On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000
xorc...@sigaint.org wrote:

> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 04:55:03 -0000
> >
> >     You hit a nerve only in a general sense. Psychiatry is a
> >     especially vicious tool for political manipulation and
> >     oppresion.
> Indeed. Religion, physics, and medicine generally, as well.
> Political oppressors will co-opt anything they can use, no?

        Yes indeed. But there are very important differences between
        physics - a 'hard science', medicine which could be 'scientific'
        but since it deals with incredibly complex systems it is mostly
        a joke (and fraud) at the moment, and then psychiatry which is
        just...an attemtp to give a 'scientific' veneer to

> As terrible as religion is, I won't deny some people get genuine
> benefit from it. 

        Of course. The frauds who live off their victims get genuine
        benefits from the scam.

> As terrible as the A-bomb is, I won't deny physics
> has helped mankind. No different for psychiatry.

        One of the key differences is that practical physics is real
        knowledge, which admitedly can be misused. But there's no
        knowledge in psychiatry or religion, only fraud.

> >     Your niece is shy. But now being shy has been turned into a
> >     'mental disorder' a 'syndrome' or whatever. We should be
> > glad that science is fixing the world...
> Not just shy, dude. She's shy, yes, because she is wired a bit
> differently and is self-conscious of it.. but its deeper than that.
> Certain psychological principles have truly helped her, and her
> parents, cope.

        Treating shy people taking into account their shyness seems like
        common sense and decency to me. You don't need the
        psycho-charlatans to teach you that. 

        What the psycho-charlatans bring to the table however is the
        idea  that shy people are 'mentally ill' and that they should be
        'saved' I mean 'cured' by them, the high priests of 'science'.

> But let me be clear: I understand what you're saying, and you're not
> wrong. In my nieces' case, it took a few attempts with different
> doctors to find one whose first reaction wasn't to drug her.

        And that's what really should be called fucking crazy. Poisoning
        people because they are not comfortable with their 'peers' who
        do conform to totalitarian 'social' 'norms'.

        It's not only crazy, it's outright criminal. So, what should be
        done to those crazy criminals, the psycho-babblers? 

> I'm not saying that the mechanisms of psychology, especially as it
> intersects with the State (i.e. state-run hospitals, state-ordered
> "therapy" and so on) aren't oppressive. They truly, surely are.
> I'm just saying, "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" .. Nazi
> doctors did terrible things, too, but presumably you understand that
> they are still helpful for setting broken bones and things.

        Well of course, there is some practical knowledge in medicine.
        That doesn't invalidate my previous points.

> >> There are pacifists which interpret it that way however, and I'm
> >> just acknowledging an interpretation that is different my own,
> >> without denigrating it. Something you seem unwilling to do.
> >
> >
> >     I'm not denigrating it, but pointing out that it's open to
> > some degree of rational criticism.
> Fair enough, and I don't disagree. The thing to realize from my view,
> however, is that people aren't fundamentally rational.
> The trouble with that view from an anti-authoritarian perspective is
> that, lets face, there is a lot of irrational stuff out there. So IF
> people were basically rational, then it would mean most people are
> just inherently stupid.

        I'm not fully following...

> And if they are not capable of reasoning through shit, it really calls
> into question whether they are capable of, for example, maintaining
> their affairs without State intervention, so some type of big brother
> checking up on them.

        I didn't fully get what you were saying a couple of paragraphs
        above, but this last one is mistaken anyway. If people are not
        rational, then who is going to 'check up' on them.

> I don't believe people are inherently stupid. I believe they operate
> primarily according to motives, and drives, that have little to do
> reason. The veneer of reason is added, as an after thought.
> Rational criticism can help them realize THIS. But the alternatives
> offered have to play to something more than just algebra.

> >
> >     I specifically disagree with putting too much emphasis on
> > the fact that some 'majority' of people have 'mainstream' views.
> >
> >     Although at first sight that indeed seems to be the case,
> >     treating it as some kind of biologically determined outcome
> >     doesn't strike me as either correct or useful.
> I wouldn't go so far as to say its biologically determined, but I
> would say that there are psychological, or if you prefer, emotional
> forces involved.

> The utility of the view can be expressed this way: when one realizes
> the emotional reasons why a person clings to statism so passionately,
> you're in a better position to help them out of it. 

