How are minarchist and anarchists viewed by the mainstream political parties?

a reply to: eMachine

Or Life Deobfuscationists

I learned yesterday that to Deobfuscate is a computer term that means "to convert a program that is difficult to understand into one that is simple, understandable and straightforward."

Edit: I also find it ironic that a word that means to make something simpler is so damn complicated. I guess I could keep looking. Might have to go with abolitionist.

a reply to: OrphanApology

I do like that term. That describes the objective.

Our language is interesting and how it has evolved over time is equally interesting... like, you've probably heard of "making a moot point" meaning that it's an unnecessary point to make. The original definition of "moot" is "assembly of freemen" or as a verb "to debate" in 12th century Old English. In the 1500s it became an adjective for "debatable, not worth considering."

It's "not worth considering" an "assembly of freemen" "to debate". Hahahaha.

How are minarchist and anarchists viewed by the mainstream political parties?

As a mild annoyance. They know they aren't a real threat. The majority of the people don't even know what planet they're on; nor do they seem to care. The only things that motivate Boobus Americanus are base, primal impulses. They are infinitely malleable. Their will is easily bent to the purpose of those they perceive to be their betters.

I see no reason to gift these people with freedom. One might as well give a loaded gun to an imbecile.
No. National Socialism is the correct path. The State must do everything; be everything. There can be no other Gods before the State.

originally posted by: eMachine

originally posted by: OrphanApology
The reason above is important in "Defending" against anarchy smears is because most libertarians and anarchists are full of #.

This is why I love to see "Anarchists" argue about what economic system should be imposed on everyone in a future "free society". Their anger at others' nonconformity to their personal ideals shows who is full of it.

Anarchists don't impose.

Anarchists think that a free society will develop certain characteristics as a result all of the voluntary activity.

Proposing what kind of anarchy will predominate is a way of selling it and explaining why it would work.

originally posted by: Smack

How are minarchist and anarchists viewed by the mainstream political parties?

As a mild annoyance. They know they aren't a real threat. The majority of the people don't even know what planet they're on; nor do they seem to care. The only things that motivate Boobus Americanus are base, primal impulses. They are infinitely malleable. Their will is easily bent to the purpose of those they perceive to be their betters.

I see no reason to gift these people with freedom. One might as well give a loaded gun to an imbecile.
No. National Socialism is the correct path. The State must do everything; be everything. There can be no other Gods before the State.

Very funny.

All of the people working in fast food could be working in research labs.

Which would make a culture change so fast that no one could rule it.

a reply to: Semicollegiate

It could all change tomorrow, if we wanted it. The problem is that too many are content with things as they are.
Of course this is an integral part of the control mechanism. Keep people fat and happy and they won't make too many demands. They'll complain often and loudly, but that is easy to dismiss. In fact they are made to feel that typing messages on the electronic ether will somehow affect change for them.

In the 60's and early 70's the Vietnam war protests were a frequent occurrence somewhere -- on campuses, in the cities, in the streets. Everywhere. We are engaged in covert wars and overt wars for more than two decades in the middle east and there is hardly a peep now days. Millions of people displaced, wounded or killed. Nothing.

I can only imagine that the world would be better off without government of any kind. It would be one less gang to rob us, kill us, imprison us or enslave us.

And remember, where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that. — Lord Acton

a reply to: Semicollegiate

Ideally, yes.

In reality, I think, arguments between "capitalists" and "communists" (who also call themselves Anarchists) make no progress in selling the philosophy of Anarchism to anyone and only creates division among those who ought to cooperate if they hope to explain, to a doubting world, why it would work.

I don't believe that we can use our experience of economics within the current system to predict or describe what arrangements will be determined by individuals, out of necessity, in a future we can hardly imagine. People will probably always act with self-interest in mind, which is basic capitalism, right? But people trying to sustain themselves independently usually find it necessary/advantageous to cooperate with their neighbors and help them sustain themselves as well, so they may continue cooperating for mutual benefit in the future, which would be a sort of capitalism-motivated communist arrangement.

This, I have discovered, is not a welcome argument within the capitalist vs communist debate among "anarchists" (on the internet atleast).

a reply to: eMachine

If the principles of non-aggression and voluntarism are upheld, I see no problem calling it whatever pleases you.
If one group has a socialist economy and one a capitalist economy, and both are voluntary arrangements of the people participating, then the markets will decide how effective one is over the other. If one or the other crashes, then they have no recourse and cannot steal from the others to pay for their mistakes.

a reply to: Smack

Definitely right.

