Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Pragmatic Anarchy: A Forcible End to Coercion

By qpt in Op-Ed
Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 04:02:58 PM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)
Culture

A wise individual once mentioned that standing on the moral high ground was not enough to keep one from drowning. Unfortunately, this is all too true. In this age of assault rifles, Hollywood, and McDonalds, being right is rarely enough to avoid being shot, ignored, or eaten. As long as the anarchy movement remains a rag-tag contingent of normalcy-challenged social rejects, we are just going to keep getting our asses handed to us by the capitalist pig-dogs.

Personally, as a proud anarchist and a human being, I am weary of being collectively whipped, beaten, kicked, spit on, knocked about, shot, humiliated, kicked again, and finally discarded like so many two-day-old donuts. If globalization and the exploitation of the common man by mega-corporations are to ever end, we as anarchists must gain the power to forcibly put an end to it.


"But qpt!", you squeal, "Would it not be better for us anarchists to disseminate our ideas through peaceful protest and discussion?" Yes, grasshopper, of course it would be better, if it actually worked. However, the common man is singularly stupid, and it is difficult to explain the nuances of political ethical theory to someone who long ago sold their soul for a cheeseburger. Additionally, society's rich overlords have no desire to hear the message of anarchy as they are gaining far too much enjoyment from exploiting workers and raping the earth. The technologically elite are no better. Futility is having a serious discussion with someone who think Snowcrash is great literature. The transformation to an anarchic world order will not transpire through the actions and decisions of the common man; it must take place through political revolution.

Destroying the world's governments will only be the first step; remember, anarchy is not merely freedom from laws and government, but freedom from all forms of coercion. We must also do away with the coercion inherent to capitalism, in which the workers are forced to whore away their days so that they may purchase Pop-Tarts and other such necessities. Abolished must be the coercion that a man has over his wife and that a woman has over her husband. Forever banished will be the intimidation with which children dominate their toys. Nature herself will not escape our righteous revolution. No longer will gravity coerce objects into falling against their will. No longer will Sol force evaporation on innocent pools of water. No longer will economic principles prevent us from realizing the sort of world that we think would be enjoyable!

Our task is a daunting one, however. Between the world and anarchy, there are millions of aggressive capitalist pig-dogs with guns. Military action would be madness, so anarchy must become a highly political movement. Rather than roaming the streets with hand-painted signs while we shout slogans, we must work to achieve true political influence. Only when anarchists hold the majority of power in the world's governments will it be possible to permanently outlaw coercion. Gaining power will be easier than one might suppose, since politicians and voters alike are exceedingly foolish. After all, were they otherwise, they would be anarchists.

Unfortunately, once worldwide anarchy is realized, the revolutionaries will not be able to rest and enjoy the fruit of their labors. Rather, they must forever guard against any emergence of coercive institutions, least all progress be lost and the world descend again into a capitalist Dark Age. Nor will their task be easy, for it is the nature of many individuals to form coercive associations for the collective leveraging of influence. All this is to say, individuals will no doubt gang together for power and protection offered by doing so. Of course, once these gangs do form, they will war, form alliances, merge, and so forth. Before long, the world will be blighted again with nation states!

Obviously, then, the revolutionaries must establish an organization to forcibly oversee the absence of coercion. This company must be ever vigilant, and ready to stamp out the first sight of organized bullying, wherever it might appear on the world scene. While this proposal may seem paradoxical, it is best to ignore any apparent inconsistencies. When anarchy is forced upon the world, all of humanity will be far too overjoyed to be put off by the fact that our glorious strategy does not make any sense at all.

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Wow, that is...
o brilliant. 100%

Votes: 24
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Also by qpt


Display: Sort:
Pragmatic Anarchy: A Forcible End to Coercion | 59 comments (40 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
Rock! (3.33 / 6) (#4)
by Anatta on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 07:28:24 PM EST

I love it!

If we kill off all humans who power, eventually there will be no humans left! It will be peace, tranquility, paradise...

