Anarchy Edu's avatar
Anarchy Edu 0 months ago
Can you spot the difference? The Left: “I want to harness threats, coercion, and violence to force my preferences on others because I know what’s best for the common good.” The Right: “I want to harness threats, coercion, and violence to force my preferences on others because I know what’s best for the common good.”

Replies (10)

AHH's avatar
AHH 0 months ago
What they want is division, when various groups unite those with perceived power lose all of it. This is why its psyops upon psyops upon the masses.
Anarchy Edu's avatar
Anarchy Edu 0 months ago
Absolutely. Playing into the group-think mindset creates the division …And the division empowers the state, while also keeping attention away from the root issue. image
MindMining's avatar
MindMining 0 months ago
And then there is what they say and there is what they do. They are liars-for-hire, all of them in modern day western politics. To motivate (indoctrinate) the majority of the public to "democratically" choose what is actually already predetermined and must occur. And what they do in politics is already paid for by lobby money (half now, half when the job is done) That makes politics, incl. the president, middle management. Goverment can pushs laws that benefit them in the long run, hurt or kill people, and they steal from you. That is what they are good at. Once you know, there is no longer a need to listen to anything they say that will benefit you personally. The narative is there to play the public, not to inform the public or have you make informed decisions for you and family. If one then still chooses to keep watching the daily news, and "be informed" by politics, one is hoping that one can change reality by having a strong and persistent imagination. Like changing gender by feeling so, or having a pandemic by fearing it, or having global warming by changing cause and effect and manipulation of scientific papers through (the stop of) funding. Good luck with that. "You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." - Ayn Rand
Anarchy Edu's avatar
Anarchy Edu 0 months ago
I agree. Also the point is even simpler really… Example: I could theoretically ‘change my life for the better’ if I could rob someone else and get away with it. I would benefit from the money, but that doesn’t change the fact that I committed a wrong I ought not have.
MindMining's avatar
MindMining 0 months ago
Copying parasitic behavior for your own benefit similar to the system we were born into, is not understanding the long term impact of high time preference nor will it get you out of that system. I truly believe one can make a change by not participating in the robbery and understand there are driving forces most people conveniently choose to ignore by not looking beyond the puppetry called politics.
Anarchy Edu's avatar
Anarchy Edu 0 months ago
Correct. …I’m just not a consequentialist. If people make decisions around the premise of what is moral, then there’s a definitive answer of what is right, even in the moment, rather than a debate about what outcome *might* occur (which would also depend on a specific value the individual chooses to care about). Simply, my arguments are now focused on the premise that anarchy works because it is good, not that it is good because it works. Admittedly, economics are what initially led me to anarchy though & I do enjoy the subject. If you are a consequentialist, it seems we’re still on the same team & I’m not in opposition — we’re after the same objective: freedom. To respond to your comment on what can make real change… there’s lots of ways I’m sure, but the only thing that *absolutely has to happen* to make any sustainable change, is a change of people’s minds. There has to be a decent percentage of people who absolutely understand it is wrong to infringe on the self-ownership of another. And I greatly appreciate that you’re on my team in this!!
MindMining's avatar
MindMining 3 weeks ago
To me anarchy works because rulers are not required in most if not all situations. Rules yes, rulers no. In our current situation the rulers are the parasite class and are hard to spot because they hide behind and steer the institutions we know and grew up with (and trust(ed)) and screwed us. Humans are pretty capable of self organizing and have always done so in the past. No rulers required that need to feed off the productive and grow like a cancer... Because this has proven to always fail in the past taking all from everyone to start all over again... To make a difference/change in a larger society I have two quotes motivating me that I can do this: "It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men." - Samuel Adams "Never underestimate your own butterfly effect" - I probably ended up conflating two different quotes into this interesting one, but I like it. If individuals continue to show things can be built from the ground up and the result is better than what we get supplied by rulers, others (with values) will become interested and want to learn and even become part of that new small ecosystem. I see this work around me after just a couple of years of effort. Taking back responsibilities is hard work and freedom is not free. But all is very achievable if you care about freedom! What works for me as a general rule what I expect from peoples behavior to live alongside each other is the narrowing down of the 10 commandments to the following: Do Not Steal. And what can be stolen can refer to time, effort, body, land, etc. Just don't take from me, and I will leave you be until you may need me. Have a great day!
↑