On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:20 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 10 Jun 2014, at 13:00, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 1:11 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 08 Jun 2014, at 12:30, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> >> On Sun, Jun 8, 2014 at 6:12 AM, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 8 June 2014 15:43, spudboy100 via Everything List < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I do know what I am criticizing, and view Marx and Engels claims in >>>> Manifesto, and Das Kapital as nothing more than deliberate lies to defer >>>> just criticism, especially, when viewed in the light of Marx and Engels, >>>> quotes, journals, and articles. The withering away concept was deliberately >>>> used as sop, to those who Marx knew would grow weary of state oppression. >>>> Just a little longer and then it will be perfect, everyone will be a >>>> Barron, and master of their own world. The Castro regime still uses it as >>>> an excuse for economic stagnation. As C. Northcoate Parkinson said, "Delay >>>> is the most deadly form of denial." >>> >>> >>> OK, I take it back. That's a valid viewpoint. (I don't know if there is >>> evidence to support it?) >>> >> >> I would say that this viewpoint is validated empirically: all attempts at >> marxist societies devolved into authoritarianism. >> >> Lenin famously said: >> "While the state exists, there can be no freedom. When there is freedom >> there will be no state." >> >> I have no reason to assume he wasn't being honest. It's just that it >> doesn't work. But it is perhaps incorrect to claim that early marxist >> philosophers desired authoritarianism. >> >> >> It would been unfair to say that they desired authoritarianism. But they >> didn't desire democracy either, and did not conceive that the >> implementations of their ideas could be done by the people in some >> incremental voting way. They missed the importance of democracy. >> > > To make it clear, I am not defending marxism. I think it has been > thoroughly empirically falsified. > > > > You are quick! It has never been implemented. > Ok, but Marx said that we could go from A -> B using strategy C. An approximation of strategy C was attempted but point B wasn't reached. You could argue that the approximation wasn't good enough. > > Except perhaps in his socialist or left part of politics, where its social > security can be tempered by the right will of liberty. > > > > > > I think it's important to make it clear precisely what was falsified. I > get the impression that a lot of people that criticise or propose marxism > (and other ideologies) do not fully understand what it is that they are > criticising or proposing. > > >> Democracies are not perfect, and can be very sick, but it is better than >> anything else. >> > > I am a bit suspicious of this claim, because that seems to be the > perception that every era has of its system of governance: before the > barbarians, now the age of reason. We just need to fix some quirks, but we > have the perfect system now... > > > Actually we don't have a better right know, and if you look at history, > that system is the best to guarantie drink and food to a majority, and to > temper the natural hate that some people can have for some neighbors. > The problem is that there are too many confounding variables. Is that really the outcome of democracy, or is it just the outcome of technological progress? Even tolerance might have increased mostly by way of the global means of communication, that make us more familiar with each other. And even the system -> society implication might be the other way around. Could it be that feudalism, monarchy, republic, democracy are just ideas that emerge from the zeitgeist, after the fact? > > But I think the critics is unfair for another reason: democracies have > been perverted. Indeed by monopolisation on money (based willingly or not > on a large amount of black money). > I agree with you that they have been (p)erverted. My question is: <>~p ? > > That is a cancer of our social democracies. To criticize the system is for > me like cells criticizing the blood cells circuit for feeding the cancer > cells. > Time for some nanotech maybe. > > > > > > > > >> Whatever the good idea is defended in politics, it is better to submit >> it to vote, and even still better when doing this without propaganda and >> unfair financial lobbying. >> > > I would say that it is even better if the idea can be implemented without > coercion, so that no vote is necessary. > > > Like ants? But they have very few choices. > On the contrary, I think we have to learn to coexist with many different choices. Democracy is more like ants, it's a single direction set by the majority. > how will you determine when begin the coercion? > When my refusal ultimately results in the use of weapons against me. > Vote is a mean to objectively diminishes the natural coercion that humans > and human groups develop with respect to themselves. > > > > > > The growth of the Internet is a great example of such a modality. > Hopefully, crypto-currencies will also make it in this fashion. > > > Those are indeed sane reaction to the threat of democracy by bandits. > > > > > > >> Democracies can be improved, and sick democracies can be cured. Today we >> need something like anti-propaganda laws, and anti-special-interest >> lobbying or things like that. >> > > The more laws you create, the more loopholes are generated for hostile > agents to explore. > > > This i agree with. OK: one law. You lie your tax double. > The problem is that politicians don't lie, they misspeak. > > > > I think it is best to insist on no-coercion: you can create whatever rules > you like, but I must always be free to opt-out of your society. > > > I am not sure. Not yet. I would feel like in a plane piloted by all > passengers. > Maybe we can all have our own plane, and invite some friends when lonely? > > The problem today is that we don't have a mondial democracy, so that we > can't hardly defend ourselves against trans-individual trades, some of them > based on money based on lies (which hurst and kill). > > It not a problem of democracy but of lack of democracies at the > international level, and the corruption