Aaah... to the future...
My Music

Let the first one slip by me.. (4.00 / 6) (#6)
by Sheepdot on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 07:51:52 PM EST

I let the first anarchy article slip by me since it was a new item and despite technical errors I wanted to see an anarchy article published.

I won't let this one, however. Even if it is satire. QPT, you REALLY need to do a better job of explaining this as I fear the average person is going to read this, say "Yeah, he's right" and then move on without reading comments. Or you'll get people like me that almost vote it down cause it has the term "capitalist pig-dogs". And, my official refutation in case anyone does agree with what he has to say:

Destroying the world's governments will only be the first step; remember, anarchy is not merely freedom from laws and government, but freedom from all forms of coercion.

Wrong. The true definition of anarchy states nothing regarding rejection of anything but government. Granted, there are different breeds of anarchy, but not all of them believe that more than government should be rejected. In order to establish your claim you must also refute the existence of anarcho-capitalists (of which I've been called a number of times due to my opposition of legislation and proposition of litigation with strict tort laws).

Our task is a daunting one, however. Between the world and anarchy, there are millions of aggressive capitalist pig-dogs with guns.

Unh-hunh. I'm sure that every successful capitalist owns a gun, and I'm quite certain that every owner of a gun is a successful capitalist. Try again if you agree with qpt's statement on this.

I've yet to hear the theory of anarchy working when the anarchists (or others) don't use tools of destruction to achieve it. I think the best hope for a world-wide turn to anarchy would be world-wide mass slaughter by a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. Since I don't advocate the usages of such a weapon, I think that anarchy is a ways off yet.

Once anarcho-socialists or socialists themselves turn militant in the same respect that facists do, it would represent a *significant* change however, and would lead to some interesting results worldwide. I still think this is a long ways off yet, though.

Only when anarchists hold the majority of power in the world's governments will it be possible to permanently outlaw coercion.

Let's see, Libertarians (who are organized) have had only a small affect on big government. A bunch of anarcho-socialists are going to accomplish something before then? I hope anarcho-socialists *never* feel they are going to hold "majority power", but qpt might be right.

It would make sense to me that if Libertarians start to pick up votes like they have been, eventually some will get elected, and there is the possibility that the Republican party would be usurped, including a lot of Democrats that aren't "tax and spend". The natural reaction to that would be that an anarcho-socialist party would arrise (Maybe a collection of Socialists, Greens, and Democrats) to form the Libertarian political rival. At some point the parties would probably become reminenscent of today's Republican and Democrat parties, but there'd be a while of low government coercion bliss that we'd benefit from, assuming the parties stuck to their principles, something I'm quite certain Libertarians are prepared to do at least till they start to *lose* elections after holding them for a long time.

Gaining power will be easier than one might suppose, since politicians and voters alike are exceedingly foolish. After all, were they otherwise, they would be anarchists.

Yeah.. if you're not an anarchist, you're a fool! Telling people they are fools is *not* going to make them empathetic towards your cause. I would hope anarchists don't believe this way.

Obviously, then, the revolutionaries must establish an organization to forcibly oversee the absence of coercion. This company must be ever vigilant, and ready to stamp out the first sight of organized bullying, wherever it might appear on the world scene. While this proposal may seem paradoxical, it is best to ignore any apparent inconsistencies. When anarchy is forced upon the world, all of humanity will be far too overjoyed to be put off by the fact that our glorious strategy does not make any sense at all.

I haven't been able to discern satire from anything else lately.


Dear Sheepdot (4.66 / 6) (#11)
by qpt on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 09:21:05 PM EST

First of all, I would like to commend you on your long-winded reply. You are one of the most garrulous kuro5hin.org posters, and it is most excellent to have someone keeping the word count up.

However, several of your points are rather silly, really. For example, the dictionary definition of "anarchy" is immaterial to this discussion. What matters is the tenants of those who call themselves anarchists, and according to kuro5hin.org's resident anarchist, moshez, anarchists are opposed to all forms of coercive authority. He provided a good many links to back this up, all of which I am too lazy to find.

