> On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 14:35:31 -0000 > 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 > witch-burning.
In my experience, the people who are so rabidly anti-medicine, and anti-psychiatry are usually ridiculously religious, or fearful they are mentally ill. You don't strike me as either, so this seems really odd to me. Obviously, psychiatry is mis-used by the state, but I just cannot fathom this idea of a "scientific veneer" .. certainly, there is a great amount to question in what the doc's say.. but.. certain things seem obvious? Like the idea that people tend to operate from a position of protecting the ego. That just seems so.. obvious.. I don't know, I just don't know what else to say. > 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. You obviously know shit about autism. She is.. oddly sensitive to certain things, and prone to emotionally crippling "tantrums" because of it. Certain smells, the smell of freshly cut grass, makes her slightly ill feeling. She doesn't like things around her feet, like normal shoes or sneakers, and its genuinely distressing, not just a matter of preference. Consequently, the sight of lawnmowers, and the need to wear sneakers for gym glass, can cause her to get panic attacks, basically, which result in those tantrums. It isn't just a matter of her being shy, and needing to take shyness into account. Those differences, and people looking at her like she's all fucked up, made her shy. When she was much younger, she was very curious and outgoing. People treating her like a weirdo because she IS different, made her shy. She really does have different neurology. > 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'. Sorry, but this is idiotic. It's not about fucking "totalitarian" norms. When a kid freaks out about the smell of grass, its normal for other kids to tease, thinks she's weird, and so on. This is impressed on them by the fucking state. It's how primate humans treat people who they see as different and not in their in-group. But since that's all bullshit, sure.. it's the government. C'mon. Granted, we agree on the silver-bullet drug thing. Drugs are over prescribed. I don't see that as state totalitarianism, and the "veneer" of science on a sham discipline. That's economic corruption. Doctors getting kick-backs from drug companies, and shit. That's just good old fashion greed at work. >> 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... Well, presumably we can agree that there is a lot of irrational shit out there in society. Right? So, pick something that you are sure is just straight irrational. If people were so fundamentally, at their core, rational -- why does this irrational thing exist? If we're all so rational, and yet irrational things exist, then that means that some people (the creators, facilitators, etc) - while rational - are not competent and smart enough to UNDERSTAND that its irrational. The scope of their intellect is just not there. People are stupid. And if people are so stupid as to not see these irrational things, clearly you, or I, or others who DO see the irrationality of them, out to be in charge to deal with. We should be the state. We obviously know better than the stupid fucks that can't reason their way out of a paper bag. I find all this to be problematic. So, for me, I tend to reason this way: Yeah, irrational stuff exists because humans aren't entirely rational. Some really irrational shit exists to meet emotional needs people have. It doesn't mean, I or anyone else, should necessarily be "in charge" .. because I can't decide what meets someone else's emotional needs any better than they can... if I can reason more clearly. > > >> >> 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'm not following. The point is that if "rationality" is the metric for "good" then the "most rational" people should be in charge. They should be the agents of the state. > 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... Well, I'd argue that the state uses emotional means to justify itself, so I'm not so sure there is any other way to approach the situation. I'm sympathetic to the view that "water is needed for a fire" and that "rationality is needed to qwell emotion" But with a big enough forest fire, you use both in tandem. I think we're at that point. Hell, I think we've been at that point .. forever. I don't mean to portray a fatalist attitude, but in retrospect, to those so accustomed to thinking that pure rationality, philosophy, or such is the answer, I can see how it might come off that way. > Fine, So what's the cause/source of statism? =) Social mammals have a herd instinct, and more specifically humans naturally select leaders at a subconscious level in social situations. Because we're in some sense pre-disposed to selecting leaders, we're exploitable to people who would seize power. To many, it seems just natural and comfortable that there should be someone, with authority, that they can look to in order to find out what they should do. You can see this in early teen children, where kids start to select "popular" kids, and others try to emulate them. It's no coincidence that the "king" and "queen" of the prom will be the most popular pair of kids in school. In fact, the king and queen as selected years before the prom. It's no coincidence that the jocks in high school go on to become the cops as adults. At a deep level, that is the mechanism. Primates, humans included, have an ingrained alpha/beta dynamic that makes us select leaders. That is the core psychological hook that the whole thing rides on. And it trickles all the way down, individual sub-groups will have their own leaders, and so on. A hierarchy .. a pecking order.. arises rather spontaneously. For people deeply attached to the state, when you call into question the state, in an emotional way, you're sort of insulting their father, or maybe "big brother" would be more apropros, and you're calling into question the entire structure of what they know. They find it difficult to believe a world without the state is possible, because at some unconscious level, they've always felt the presence of that hierarchy. It lets them know their station in life, and that is comforting to people.. at least people in the middle, and certainly at the top. So, what do we do about all this? Well, it should be immediately obvious that we're up against something much larger than a mere principality. It may seem