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

Thijs Markus thijs.markus at piratenpartij.nl
Thu Dec 10 16:05:53 CET 2015

Hash: SHA256

You're probably right, but how should this logic debate be done
according to you? I honestly tried.

Op 10/12/2015 om 15:38 schreef Antonio Garcia:
> Gentlemen,
> No doubt, there is no way in heaven that a staunch individualist
> (be he liberal or anarchist) and a staunch collectivist (be he
> communist or simply horizontalist) are ever going to agree on
> anything on anything basic touching on the core of their beliefs.
> No doubt either, any of the two ideologies might be rationally
> viable if set loose on an otherwise virgin world where it could
> impregnate the whole without encountering opposition.
> Sadly, we do not have the disponibility of such kind of
> laboratories, we have to try to improve the actual situation taking
> into consideration the impact of the experiments that whoever has
> tried anything before us has had on our past world and is still
> influencing our present one.
> Because we have no sterile laboratory to start an experiment
> with... not one single theorethical ideology will fit the present
> job at hand. Pure and unbridled individualism of the limitless kind
> is impossible, and so is also instantaneous egalitarian
> horizontality.
> If only both of you could understand that both individualism and
> horizontalism are compatible if you care to see that what is common
> to both is that you want to survive ;).
> All you need to investigate is which logic within the one is
> threathening and thus incompatible with the other... and understand
> that you can give those extremes up without forfeiting survival.
> There you have the only approach worthy of pirates.
>> To: pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net From:
>> thijs.markus at piratenpartij.nl Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 14:42:30
>> +0100 Subject: Re: [pp.int.general] What's the minimal set of
>> axioms for piratic ideology?
> 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.
>>>> 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.
> 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 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.
> 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.
>> --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus
>> software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>> ____________________________________________________ Pirate
>> Parties International - General Talk 
>> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net 
>> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
> ____________________________________________________ Pirate Parties
> International - General Talk 
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net 
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
Version: GnuPG v2


This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

More information about the pp.international.general mailing list