I think groups with differently-functioning internal economies would probably find it necessary to interact with one another though, while still practicing the NAP, which would require some sort of compromise. Otherwise, there goes the NAP, and we're back to Lilliput and Brobdingnag...

Really, I think, it's better for the cause of Freedom for anarchists to try to propagate a philosophy of liberty and self-ownership, because our culture is pretty backward in even defining what it means to be free. I desperately hope that there's still time to prepare our society philosophically for anarchy, because if the house of cards collapses now, most people would have no idea what to do without their structure and authority.

It's a good opportunity right now really. The trends are in our favor. More people are starting to hate the government and corporations. It's encouraging. It's "hip" to have backyard gardens, chickens, sustainable energy, composting, up-cycling, even vegans are a pretty good idea since it will require fewer animals-for-slaughter in a community. People are finding ways to say [Expletive] the System, because they feel how bad they're being taken advantage of. They don't see the situation as a whole though, they only see how they're getting [expletive]-ed from many seemingly different angles all the time. It's an opportunity to explain why in the most simple language possible, whenever each of us figures out what that language is lol.

I feel like it should be a priority for our survival (human society) to help prepare people for "lawlessness". Our society is so dependent on the State to feed them their "laws", they have no internal guidance system. They have "manners", most of them, but without a code of ethics that's just outward politeness. We've completely lost our grasp on right and wrong, if we ever had it. Perhaps, as a society with authoritarian conditioning, we never really have grasped it, but there have always been individuals who did, in spite of their conditioning. We need those people to come forward and be vocal now, or we're all probably going to "kill or be killed" if something unfortunate happens.

Most of this ramble is not aimed directly at Smack though, forgive me for that.

a reply to: eMachine

I am obsessed with language.

I think it might be rooted in my innate laziness.

If you learn certain root words you can usually figure out the "logic" behind most of them rendering the need to look them up in the dictionary useless.

Like mal-treat-ment

or mal-a-propism(which incidentally makes no sense and required me looking it up in the dictionary)

Always entertaining.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Etymology is awesome! You can discover alot of weird contradictions and little idiosyncrasies in language.

I once read some of a book called How a Poem Means, it gave me so much to think about in the first few dozen pages that I couldn't even digest the rest so I took it back to the library until the first bit sets in. I should find it again. The author, apparently a very important literary critic, said that a writer who truly understands the words they use, the history as well as current usage, can bring more depth to their writing... depth which only readers who also have a good understanding of the language can see. That motivated me to learn more, because I don't like not being in on the inside joke.

Language is very manipulative, if you know how to use it.

Malapropism is a good word to know. Thank you. I may have to learn something about the play that originated it. Malapropism can be annoying. This is a bit of a tangent tho.

a reply to: eMachine

Yeah language is like a hidden history lesson. It's a strange thing because you're reading words and the order they are presented in provides it's own message but there's this hidden history in each word. It's like this huge world that's hidden from most people.

Like a message inside a message.

Really bizarre when you start to go down that particular rabbit hole.

I think one of the greatest things that the internet offers is the online etymology dictionary. I am slightly obsessed with it.

Sometimes I just type in random seemingly boring words and it becomes endlessly entertaining. Every word is like a hidden historical road map that can connect civilizations and stories in the weirdest ways.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Absolutely.

One of my favorite, most meaningful words is "free".

Old English freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage, acting of one's own will," also "noble; joyful," from Proto-Germanic *frija- "beloved; not in bondage" (cognates: Old Frisian fri, Old Saxon vri, Old High German vri, German frei, Dutch vrij, Gothic freis "free"), from PIE *priy-a- "dear, beloved," from root *pri- "to love" (cognates: Sanskrit priyah "own, dear, beloved," priyate "loves;" Old Church Slavonic prijati "to help," prijatelji "friend;" Welsh rhydd "free").

