a ''return'' to traditionalism, a rejection of ''communism''... - Page 8 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

The non-democratic state: Platonism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy etc.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14946558
Annatar, now I must be the one to apologise to you for the delayed response.

annatar1914 wrote:Yes, it is quite striking, narrow, ignorant, and lacking in depth. But intelligent people can be guilty of that.


There is often a gap between intelligence and wisdom, I think. Intelligent people often fail to understand what is most important or evident.

annatar1914 wrote:Highlights the Christian anthropological truths about man. Man can be good, but is marred by evil unless assisted by God's grace helping them to live God's life within them.


I think that a lot of politicans do not consider whether or not they are good people and they do not fear God's judgement.

annatar1914 wrote:Very true, Marxism (if not Socialism itself) has for some become a religion, an opiate all it's own. To me, it is a Secular Christian Heresy, A godless attempt to seize the Kingdom of Heaven and fulfill it right here on Earth.


What they did not understand is that there cannot be a man made heaven on earth. The condition of our life on earth will never be perfect. I don't deny that it cannot be made as good as it can be but there are limits to what can be achieved. Far from being the opiate of the masses religion provides the existential foundation for life in such an imperfect world.

annatar1914 wrote:Oh, I think that you are entirely correct my friend, and armed with the proper attitude. In Orthodoxy, it seems that there is theological opinion about things that are not directly Trinitarian or Christological themselves, such as the issue about the ''Aerial Toll Houses'' and whether they exist or not for example. And chances are that because they don't directly relate to true Dogma, the matter will likely rest on that level of ''mere'' opinion. Some of these ''opinions'' are held by good people, and are probably edifying on some spiritual level. I figure we'll all find out sooner or later.


The Lord Almighty knows the truth.

I pray that we all have the correct opinion.

And this means that I must research seriously and without bias. I must start making better use of my free time to research these subjects.

annatar1914 wrote:So while i'm sure that it is absolutely of Faith that Heaven is a place, Hell is a place, and beings are ''there'' and not ''here'', and therefore occupy and take up space in some manner unknown to us, then I call it ''material'', as I have no idea how it can be otherwise. I will of course submit to the Fathers and Councils of the Orthodox Faith, of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, but i'll be like that peasant who sees wings on the six-winged and many eyed Angels and believes that is pretty much how they look when they deign to be seen that way by men.

I may be becoming increasingly ignorant for sure, but anything else increasingly reeks of dead Scholasticism and dry Philosophy to me. I'm a simple young child in Orthodoxy. How can there be Mind and Thought and Will, without extension and divisibility? I don't know, and I guess I'll have to be alright with not knowing just yet. I do think some mental constructs though, can be harmful if they scandalize others who cannot make distinctions between opinions taught by good people with authority(though they do have more credibility, if deigned a Saint, a Holy One of God), and Dogma.


Utlimately I do not think it is possible to fully comprehend the mysteries of the universe. We must be content to accept what is true without necessarily understanding it. I also think that we often understand far more than what we think we do. It is possible to understand without actually being able to articulate the subject we are trying to understand.

annatar1914 wrote:Again, you're right I think, there's a dichotomy, but I believe it's more a case of ''seen'' and sensed, and ''unseen'' and un-sensed, than it is of ''material'' and ''non-material''. Scholastics and Idealists literally posit beings that do not occupy space and have no form, are just thoughts and actions and wills, yet in some sense real and alive.


I suppose what is most important is that we believe in them. Atheists will deny the existence of them altogether. Although we may have a difference of opinion on finer details we can at least agree on the broader issue.

annatar1914 wrote:I have trouble with that, and if there's anyone that can correct me on it, I'd be happy to chat with them about it. It's not a huge issue, I still will always trust in God.


Like you I humbly submit to the Lord Almighty and seek guidance. Whoever can show me the best opinion is someone I will agree with.

annatar1914 wrote:I think it is the essence of Faith, absolutely. Because while there is nothing truly unreasonable in Christianity, once the basic truths are accepted, one has to still ''believe'', in order to ''understand'', to paraphrase Blessed Augustine.


I think most people believe in something deep down. Sadly conditioning and a misunderstanding of what it means to have a religion prevent people from pursuing it.

annatar1914 wrote:Sure. While it's always been possible to rationally infer a ''God'' on the part of clever philosophers, to posit a ''god'' who creates everything, sets everything into motion, maintains the cosmos in existence, etc... That ''God'' is not a God Who loves, is a Person (s) with Whom one can have a relationship, necessarily. This is why the ''God'' of the Medieval Scholastics seems so remote, because they cobbled together their Ideas drawn from the Greco-Roman thinkers and conformed Him to them, or tried to.


I think that atheists cannot posit the existence of God even from a classical philosopher's point of view. Or maybe it is that they do believe deep down but just deny it to themselves and in public?

annatar1914 wrote:Well, matter is good, not as good as ''spirit'' (which i'll call that energy from the unknown existence), but it is secondary to the love of God Himself in Three Persons. We are called to be drawn to Him and caught up into His life He lives within Himself, to be gods ourselves in a limited sense. But God in redeeming us will also redeem matter, and already has in a limited way which is for example why we can even portray Christ in Icons, etc...

That's pretty awesome! Pretty cool and even terrifying, but still really exalted and exalting.


