Is Le Pen the best choice for France?

[JagerIV]

because who get's to to define right and what happens when you are on "The wrong side of history" AKA the governments hitlist. I almost garuntee you when you are shot to death because the government declares you "a invalid." You won't be saying "I lost." or "good game." or "Tis only just." no you'll probably cry out "Where is my justice." or "Woe is me." by your logic it sounds like you should have made sure your justice was loaded.

Well, yeah, losing a war sucks. Why then would I support people who actively campaign for the enemy and our defeat?

Someone is going to define right and wrong. Given that, wouldn't you rather be the side dictating than being dictated to?

Either the thief can declare thieving legal, and punish you for any resistance to the thieving, or you can declare thieving illigal, and punish the thief for their thieving. What other option is there?

Eventually, god/the universe (whatever the preferred terminology/metaphysics) will punish those who act too contrary to the order of reality, and he will meet someone who resists, or his thieving will so destroy productivity that there will be nothing left to steal, and maybe his immortal soul if there is such a thing will be judged.

Reality may eventually assert itself is cold comfort however, and I'd much prefer the thief be kept from power and punished now, rather than indirectly 30-40 years from now, after causing vastly more damage.

 

[Abhorsen]

Me:

Communism is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'.

You:

Yes, if you define Communism in a way that excludes Marx, sure.

If you don't think Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are done here.

I never said anything about Libertarianism depending on Rousseau. I used it as an example of your beliefs being poor in your defense of him. You making up my position does not raise my opinion of the rest of your arguments.

You saying Libertarianism depends on Rousseau:

Because, as much as you protest it, it really does seem that Libertarianism implicitly assumes, at least in its mainstream form, a Rousseauian assumption of a default of freedom. That, in general, freedom comes from a deconstruction of oppressions, rather than the construction, though many oppressions, of a healthy, functional individual deserving and capable of freedom.

Advocating for no government power to fight the communists will result in communism even faster. If you argue fighting communists is morally equivalent to being communists, the realness of your anti communist stance is questionable.

"Hmmm, yes, we should have the state make all the economic decisions, that'll stop the communists" Seems to be what you are arguing here, as the only power I've said to give up here is economic (which the state shouldn't have in the first place).

I've not argued that France shouldn't keep out immigrants with border patrol, more that it is incapable of doing so.

Its also questionable how you regard Le Pen as meaningfully more big government than Macron, outside he uses government power for leftist ends, while Le Pen would assumedly use power for rightist ends. Which is how Libertarians, certainly of the Reason variety, help the racket left. It suggests a view that isn't really as neutral on the question of the use of power as it claims.

Oh, Macron's shit too. They all are. I haven't mentioned Macron at all in this thread though, so don't put words in my mouth please.

Which you really can't be. Law is about 1) Enforcing Morality, 2) Rewarding friends and punishing enemies. And the modern libertarian fairly consistently falls on supporting a particular morality and rewarding and punishing particular groups. You can't help but do so, since that is the heart of Law and Politics. Libertarians are just mostly in denial and delusion about what they are actually doing.

Really, the modern libertarian consistently fails at supporting a particular morality? Why not enforce... Libertarianism (oh, the shock, the horror!).

Also, anyone mind linking me where I talked about Rousseau before this thread? I seem to recall it, but can't find it.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Well, yeah, losing a war sucks. Why then would I support people who actively campaign for the enemy and our defeat?

Someone is going to define right and wrong. Given that, wouldn't you rather be the side dictating than being dictated to?

Either the thief can declare thieving legal, and punish you for any resistance to the thieving, or you can declare thieving illigal, and punish the thief for their thieving. What other option is there?

Eventually, god/the universe (whatever the preferred terminology/metaphysics) will punish those who act too contrary to the order of reality, and he will meet someone who resists, or his thieving will so destroy productivity that there will be nothing left to steal, and maybe his immortal soul if there is such a thing will be judged.

Reality may eventually assert itself is cold comfort however, and I'd much prefer the thief be kept from power and punished now, rather than indirectly 30-40 years from now, after causing vastly more damage.

