Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> But I can have an hard time to separate my ego from that pure
>>> consciousness. That's why we can meditate, etc.
>> I'm not sure we can totally seperate it. The ego itself is an  
>> appearance
>> within consciousness and thus part of it. It might be that trying to
>> seperate is an activity of the ego. Consciousness has no need to  
>> seperate
>> anything because it is everything.
> I think that here you are a bit quick.
Might be. I'm not so sure. What I can observe within myself that thoughts
like "How can I seperate consciousness and ego." arise, with "I" refering to
my ego, which of course makes no sense. The ego can not grab hold of
consciousness, treating it as an object will miss its essential nature.
The trick to discover what one really is seems to be letting go of indentity
and not trying to seperate anything. Trying itself has to be let go of, as
it is an activity of an seperate person.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Consciousness without the self is consciousness without high  
>>> reflexive
>>> ability. We can hardly separate them for ourselves, but we can
>>> separate it in the frame of a theory. I think RA is conscious, and PA
>>> is self-conscious.
>> I'm not convinced. If this were the case there would be a rigid  
>> boundary
>> between consiousness and self-consciousness (because there is no  
>> middle
>> ground between RA and PA, I guess),
> Hmm... you guess wrong, I am afraid. There is plausibly an infinite of  
> intermediate. Löbianity is, mathematically one loop more, but that  
> loop can be "modalized" and be effective in a myriads of ways. To be  
> sure, I am still hesitating in a final definition of Löbianity.
Oh, OK. I wasn't expecting this. So, forget what I said ;).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Not sure I follow you on Nihilism, though. Usually nihilism leads to  
> human extermination, you better should not deny the suffering of others.
Well, yes, nihilism can be used as an excuse for evil. But most nihilsts are
apparently harmless. Many are just intellectual nihilsts and nevertheless
care about suffering of others.  The most evil and influential persons were
believers in some religion or strong ideology (think of Hitler or Stalin),
not really nihilists.
I guess the reason is that nihilsm is in some sense modest. At least you
don't claim to know the answers, because you don't think there are any.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> That is the crux of the problem. Plotinus has a very hard time with
>>> this, like all theologian. Why did God generates anything if it was
>>> cool at the start? Why does the ONE leads to the MANY.
>> So maybe Plotinus is wrong in postulating the ONE as the only start.  
>> ONE may
>> be intrinsically MANY (even ALL) and vice versa.
> Come on! He thought about that. The problem for simple mind like me  
> and Plotinus, is that, well, the ONE cannot be the MANY. Now Plotinus  
> explanation fits well with comp or with the everything-type of the  
> theories, where the many appears from the one, when it attempts  
> (without success) to look at itself.
I think of one and many as two sides of the same coin, so yes, the ONE can
be the MANY. More accurate would be that the truth is beyond ONE and MANY,
which perhaps why it is sometimes felt and described  as nothingness / void
/ emptyness.
Plotinus explanation sounds nice, but I am not sure it really makes sense
that something that is only ONE could not look at itself as ONE. The
experience of this apparently exists.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> But the (relatively) unknown is always risky. Life is risky,  
>>>>> because
>>>>> we are confronted with the relative unknown all the times.
>>>> Right. Let's hope some day risks mean only adventure because we  
>>>> self-
>>>> correct
>>>> / learn faster than we can feel mistakes as truly bad. Even if  
>>>> this is
>>>> possible, the road to there will probably be long and rough.
>>> We might be already there. In the years 400,000 the fashion is to
>>> relive the life of those ancien people like us.
>>> But shh..., let us not tell aloud the end of the novel :)
>> If this is true that would be somehow creepy. Going in a cruel and  
>> boring
>> past, just because you can...? I certainly hope we won't make it
>> fashionable.
>> I hope the souls fall from their  (seemingly?) eternal  heaven to  
>> build a
>> temporal heaven that they can't fall from (because the dreams glue  
>> stable
>> enough), not to fall again, again and again.
>> But I am optimistic, mainly because a world where we will always  
>> relive the
>> past seems inconsistent to me (we really are already in year  
>> 9^9^9^...^9^9?)
>> and I don't see why we would want or need to relive the past. Some  
>> amount of
>> rememberance is probably necessary to digest our past, though.
> I can hear you, but then science is not wishful thinking.
It might at least be useful in deciding which theories to consider, and to
have a theology that provides a framework for interpreting what our results
may mean.
Also, I don't really see why science predicts that we will always go back.
Our observations of nature implies that irreversible change happens.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  But I would  
> say, in the terrestrial realms, we are bound to, well perhaps not fall  
> again and again, but to be in a state of risking falling again and  
> again. And the day we believe we have find a way to prevent us of  
> falling, we can only fall.
