Global Revolution!

[Taomeow]

I hope TaoMeow will not mind if I link to her posts in the Taoist forum (scroll down to posts #12 and #18).

 

Not at all, and thank you for your kind words, SB.

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

We are [all] so disconnected from each other, in spite of the internet that unites us, that we cannot come together and organize any semblance of a solution to our inevitably grim forecast.

 

We all have our own sources of "truth" and yet none of us can agree on any one truth we each present. HOW, then, can we form a solution, without unison of organized effort?

 

 

This is troubling, that we would rather sit and argue over semantics than step outside and organize a result.

 

What to do, what to do?

 

WHAT DO?

[JustARandomPanda]

And this is precisely why Libertarians are against Big Gov/Banking/NW0 seeking global control and want to keep power decentralized to preserve individual sovereignty/liberty instead. Big Gov is generally inefficient at best and possibly downright sinister at worst.Whereas liberals somehow still tend to view Big Gov as a paternalistic,

 

Well I think anyone who thinks it through wouldn't disagree with that. Big Gov isn't an answer I'm in favor of so I am right with you there. But I also want to seek balance on the other side of the equation...start breaking up the power of corporations too. Especially the very largest.

 

In any case a Collective is a Collective and holds rank and power as a Collective within society no matter whether you call that Collective Big Government, Big Corporation, Big Military, Big Finance...whatever. If only Right Leaning Libertarians would see many they label in the Middle and Left as 'the enemy' aren't really their enemies after all we could accomplish so much more.

 

 

benevolent, manmade substitute for God (that they angrily don't believe in)... :lol:To entranced liberals, Obama was the heroic, first Black POTUS instantly worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize and the polar opposite of neocon Bush. To Libertarians, he is just another manufactured, teleprompted reality star in a long line of handstrung puppets. For example, a mere minute of Googling will reveal how Brzezinski also just "happens" to be his main mentor..

 

Well...to be fair many on the Left were just as incredulous and critical of Obama winning the Nobel as those on the Right. As I said before I don't think there are as many differences between us as you might at first think. You're starting to sound like a Closet Anarchist, Vortex.

[JustARandomPanda]

Twinner, your concept of Anarchy as described sounds pretty well Libertarian. Since when is Anarchy in favor of a government? Or did Progressives change the definition of Anarchy since I last checked, like they do with any word they redefine (a la corrupt-a-wish) or stigmatize?

 

There was no change in definition of Anarchism. There have always been different strains. These differences go back to the beginning when Anarchist thought was first starting to come together as an identifiable philosophy.

 

From Wikipedia

 

There are many types and traditions of anarchism, not all of which are mutually exclusive.^[13] Anarchist schools of thought can differ fundamentally, supporting anything from extreme individualism to complete collectivism.^[2] Strains of anarchism have been divided into the categories of social and individualist anarchism or similar dual classifications.^[14][15] Anarchism is often considered to be a radical left-wing ideology,^[16][17] and much of anarchist economics and anarchist legal philosophy reflect anti-statist interpretations of communism, collectivism, syndicalism or participatory economics. However, anarchism has always included an individualist strain supporting a market economy and private property, or morally unrestrained egoism.^[18][19][20] Some individualist anarchists are also socialists or communists while some anarcho-communists are also individualists or egoists^[21][22] while some anarcho-communists are also individualists.^[23][24]

 

Anarchism as a social movement has regularly endured fluctuations in popularity. The central tendency of anarchism as a mass social movement has been represented by anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with individualist anarchism being primarily a literary phenomenon^[25] which nevertheless did have an impact on the bigger currents^[26] and individualists also participated in large anarchist organizations.^[27][28] Most anarchists oppose all forms of aggression, supporting self-defense or non-violence (anarcho-pacifism),^[29][30] while others have supported the use of some coercive measures, including violent revolution and propaganda of the deed, on the path to an anarchist society.^[31]

 

 

 

 

So based on Twinner's recommendations in this thread he is an Anarcho-Pacifist (note his stating Thoreau heavily influenced him). Hence his continual urging that we all need to focus on PEACEFUL means of creating change in the world. Speaking only for myself it would not be wise to dismiss this stance out of hand before first seeking to understand exactly what persuaded him to this line of thinking. People usually don't believe something 'just because'. There are always reasons - usually justifiable reasons in their mind.

[Encephalon]

We are [all] so disconnected from each other, in spite of the internet that unites us, that we cannot come together and organize any semblance of a solution to our inevitably grim forecast.

 

We all have our own sources of "truth" and yet none of us can agree on any one truth we each present. HOW, then, can we form a solution, without unison of organized effort?

 

 

This is troubling, that we would rather sit and argue over semantics than step outside and organize a result.

 

What to do, what to do?

 

WHAT DO?