*sigh* seriously dude you act like your never going to be on opposing side. if I cared about being on the side doing the dictating I'd be kissing biden's butt and and licking the establishment every chance I got. If that were the case bieing in a place like the sietch of all places wouldn't be in my best interest.

I'm not ever going to pretend I'll ever be on the right side of history, not when historical evidence points to the contrary. (Look at how countries have treated the handicap when crap goes down. (Heck look at how people treat down syndrome people in Sweden)


As far as the other option. we simply shoot each other and not give two craps. I'd frankly rather someone tell me to Go screw myself then give me this overdrawn often hypocrtical reason for why they are telling me to go screw myself. At this point i'm sick of people justifying themselves with codes and morals, especially when all evidence points that they did it because they wanted to and they could.

 

[JagerIV]

Me:

You:

If you don't think Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat, we are done here.

Yes, as a stage to achieving the classless, stateless society. This is very basic part of communism.

"The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then ceases of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not "abolished", it withers away."

Friedrich Engels, part 3, chapter 2 of Anti-Dühring (1878)

"The society which organizes production anew on the basis of free and equal association of the producers will put the whole state machinery where it will then belong—into the museum of antiquities, next to the spinning wheel and the bronze ax."

Friedrich Engels, Origins of the Family, Private Property, and the State (1884)

Or, from the first paragraph on wiki description of Communism:

"Communism (from Latin communis, 'common, universal')[1][2] is a philosophical, social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose goal is the establishment of a communist society, namely a socioeconomic order structured upon the ideas of common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6] Communism is a specific, yet distinct, form of socialism. Communists agree on the withering away of the state but disagree on the means to this end, reflecting a distinction between a more libertarian approach of communization, revolutionary spontaneity, and workers' self-management, and a more vanguardist or Communist party-driven approach through the development of a constitutional socialist state."

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, according to wiki page on communism, which I'm sure is filled with communist Mods, the Stateless end goal is the defining feature of Communism. The dictatorship of the Proletariate is always stressed as a temporary stage in their propaganda in the process to this total, true freedom.

This is common is basically all Communist and communist adjacent literature. For example, take Herbert Marcuse in his 1969 essay Repressive Tolerance:

"Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right--these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronomous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)--it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship, but openly directed against the more or less hidden censorship that permeates the free media. Where the false consciousness has become prevalent in national and popular behavior, it translates itself almost immediately into practice: the safe distance between ideology and reality, repressive thought and repressive action, between the word of destruction and the deed of destruction is dangerously shortened. Thus, the break through the false consciousness may provide the Archimedean point for a larger emancipation--at an infinitesimally small spot, to be sure, but it is on the enlargement of such small spots that the chance of change depends.

The forces of emancipation cannot be identified with any social class which, by virtue of its material condition, is free from false consciousness. Today, they are hopelessly dispersed throughout the society, and the fighting minorities and isolated groups are often in opposition to their own leadership. In the society at large, the mental space for denial and reflection must first be recreated. Repulsed by the concreteness of the administered society, the effort of emancipation becomes 'abstract'; it is reduced to facilitating the recognition of what is going on, to freeing language from the tyranny of the Orwellian syntax and logic, to developing the concepts that comprehend reality. More than ever, the proposition holds true that progress in freedom demands progress in the consciousness of freedom. Where the mind has been made into a subject-object of politics and policies, intellectual autonomy, the realm of 'pure' thought has become a matter of political education (or rather: counter-education)."

Repressive Tolerance (full text) - Herbert Marcuse Official Website

www.marcuse.org

As we see here, while what Marcuse is actually arguing for is censorship, oppression, and dehumanization, all of it is couched in "freedom", emancipation", "liberating" and "progress". Communism therefore is always argued for as a pro freedom position. With a bit of "temporary" suppression, but even that is generally put forward as suppression of the bad people: I'm sure Marx would argue that even the dictatorship of the Proletariat while its suppressing the Bourgeoise would represent a more free state than the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise, to use the slippery communist definitions.

Communism is always, as far as I've seen, argued for on the basis of increasing the freedom and liberation of the people, though the overthrow and suppression of oppressors. After which, once the oppressors have been overthrown, what oppression was necessary to implement Socialism and the people are now good and moral will simply wither away as superfluous.

