part of their jobs.

People who perceive a need to be armed for self-defense may need to actually defend themselves

I think this is true in some areas. But I guess for most parts of the world not. At least currently. The biggest problem is not people but AI and different kinds of warfare. How do you defend yourself against that?

or because some psychic voodoo magnetism pulls trouble to them.

Law of Attraction is the belief that by focusing on positive or negative thoughts, people can bring positive or negative experiences into their life. The belief is based on the idea that people and their thoughts are both made from "pure energy", and that through the process of "like energy attracting like energy" a person can improve their own health, wealth, and personal relationships.

For me, this does make a lot of sense and it's not so "psychic" as you say it is. I experienced it in my own life so many times.

This doesn't mean you have to be ignorant. Sitting in a warzone and just thinking positive doesn't help you in that kind of situation.

You might recognize item 6, Dying Well.

Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA

Unbelievable. What a great picture.

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Anarchy is immoral and stupid as well. Its opposed by nearly every school of thought.

Tell me something new.

Yes, nearly every school of thought that condones the violent subjugation of mankind ("government" and "authority") opposes the idea of not having a ruling class. What a shock. If you think non-aggression, peaceful coexistence and voluntary interaction is "immoral and stupid," then I won't waste time trying to tell you anything new.

How did Pythageros overcome the corrupt ruling class of his time? Surely, not through anarchy. But rather educated men, the informed men then where able to make better decisions for themselves. Together, with the teacher attacked the root cause.

I've watched some of your videos, read this and that of your material. Agreeing with certain elements, however, once the anarchists dissent it gives rise to other threats which where not perceived. To each their own.

Let's see. Wars, police states, famines, economic turmoil, and blatant lies from government are a perpetual fact throughout history. Centralization magnifies the consequences of an individual's error into catastrophy over and over.

But those who say the system is broken to the core, and that those are features rather than bugs, and demonstrate by reason and evidence why individualist decentralization of authority is better are to be dismissed out of hand.

Seems legit.

Just curious if you would be willing to share why (in your own words) you think Anarchy is immoral and stupid?

"The human race will have no respite from evils until those who are really philosophers acquire political power or until, through some divine dispensation, those who rule and have political authority in the cities become real philosophers." - Plato

Pretty much sums it up.

Thanks for sharing... I did ask for your own words but hey Plato's are as good as any :-)

My understanding of what Plato / yourself are saying with this quote is that none of the evil in the world will stop until good, moral people (philosophers) get into power through government or that those who rule us (through divine intervention) some how become good and moral.

I could see you seeing this as a way to solve the problem of evils in the world but I do not see it as an answer to how Anarchy is immoral and wrong. Did I missing something here?

Anarchy etymologically means the absence of rulers, not chaos. So having no masters, no slaves and treating everyone as actual human beings with rights is certainly not immoral. I do appreciate your response because I try to understand where others are coming from, especially in cases where I disagree because it helps build understanding. Thanks!

When history shows a long train of corrupt, vain, short-sighted, power-hungry psychopaths in power, and we now understand that such power draws the corrupt and inevitably corrupts the virtuous due to the perverse incentives, what of Plato then?

Plato was a pioneer, but we don't rely on astrologers to describe the cosmos, or alchemists to describe the nature of matter. Plato was wrong on many important matters, and merely appealing to his authority is not an argument at all.

Everything in existence returns to its root cause. (A person that knows how to use chaos can absolve anarchy in a single process)There are no examples where anarchy work, for everyone that partook dissented on their initial cause. I dont understand the logic behind taking psychopaths out of power, inputting younger inexperienced psychopaths that vehemently demand instant gratification. There is no logic in these words spread about. If you cannot see solutions given by earlier philosophers, perhaps stop reading various texts "at face value."

Why not, get smart and use the system? Instead of larkenrose complaining like a child at end of his videos, why not offer a solution? Why not teach people how to put municipalities in a corner, in a dignified manner? This is why i state its immoral and stupid, much like the falsehood thats portrayed in the picture.

Society only functions because anarchy works. Government is a parasite on progress, not its foundation. Rejecting established psychopaths is not opening the way for new psychopaths.

There is no future for men who don't man up.

Woodchuck Pirate
aka Raymond J Raupers Jr USA