Furthermore, I like to imagine that I come across as a relatively reasonable individual. Thus, using the term "pig-dog" should perhaps serve as a signal that the story is not quite on the level, if you follow my meaning.

Finally, perhaps your difficulty in discerning satire is due to the fact that kuro5hin.org has degenerated into an utter madhouse in which the serious opinions are far more absurd than those advanced in jest.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

Subject (5.00 / 1) (#22)
by Sheepdot on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:11:14 AM EST

However, several of your points are rather silly, really. For example, the dictionary definition of "anarchy" is immaterial to this discussion. What matters is the tenants of those who call themselves anarchists, and according to kuro5hin.org's resident anarchist, moshez, anarchists are opposed to all forms of coercive authority. He provided a good many links to back this up, all of which I am too lazy to find.

The dictionary definition is not the all out accurate definition, I agree. But like I mentioned, there are some forms of anarchy, anarcho-capitalists come to mind, that believe that coersion should be handled in a capitalist manner, where I would be force to *hire* someone to do my coersion for me, and it would be up to them to do it or not. It is *still* anarchy, because it rejects the government, but it's nothing like what moshez suggests.

Furthermore, I like to imagine that I come across as a relatively reasonable individual. Thus, using the term "pig-dog" should perhaps serve as a signal that the story is not quite on the level, if you follow my meaning.

Sorry if it seemed like I was buying into your satire, but like I mentioned, as of late, I honestly can't tell if people are serious or not. I've seen terms like "fucker" flown around directely referring to the parent of a reponse. I didn't think degeneration would happen on k5, but unfortunately it happens *everywhere* and like I said, there are no doubt going to be people that read that and think to themselves that you were right on, and not even bother to think it was satire.

Finally, perhaps your difficulty in discerning satire is due to the fact that kuro5hin.org has degenerated into an utter madhouse in which the serious opinions are far more absurd than those advanced in jest.

I'd like to think that K5 isn't degenerating, just accepting the influx of newcomers and trying to mold them into our little melting pot we have going on. But I have noticed that more and more people are finding it totally bizzare that there could be people that don't adhere to their philosophies, and generally talk about things they often know very little of.

Globalization and Skylarov seem to be the hot items this week. Who knows what it will be next week.


[ Parent ]

Go, go K5 (none / 0) (#51)
by Wah on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 07:40:09 PM EST

Globalization and Skylarov seem to be the hot items this week. Who knows what it will be next week.

And isn't it great that we don't have to worry about next quarter's profits to decide what to post. I'm starting to like this In-ter-net whosywhatsit.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP
[ Parent ]

Definitions (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Ken Arromdee on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 11:26:44 AM EST

For example, the dictionary definition of "anarchy" is immaterial to this discussion. What matters is the tenants of those who call themselves anarchists, and according to kuro5hin.org's resident anarchist, moshez, anarchists are opposed to all forms of coercive authority.

I smell circular reasoning here. Anarchocapitalists, after all, do call themselves anarchists. So if what matters is the tenets of those who call themselves anarchists, then you have to include them in your definition.

If you're going to exclude them anyway, you need to say "the tenets of some people who call themselves anarchists don't count, because they're not really anarchists". But you can't say that, because the whole point of the definition is to decide who does and doesn't count. You can't decide that ahead of time in order to create your definition--that's circular reasoning.

[ Parent ]

L (none / 0) (#56)
by dogwalker on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 03:45:48 PM EST

It would make sense to me that if Libertarians start to pick up votes like they have been...

Yeah, pretty soon luminaries like Harry Browne will get enough votes to be put into the coveted 'almost taken seriously' category, along with good ol' Ralph Nader.

But hey, if Nader keeps picking up votes at the rate he's going, he'll be president in 2036.