You saying Libertarianism depends on Rousseau:

Ah, there I am saying it does seem to take, as a basic assumption, a Rousseauian assumption, that communists share, that people are innately good, and corrupted by the world. I could be overly simplifying something Rousseau himself may have been more moderate on, but the idea is popularly attached to him, so he's good short hand for the general idea. At least in my general experience. But, the people I listen to generally take it as a given the Rousseau was one of the worst and a terrible product and originator of French awfulness, blaming him for more than he might reasonably be blamed for.

Libertarianism doesn't really make sense if one assumes force and bonds are necessary to force an innately evil, beastly human into a generally civilized, functional human.

Like I said there, this seems to be one of those leftist assumptions that gets unthinkingly taken up by a lot of mainstream libertarians.

"Hmmm, yes, we should have the state make all the economic decisions, that'll stop the communists" Seems to be what you are arguing here, as the only power I've said to give up here is economic (which the state shouldn't have in the first place).

I've not argued that France shouldn't keep out immigrants with border patrol, more that it is incapable of doing so.

Oh, Macron's shit too. They all are. I haven't mentioned Macron at all in this thread though, so don't put words in my mouth please.

In an argument between Le Pen and Macron, you came out strongly against Le Pen. That is, de facto, being pro Macron. That is how politics work.

You also made larger arguments against Le Pen, such as against Nationalism for being collectivist, the other option which is, well, international socialism. That counter nationalism also suggests you are against enforcing borders. Thus, some are left to infer one of the reasons your against Le Pen, is less that enforcing boarder control is impossible, which you acknowledge later is perfectly doable, but that Le Pen might actually move the needle a bit and provide more enforcement, which you oppose. If you were pro immigration control, your argument would not be the one we expect.

Really, the modern libertarian consistently fails at supporting a particular morality? Why not enforce... Libertarianism (oh, the shock, the horror!).

Also, anyone mind linking me where I talked about Rousseau before this thread? I seem to recall it, but can't find it.

Well, no, they support global technocracy. As you said earlier, your loyalty is not to America, or any particular people, but a mission of global liberation. Which is going to look very much like Global technocracy/socialism, because someone has to rule, and if you get rid of all the lower powers, as your argue, all power will concentrate on the top. And I just don't think the global state is going to be particularly libertarian, outside maybe just not caring about small people, so they get to have freedom as long as the eye of Sauron doesn't look at them, but will also have absolutely no power or privileges from it.

A very thin gruel of freedom.

 

[Simonbob]

It is an artical of Communism that they're heading for an Anarchist Paradise.

It's a point of history that they've never gotten past the acumulation of power. And, they never will, given the kind of people who end up running Communist nations.

 

[JagerIV]

*sigh* seriously dude you act like your never going to get screwed over. if I cared about being on the side doing the dictating I'd be kissing biden's butt and and licking the establishment every chance I got. If that were the case bieing in a place like the sietch of all places wouldn't be in my best interest.

I'm not ever going to pretend I'll ever be on the right side of history, not when historical evidence points to the contrary. (Look at how countries have treated the handicap when crap goes down. (Heck look at how people treat down syndrome people in Sweden)


As far as the other option. we simply shoot each other and not give two craps. I'd frankly rather someone tell me to Go screw myself then give me this overdrawn often hypocrtical reason for why they are telling me to go screw myself. At this point i'm sick of people justifying themselves with codes and morals, especially when all evidence points that they did it because they wanted to and they could.

So, if you don't believe in codes and morals anyways, that the Law can't be based on anything but screwing over enemies chosen arbitrarily, and are even more cynical than me, what exactly are you complaining about? Why aren't you just joining the winning side?

I'm here because I have a moral code I wish to see exist in the world, and a heritage that binds me to certain peoples and places. These informs who my friends and enemies are. The friends and enemies are not arbitrary. My race binds me away from the black supremacists, my nation binds me away from being a willing or honorable servant of China, my Religion binds me away from ISIS, my region puts me in opposition to the Yankee, my respect for humanity makes the anti human socialist and communist an enemy, my respect for a right ordering turns me against the Satanist or Anarchist, excetera, excetera.

