hello aretelaugh,I agree with you that violence sometimes is an option, a
civilised man knows when it is called for and when it is futile. A lot of
the martial arts around today have their origins in forms dating back 100's
of years to a 1000yrs, in many cases the origin of these martial arts was as
a response to the actions of a monarch/lord/shogun who held different
beliefs and religion to those of these monks. Faced with a foe that
outnumbered them and was better arned (which was not the case in Ghandhi's
stand, the British colonials were outnumbered) the monks/priests fought for
their rights to those beliefs and fought to the death(intellectual as a
higher level of evolution than biological-people knew this circa 1000AD). If
they had succumbed to the pressure and renounced those beliefs the meme's of
the right to free speech may not have survived to this day. Over the years
the survivors of these government/colonial attacks had developed tried and
tested methods (methods that don't work die with the soldiers on the
battlefield) that are around today in the form of martial arts. i don't know
of any martial art that doesn't take the "only for defense, never attack"
line seriously when you talk to its senior practitioners. Violence has on
some level ensured that people with views like Wim's can hold them, I grew
up in a rough area and a non-violent response would not have helped victims
i had saved from worse beatings.I'm sure they respected me stepping in (DQ)
and stopping an attack physically than shaking my had at the futility of
violence.
-----Original Message-----
From: N. Glen Dickey [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 27 June 2001 08:37
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up
Gerhard, Wim Nusselder and all,
Gerhard wrote:
> The subjectivity in MoQ is still one of my headaches, it should not be
there.
I surmise that you are not an engineer. How many ways are there to build a
bridge? Which one is the true bridge? Nonsense. They all do the same
thing but there are an infinite kinds of bridge you can construct. This is
freedom of design not subjectivity. Freedom should definitely be present in
the MoQ because Dynamic Quality always has an element of freedom.
Biological forms are not evolving toward a particluar form why should any
other level?
Gerhard wrote:
> IMO, Libertarianism is like trying to swim with an outboard motor, you
have great
> possibilities for a high speed experience, but this is the only quality
you can have
> hopes for - and you will probably drown before you get things going. The
thing will not
> work before you have the boat (society). In short: IMO Libertarians are
overrating one
> quality, and neglecting the rest.
I found your analogy unsuitable. Libertarianism worked in the US for quite
a while and echoes of it still exists. Social pattern of quality does not
neccessarily imply the State. People can share values without putting the
force of law (and the states threat of violence) behind it. In many ways
these shared values are stronger than the state's laws. It's also
considerably more efficient and dynamic.
Gerhard wrote:
> I need to have people with high moral values for this to turn out to be a
perfect world.
> I am of the pessimistic type, and will expect a large bunch of people that
do not care
> so much for anybody exept themself.
Interesting. So you think Utopia is an option? I don't think so. If
people are basically good you don't need much government, If people are
basically bad you don't dare have one. (I read that somewhere but don't
remember where). Timothy McVey is bad, but Joseph Stalin is a catastrophe.
Wim wrote:
> I have no strong opinions on it and wouldn't even mind much to call a
retreat if someone
> explained to me that drug use is essential to create certain
higher-level-valuable
> phenomena, of which psychedelic music is not necessarily on, if Gerhard is
right.
Be smart Wim, Heavy psychedelics are not toys and should be treated with a
lot of respect. Expanding your mind is not neccessarily a fun experience.
Looking over the edge can be enlightening but also terrifying.
Wim wrote:
> I think it is a battle between phantoms or even spectres, the real issue
being something
> else.
Here I suspect you might be on to something. As a Libertarian MoQer I think
we will never be able to transform the State to be what the Socialists dream
it should be, but I think we might be able to transform people. Peace and
order exist in society not primarily because of laws but because most people
agree on how to behave.
Wim wrote:
> I definitely don't agree to disagree with you on the value of non-violence
for it is not
> a matter of opinions for me. I feel you deny part of my experience (my
self-respect) or
> even of my identity when you call me a mere subject when I have no rifle
and somehow see
> Dynamic Quality in an individual right to possess and use arms. Slightly
overcharging
> for the sake of argument I deny you the right to call your libertarianism
(whatever that
> may be) founded on the MoQ if you hold that libertarianism implies such a
right.