 

I think the unitive effect of the internet is vastly overstated but that's another subject.

The question you pose - What to do? - is an important one, and it's the same question that's been asked for decades. The only problem is that we've skipped an essential question that needs to be asked first, and that is, "What's the problem?"

 

Seriously, just an exercise. You're beamed aboard an alien spacecraft and interrogated on the conditions of your home planet. Your safety and security depend on the depth, breadth, and rationality of your answer. They will harvest your brain and serve it on Ritz Crackers if you don't comply. What are you going to tell them? What's the scoop on Planet Earth?

 

Warning: Reckless answers can make you appear stupider than in real life. Answers that are conceived through the prism of American partisan politics, such as "If only the liberals (conservatives, progressives, fascists, blah blah blah) did blah blah blah..." indicate that your mental universe can fit inside an empty can of roasted peanuts, so please don't hazard an opinion. Answers based on the surreptitious machinations of the Illuminati, or the deleterious effects of environmental carbonic acid on the pineal gland should also be kept under your hat.

 

(Not to micromanage the outcome, but your high school biology teacher may have already shared it with you!)

Edited October 14, 2011 by Encephalon

[Birch]

Convincing has nothing to do with it. It's a rediculous idea. There isn't enough arable land, water, and animal resources to support all those people, assuming that they all woke up the following morning with fishing/hunting skills, animal husbandry and agricultural skills at their disposal.

 

An economic contraction is inevitable - anyone who can't see it isn't paying attention. This includes almost all of our elected officials and captains of industry, except for those who do know and have chosen to keep quiet because they haven't figured out how to divulge the bad news without precipitating a social calamity.

 

If we had the courage to truly accept our condition rather than bullshit ourselves with fantasies about how to "get the economy going again," we would see three very viable choices (I'm quoting the leaders in the human ecology, urban geography field): rebuild the American railroad system, not with bullet trains, but standard diesel electric engines; retool the urban environments and make cities less auto-dependent; and encourage small scale, non-petroleum based agriculture in greenbelts around the cities. Anyone who thinks, as do plenty on this board, that the aberration on one of Jupiter's moons is actually a spacecraft of a benevolent alien culture gearing up to save us actually deserves what they get; waking up to world where trucks don't deliver food to Safeway anymore, light switches that don't work, toilets that don't flush. Unfortunately, barring some major breakthrough in harnessing solar power (all that's left) this is the fate of our consumer culture.

 

 

"Anyone who thinks, as do plenty on this board, that the aberration on one of Jupiter's moons is actually a spacecraft of a benevolent alien culture gearing up to save us actually deserves what they get"

 

I don't know if they believe as much as they hope for it. IMO it's just (another) messianic transposition. And I don't even know if they 'deserve' it or not. Might they just have a specific type of blinder on? Kind of like the 'all's well in the free market' mantra (note I'm not against free markets but I don't think I even have an example of one).

 

Can you really fault people for being wrong? I suppose you can. Can you fault them for believing what they've been spoon fed? I suppose you can. I dunno, it seems to me to be a tricky question.

[Encephalon]

"Anyone who thinks, as do plenty on this board, that the aberration on one of Jupiter's moons is actually a spacecraft of a benevolent alien culture gearing up to save us actually deserves what they get"

 

I don't know if they believe as much as they hope for it. IMO it's just (another) messianic transposition. And I don't even know if they 'deserve' it or not. Might they just have a specific type of blinder on? Kind of like the 'all's well in the free market' mantra (note I'm not against free markets but I don't think I even have an example of one).

 

Can you really fault people for being wrong? I suppose you can. Can you fault them for believing what they've been spoon fed? I suppose you can. I dunno, it seems to me to be a tricky question.

 

I actually tried to answer that question in my graduate studies by examining the effect that $250 billion a year of worth commercial advertising (just in the U.S)can have on public opinion, and the results aren't surprising; that money gets spent because it works. To all those abroad who shout slogans about the Ugly American I say that we've been targeted with commercial advertising for at least 80 years, and intensely aggressive electronic media, including political propaganda for 60 years, and I would challenge any culture to withstand that kind of bombardment without negative effects, such as the acquiesence, unquestioning obedience to authority, conformity and intolerance of dissent that characterizes the American public.

 

Butt....

 

willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism is practiced like a favorite pastime in this country, so I believe the line of culpability cannot be chiseled in stone but maybe sketched out in sand.

[Desert Eagle]

There isn't enough arable land, water, and animal resources to support all those people

 

 

Here is the presentation file for clarity.

 

Here is an article about the presentation.