OK. Maybe we should learn to just let us fall... Accepting is as part of
what happens. Maybe then we can live it is less bad.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> Also we shouldn't idolize it, because it is maximally free only in
>>>>>> the sense
>>>>>> of maximizing possibility. But this also is maximal ignorance and
>>>>>> thus
>>>>>> maximal ignorance of how to minimize bad things.
>>>>> "minimize bad things" is harm reduction, and this I appreciate very
>>>>> much, but you can't condemn a universal baby for not having at the
>>>>> start the harm reduction technic.
>>>> Right, there is no reason to codemn it. I didn't want to suggest
>>>> this. I
>>>> only pointed out the dangers of being a baby ;) - which *maybe*  
>>>> should
>>>> restrict our wishes to return to a baby-like state.
>>>> There might be a compromise. Returning partly, returning temporarily
>>>> or
>>>> speculatively in our future or in another realm, splitting of a part
>>>> of
>>>> yourself, that then becomes "your baby" and a part of you, yet still
>>>> apart
>>>> from you (and so we can avoid becoming babies ourselves again and
>>>> again).
>>> Not sure we can really avoid that.
>> So we will return to (the same) ignorance again and again? Aside  
>> from the
>> feeling that this is a horrible fate, isn't it subjectively  
>> impossible? If
>> you return to an ignorant state, from your perspective you didn't  
>> "return"
>> at all, but you just are born, so in effect you didn't return to a  
>> state of
>> ignorance at all.
>> With taking drugs I think we are just temporarily supressing some  
>> part of
>> our mind that is still there in the background. It is what takes us  
>> back to
>> "where we belong" after the trip subsided.  So we really just partly
>> returned to our ignorance.
>> Maybe it is not about going back to ignorance but being aware of your
>> ignorance, which is really always there.
> Sure, and doing both can help, and is unavoidable.  Even think that is  
> why Löbian machines, once embedded in complex stories, need to sleep  
> and dreams. A brain is an efficacious primitive drug dealers. And  
> keeping memory can be used to avoid past errors, but the ignorance is  
> always there, and can only grow. This doesn't prevent bigger and  
> bigger relatively sound big pictures, and (personal or sharable)  
> shortcuts.
Yep. Ignorance needs to be welcomed, as scary as it may be. I'm not sure
there are shortcuts. Maybe to some temporary state, but not more.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> With comp, + the classical theory of knowledge, physics is a branch
>>>>> of
>>>>> arithmetic, and we are, normally, (in the sense of Gauss),  
>>>>> already on
>>>>> the side of platonia (arithmetic, assuming comp). This answers the
>>>>> question above.
>>>>> With comp (Church thesis + "yes doctor"), physics does not depend  
>>>>> on
>>>>> the choice of the initial universal system. You might read some  
>>>>> paper
>>>>> I wrote. UDA should be easy.
>>>> I believe I got why according to COMP physics comes "after"
>>>> plantonia. As
>>>> soon as we assume AR it makes no sense to suppose otherwise. If
>>>> arithmetical
>>>> truth is independent of the universe, either the universe is
>>>> dependent on
>>>> it, or it is independent of it, which makes no sense, as arithmetic
>>>> and the
>>>> universe clearly have a deep relation.
>>>> We can only avoid it by rejecting AR and claiming matter is
>>>> independent and
>>>> prior to arithmetical truth, which seems the road most materialist
>>>> take. But
>>>> then they have no explanation how physical reality leads to
>>>> arithmetical
>>>> truth (nor is it obvious), so they only introduce a bigger mystery
>>>> whithout
>>>> any clarification, which is basically a kind of bad "theism".
>>>> Honestly I am critical of AR, because I am not sure arithmetical
>>>> truth it is
>>>> independent of me or us.  I suspect it arithmetical truth is
>>>> nonsensical if
>>>> there is no one to perceive it, because this is what gives something
>>>> truth
>>>> or even is truth. I can't conceive of 1+1=2 without the (necessarily
>>>> subjective) truth in it. That's why I suppose that arithmetic truth
>>>> is a
>>>> view on or a kind of a more fundamental subjective truth (and not
>>>> the other
>>>> way around) or that they are interdependent. I am not sure if this
>>>> makes me
>>>> rejecting COMP, even though I would say "Yes, doctor" and I accept
>>>> Church's
>>>> thesis .
>>> But with comp, you are using "1+1=2", and much more, to tackle the
>>> subjective truth of a universal number thinking about "1+1=2". So, if
>>> you reject arithmetical truth, comp makes no much sense.
>> I didn't write I reject arithmetical truth. I reject arithmetical  
>> realism; I
>> don't think arithmetical truth exists seperately from its observer.
> But what theory will you use to tell me what you mean by an observer?
Well, I guess there can be no theory that tells you about this, ultimately.
You can only discover yourself.
What theory will you use to tell me what you meany by numbers?
I am bit puzzled that you asked this question, since I got the impression
you too inuit that many (most) things cannot be explained / grasped by

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 1+1=2 is
>> still true, just not independently of us.
