tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post7790856092328539425..comments2023-07-16T02:18:04.475-07:00Comments on Fear of Freedom: How to end the stateThe Beasthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04009206503900045740noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post-86114335830699585112010-02-27T01:08:10.805-08:002010-02-27T01:08:10.805-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.オテモヤンhttp://e-nixi.com/blog/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post-16105047739064752802010-02-23T10:35:30.605-08:002010-02-23T10:35:30.605-08:00Perhaps it would be more feasible and more accepta...Perhaps it would be more feasible and more acceptable to all if, instead of "ending the state" we aimed at going beyond the territorial monopolistic state as advocated by Paul Emile de Puydt and Max Nettlau ("Down with the State!" and "Only upon the ruins of the State. . ." express emotions and wishes of many but it seems that only the cool "Opt out of the State" can help them towards their realization." (see PANARCHY. A Forgotten Idea of 1860)<br />A part from that, congratulation for your very interesting post.Gian Piero de Bellishttp://www.polyarchy.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post-69691688762665235602010-02-02T18:38:34.072-08:002010-02-02T18:38:34.072-08:00Kitty,
Thanks very much for your lengthy and very ...Kitty,<br />Thanks very much for your lengthy and very thoughtful feedback. :)The Beasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04009206503900045740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post-10310602837595251752010-02-02T18:03:53.425-08:002010-02-02T18:03:53.425-08:00[Cont'd due to max character limitation.]
&quo...[Cont'd due to max character limitation.]<br />"..all human beings are driven to be happy." While you do not substantiate your statement, it is a highly important fundamental truth. All living organisms seek to gain and/or maintain the conditions that promote their well being. Among all life-forms, human beings have by far the highest capability (even if not utilized by all or even most) to use very long term, wide range thinking for assessing that well-being, what I and husband Paul Wakfer define as Happiness - all that an individual seeks to attain and maintain. Paul in his writings explains that the purpose of each person's life (whether or not s/he knows it) must necessarily be to optimally increase hir Lifetime Happiness, with the optimality requiring wide viewed, long range consideration (rational thinking). Optimally increasing one's Lifetime Happiness does not mean that one is or should be or can be in a constant state of happiness. It requires instead some periods of time when gratification of immediate desires are postponed, or even a state of unhappiness taken on, in order that the sum of all one's Happiness States over time (one's total Lifetime Happiness, effectively the integration - in the mathematical sense - of Happiness over time) becomes as large as possible. For a full and detailed explanation see the definition of Lifetime Happiness and its annotation page (click on the shaded portion) at: <a href="http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#happiness" rel="nofollow">http://selfsip.org/solutions/NSC.html#happiness</a>.<br /><br />"..and they can only be truly happy when they are acting in harmony with their conscience by not causing harm to others. Our very biology compels us to do so." Humans are social animals, they cannot exist - come into being and even just survive - totally alone. Therefore, optimally increasing one's Lifetime Happiness requires that a human consider, as part of hir wide view, long range thinking, the outcomes of hir actions on others. Intentionally harming another human is rarely in one's long range best interest, whereas voluntary interactions to mutual (long range) benefit always are. I appreciate that you are here attempting to root proper human social behavior in the biological nature of humans and I laud you for that approach. Please read <a href="http://selfsip.org/fundamentals/socialmetaneeds.html" rel="nofollow">"Social Meta-Needs: A New Basis for Optimal Interaction"</a> for a complete and consistent theory using this approach.<br /><br />I am going to stop my critique here (though there is definitely more I could write) and simply state that you, Alex, have addressed some areas of importance - happiness as life purpose and fear as a major obstacle, with the State depending greatly on the latter. But some very important aspects have not been addressed - the power of the individual alone and in concert with others when using Social Preferencing towards creating an orderly society without the presence of the State, and in currently beginning the active process of withering away the State. Rather than detail those points here I hope that you and others will read (as a start) - <a href="http://selfsip.org/focus/protestsnotenough.html" rel="nofollow">"Tax/Regulation Protests are Not Enough: Relationship of Self-Responsibility and Social Order" </a>.Kitty Antonik Wakferhttp://selfsip.