On Saturday, January 26, 2013 1:36:49 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > On 1/26/2013 1:06 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 26, 2013 12:28:01 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: >> >> On 1/26/2013 12:13 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:55:22 AM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: >>> >>> On 1/26/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, January 26, 2013 11:36:45 AM UTC-5, JohnM wrote: >>>> >>>> Craig, I read many of your posts, none was so pessimistic so far. >>> >>> >>> Ah, maybe I was being more sarcastic than the internet allows. I was >>> intending to mock those ideas by quoting Scrooge, as I think that there is >>> nothing further from the truth than the idea that character is completely >>> independent from their circumstance - that people with no shoes can pull >>> themselves up by their bootstraps or who have been born into a system of >>> oppression can free themselves by belief in the free market or some such >>> thing. >>> >>> Craig >>> >>> Hey! >>> >>> What exactly is a system of oppression? Could you describe an actual >>> situation in Nature that is "oppression-free"? >>> >> >> Slavery, or apartheid are systems of intentional oppression, but poverty >> in a land of plenty is oppressive also, even if oppression of the poor is >> an unintentional effect. If it takes two million peasants to prop up one >> Imelda Marcos, then being born into the system which does that is an >> oppressive one, and not one which you can escape by adopting a positive >> attitude. >> >> Just because life isn't free of oppression doesn't mean that if an Imelda >> Marcos manages to tyrannize a country that it is the will of Nature. To the >> contrary, the will of Nature is for the oppressed to kill and eat their >> oppressors at the earliest opportunity. >> >> Craig >> >> Hi Craig, >> >> Setting the drama of humanity aside, can you point to some actual >> cases of this in Nature? >> > > http://phys.org/news/2011-05-predator-prey-role-reversal-bug-turtle.html > > > Hi Craig! > > Interesting! "The K. Deyrolli is a native bug from Japan and is listed > by the Japanese Environment Agency as an endangered species. " Umm, why is > that? Must not be doing something right! >
To conclude that being an endangered species is the fault of the species is more of the same king of social Darwinism fallacy that I was trying to correct. You could be a member of the most magnificent species of fish that the universe has ever seen and still be endangered if your habitat becomes polluted. The native bug has probably been around for hundreds of millions of years, yet their diminishing numbers at the moment (like so many thousands of other species in the modern era) is somehow evidence that their behavior is unnatural and therefore accounts for some kind of justice by Natural means. It isn't true. Evolution doesn't work like that. The explosion of jellyfish doesn't mean that they are doing something right, or different than they ever have. > > > http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/272/1575/1929.full > > "That predators attack and prey defend is an oversimplified view. When > size changes during development, large prey may be invulnerable to > predators, and small juvenile predators vulnerable to attack by prey." > > > Very interesting! The entire abstract: > "That predators attack and prey defend is an oversimplified view. When > size changes during development, large prey may be invulnerable to > predators, and small juvenile predators vulnerable to attack by prey. This > in turn may trigger a defensive response in adult predators to protect > their offspring. Indeed, when sizes overlap, one may wonder ‘who is the > predator and who is the prey’! Experiments with ‘predatory’ mites and > thrips ‘prey’ showed that young, vulnerable prey counterattack by killing > young predators and adult predators respond by protective parental care, > killing young prey that attack their offspring. Thus, young individuals > form the Achilles' heel of prey and predators alike, creating a cascade of > predator attack, prey counterattack and predator defense. Therefore, size > structure and relatedness induce multiple ecological role reversals." > > This seems to imply that there are no Nash equilibria for this case. > Sorry, I think game theory is amoral bunk. Good for robots, but not living beings. > > > But where is the "oppression", exactly? My point is that "oppression" > is in the eye of the beholder as there does not exist an objective measure > of such. But I digress... > If someone creates a condition which impacts your life negatively for their own purposes and then actively prohibits your ability to change that condition, then they are oppressing you. It doesn't have to be measured objectively to be real.You can say that your victim's screams could be hearty expressions of joy if you want, but defending that position is sophistry. > > > Any deer "oppressed to kill and eat their oppressors [wolves] at the >> earliest opportunity"? >> > > Deer are herbivores, so they aren't interested in eating a wolf, but a > herd of even peaceful herbivores can potentially kick the crap out of a > single predator. > > > Yes, but that only knocks down my bad analogy of deer and wolves, as I > intended. I want to explore the idea of "oppression" and see if my proposed > thesis (that government is the actual instrument of all human oppression) > can be adequately defended. I could be very much wrong here! > Why do you suggest that there was no oppression before governments? If anything government rose to artificially interrupt exploitation within a population - to suppress violent Alpha males (or females) from terrorizing the rest. > > No! I dare say that you are building a flawed argument on a flawed >> premise. I submit the entire idea of "oppression", as you are using it, is >> a figment of human imagination. >> > > If you mistreat a dog, does it not become damaged or vicious? It must be > the imagination of dogs too... > > > Good point. Dogs can "oppress" each other by this reasoning, and thus > we see oppression in Nature, in support of my implied point. Oppression is > a natural condition. How we deal with it is the better question. 