> In which way?
> Are you not confusing the truth of 1+1=2, with the human theories that  
> 1+1=2?
> Or with the subjective apprehension by some subject that 1+1=2?
No. For me it is somewhat obvious that 1+1=2 is an expression within, and
reliant upon the self (consciousness/God).
There is no independent truth of 1+1=2. It expresses the same truth as
everything else. What is (1+1), is what is (2).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> remember my goal is to explain that IF we believe the body is  
> digitalizable at some level, then physics, and the whole theology, is  
> given by the arithmetical truth. I can't start from the human  
> observer, nor can we do that in math, physics, and logic.
Well, in my mind, this is just trying to escape the reality, that we have to
start from observation. We simply have nothing else to start with. This is
not my belief. Apparently observation (in the broadest sense) is all that
there is.
Of course the mistake of being antrophocentric should be avoided . But we
can learn to see beyond our humanness.
We still can make a connection between mind states and arithmetical
statements, so I wouldn't reject COMP outright. Just its ontological claims.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The reason is that 1+1=2 makes
>> sense because it is true, and truth is fundamentally linked to a  
>> subject
>> that intuits what truth is.
> No, it makes sense because we can intuits the truth. But even if we  
> could not, it would still be true.
How do you know? I see nothing to ground that statement in. It seems like a
statement that is neither falsifiable nor verifiable through experience. I
am very skeptical about such statements.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  No need of any observer for making  
> it true.
What's making it true, then?

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> This doesn't mean that 1+1=2 is true for me and not true for  
>> somebody else,
>> but that is necessarily true because I (=consciousness, not ego)  
>> necessarily
>> am.
> Well, with comp, this is tautological. You could have said 1+1=2 <->  
> the machine i on input j asserts k". But the consciousness, and  
> eventual matter around have to be explained.
Why? Some things are unexplainable. If not consciousness, than numbers. I am
frankly skeptical COMP explains consciousness. It seems it just makes sense
of consciousness relative to numbers. But consciousness is still just
postulated at the start (it is an unavoidable axiom).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> My hypothesis is that truth is equal to awareness / consciousness / "I
>> am-ness" and all kind of expressions of truth are just... well,  
>> expressions
>> of the truth and not independent of it. 1+1=2 is an expression of  
>> 1+1 being
>> itself as 2.
>> This hypothesis makes everything mysterious, but this may just be as  
>> it is.
>> The truth is necessarily mysterious. All explanations are just  
>> expressions
>> of its mysterious nature, that allow us to look deeper into what it  
>> is, but
>> never giving an explanation *for* it. It's beyond explanations, seeing
>> itself through explanations.
> Here you just stop thinking, I'm afraid.
Yes. We can't solve everything through thinking. 

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  We don't know what truth is,  
> and we discuss on the complex topic of the mind body problem.
 We don't know what truth is, still we can intuit it, and express this in

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  To  equate truth and consciousness is lazy mystery elimination by  
> confusion.
I just don't see what truth could be, if not itself subjectively being
itself. Truth is what truth perceives itself to be, as there is nothing else
to ground truth in, if not itself.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  Above all, you are confusing 3-truth (reality) and 1-truth  
> (consciousness).
I think this distinction is relative. It just makes sense relative to
persons. Ultimately there 3-truth is a 1-truth, as someone has to witness
the third person view. We can't objectify things without seeing them

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  That can lead you to solipsism.
Yes. I never observe anything but myself. Why should I postulate anything
beyond this? Granted, this may seem absurd, or even crazy.
But if we let go of the idea that we are a seperate ego, it can be quite
obvious that there is ultimately only one mind, the mind of God. Truth.
Consciousness. And this I don't find absurd.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> I am not saying that this is true, only that this is testable.
>>>> OK, but as you said it is hard, and perhaps inaccurate, to translate
>>>> what
>>>> COMP implies into every day language.
>>> That will be the work of the teacher. The solution here is very
>>> simple: double their salaries. Make them more respected.
>> I see no reason doubling their salaries will help. They will just  
>> say "Oh,
>> great, I continue as before and get much more money".
> Now, *you* are the pessimist.
Realist :D. I am not optimistic about every single thing, just about
everthing as a whole.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> If someone
>>>>>> specifically wants (and plausibly has the ability) to build a  
>>>>>> being
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> suffers much more or much more prolonged than we can, we should do
>>>>>> (almost)
>>>>>> everything to prevent it.
>>>>> That would be nice. Torture should be forbidden, and artificial or
>>>>> virtual torture too. Of course.
>>>>> But unfortunately, you cannot prohibit torture under consent  
>>>>> (unless
>>>>> you want to be the big boss of an giant illegal market).
>>>> People really seldomly want to be literally tortured.
>>> Today. But this is because we dispose only of one body. That will
>>> change, soon or later.
