Opinion: I Don’t Grieve Over His Cruelty. I Grieve Over Yours.

[Clarallel]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

An opinion piece for your consideration. Be sure to spell liberal correctly when you fire back at the post. A friend shared this on Facebook.

The greatest tragedy to me, isn’t him. It isn’t that the person supposedly leading our country lacks a single benevolent impulse, that he is impervious to compassion, incapable of nobility, and mortally allergic to simple kindness.
The greatest tragedy, is how many Americans he now represents.
And that he represents you.

I agree, but I wouldn't put it quite that way for myself.

One can say that Trump - horrifyingly - represents over 300,000,000 Americans. As president, he can be said to represent all of us. Yes, that's awful.

But the greatest tragedy, or scandal, or horror, is that over 60,000,000 Americans actually voted for him, actively supported a man who exemplifies bullying, bigotry, cruelty, greed, lawlessness, sexual predation, and ignorance.

[No_Recess]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

To be fair, the "common people" never have power in any government. All governments are ruled by money. This minority of "elites" drag the common people along.

In the Middle-Ages, money was in land, so those who owned the land, had the power. Today, money is in finance and industry, so bankers and businessmen have the power.

Since the invention of the printing-press, it has been much easier to push the common people the direction you want them to go through mass-propaganda, controlled and financed by a minority of wealthy elites.


The common people are irrational morons. No one trusts them. Not even those who speak the most about democracy. The greatest defenders of democracy will happily abandon it when it opposes them. Then claim that there just needs to be "better education"(IE indoctrination/propaganda to make sure the common people think and vote as they should).

If you were to do something as simple as get rid of the government education system, this country wouldn't last a single generation. And the only reason the "voting franchise" could be extended to minorities, was once they had been properly "educated"(IE once they began voting the "right way").



If we woke up tomorrow and there was no government, most people would be dead in a week. New York City would be emptied-out and burned to the ground if there were no police.



There will ALWAYS be conflicts because humans aren't perfect. War is just a form of conflict. The Hatfields and McCoys are another form of conflict. The issue for "society" has been in how to resolve conflicts. Because without a resolution, the violence cannot end.


For instance, take something like Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman. Do you honestly think a "voluntary" government could have resolved such a conflict in a way agreeable to all parties?

The only reason these kinds of events don't lead to war, is because a single political entity has monopolized the use of force across an entire territory.

Even if you had "private police forces" or "justice-systems". It presupposes that the members of each are themselves rational. And that the police forces wouldn't themselves end up in war against each other.


That isn't to say you can't have voluntary government. You can. But just not on a large scale. What would actually happen if you got rid of government, is society would fracture and come apart, and each fracture would itself fracture, until there wouldn't be much left.

Holding together hundreds of millions of people under a single government is incredibly difficult. And sadly, it requires force. And force means violence.

A government who isn't willing to kill or imprison anyone who opposes it, will cease to be a government.


And unless we have hundreds of millions of people together under a single government, we would be poor and weak, and easily conquered by another "government".

So around and around we go.

Are you suggesting that government officials are smarter, more selfless, and more rational than us peasants?

It kind of sounds like it...and that's scary to think you would believe that. Statism is the easy way out. Premature violence to prevent possible future violence is not smart, selfless or rational. It is comfortable...no argument there. It is convenient...no argument there. It can be rationalized quite easily...no argument there as I once did it as a Statist and was going along "ok".

I'll give you that part but that doesn't make one smart, selfless or rational. It makes one dumb, selfish, and irrational.

If we woke up tomorrow without dear old Uncle Sammy watching over his flock maybe everyone would be dead within a week. Could be right on that account. *shrug*

Question though: How is that relevant? I mean...I can rationalize everything from banning plastic straws to defense spending as a reason for the NEED of government. Why are you choosing death as the point of no return for whether or not something is moral and logical instead of judging the thing on whether or not it is moral and logical?

And furthermore, the problem we run into here is that each person has their own threshold. Team Red wants more money for cops, defense. Team Blue wants more money for education, health care. I'm told all of it is necessary for government so I can live. If we don't do it this way dire consequences shall ensue.

Well, lost in that argument (which goes on daily in here) is the fact that you aren't deciding what's most important solely for yourself...which would be moral...but you are also deciding for everyone else and doing so at gunpoint with the victim's own money!