daunting to consider, but it's really not that big of a deal. Humans have organized in fantastically diverse ways in history. We can recapture some of that, and finally dispense with the authoritarian nonsense. First though, taking the emotional/social side into account, I'd like to highlight a few things that are important in order to grow a base of people large enough to do away with the state, and to survive without a state (that is, the types of social changes we'd need to have in place in order to not re-create a state after their downfall). The emotional ties people have are important to consider, when trying to "win a convert" to an anti-authoritarian view, make your arguments against the state .. "gentle" .. couch it with "I wonder if people could organize without it.." when they object, AGREE, but continue with the "wondering." We should feel compassion for people so enamored with authoritarianism, and be gentle with them. Many anarchist writers of the past have looked at them as some sort of debased beast who is content to lick their chains, and this view is why we don't have more people. Be compassionate: the statist is one that is weary, and feels weak. They get brow-beat with orders from superiors regularly. Our job is to give them respite. Don't brow-beat them with arguments designed to make them feel inferior. Gently encourage new thoughts. Make them feel strong. Ask for their opinions, and don't be quick to dismiss. If you disagree, nudge them towards your view. It is more effective, persuasion wise today, and one day, without a state, those would need to be social norms so that the "betas" get uplifted, and feel like they too can lead, in some areas. Take note when people are being deferential towards you, and putting you in a subtle position of social power, and ABDICATE that power. Ask for their opinions, and defer to them. When someone comes to you, for advice, or a solution.. Be content to say you don't know, and encourage them to use their own understanding. Encourage them to see that you aren't their superior. With those types of norms in place, the roots of power have less surface to take hold, and in the absence of a state (either self-made collapse, or insurrection) we're more likely to be able to fill the power vacuum with something better than the current notion of the state. > 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? At first, yeah.. but like all social circles "word gets around." And yeah.. it was a bit ad hoc, but that is kind of the whole thing.. people are individuals, and a successful non-authoritarian society has to have really flexible social protocols to adapt to that individuality. The only way, that I see, to really make a society where people don't have to conform to an insane litany of arbitrary social norms is to have very few social norms that are very flexible and adaptable towards people. > 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. I must say, I'm surprised by #1. Most libertarians I've met are very enamored with the self-made-man trope and the idea that people should be ambitious, and do well for themselves. Or did you mean libertarian in the old-school sense, and not so much the modern "objectivist" sense? I don't entirely disagree with you here. Certainly, people deserve more time for slack, and sloth, but I don't know that I'd say laziness is a virtue. The rigged economic system is a problem, true. Providing alternatives to that system is another thing that needs to at least have seeds planted if we're to get through a power vacuum. > 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? Well, lets put it this way. A child can reason, and utilize rationality.. but they won't necessarily come to TRUE conclusions. Their minds are not developed enough, there will be variables and conditions that they can't keep track of. You might think of it like chess. And inherently rational game, well defined rules. Easy to learn. But not everyone can play at the same level, and its not a matter of practice. So, irrational things exist. If rationality is the core human feature, then I must conclude that a great many people are too feeble of mind to come to correct, true, conclusions. People trade their queens for pawns, regularly. If rationality is the prime reason for this, then there is no hope to win the game. But I don't believe that. They make irrational trades, for non-rational reasons. Those reasons, nevertheless, can be understood, and compensated for. As far as who would run a nanny state -- anyone popular, savvy, and ambitious enough to get the job. Just like now. Certain people would be able to look around, with a keener mind, and say "These stupid fucks can't see that X will never work. I'll fix it, do Y, they'll be amazed, and I'm on easy street." It's compelling, for the self-interested. > > Only after extensive brainwashing and outright violent > coercion. Well, with a wide enough definition of brainwashing, I guess this works. But its not really brainwashing.. not in the way cult leaders or the like do it. It's just being .. "pro-social." >> We just have to turn the emotional valve for people, to inspire them. > > > That sounds a bit too manipulative for my taste... You know, I was in agreement with you on that for a long, long time. And, in fact, I've greatly enjoyed this conversation, because its like arguing with the 20 year old me. So, yeah, I get it. But, suffice it to say that, over the years (and please don't take this as some appeal to aged wisdom here, its just my experience) I've come to really learn the meaning of "you catch more flies with honey than vinegar." It depends on what you're "manipulating" them to do, I'd say. If you're manipulating them to your own ends, against their wishes.. yeah, its terrible. But often times, people lack the courage to do what they want. They lack the confidence. If you're inspiring them to be true to themselves, I see nothing wrong with it at all, and rather see it as a virtue. I've met people that were "manipulative" in this way. It turned me off, at first, until I began to realize that.. it's really just a tool. How that tool is used, really is up to the person and if its used for good, then its good. I've seen people be "manipulative" in this way, and nevertheless really inspire genuine love and affection in others, and genuinely inspire them to chase - and more importantly - fulfill dreams. By making people FEEL GOOD, of course they are going to want to