The Mental Militia Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Down

Author Topic: For the people by the people  (Read 10397 times)

Searcher

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
For the people by the people
« on: September 11, 2003, 08:06:46 pm »

I am new here and would thank all for any help they could give me on this subject.

An unknown author, who I read sometime in the past, wrote something close to the following.

"Why is it that we need a gov if people are inheritly good, and how can we have a gov that works if people are inheritly bad and lead to natural corruption?"

2 things I see here.

One, if we bring back the Bill of Rights culture, and the government it brought us, will our grand kids not have to go what we are going through now a couple hundred years later (supposing we succeed in bringing back this culture that brought us what it has).

Two, if not, do any of you have a better vision of gov in mind? And would anything short of anarchy ever give us true freedom? (note: my idea of anarchy means to not have a ruler, not chaos).

Thanks in advance for any insite given.


 
Logged

Elias Alias

  • Administrator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4918
  • TMM
For the people by the people
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2003, 08:57:49 pm »

Searcher,

Methinks that people are not inherently good; nor are they inherently bad; they are inherently *both*. Personal responsibility is all about self-governing one's tendencies toward "bad" and developing one's tendencies toward "good", yes? When anyone would tell us that "man is good" or "man is bad", he is handing us a lie, for mankind is truly both. The human mind is a setting in which spiritual realities vie for dominance; such dominance of a human mind, whenever it is achieved, renders one human life into the heat of the conflict between good and evil. That conflict is spiritual until it is manifest in the earth-planes in terms of human behavior. Once it is manifest in human behavior, (speaking here specifically of mass behavior), the culture's program in general sets the tone of contemporary society. Hence the great focus by fedgov upon the mentality of the public, and hence government's hold on public media. Today's government sees that as a given necessity, to forge, mold, and cast the content of the collective consciousness untoward an unconscious embrace of statism as the surrogate "Authority" from which all safety, service, and sensory-expedition are derived by the subservient citizen. Media is programming. Programming builds mental constructs, memes, thought-patterns, pre-dispositions, "wants and/or desires", false dreams, conditioned perspectives, a zillion interfacing neurotic conflicts which cause one to seek "authority" outside oneself, rendering thereby a naturally-born sovereign into the mindset of citizenship. The very concept of "government" appears to me to be a transposed template of "Authority", and today's government, berserk mechanism that it is, is driving mach-6 to reinforce that illusion within the public consciousness in hopes of maintaining the public's illusion of, in today's catchword, "democracy". That is all it is, but is that *all* it is? :)

Since you noted that you are new here, I'll trot out one of my favorite paragraphs from the Voluntaryists, from this page where you can go read the whole synopsis....

http://www.thementalmilitia.org/modules.ph...&artid=4&page=1

This is the first paragraph from that page:

" Voluntaryism is the doctrine that relations among people should be by mutual consent, or not at all. It represents a means, an end, and an insight. Voluntaryism does not argue for the specific form that voluntary arrangements will take; only that force be abandoned so that individuals in society may flourish. As it is the means which determine the end, the goal of an all voluntary society must be sought voluntarily. People cannot be coerced into freedom. Hence, the use of the free market, education, persuasion, and non-violent resistance as the primary ways to change people's ideas about the State. The voluntaryist insight, that all tyranny and government are grounded upon popular acceptance, explains why voluntary means are sufficient to attain that end."

('Carl Watner, Wendy McElroy, and George H. Smith, from back in 1982) (Carl Watner's Voluntaryist link is on that page.)

Welcome aboard! Salute. Your stars must be drifting in fine orbits if your soul sent you to this board. I think you may come to like the consciousness of sovereignty and liberty, inmixed as it is with creativity and originality and clarity, which you'll find here.  Enjoy...

Elias

 
Logged
"Heirs to self-knowledge shed gently their fears..."