of some groups aggravating. > > > > > >> We need more democracies, not less. >> Today our democracies are in peril, not much due to the financial sphere, >> but due to the erosion of the separation of powers, which favor groups of >> interest again the individual interests of the majority of individuals. >> > > It could be argued that this is the logical consequence of democracy in > its current format. > > > Sure, so let us try to understand what happened. The real question is "how > in the free in the land people have tolerated the prohibition of > medication? > > The founders of america, and the bandits knew well the answers: by fear > propaganda. > I agree. The same strategy is being used to further invalidate the constitution with the fear of terrorism. > > OK. We got the lesson. We apologize, and make prohibition more clearly > anti-constitutional. No need to abandon the votes, as it is the only ay to > minimize the coercion. > To quote Mark Twain: "if voting made any difference, they wouldn't let us do it" :) > > I understand your ideal for the longer term. But the planet is a delicate > vessel, and we have bad habits toward ourselves. > I understand this point and have similar fears, but then I notice they are "fears" and I become suspicious... > > > > > Representative democracy is based on the idea that we cannot trust the > average person with freedom, but we can let them decide who decides. Then > we believe that we can trust the minority of the elected elite with all the > power and all the freedom, and we are surprised when they also act in > selfish ways... > > > They can be as selfish as they want. I love selfish person, unless they > are dishonest and not playing the game, which is the case when the > democracy has been perverted by liars. > > By criticizing the system, you hide the role and the responsibility of the > bandits. > > > > > Democracy in its current format is still a system of dominance. > > > I think that if two universal machine collaborate for a third they will > dissociate into the []p & p and the []p, and one will dominate on the > other, the month with "r". > > We still need bosses. Just abandon the idea that the boss is always right. > I have nothing against bosses, provided I can choose not to work for them. I think I understand what you're saying, but my wider point is this: I suspect that the stuff that makes democracy work (less lying, enlightened self-interest, and ethics code derived from first principles) also makes it irrelevant. Once we are good enough to make democracy work, then we are good enough to live in anarchy. So it seems to me that it's a fake solution, like communism. Except that it's a better fake solution, I concede that. > > Of course, we have to think about stopping using money to make money, but > to use money to share and economize works. > I agree. I think the bandits deeply perverted both the concepts of "money" and of "sharing". I hold to the optimistic notion that humans naturally are predisposed to sharing, and this seems to be confirmed when we observe the behaviour isolated tribes. It is also interesting to observe the bonobos. > > > > > It is a sophisticated one, in that the serfs have plausible deniability of > being serfs. A symptom of this is when you keep reading opinions using the > social "we". "We have to have a debate about state surveillance". Against > all evidence, people insist on believing that there is a "we" that can > decide to stop such things after a "debate". The contrast of Obama's first > campaign with his actions as President made this painfully obvious to some > of us, but not the majority of us. > > > I agree. The evidences are obvious. But that's a cancer of democracy. Not > democracy. > > But I hope they will correct themselves enough instead of making a police > states (in the US), and the progress of cannabis legalization is > encouraging in that regards, although only a full rethinking of politics > needs to be done to understand how this has been possible. > Cannabis legalisation is a glimmer of hope, no doubt. > > > > > > >> >> I don't believe in referenda, except for rare big decisions. Too much >> referenda is not democratic. You can influence people too much easily, by >> TV or other media, and it is better to vote for the wrong idea, and then to >> vote perhaps on some other idea after a serious long period to better >> evaluate if the idea was not working or not. >> > > But there is not option to vote on ideas at all. I cannot pick and chose. > I cannot say that I am for gays adopting and against gun control. This is > not on the menu. > > > Normally you create the menu, but your programs have to satisfy enough > people in the neighborhood. We face a complex problem: nourishing billions > of people. That is not that complex, especially if we listen to the people. > But we still have to organize ourselves which means accepting some coercion, > A more powerful force than coercion is trade. In Germany you have to pay a deposit for a bottle (pfand) if you buy the delicious caffeinated drink "Club Mate". Then you get it back if you return the bottle. The other day I went to the park and had a Club Mate. Some guy appeared and asked for my bottle. I was happy because I didn't have to carry the bottle back with me and he was happy because he was making some extra money. Free trade makes many problems disappear, without coercion or violence. > from a means based on that people listening. We accept coercion from > nature. You will not organize a strike against the gravitation law, OK? > I would never organise a strike. Firstly because I think they are silly (the modern version, with a scheduled ending) and secondly because I like my work more than I like protesting, believe it or not. I find the gravitation law more akin to sociological laws like "people react to incentives". It is silly to go against how reality works, of course. The tax office can cease to exist and reality will still be consistent -- maybe more so. Telmo. > > > Bruno > > > > Telmo. > > >> >> Bruno >> >> >> >> Telmo. >> >> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Everything List" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ >> >> >> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > > http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
