• Als Spam markieren
• Beitrag melden

• 
  Diese Gruppe Alles

• Archiv
• RSS-Feeds

• Kontakt
• Hilfe
• Impressum
• Datenschutz

Re: Alternatives to the Bailout Swindle

On Oct 7, 7:46 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> *Anarcissie* wrote:
> > On Oct 7, 2:55 pm, retrogro...@comcast.net wrote:
> >> On Tue, 7 Oct 2008 10:45:23 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> >> <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> There is also this consideration: given those petrochemicals,
> >>> nuclear knowledge, and pathogenic manipulation, it seems that
> >>> the struggle for state power is going to become more and more
> >>> deadly, as in fact we observe in the 19th and 20th centuries.
> >>> We started the 20th century with machine guns and barbed
> >>> wire; we started the 21st century with hydrogen bombs,
> >>> airplanes, tanks, nuclear submarines,  artificial satellites,
> >>> intercontinental missiles, sarin, the aforesaid pathogens,
> >>> and computers, among other interesting technologies.
> >>> Given what happened in the 20th century, it does not seem
> >>> likely that humans will survive the 21st century without radical
> >>> changes of behavior and social organization.
> >> Yes but it wasn't a state that flew planes into the WTC. And what
> >> counter balance do you want to those actors in light of the list of
> >> extremely dangerous tools listed above that could be adapted to their
> >> cause.
>
> > I regard terrorism (of that sort) as state-like behavior (war) by
> > non-state parties.  It is near one end of the violence and terror
> > spectrum, close to private violence and individual crime.  A
> > bit further up the spectrum you find guerrilla warfare, and then
> > large-unit operations holding territory, and finally wars of
> > annihilation.
>
> So what's the ordinal*, then? Something like "legitimacy"?
>
> *the independent variable.

The conditions which allow warring parties to
aggregate large forces.  Terrorism is the warfare of the
weak and few, large unit operations and annihilation the
warfare of the strong and many.

> > The perpetrators of the attack on the World
> > Trade Center believed they were engaging a state or a set
> > of states, and they were aiming to achieve state power for
> > their ideology, or at least that is what is reported; they didn't
> > do it for the hell of it.
>
> Indeed - Sharia is considered to be a transcendent set
> of *legal* principles. Most of it is impossible to
> reconcile with modern life, except in the weakest possible
> way.
>
> > Likewise Gavrilo Princip, the fellow who set off World War I
> > by assissinating Archduke Ferdinand and his wife at
> > Sarajevo, was an individual acting with a small group, but
> > his intention was to destroy the Austro-Hungarian empire
> > and bring about a greater Serbia.  In this he succeeded.
> > Terrorism is almost always state-like in intent, as well as
> > in method.
>
> Very much so.
>
> >> Again you see violence as a state character, I see it as human
> >> character. When the state leaves the void is filled with those who
> >> control the means to violence. Until resisted by groups coalescing to
> >> oppose it. Invariably they find a government the way to do that.
>
> > No, I regard violence as a human characteristic.  I think
> > humans are in fact an unusually violent, aggressive species.
> > I just don't think the state -- in effect, the organization of
> > sociopathy to control sociopathy -- is working very well.
> > It's like the War To End War -- you know how that came out.
>
> Humans get more and more peaceful, year by year. The murder rate
> in Victorian London was quite high, even by today's standards.

In looking at the history of the 20th century, I couldn't say
that.

> >> Government is just another human grouping to accomplish complex  goa
ls
> >> in the light of competing interests. There's nothing inherently
> >> different about it than a company, tribe or other human grouping
> >> together for goals.
>
> > The difference is that the state is non-voluntary and rests
> > on violence and terror.
>
> The state is a tool of the people, used to try to solve the insoluble
> problems. The problem with it is that it is never adequate,
> and adding resources to it often makes it worse.

Well, I would say that the state is merely the most effective
social tool for doing violence and keeping control of its
rewards.  It is true a lot of people want to do that, so in
that sense it's a tool of the people.

Antworten