Perhaps it is a question of moderation? And again the issue may not be so much matter but the refusal to worship God or to make a choice instead of God?


annatar1914 wrote:If you entirely hated matter and thought it was evil, i'd have that conversation with you. But I do not think that you are seeing it that way, my friend.


It is good that we understand each other.

annatar1914 wrote:Not sure you would be taking things off topic, I think the topic is broad enough, lol. Give it a shot:-)


Thank you. I will try and convince him to become a statist. I'm sure my formidable intellect will convince him. :lol:

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I am awaiting your response with all patience and eager anticipation.


Please forgive me for taking so long to respond.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:No, I would say the opposite. I could make a very good case that consumerism, massive corporations, and all manner of decadence would not be possible under stateless conditions.


Your argument seems to be that if man is free and left to his own devices he will live in a natural and correct way. What is there to prevent the prevalence of unnatural influences and immorality that can exist in liberal settings?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Nature is a constraint, which is what you are missing in a critique of Anarcho-Capitalism.

feminism and transgenderism do not thrive and cannot thrive under stateless conditions because such lifestyles do not aid in survival and the transfer of land.


I do not understand this. Once Anarcho-Capitalism is established what is to prevent people from living ultra-liberal lifestyles? What does survivalism and the transfer of land have to do with stopping people living in such a liberal way? It is possible to survive while having multiple affairs and living an ultra-decadent lifestyle. Conditions just become more rugged.

You have not proven how survivalism is going to bring about a return to traditional lifestyles.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:AnCaps advocate for the natural order being permitted to play out, homosexuals cannot produce heirs to tend their lands and to pass on property and they tend to die out, under AnCap conditions people can discriminate against such deviants and often form private communities that forbid their existence.


You use the example of homosexuals but homosexuals could still form their own private communities under these conditions, surely?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:The only reason that does not happen under liberal democracies is because democracies MUST enfranchise as many people as possible to grow the state's power. All social contracts tend towards communism for this reason, its the expansion of public control.


Is your argument therefore that homosexuality and transgenderism are only possible because they are protected by law?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This is false, the reason people are "free" to pursue decadence is because its protected and even funded by the state. Single motherhood for example, when and why did it become endemic? It did so once the state subsidized it with welfare. The father was replaced by the state. In Ancap conditions, single-motherhood is a veritable death sentence, and so, marriage would be ubiquitous. This is a praxeologically predictable result.


I hardly think life is one big party for single mothers. Some responsibility rests on the men who abandon these women. I am not sure what would prevent it under Anarcho-Capitalist conditions.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:This assumes that all lifestyles are equally viable in a state of nature, when only traditional ones are. The ONLY reason egalitarianism can thrive is because the state protects it and funds it. There is no egalitarianism in nature, only traditionalism. This is the point.


We are not living in a traditional age. It is not possible to recreate the conditions of the Middle Ages or Early Modern Period in the 21st century. Implementing Anarcho-Capitalism will not produce a return to nature but possibly just more anarchism and more liberalism. Liberals will find ways to live their lifestyles in their own way. It will be possible because they have the freedom to do it.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:You misunderstand, the medieval ages has a plethora of privately retained duchies, fiefdoms, independent manors, etc., that subscribed to canon law and their own laws on their own property.

For instance, I am a Theonomist (basically the Christian version of Sharia) and such would be enforced in towns that covenant together on private property and in fealty to the Lord of the Manor.

Likewise, the minarchist monarchies of the middle-ages (which are my second favorite form of social order and closest to AnCap conditions) has a small government in the hands of a private family, and it all privately owned. A King in Baden did not have the resources or the need to police child-rearing in the Black Forest. The natural conditions of life without oversight and subsidy are what perpetuated traditionalism outside of his direct control.

Living under a minarchist monarch was closer to living without a state than anything we can currently comprehend.


But would there still be central laws to influence society? For example censorship, anti-blasphemy laws, laws against offensive displays in public?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:But beyond this, large swaths of both Feudal Japan and Medieval Europe were NOT under monarchs, many were under independent lords, which is exactly what anarcho-capitalism implies. Patriarchy and Fecudnity were matters of the natural order playing itself out. Likewise, such values were reinforced by traditions and especially the church, which keep in mind, was able to exert substantial influence and power without having to be a state over these peoples (a third-party monopolist of coercion), which was similar to the influence of the Japanese Emperor in the feudal era, he was ultimately symbolic, but revered with great zeal in a manner commensurate to the Latin pope. (such a system might be called Anarcho-Monarchism, which I include as variant of my own position).


Those systems existed in those periods in those societies.

My argument is that if we want to return to traditional ways of living it will be necessary to have some type of top down laws about what can be printed in the media for example. I am not sure if your position includes some type of place for censorship laws from the central government.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:I am only for absolute free-speech inasmuch as I oppose a state controlling private agents; however, if I want to kill people who live on my property for heresy as the terms of a covenant I have made with them voluntarily, that is and should be my natural right (besides the fact that God commands it).

Monarchs privately owned the state and continued to enforce the same canon-law that any faithful catholic landowner would on his own land over his own peasants. The entire feudal order is as close to my ideal social-order as you can imagine. It was a state of private-property absolutism.


Then I do not know why you call it Anarcho-Capitalism because anarchy suggests complete lack of control. The system you propose sounds like a type of minarchist feudalism.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Every feminist political accomplishment, EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. required a state to accomplish such ends and none of these accomplishments existed de facto under conditions of a smaller state or no state.