>> I doubt it has someting to do with the body. The bad thing about  
>> hurting
>> your body is that it leads to bad feelings. So if you desperately  
>> want bad
>> feelings, you will want your body to be disfigured.
> But then you can use another body, or just die, with your own consent.  
> You keep your job, and you pay your taxes. If we live in virtual  
> reality, this does not consume much money, so why not?
I already gave my reasons against this.
I don't think that consent is fundamental, and I don't see why there is a
rigid boundary between adults and kids in that matter.
It seems we just disagree here.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> I am not even sure about that. But i find plausible that there is no
>>> final realization and a coming back. The coming back forces a minimal
>>> amount of amnesia.
>> Hm... I still wonder how we can even fathom the final realization if  
>> this is
>> true. Also, if there is a final realization it appears there has to  
>> be hard
>> boundary between final-realization and not-final realization. I  
>> don't see
>> how experience could work this way.
>> But perhaps we are just differing in what constitutes a final  
>> realization. I
>> can conceive a final realizations in the sense that it is final with  
>> respect
>> to knowing that you are THIS and not an ego. But then it is not  
>> temporally
>> final and not final in its intensity, but final in the sense of  
>> being a
>> necessary eternal attractor that can't be avoided forever.
> Yes.
> But it is a very difficult subject. In fine, I think we can only make  
> the experience, and that, whatever we try to capture with words will  
> be misleading.
That boils it down quite nicely.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> While I don't think we can "exterminate" the evil, I believe we  
>>>>>> can
>>>>>> plausibly ultimately transfrom and integrate the bad in a way that
>>>>>> we feel
>>>>>> as very good.  And in this sense I believe the good can win. The  
>>>>>> bad
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> just remain as a faint memory, metaphor, relative description and
>>>>>> maybe,
>>>>>> roles in play.
>>>>> I almost agree. Eventually the bad will be reserve only for those  
>>>>> who
>>>>> like it. The question of consent is of utter importance. Bad with
>>>>> consent is not that bad. The real bad is when someone think at your
>>>>> place, and decides for you without your consent. The good without
>>>>> consent is worst than the bad with consent.
>>>> I disagree (though I agree that good without consent is also
>>>> problematic).
>>>> See my examples above.
>>>> One might even argue bad with (usually partly) consent is worse,
>>>> because it
>>>> perpetuates the badness.
>>> But with consent, and no harm to the neighborhood, it is no more that
>>> bad.
>> Well, we might agree to disagree here. Consent is not the ultimate  
>> criteria
>> for what is (not) bad in my mind. Very important, sure.
> Glad you find that important, at least. And then it is good we keep  
> some subject to disagree on, if only for the fun of conversing.
Just disagreeing is no fun for me. There has to the feeling that there is
some convergence happening.
Because of this I won't go deeply into the political discussion. I made the
experience that it is pointless to argue against the state when people are
not already open to the belief.
Most people are really attached to this belief, they feel uncomfortable to
abolish the belief in a supreme authority, and this is understandable. After
all, I felt this way as well. It is scary to abolish control and open
oneself to the unknown.
There countless arguments for and against the state. For me it just boils
down to the feeling that we shouldn't base our society on force, and that
the state is based on force, whether one likes to acknowledge this or not.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Like a complex body
>>> needs a brain.
>> Again, this is not a good anology. The body is not to the brain like  
>> the
>> state is to the people. The brain is organized fundamentally  
>> different than
>> other body parts, while the state itself is made of people.
> The brain is made of cells, like the body.
All objects on earth are made of atoms as well. My points is that they are
different cells.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Thinking that our system is so good that it needs no fundamental  
>> reform
> I did not say that. I agree it fails, but less badly (less bloodily)  
> than anything else. I am for very fundamental reform, but discussing  
> that kind of things with people makes me realize that it is difficult  
> and that it will take time.
I meant reforming the very basis, ie the principle of democracy.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> A good religion is only one that is open to new ideas, beyond  
>> "believe in
>> our God and you will go to heaven, even though there is no evidence  
>> for
>> this.". And a good system for decisionmaking is only one that is  
>> open to new
>> ideas, beyond "let the majority vote for politicians and everything  
>> will be
>> OK, even though this didn't work in the past".
> OK, but the problem is that you can't decide for other what is good or  
> not, so the majority vote is the less bad way to let the new ideas  
> growing and being applied. If not you will put expert at the top, and  
> that will lead to even more catastrophes.
You seem to overlook the possibility that no one is at the top, neither
experts, nor the majority.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Without a system to enable the bandits, they would be no big problem.
> Here I think you might be a bit idealistic on human.
OK. Less of a problem.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Drug entities are sometimes like fairy tale entities and seem to be
>>>> real in
>>>> some sense, also many real phenomena like telepathy can seem like
>>>> fariy
>>>> tales.  It is just hard to make precise theories about this, but it
>>>> could be
>>>> possible.