[Birch]

I actually tried to answer that question in my graduate studies by examining the effect that $250 billion a year of worth commercial advertising (just in the U.S)can have on public opinion, and the results aren't surprising; that money gets spent because it works. To all those abroad who shout slogans about the Ugly American I say that we've been targeted with commercial advertising for at least 80 years, and intensely aggressive electronic media, including political propaganda for 60 years, and I would challenge any culture to withstand that kind of bombardment without negative effects, such as the acquiesence, unquestioning obedience to authority, conformity and intolerance of dissent that characterizes the American public.

 

Butt....

 

willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism is practiced like a favorite pastime in this country, so I believe the line of culpability cannot be chiseled in stone but maybe sketched out in sand.

 

 

Well the 'willfull' part is really the part I'd like to get to. If, as you say, all that sh*t has been going down for over half a century then yeah, maybe a very faint line. But it's freakin fainter by now.

 

 

SB, my media posts are *serious* with respect to Global Issues, I just happen to have a different take on many things. I feel like adding another one.

 

 

What is produced 'art-side' ought not to be neglected in understanding IME/IMO

 

The Zeff-Side folks were tongue in cheek. Maybe the Young Joc video was, I dunno. Colbert is tongue in cheek. The Office - well.

 

But why is any of this funny?

 

At various points in cultivation, 'laughing at it all' is mentioned. I'm curious about that.

 

Edit: more Zeff-Side on my PPF

Edited October 14, 2011 by -K-

[JustARandomPanda]

And to get back to the Occupy Wall Street I present an Op Ed link

 

 

I cut out a big chunk of the Op Ed but here's some of it

 

 

In a tribute to the ingenuity of capitalism, the pizzeria quickly added a new item to its menu: the "OccuPie special."

 

Where the movement falters is in its demands: It doesn't really have any. The participants pursue causes that are sometimes quixotic — like the protester who calls for removing Andrew Jackson from the $20 bill because of his brutality to American Indians. So let me try to help.

 

I don't share the antimarket sentiments of many of the protesters. Banks are invaluable institutions that, when functioning properly, move capital to its best use and raise living standards. But it's also true that soaring leverage not only nurtured soaring bank profits in good years, but also soaring risks for the public in bad years.

 

In effect, the banks socialized risk and privatized profits. Securitizing mortgages, for example, made many bankers wealthy while ultimately leaving governments indebted and citizens homeless.

 

We've seen that inadequately regulated, too-big-to-fail banks can undermine the public interest rather than serve it — and in the last few years, banks got away with murder. It's infuriating to see bankers who were rescued by taxpayers now moan about regulations intended to prevent the next bail-out. And it's important that protesters spotlight rising inequality: does it feel right to anyone that the top 1 percent of Americans now possess a greater collective net worth than the entire bottom 90 percent?

 

So for those who want to channel their amorphous frustration into practical demands, here are several specific suggestions:

 

¶Impose a financial transactions tax. This would be a modest tax on financial trades, modeled on the suggestions of James Tobin, an American economist who won a Nobel Prize. The aim is in part to dampen speculative trading that creates dangerous volatility. Europe is moving toward a financial transactions tax, but the Obama administration is resisting — a reflection of its deference to Wall Street.

 

¶Close the "carried interest" and "founders' stock" loopholes, which may be the most unconscionable tax breaks in America. They allow our wealthiest citizens to pay very low tax rates by pretending that their labor compensation is a capital gain.

 

¶Protect big banks from themselves. This means moving ahead with Basel III capital requirements and adopting the Volcker Rule to limit banks' ability to engage in risky and speculative investments. Another sensible proposal, embraced by President Obama and a number of international experts, is the bank tax. This could be based on an institution's size and leverage, so that bankers could pay for their cleanups — the finance equivalent of a pollution tax.

 

Much of the sloganeering at "Occupy Wall Street" is pretty silly — but so is the self-righteous sloganeering of Wall Street itself. And if a ragtag band of youthful protesters can help bring a dose of accountability and equity to our financial system, more power to them.

[ralis]

[Aaron]

There was no change in definition of Anarchism. There have always been different strains. These differences go back to the beginning when Anarchist thought was first starting to come together as an identifiable philosophy.

 

From Wikipedia

 

 

 

 

 

 

So based on Twinner's recommendations in this thread he is an Anarcho-Pacifist (note his stating Thoreau heavily influenced him). Hence his continual urging that we all need to focus on PEACEFUL means of creating change in the world. Speaking only for myself it would not be wise to dismiss this stance out of hand before first seeking to understand exactly what persuaded him to this line of thinking. People usually don't believe something 'just because'. There are always reasons - usually justifiable reasons in their mind.