So don't be silly.


What will prevent feminists from forming their own private estates and establishing their own laws?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:If they did, they would quickly die or fail. That is the point, degeneracy requires state protection to perpetuate. Its unnatural and abominable.

For instance, if there were not a state, drug addition would not be a problem. Why?

Because addicts would be dead, not protected and paid for. If you don't work, you don't eat.

Only the affluent would ever entertain such "habits."


So it is acceptable for the wealthy to pursue such habits?

And poor drug addicts do not only survive with support from the state. They can turn to other means like criminality. Drug addiction is not state supervised or endorsed.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:For instance, as a Christian, I actually oppose social security because Christ our Lord upheld the responsibility of the First Born to care for his parents in their old age in exchange for the double-portion of their inheritance. St. Paul likewise commands the family to take-care of the widows and only secondarily is the Church to do so. This is NOT the responsibility of a state. The Prophet Samuel even warns against kings and states, so why should we unequivocally embrace them? Sure, we as Christians are to be obedient to the state and are not forbidden from participation, and both kings and emperors are called to submit to Christ The King, but is that state-itself the ideal form according the Holy Scriptures? Absolutely not.


It is the responsibility of families and the church, yes. But where is it forbidden for the state to intervene where the family and church are absent or cannot provide for the poor and weak?

I would be interested in seeing examples where the Prophet Samuel warns against kings and states.

Victoribus Spolia wrote:Free patriarchies (anarcho-capitalism) are this ideal, as it was under the time of the Judges and prior to the time that God instituted such under Adam and then the Patriarchs.


Do you have evidence that this type of governance is religiously mandated in this time?

Victoribus Spolia wrote:The weaker are the responsibility of Christian families and the church. That is what our Lord commands.

But those who refuse to work, refuse to do what is right. Let them not eat. Their own destruction is just.


There are situations when families cannot afford to support themselves even if every person in the family is able bodied and capable of work. Every person in the family can be labouring and toiling and the family will still be struggling through daily life.
#14946562
ccdan wrote:As if it's more important what people believe than the actual situation. People believe many stupid things and I don't see how their beliefs would change the reality: that the US is extremely illiberal and lots and lots of people are being abused by the system.

To an extent that is true but on the other hand the system doesn't operate entirely unilaterally, the democratic mechanisms introduce some possibility for the system to be corrected by the people subject to it. We can see examples of this in the US where lobbying, petitioning and polling has introduced softer stances on pot smoking, in some states now it is practically legal.

ccdan wrote:You are wrong. While regulation implies sanctioning(as you can see, I won't use the word "punishment") the "irregular" we have two very different things: civil law and criminal law. The former will typically "signal" to you that you're doing something wrong, while the latter can ruin your life in an instant. One should never mix up the two as if it's one and the same. In saner countries civil matters can't possibly turn into criminal ones(for example not paying fines won't result in imprisonment.) But that's probably alien "territory" for americans and a few other westerners.

The distinction between "civil" and "criminal" law is a western one, even specifically an anglo one, it comes from the awkward splicing together of two completely distinct legal philosophies; rules unilaterally decreed by a civil ruler and laws deduced from the consciences of common law juries of ordinary people. Outside of the west, this distinction doesn't exist except in countries that consciously imitated anglo legal forms. Either way "wrong" ways are punished.

ccdan wrote:Sorry, this is propaganda territory already. No one can possibly know what you think, therefore no one can shoot you for what you think. You're(intentionally) mistaking "thinking" for "spreading propaganda"

You're completely clueless.

No I am saying restrictions on speech are restrictions on thought because thought is collaborative process that requires speech to facilitate it. Also there is no need to be rude unless you'd like to lose some teeth if we ever meet in person. :)

ccdan wrote:Ataturk was a military dictator who abolished the Ottoman empire, founded modern Turkey and ruled it for more than 20 years under a single-party system. He forced secularism and various liberties on a very conservative muslim population - no one asked "democratically" for them. Well, if you want to call that "democracy", fine, but many would disagree I suspect...

Right he was a military dictator but introducing democracy was part of his program because his program was to imitate the west and the west had democracy. Turkey's democracy is his legacy.

ccdan wrote:Oh, and even if what you're suggesting were true, there's no irony: the west is no longer what it once was. From about the late 70s - early 80s onwards the US is on totalitarian path:

Image

Western Europe(and now the EU) is a bit late to the party, but it's catching up.


Aye that may be, but if it concerns you then rather than sit about waiting for a military dictator to save us why not use the democratic means available to you to campaign against this problem? If democracy got us into this mess perhaps it can get us out.
#14946579
annatar1914 wrote:Prepare your families.... The greater part of mankind will be dead in 40 years.


The other night a few weeks ago I was struck by a realisation. The divisions and historical processes currently underway, including the bifurcation of left and right along with mass demographic shifts in Europe will set the stage for a cataclysmic conflict in the latter part of this century. I truly think that there will be some type of revolutionary situation where liberal democracy vanishes in Europe. By the 2070s there will have either been a civil war or a revolution which could be Islamist, far-right/neo-fascist or communist/neo-Marxist or both. The election of Matteo Salvini in Italy and the the significant gains of the Sweden Democrats in the recent Swedish election are proof that the centre ground is gradually vanishing. As this trend progresses the only options left will be the extremes.

