Statism is Dead

Statism is Dead

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31
Thank Tree22Thanks

This is a discussion on Statism is Dead within the Critical Thinking & Philosophy forums, part of the Topics of Interest category; ...

  1. #1

    Statism is Dead

    YouTube - True News 13: Statism is Dead - Part 3 - The Matrix

    The Matrix is one of the greatest metaphors ever. Machines invented to make human life easier end up enslaving humanity – this is the most common theme in dystopian science fiction.

    Why is this fear so universal – so compelling? Is it because we really believe that our toaster and our notebook will end up as our mechanical overlords?

    Of course not.

    This is not a future that we fear, but a past that we are already living.

    Supposedly, governments were invented to make human life easier and safer, but governments always end up enslaving humanity.

    That which we create to “serve” us ends up ruling us.

    The US government “by and for the people” now imprisons millions, takes half the national income by force, over-regulates, punishes, tortures, slaughters foreigners, invades countries, overthrows governments, imposes 700 imperialistic bases overseas, inflates the currency, and crushes future generations with massive debts.

    That which we create to “serve” us ends up ruling us.

    The problem with the “state as servant” thesis is that it is historically completely false, both empirically and logically.

    The idea that states were voluntarily invented by citizens to enhance their own security is utterly untrue.

    Before governments, in tribal times, human beings could only produce what they consumed -- there was no excess production of food or other resources. Thus, there was no point owning slaves, because the slave could not produce any excess that could be stolen by the master.

    If a horse pulling a plow can only produce enough additional food to feed the horse, there is no point hunting, capturing and breaking in a horse.

    However, when agricultural improvements allowed for the creation of excess crops, suddenly it became highly advantageous to own human beings.

    When cows began to provide excess milk and meat, owning cows became worthwhile.

    The earliest governments and empires were in fact a ruling class of slave hunters, who understood that because human beings could produce more than they consumed, they were worth hunting, capturing, breaking in – and owning.

    The earliest Egyptian and Chinese empires were in reality human farms, where people were hunted, captured, domesticated and owned like any other form of livestock. Due to technological and methodological improvements, the slaves produced enough excess that the labor involved in capturing and keeping them represented only a small subset of their total productivity. The ruling class – the farmers – kept a large portion of that excess, while handing out gifts and payments to the brutalizing class – the police, slave hunters, and general sadists – and the propagandizing class – the priests, intellectuals, and artists.

    This situation continued for thousands of years, until the 16-17th centuries, when again massive improvements in agricultural organization and technology created the second wave of excess productivity. The enclosure movement re-organized and consolidated farmland, resulting in 5-10 times more crops, creating a new class of industrial workers, displaced from the country and huddling in the new cities.

    This enormous agricultural excess was the basis of the capital that drove the industrial revolution.

    The Industrial Revolution did not arise because the ruling class wanted to free their serfs, but rather because they realized how additional “liberties” could make their livestock astoundingly more productive.

    When cows are placed in very confining stalls, they beat their heads against the walls, resulting in injuries and infections. Thus farmers now give them more room -- not because they want to set their cows free, but rather because they want greater productivity and lower costs.


    The next stop after “free range” is not “freedom.”

    The rise of state capitalism in the 19th century was actually the rise of “free range serfdom.”

    Additional liberties were granted to the human livestock not with the goal of setting them free, but rather with the goal of increasing their productivity.

    Of course, intellectuals, artists and priests were – and are – well paid to conceal this reality.

    The great problem of modern human livestock ownership is the challenge of “enthusiasm.”

    State capitalism only works when the entrepreneurial spirit drives creativity and productivity in the economy.

    However, excess productivity always creates a larger state, and swells the ruling classes and their dependents, which eats into the motivation for additional productivity. Taxes and regulations rise, state debt (future farming) increases, and living standards slow and decay.

    Depression and despair began to spread, as the reality of being owned sets in for the general population.

    The solution to this is additional propaganda, antidepressant medications, superstition, wars, moral campaigns of every kind, the creation of “enemies,” the inculcation of patriotism, collective fears, paranoia about “outsiders” and “immigrants,” and so on.