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
For the people by the people
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2003, 02:23:22 am »

Elias covered the philosophical angle better than I can anyway. So let me give you the practical nuts and bolts answer. Damned if I know yet. I've been told by a couple of the Free State Project board members that I've met that Jason Sorens, the fellow who dreamed up the whole idea, refers to himself as an "empirical anarchist". As it was explained to me, that means that he doesn't yet KNOW what level of anarchy can still yield a functioning society, and figures the best way to find out is to just keep reducing and whittling away at government until there are problems. The suspicion is that when you're done you will find out that NONE is the final answer, and that tends to be my own guess. From where we stand these days, though, I'll settle for getting the pendulumn swinging back the other direction. And then pushing it as hard as I can, of course... <laugh> Why not shoot for the whole megillah?
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Augustwest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
For the people by the people
« Reply #3 on: September 12, 2003, 08:26:10 am »

I think (well, I know, really) that Jefferson, and others, didn't believe we could remain a free society for all that long, and that from time-to-time we would need to reassert the principles the US was founded upon.

 
Logged
\"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.\"  - Capt. Reynolds

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
For the people by the people
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2003, 01:00:49 am »

That's certainly correct. And if you read his letters, you find out that Jeffferson struggled all the rest of his life with the fear that the Framers of the Constitution had "sold out" the Revolution. "Thomas Jefferson, American Sphinx" is one of the books I remember that details the efforts of Madison and Monroe to keep Jefferson from speaking out. And there was also a concerted effort to neutralize Patrick Henry.

BTP's brilliant book "Hologram of Liberty" presents the most radical version of this idea I've seen quite persuasively. I am not sure he is right in his thesis that the Constitution was designed from the outset to yield an authoritarian government, but ya certainly can't argue with results.

What I don't think he or a lot of the other theorists who have looked at the evolution leading to our current mess give due credit for is what I call the "Myth of America". There is still a very strong culture of freedom out there, all wrapped up in what people *believe* about America as opposed to the historical reality. You see it crop up constantly, and even the most dedicated foe of freedom among the "Men Who Would Be Kings" dares not carefully couch all his tyrannical schemes in terms that are compatible with the "American Myth". That set of shared cultural values and beliefs is in fact part of what makes the battle so hard for us in some ways, because one element of it is the "It can't happen here" meme.

We here, and people like us who step up from every walk of life, are the guardians and speakers of those myths. Each of us interprets and tells them a bit differently based on our own life experiences and perceptions of the relation between individuals. Is that not what freedom is about? I have no fears for the course of individual liberty in the long term. Even after all the years of indoctrination this is still fertile soil for liberty.

The terrible truth is that this is a no-win situation for the "Men Who Would Be Kings". If they uncharacteristacally can hide their lust for power, greed, and hypocrisy while simultaneously bypassing their incompetence long enough to bring their plans to fruition, the elegant and inexorable rules of  economics dictate that they will destroy the very prosperity and intellectual fervor that make this a prize worth winning. If their plans go awry, there is a very real chance that they will be utterly destroyed by the awakened wrath of a people that history shows it is really not a good idea to drag away from "the business of business" and their weekend diversions. Quite a delicious irony if you think about it, though very little comfort for those of us who must live through such times either way.

 
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Searcher

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 50
For the people by the people
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2003, 09:22:21 am »

Quote
Hence the great focus by fedgov upon the mentality of the public, and hence government's hold on public media. Today's government sees that as a given necessity, to forge, mold, and cast the content of the collective consciousness untoward an unconscious embrace of statism as the surrogate "Authority" from which all safety, service, and sensory-expedition are derived by the subservient citizen. Media is programming. Programming builds mental constructs, memes, thought-patterns, pre-dispositions, "wants and/or desires", false dreams, conditioned perspectives, a zillion interfacing neurotic conflicts which cause one to seek "authority" outside oneself, rendering thereby a naturally-born sovereign into the mindset of citizenship. The very concept of "government" appears to me to be a transposed template of "Authority", and today's government, berserk mechanism that it is, is driving mach-6 to reinforce that illusion within the public consciousness in hopes of maintaining the public's illusion of, in today's catchword, "democracy".

Elias, this may be one of the best quotes I have ever seen. Thank you for your time in responding to me. I did say that I was new here (to Clair's board) but I have been reading a few freedom boards for a couple of years now. I remember an piece you wrote called "Govlish" that, I think, told a good bit about what you are saying in the quote above. Is that piece still out there? I have not seen it since the MM went to the new format.