What is most disturbing about this process is that it can be stopped and avoided right now if politicians and the citizenry would understand and realise what is taking place. But no one properly understands it and so humanity marches blindly into this horrifying future.

I would venture to disagree with you about Anarcho-Capitalism as the future of the right. In my view this is merely an intellectual episode as right wingers look for inspiration from liberal political traditions to find solutions to the questions that confront them. If anything I think we will see a return to fascist or quasi-fascist type movements. Fascism as it existed is today a historical anachronism but we could see the emergence of a neo-fascism or post-modern fascism. There are already movements like this appearing all throughout Europe and it is a very worrying development. After right populism fails what follows will be the mainstreaming of neo-fascism. The incompetent establishments of Western countries are going to lead us into a totalitarian future if they do not come to their senses.
#14946602
Political Interest wrote:I would venture to disagree with you about Anarcho-Capitalism as the future of the right....... If anything I think we will see a return to fascist or quasi-fascist type movements.


Agreed.

Fascism as it existed is today a historical anachronism but we could see the emergence of a neo-fascism or post-modern fascism. There are already movements like this appearing all throughout Europe and it is a very worrying development. After right populism fails what follows will be the mainstreaming of neo-fascism.


European neo-fascism derives its support from opposition to immigration. That may be causing fascist movements to revive, but I don't think they'll ultimately win based on that.


The incompetent establishments of Western countries are going to lead us into a totalitarian future if they do not come to their senses.


Generally, I'd say the problem is not knowing what to do, but a lack of power to do it. We live on an age in which real solutions are unpopular. That makes democracy obsolete.
#14946614
@Political Interest

Hello Political Interest! You said that;


Annatar, now I must be the one to apologise to you for the delayed response.


Ah, I think that there is no need to apologize, and in your case at least some slight lag time gives you the advantage of your measured and well thought out responses. In the olden days, we often felt we could do this, growing up in 1970's America.


There is often a gap between intelligence and wisdom, I think. Intelligent people often fail to understand what is most important or evident.


Perhaps youth is a factor as well. As time goes on I learn how little I have actually learned, and quite a few times i've had to ''un-learn'' things too. I'm more comfortable with being wrong, or not knowing to begin with, about having all the answers.



I think that a lot of politicans do not consider whether or not they are good people and they do not fear God's judgement.


Good point, and i'm afraid too that the age of the illusion of ''mass democracy'' only encourages the worst to rise to the top. One ''has'' to lie to everybody, because one cannot possibly satisfy every special interest/Sub-Set of politically active citizens, and one ''has'' to cheat and take bribes and perform morally questionable acts in order to remain in office. The only people comfortable with doing that are, well, evil.


What they did not understand is that there cannot be a man made heaven on earth. The condition of our life on earth will never be perfect. I don't deny that it cannot be made as good as it can be but there are limits to what can be achieved. Far from being the opiate of the masses religion provides the existential foundation for life in such an imperfect world.


I perfectly agree with that. Certainly, one cannot build or maintain a society that is better without the blessings of Heaven.



The Lord Almighty knows the truth.

I pray that we all have the correct opinion.

And this means that I must research seriously and without bias. I must start making better use of my free time to research these subjects.


I feel that way too. I know that I make errors in judgement, but generally speaking i'm more content with doing so if they are honest errors that I can identify and correct. Again, I'm willing to bear with my imperfections to a degree without despairing of changing for the better.


Utlimately I do not think it is possible to fully comprehend the mysteries of the universe. We must be content to accept what is true without necessarily understanding it. I also think that we often understand far more than what we think we do. It is possible to understand without actually being able to articulate the subject we are trying to understand.


Absolutely.



I suppose what is most important is that we believe in them. Atheists will deny the existence of them altogether. Although we may have a difference of opinion on finer details we can at least agree on the broader issue.


Yes. I must admit though that it at least seems interesting to speculate on these matters without harm being done.



Like you I humbly submit to the Lord Almighty and seek guidance. Whoever can show me the best opinion is someone I will agree with.


Amen and Amen, my friend!



I think most people believe in something deep down. Sadly conditioning and a misunderstanding of what it means to have a religion prevent people from pursuing it.


It seems this way more and more in the modern world, which however is quite unsustainable. It will be interesting to see how all this changes once a sort of ''critical mass'' is reached.


I think that atheists cannot posit the existence of God even from a classical philosopher's point of view. Or maybe it is that they do believe deep down but just deny it to themselves and in public?


I suspect that it is the former rather than the latter. My own personal experience with ''Atheism'' suggests to me that there are different sorts. One is Atheist for example, because they hate God for some reason, an Anti-theist. Another genuinely doesn't believe, perhaps out of some sort of modernist faith in the new religion of ''Scientism''. Yet another might say they believe in God, but live as if they do not believe.



Perhaps it is a question of moderation? And again the issue may not be so much matter but the refusal to worship God or to make a choice instead of God?


That could be the case. I wonder though if this is even possible to do in the longer term even in this life?




:) It is good that we understand each other.


Yes, that's a good thing. I believe that there will be some really good conversations coming up here.



Thank you. I will try and convince him to become a statist. I'm sure my formidable intellect will convince him. :lol:


I believe that it is a good thing that our little band is doing here. You, Political Interest, Potemkin, others, we are actually the serious sort of people, and we have a responsibility to discuss the serious issues.