Of course, now that the efficacy of having the judicial branch appoint the executive has been shown, it's unlikely that there will be public elections by then.
--
share and enjoy

[ Parent ]

I Wish Everyone Was Peaceful... (3.25 / 4) (#9)
by SPrintF on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 08:23:35 PM EST

... then I could take over this planet with a butterknife.
--- Dogbert
Death to all Fanatics!
--- Me


A lack of sophistication... (3.83 / 6) (#10)
by BrentN on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 09:10:25 PM EST

After reading some of the comments to this story, and seeing that it is currently at -8 with 68 votes, I feel that my previous comment on localroger's Yet Another Effort story was more than justified: the average K5er isn't sophisticated enough to understand satire. :/



I am discovered (5.00 / 8) (#13)
by qpt on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 09:26:59 PM EST

That is, of course, my plan. I wish to sow discord in the K5 community by convincing one half of the other half's inanity. However, the question remains; which half is obtuse?

Am I an insightful commentator being voted down by boorish cretins, or a cheap hack being voted up by silly pseudo-sophisticates and intellectuals? Who can say?

Cheers.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

Sorry, qpt (3.66 / 3) (#17)
by rusty on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 10:55:47 PM EST

It was slightly funny, but I'm tired of the whole subject, serious or not. I think probably a lot of others are too. Political propaganda of any stripe (except anti-DMCA ;-)) is -1 from these quarters for a while. You know it's nothing personal.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Of course (4.00 / 1) (#20)
by qpt on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 11:05:27 PM EST

On the other hand, next time you write an article, I will again post another completely off-topic and irrelevant comment that proves how entirely broken the K5 moderation system is.

Nothing personal, like always. :)

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

Nothing personal? (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 08:59:44 AM EST

Why not? I want to get personal, damnit! We need some more good flame wars here at K5. Feed The Trolls! Reunite Gondwanaland!

You promised us a drug free America, and I want my free drugs now!

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]

ROTFLMAO (none / 0) (#41)
by BrentN on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 12:29:37 PM EST

Go for it!!!!

[ Parent ]
Coerce the absence of coercion! (3.83 / 6) (#14)
by marlowe on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 09:34:24 PM EST

Kill the intolerant!

Do what thou wilt, or else!

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
Intolerance ... (none / 0) (#25)
by joegee on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:59:11 AM EST

is intolerable.

<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
[ Parent ]
Listen.... (3.33 / 6) (#16)
by blixco on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 10:40:28 PM EST

....if this is about killing everyone, I'm all for it. All you fuckers need to go. Me first though.

Then trhurler, but only 'cause I like him.

Then the good CaptainZ, my favorite zornchugger.

Then you.

But rusty....rusty would be dead last.
-------------------------------------------
The root of the problem has been isolated.

rusty would be dead last (none / 0) (#32)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 09:05:36 AM EST

Now that's a good pun. Punsters are usually deserving of the slowest, most painful, and most humiliating death attainable, but that was a work of art.

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]
Pun? (4.00 / 1) (#34)
by blixco on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 09:31:55 AM EST

I do think I should be killed in the slowest, most painful David Cronenberg way imaginable. But that'd be too predictable. I'll probably die in a boring, non-noteworthy way.

Like getting a server dropped on my head from the third floor.
-------------------------------------------
The root of the problem has been isolated.
[ Parent ]

EAT THE RICH! (2.66 / 3) (#19)
by joegee on Thu Jul 26, 2001 at 11:04:15 PM EST

It just feels like it should be said.

<sig>I always learn something on K5, sometimes in spite of myself.</sig>
There is a real problem here... (4.60 / 5) (#21)
by anthrem on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:06:39 AM EST

and that is the same that has plauged political systems for years.


qpt wrote:

the common man is singularly stupid, and it is difficult to explain the nuances of political ethical theory to someone who long ago sold their soul for a cheeseburger

This disturbs me. Noam Chomsky has spoken on this concept before; whether people ought to be sovereign, or are they too dumb to be entrusted with their own liberty, and need an intelligensia to guide them.