>>> But that might be cultural. Like the feminine presence under salvia
>>> get called "Virgin Mary" after the Mazatecs have been  
>>> 'christianized'.
>> Interpretation may be cultural, but there seem to be intelligent  
>> algorithms
>> that work through some chemicals. I have no clue how this is possible,
> Let me speculate a bit. I think that a brain can be defined  
> recursively in this way:
> a brain is two universal machine in front of each other OR two brains  
> in front of each other. So we have 2, or 4, or 8, or 16, or 32, or  
> 64 ... brains. Those "brains" does not need to be hardwired, most can  
> be programs. I think plausible that they all have their own  
> consciousness, and purpose. The simple integration of all those part  
> is itself part of a process maintained by some crucial part of the  
> brain, like the cerebral stem or part of the limbic system. Some  
> systems are quick and can handle 'real-time" phenomenon (the neurons),  
> but other system talk the oldest language of living system, through  
> chemicals. The glial cells do communicate a lot, but only through  
> chemical waves. Of course neurons transmit electricity, but are also  
> mediated through chemicals (neurotransmitters). So, when using  
> dissociative drugs, it is not astonishing that we are confronted with  
> 'entities'. By comp we know also that such entities live in Platonia,  
> so this chemical quasi-materialist explanation should not be opposed  
> to the idea that *we* are sort of consensus among many "algorithm" or  
> number relations. Life just makes possible for many entities to plays  
> different roles in different context and people.
Interesting thoughts.
I still suspect that something is going on beyond the activity of the brain.
Some experiences seem to crazy to be generated by the brain.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> But beware the delusional power of the brain. Descartes mentioned, in  
> his famous reasoning in "the meditations", that it was possible to  
> dream that 1+1= 3.  That is very rare in dreams, where we are  
> basically consistent, yet that can happen. The brain can convinced you  
> of *anything*, including that the reason of your belief are 100%  
> rational. Some brain pathologies can lead people to pretend to argue  
> rationally, for example that they have two legs (when it is blattantly  
> false).
Yes. We can deluded about anything. This can only encourage us to not trust
our beliefs, but viewing them with detachment.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I have often heard atheists stating that only agnostic atheism is  
>> rationally
>> defensible.
> But this does not really make sense, and can only lead to confusion.  
> The agnostic says "I don't know". You cannot say "I don't know, and  
> God does not exist". To introduce that confusion hides the fact that  
> non radical Christian and non radical atheists are infinitely closer  
> than radical Christians and radical atheists. Such confusion are bred  
> and butter for the fundamentalists.
> The conceptual problem of atheism is that he needs a notion of God, to  
> say that he does not believe in it. It makes the atheists doubly  
> religious, like if they knew what God is so clearly that they know it  
> does not exist! By becoming a sort of philosophy, it becomes clear  
> that they give a too much big importance to one particular temporal  
> definition of God, by one particular community, and then, they pretend  
> that the physical universe exist, like if that was not another God ?!?
> In the absolute value: atheism is christianism. With respect to  
> theology they both are afraid of any other notion of God than the one  
> they have created or defend, albeit indirectly by the atheists.
OK, I can see that.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Somehow this is related to our discussion above. You want to throw out  
> the system, because it leads to banditism, like atheist would abandon  
> the idea of God, because it leads to Rome. In both case, I try to save  
> the "real deal" (the system, God) by criticizing humans and humans  
> habits to perverse the best ideas.
The difference is that the system is just a flawed creation of humans, while
God is... God.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> May be we should allow each young adult to choose its state, for some  
> period. Or two states. I would like to be costa ricans, and Deutsch.  
> Soon or later, virtual states will appears on the net. We might lead  
> to the privatization of state, but we will need states as long as we  
> distribute works.
Nice. I see this as a good way to abolish the state. There can be no
monopoly on violence if you can choose which state to belong to,
irrespective of your geographical location.
They will just be companies providing law, security,...
I feel you are a bit inconsistent here. You can't let people choose which
state to belong to and still enforce a democracy. If you choose a state that
is not a democracy, or doesn't even see itself as state (just as company
providing certain services, or as do-nothing organization),...
You would like to be german? I would give you my citizenship for free ;).
Have fun paying my taxes :P.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> better to give
>>> them the monopoly than to private police and armies.
>> Maybe, I'm not sure. I would rather have no violently enforced  
>> monopoly.
> States are not violent. Just obey the laws (as much as possible).
But I don't want to (and don't feel obliged to do so). That's the point.
I can see why I shouldn't hurt people, and steal,etc... But I don't think
they have a right to take my money, restrict what I ingest, restrict what
services I provide (that don't hurt people).
So I see them as violent aggressors in this respects.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Also, not state-owned does not have to mean private in the sense of  
>> private
>> companies. There can be communally owned and/or not-for-profit  
>> organizations
>> that fulfill this function.