Hunter, Empirical Anarchist, I like the sound of that.
Quote
The terrible truth is that this is a no-win situation for the "Men Who Would Be Kings". If they uncharacteristacally can hide their lust for power, greed, and hypocrisy while simultaneously bypassing their incompetence long enough to bring their plans to fruition, the elegant and inexorable rules of economics dictate that they will destroy the very prosperity and intellectual fervor that make this a prize worth winning.

I don't know if the polititan (or the "Men Who Would Be Kings") really care what the state of the economy or inventions are. In fact, I think it must be almost certian they don't care. I don't think the prize matters as much as the ability to have the power over the prize. In the end, if there ever was a one world gov, the "president" would care about the power to rule, not if the world was worth ruling.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2003, 09:23:42 am by Searcher »
Logged

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
For the people by the people
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2003, 12:36:14 am »

Quote
Hunter, Empirical Anarchist, I like the sound of that.

Credit where credit is due, I stole that idea indirectly from Jason Sorens. I'd give credit to the guy who told me about it, but that would make him an accomplice, and this particular thief feels like displaying a bit of honor tonight. <laugh>

Quote
I don't know if the polititan (or the "Men Who Would Be Kings") really care what the state of the economy or inventions are. In fact, I think it must be almost certian they don't care. I don't think the prize matters as much as the ability to have the power over the prize. In the end, if there ever was a one world gov, the "president" would care about the power to rule, not if the world was worth ruling.

While there is SOME truth to that, notice that the most venal power-grubbers on the scene always seem to work out a way of becoming rich, and always have lots of the latest toys of about every variety around. Medtech is nice, too, if you're in the power biz, so you can live longer, amass more power, and put more peasants under glass or whatever it is that gives them their jollies. The joke of it is that power can NEVER control anyone unless they let it. It is *so* easy to eff things up in a complex society and make it appear to be accident or somebody else's malice. The more powerless people feel in their lives, the more they will find ways to slip little gotchas in to mess up the "Men Who Would be Kings". And every once in a while, work out a way to make one of them into a rather graphic display of what goes wrong when the natives realize they can bleed.... uneasy rolls the head which wears the crown and all that.
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

SusanLadyKnight

  • Guest
For the people by the people
« Reply #7 on: September 21, 2003, 10:35:41 pm »

Hunter said:
"uneasy rolls the head which wears the crown and all that."

I believe the quote actually reads more like this: "Uneasy rests the head that wears the crown" -- once they roll they don't much care about the crown or anything else.

Elias is very much right in saying that humans are a combination of good and bad, with endless variations in the proportion.
Not only that, but those proportions change endlessly, and depend on the upbringing and education of the person besides.

The burning question to me is: can what people read on line (and elsewhere, of course) change their insight and understanding of life and liberty so that they deliberately choose to do those things that will reduce their harmful interactions with others? Can they be influenced to start thinking for themselves? Can they learn to avoid the things that initiate aggression against others, especially the delegation of that by such things as "democracy"?  Can they learn that the cherished American myth that "the majority rules" is a sure road to tyranny and the death of liberty?

Sometimes I find real hope in this with new people and changes seen in some I've known a while... and sometimes I despair altogether, when someone who seemed to understand suddenly reveals that -- down deep -- they still think that the government really should and must "protect them".  What is your experience?  Susan Lady Knight
Logged

Zefferon

  • Guest
For the people by the people
« Reply #8 on: September 22, 2003, 04:38:35 am »

A very small number (perhaps .000025 percent) are inherently good.
A much larger number (perhaps 3 percent) are inherently bad.
The vast majority are vacuous.
 
Logged

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
For the people by the people
« Reply #9 on: September 22, 2003, 07:01:53 am »

Hey, Susan, glad ta see ya in these parts. Pull up a cyber-chair, and throw 'nother log on the fire. I wasn't quoting, I was misquoting. <grin> Tis a lot funnier this way, though to fully get the joke you'd have to remember the ending of the story "The Man Who Would be King". There's a *reason* I use that term for the tyrant wannabes. I've always kinda hoped it has some predictive power. Reg'lar prophet, that's me.