be around us. We're providing them with a real positive aspect to their lives. If, as a community, we did this for each other, we'd have more members. Just a thought. The time I'm thinking of, in particular, a friend I'll call Alice, used some emotional manipulation to convince another (Betty) to go back to school, get a degree, and really helped her get into a much better path in life. At the graduation party, Betty introduced Alice to some other people, and - her face just beaming - told how she owed everything to Alice, and she wouldn't have been able to get the degree, and go back to school without her, and so on. Alice just smiled, and said "Sweetie, I didn't do your homework. Everything you've accomplished, you did on your own. You just forgot that you could and I reminded you. If anything, you inspire me!" Then the tears and laughter started flowing. It was a genuine, human moment. If inspiring each other to be our best selves is distasteful, then I would suggest that you don't actually like humanity very much. > 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. You're missing the point. People pay them, justify it to themselves, because of the helping part. Statists will say, we NEED taxes, to help with welfare, to build roads, and so on. We know thats bullshit. Ok. So we can spend time.. going on hundreds of years now.. trying to argue against this perception, OR we can just build alternative institutions that mitigate the entire fucking idea. > > 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. Like I said, we try real hard, and are mostly effective, at not needing government dollars for our work with the disabled. The two areas where tax money comes into play is when we get people jobs. The employers get tax subsidies. We try to encourage them not to take them, but are mostly ineffective with that. The other area is education. We don't have always have the private funding to pay for schooling, so we help our "clients" file for the government programs to get it. I actually disagree with that. We'd be able to pay for them if we took money from religious charities, then we wouldn't need the government grants. I get out voted on that by some rabid atheists in the group though, so it is what it is. Food not Bombs provides food without tax money. There are plenty of anarchist social services building infrastructure independent from the state. > Not in the way you described. What way? People helping people? People getting programs together that are independent from the state? > 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 =) Your obvious rational explanation is nonsense. There is no reason alternative to state programs cannot be made without taking tax dollars. There is no reason you can't boot strap an independent program using tax dollars initially. And I'm not trying to mess with you or analyze you. You're obviously a loner, and have said as much. I've known plenty of loners, and used to be one myself. Fortunately, I had a great stroke of luck in life, and managed to get an opportunity to travel widely, that forced me into social situations that caused me to expand my view, and finally to dispense with the loner thing. Your path may differ, and thats fine. If you're rather focus on ways to destroy the state, rather than create alternatives.. that's fine too. Destruction can be an act of creation. I choose differently. And it has nothing to do with an "anti-rationalist" stance. I'm not, even, anti-rationalist, despite what you want to think. I just incorporate more axioms into my logic, and I'm aware of the .. larger.. implications of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. =) >> 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. Lulz. Economic analysis, generally, is horse shit.. or at least confined to a frame of reference. Economics is all predicated on theory of value. Socialist theory of value says, roughly "A thing is worth the labor gone in to produce it." Capitalist: "A thing is worth what someone will pay." Anarchist: "A thing is worth what it is being used for." >From each of these theories of value, one can derive economic "laws" .. like the "law" of supply and demand. It's a law.. only so long as people operate according to the theory of value. But people can choose to value things however they like. Goes with the whole free will thing, actually. >> > 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. It's not a matter of competing. It's a matter of providing an alternative. It doesn't need to be a complete, viable alternative. It just needs to be a working model. A proof of concept. Why? Because I'm not trying to destroy the state.. directly. I'm not trying to blow it up, and start from zero. I'm trying to grow alternatives that will, over time, allow the state to wither.. the same way it didn't appear overnight and slowly grew. That is how it will be replaced. At bottom, a state is just a human activity. PEOPLE DO it. We just have to attract a critical mass of people doing something different. > 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 > does. Uhm. The cartels run Columbia dude, so I'm not sure what you're exactly getting at there. But you're making a subtle error. Helping disabled people isn't illegal. The state has their hands in it anyhow. We can take that over, and get them out of it. By appropriating social services, there is also a propaganda effect involved.. the state will have a difficult time blasting away at anarchists involved with helping disabled, the homeless, etc. Food not Bombs gets shit, usually out of health-code nonsense, but even still, they are relatively immune because of the propaganda effect. You lose that when you get into overt crime areas. This is what fucked over anarchism at the turn of the 20th century. The "propaganda by deed" horseshit is what inspired robberies, crime, assassinations, and associated "anarchy" with "chaos" in the public mind. It is, essentially, why I am politically pacifist. In theory, I'd be up for good old insurrection, but I'd have to KNOW we'd win. Fuck the self-interest of it, I don't care about that.. but the potential for centuries of setbacks is too great if we let the victory write our history. > 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". AGREED! Critical mass of people living without the state. That's what I'm working towards. >> 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 Perhaps. But I like the smell of this horse better.