Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
iyaelsorai iyaelsorai
@TheEllenShow http://twitpic.com/3zv6ef - Children are full of love and when they forget it, consider your role in the plot.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Sunday, January 2, 2011
a one world government..
Many people are afraid of the idea of a One World Government, and I know why. We've seen, whether directly or unconsciously, the damage that too much power in too few hands tends to cause. For these people, the idea of a One World Government is something like rolling the die and hoping you get a benevolent dictator, every time, or something like that.
The way I see it, having a One World Government isn't much worse than what we have now, in that respect -- the reason being that the dangers of governing even a single nation (and there are only about 243 of them, last I checked) are evinced in the nations we do have which have 'functional' governments. Even more, this proves that we can take the most 'prosperous' government (not measured by economy, God no, but maybe by civilian surveys..) and ascribe its characteristics to the new One World Government.
If you can gamble with authority within your own nation, why not gamble with authority for the whole world? It's not that different really, especially not if you're a civilian of the world's most popular nation..
For *example*, the new One World Government *could* have a House, Senate and presidency. Just don't think that I'm a nationalist for even suggesting it, nor that I think a One World Government should probably be effected by the United States taking over the whole world (which I doubt they would anyway.. the Russians didn't understand).
So that was the speech about why a One World Government doesn't have to be *worse*; here's why it should be *better*.
Have you ever seen a war (the *one* civil war notwithstanding) between, say, Nebraska and Kentucky? I mean the closest thing we have to war there is football (I accidentally typed footbull, for some strange reason). Basically, the states pretty much live in harmony. There may be beggings for federal help, and some states must be more wealthy than others, but it's like at least we don't have war amongst them.
Why? Because they're all under the rule of the same government; war is simply silly..and when they do desperately need help, they probably get it.. at least a little bit, and unlike the way we do it between countries, it's not a borrow. More importantly though, there isn't war.
Now that brings me to the second thing, which is that we would, and could, no longer have the economical picture in which one country consumes 80% of the world's resources, while others are either catching up via a totalitarian, beehive mentality and the rest are exploited.. because the difference between, say, The U.S. and Japan, or hopefully even the US and North Korea, would be much like the difference between Nebraska and Kentucky.
Of course, wealth imbalances could and probably would still exist, but not like what we have now.. Kentucky wouldn't be fishing in trash heaps looking for food while Nebraska formulates immigration policies, for example. And yes, this implies a lower tone of economic activity, for us, as the wealth balances out and we help stop killing Nature at a rising pace.
I always say, economy isn't everything -- in fact, a lower economy is a good thing for everybody involved, even to the point of its collapsing. Yes, we need tools for our garden and basic necessities, and a few things that just look really fun for us, but not all this cornucopia of useless shit we chase after to fulfill our spiritual emptiness incurred by the same system by which we produce shit, while we measure our success as a nation by how much of this shit we can produce this year.
The way I see it, having a One World Government isn't much worse than what we have now, in that respect -- the reason being that the dangers of governing even a single nation (and there are only about 243 of them, last I checked) are evinced in the nations we do have which have 'functional' governments. Even more, this proves that we can take the most 'prosperous' government (not measured by economy, God no, but maybe by civilian surveys..) and ascribe its characteristics to the new One World Government.
If you can gamble with authority within your own nation, why not gamble with authority for the whole world? It's not that different really, especially not if you're a civilian of the world's most popular nation..
For *example*, the new One World Government *could* have a House, Senate and presidency. Just don't think that I'm a nationalist for even suggesting it, nor that I think a One World Government should probably be effected by the United States taking over the whole world (which I doubt they would anyway.. the Russians didn't understand).
So that was the speech about why a One World Government doesn't have to be *worse*; here's why it should be *better*.
Have you ever seen a war (the *one* civil war notwithstanding) between, say, Nebraska and Kentucky? I mean the closest thing we have to war there is football (I accidentally typed footbull, for some strange reason). Basically, the states pretty much live in harmony. There may be beggings for federal help, and some states must be more wealthy than others, but it's like at least we don't have war amongst them.