If we assume that most people are too dumb to understand the need for change, then changing the situation to change the minds would be your suggested stance. How Marxian. But then one must look at the Leninist-Marxist experiment that was the USSR. Changing the outward environment didn't change people's minds. It just held a gun to their head until the world moved on enought to let the 'stupid people' escape.

You don't free people by the cartridge box. Peace cannot be found through force, only through understanding. All you would do would be to install a repressive system that forced your ideals on the rest instead of the 'capitalist pigdog' values. To truly free people, you must educate and enlighten them. There must be a concerted effort in society. Only then will the social revolution occur that is needed to institute the political one.

My two cents.




- Slashdot is for the simpleminded -
I REALIZE THIS IS SATIRE!!!!!!! (3.50 / 2) (#23)
by anthrem on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:11:46 AM EST

But I hate to see that statement that people are too dumb to take control of their own lives. Even in satire.


- Slashdot is for the simpleminded -
[ Parent ]
People, Not Dumb (4.50 / 2) (#28)
by sventhatcher on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 07:11:32 AM EST

People aren't actually dumb. Well, some people are, but not most people.

People tend to suffer from two large problems:

  • Short sightedness - People tend to think about what is immediately beneficial to them. Thus the popularity of tax cuts. People immediately get more money. I don't know if this is human nature of the product of a society which promises your pizza delivered in 30 minutes or less. Regardless, it's hard to argue to anyone that in the long-term perhaps a decision might hurt them more than it would help if there is an immediate gain.
  • Personal bias - A lot of people tend to let personal bias very heavily influenced their decision making process. This is nearly impossible to combat, because people tend to set up information filters to hold onto these bits of bias. People will notice news and facts that support their opinion while not seeking out or listening to any opposite opinions.

    This isn't stupidity or even ignorance at work. This is people choosing to believe something, because they want to. Racism is the best example. Racist caucasians will go out of their way to notice the failings of minorities without noticing the positive aspects of them as well, or looking for the reasons that the negatives are there (the very racism that the racist holds often).

  • Ignorance - I'm sure everyone knows how this works. The people to blame here are, naturally, the media and the megacorps that control it. It's hard to convince people to trust indepedent news sources when they contradict the giants of the networks and widely distributed papers (New York Times, Wall Street Journal) or even cover news that they don't. People tend to view indepedent sources as overly liberal or biased in some way.
There aren't any easy answers to the above problems. Actually, I'm not even sure there are answers, but don't confuse these symptoms with stupidity.

(Oh, I know this is satire too, but is there a fucking law that says you can't discuss the points adressed in satire?)

--Sven (Now with bonus vanity weblog! (MLP Sold Seperately))
[ Parent ]

Short sighted people (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by RadiantMatrix on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 10:29:02 AM EST

Short sightedness - People tend to think about what is immediately beneficial to them. Thus the popularity of tax cuts. People immediately get more money. I don't know if this is human nature of the product of a society which promises your pizza delivered in 30 minutes or less. Regardless, it's hard to argue to anyone that in the long-term perhaps a decision might hurt them more than it would help if there is an immediate gain.
This is also why so few people are good at games like Chess and Go. :P

Myopia is a real problem, though, in just about every area of public life - many traffic accidents are caused by people not thinking ahead, politicians make inane laws on a nearly daily basis, and K5 readers hit "post" before "preview" all too often. The source of the problem lies in two pieces (which happen to be tightly woven together):

  1. Public Schooling - our public education systems emphasize quanitity over quality on a regular basis. The result is that much more is taught in schools today that 20 years ago, but very much less is thoroughly understood. I strongly believe that public schooling is more of a way to keep kids under 18 occupied (and if thier ideals are crushed in the process, so much the better) than a forum for education.