And speaking of serious issues, in response to my comments looking forward some 40 years into the future;

The other night a few weeks ago I was struck by a realisation. The divisions and historical processes currently underway, including the bifurcation of left and right along with mass demographic shifts in Europe will set the stage for a cataclysmic conflict in the latter part of this century.


Feels that way to me.




I truly think that there will be some type of revolutionary situation where liberal democracy vanishes in Europe. By the 2070s there will have either been a civil war or a revolution which could be Islamist, far-right/neo-fascist or communist/neo-Marxist or both. The election of Matteo Salvini in Italy and the the significant gains of the Sweden Democrats in the recent Swedish election are proof that the centre ground is gradually vanishing. As this trend progresses the only options left will be the extremes.


Yes, and it is we ''canaries in the coalmine'' today that can sense it, perhaps from being more ''extreme'' ourselves than regular people because we've devoted some time and effort into figuring things out.

What is most disturbing about this process is that it can be stopped and avoided right now if politicians and the citizenry would understand and realise what is taking place. But no one properly understands it and so humanity marches blindly into this horrifying future.


Historically speaking, I am a pessimist. It's probably my pessimism more than any actual facts and figures that disinclined me to continuing as a ''Christian Communist'', but looking at the coming age of decline and barbarism, how can I not stand with persons who want a better more just society, one that appears to be Socialist?

If one saw that life was increasingly going to become more bleak and brutal in many ways, on the other hand, and yet more vital and real for all that, one would have to embrace one's time then as well wouldn't we? There comes a time when you have to come to terms with the limitations of one's time, make peace with reality as much as one morally and spiritually can.

Of course, one could then retort that one should do what's right no matter the circumstances, even if failure seems to be the end result... I'll have to consider that as well.

I would venture to disagree with you about Anarcho-Capitalism as the future of the right. In my view this is merely an intellectual episode as right wingers look for inspiration from liberal political traditions to find solutions to the questions that confront them.


I hold to that original opinion of mine for now, reasons of which I'll expand on later, but I will note as very interesting that you too have noticed that trend of appropriation. Look too at the ''Left'' and it's history in the same way and you might find a similar process.



If anything I think we will see a return to fascist or quasi-fascist type movements. Fascism as it existed is today a historical anachronism but we could see the emergence of a neo-fascism or post-modern fascism. There are already movements like this appearing all throughout Europe and it is a very worrying development. After right populism fails what follows will be the mainstreaming of neo-fascism. The incompetent establishments of Western countries are going to lead us into a totalitarian future if they do not come to their senses.


With my caveat about the term ''Totalitarian'', I absolutely agree. I think that there will be a Fascistic role, with Anarcho-Capitalists playing the parts paralleled by the Anarchists in the Russian and Spanish Civil Wars in relation to the Communists.
#14946768
SolarCross wrote:democratic mechanisms introduce some possibility for the system to be corrected by the people subject to it. We can see examples of this in the US where lobbying, petitioning and polling has introduced softer stances on pot smoking, in some states now it is practically legal.

[...]
If democracy got us into this mess perhaps it can get us out.

If, while trying to kill 5(five) cancer cells, 500 new ones appear in the meantime, what do you think the prognosis will be?

You won't find a single example of a democratic country that underwent a major revision of its legislation in order to become significantly freer, as a result of democratic action by its population. Significant changes in the direction of liberty were only brought by extraordinary events: wars and their effects and consequences, major shifts of power, dissolution of states, regime changes, etc.

Under democracy, the number of criminal laws only grows - turning the legislative and the judicial system into a huge trap - in which one falls or not mostly based on luck or lack thereof. The extremely few deeds that get decriminalized from time to time - often after decades of campaigning, get quickly replaced by lots and lots of new incriminations.

SolarCross wrote:The distinction between "civil" and "criminal" law is a western one, even specifically an anglo one, it comes from the awkward splicing together of two completely distinct legal philosophies; rules unilaterally decreed by a civil ruler and laws deduced from the consciences of common law juries of ordinary people. Outside of the west, this distinction doesn't exist except in countries that consciously imitated anglo legal forms. Either way "wrong" ways are punished.

It's irrelevant whether the distinction is western or not, but you're wrong, the distinction does exist outside the west. Besides, you're mixing up several concepts(the confusion is probably caused by the fact "civil law" can mean several different things)

The key thing here is that the US and a few other western nations tend to "turn" typical non-criminal laws into criminal laws(more ore less directly), thus inflating the body of laws that can land you in prison.

This is where the stupidity of the average individual who believes in democracy, leads(it's actually worse, as the articole is "old" , may other laws have been enacted in the meantime):

There are at least 5,000 federal criminal laws, with 10,000-300,000 regulations that can be enforced criminally. In fact, our entire criminal code has become a leviathan unto itself. In 2003, there were only 4,000 offences that carried criminal penalties. By 2013, that number had grown by 21 percent to 4,850.

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... n-n2009184


While a century or two ago nearly all crime was traditional common-law crime — rape, murder, theft and other things that pretty much everyone should know are bad — nowadays we face all sorts of "regulatory crimes" in which intuitions of right and wrong play no role, but for which the penalties are high.