Why? Because they're all under the rule of the same government; war is simply silly..and when they do desperately need help, they probably get it.. at least a little bit, and unlike the way we do it between countries, it's not a borrow. More importantly though, there isn't war.
Now that brings me to the second thing, which is that we would, and could, no longer have the economical picture in which one country consumes 80% of the world's resources, while others are either catching up via a totalitarian, beehive mentality and the rest are exploited.. because the difference between, say, The U.S. and Japan, or hopefully even the US and North Korea, would be much like the difference between Nebraska and Kentucky.
Of course, wealth imbalances could and probably would still exist, but not like what we have now.. Kentucky wouldn't be fishing in trash heaps looking for food while Nebraska formulates immigration policies, for example. And yes, this implies a lower tone of economic activity, for us, as the wealth balances out and we help stop killing Nature at a rising pace.
I always say, economy isn't everything -- in fact, a lower economy is a good thing for everybody involved, even to the point of its collapsing. Yes, we need tools for our garden and basic necessities, and a few things that just look really fun for us, but not all this cornucopia of useless shit we chase after to fulfill our spiritual emptiness incurred by the same system by which we produce shit, while we measure our success as a nation by how much of this shit we can produce this year.
Saturday, January 1, 2011
anarchism isn't *just* about blind rebellion.
Anarcho-communism is a name given to an ideal form of anarchism in which people co-orperate in harmony. Obviously, this form requires no law and by definition can have none.
Many states have existed in anarchism already, some to varying degrees, but in recent history a big example has been Somalia. I won't say it worked out perfectly, but something happened.. and no, it wasn't quite anarcho-communism as far as I know.
Other than that there are past and present instances of tribal societies. They live in relative anarchism (they have no laws as such, but they may have 'codes'), but I wouldn't say it's anarcho-communism; their organization would barely even count as city-states...
The big questions for anarcho-communism in today's society seem to be, a) is it possible, and b) how is it possible.
I'm pretty confident that it's possible, and I'm pretty sure it's the modus operandi for many other cultures in the Universe.
As for whether it's possible, you know, I'll give you the usual — with an open mind 'anything' is possible.. it's pretty true, it's just that the trick-and-a-half is how to reclaim that open mind..
And yes, obviously, in order to have anarcho-communism some country currently having a normal (read: law- or enforcement-based) government would have to shatter.
As for possibilities, don't just play the game of finding the least-likely-possibility-to-fail and then trying to find out how it would.. it's not Murphy's law unless you expect it, and there's probably a zillion possibilities..
Three questions I will try to explore here are, a) what are at least the parametrics of these possibilities, b) how can they come into organization when everybody must, more-or-less, agree - not only on the fact of the organization, but the type of it and who's in charge, etc., and c) how it is that it's even possible to have a functioning, systematic government or whatever you wanna call it that's not based in enforcement.
a) First, we need scales of control. Control is just a word I'm using here. There is no enforcement, and that means not only on the populace in general but on 'government' officials. Though I use the word government, it is not intended to mislead to the idea that the system needs to, or even could, bear much resemblance to what we already have. It's just an easy word to choose for the organized body of decision-makers and effectors.
I *reckon* that we need scales of control, but who knows what the network would be. I'm basing it loosely off control structures here on Earth, which are often directly hierarchical. If there are rungs, scales, echelons, etc. of control, one question would be how many; however, there are at least two other dimensions to that.
One dimension would be the variegation in scales across land.. how do the hierarchies of various lands, mainly neighboring lands, ones in trade, and ones with frequent commute, interact and influence each other? The other question concerns confluent "houses" or other-termed systems within the same control-structure; for example, what we have in America with the House, Senate and the presidency.
Now on to the second question..
One way we could approach the "problem" is to start a non-profit website that integrates and gives varying weight to people's opinions and arguments, until it's decided a) what the majority wants, and (b) who should be in control in which positions.
(b) obviously links up to a) here; decided on peope's opinions for a funtional, coordinated whole is tantamount to, or subsumes, the considerations about which or what kind of system 'should' be in place. I typoed 'pace' there, which probably means we're not ready for it, and in the meantime we should be considering a One World Government — a goood source of mine — my best source tells me that this is the best system for human beings *at this* juncture in time.