>> I'm not sure which one would work better. Let's try out and get  
>> beyond the
>> need to know how it would work.
> But the very idea of democracy, and thus of some state, is that you  
> can vote to the left when you want, and to the right when they have  
> good ideas, and eventually, the opportunist politicians, who want keep  
> power will listen to the good ideas.
But I don't wanna vote. I want to do what I want and be left alone with all
the stuff other people want from me.
We are obliged to be non-aggressive (there are exceptions, sure) and don't
infringe upon the freedom of others  - taking their property, polluting
their environment,...
Yes, solidarity is nice, but is doesn't make sense to enforce this, as force
is the opposite as solidarity.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> That is what makes a state a state. That we vote for
>> it (or not), doesn't make difference. If I can choose between  
>> different
>> slave-owners, this doesn't make me free, or the slave-owners peaceful.
> Hmm... You will end up being simultaneously a king and a slave, and  
> being alone.
Hm... Or you could say, free.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
> We need police. I am glad I can call police when a bandit  
> is in my home. I can even ask to the police and judges to do something  
> when the bandits is in the state.
That's fine. Nothing against police. 
They just shouldn't be allowed to agress against me, because I don't pay
taxes, own drugs,...  They should just help if am agressed against.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> WE have to speed the decision making, and for this politics is good.
>> But this empirically totally wrong. States are very slow in making
>> decisions. Especially important, unconvenient, decisions.
>> How often do states make the important decision on what to spend the  
>> money
>> that is there on? Most of they time they just use more than they  
>> have, which
>> means they make a bad compromise instead of a real decision. A  
>> company would
>> be bankrupt in a few months, or years if they behaved that way.
> OK. That is why we should privatize the state.
This seems like an oxymoron.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> If you don't do that, the country next door will do it for you. Some
>>> kind of minimal centralization is necessary. But it has to be changed
>>> from time to time, and this need regulation of control. I agree with
>>> Churchill on this: democracy is the worst system, except for all the
>>> other. To confuse the bandits perverted democracy with the democracy
>>> itself is very appreciated by the bandits, and it maintains them in
>>> power. To say that all politician are rotten is self-realizing  
>>> prophecy.
>>> Anarchy is nice, but it can't work. The world is too complex.
>> But this is an argument if favour of it. States seek to simplify the  
>> world.
>> They claim to understand the economy and society and lead it into  
>> the right
>> direction from above. They assume they can successfully provide  
>> homogeneous
>> law, homogeneuos school system, welfare for all, etc... But in  
>> reality they
>> fail. The law is insanely complicated and often inadquate and  
>> outdated. The
>> school system is based on dogmatic opinions on what is important to  
>> learn.
>> Welfare leads to pseudo-welfare (taking from the people, without  
>> them really
>> noticing it, and giving them less back) and welfare we can't afford.
>> Anarchism (at least my understanding of it, I can't claim do  
>> represent all
>> anarchists) acknowledges the complexity of the world and does not  
>> claim to
>> have the perfect solution. We just have to try things out.
> People leading state, and banks, should be more accountable for their  
> doing, but anarchy will just throw us back in a violent past.
Why should a philosophy of anti-agression throw us back in a violent past?
If you associate anarchism with violence, call what I advocate voluntaryism
(I just don't like this term particularly much, because it is a bit too much
associated with right wing / natural law libertarianism).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  Humans  
> are wolves, they like local dictators, and are easily violent.
If humans are wolves, humans leading states are wolves. So you put the most
power hungry wolves at the top.
But really, I think people are more sheep-like.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  With the growing number of democracies, there is a global diminution of  
> violence. It is not a prefect system, but it allows more distribution  
> of wealth, and an balancing between the right and the left. I think  
> you are a bit romantic on anarchism.
I have no reason to be romantic on anarchism. I was attached to state
socialism, state capitalism (european liberalism), minarchism, and before I
was an anarchist I personally knew no anarchists, and wasn't particular
sympathetic to it.
I just embrace anarchism because it is basically a statement of my ignorance
about what works best. It means "Let's try out what works, and try not to be
so violent", without attaching yourself to the belief that some particular
kind of system is best.
Maybe it won't work. Well, then let's try out different systems. But not the
same one that fails again and again.
I sense an openess to reform the system in you. So just continue this line
of thinking and you are left with reforming the system itself, and not just
how it works.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> When  really applied it leads to more bombs, more violence. A far  
>>> uncle
>>> of
>>> mine was anarchist, and was a very cool guy. But the mechanics of
>>> anarchy led him to build and use bomb, and he died assassinated. With
>>> anarchy, you eventually see enemy everywhere, and you are right.
>> It is a lie of the media that anarchists are violent. Of course,  
>> some are,
>> as are state supporters. But mostly they are opposed to violence.