If you walk down the sidewalk, pick up a pretty feather, and take it home, you could be a felon — if it happens to be a bald eagle feather. Bald eagles are plentiful now, and were taken off the endangered species list years ago, but the federal law making possession of them a crime for most people is still on the books, and federal agents are even infiltrating some Native-American powwows in order to find and arrest people. (And feathers from lesser-known birds, like the red-tailed hawk are also covered). Other examples abound, from getting lost in a storm and snowmobiling on the wrong bit of federal land, to diverting storm sewer water around a building.

"Regulatory crimes" of this sort are incredibly numerous and a category that is growing quickly. They are the ones likely to trap unwary individuals into being felons without knowing it. That is why Michael Cottone, in a just-published Tennessee Law Review article, suggests that maybe the old presumption that individuals know the law is outdated, unfair and maybe even unconstitutional. "Tellingly," he writes, "no exact count of the number of federal statutes that impose criminal sanctions has ever been given, but estimates from the last 15 years range from 3,600 to approximately 4,500." Meanwhile, according to recent congressional testimony, the number of federal regulations (enacted by administrative agencies under loose authority from Congress) carrying criminal penalties may be as many as 300,000.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... /70630978/

ps. the pseudo-judicial systems based on "common law" (like in the US or UK) are nasty insults to the notion of justice
#14946776
ccdan wrote:If, while trying to kill 5(five) cancer cells, 500 new ones appear in the meantime, what do you think the prognosis will be?

You won't find a single example of a democratic country that underwent a major revision of its legislation in order to become significantly freer, as a result of democratic action by its population. Significant changes in the direction of liberty were only brought by extraordinary events: wars and their effects and consequences, major shifts of power, dissolution of states, regime changes, etc.

Under democracy, the number of criminal laws only grows - turning the legislative and the judicial system into a huge trap - in which one falls or not mostly based on luck or lack thereof. The extremely few deeds that get decriminalized from time to time - often after decades of campaigning, get quickly replaced by lots and lots of new incriminations.

Well alright I see your point but mass democracy is still a fairly new political arrangement it may be that the first century of it basically amounts to a training phase where there is lots of activity and lots of mistakes but also a gradual increase in learning from mistakes. Like teenage kids abusing alcohol, popularly elected governments have not yet learned the value of moderation. I think since the 1970s there has been an increasing sense among more people that small government is preferable over big government and you can see that sense having electoral strength in the landslide elections of Margaret Thatcher for example. It may be now is the time for another big shift in popular consciousness and we can have very large numbers of people using their votes to purchase liberty from their government rather than an excess of regulation.

ccdan wrote:It's irrelevant whether the distinction is western or not, but you're wrong, the distinction does exist outside the west. Besides, you're mixing up several concepts(the confusion is probably caused by the fact "civil law" can mean several different things)

The key thing here is that the US and a few other western nations tend to "turn" typical non-criminal laws into criminal laws(more ore less directly), thus inflating the body of laws that can land you in prison.

This is where the stupidity of the average individual who believes in democracy, leads(it's actually worse, as the articole is "old" , may other laws have been enacted in the meantime):

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa ... n-n2009184

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... /70630978/

ps. the pseudo-judicial systems based on "common law" (like in the US or UK) are nasty insults to the notion of justice


I don't see how you can deride common law courts over statutory legislators when all your complaints are with statutory legislators. If you were really pro-liberty you should rather like to see common law replace statutory law.

----

Also you didn't answer my question:

Aye that may be, but if it concerns you then rather than sit about waiting for a military dictator to save us why not use the democratic means available to you to campaign against this problem? If democracy got us into this mess perhaps it can get us out.


To emphasise the point, you are here essentially advocating for a political policy change but if you reject the possibility of using democratic means to obtain that policy change and instead simply hope for a great dictator to step up and save us then why even bother to talk about it at all? Just sit quietly and wait for your saviour. The very act of persuasion you are engaging in presupposes a democratic solution is possible.
#14946850
I think since the 1970s there has been an increasing sense among more people that small government is preferable over big government and you can see that sense having electoral strength in the landslide elections of Margaret Thatcher for example.

It's worth pointing out that Margaret Thatcher oversaw a massive increase in the power and reach of the British government, and she did not hesitate to use government power against social groups she didn't like, such as coal miners or young people attending rave parties.

It may be now is the time for another big shift in popular consciousness and we can have very large numbers of people using their votes to purchase liberty from their government rather than an excess of regulation.

This is unlikely, since most people are in favour of more regulation and more laws, just so long as they are regulations and laws of their choosing. Politics is simply the process by which different social groups vie with each other to determine who gets to decide which laws and regulations will be imposed, and on whom.
#14946856
Potemkin wrote:It's worth pointing out that Margaret Thatcher oversaw a massive increase in the power and reach of the British government, and she did not hesitate to use government power against social groups she didn't like, such as coal miners or young people attending rave parties.

There was nothing new in sending in the cops on those "disturbing the peace" in some sense. Regardless even if Thatcher did not live up to ideals which got her elected it is significant that it did get her elected. You could make a similar case for how the US republican party continues to fail on bringing about smaller government but the fact that they continue to get elected on that basic promise shows an appetite for liberty amongst the voters.

Potemkin wrote:This is unlikely, since most people are in favour of more regulation and more laws, just so long as they are regulations and laws of their choosing. Politics is simply the process by which different social groups vie with each other to determine who gets to decide which laws and regulations will be imposed, and on whom.