        OK, that sounds reasonable. So far I got the impression that
        you were painting a fatalistic picture. But if you can sabotage
        statism using 'emotional' means great. Hoever, I think that's a
        big IF...

> >     At this point I'm not sure how the topic of social
> > conformity was started, but the idea I'm advancing is that social
> >     conformity should be shredded to pieces, not 'explained'.
> OK, great. I agree totally. The question then, is how do we help do
> it? If you'll forgive an analogy.. but we have a burst pipe. One
> method of trying to stop the leak is to stuff the whole with
> argumentation, logic, and fill the void. Mine, as I see it, is to
> understand the cause of the leak. Identify the source, and shut off
> the valve.

        Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =)

> I could have argued, and reasoned with those two "followers" of mine.
> I'd tried, basically. Their answers were always some variation of:
> "Oh, I'm not simply following you. I really believe that. I've always
> felt that way, I just didn't have the words to express it so
> clearly." or some such thing.

        Well, to some extent that must have been true? Granted, the
        fact that they agreed with whatever you said is suspicious. But
        the solution seems a bit ad hoc. Maybe confusing them worked,
        but you must have confused other people who were listening too? 

> I understood they weren't consciously trying to put me ahead of
> themselves as a leader, they lacked confidence in their own
> abilities, and felt more comfortable attaching themselves to me.


> And so it goes with social conformity, generally. Certain people get
> "groupies." It's just the way it is. Recognizing it, and helping to
> get them on their own two feet.. that's my solution. I see that as
> quite practical.
> >
> >     More than a few slaves managed to actually run away, a
> > rather risky action. It seems fairly safe to assume that a lot more
> >     thought about runing away even if they didn't try to.
> >
> >     So the dreary picture you painted about people born in
> > slavery not even being able to think about freedom is...let's say
> > too biased towards pessimism.
> I'm not a historian, and certainly am not expert on American history,
> but my understanding is that at the end of the civil war, there were
> far more slaves in captivity than freed. 

        I thought that at the end of the civil war, slavery was finally
        abolished. At least the most crass kind...

> The percentage of fugitive
> slaves was fairly small. 
> And it is, nevertheless, true that some slaves stayed on as paid
> laborers after the war. 

        And is that surprising? And does that need to be explained only
        in innate psychological terms? 

> Perhaps these were especially kind, fair
> "masters" whom the slaves never had a real problem with. Perhaps it
> speaks to a larger fear of the "great big world" that so many from
> small town and isolated social networks have. Perhaps its a
> combination of both.

        Why are there poor people? Is it because they are lazy, they
        want to be poor, they have primate relatives, or because the
        economic system is rigged against them? 

        There may be a mix of causes, but as a libertarian I would
        say : 1) being lazy is a virtue 2) by far the most important
        problem is the rigged economic system. 

> Maybe I was too dramatic in making my point, but I believe it stands:
> slave culture made obeying largely an instinctive quality. 

        And my disagreement stands. All that culture was backed by the
        whip and the hanging rope.

> That
> culture limits the type of thinking that people can do. Outliers
> notwithstanding.
> >     Well, as far as I can tell, you sound a bit too elitist
> > even if you don't intend to. I'd rather assume that the majority of
> >     people can think for themselves, even though they are not
> > doing it at the moment. If I assumed that they can't, then I'd have
> >     to conclude that the situation is...hopeless.
> This is an interesting example of how two people can think opposite
> things and arrive at the same conclusion :)
> Because my take is very different. As I explained above with regards
> to rationality. If I thought that rationality was the core feature of
> the human mind, I'd be forced to conclude most people are just not
> capable decent logic.. and we need a nanny state to govern their
> affairs.

        Again, I don't understand. If rationaliy was the core feature,
        then people WOULD be capable of decent logic? So this...

        "If I thought that rationality was the core feature of the
        human mind, I'd be forced to conclude most people are just not
         capable +of decent logic" 

        ...doesn't make sense to me. And you further add that in that
        case a nanny state would be 'needed' - that's also absurd? Even
        if the nanny state was 'needed', WHO would run it? 

> Rather, I see the situation that.. yes, free will is constrained. Yes,
> social norms and culture play a great role in placing boundaries on
> the thoughts that average people think.

