[pp.int.general] What's the minimal set of axioms for piratic ideology?
thijs.markus at piratenpartij.nl
Thu Dec 10 00:02:05 CET 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Very well - I will write less concise.
The original proposition in this thread that I responded too is that
the state and freedom are not inherently opposed to one another. This
I endeavoured to disprove. I belief I have done so.
Moving beyond that proposition onto your points, we enter into a far
larger discussion. But very well, lets type a pointless novella on
this mailing list. (I'll use brackets for brevity here and there and
trust you can connect the dots.)
You propose the necessity of large scale organisation; I disagree.
Quite a lot of ailments of modern society could be avoided by moving
to a smaller scale of organisation. (Dunbar's number) (Decentralisation)
While large scale economic operation is often more efficient,
efficiency is no longer a necessity, given that we can easily get away
with half the population shovelling digits of one sort or another
around and factually producing nothing. (& Centralised automation ->
extremely concentrated means of production)
You ignore my point that the state can not be more than an exercise of
collective will, thereby overriding my individual freedom to desire
something different. It is therefore not an exercise of channelling
the public will, but an exercise of limiting the state's capacity to
exercise the collective will upon the individual. (human
This of course balances out against the given that our collective
interests must also be safeguarded collectively. However, you cannot
expect anything good to come from only recognising the latter part of
Thus we arrive at the central question: to what extend can the state
be used to safeguard our collective interests? And the answer lies, in
my opinion, in that the state only has negative tools at its disposal
- - the means create the end. It can stop things from happening (to some
extend). It can at best use perverse incentives such as poverty,
violence, etc, to make it seem like it has a positive aim.
If the desire is to move society in a positive direction, you do not
need the tools of state. You mostly need them out of your way. After a
few generations of a society revitalised by the adoption of a less
stringent state however, it always grows back to strength.
That would be my answer to the question as to why the state has always
failed to guarantee freedom. What's yours?
Op 09/12/2015 om 22:10 schreef carlo von lynX:
> On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 09:11:58PM +0100, Thijs Markus wrote:
>> The point being, that if you fail to recognise that state and
>> freedom are opposing forces, the state usually wins. Ideologies
>> that have not recognised this were not judged too kindly by
> I don't believe in ideologies and the way you summarize things into
> three lines smells like ideology.
> If practical implementations of the state have frequently failed to
> guarantee freedom, isn't it more useful to ask yourself what went
> wrong? (I know a few things, but I'm not sure you would like to
> And you didn't relate to any of the points I made.
> I like evidence-based thinking as suggested by some of the
> documents that got posted here, but the Pirate movement has rarely
> practiced anything like that. We probably wouldn't be using mailing
> lists if we did.
> ____________________________________________________ Pirate Parties
> International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
More information about the pp.international.general