True to an extent and it is this that produces the profusion of new laws and regulations because with every election cycle there must be new promises to new voters but so often no thought for repealing and cleaning up the detritus of the old election cycle and so there is a cumulative accretion of red tape. Now and again people need to vote in repealers to tidy things up but so far they don't.
#14946867
There was nothing new in sending in the cops on those "disturbing the peace" in some sense. Regardless even if Thatcher did not live up to ideals which got her elected it is significant that it did get her elected. You could make a similar case for how the US republican party continues to fail on bringing about smaller government but the fact that they continue to get elected on that basic promise shows an appetite for liberty amongst the voters.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

True to an extent and it is this that produces the profusion of new laws and regulations because with every election cycle there must be new promises to new voters but so often no thought for repealing and cleaning up the detritus of the old election cycle and so there is a cumulative accretion of red tape. Now and again people need to vote in repealers to tidy things up but so far they don't.

Yeah, funny how that works, isn't it...?
#14946870
Potemkin wrote:It's worth pointing out that Margaret Thatcher oversaw a massive increase in the power and reach of the British government, and she did not hesitate to use government power against social groups she didn't like, such as coal miners or young people attending rave parties.


This is unlikely, since most people are in favour of more regulation and more laws, just so long as they are regulations and laws of their choosing. Politics is simply the process by which different social groups vie with each other to determine who gets to decide which laws and regulations will be imposed, and on whom.


Yes, and this is where Marxist Leninists use the terms ''Dictatorship of the Proletariat'' and ''Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie'' to describe this political phenomenon you mention. Many people see the ''Dictatorship of the Proletariat'' and lose their minds at such a sinister thing happening, but forget the ''Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie'' that Marxists claim we all live under right now. All the Marxist Leninists are saying, is that it would take an Authoritarian regime to replace a regime that is Authoritarian at it's root. Marxist Leninists also say that the ''Dictatorship of the Proletariat'' would be temporary...

Let's all be clear here though; nobody sensible on either side is talking about ''representative democracy'', invented by the Liberal Bourgeoisie after they replaced the Feudal Aristocracy. It does not exist, never did, it was an illusion, and not even a good mirage at that.
#14946871
Potemkin wrote:The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

The alternatives are just apathy or float a new party entirely. The former is to concede defeat while the latter is a really big job and people are lazy. It isn't quite insanity then to keep voting Republican, just the easy option which is somewhere north of giving up on democratic politics entirely. Eventually the latter is the way to go I guess. Even small and new parties can cast a long shadow if they appear to be tapping into a genuine gap in the political market, for example UKIP. UKIP basically has no chance of taking Westminster yet they still fulfilled their central aim of getting a referendum on leaving the EU... The reason is the big parties need all their votes to stay big parties so they will move in the direction of small parties if those small parties pick up even a few votes just in order to get those few votes back.
#14946879
SolarCross wrote:The alternatives are just apathy or float a new party entirely. The former is to concede defeat while the latter is a really big job and people are lazy. It isn't quite insanity then to keep voting Republican, just the easy option which is somewhere north of giving up on democratic politics entirely. Eventually the latter is the way to go I guess. Even small and new parties can cast a long shadow if they appear to be tapping into a genuine gap in the political market, for example UKIP. UKIP basically has no chance of taking Westminster yet they still fulfilled their central aim of getting a referendum on leaving the EU... The reason is the big parties need all their votes to stay big parties so they will move in the direction of small parties if those small parties pick up even a few votes just in order to get those few votes back.


There is no answer within the framework of a liberal democracy. All politics has ever been, has been the movement and thought and effort of small committed groups of men steering one way or another the rest of humanity. It has always been thus, and always will be. To quote Blaise Pascal;
"The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. That is why the wisest of legislators said that it was necessary to deceive men for their own good; and another, a good politician, 'Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur.' We must not see the fact of usurpation; law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable. We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin, if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end."


Emphasis in bold text.
#14946882
"The art of opposition and of revolution is to unsettle established customs, sounding them even to their source, to point out their want of authority and justice. We must, it is said, get back to the natural and fundamental laws of the State, which an unjust custom has abolished. It is a game certain to result in the loss of all; nothing will be just on the balance. Yet people readily lend their ear to such arguments. They shake off the yoke as soon as they recognise it; and the great profit by their ruin and by that of these curious investigators of accepted customs. But from a contrary mistake men sometimes think they can justly do everything which is not without an example. That is why the wisest of legislators said that it was necessary to deceive men for their own good; and another, a good politician, 'Cum veritatem qua liberetur ignoret, expedit quod fallatur.' We must not see the fact of usurpation; law was once introduced without reason, and has become reasonable. We must make it regarded as authoritative, eternal, and conceal its origin, if we do not wish that it should soon come to an end."

Indeed. The genealogy of morals and the basis of laws, just like the making of sausages, must always be concealed if we are to sleep soundly at night.
#14946889
Potemkin wrote:Indeed. The genealogy of morals and the basis of laws, just like the making of sausages, must always be concealed if we are to sleep soundly at night.


@Potemkin

And so we also know why there have been spiritual advisors and confessors in the halls of the great and powerful, who see too the ''sword of Damocles'' above all rulers heads.

Always a pleasure my friend, especially when you ''get'' what I'm saying, perhaps better than I do.

Seems to me then that those who I've chosen to carry on this conversation with me are people who already know the ''fact of Usurpation'' as the sublime Pascal put it.