I am who I am. Much of it unchangeable. Much which could be changed I do not wish to.

And based on who I am, and who Biden is, Biden and those he represents cannot be a friend.

I do occasionally share your pessimism that in the short period, possibly stretching over our lifetimes, many things are bleak. We may not be on the right side of history. That however doesn't change what laws are in the least: 1) Enforce morality, 2) Reward Friends, punish enemies.

When the enemy controls it, as he does much now, it is to be expected he will use the law to these ends, as he does, to the extent of his power. Nothing but counter power can convince him to do anything else. So, the powerful will do what they will, and the weak suffer what they must.

As the weak, the goal is to resist and survive their moral and material attacks, with the aim of at some point taking control of the law, so that Justice can become the law, and that the good may be rewarded and the wicked punished.

Minimize the damage the enemies power does, and accumulate and sap the enemies power as much as possible, to protect yourself, and hopefully at some point do damage to the enemies and turn the tide back.

How can one aim for anything else? Even mere survival dictates one reach for the power, so one can secure some manner of freedom and safety if nothing else, lest one eventually be ground to nothing but dust.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

So, if you don't believe in codes and morals anyways, that the Law can't be based on anything but screwing over enemies chosen arbitrarily, and are even more cynical than me, what exactly are you complaining about? Why aren't you just joining the winning side?

easy I hate them. They are against everything I like. and they've made it clear they won't stop till I'm dead. So they can shove it up thier butts. I'm driven by hate and the desire to be left alone.

I'm here because I have a moral code I wish to see exist in the world, and a heritage that binds me to certain peoples and places. These informs who my friends and enemies are. The friends and enemies are not arbitrary. My race binds me away from the black supremacists, my nation binds me away from being a willing or honorable servant of China, my Religion binds me away from ISIS, my region puts me in opposition to the Yankee, my respect for humanity makes the anti human socialist and communist an enemy, my respect for a right ordering turns me against the Satanist or Anarchist, excetera, excetera.

and to be frank you are no friend of mine. if having the gun (metaphical or otherwise) is what gives you the right to rule, I'll take my chances with the looters and raiders. At least they'll be frank.

As the weak, the goal is to resist and survive their moral and material attacks, with the aim of at some point taking control of the law, so that Justice can become the law, and that the good may be rewarded and the wicked punished.

so in short a revenge. and what happens when the table gets turned on you in return, you accept your doomed and die with dignity?

Minimize the damage the enemies power does, and accumulate and sap the enemies power as much as possible, to protect yourself, and hopefully at some point do damage to the enemies and turn the tide back.

again see above.

How can one aim for anything else? Even mere survival dictates one reach for the power, so one can secure some manner of freedom and safety if nothing else, lest one eventually be ground to nothing but dust.

fine, but don't justify it and call it "good."

Edit: I know I shouldn't hate people, but man it's hard. in any instace though, the point stands they are against everything I like.

 

[Simonbob]

Guys.

Two things. You're looking at things from different angles, and don't disagree as much as you think you do.


And, two? How does any of this relate to Le Pen?



So, can we leave this here, and get on with things French? Start a thread in Uni, if you want to continue.

 

[JagerIV]

Guys.

Two things. You're looking at things from different angles, and don't disagree as much as you think you do.

And, two? How does any of this relate to Le Pen?

So, can we leave this here, and get on with things French? Start a thread in Uni, if you want to continue.

I think it actually does relate to a Le Pen, or the broader topic of the "best" choice, part of which is figuring out what the goal is. And to figure out the best option, that does take some discussion over what the goal is, and what the available means to achieve those goals is.

@KilroywasNOTHere , could you elaborate where the source of disagreement is?

It seems to me that your criticism seems to boil down to

1) Winning being a goal is bad.
2) Saying Laws are the use of power makes me evil.

Neither of these seem like reasonable critiques to me. So, I assume I'm missing. You recognize that they're the enemy, yet wishing to at least not be subject to them (which requires power) or to beat them and increase the well being of friends and bring a right order to the world (which requires even more power) seems to strike you as the height of evil?