One other thing I wanted to mention is that, half-way through actualizing it, we could be interrupted due to no more eletrical power/support for the internet -- and that's if the repubs don't set us up for another counter-culture cut-out program.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that this system can never be created by and/or controlled by the government, or any government for that matter, without compromises that would make it a mere shadow of what I'm suggesting; because what I'm suggesting implies a government in ruins.
Anyway, globalism-being-a-better-solution notwithstanding (that's weird, my mouse pointer got moved to 'without compromises' just then), the system-in-creation probably should be a lot of fun, or at least a little so that we're not borrowing time to force ourselves into choosing and explaining. If I got an offer to be a US senator, I'd probably reject it; it's too cerebral.
Outside of the internet working, it could be accomplished in town meetings and meetings between town leaders or spokes(wo)men. By the way, at this stage, for whoever's serious, I don't think the notion of "personal property" applies anymore, aside of the "honor system."
Another theory is, of course, a tyrannical dictator skating on ice, while an/other faction/s work/s on organizing a more peaceful 'government'/ non-forecfully cooperative system, and not doing it too loudly until it works.
But to directly answer (b)'s question, I'm not entirely sure, one reason being that it depends on what system you make up. I can say this, though: it might be good to keep your aggression in check for a while, because everybody's going to disagree with everybody else to some degree, and just building a fire of emotions and crossed intentions probaby doesn't help.
Otherwise.. the organization plan has to be come up with by someone intelligent *and* aware, and then, somehow (like via that website idea I mentioned earlier) enough peope have to agree, or partically agree with systematic reconciliation, or vote, or distribute voting-points among candidate patterns, etc. etc.
Not much info there, I guess,but I did outline the variables involved in (a)'s description. I'd *probably*, most of the time, hope that that intelligent wo/man has studied enough history to get a view of What We Do Wrong, why, and what consequences there are.
As to question (c), law enforcement is obviosly a "different" paradigm, and part of seeing things with *some amount of* objetivity is probably gaining the insight or compassion to see how bad jail is, to say nothing of execution.
This at least takes you, hopefully, to the viewpoint that jail is just wrong.. and obviously, not given jail, there are few other modes of law enforcement, at least among those that are even almost as harmless as jail.
Now that *maybe* we agree on law enforcement being a "different" paradigm, you and (perhaps other?) anthropologists, benefactors and humanitarians can figure out what kind of system will work without enforcement.
I wouldn't exactly say "communist propaganda" (and anarcho-communism obviously isn't like communism which is rule-based), but it is true that our minds are affected by media, even to the degree of being unintentional sometimes.
So I would, personally, draw the line at least at *deliberately* using subconscious manipulation, including lying (about fact *or* opinion), but maaayybe having some media that shows examples of anarcho-communism (perhaps in science fiction), some other system (drastically different, maybe or maybe not having law enforcement), or just philosophizes like Charlie Rose has done. It's basically the task of opening minds to new possibility, and remaining within remote (or near) practicality.
The Smurfs? They got criticized for being "communist," even though they had no rules to speak of; people just saw 'freedom,' 'cooperation,' and 'an elderly leader' and assumed it all represents a 'bad word.' Anyway, I'm not *entirey* sure how I feel about The Smurfs, but I certainy watched it a lot as a kid and had no problems with it.
Anyway, a children's cartoon may not be the *best* source of philosophy or history on anarcho-communism; it's just an example I wanted to bring up, at the moment, for whatever reasons.
Obviously if we want this system there would be no more wage-slavery as we know it..but the general populace would need to be kept happy somehow.. and no, not through drugs, propaganda, etc. Life should be truly satisfying (one key is 'communication'), and there should be a system by which the non-working class can eat, sleep, etc.
The non-working class could be a large proportion of the people, but only because we would now be making only products that serve a useful/aesthetic purpose, are efficient, and last longer..if we make products at all, that is.
Some *smart people* say that our first big mistake, as humanity, was to create agriculture. Perhaps it might work to allow everyone a plot of land (perhaps by decree, but still not even by enforcement) with which to build whatever structure they want to reside in and to grow food in, say, a 20x20 yard.