 

 

Hello Serene Blue,

 

Thank you for coming to my defense. I think many people have this idea that anarchism means that there are no rules or morality or any kind of policing of people at all, but anyone that lives in the real world obviously understands that there will always be certain people who don't fit into a select society, whether it be a rapist, pedophile, or sociopaths. In fact when people think of anarchists, more often than not, what springs to mind is a sociopath who wants a world where he can be free to exact his sociopathology on others, but that's not true at all. Most Anarchists that I've met over the years abhor violence and if they advocate the use of violence, more often than not, it's because they see no other way to bring about freedom. I don't see it that way, nor have I ever seen it this way.

 

From my experience in meditation and also listening to what other wise men have said, I have come to believe that the only lasting change that evolves is a change of the heart that occurs willingly and gladly. People do not change by force, it merely pacifies them for a time and when they feel they can act again, they do just that. So in my mind a true revolution does not come from changing others, but changing the way we behave and interact with others in a way that encourages them to change. I am not a complete pacifist mind you, I do not advocate sitting still while an army mows down your family, but I do advocate behaving as peacefully as one can. Treat each other with kindness and compassion. You need not love someone to be kind to them, you merely have to behave in a way that benefits them and you. That is the point of compassion that confused me for some time but is now becoming very clear to me.

 

In regards to government, society is so large now that there seems to be little chance that we can survive without some form of government to manage things, but in my view, if there is any kind of government at all it's purpose is not to enforce and create laws or oppress people for personal gain, but rather to ensure that people are free to live their life the way they choose to live it. Democracy is fine and dandy if it works, but the problem is that it easily corruptible by those who gain influence within it. A true government should have no held positions, no paid positions, it should be a voluntary position that one does while still earning their own income. One should have no special benefits for a government position, no pay, parking spot, or private office. There should be no taxes or social programs, because these are used as ways to control the people that use them, rather people should help others as they see fit. Private groups would provide support for the hungry and housing for the homeless. I have no doubt that this help would arise and that there would be no need for any kind of intervention to provide these services in a true Anarchist community.

 

A community should be able to choose its own governance, even if that community chooses specific laws that might be oppressive in another's view. The key here is that these laws only pertain to that community and not all communities. Government's purpose would be to ensure that each community is free to behave as they choose and no one is forced to stay within a community if they choose not to. My only reason for advocating a governing body at all is because I understand that with the varied religions that exist there would inevitably be groups that would desire to exert influence on others and something needs to be put in place to check that influence.

 

There would be no requirement to share one's wealth with others, rather the basis would be that people would be allowed to live as they choose. There would still be wealthy and poor, the difference is that no one would be required to be wealthy or poor, that if one society was oppressive then people from that society could freely leave and join another.

 

How is this different from the world we live in one might ask? Well simply put, there is no free society on the face of the earth right now. Every society that we live in places their own moral and economic agenda before the welfare of its people. In society today the wealthy do have absolute control over the poor and in an Anarchist society this wouldn't happen, because it could not happen unless the majority agreed. There would be no required laws that said people would work the fields without having enough to eat or that people could not marry because they were of different sexes or that a man could not refuse the religion of their father without fear of death. There would be no military or police that's purpose was to oppress people and define how they behave. There would be options for all of this. The only thing the government would do is ensure that people retained their freedoms.

 

In my own perfect society there would be no laws at all except simply that one could not harm another person, other than that, each person should be able to do whatever they want. If you choose to smoke crack, then smoke crack. If you choose to walk around in your underwear, then walk around in your underwear. So long as you aren't harming anyone else, then so be it. Everyone should be able to be who they want to be without someone dictating what that should be. Children would not be taught to be faithful to their government, because there would be no government, but rather faithful to themselves. They would be taught to respect themselves and each other and the value of freedom. They would be taught the past and the reasons why we needed to change the way lived.

 

I know it sounds strange, but I know that it is the basis for which mankind is meant to exist. Man was never meant to be yoked and bowed, rather it was meant to express itself and live as it chooses to live.

 

Anyways, I hope everyone is having a good night. I have an chalezium on my right eyelid right now, so I'm trying to deal with that and I probably wont be on much over the course of the next few days.

 

Aaron

[Birch]

You may like http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation

[JustARandomPanda]

From my experience in meditation and also listening to what other wise men have said, I have come to believe that the only lasting change that evolves is a change of the heart that occurs willingly and gladly. People do not change by force, it merely pacifies them for a time and when they feel they can act again, they do just that.

 

Ok. Now that you have explained it better I finally understand where you are coming from and I would say I agree. Mainly because I believe there are certain "higher laws of nature" which we tap into when we act in the manner you describe. It's part of why I think we are all here at Taobums too. That higher law of nature gets expressed and realized in many different ways. So we have threads on assorted Inner Alchemy practices, Heartmind, Meditation, etc.

 

 

A true government should have no held positions, no paid positions, it should be a voluntary position that one does while still earning their own income. One should have no special benefits for a government position, no pay, parking spot, or private office. There should be no taxes or social programs, because these are used as ways to control the people that use them, rather people should help others as they see fit. Private groups would provide support for the hungry and housing for the homeless. I have no doubt that this help would arise and that there would be no need for any kind of intervention to provide these services in a true Anarchist community.