  2. Corporate Culture - corporate entities have spent oodles of time and money pushing the "gotta have it now" mentality. They've done a damned good job of it, too. Corporations fill thier pockets by selling a lot of useless junk for a whole pile of cash -- and couldn't care less if that action bankrupts the folks they've manipulated. Nearly every advert I've seen pushes people to "act now", "call today", or "hurry before supplies run out"; rarely do I see campaigns directed toward the more 'traditional' values of reliability and longevity.
The posturing of the corporate culture wouldn't bother me nearly as much if there were just as many voices (speaking just as loudly) saying "hey, this is all a bunch of manipulation -- make an informed choice." Then, maybe the average joe might actually see the proverbial forest in spite of the trees.

--
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

[ Parent ]
Hard to blame corporations (5.00 / 1) (#43)
by weirdling on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:17:40 PM EST

It's what people want. Corporations can't be blamed for providing it. Used to be people wanted to save up to buy something, so lay-away was invented to facilitate that. Nobody wants to wait anymore, so now the merchant will give it to you for a substantial deposit and your good word you'll pay the rest. This is what people want.
It's like the rants about violence in the media and how Hollywood is ruining the US. The same thing applies: it is what people want. The majority of the people watch that violence, the majority of the people pay for it by buying things advertised during those shows, and the majority of the people tacitly approve of it by not voting for crusaders who want to fix it. And, the crime wave that people complain about isn't really happening and has never been conclusively linked to violence on TV, making for the most common fallacy of all:

Post hoc reasoning based on anecdotal evidence.

That's the main problem with the idiotic laws and beliefs in this society. We so desparately need an elementary logic case in high school these days so people can learn to think critically and evaluate what they're told, but don't expect it; right now our public school system is far more concerned with 'sensitivity' than with 'truth'.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Blame on marketing (5.00 / 1) (#53)
by RadiantMatrix on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 04:19:22 AM EST

It may be hard to blame corporations if you look at the situation from outside the structure -- seems like people are getting what they want, so who cares, right? Unfortunately, I've had the experience of working closely with marketing groups, and it changed my opinion.

Marketing firms (especially the big ones) employ psychologists. Not for the benefit of the employees, but to analyze the ad campaigns for effectiveness. I've actually sat in meetings where the marketing psychologist vetoed ad ideas that 'didn't create a sense of urgency' or 'wouldn't convince someone of the immediate need for the product'. Granted, the whole thing is a two-way street, but the corporate culture is pushing very hard to get people to want instant gratification.

And like I said above, I wouldn't have a problem with this if there was some strong group pointing it out to people. But since the average person doesn't know about corporate tactics, they have no defense.

As to your allegory of media violence, I couldn't agree with you more. Violence in media has never been conclusively linked to real-world violence -- and even if a link could be demonstrated, it isn't Hollywood's fault that some people can't seperate fantasy from reality. Besides, the film industry warns people when a movie contains graphic violence; besides, there are all kinds of film critics and reviewers that "rate" film. If parents don't want kids seeing violent media, all they have to do is spend some time on research.

Advertising, however, can scarcely be avoided, and it's a shame that so many people fall victim to the cheap gimmicks. Oh, well.

--
No amount of genius can overcome a preoccupation with detail.

[ Parent ]

Minor nit (none / 0) (#60)
by weirdling on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 09:25:46 PM EST

I know an awful lot of people that are well aware of what you are saying but have not been so informed by anybody; it is self-evident. The sense of urgency can backfire, I think, though. It is one thing I would not consider in a commercial, as it is distracting to the central purpose, which is getting the word out. Here in Denver, we have the standard run of used-car salesmen, but one dealership has stood out by spending most of its time familiarizing locals with its brand and its location, as well as positioning three 'normal people' as its spokesmen, with precious little reference to selling or buying cars, yet were I in the market for a car, this would likely be my first place to go because they do not have the urgency that other dealerships have.

I guess my point is that those psychologists and those who try to be consumer advocates have severely overstated the problem, and, unless it is demonstrably as bad as people keep saying it is, which will require a very strong study, I see no reason to act and certainly see no reason to blame. People simply aren't as dumb as most people think.