    It is essential to understand the reality of the world.

    When you look at a map of the world, you are not looking at countries, but farms.

    You are allowed certain liberties – limited property ownership, movement rights, freedom of association and occupation – not because your government approves of these rights in principle – since it constantly violates them – but rather because “free range livestock” is so much cheaper to own and so more productive.

    It is important to understand the reality of ideologies.

    State capitalism, socialism, communism, fascism, democracy – these are all livestock management approaches.

    Some work well for long periods – state capitalism – and some work very badly – communism.

    They all fail eventually, because it is immoral and irrational to treat human beings as livestock.

    The recent growth of “freedom” in China, India and Asia is occurring because the local state farmers have upgraded their livestock management practices. They have recognized that putting the cows in a larger stall provides the rulers more milk and meat.

    Rulers have also recognized that if they prevent you from fleeing the farm, you will become depressed, inert and unproductive. A serf is the most productive when he imagines he is free. Thus your rulers must provide you the illusion of freedom in order to harvest you most effectively.

    Thus you are “allowed” to leave – but never to real freedom, only to another farm, because the whole world is a farm. They will prevent you from taking a lot of money, they will bury you in endless paperwork, they will restrict your right to work -- but you are “free” to leave. Due to these difficulties, very few people do leave, but the illusion of mobility is maintained. If only 1 out of 1,000 cows escapes, but the illusion of escaping significantly raises the productivity of the remaining 999, it remains a net gain for the farmer.

    You are also kept on the farm through licensing. The most productive livestock are the professionals, so the rulers fit them with an electronic dog collar called a “license,” which only allows them to practice their trade on their own farm.

    To further create the illusion of freedom, in certain farms, the livestock are allowed to choose between a few farmers that the investors present. At best, they are given minor choices in how they are managed. They are never given the choice to shut down the farm, and be truly free.

    Government schools are indoctrination pens for livestock. They train children to “love” the farm, and to fear true freedom and independence, and to attack anyone who questions the brutal reality of human ownership. Furthermore, they create jobs for the intellectuals that state propaganda so relies on.

    The ridiculous contradictions of statism -- like religion -- can only be sustained through endless propaganda inflicted upon helpless children.

    The idea that democracy and some sort of “social contract” justifies the brutal exercise of violent power over billions is patently ridiculous.

    If you say to a slave that his ancestors “chose” slavery, and therefore he is bound by their decisions, he will simply say:

    “If slavery is a choice, then I choose not to be a slave.”

    This is the most frightening statement for the ruling classes, which is why they train their slaves to attack anyone who dares speak it.

    Statism is not a philosophy.

    Statism does not originate from historical evidence or rational principles.

    Statism is an ex post facto justification for human ownership.

    Statism is an excuse for violence.

    Statism is an ideology, and all ideologies are variations on human livestock management practices.

    Religion is pimped-out superstition, designed to drug children with fears that they will endlessly pay to have “alleviated.”

    Nationalism is pimped-out bigotry, designed to provoke a Stockholm Syndrome in the livestock.

    The opposite of superstition is not another superstition, but the truth.

    The opposite of ideology is not a different ideology, but clear evidence and rational principles.

    The opposite of superstition and ideology – of statism – is philosophy.

    Reason and courage will set us free.

    You do not have to be livestock.

    Take the red pill.

    Wake up.
    Psilo, Just_Some_Guy, Dominguez and 4 others thanked this post.



  2. #2

    You should read the state, by franz Oppenheimer.

  3. #3

    What does it suggest should replace "statism"? Anarchy? Im free to die by the hands of my neighbour because my house looks nice? Yeaaaaaaaaah! ...... No, thanks.