 

OMG! I actually LIKE this. *makes mental note to read Civil Disobedience next*

 

 

My one concern I wonder about is if the help you describe would be forthcoming in enough 'amount' or 'quantity' to cover the need. However, I understand that you are sketching out the outlines of an ideal society and not describing today's with their current distortions.

 

 

A community should be able to choose its own governance, even if that community chooses specific laws that might be oppressive in another's view. The key here is that these laws only pertain to that community and not all communities. Government's purpose would be to ensure that each community is free to behave as they choose and no one is forced to stay within a community if they choose not to. My only reason for advocating a governing body at all is because I understand that with the varied religions that exist there would inevitably be groups that would desire to exert influence on others and something needs to be put in place to check that influence.

 

There would be no requirement to share one's wealth with others, rather the basis would be that people would be allowed to live as they choose. There would still be wealthy and poor, the difference is that no one would be required to be wealthy or poor, that if one society was oppressive then people from that society could freely leave and join another.

 

How is this different from the world we live in one might ask? Well simply put, there is no free society on the face of the earth right now. Every society that we live in places their own moral and economic agenda before the welfare of its people. In society today the wealthy do have absolute control over the poor and in an Anarchist society this wouldn't happen, because it could not happen unless the majority agreed. There would be no required laws that said people would work the fields without having enough to eat or that people could not marry because they were of different sexes or that a man could not refuse the religion of their father without fear of death. There would be no military or police that's purpose was to oppress people and define how they behave. There would be options for all of this. The only thing the government would do is ensure that people retained their freedoms.

 

In my own perfect society there would be no laws at all except simply that one could not harm another person, other than that, each person should be able to do whatever they want. If you choose to smoke crack, then smoke crack. If you choose to walk around in your underwear, then walk around in your underwear. So long as you aren't harming anyone else, then so be it. Everyone should be able to be who they want to be without someone dictating what that should be. Children would not be taught to be faithful to their government, because there would be no government, but rather faithful to themselves. They would be taught to respect themselves and each other and the value of freedom. They would be taught the past and the reasons why we needed to change the way lived.

 

Having read the above I seriously encourage you to read Max Stirner if you haven't already. I really think you would like his treatise a lot. Also check out Eisenstein. He is putting forth economic proposals that could help us get from 'here' to 'there' in such anarchist societies. Wow. I REALLY like these ideas.

 

Anyways, I hope everyone is having a good night. I have an chalezium on my right eyelid right now, so I'm trying to deal with that and I probably wont be on much over the course of the next few days.

 

Thank you for explaining it better. You have given me many new things to seriously consider. Wow. Now I see why Thoreau almost single-handedly spawned his own branch of Anarchism!

 

 

Cheers and goodnight.

[JustARandomPanda]

I actually tried to answer that question in my graduate studies by examining the effect that $250 billion a year of worth commercial advertising (just in the U.S)can have on public opinion, and the results aren't surprising; that money gets spent because it works. To all those abroad who shout slogans about the Ugly American I say that we've been targeted with commercial advertising for at least 80 years, and intensely aggressive electronic media, including political propaganda for 60 years, and I would challenge any culture to withstand that kind of bombardment without negative effects, such as the acquiesence, unquestioning obedience to authority, conformity and intolerance of dissent that characterizes the American public.

 

Very, very true. I used to live in Germany for a while. I was so shocked. This must have been the way the U.S. was back in the 40s. Quiet. When public places still felt truly public. Back before the "monetize everything" mentality started to go viral in the U.S. No constant jingles, no freakin ads plastered all over creation (god don't even get me STARTED about the frickin ADS in many public restrooms. Man...you can't even take a dump in America without a damn AD staring you in the face.). There is almost nowhere left in America outside the home that isn't plastered with god damn ads, marketing PR, propaganda and spin doctoring of some sort everywhere you turn. People from other countries who haven't visited here often don't understand how rampant it really has become.

 

 

Butt....

 

willful ignorance and anti-intellectualism is practiced like a favorite pastime in this country, so I believe the line of culpability cannot be chiseled in stone but maybe sketched out in sand.

 

LOL! This is also true. As is the popular image abroad about how Parochial Americans are that is sadly all too true as well.

[joeblast]

Hello Serene Blue,

 

Thank you for coming to my defense. I think many people have this idea that anarchism means that there are no rules or morality or any kind of policing of people at all, but anyone that lives in the real world obviously understands that there will always be certain people who don't fit into a select society, whether it be a rapist, pedophile, or sociopaths. In fact when people think of anarchists, more often than not, what springs to mind is a sociopath who wants a world where he can be free to exact his sociopathology on others, but that's not true at all. Most Anarchists that I've met over the years abhor violence and if they advocate the use of violence, more often than not, it's because they see no other way to bring about freedom. I don't see it that way, nor have I ever seen it this way.

