When considering politics, do you generally consider the ideology you believe in to be the one that should be enforced everywhere, or only where you live? I.e., if you are a secular social democrat, or a Christian conservative, or a Sharia-following Muslim, or an Indian naxalite, is that the right civic philosophy for every single culture on earth? Should everyone curtail to what you think is the best way to live? If yes, why so, if no, why not? Does it, in either case, invoke some thought about how convinced you are of your particular political ideology?
If you wish to force you political ideology over the life of a single other person you've opened the door for your own sovereignty to also be infringed on in a similar manner. I choose to avoid the former so I may also rightfully avoid the latter. Edit: just a drop and go post. I know where we disagree.
I can't entirely disagree. You're an anarchist, do I remember right? Do you think in the same way that science is an ideology that washes its hands of ideologies, that anarchy is a political philosophy that washes its hands of political philosophies? Does anarchy require that everyone agrees to abide by anarchy? What happens with the use of force in an anarchistic society?
Yea something like that, as science is a pure view used to filter out subjectivity anarchism is a philosophy that when you take on you "filter out" the emotion. Such as phrases like, the "price" we pay for society, or we must make "sacrifices". That is a dangerous mode of thinking, in a way you are sacrificing your neighbor to benefit yourself. Who am I to decide what my neighbors must sacrifice. I make my own decisions based upon my own parameters of risk/reward and I want others to have the same right. I care not what my neighbor does as long as it does not violate my sovereignty. For people who think this way the current idea of the federal government is quite oppressive. Seemingly making a purposeful effort to keep people under their system. One example of such coercion is property tax. Would there be individuals trying to use force on other individuals in a free society? Probably, but it is up to the others to not let their own sovereignty be taken. If a group wishes to "govern itself", like I'm sure most groups would, there would be no oppression from the feds infringing on the sovereignty of the group. And if one wishes to leave said group, there would be no feds to keep them tied into their society. To take it further, when thinking about the absence of federal goverments, I believe we would have a much smaller population. With only mimimal amounts of international or even inter-regional trading and resource moving I think that each ecosystem will support exactly as much life as that ecosystem is capable of sustaining, obviously right. This must all be taken into account when debating the interpersonal relationships and group conflict dymamics in a free society. So to answer your questions; no, everyone must not agree to "anarchy", but I think they would. And yes, there will be as much force used between individuals as between individuals of the rest of the animal kingdom. Rant/
I think everyone should live as he pleases. If you think women should walk around in Burkas I may not agree with you but I won't force you to share my opinion. The same the other way around if you don't like weed and I'm smoking some right now I'm gonna put my pipe and say :" Ok why "and we can talk about it. But if you call the cops you're actually saying "share my opinion or won't have much fun. " everybody should do what he wants as long as he respects the rights of his fellow human beings.
It's hard to have a State(s) under the same laws. Population is a big decider, but also is posing the question; will this stay as a nation or someday be a State? I think no better way to "rule" a country is through the Rule of Law. The problem here is, at some point laws will be crafted that begin to clamp down on freedom. The only laws there should be is like; no theft, no killing (unless in self-defense), that kinda stuff. Cultures are also vastly different. Take the US for example. Cultures vary greatly from region to region, and even within those regions, there will still be different cultures despite most if not all sharing the broad American culture. It's like whenever someone travels outside of the US, someone could go, "Ah yes, that guy is definitely from the US" whereas if that same guy went to somewhere within the states, they could also think "Oh, that guy is definitely from Tennessee." This is why I think it is good to have differing State laws in the US. People from each state and region are different. Some are more conservative, others are liberal, some don't give a fuck they just want a nice area to stay in. We also need to understand the difference between Nations and States.
The only laws should be the bill of rights with the sentence: Everyone is allowed to do what he wants as long as he doesn't hurt anyone else's rights and boom all problems solved. Well probably not but it's nice to imagine living in such a country.
"Leaders" emerging in an anarchistic society is completely natural. People will follow others who know more or are more capable than them. The problem arises when those leaders become rulers who forcefully or coercively impose their will on others who don't consent. In a true anarchistic society, there is no singular "society." Smaller voluntary organizations of people could form to solve complex problems. Want a communist society? Go ahead and form one, just don't force it on anyone. Sent from my iPad using Grasscity Forum mobile app
That's the reality, unfortunately. Everybody's got an ideology they believe is the right path to go, and everybody else can go fuck themselves. No choice but to pick a team, and stick with it. There can only be one right way to go.