> You might confuse anarchist sand hippies? Hippies are cool, and a bit  
> in advance. But they develop strong rules when living together, and  
> them too, have to enforce them.
Anarchism doesn't mean no rules. Just no rulers.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> If you discredit the profession, by allowing a
>>>>> pejorative sense to the word, you are abandoning the power to the
>>>>> bandits.
>>>> The important thing is that politicians always (implicitly) falsy
>>>> claim
>>>> superiority, otherwise they wouldn't rule anyone.
>>> Indeed they shouldn't. Perhaps politics should be an obligatory  
>>> public
>>> service. We would vote for ideas and programs, but they would be put
>>> in work by everyone.
>> Nice idea. In this case ideas and programs will just be suggestions  
>> (because
>> no is there to force everyone to implement them), they would simply  
>> be polls
>> of public opinion. But this wouldn't be a state anymore. It lacks the
>> characteristics that define a state, eg monopoly on violence.
> In that case the better ideas will never be implemented. And polls or  
> worst referendum is like giveing the power to the novelist and fear  
> sellers directly. I am rather opposed to poll and referenda. Better to  
> vote, and to vote again a reasonable period after. We might vote for  
> ideas, but who will enforce them. If you don't enforce them, some will  
> abort and other will kill those who abort, some will impose  
> creationism in school, etc. It will quickly leads to chaos, and  
> suffering, I think.
Why do we have to enforce all kind of rules? Can't we limit this to the bare
neccesities and let the other rules be followed because of some consesus on
what to do among different, smal and large, groups?

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> There is no need for
>>>>>> a central organ that sees itself as the one having the right and
>>>>>> responsibility to control everything.
>>>>> I am not sure. I mean a minimal can be handy. Societies are  
>>>>> fractal,
>>>>> and each part needs to be centralized, but as we unite we can  
>>>>> make a
>>>>> lot of economy on the organization of the whole. But you need some
>>>>> transparency and trust.
>>>> I am not against centralization per se (though it certainly is often
>>>> disadvantageous). I am just against forceful centralization, which
>>>> the state
>>>> stands for.
>>> Me too. Forcefull centralization is a symptom that the game is no  
>>> more
>>> fair.
>> But this is the purspose of the state. Part of the definition is a  
>> monopoly
>> on violence.
> But I am glad that violence is in the hand of a public system, so that  
> I can reasonably trust them,
Maybe you do, I don't. I would rather would like violence to be dispersed
among many entities, that have no easy means to use violence for egoistic
purposes (as they are constantly watched by other, independent entities).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  and call them in situation where violence  
> is needed. I am against arms prohibition, but I am glad I don't have  
> to take a gun with me each time I cross the street.
Of course. But why would you have to? In the absence of a central authority,
there still can be organizations that try to make sure we are safe and that
punish criminals. I bet they will be a lot more efficient at this than the

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> But without state, you will see your neightbors deciding for
>>> you. Human are pretty complex and opportunist.
>> This sounds quite ridiculous to me. Without a slave owner, the other  
>> slaves
>> would decide for you?
> Have you ever live in a community? It automatically leads the nice  
> dreaming people to do the dirty work. Always. They will not call it a  
> slave, just a good peer. Master/slave is a relative notion, and most  
> animals develop such kind of relastionship very easily, notably the  
> humans.
Sure, that doesn't mean we have to encourage this by officially seperating
slaves and masters (people within the state).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> The democratic state is not peaceful. I am constantly threatened by  
>> it. Pay
>> your taxes,
> But that is needed for you not having to hunt for food, and for having  
> social security, and things like that.
I don't get my food through paying taxes, but by going to the supermarket.
Why do you think there can be no voluntary social security? Because no one
wants to pay for it? But then why do people vote for it, so that they are
forced to pay for it? This makes no sense.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  And when the taxes are to big,  
> you can vote on the right, and when the social security does no more  
> work well, you can vote on the left.
Great. So I have a 1:10.000.000 chance to make the difference I want.
I don't wanna play lottery, I want freedom.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> or,... Go to school,
> But I am glad my parents enforces me to go to school. I was violently  
> disagreeing with that idea. I prefered to play in the garden. Yet  
> later, I was glad of what I eventually learned there.
It is okay for you parents to force you to go to school (well, not with
really violent means, in my mind). But is not okay for the state to enforce
that everyone has to only go to schools the state deems to be acceptable.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> May be health should be privatized, with a
>>>>> free competition between different medicine. You can say "yes" or
>>>>> "no"
>>>>> to this or that doctor: it is your choice.
>>>> Privatization is a difficult issue, because it often means handing
>>>> the power
>>>> of the state to private interest, which is not good. But in general
>>>> I agree.
>>>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>>> We should subvert the state and build cooperative instutions
>>>>>> to supersede it (the internet is a great tool in this). It will  
>>>>>> take
>>>>>> a long
>>>>>> time, but I think it the only route. Of course we can use politics
>>>>>> as a way
>>>>>> of helping to replace itself, but obviously it can only be done  
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> great
>>>>>> care because it is too easy to perpetuate it by using it.