Or, perhaps we can skip fixing that mistake and also the mistake of language-as-we-now-practice-it.. for the same reasons that some roads say, "no exit."
BTW, just because I reminded myself by typoing "anarcho-capitalism" once, the stuff doesn't exist; i.e., it just won't, in this world.. and that's not a dare; it's a threat: learn to tell the difference very quickly if you're an extremist, please.
Many states have existed in anarchism already, some to varying degrees, but in recent history a big example has been Somalia. I won't say it worked out perfectly, but something happened.. and no, it wasn't quite anarcho-communism as far as I know.
Other than that there are past and present instances of tribal societies. They live in relative anarchism (they have no laws as such, but they may have 'codes'), but I wouldn't say it's anarcho-communism; their organization would barely even count as city-states...
The big questions for anarcho-communism in today's society seem to be, a) is it possible, and b) how is it possible.
I'm pretty confident that it's possible, and I'm pretty sure it's the modus operandi for many other cultures in the Universe.
As for whether it's possible, you know, I'll give you the usual — with an open mind 'anything' is possible.. it's pretty true, it's just that the trick-and-a-half is how to reclaim that open mind..
And yes, obviously, in order to have anarcho-communism some country currently having a normal (read: law- or enforcement-based) government would have to shatter.
As for possibilities, don't just play the game of finding the least-likely-possibility-to-fail and then trying to find out how it would.. it's not Murphy's law unless you expect it, and there's probably a zillion possibilities..
Three questions I will try to explore here are, a) what are at least the parametrics of these possibilities, b) how can they come into organization when everybody must, more-or-less, agree - not only on the fact of the organization, but the type of it and who's in charge, etc., and c) how it is that it's even possible to have a functioning, systematic government or whatever you wanna call it that's not based in enforcement.
a) First, we need scales of control. Control is just a word I'm using here. There is no enforcement, and that means not only on the populace in general but on 'government' officials. Though I use the word government, it is not intended to mislead to the idea that the system needs to, or even could, bear much resemblance to what we already have. It's just an easy word to choose for the organized body of decision-makers and effectors.
I *reckon* that we need scales of control, but who knows what the network would be. I'm basing it loosely off control structures here on Earth, which are often directly hierarchical. If there are rungs, scales, echelons, etc. of control, one question would be how many; however, there are at least two other dimensions to that.
One dimension would be the variegation in scales across land.. how do the hierarchies of various lands, mainly neighboring lands, ones in trade, and ones with frequent commute, interact and influence each other? The other question concerns confluent "houses" or other-termed systems within the same control-structure; for example, what we have in America with the House, Senate and the presidency.
Now on to the second question..
One way we could approach the "problem" is to start a non-profit website that integrates and gives varying weight to people's opinions and arguments, until it's decided a) what the majority wants, and (b) who should be in control in which positions.
(b) obviously links up to a) here; decided on peope's opinions for a funtional, coordinated whole is tantamount to, or subsumes, the considerations about which or what kind of system 'should' be in place. I typoed 'pace' there, which probably means we're not ready for it, and in the meantime we should be considering a One World Government — a goood source of mine — my best source tells me that this is the best system for human beings *at this* juncture in time.
One other thing I wanted to mention is that, half-way through actualizing it, we could be interrupted due to no more eletrical power/support for the internet -- and that's if the repubs don't set us up for another counter-culture cut-out program.
Another thing I wanted to mention is that this system can never be created by and/or controlled by the government, or any government for that matter, without compromises that would make it a mere shadow of what I'm suggesting; because what I'm suggesting implies a government in ruins.
Anyway, globalism-being-a-better-solution notwithstanding (that's weird, my mouse pointer got moved to 'without compromises' just then), the system-in-creation probably should be a lot of fun, or at least a little so that we're not borrowing time to force ourselves into choosing and explaining. If I got an offer to be a US senator, I'd probably reject it; it's too cerebral.
Outside of the internet working, it could be accomplished in town meetings and meetings between town leaders or spokes(wo)men. By the way, at this stage, for whoever's serious, I don't think the notion of "personal property" applies anymore, aside of the "honor system."
Another theory is, of course, a tyrannical dictator skating on ice, while an/other faction/s work/s on organizing a more peaceful 'government'/ non-forecfully cooperative system, and not doing it too loudly until it works.