Good and evil in people? Heavy stuff there, man. I always figure that most people are pretty decent, until they prove otherwise to me. Mostly they never do. Isn't that sort of a corollary of the whole freedom philosophy? I mean, what business is it of mine anyway what is in somebody's heart? Whether they're a saint or a raving psychotic killer doesn't matter a whit until they ACT. Seems to me at least that an awful lot of what is wrong about BOTH wings of the statist party is that they make assumptions about what is going on inside people's heads and hearts, and try to erect this whole big structure of laws and regulations and pictures with circles and arrows and lines and a one paragraph description on the back. (And they all moved away from me in the forum.......)

Doesn't it say somewhere in the "Handbook for Anarchists, Libertarians, Patriots and Other Undesirables Desiring Freedom" that so long as somebody doesn't violate the ZAP we'uns don't much care WHAT they do? Or did I hallucinate that in an exhaustion-induced fit? <twinkle>  
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.

Sunni

  • Guest
For the people by the people
« Reply #10 on: September 22, 2003, 11:02:51 am »

Hunter said:
Quote
(And they all moved away from me in the forum.......)

Hardly. You've just said something that many libertarian wanna-bes (and some who actively pretend to be) sorely need to hear.
Logged

Augustwest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
For the people by the people
« Reply #11 on: September 22, 2003, 12:04:47 pm »

Quote
Doesn't it say somewhere in the "Handbook for Anarchists, Libertarians, Patriots and Other Undesirables Desiring Freedom" that so long as somebody doesn't violate the ZAP we'uns don't much care WHAT they do?

HALPOUDF? That ain't very catchy...

Think it's on page one, line one.
Logged
\"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.\"  - Capt. Reynolds

Ian

  • aka Elf-Boy
  • Member
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1683
For the people by the people
« Reply #12 on: September 22, 2003, 12:11:23 pm »

Quote
HALPOUDF? That ain't very catchy...

Well, I'm sure you can find the same idea in the Book of KYFHO, if you want a source that slips off the tongue a bit more easily :).
Logged
And Tomlinson took up the tale and spoke of his good in life.
"O this I have read in a book," he said, "and that was told to me,
"And this I have thought that another man thought of a Prince in Muscovy."
The good souls flocked like homing doves and bade him clear the path,
And Peter twirled the jangling Keys in weariness and wrath.
"Ye have read, ye have heard, ye have thought," he said, "and the tale is yet to run:
"By the worth of the body that once ye had, give answer—what ha' ye done?"

Augustwest

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 596
For the people by the people
« Reply #13 on: September 22, 2003, 01:02:31 pm »

Quote
Book of KYFHO

Sounds kinda like a Vietnamese recipe collection to me. Smoother than HALPOUDF though.  :)

Either way, Hunter speaks the truth.  
Logged
\"May have been the losing side. Still not convinced it was the wrong one.\"  - Capt. Reynolds

Hunter

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1438
    • Hunter at TPoL
For the people by the people
« Reply #14 on: September 23, 2003, 03:13:15 am »

Quote
Hunter said:
Quote
(And they all moved away from me in the forum.......)

And Sunni replied:

Hardly. You've just said something that many libertarian wanna-bes (and some who actively pretend to be) sorely need to hear.
Surely you jest, oh snakey one. <laugh> Everyone knows I am not even a libertarian... hell, I can barely spell it. <twinkle> I am a quite primitive empirical rational anarchist, don't even like Rand much...... besides which, 'twould not be FUNNY if nobody moved away from me on the bench, now would it? And one must NEVER forget:

Hunter's Hundred Sixty-Fifth Rule: Don't tell me I'm wasting my life, I'm just in it for the comic relief.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2003, 03:14:06 am by Hunter »
Logged
from an undisclosed secure location far, far outside Ohio

Hunter's Seventieth Rule: The Internet needs a "three strikes and you're out" rule. Of the gene pool, I mean.
Pages: [1] 2 3   Go Up