[pp.int.general] What's the minimal set of axioms for piratic ideology?
thijs.markus at piratenpartij.nl
Thu Dec 10 14:42:30 CET 2015
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Op 10/12/2015 om 13:07 schreef carlo von lynX:
> 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
> 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.
Does so, you have not gotten further than calling me maladjusted for a
counter-argument, further down.
>> 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.
And this is where we truly disagree. What kind of sad live one must
life, if one can only feel good about state-approved activities.
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.
I would like to point out that is you who has brought up anarchy,
whereas I have brought up a minimal state. As could be inferred from
the reference to decentralisation, under a federal model.
>> 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?
I see you reject the very notion of individualism. Society still has a
large number of repressive tendencies. Just in the realm of sexuality
for example, we have homosexuality, fetishes, so on. Look for example
at how the state helped Turing with his homosexuality. The individual
simply must be protected.
>> 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.
Again, I never said that the government was the source of all evil,
nor did I say we should not protect our collective interest in
maintaining the environment, or that the state could not be used for
this purpose to some extend.
>> 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?).
Power attracts the corruptible.
>> 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.
Really, how would you go about enforcing legislation if not for
threatening fines, imprisonment, so on? The entire point of
legislation is that it isn't a voluntary agreement between the
involved parties, you know.
>> - - 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
> 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
Congratulations, you have proven yourself utterly incapable of
debating. Not only did you forego argumentation in favour of ad
hominems, straw man arguments, and so on. You even went as far as to
proclaim me to be manipulated tool by "the common enemy". Proceeding
to call upon the curtailing of population, and the elimination of that
which lies outside socially accepted bounds. Replace "the 0.01%" with
"international jewry", and all I have to say is: goodbye, Hitler.
To get back on topic: keeping fucks like this out of positions of
political power is most definitely a pirate axiom.
-----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