    The thing with radical ideologies such as this is that they're usually unbalanced in that they forget about an important part. We live in a human society. Human societies need rules and government to function properly, anarchy is not a viable solution, because fundamentally, people will set up some kind of code of law between eachother and usually, a hierarchy will be established. Its fundamental human nature. Humans are not radically egoistical in that they forget about game theory and that they will loose out without cooperation. Cooperation is a fundamental aspect of human life. A child depends on its parents to survive the first years of its life, old and sick people depend on the younger ones to provide for them when they arent able to do it for themselves anymore. A human in nature alone is a human that will die alone and without children - a wasted life taken from a biological point of view.
    So where am I going for with that argumentation? Well, what we see today is the rise of more and more complex social systems. I dont really want to lay out the whole history and development, but what we can observe throughout history is not the succession line of more and more complex schemes to enslave eachother, but more and more complex social systems to provide the solutions to problems we're facing when we want to live together in bigger and bigger groups.
    When you have a small group of people, a family for example, personal ties will secure a relatively peaceful life together. When the group grows, you need moral or law codes to set the frame for the social system to function well. This necessarily restricts the freedom of the individual, sometimes against that individuals will. But thats nothing more what personal ties, friendships etc do - restricting your options while you look out to not hurt someone else with what you do.
    The question should not be, if we need governments, rules etc. but how they should look like. The video seems to gear at a removal of all that is governing the social systems we live in. Its based on the thinking that throwing away or removing a problem is the same as solving the problem. Its like, "oh my bike is broken - I should throw it away". Revolution alone is not rational, evolution is. For evolution, you need atleast a vision of what *should* be. Thats what is lacking here.
    martin and Third Engine thanked this post.

  4. #4

    Kicking an excellent thread.

  5. #5

    The real problem with democracies is they tend to vote away their freedoms to the govenrment whenever their security is threatened. Which is ironic considering the general amount of bloodshed in order to create one. Imho, I think libertarian ideology is the solution, not a lack of government. If people are continually focused on limiting government, then even the current government could be repaired, but the real issue is people are being fed the information that causes them to fight against so many different things, like a crusade against Religion, or a crusade against Gay Marriage, and all of these are being used against us as a distraction from the real enemy... the fat cats that reap all the benefits of increasing government power and legislation.

    Democrats and Republicans alike are simply being played off each other to throw all their resources and freedoms into government hands to fight against their supposed ideological enemies when in reality their groups have more similarities with respect to government than differences.

    Unless there is a united front against federal power, nothing will be done. Granted that's really a first step, but if the Federal government was limited to the point where state governments were considered a higher authority as with the previous constitution, people would be more involved in local issues rather than watching federal issues wherein they have much less of an impact as if they were in a Colosseum watching the show as their own cities were rotting. If people were focused on local issues as well as limiting the power and control that government had over their lives, then freedom would be sustainable.

    The real difficulty I see is creating a united libertarian ideology and maintaining it in the face of our proverbial human farmers.
    screamofconscious and fafyrd thanked this post.

  6. #6

    Great video. It certainly draws attention to some flaws that are generally ignored. My concern is that it complains without offering a solution. It also takes a decidedly pessimistic angle that completely ignores all of the innate, social, human desires. Although we may be imprisoned by our farmer overlords, do we not seek the same ends through compassion? The overlord may have laws to keep the livestock in check, but does not the compassion of the livestock also seek identical laws for their own safety? I think this takes a two-sided issue and pretty much eliminates the positive side. There are certainly problems with our world, but pessimistically isolating the bad without offering a solution doesn’t seem to accomplish much. What system of government should we adopt if what we have does not work? It seems that some system of government-less government is needed, whatever form that will take.
    Last edited by Just_Some_Guy; 01-26-2010 at 10:48 AM.

  7. #7

    I love statism. The State kills the bad guys and keeps me safe. The State also protects my possessions, my person, and my property.

    The Life of Brian did a great job spoofing radicals.

    "All right, but apart from sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh-water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?"

    "Brought peace?"

    "Oh, peace. Shut up!"
    Just_Some_Guy thanked this post.

  8. #8

    Which is why I humbly submit that a Libertarian form of Government is a better solution than anarchy.

  9. #9

    Your OP is passionate, aggressive, and mostly hollow. You never addressed the single most important question: Has prosperity and quality of life increased? If you can't explain that, then you'll have no idea why people put up with states.