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post-28368229142441547382010-02-02T18:01:00.862-08:002010-02-02T18:01:00.862-08:00Many of your points, Alex, are well taken, in part...Many of your points, Alex, are well taken, in part if not completely:<br />"The State is organized coercion. When citizens line up to vote they do so because they are either seeking to impose their will on their neighbors or to prevent their neighbors from imposing their will on them or both." I would emphasize that the State has a self-decreed legal monopoly on the use of physical force on adult humans within its self-designated jurisdiction and this is the important form of its coercion. Also, those who vote are seeking to have the State use physical force or its threat to make or prevent their neighbors from acting in some manner would in all likelihood not themselves use physical force to prohibit or to require such behavior, even if not because of any fear of retaliation.<br /><br />"Is not all coercion rooted in fear?... Is not the force that gives rise to and sustains the existence of the state uncontrolled fear?" I agree that the emotional insecurity of the vast majority of every State populace has supported the rise, continuation and growth of governments (but it is not correctly a "force" but rather the root of a "process"). One need only do some detailed reading of various periods of history to see that this has been the case for humans in virtually all cultures throughout recorded time. The majority of individuals have not through the ages used reasoned thinking (wide viewed, long range) for their decisions, but rather simply gone with their emotions, with only short term (often very much so) considerations taken. However, those who lead/head the State are very often (possibly always) motivated not by fear but desire for power over others. Acknowledged though, if one were inclined to investigate further for a particular power-hungry individual, it may be discovered that this individual is in actuality fearful of others - what those others might choose to do if s/he did not (him/her) hirself or employ others (the enforcers) to use physical force to impel them to obey edicts/mandates/directives/laws/etc of hir (his/her) making.<br /><br />"Human beings are not driven by logic. We are driven by emotion." Yes to the latter, but not necessarily to the former, since emotions can be made to be fully rational by being consistent with and the automated subconscious product of one's logic. This requires an understanding of what thoughts/ideas and beliefs (the latter being convictions held despite lack of fact) underlie one's emotions and the use of a process of "reprogramming" emotions that are inconsistent with rationally held ideas and demonstrated facts, as in breaking old/bad habits and forming new/good ones. Once this takes place, emotions can be both rewards for excellent decisions and tools of cognition, doubly valuable in one's life. [Cont'd due to max character limitation.]Kitty Antonik Wakferhttp://selfsip.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post-66522736211093845882010-01-31T12:12:56.046-08:002010-01-31T12:12:56.046-08:00Joel,
Thank you very much for the compliment. :)
...Joel,<br /><br />Thank you very much for the compliment. :)<br /><br />Indeed. I perhaps should have been more clear in my statement.<br /><br />I did not mean to imply that reason and logic could not serve evil. What I meant is that what really *moves* us are emotions.<br /><br />It has been my observation that many people are so overwhelmed by their fears that it leads them to practice self-deception in order to preserve that portion of their belief system that does not stand up to the scrutiny of reason and logic.<br /><br />It's not that they are not capable of changing their beliefs. It's just that they need to overcome their fear in order to do so.<br /><br />Indeed, let's talk some time.<br /><br />In freedom,<br />AlexThe Beasthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04009206503900045740noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3012044439450015127.post-75907641604317299842010-01-31T05:29:28.503-08:002010-01-31T05:29:28.503-08:00Alex,
As always, I love this post. As I've sa...Alex,<br /><br />As always, I love this post. As I've said before it seems rare to me to find a straight-up anarchist who draws his fellow anarchists' eyes to the ways in which they might unwittingly feed into the evil that they see manifest as a great "tree" of evil-- the imperial state.<br /><br />That said, I take issue with a few of the things you said, especially this: "Human beings are not driven by logic, they are driven by emotion." I believe that evil is actually empowered, deeply, by reason and logic, twisted and built on doomed foundational knowledge/premises.<br /><br />It is entirely possible that I missed your real point. In any event, perhaps we could talk sometime?<br /><br />In freedom,<br />JoelJoel GLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06244692753296680669noreply@blogger.com