But to directly answer (b)'s question, I'm not entirely sure, one reason being that it depends on what system you make up. I can say this, though: it might be good to keep your aggression in check for a while, because everybody's going to disagree with everybody else to some degree, and just building a fire of emotions and crossed intentions probaby doesn't help.
Otherwise.. the organization plan has to be come up with by someone intelligent *and* aware, and then, somehow (like via that website idea I mentioned earlier) enough peope have to agree, or partically agree with systematic reconciliation, or vote, or distribute voting-points among candidate patterns, etc. etc.
Not much info there, I guess,but I did outline the variables involved in (a)'s description. I'd *probably*, most of the time, hope that that intelligent wo/man has studied enough history to get a view of What We Do Wrong, why, and what consequences there are.
As to question (c), law enforcement is obviosly a "different" paradigm, and part of seeing things with *some amount of* objetivity is probably gaining the insight or compassion to see how bad jail is, to say nothing of execution.
This at least takes you, hopefully, to the viewpoint that jail is just wrong.. and obviously, not given jail, there are few other modes of law enforcement, at least among those that are even almost as harmless as jail.
Now that *maybe* we agree on law enforcement being a "different" paradigm, you and (perhaps other?) anthropologists, benefactors and humanitarians can figure out what kind of system will work without enforcement.
I wouldn't exactly say "communist propaganda" (and anarcho-communism obviously isn't like communism which is rule-based), but it is true that our minds are affected by media, even to the degree of being unintentional sometimes.
So I would, personally, draw the line at least at *deliberately* using subconscious manipulation, including lying (about fact *or* opinion), but maaayybe having some media that shows examples of anarcho-communism (perhaps in science fiction), some other system (drastically different, maybe or maybe not having law enforcement), or just philosophizes like Charlie Rose has done. It's basically the task of opening minds to new possibility, and remaining within remote (or near) practicality.
The Smurfs? They got criticized for being "communist," even though they had no rules to speak of; people just saw 'freedom,' 'cooperation,' and 'an elderly leader' and assumed it all represents a 'bad word.' Anyway, I'm not *entirey* sure how I feel about The Smurfs, but I certainy watched it a lot as a kid and had no problems with it.
Anyway, a children's cartoon may not be the *best* source of philosophy or history on anarcho-communism; it's just an example I wanted to bring up, at the moment, for whatever reasons.
Obviously if we want this system there would be no more wage-slavery as we know it..but the general populace would need to be kept happy somehow.. and no, not through drugs, propaganda, etc. Life should be truly satisfying (one key is 'communication'), and there should be a system by which the non-working class can eat, sleep, etc.
The non-working class could be a large proportion of the people, but only because we would now be making only products that serve a useful/aesthetic purpose, are efficient, and last longer..if we make products at all, that is.
Some *smart people* say that our first big mistake, as humanity, was to create agriculture. Perhaps it might work to allow everyone a plot of land (perhaps by decree, but still not even by enforcement) with which to build whatever structure they want to reside in and to grow food in, say, a 20x20 yard.
Or, perhaps we can skip fixing that mistake and also the mistake of language-as-we-now-practice-it.. for the same reasons that some roads say, "no exit."
BTW, just because I reminded myself by typoing "anarcho-capitalism" once, the stuff doesn't exist; i.e., it just won't, in this world.. and that's not a dare; it's a threat: learn to tell the difference very quickly if you're an extremist, please.
r.e.s.p.e.c.t.. sittin' in a tree, k.i.s.s.i.n.g.
Respect is only a game we play while everybody's lost...dignity's even less humble.
yes, sometimes "justice" comes to those who deliberately take certain kinds of roads.. but that's not really your business, much.
maybe respect is a useful tool, like i said before, when we *don't* understand, but don't hold or release it like a dagger; i sure don't.
Respect is only a game we play while everybody's lost...dignity's even less humble.
yes, sometimes "justice" comes to those who deliberately take certain kinds of roads.. but that's not really your business, much.
maybe respect is a useful tool, like i said before, when we *don't* understand, but don't hold or release it like a dagger; i sure don't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)