What is this reaction to, that you would prefer the power be held by crooks than good people?

 

[Simonbob]

I think it actually does relate to a Le Pen, or the broader topic of the "best" choice, part of which is figuring out what the goal is. And to figure out the best option, that does take some discussion over what the goal is, and what the available means to achieve those goals is.

To some degree, sure.

However, you weren't linking it back to Le Pen very often, as far as I could see. Subject of the thread, and all that. Or, any French politician.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Guys.

Two things. You're looking at things from different angles, and don't disagree as much as you think you do.


And, two? How does any of this relate to Le Pen?



So, can we leave this here, and get on with things French? Start a thread in Uni, if you want to continue.

I think it actually does relate to a Le Pen, or the broader topic of the "best" choice, part of which is figuring out what the goal is. And to figure out the best option, that does take some discussion over what the goal is, and what the available means to achieve those goals is.

@KilroywasNOTHere , could you elaborate where the source of disagreement is?

It seems to me that your criticism seems to boil down to

1) Winning being a goal is bad.
2) Saying Laws are the use of power makes me evil.

Neither of these seem like reasonable critiques to me. So, I assume I'm missing. You recognize that they're the enemy, yet wishing to at least not be subject to them (which requires power) or to beat them and increase the well being of friends and bring a right order to the world (which requires even more power) seems to strike you as the height of evil?

What is this reaction to, that you would prefer the power be held by crooks than good people?

thats the thing. with the one in a million exception good guys don't rule over others. Typically if someone wants to be in position to be the top dog, it's cause they are incredibly narcissistic and think they can live your life better than you can and unless you are their childhood BFF they WILL throw you under the bus when it so pleases them. It's not a matter of if but when.

What would I prefer? I'd prefer people actually participate in their own freaking community and get their own darn house in order rather than rely on a rabid dog to maul down those they don't like. I'd rather people "own their crap." to put nicely rather than trying to use philosophy to weasel out of responsibility for their actions.

as far as would I rather a crook or a good person? Well, what is good? The crook will say "you had it, I wanted it, wha'cha going to do about it sucka?" while the "good person" will steal...Oh sorry I mean confiscate my stuff, go ino a justification on how he has the right to steal...I mean "confiscate" my stuff and then go into another justification on how I should be thankful he stole...I mean "confiscate" because my stuff was either "bad for my soul." or "too dangerous for me to handle." or "Could be put to better use helping society." When in reality I had it, he wanted it."

So yeah honestly between the two I would rather take my chances with the crook. The crook is just a thief. The "good person." is both a thief and a liar.

 

[JagerIV]

thats the thing. with the one in a million exception good guys don't rule over others. Typically if someone wants to be in position to be the top dog, it's cause they are incredibly narcissistic and think they can live your life better than you can and unless you are their childhood BFF they WILL throw you under the bus when it so pleases them. It's not a matter of if but when.

What would I prefer? I'd prefer people actually participate in their own freaking community and get their own darn house in order rather than rely on a rabid dog to maul down those they don't like. I'd rather people "own their crap." to put nicely rather than trying to use philosophy to weasel out of responsibility for their actions.

as far as would I rather a crook or a good person? Well, what is good? The crook will say "you had it, I wanted it, wha'cha going to do about it sucka?" while the "good person" will steal...Oh sorry I mean confiscate my stuff, go ino a justification on how he has the right to steal...I mean "confiscate" my stuff and then go into another justification on how I should be thankful he stole...I mean "confiscate" because my stuff was either "bad for my soul." or "too dangerous for me to handle." or "Could be put to better use helping society." When in reality I had it, he wanted it."

So yeah honestly between the two I would rather take my chances with the crook. The crook is just a thief. The "good person." is both a thief and a liar.

This seems to be an extremely, toxic view. That their are thieves, and worse thieves. With the actively malicious thief somehow the better party. What can you do with such a view of the world?

It seems almost, self indulgent. That things are just bad, so there's no difference between moral and immoral. So I don't have to actually care about any specifics.