I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Don't say 'people', but 'individuals' (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by emmanuel.charpentier on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 07:56:39 AM EST

this will change the whole way you think about the problem.

And yes, some persons will be dumb, and make mistakes. It's great, one of them might even find something valuable. You know, genetic algorithms :-)

The word is large, every mistake is bound to be made at least once by at least one individual. I've done my share, your turn. What you can do is try to help your fellow humans to not do what you think you know is a mistake. And eventually to help correcting those. Apart from that, every one is entitled to do what he wants (if it doesn't step on others liberties), even if you or me might consider it a mistake...

-- Direct Democracy for a practical anarchy: VeniVidiVoti

[ Parent ]

I don't understand you people... (3.33 / 3) (#24)
by sasseriansection on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 01:52:27 AM EST

This sounds like communism... from "revolution" to "can't rest on their laurels" to "must be ever vigilant, and ready to stamp out the first sight of organized bullying", which as you mentioned is paradoxical. I say instead of all this warring, rules, and rulers, we send 1 person to each planet and let him/her do with it what he may. Oh, and no communication between the two, lest they share ideas and form agreements and contracts.

It's universal isolationism at its finest.
------------ ------------

Ah, well, you see... (1.00 / 1) (#50)
by Canthros on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 07:32:55 PM EST

That's because it is communism. Not to be confused with the totalitarian socialist governments and ideologies that are probably more familiar. Marx claimed that, by way of the Hegelian thesis-antithesis-synthesis cycle of constant change, that the world would eventually reach communism. Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao, et al used this primarily as a lauching point for their own agendas.

--
It's now obvious you are either A) Gay or B) Female, or possibly both.
RyoCokey
[ Parent ]
Subtlety. (4.33 / 3) (#33)
by your_desired_username on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 09:13:59 AM EST

There has been some recent discussion about how most k5ians cannot recognize satire. localroger went so far as to submit an editorial complaining about this.

But I feel that subtlety is, well, sublime. I enjoy reading satire so subtle I don't recognize its true nature until I'm 2 paragraphs from the bottom. (qpt's and localroger's stories showed their true colors quite early, but they are good nonetheless.) One of the most appealing aspects of Swift's much-lauded essay is that he starts out sounding serious. My opinion is that the best satire is mistaken for being in earnest by about half its audience.

A few years ago, I made post akin to this one on usenet. I got cries of 'But there are some really crazy people on usenet! Some people *really do believe* McDonald's eats anarchists' (Roughly paraphrased; I've an imperfect memory).

So suppose one comes to the end of a post, and one is thinking 'This guy is insane. He's psychopathic. I really hope he's joking.' What should one do?

Read actively. Instead of interpretively. Stop asking 'What is the author trying to say here?'. Instead, ask 'What do I want to find in this work?'. Maxwell did not intend for his equations to describe the velocity at which light should travel; that was completely unexpected, but that property is an important reason why Maxwell's equations are held in such high esteem.

Assume the crazy post you just read is supposed to be a joke. Does that make it funny? Well, good, it is still funny, regardless of the author's original intent. Treat it as humor.

Real geeks - and skilled thinkers of every stripe - 'think out of the box'. They use things in ways not intended by their original creators. This is a good thing. It is high time for k5ians to follow suit. Start reading things in ways they were never intended to read.



one thing really concerns me... (4.75 / 4) (#37)
by tyriphobe on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 10:28:16 AM EST

in which the workers are forced to whore away their days so that they may purchase Pop-Tarts

Does this mean that after the revolution there won't be Pop-Tarts? I don't think I can support an idealogy that is against Pop-Tarts.

tyriphobe

Pop Tarts are Evil (5.00 / 1) (#46)
by wiredog on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 02:07:58 PM EST

And those who support Pop-Tart rights will be the first ones against the wall when the revolution comes!