The primary Germanic sense seems to have been "beloved, friend, to love;" which in some languages (notably Germanic and Celtic) developed also a sense of "free," perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves; compare Latin liberi, meaning both "free persons" and "children of a family"). For the older sense in Germanic, compare Gothic frijon "to love;" Old English freod "affection, friendship, peace," friga "love," friðu "peace;" Old Norse friðr "peace, personal security; love, friendship," German Friede "peace;" Old English freo "wife;" Old Norse Frigg "wife of Odin," literally "beloved" or "loving;" Middle Low German vrien "to take to wife," Dutch vrijen, German freien "to woo."

That tells me that freedom, friendship, and love are deeply intertwined. I use etymonline quite frequently also, and put an app on my phone for it, so I can look them up on the go as well.

a reply to: eMachine

Interesting.

I wonder if the word is derived from "Frija" the Germanic love goddess or if the name of "Frija"(ancestor of the more popular "Freyja") is just that way because it means love and friendship, since that's what the goddess was known for. Kinda looks that way from the information in the etymology dictionary but it doesn't cite it directly. I will have to research that one a little more later.

See, look what you've done! LOL.

Etymology is such a rabbit hole every single time.

edit:

Found some interesting information. Apparently "Friday" is connected to Frigga which means it is connected to the word "Free" which is fun because Friday is when most people in essence gain their freedom for a few days. Kind of interesting.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: OrphanApology

Yes. Friday is for Frija. Wednesday is for Odin. Thursday is for Thor. Tuesday is for Zeus. Sunday and Monday, as we all should probably already know, are for the Sun and Moon. Oh, and SaturNday.

I read a Neil Gaiman book (American Gods) where a character referred to as Mr. Wednesday turned out to be Odin, but I knew who he was intended to be from the beginning.

Friday being the day to be "free" does make alot of sense. Look what people tend to do with their Friday freedom. Really, freedom requires responsibility, but our "Freedom Friday" is usually about being irresponsible. I'm amazed that people can joke about feeling like a slave, yet not ever come to the conscious realization that they really are in slavery.

a reply to: eMachine

Well mostly freedom is a matrix of consequences that shape our own environments and other's environments.

You can be irresponsible with your freedom, but of course such choices have consequences. It's the opportunity cost of choices.

It's really impossible to ever be completely free. We are a culmination of every experience and person we've ever come into contact with, for better or worse. We are the physical and mental representation of a huge matrix of consequences. You could say a matrix of opportunity costs all leading to the existence of us in relation to everyone else.

Slavery is a term that can seem very simple but is also very complicated when you get down to it. The question becomes do we "truly" have autonomous sentience? Since we have been shaped and our views are victims of chance that placed us at the right place at the right time, leading up to the "now".

Just think, I could have randomly been born in a country that marries eight year olds to grown men. How different my life would be.

I wouldn't be typing right now.

That's why anarchy is such an excruciating philosophy. But in the end it's the only one that ever leads to anything resembling "truth".

Just trying to figure out what at first glance seems simple. Things like "Freedom" and "Slavery" become very complicated.

a reply to: OrphanApology

Well, we have to be able to look at our situations objectively and understand the extent of our control. Of course, we don't have complete control over ourselves and our lives. That's not really possible, you're right, no man is an island (they say).

We all come into life belonging to a place, a people, a culture. Your cult. Only by investigating and analyzing the extent of our conditioning can we become atleast intellectually more free, less under control of others. Culture is a fairly malleable thing tho. It may take generations for a culture to evolve, but the people of a culture can change its values over time. Even those who marry 8-year-olds to old men.

We're all able to contemplate freedom, recognize the methods of control in our cultures, and see how/where our own liberty meets or joins with the liberty of others. That is if we choose to be conscious, to interrogate ourselves, and to see others as equals. Some people choose never to do that, but we all have the capacity. I'd say probably every culture in the world tries to condition its people not to think for themselves, but still there those (in every culture) who question and strive to make life more reasonable.

Anarchy requires a person to really think independently. It requires a person to look at the world and see what are fabrications... to ask themselves, is this real or did we make this up? Also, why did we make this up? Does it serve us? Could we do without it? Anarchy tries to strip away the unnecessary. Deobfuscate. You're absolutely right about that. It does make the philosophy an excruciating exercise.

I can't remember who the writer was who said it, but I recall this quote that says "I'm sorry this letter is so long, but I had not the time to make it more concise". It does take more time and energy to simplify something, than it does to just pile more onto the already complicated program, but it's worth it.