Power itself is inherently evil, so I don't have to worry about how it is actually used and by hume, and I shouldn't try and gain any power because it will just corrupt my soul.

This strikes me as extremely juvenile. On the level of declaring guns or Electricity evil because they can be powerful tools. You seem to say as much with my basic recognition of fact that the Law is coercive force applied to some end. To quote Heinlein:

“When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you're using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.”

Even the simple act of voting is an act to try and coerce people to some end. Power is an inevitable outcome of any society, anything that is not fully dead. To thus regard power as evil seems as silly, or as evil, as imagining life to be evil. Villainy is primarily in how power is used, not that power exists. In many cases to have power and choose not to use it is to commit a wrong itself.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

This seems to be an extremely, toxic view. That their are thieves, and worse thieves. With the actively malicious thief somehow the better party. What can you do with such a view of the world?

how is it it any less toxic than the many giving all their power and agency to a few or lord help you the one because "surely these guys are better at making decisions for me and living my life for me then I can." That typically ends very poorly for those who aren't part of the ruling class. As far as what can I do with that view? I don't know maybe encourage people to get off their butts and take responsibility for their own darn lives instead of relying on principalities and powers to give them purpose and live thier life for them?

It seems almost, self indulgent. That things are just bad, so there's no difference between moral and immoral. So I don't have to actually care about any specifics.

Power itself is inherently evil, so I don't have to worry about how it is actually used and by hume, and I shouldn't try and gain any power because it will just corrupt my soul.

Correction 1: Everyone has different needs and desires. No single enity has the foresight to see what is best for everyone else. With attempts to decide what is best for everyone else end up being misguided at best or malicious at in either instance the result ends up being revolution or outright societal breakdown.

Correction 2: In the overwhelming majority of times, people who believe they have the right to rule over and more specifically the right to be center stage typically end up being walking disasters. Best Case scenario they get so absorbed in their own self righteousness that they lose touch with people ad reality that they don't see the consequences of their decisions and the effects it has on others ala "let them eat cake." worse case scenario the ones in power had god-complexes from the start and they don't care what consequences their decisions have on people so long as it benefits them and their ego. ala "insert your favorite example here because their are a LOT of them."

This strikes me as extremely juvenile. On the level of declaring guns or Electricity evil because they can be powerful tools. You seem to say as much with my basic recognition of fact that the Law is coercive force applied to some end. To quote Heinlein:

your right guns aren't evil. so I'm going give all my guns to a single entity have trust that they'll always know when to use them and NEVER do anything malicious with this sudden monopoly of force.....HECK NO! Just because guns aren't evil doesn't mean I'm going to give all my guns to you and put my life in your hands. Lord help you if you put that kind of faith in me. No you kepp your guns I keep my guns. The fact that we have equal agency may end up proving to be a pretty effective deterint.

the same thing applies to power.

This seems to be an extremely, toxic view. That their are thieves, and worse thieves. With the actively malicious thief somehow the better party. What can you do with such a view of the world?

It seems almost, self indulgent. That things are just bad, so there's no difference between moral and immoral. So I don't have to actually care about any specifics.

Power itself is inherently evil, so I don't have to worry about how it is actually used and by hume, and I shouldn't try and gain any power because it will just corrupt my soul.

This strikes me as extremely juvenile. On the level of declaring guns or Electricity evil because they can be powerful tools. You seem to say as much with my basic recognition of fact that the Law is coercive force applied to some end. To quote Heinlein:



Even the simple act of voting is an act to try and coerce people to some end. Power is an inevitable outcome of any society, anything that is not fully dead. To thus regard power as evil seems as silly, or as evil, as imagining life to be evil. Villainy is primarily in how power is used, not that power exists. In many cases to have power and choose not to use it is to commit a wrong itself.

I'd just be repeating my gun example honestly. Just because Power like guns is not inherently evil does not mean any one person or single group should be trusted with the monopoly of it.

And as much as you compare my argument to the gun argument your argument isn't that much different. your still basically saying. "only the people I agree with should have guns/power because we're the right people to have it."

as much as I don't like it sometimes. Everyone has the right to have agency especially those that I don't agree with...still doesin't mean i'm going to trust them though.