>From my point of view you are a subject. You have abrogated the basic right
to self preservation to others. It seems bizarre to me that you seem to
think the MoQ does not imply a basic right/duty of self preservation.
Competition in nature is not a pretty sight, neither is competition between
societies. When you choose non-violence in the face of Hitler or Stalin you
are behaving in a manner which will ensure you perish from the earth.
Wim wrote:
> Be a human, Glen! Defend yourself. I called you a coward! (Well, almost. I
don't know
> whether you really own a rifle and would use it against a cop trying to
infringe on your
> precious right to pursue selfish interests or only think it would be
"cool" to do so.)
Well maybe I am a coward from your point of view. I've been called all
kinds of things. It not the areas of total disagreement where we're going
to be able to teach each other anything, it's the other areas where can
enrich each other intellectually. I would absolutely hate to have to shoot
anybody (especially a represenitive of the state) but sometimes you do more
damage to yourself or society by not shooting! Evil (e.g. degenerate
patterns of social quality) exist! If your not willing to stand up for your
rights then it's certain after a while you won't have any.
Wim wrote:
> "No cause (= intellectual pattern) legitimises fighting with material
weapons (=
> fighting social patterns by fighting biological patterns with inorganic
patterns)."
Legitimises? You think that no ideas are worth killing for? That's weird.
I respect the self control but I think it's misplaced. All government stems
from an implied threat: Pay taxes or we will jail you. Behave or we will
imprison you. Government is force. It legitimises the use of force against
the few by the acclaim of the many (or it's supposed to). Do you regard the
use of force to a special pregorative of what ever idiot the masses elect or
do you think that people have certain inalienable right?
Wim wrote:
> If you feel biologically and socially threatened and use arms I can excuse
you, but that
> does not convince me that it has more value than a more civilised
approach.
Granted. I never said that violence should be a first (or even second or
third) option. Still there are limits... I am fairly certain that there are
no circumstances when I would initiate the use force against another
peaceful human being.
Wim wrote:
> Whether non-violence would succeed against Hitler or Stalin is not a valid
argument.
On the contray it's the perfect argument. If one of those German Jews had
the balls to put a gun to that wanker's head the world would have been a
better place. Of course hind sight is 20/20. When would you sanction
force? When they were burning your books? Trashing your house?
Confiscating your money? Driving you to the death camps? Try this thought
experiment: What would you think of an individual who knowingly discarded
the oppurtunity to go back in time and kill A. Hitler, averting WWII, and
didn't on the grounds that killing is wrong?
Wim wrote:
> Socrates would not be remembered for establishing the independence of
intellectual
> patterns from their social origins (Lila ch. 22) had he defended with arms
his right to
> brainwash the youth of his day with Ratio.
Prove it. Socrates ideas stand on their own merit and if he had become a
drunk and leecher in his later life his ideas would have still been talked
about. Socrates sacrifice makes a great story but a poor ending for a
movie. (I'm not a Greek scholar and I know enough to know that these events
were considerably more complex than they appear at face value.)
Wim wrote:
> For the sake of argument I am even willing to be so impolite to state that
in my humble
> opinion the United States of America are a backward part of civilisation
as long as this
> "right" is being upheld. My view of the facts of history is that
civilisation
> (intellectual evolution for the better) means that nations increasingly
monopolise
> violence vis-a-vis their citizens (if they trespass) and even increasingly
cede
> sovereignty to use violence to supranational bodies.
Think what you like. I do. I wish more people did. I'm even willing to
put my life on the line to defend your right to think in ways I consider
weird. (Note: When asked in the US Army what I was defending my response
was "smoking dope and bad-mouthing my country sir". The look on the
officers faces was priceless. I even went so far to hang a Soviet flag on
my barracks wall because "that's the difference sir, we are free men and
they are not.") I think that you are laboring under the illusion that
actions of the state are always a step forward in social patterns of
evolution. Why? Social patterns of Quality can degenerate just like all
the other forms.
Cheers,
AreteLaugh
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
_____________________________________________________________________
This message has been checked for all known viruses by Star Internet
delivered through the MessageLabs Virus Control Centre.
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