        Only after extensive brainwashing and outright violent

> But there are important people who break the mold. Inspiring examples
> that speak not to reason, but to the real motivator of people:
> emotions, and the desire to truly breathe, not just with their lungs,
> but with their heart.
> So, while neither of us may be able to convince a 3rd party in our
> particular brand of "reasonable ideas" .. either because of a
> dis-interest, incapability, or acute difference of opinion .. that 3rd
> party can still be inspired to live free from the state, as best they
> can.
> So, for me, rather than a hopeless situation.. its rather quite
> pleasant. We don't have to stuff a gaping hole and resist the
> unfathomable pressure of millions of souls.
> We just have to turn the emotional valve for people, to inspire them.

        That sounds a bit too manipulative for my taste...

> >     As is to be expected, I disagree. Limiting state power
> >     is...just what the sentence literally means. If the state
> > can 'regulate', spy, tax, fine, kidnap, kill, etc, limiting its
> >     power amounts to stoping it doing that kind of thing.
> The way you limit state power is to take away their legitimacy.

        That's an important part of it, yes.

> So,
> lets look at taxes.
> If everyday people spent their time helping the homeless, unemployed,
> and the disabled rather than watching TV, there would be no need for
> the taxes collected for welfare, for instance.

        OK - That is seriously wrong. Taxes are not collected by the
        state to help people, altough a tiny bit goes to 'help' people
        as a propaganda effort. 

        So the solution to the taxes problem is to simply stop
        collecting them. Then there would be a lot less unemployed and
        and homeless people. And for the people who really need help
        there's private charity. 

        But it is impossible to both pay taxes AND try to fix the
        problems that taxation causes by putting even MORE money and
        effort into the system.

> Rome wasn't built in a day. And you won't undermine in a day, either.
> You want a world without a state? So do I.  It means we have to build
> it, and build alternatives.

        Not in the way you described. 

> I can see why that doesn't appeal to you. It's not something a loner
> can really do effectively. 

        Actually you can't. There's a obvious rational explanation you
        missed, and worse, you are trying to 'psychoanalize' me.

        Instead of realzing that your anti rationalistic bias prevents
        you from thinking correctly, you are...messing with me =)

> But, as far as I can tell, its the only
> viable option.

        Too bad that simple economic analysis shows it's actually not
        viable at all.

> I'm not playing the game out of self-interest in my lifetime. I'm
> playing for keeps, and may never see the results of my labor.
> Like the architects and slaves that built the pyramids, or the
> laborers that build the Sistine Chapel..
> It's BIGGER than ME.
> >     All the services that the state has monopolized like
> > education, 'health care', whatever. can be provided by the
> > market/the people/the commune once the state is gone.
> Cart before the horse, man. 

        Yes, exactly. That is exactly the reason why your analysis
        isn't right. 

        You cannot compete with the state, providing all the garbage
        services the states provides, if you don't deprive the state
        FIRST of their monopoly powers. 

        Consider the example of stuff banned by the state like 'some
        drugs'. What is your plan? Sell drugs on the black market? And
        you think that would limit state power? It obviously never

        The only solution for that sort of problem is to get the state
        out of the picture, making the commercial transactions perfecly

> Unless you're advocating open
> insurrection. Good luck.
> The problem with 'revolution' is that in revolving, we soon enough
> come right back around to having a state.

        That is not necessarily the case. I agree that violence may not
        be an optimal solution, but it isn't inherently flawed either.

> I don't want to turn the wheel, reset, and have some other state or
> some new oppressive non-state structure in its place.
> I want to stop the wheel of history in that sense.
> >     ...on the other hand there's a particular 'service' that
> >     the state allegedly provides, called 'security'. If you are
> >     talking about THAT service, then you are right. So how good
> > is your army?
> You're right. A far more effective approach would be to establish
> large standing militias willing to confront the state.

        And it doesn't even have to be an army. It's just a matter of
        getting a big enough number of people to say "no".

> We're not there yet. In order to fight, people need something to fight
> for. Thats where the OTHER non-state services come in, in my view.

        As you said, cart before the horse =P

> >> But, as may have been predicted.. we've entirely derailed.
> >>
> >
> >     I don't think it was that bad.
> :)

Reply via email to