'Eating > the rich' works until we run out of the rich; then we all starve. > So are you saying that oppression is a natural (unavoidable) condition, or that it is a completely artificial condition generated solely by government? That's a classic double-rationalization tactic. The South used the same kinds of arguments to defend slavery. Heads it's nobody's fault, Tails, it's the fault of those who resist it. > > > >> We humans have the unique ability to behave in ways that do not actually >> solve problems but instead just "make us feel better" about our crappy >> living conditions and the problem that is causing us pain does unchecked. >> Every case in history where the "oppressed to kill and eat their oppressors >> at the earliest opportunity" was one of chaos and malice, nothing good ever >> came of it alone. >> > > The American Revolution wasn't a case of throwing off oppression? > > > Ah! But note that unlike the French revolution, Americans didn't > generally rape, pillage and murder their oppressors, they just killed the > ones that tried to beat them down. > Because America wasn't geographically located inside of England. There was no foreign aristocracy living in the US to punish. The same can't be said for Union's treatment of the South, with Sherman's March and whatnot. > Self-defense is not oppression! > Self-defense from what? Oppression. > Sure, there was a 'looting" of what was previously the possession of the > Crown, but we can follow the line of thinking and note that almost all such > lands (US colony) where wrestled by force from "natives" (who themselves > came from elsewhere). How far back does the chain of blame go? > I don't know that it matters. If oppression doesn't exist, then the Crown shouldn't mind their possessions being liberated. Think of revolution as equally non-existent as oppression - it's just the natural readjustment which should not be mistaken as oppressive by the former slavers and colonial authorities. > > Are you suggesting that whoever is in a position to oppress someone else > is fully entitled to do it, but those who they oppress will only cause > trouble by fighting back? > > > No, why would I as that is very easily seen as a straw man. Note > that there is an implied ability to "fight back" in the oppressed that you > are stipulating. Good thing that they where not disarmed! (I would like to > read your thoughts on gun control). > How does your position differ from the straw man position? On gun control in the US, ideally I think guns and drugs should be reversed. Drugs should be legal and guns should be illegal to manufacture and sell, but generally tolerated and accepted on private property. In reality there are far too many guns in the US to do anything about, but I would recommend that a few cities or even a small state ban them entirely as an option for people to live in an environment where guns are strictly prohibited. As far as being a defense against the US gov't, civilian guns are not relevant. If anything, the availability of guns provides a convenient pretext for the FBI and ATF to burn you alive in your high security compound. There was an interesting story about the Second Amendment (although it is Thom Hartmann so you might not be open to it http://youtu.be/OVJMtCAX5fs) which explains why the amendment was necessary to get Virginia's vote because the 'well regulated militias' of the South were slave patrols. > > > >> It is only when we face our situations factually and rationally and >> solve the problems that we improve our situations. >> > > Freeing yourself from bondage isn't facing up to your situation factually > and rationally? If someone has enslaved or imprisoned you unjustly, what > other solution to the problem could there be? > > > OK, now we need to consider the means by which the oppressed can free > themselves. We need rational arguments here, not appeals to emotion. > The rational arguments depend entirely on the specifics of the situation. Sometimes multiple approaches are equally valid. MLK and Gandhi's civil disobedience is the noblest, but John Brown and Malcolm X's 'by any means necessary' approach may be the only way out for some. It depends on what kind of leash they have you on. > > > >> Let's consider the case of Imelda. How was it that she was able to do >> what she did? She had the force of government to implement her 'oppresion". >> I submit to you that it is government that is unique in its ability to >> oppress, as it has the monopoly on the *legal* use of force. >> > > The use of force need not be legal to be successful. > > > non sequitur! > Why? Governments and corporations cause all kinds of illegal mayhem around the world to protect their assets. What does legality have to do with it? > > > It doesn't matter whether they are police, secret police, army, or > mercenaries who do the torturing and killing and threatening. In the > absence of government, as in Somalia, we do not see any reduction in > tyranny or mayhem. "In the absence of a central government, Somalia's > residents reverted to local forms of conflict resolution, consisting of > civil law, religious law and customary law." ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia). In the absence of a central > government here, the largest corporations would be completely unopposed to > exercise total authority over the population, through private security, > surveillance, and economic control. The separation of government and > corporate power, while offering little protection to the expanding > underclass, at least offers better than nothing, and it offers more than > Imelda Marcos offered her servants. > > > I never stipulated that only a "central government" has the *legal* > right to use force... Just let's set that aside for a moment and address > this segway to "corporate power". Does it operate outside of the law? If > yes, how is government innocent of the charge of allowing it? Bribbery and > corruption are flaws of government that corporations or individual > citizenry use to leverage governmental action to their exclusive benefit, > no? > Nobody is holding a gun to a CEOs head and making them bribe the government. If the government is your immune system, and the corps are AIDS, do you blame the immune system for spreading the disease? Is the solution to get rid of our immune system so the AIDS won't spread? > > > > Any line of reasoning that leads to the implication that government (or >> a proxy thereof) can can alleviate or otherwise assuage "oppresion" is only >> substituting one Imelda for another. >> > > It would have been hard to have an American revolution without an American > government. Who declares Independence from a government if not another > authoritative body? > > > A good question! Got any tentative answers? > Again, it depends on the situation. There may not be any reliable answers, but there may be opportunities that can come up. Times change, personalities emerge who embody the sense and motive of those changes, groups are spontaneously formed through shared experience... Craig > > > > > -- > Onward! > > Stephen > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.