 

[JagerIV]

how is it it any less toxic than the many giving all their power and agency to a few or lord help you the one because "surely these guys are better at making decisions for me and living my life for me then I can." That typically ends very poorly for those who aren't part of the ruling class. As far as what can I do with that view? I don't know maybe encourage people to get off their butts and take responsibility for their own darn lives instead of relying on principalities and powers to give them purpose and live thier life for them?

This quote takes it as a given anarchy is an option. Let me more accurately rephrase my position:

"Surely its better to have friends in the Presidency and Supreme court making decisions for me than to have enemies in the Presidency making decisions for me".

There is a ruling class. There always will be a ruling class. The only question is who those will be and how aligned with my interests their regime will be. And both of those matter. "Taking responsibility" means nothing without also taking at least some power. Responsibilities without power is something in line with being a slave. Power will always care about you. Just hoping to not be noticed is a viable tactic to avoid hostile power, in the short term.

Meaningfully taking responsibility is more or less indesguishable from accumulating power.

Pretending perfect, anarchistic freedom is in the cards is part of the jouvenile thing. Just like earlier putting too much weight on Le Pen not being a Libertarian when 1) thats not in the cards politically in France, and 2) Quite likely wouldn't even be a particularly desirable mindset for a leader of France currently.

Likewise, pretending no rulers is an option is 1) Not realistic in the slightest, and 2) Not even desirable.

Correction 1: Everyone has different needs and desires. No single enity has the foresight to see what is best for everyone else. With attempts to decide what is best for everyone else end up being misguided at best or malicious at in either instance the result ends up being revolution or outright societal breakdown.

Correction 2: In the overwhelming majority of times, people who believe they have the right to rule over and more specifically the right to be center stage typically end up being walking disasters. Best Case scenario they get so absorbed in their own self righteousness that they lose touch with people ad reality that they don't see the consequences of their decisions and the effects it has on others ala "let them eat cake." worse case scenario the ones in power had god-complexes from the start and they don't care what consequences their decisions have on people so long as it benefits them and their ego. ala "insert your favorite example here because their are a LOT of them."

Yes, the self indulgent "both sides!". A leader has to have a big ego to push that high, so it doesn't matter whether the President is the second coming of Jimmy Carter or Hitler. They both have a big ego, so who cares!

Since humans are imperfect, I don't have to worry about what power does.

your right guns aren't evil. so I'm going give all my guns to a single entity have trust that they'll always know when to use them and NEVER do anything malicious with this sudden monopoly of force.....HECK NO! Just because guns aren't evil doesn't mean I'm going to give all my guns to you and put my life in your hands. Lord help you if you put that kind of faith in me. No you kepp your guns I keep my guns. The fact that we have equal agency may end up proving to be a pretty effective deterint.

the same thing applies to power.

Unfortunately for you, Sargon of Akkad came to power over 4,000 years ago, and I don't think we've had a single year since then without large, expansionistic states, so some imagined state of nature where you have a gun and I have a gun is a little bit irrelevant to, any moment in record history more or less.

Individuals with guns aren't much of a deterrent, as history shows.

I'd just be repeating my gun example honestly. Just because Power like guns is not inherently evil does not mean any one person or single group should be trusted with the monopoly of it.

And as much as you compare my argument to the gun argument your argument isn't that much different. your still basically saying. "only the people I agree with should have guns/power because we're the right people to have it."

as much as I don't like it sometimes. Everyone has the right to have agency especially those that I don't agree with...still doesin't mean i'm going to trust them though.

I would also like to point out your the only person here who's talked about concentrating all power into a single entity. To whatever level your arguing against that, you're having a conversation with yourself.

Power exists, and power inevitably exists. This power will be wielded by rulers.

What does agency have to do with anything? The murder has Agency to try and murder, and can reap the consequences of being shot for it when power either stops him or punishes him after the fact. If that would be considered infringing on Agency, then whether a civilization should imping people's agency is a totally uninteresting question.

Because every reasonable answer would be "of course". And the question moves to how much Agency should be curtailed to achieve the desired ends.