 

From my experience in meditation and also listening to what other wise men have said, I have come to believe that the only lasting change that evolves is a change of the heart that occurs willingly and gladly. People do not change by force, it merely pacifies them for a time and when they feel they can act again, they do just that. So in my mind a true revolution does not come from changing others, but changing the way we behave and interact with others in a way that encourages them to change. I am not a complete pacifist mind you, I do not advocate sitting still while an army mows down your family, but I do advocate behaving as peacefully as one can. Treat each other with kindness and compassion. You need not love someone to be kind to them, you merely have to behave in a way that benefits them and you. That is the point of compassion that confused me for some time but is now becoming very clear to me.

 

In regards to government, society is so large now that there seems to be little chance that we can survive without some form of government to manage things, but in my view, if there is any kind of government at all it's purpose is not to enforce and create laws or oppress people for personal gain, but rather to ensure that people are free to live their life the way they choose to live it. Democracy is fine and dandy if it works, but the problem is that it easily corruptible by those who gain influence within it. A true government should have no held positions, no paid positions, it should be a voluntary position that one does while still earning their own income. One should have no special benefits for a government position, no pay, parking spot, or private office. There should be no taxes or social programs, because these are used as ways to control the people that use them, rather people should help others as they see fit. Private groups would provide support for the hungry and housing for the homeless. I have no doubt that this help would arise and that there would be no need for any kind of intervention to provide these services in a true Anarchist community.

 

A community should be able to choose its own governance, even if that community chooses specific laws that might be oppressive in another's view. The key here is that these laws only pertain to that community and not all communities. Government's purpose would be to ensure that each community is free to behave as they choose and no one is forced to stay within a community if they choose not to. My only reason for advocating a governing body at all is because I understand that with the varied religions that exist there would inevitably be groups that would desire to exert influence on others and something needs to be put in place to check that influence.

 

There would be no requirement to share one's wealth with others, rather the basis would be that people would be allowed to live as they choose. There would still be wealthy and poor, the difference is that no one would be required to be wealthy or poor, that if one society was oppressive then people from that society could freely leave and join another.

 

How is this different from the world we live in one might ask? Well simply put, there is no free society on the face of the earth right now. Every society that we live in places their own moral and economic agenda before the welfare of its people. In society today the wealthy do have absolute control over the poor and in an Anarchist society this wouldn't happen, because it could not happen unless the majority agreed. There would be no required laws that said people would work the fields without having enough to eat or that people could not marry because they were of different sexes or that a man could not refuse the religion of their father without fear of death. There would be no military or police that's purpose was to oppress people and define how they behave. There would be options for all of this. The only thing the government would do is ensure that people retained their freedoms.

 

In my own perfect society there would be no laws at all except simply that one could not harm another person, other than that, each person should be able to do whatever they want. If you choose to smoke crack, then smoke crack. If you choose to walk around in your underwear, then walk around in your underwear. So long as you aren't harming anyone else, then so be it. Everyone should be able to be who they want to be without someone dictating what that should be. Children would not be taught to be faithful to their government, because there would be no government, but rather faithful to themselves. They would be taught to respect themselves and each other and the value of freedom. They would be taught the past and the reasons why we needed to change the way lived.

 

I know it sounds strange, but I know that it is the basis for which mankind is meant to exist. Man was never meant to be yoked and bowed, rather it was meant to express itself and live as it chooses to live.

 

Anyways, I hope everyone is having a good night. I have an chalezium on my right eyelid right now, so I'm trying to deal with that and I probably wont be on much over the course of the next few days.

 

Aaron

Its a fallacy to asset that the rich have complete control over the poor.

 

Your 'Anarchy' still sounds relatively like my libertarian-conservativism, except with even less government

 

The hole in your point is the conflict of 1) caring for people's wellbeing with 2) no social programs! How's that going to work? I agree social programs are vastly overused and often merely used to steer money whichever way the legislator feels it will do him best, but this is the mechanism by which the sick and infirm are taken care of - I dont see that really getting reconciled in your paradigm without...basically taking it even closer to "libertarian."

 

 

 

 

SB...from that quote in 336 - speculation creates volatility??? ass backwards!!! volatility creates the speculation!!!