The possibility of something bad happening to prematurely do bad things makes for a bad argument. Your consequence of death is also a collectivist assignment of values.

I don't think you took that Lennon quote the right way...or I didn't explain it the way I wanted you to see it. Probably need further re-education at gunpoint.



One more time...

War is over. If you want it.

It means that anything you don't like, don't agree with, goes against your moral/logical code is within your power and surely within your right to change/end it...even if it means it only changes/ends for you.

I'm not a Statist anymore. It was over when I wanted it to be over.

I don't vote. I use alternative currencies. I avoid banks. I avoid credit cards. I have my taxes down to the lowest point I believe I can get before being caged/killed. I don't overly-consume though there's nothing wrong with consumption in a capitalist society...it's just that we don't have one. I support the corporations/State if I become a veracious consumer.

Do I live in a State? Sure.

I live in a place where voting happens and does, at some level, impact me. I must use the approved currency at times to avoid caging/death. Banks still exist. Credit cards still exist. I still pay taxes. I still consume at some level.

My life isn't going to be dictated to me by the State even if in fact it is. I will separate the two. Statists do this all the time but when it comes to their teams. Just because the U.S. government maims, kills, steals daily and I am living within the geographic boundaries it claims that doesn't mean I approve of what is being done.

I have off-grid friends who are down to property taxes. If not paid...caged and or killed. We know this. Are they "Better anarchists than me?" or "More moral than me?" isn't the way to look at it. The way to look at it is how can I be a better anarchist. How can I be more moral than I am now? WHAT CAN I DO?

It starts with you, as Volobjectarian noted with his references to Eastern philosophy.

Us anarchists are huge on the saying "The ends never justify the means".

There are many reasons for that and they are all pretty clear. When you cheat you only cheat yourself. Your intentions and results may differ. That's why us anarchists go crazy over government mission statements vs government results. War on Drugs, War on Poverty, Public Education, etc. You get an "ends" in your head and backtrack using the means you believe will get you there and the next thing you know disaster ensues. Forget the stolen money (hard to do), neither of us can fathom the amount of carnage these programs have caused on people...all with the "best intentions" which in reality were not well-intended.

We aren't trying to sell you anything but yourself. I mean, with all the horrible crap in the world (240 million killed by States alone in the 20th century) I know for a fact that there are good people or at least redeeming qualities inside a lot of folks. No, I'm not talking about a utopia. I'm talking about the fact that bad stuff is going to happen, let's not preordain it, let's focus on self-ownership/free will, and if you "buy yourself' maybe you'll be useful to me in some way.

That last part is lost on all the statists. Yes, collectivism is evil. INVOLUNTARY collectivism though. VOLUNTARY collectivism can be awesome! When a smart, compassionate, talented person chooses involuntary collectivism the voluntaryists (AKA individuals) have lost someone that could have possibly benefited them and the world at large through voluntary association.

Don't get me wrong: I'm a pretty decent human being on my best days but damn...it would sure be nice to have access to better people out there (whether that's in terms of intelligence, compassion, talent, whatever) to make life easier/better. And trust me, there are PLENTY of smarter, more compassionate, talented people than me. I know it. I see it. Frustrated I can't have access to it. You folks are too busy f'ing around with this Team Red v Team Blue thing.

In order to be the best you can be you have to drag along the a-hole part of you (I swear if there's such a thing as reincarnation and I don't get more patience next time around I'm going to lose my f'ing mind). It's a package deal.

I want my package. I want to see what's in your package too.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

How does hating the government make your life better? Doesn't it actually make your life harder and more-frustrating?

You named me in the quote that actually belongs to No_Recess, but I'll answer. What I hate, rightfully so, is the violations of my natural individual rights that the State believes are necessary for whatever they deem a well ordered society. I should hate violations of my rights, as there is nothing more immoral. Yes, it makes life both harder and more frustrating. When you "see", you see the futility of all of it, especially the illusion of participation as if it matters. Few things are as frustrating as being embedded in something you fundamentally oppose in virtually every way and knowing you have exactly zero chance to change it.