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]
So, uh... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
by Wah on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 07:28:14 PM EST

..can I have their Pop-Tarts? I'm kinda hungry since the coercion of nature makes my tummy rumble, and the McDonalds is itself being charbroiled.
--
Some things, bandwidth can't buy. For everything else, there's Real Life | SSP
[ Parent ]
Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#54)
by wiredog on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 07:31:49 AM EST

It's Burger King that gets charbroiled. McDonalds gets fried. Starbucks gets ground into powder. I'm not sure what we'll do to Pop-Tarts, and Pop-Tart lovers, but it will be appropriate!

Viva la revolucion! Reunite Gondwanaland!

If there's a choice between performance and ease of use, Linux will go for performance every time. -- Jerry Pournelle
[ Parent ]

Two words (5.00 / 1) (#55)
by physicsgod on Sat Jul 28, 2001 at 03:07:53 PM EST

Giant Toaster.

--- "Those not wearing body armor are hereby advised to keep their arguments on-topic" Schlock Mercenary
[ Parent ]
Wrong (none / 0) (#58)
by pyramid termite on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 07:56:17 AM EST

As true anarchists we should disregard the warning on the package and MICROWAVE THEM!!
On the Internet, anyone can accuse you of being a dog.
[ Parent ]
Anarchy is already extant (3.00 / 3) (#48)
by magicmark on Fri Jul 27, 2001 at 03:15:43 PM EST

Anarchy already exists. Laws are made by the powerful and ignored by the more powerful! Coercion is undesireable in SOME cases but not all. Once you know, you know you don't know: what is best. Don't fight it! http://www.anarchyislove.com has some more of my thoughts on the subject. Mark

satire sans integrity is no satire at all (5.00 / 3) (#57)
by BlackStripe on Sun Jul 29, 2001 at 09:01:33 PM EST

This is not appropriate political satire. If you want to call it satire at all then the least you can say is that this is not fair satire. Satire takes a serious stance of a (usually silly) group of people and points out the weaknesses in that stance by accepting it and mocking it. In this case we see dishonest and manipulative satire. It's easy to laugh along at how all these anarchists want to violently force us all to support their view of a more fair and decmocratic world, but that isn't even what anarchists say.

This whole thing is as stupid as doing a satire about Republicans and how they are all in favor of abortions. There is some minute root in fact in that Reps tend to favor the death penalty (almost completely unrelated) but to satirize Republicans for being in favor of abortion is obviously quite assinine. It is equally assinine to satirize anarchists for wanting to violently impose free society upon us all just because some particular anarchist groups see property destruction as an appropriate expression of anti-corporate sentiment.

Destroying the property of multinational corporations and threatening harm to civilians who don't join your revolution are two completely different things. Most significantly, one is a behavior exhibited by some anarchists, and one is a behavior exhibited by no anarchists. Get a grip man, if you are good at writing satire you should at least write satire with some integrity.

As an anarchist, I can think of lots of things you could make fun of about anarchism that are legitimate, but don't just go making stuff up.

"While the popular understanding of anarchism is of a violent, anti-State movement, anarchism is a much more subtle and nuanced tradition then a simple opposition to government power. Anarchists oppose the idea that power and domination are necessary for society, and instead advocate more co-operative, anti-hierarchical forms of social, political and economic organisation." - L. Susan Brown, The Politics of Individualism
An Introduction to Anarchism

The Moon is a Harsh Mistress. (1.00 / 1) (#59)
by coffee17 on Mon Jul 30, 2001 at 05:32:29 PM EST

Read the book which is the subject of this post (by Robert Heinlein). What happened to the professor's anarchist ideals happened with the U.S. and will likely always happen. As you say, the average person is stupid. They want to have responsibility removed with rules, and so long that is what the majority of people want, that will always happen. Sure, a revolution every year or two might work, but who has the energy for that? Fuckit, I say we take off and nuke it all from orbit. It's the only way to make sure that stupid rules to force others to behave as you want them to will happen.

Pragmatic Anarchy: A Forcible End to Coercion | 59 comments (40 topical, 19 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!