[Desert Eagle]

Every thing secret degenerates, even the administration of justice; nothing is safe that does not show how it can bear discussion and publicity. -- Lord Acton

 

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. -- Lord Acton

 

 

"The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the people versus the banks." -Lord Acton

 

[ralis]

http://www.thelocal.se/36648/20111010/#

 

 

 

 

 

That is why I am calling OWS misguided and immature. You talk of propaganda, well, everyone's labeling anything they dont like Propaganda these days. So I'm incorrect in asserting that these people need to get a clue when the goal of some of them is basically overthrowing the government? Misinformation coopted by Anarchists and leftists to latch on to manufactured anger at Wall St, passing any sort of blame on the legislative root causes of the vast majority of this "suffering" is most certainly propaganda in my book.

 

 

Seems like you are not interested in the part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees the right to assemble and air out grievances as well as free speech! I thought you were a supporter of the U.S. Constitution. Further, to call this movement immature is misguided on your part. Were the civil rights marches in the 60's misguided and immature by your way of thinking?

 

When I label manipulative rhetoric as propaganda, I know exactly what I am talking about and I just don't use that term in a general and frivolous manner.

 

So I'm incorrect in asserting that these people need to get a clue when the goal of some of them is basically overthrowing the government?

 

You are blaming the entire movement for the wishes of the few and therefor the entire movement is misguided because of the wishes of the few? Seems like a logical fallacy Joe! If I understand the Libertarian and Tea Bagger movements correctly, the main goal is to overthrow the parts of the government that Ron Paul et al, have deemed unconstitutional. That ideology is in opposition to jurisprudence, U.S. Constitutional law, and various court rulings since the founding of this country. Further, it is a fact that the POTUS is not some dictator that can impose whatever he/she wishes. The founders of this country were wise in that three branches of government were formed so as to prevent any attempt to establish a monarchy.

[JustARandomPanda]

Twinner was describing a spiritually evolved society (and thus economy). Obviously, until the heavy mass of people get to this state of evolution on this planet it would be hard to implement these ideas on all but the very smallest and most local of scales.

 

I don't agree with his assessment that OWS is trite and doomed to failure and that OWS is creating terror but we all have our own opinions. It just is what it is.

 

As for speculation, it's a dynamic loop. Does the speculation create volatility or does volatility create speculation? Well in a loop it's both. There is volatility naturally in many systems including in stock prices but pure speculation feeds even more energy into the system that otherwise would be directed elsewhere - thus making deep swings even deeper.

 

 

-K- Thanks for the vids. I'm still not as advanced as most folks in this thread when it comes to cultivation. I do wish something would go viral as to cultivation. Maybe if it became the Next Big Thing we might start seeing some interesting changes come about that wouldn't before.

 

 

**********

 

Here's a vid for everyone's consideration. It's just a little under 1 hour. Take note of her expertise.

 

Distinguished law scholar Elizabeth Warren teaches contract law, bankruptcy, and commercial law at Harvard Law School. She is an outspoken critic of America's credit economy, which she has linked to the continuing rise in bankruptcy among the middle-class.

 

 

 

 

***edit***

 

One interesting little known thing - more children in any given year will live through their family filing for bankruptcy than will children in any given year live through their parents divorcing. My jaw hit the floor when I heard that. That is a shit load of bankruptcies going on.

Edited October 14, 2011 by SereneBlue

[Birch]

You may like

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vH4idCfj2x0&feature=related

[Encephalon]

Twinner was describing a spiritually evolved society (and thus economy). Obviously, until the heavy mass of people get to this state of evolution on this planet it would be hard to implement these ideas on all but the very smallest and most local of scales.

 

That may have been the message of his concluding remarks but he began his political screed by labeling the protesters as spiritual infants for exercising their constitutionally protected and time-honored right to non-violent assembly and civil disobedience, acts which have traditionally been regarded as enlightened behavior by the public in response to oppressive and corrupt regimes. This is the inevitable result of the compartmentalization of ideas. This is just one area in which Taoism offers a rectification.

 

Ironically, the collapse of petroleum-fueled industrial consumerism will necessitate the very skills and social relations that facilitate what I believe people are trying to describe as anarcho-syndicalism, which basically small-scale worker ownership of the means of production and the end of wave slavery. Once food-production becomes the most important industry, a great deal of psychological pettiness, fussiness, and flamboyant expressions of egocentrism that have been encouraged by consumerism will simply wither and reveal a more humble and mature spirituality.

 

It's interesting that Aristotle once said that a city of over 100,000 people would be unmanageable, simply because there are too many private interests to reconcile, but human ecologists who study future models of sustainability imagine cities of 30,000 surrounded by greenbelts and adequate water sources as the ideal scale.

[JustARandomPanda]

Something to think about.

 

Worth going through all 6 vids for that sole person out there who will bother to watch.

 

David Harvey's

 

The Enigma of Capital

 

 

[Aaron]

That may have been the message of his concluding remarks but he began his political screed by labeling the protesters as spiritual infants for exercising their constitutionally protected and time-honored right to non-violent assembly and civil disobedience, acts which have traditionally been regarded as enlightened behavior by the public in response to oppressive and corrupt regimes. This is the inevitable result of the compartmentalization of ideas. This is just one area in which Taoism offers a rectification.