Except the 20th century was FULL of ideologues who were telling other ideologues to go fuck themselves, and then it escalated to dropping bombs and killing hundreds of millions. As me and Viking have discussed in the past, there is no "one size fits all" political solution. Each culture is different from the next. One political ideology that is perfect for one culture might be completely incompatible with another. For example, you could not govern the United States like the majority of Europe and vice versa. Though, I would love to see European countries adopt their own version of the 2nd amendment and watch what happens. Perhaps it would look more like the Swiss model rather than an American one. The Swiss Difference: A Gun Culture That Works | TIME.com
America and our constitution is unique in the history of mankind. A man could start with nothing and make it without regard to social status. That doesn't happen in most of the world. Our recognition of inalienable rights that we are born with vs rights that government grants is the basis of our constitution. It requires a citizenry that appreciates and defends its liberty. Other countries don't have our history, and most governments don't want to permit its people to exercise inalienable rights. In many cases where we tried to force this on a people with no history or desire to recognize the rights of others, our efforts failed. I don't think we should necessarily force our system on other countries, instead raise our recognition of those rights as a standard for others. Those who want to, will strive to reach it. The problems are when we allow others into our country who don't want to live by our rules and want to bring their repressive beliefs here and have the same conditions as the place they left. Tyranny by the majority is a very common practice. Some politicial systems and beliefs are incompatible with our constitution and therefore should not be allowed to take hold in our country. Marxism, communism, socialism, and sharia are all examples of systems that repress individual rights. Wherever they've been tried, people who are minorities or simply not of the ruling party suffer.
I miss the days of gc when by now; when a topic of similar matter came up, people posted something along the lines of: [edit: one poster did; TheSuperApe, it was the second post, I need reading comprehension classes.] -Murray Rothbard Even if you like to pass your time sniffing cheap gas station glue, have no fear for theres something here for you to listen to. Even if you may not agree with everything being said, at the very least consider it.
How about slowly trying to teach NAP to people to whom the concept of incompatibility between use of force and being a functional non-asshole member of society doesn't become apparent on its own or we can help facilitate change in their environment so that they have that option of not being an asshole their entire life. Help mitigate the factors in their environment like being poor or growing up in crime ridden areas. Environments like that are self perpetuating, and its really hard to get out of that life. People growing up in a more privileged life with access to relatively clean water and gc are probably less prone to leading a life where they routinely use force on other human beings. A lot of this is ENVIRONMENTAL. Simply put governments everywhere need to drop boxes from the skies loaded with the most potent weed and level civilian populations with these boxes, especially areas with crime and violence and poor areas and youre going to see quality of life sky rocket. I guarantee you that. Name one bad thing about this? People worry about kids? really? Dont these kids have parents? We cant have world peace because people cant be bothered to educate and parent their kids? What other possible reason can one conjure up against this idea? Sure its crazy. But it will work.
↑ There is no way that giving out weed will help much, the vast majority do not like it and will not use it, and the more potent it is, they less they'd go for it. If it was dropped from the skies by the government, into poor neighborhoods, there would be blood in the streets from gangs trying to take it all for themselves, to sell. We who do (like marijuana) are a small minority.
Garrison, you are obviously mistaken. Its okay. Worry not for I will help show you the way. People who either tried it and didnt like it or people who have no desire to try it are in denial and are lying to themselves. A lot of that has to do with culture and the negative stigma of weed which will diminish greatly if the streets are swimming in it. There cant be violence because weed pacifies the mind. If a person is violent its because of their own predisposed tendency to be violent. There are also reports of psychosis' in some weed users. While initially that indeed is a negative reaction, something good can come of it as society has centers for those individuals to get the mental help they need. As for selling it, who are they going to sell it to? The people who are already swimming in it? How much money are they going to make if an ounce of og is $5? The profits generated by the legal states alone beg to differ with that statement. Youre wrong on all accounts. Only real problem with my scenario is wide spread food shortages. On the upside farmers will become royalty. Maybe church of burger king might become a thing. Edit: For the record. Theres no way of knowing if it will help or not until we try it. We can predict and guess and try to conceptualize all we want. One thing though: It cant be as bad as shit is in a lot of places. So why not? Dont do it near any schools, do it during certain times. Let population know ahead of time, so people have the option to opt out. Also to keep their kids away. Society raised on weed is better then one raised on false premise that coercive violence is inherently necessary for a functional society. What we have now is more a kin to : Only reason why you may disagree Garrison is because its so radically different then your understanding of society. But humanity as a whole always adopts. You must have noticed that change is constant.
↑ The percentage of smokers in Holland is low, and it's legal there. You are the one that is "in denial". I am an giving my honest opinion based on experience and facts. If you want to have the fantasy that everybody would love using marijuana if it was legal, you can think that way, but you will likely be wrong. Many people like it in their youth, and then lose their interest as they get older.
Yes using Holland as an example where quality of life is relatively high. I think youre being deliberately obtuse, and disregarding my initial argument. And Ive touched on a lot more then that, any comments or thoughts on anything and everything else Ive stated?