    And they do put up with states. Even as high as the division between the rich and the poor is now in power (thanks mainly to technology) the masses, so-called livestock, easily have the power to change the current arrangement. Why don't they? I suppose you can keep pushing the propoganda line, but instead I'm going to suggest that none of them (and you) can think of something better, or certainly anything worth the immense cost of eliminating the standing system.

    You sound like the typical revolutionary, who speaks all of destroying what exists now, and nothing about creating anything then.

    And what are those failures of statist systems you speak of? They all fail eventually? Could you explain to me then why essentially the entire world, has been ruled by one statist system or another for a while now?

    Finally the most discomforting thing about this thread is your use of the words evidence and rational. I cannot find any evidence in your post, nor does it seem rationale, but that's what you insist your position is about. In an ironic contrast, I can easily think of rationale behind the existence of states. And I frankly don't think you even know what an ideology is, for if you did, you'd realize you're espousing one, and not throw such diatribes at the concept.
    Last edited by Yin Praxis; 01-26-2010 at 07:10 PM. Reason: Typos
    Just_Some_Guy, Third Engine and Shikamaru thanked this post.

  10. #10

    Quote Originally Posted by Yin Praxis View Post
    Your OP is passionate, aggressive, and mostly hollow. You never addressed the single most important question: Has prosperty and quaity of life increased? If you can explain that, then you'll have no idea why people put up with states.

    And they do put up with states. Even as high as the division between the rich and the poor is now in power (thanks mainly to technology) the masses, so-called livestock, easily have the power to change the current arrangement. Why don't they? I suppose you can keep pushing the propoganda line, but instead I'm going to suggest that none of them (and you) can't think of something better, or certainly anything worth the immense cost of eliminating the standing system.

    You sound like the typical revolutionary, who speaks all of destroying what exists now, and nothing about creating anything then.

    And what are those failures of statist systems you speak of? They all fail eventually? Could you explain to me then why essentially the entire world, has been ruled by one statist system or another for a while now?

    Finally the most discomforting thing about this thread is your use of the words evidence and rational. I cannot find any evidence in your post, nor does it seem rationale, but that's what you insist your position is about. In an ironic contrast, I can easily think of rationale behind the existence of states. And I frankly don't think you even know what an ideology is, for if you did, you'd realize you're espousing one, and not throw such diatribes at the concept.
    Marino posted this information, he did not write it. Let me re-word your post for you.


    The OP is passionate, aggressive, and mostly hollow. It never addressed the single most important question: Has prosperity and quality of life increased? If it would address that, then we would have an idea why people put up with states.

    And they do put up with states. Even as high as the division between the rich and the poor is now in power (thanks mainly to technology) the masses, so-called livestock, easily have the power to change the current arrangement. Why don't they? I suppose one could keep pushing the propaganda line, but instead I'm going to suggest that no one can think of something better, or certainly anything worth the immense cost of eliminating the standing system.

    These ideas sound like those of the typical revolutionary, who speaks all of destroying what exists now, and nothing about creating something new.

    And what are the failures of state system if they all fail eventually? Why has essentially the entire world been ruled by one state system or another for a while now?

    Finally the most discomforting thing about this thread is the use of the words “evidence” and “rational.” I cannot find any evidence in this post, nor does it seem rationale, but that's what it insist its position is about. In an ironic contrast, I can easily think of the rationale behind the existence of states. And I frankly don't think the author of this video even knows what an ideology is, for if he/she did, he/she would realize he/she is espousing one, and not throw such diatribes at the concept.


     
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Bringing Out The Dead
    By εmptε in forum Guess the type
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 06-29-2012, 09:40 PM
  2. Urban Dead
    By TreeBob in forum General Chat
    Replies: 51
    Last Post: 06-01-2011, 09:08 AM
  3. Dead poets society istj v's enfp!
    By teabiscits in forum ISTJ Forum - The Duty Fulfillers
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-12-2010, 04:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:32 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0