 

Ironically, the collapse of petroleum-fueled industrial consumerism will necessitate the very skills and social relations that facilitate what I believe people are trying to describe as anarcho-syndicalism, which basically small-scale worker ownership of the means of production and the end of wave slavery. Once food-production becomes the most important industry, a great deal of psychological pettiness, fussiness, and flamboyant expressions of egocentrism that have been encouraged by consumerism will simply wither and reveal a more humble and mature spirituality.

 

It's interesting that Aristotle once said that a city of over 100,000 people would be unmanageable, simply because there are too many private interests to reconcile, but human ecologists who study future models of sustainability imagine cities of 30,000 surrounded by greenbelts and adequate water sources as the ideal scale.

 

Hello Blasto,

 

I could've said they were gurus and I think you would've still had a problem. To clarify your misleading statement, I never once called them spiritual infants, nor did I insinuate there is such a thing, rather I said that what they were doing would not result in any long term lasting change. I also stated that many weren't even aware of what they were protesting. My main point was (and is) that the only lasting change comes from someone willingly changing, that any other change is only short term, because the person or people involved will only remain "changed" for so long as they are forced to change.

 

The protesters have every right to protest and I am quite happy they've chosen to have a peaceful protest, but what they are doing is not actually defined as civil disobedience, because they will go home and pay their taxes and continue to invest and do all the things they seem to have a problem with. Just wanted to clarify that point.

 

In closing, I can see that you are making an effort to change your ways in regards to conversing with other. There is still room for improvement, but I do see you are trying, so thanks.

 

I hope life is treating you well.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Keep in mind that the comment I made that led to this conversation actually had very little to do with the protest on Wall St and more to do with my own views on what it would take for change to actually occur.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Twinner

[joeblast]

As for speculation, it's a dynamic loop. Does the speculation create volatility or does volatility create speculation? Well in a loop it's both. There is volatility naturally in many systems including in stock prices but pure speculation feeds even more energy into the system that otherwise would be directed elsewhere - thus making deep swings even deeper.

Of course its a dynamic loop Put it in a logical framework: a stable product-market has no need for speculation - it simply isnt profitable. A volatile market creates the space for it to do its job. But your assertion that speculation makes the swings larger is entirely incorrect, because the entire function of futures is to shield the consumer from those large swings. It does not entirely eliminate swings, it just lessens the amplitude. Any other way simply makes no sense!

 

If we're talking oil, and I already described this mechanism, oil is expensive to store, and if you buy a bunch of it and bet that the price goes high and it doesnt, you lose a bunch of money, because somebody else is going to be selling it for less then you are since just about anybody with some cash can buy into oil futures. Are you somehow insinuating that such an open-ended market is somehow all in collusion with one another? That's about as believable as the 9-11 attacks being coordinated by the US gov and somehow thousands would have kept that knowledge secret while it all happened is just preposterous.

 

Do all of these investors somehow have inside knowledge of the next steps of OPEC?

 

It just doesnt even come close to adding up when you analyze and understand the mechanism - yet claims are contrary...for what, what does it accomplish? Demonizing anyone and anything that has to do with oil.

 

 

 

------------------

 

 

there you go with your pinhole context again Ralis - free speech? did these people get their permit like they are supposed to, like every tea party assembly has done, follow the local laws and get their permit? nope, they showed up and walked all over property, some of it private, none of which they gave two shits about. all I have to say is how would a tea party get treated if they acted this way? yeah, that's what I thought.

 

who's tamping down their free speech? nobody's silencing them, I'm just pointing out the general tone of lawlessness - looks like their mothers forgot to teach them the word "respect." theirs aint the only ones I'm sure.

 

that overthrow the government was from one of the organizers of the new york event, dude there's no shortage of those types there. I didnt ascribe that to everyone, but as usual you have little problem putting your interpretations in my mouth!

 

last time I'm replying to you in this thread, I already said I'm done wasting my time here, and that was an explicit reference to reading and replying to your posts here.

[thelerner]

I wouldn't say stunned since most people were aware he had cancer and received transplants etc. More saddened. Why don't we mourn more for the dying children?

 

Cause it doesn't do them any good. Not a whit. It may make mourner feel better, release some endorphins maybe, but it changes nothing, absolutely nothing.

 

I'd suggest no outrage, no mourning, no telling people what they should or shouldn't do, just help, even if its in some small way.

 

I highly recommend Heifer.org Giving a family a flock of chickens and they have food, and income, and hopefully other chickens to share with the community. Its going to differ with each community but real lasting change has to come from within, but maybe we can supply raw materials that help.