But knowing that, I go back to my Eastern philosophy and Lennon - I can only change things for myself. The very first and easiest ting to do is simply stop implicitly sanctioning that which I oppose by taking part in its illusory mechanics. After that, I can do as No_Recess has done, albeit trying to catch up. I can minimize my interactions with the State to the maximum extent that logic, pragmatism and self-preservation allow. It is harder. It is more frustrating. Believe me, Leviathan does not like individuals seeking to build solid foundations for independence.

Now, how does that make my life better? Simple - I adhere to my principles and I know I do. I am closer to leading what Socrates referred to as the examined life. As I try to move towards that examined life, betrayal of principles can be viewed as taking steps backwards. Go back in the archives and look at some of the conversations between me and either No_Recess or rebeldor about me, specifically, being close to the proper anarchism, but still holding on to that "minimal state necessary" nonsense that was holding me back from thinking properly on the State. That is me taking a step forward and another step back and moving nowhere. I have totally abandoned that minimal state necessary thinking for the nonsense it is, same as I long ago discarded the theory that you could be "sort of" pregnant. The statism thing is all or nothing. You buy it, or you don't. I used to want it both ways, but realize now that proper anarchism is the only sane, rational opposition to the state.

In short, I betray my principles less, even if only in my thinking. Ever since I have evolved my thinking as such, I am much more at peace with myself. That makes my life better, for me. It is harder, but so is working out versus laying on a sofa, but which gets you to better fitness?

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Pretty sure Jesus was murdered by the government, and Christians were fed to the lions/dogs.

Yet 2,000 years later, a quarter of the world's population still believes. The person dies, ideas live on. How many states have tried to eradicate Christianity entirely, only to have it pop back up the minute they turn their backs? Going back before Christ, how hard has the entire world tried to erase Judaism from the face of the Earth? 3500+ years later, has the world succeeded?

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

Only when Christianity became useful to the government, after Saint Paul wrote his Epistles to the Romans, where he basically said in Romans 13, that Christians would happily obey the government and pay their taxes, did anything change.

He wrote that epistle 25ish years after the Crucifixion. One guy, holding on to an idea. And St. Paul did not have any easy go of it, holding on to that idea. Yet he endured.

The beloved State in this country riffed the writing for its single most important defining document - the Declaration of Independence - from essentially one guy with an idea. John Locke. Now, go back to 17th century and be the guy who writes two rather massive tomes that essentially tell the ruling class that ruling classes are invalid and incorrect, and that individuals, even commoners and peasants, have rights to life, liberty and property. Yeah, he had no naysayers at all. And yet, exactly 100 years after he published the Two Treatises of Government, the United States was born with a ratified Constitution (that only got respected for another year or two, but I digress). Amazing how even the silliest of notions of liberty, freethinking, free religion, etc can carry on if even just one person refuses to back down from their principles.

Originally Posted by Redshadowz

"How we live is so different from how we ought to live that he who studies what ought to be done rather than what is done will learn the way to his downfall rather than to his preservation." - Niccolo Machiavelli

Perhaps. But I would argue back with:

Originally Posted by Socrates

In battles it is often plain that a man might avoid death by throwing down his arms and begging mercy of his pursuers; and there are many other means of escaping death in dangers of various kinds if one is willing to do and say anything. But, gentlemen, it is not hard to escape death; it is much harder to escape wickedness, for that runs faster than death.

[Toyman at Jewel Lake]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

An opinion piece for your consideration. Be sure to spell liberal correctly when you fire back at the post. A friend shared this on Facebook.


I Don’t Grieve Over His Cruelty. I Grieve Over Yours.

And I grieve for the writer's ignorance and stupidity. And for those that read his material.

Trump is the first president in some time that seems to have some sympathy and empathy for the American people and is working to make things better and safer for Americans. Unlike, say, his predecessor.

[Volobjectitarian]

Originally Posted by Victor941

Yup (to the bold)! Future historians (if we get to have future historians) will likely wonder what confluence of events led to the election of the donald.

No they won't. As much as Americans like to think Donald Trump is somehow unique, unprecedented, whatever...this is how states evolve. He is an EFFECT, he is not a cause.

Historians don't wonder how people come to power because there is a historical record of how people come to power. The people who wonder are the ones in the present who refuse to believe their lying eyes.