[pp.int.general] What's the minimal set of axioms for piratic ideology?
otrosmundos at gmail.com
Thu Dec 10 13:49:35 CET 2015
Plas plas plas plas.
I will add...
State should be a regulatory process... Not a controlling one. There
are great diferentes between.
El 10/12/2015 13:06, "carlo von lynX" <lynX at pirate.my.buttharp.org>
> On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:02:05AM +0100, Thijs Markus wrote:
> > 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.
> 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:
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the pp.international.general