So does it not appear to you then Potemkin, that on this level we can keep the political labels to deceive those who will be ignorant and deceived, while communicating something of that higher political doctrine?
#14946929
annatar1914 wrote:@Potemkin

And so we also know why there have been spiritual advisors and confessors in the halls of the great and powerful, who see too the ''sword of Damocles'' above all rulers heads.

All human power is based on a great illusion, a slight of hand. If the illusion is dispelled, then the power evaporates. As the Great Oz once commanded, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" ;)

Always a pleasure my friend, especially when you ''get'' what I'm saying, perhaps better than I do.

It has always astonished me how few people "get" the important facts of life. Do they go through life with their eyes tight shut and their ears stopped up?

Seems to me then that those who I've chosen to carry on this conversation with me are people who already know the ''fact of Usurpation'' as the sublime Pascal put it.

So does it not appear to you then Potemkin, that on this level we can keep the political labels to deceive those who will be ignorant and deceived, while communicating something of that higher political doctrine?

There are those who know and those who do not know. But there are no secrets.
#14947137
@Potemkin

Potemkin, you replied that;


All human power is based on a great illusion, a slight of hand. If the illusion is dispelled, then the power evaporates. As the Great Oz once commanded, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" ;)


A couple centuries go by, and something that really rests on opinion, is considered to have an Aureole of invincibility and immortality about it, usually not long before it goes the way of the Pharoahs and Caesars.

It has always astonished me how few people "get" the important facts of life. Do they go through life with their eyes tight shut and their ears stopped up?


It certainly seems that way. But I'm one of those weird people who actually take an interest in my larger society, in who runs things, how they run things, and why.


There are those who know and those who do not know. But there are no secrets.


There's a folk wisdom which people used to know, Aesop's fables and the like, that prepared one to know the world without any illusions, but that is also being burned up for fuel along with the rest of what we call Tradition.
#14947177
So, reflecting on what we have all said so far in this thread, and I can say now that I clearly can discern in the political/social/economic realm two great forces which ''oppose'' one another and yet are seemingly necessary to each other as well; ''Being'' and ''Becoming''. ''Reaction'' and ''Progress'', ''tradition'' and ''modernity'', ''Revolution'' and ''Counter-Revolution''....

Now, I'm not saying that there isn't good or evil in anything involved with these Poles of human thought and action. What I am saying is that each is Natural, both Thesis and Antithesis to borrow from Hegel and Marx. To revolt is human, and so is the move to put revolt down. It all depends on who you are, and where and ''when'' you are. Not all revolt is bad, not all counter revolt is good, and vice versa. It's all a dynamic interplay of human forces in movement and interaction.

What I've also seen upon reflection so far, is that I think Anarcho-Capitalism and Neo-Fascism are the future of the Right as Capitalism enters it's final phase. I also think that Communism, probably exemplified by Neo-Soviet movements like ''Essence of Time'' (more national and friendly to religion), will be reborn after it's destruction in 1991.
#14947755
Since I have been mentioning Anarcho-Capitalism quite a bit, and since my intellectual inclinations are more spiritual in nature as of late, I'd like to discuss from that angle economics in general, then more specifically the Anarcho-Capitalist trend.

With that in mind, I want to throw out there the following scriptural verses concerning a man's labors, because I still hold that a man's productive physical and mental and indeed spiritual labors are what give things their value;

James 5:4 ;

Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts.

Ephesians 4:28 ;

Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.

1 Thessalonians 4:11 ;

And to aspire to live quietly, and to mind your own affairs, and to work with your hands, as we instructed you,

Luke 10:7;

And remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they provide, for the laborer deserves his wages. Do not go from house to house.

Colossians 3:23-24 ;

Whatever you do, work heartily, as for the Lord and not for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the inheritance as your reward. You are serving the Lord Christ.

Genesis 3:19

By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”


2 Thessalonians 3:7-13 ;

For you yourselves know how you ought to imitate us, because we were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone's bread without paying for it, but with toil and labor we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you. It was not because we do not have that right, but to give you in ourselves an example to imitate. For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat. For we hear that some among you walk in idleness, not busy at work, but busybodies. ...

Proverbs 14:23;

In all toil there is profit, but mere talk tends only to poverty.


2 Thessalonians 3:10 ;

For even when we were with you, we would give you this command: If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.


Ecclesiastes 5:12 ;

Sweet is the sleep of a laborer, whether he eats little or much, but the full stomach of the rich will not let him sleep.

Psalm 128:2 ;

You shall eat the fruit of the labor of your hands; you shall be blessed, and it shall be well with you.



Ecclesiastes 9:10 ;

Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might, for there is no work or thought or knowledge or wisdom in Sheol, to which you are going.''


Proverbs 22:16 ;

Whoever oppresses the poor to increase his own wealth, or gives to the rich, will only come to poverty.


James 5:4-5

Behold, the wages of the laborers who mowed your fields, which you kept back by fraud, are crying out against you, and the cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord of hosts. You have lived on the earth in luxury and in self-indulgence. You have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.


Are some verses about work and labor that come to mind, for reflection.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Are people on this thread actually trying to argu[…]

Isn't oil and electricity bought and sold like ev[…]

@Potemkin I heard this song in the Plaza Grande […]

I (still) have a dream

Even with those millions though. I will not be ab[…]