[pp.int.general] What's the minimal set of axioms for piratic ideology?

[carlo von lynX]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:02:05AM +0100, Thijs Markus wrote:
> Very well - I will write less concise.

Great.

> 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.

I am sorry to see you didn't notice me pointing out that the
participation in democracies could be improved, thus the rest
of your logical assumptions no longer stands.

> 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)

Several of the challenges listed on Richard's wonderful
https://stallman.org/articles/why-we-need-a-state.html page
cannot be met with a small scale approach.

> 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)

Only legislation can provide incentive for people to feel good about
themselves and only procreate as much as they truly like. In a situation
of global anarchy humanity continues to grow in number without anything
to stop it but the limits of planetary resources. Therefore, on a global
scale, anarchy (unwittingly) leads to famine, poverty and war. The 
problem is that currently such legislation only exists for some parts
of the western world, by which those countries are ironically having
a procreation problem.

> You ignore my point that the state can not be more than an exercise of
> collective will, thereby overriding my individual freedom to desire

Oh, you are turning the bug of inability to integrate with society into
a feature? Sorry, that is just egocentric and antisocial. In reasonable
countries society will take care of you even if you disagree with it,
but we only have one planet and we cannot let each human on it be its
ruler. And the idea that you can rule just "for yourself" is absurd by
the fact that the planet is finite and you are already taking too much
for yourself NOW. What if nobody regulates even that?

> 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
> rights/privileges)

Richard is right. The cognitive manipulation about government being
the source of all evil is working out scaringly well, even among
hackers. Life without a state was feasible hundreds of years ago,
when there wasn't so many of us and we didn't have the technology to
destroy our environment. Now it no longer works. Unless you want to
appeal to some better societal culture, which has failed ever since
that thinking surfaced around 1968. You have to deal with humanity
as it is, not make up some societal models for absurdly well-educated
and caring societies.

> 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
> this balance.

Corruption certainly is not a god example of government, and it is
what we have in most places on Earth today. Add to that some obnoxious
policies like "trickle down" and broken worldwide trade agreements.
But nothing of that is systemic proof that government cannot be done
better (some of us are old enough to remember better government maybe?).

> 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

Eh? Legislation is a very positive tool if the right people are using it.

> - - 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.

You lost me.

> 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.

Congratulations, you have been manipulated by the 0,01%

> That would be my answer to the question as to why the state has always
> failed to guarantee freedom. What's yours?

It's not true. In the 70's many simple people had made it to become
home owners and global inequality between rich and poor was very low.
That was because politicians, scared by the outcome of WW2, for a
short while focused on doing actual good stuff.

Then came Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher to devise an ideology
that within only three decades would create the most unequal period
in human history: now.

The 0,01% have an interest in making you believe you have to fight the
state while the truth is we should be regaining control of the state 
and legislate reasonable redistribution of wealth, by means of a
cumulative universal basic income for example. Anarchy would never
get the wealth back out of the pockets of the plutocrats.

Getting back on topic: looking at the State as an enemy rather than
as a tool to shape societal sustainability on planet Earth is
definitely not an axiom of Pirate ideology. It's simply faulty
thinking. A lazy excuse to enjoy your state-sponsored Western
privileges and limit your political activity to criticizing everything.


-- 
  E-mail is public! Talk to me in private using encryption:
         http://loupsycedyglgamf.onion/LynX/
          irc://loupsycedyglgamf.onion:67/lynX
         https://psyced.org:34443/LynX/