>>>>> But it just exists. We inherit it from the preceding generation. We
>>>>> can't afford a revolution which would put worst in place.
>>>> Right. But we can overcome it by evolutionary change. Which doesn't
>>>> primarily mean change within the state but also outside of it.
>>> But democracy is what make those evoultionary change possible, and
>>> even palpable in a life time. The other method consists in waiting  
>>> for
>>> the death of the power in place, or making bloody revolution. Now old
>>> democracies get corrupted, and we have to fight them, and think about
>>> how to prevent this.
>> Why is it not conceivable to overcome the state through making it  
>> obsolete
>> because it has no support anymore? If 50% of the people just refuse  
>> to pay
>> taxes, the state falls, because there is no way to force millions of  
>> people
>> to pay taxes, or send them all to jail.
> Then you will be the lucky one with a gun, forcing the brave one to do  
> the dirty work, or you will have a 100% full time dirty job yourself.  
> Most people would prefer to pay taxes, even to bandits. If only  
> because we know them, and can hope for better.
You are thinking is really shallow here. You just associate absence of state
with chaos and draw conclusions from that.
Why can't the people that want to do the "dirty" work do the dirty work? If
they get payed well enough, somone will do it.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>>> But the state should never use it, if only for the examples. I mean
>>>>> as
>>>>> less as possible with the obvious  proviso.
>>>> OK, but if you make taxes voluntary
>>> In democracy, taxes are voluntary. You vote at the left for that, and
>>> if there is too much taxes, in your opinion, you vote to the right
>>> next time.
>> Voting for who to force you is not voluntarism. Isn't it obvious?
> No it is. Like with consent of torture. It is. I pay taxes so that  
> police can give me bill if I drive too quickly. Yes, I do that, and I  
> am proud of it. I even pay taxes for preventing me to smoke salvia,  
> and I approve, because it is part of the play.
I don't care whether you consent. The point is that I don't consent, yet am
forced to pay taxes.
And please don't respond with the "love it or leave it" argument. This
pressuposes that the states have the right to claim souvereignity, and our
freedom is only to choose.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If taxes
>> were voluntary I could say "I don't wanna pay, sorry, ask someone  
>> else to
>> pay for your stupid programs".
>> Or I could tick a "Leave me alone." box when voting, and then they  
>> wouldn't
>> harrass me, no matter what others voted for.
>> If 3 men agree to rape one woman, it is voluntary, because they  
>> voted 3 to 1
>> in favour of raping her? "You had your vote, sorry, girl, you agree  
>> to get
>> raped, because we decided for you that this is a democratic decision".
> Nobody said it is perfect. Obviously it needs, like in statistic, some  
> great numbers of voting. If 51% of the population vote for raping  
> woman, well, you can be desolated, and hope for change. But you cannot  
> change that.
This can be changed. If the people that want something have to enforce it
themselves (or pay someone to enforce it), they will often choose not to
enforce it. If the people that vote for a law against drugs had to enforce
it / pay for its enforcement themselves (instead of being able to force
everyone to pay for it), they likely wouldn't do it.
So, by not giving power to the state, someone that would vote for something,
would often not be willing to use their resources to enforce it.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>  The weak point of a democracy, beside defending organized  
> bandits, is that people can vote for a tyran, a mad guy, etc.
Yes. So let's avoid this by not centralizing power.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>> and allow competition for provision of
>>>> security,
>>> Private police. Hmm... I am skeptical.
>> At least it would be harder for them to get away with bad behaviour,  
>> because
>> people will just stop supporting such a police.
> They will not disappear. They will become gangs.
Why? Gangs can just persist if there is no efficient police. With private
polices that compete for money, or communal polices that feel obliged to do
good work for their community, there likely will be efficient police.

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> You seem to view the state as mystic entity that somehow transcends  
>> people.
> It should. It is the bearer of our values. It is what we leave to our  
> children.
Uhm, okay. But that's just superstition. As a matter of fact there is no
mystic power leading the state (apart from the mystic power leading
everything else ;) ).

Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> But it is made of people. So if you want the state to enforce the laws
>> instead of the people, you only create a hierarchy between "the people
>> within the state" and "just usual people". I don't see how this is  
>> good at
>> all.
> Like in a plane. I would panic if the commandant arrives and say, look  
> I am an anarchist, and I will do a nap, now. I let you, the people,  
> flying this plane.
Then the commandant will likely be dead. So he probably won't do that.
Let's not argue with those silly, obviously not applicable anologies.

Contrary to what I said, I still wrote a lot in response to our state
debate. Well, I guess I see some chance that we can find a common
denominator, especially considering you are open to privatizing states.
View this message in context:
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to