Jim Marrs re: National Socialism

baraka wrote:

So what is 'biggest' problem?

The two biggest problems facing society are:

1) A lack of understanding of our environment vis a vis our survival and happiness (not enough brain)
2) The use of force by various populations against other populations (too much brawn)

Government plays rolls both positive and negative in the above. I would argue that their role, overall, is a net negative.

If you don't believe gov't is the biggest problem, then why all the focus on the gov't?

Because of "all the focus" here on government being the biggest solution, to which I disagree. 90% of my posts here are responses to someone suggesting that government is the solution to any given problem.

I don't see you spending too much time discussing other perceived problems. Oh yeah, because, 'this is a political message board. Hence the focus on government.' Come on now, ffg, you've stated your position here pretty clearly and proudly time and time again. Don't shy away from it now. The fact is your stance, as you have presented it to me, is rife with ideological absolutism, believing that your own opinions and moral judgments must be right. I think that is because it is based off of axiomatic principles rather than on weighing different points of view.

I am an absolutist, I do think my opinions and moral judgments are right, and they are based more on axiomatic principles than "weighting different points of view". The irony, however, is that I'm the last person here advocating for you or anyone else here to be a slave to my ideals and time and time again I've invited you and others to live exactly the way you wish to so long as you do not force me to participate. This is the fundamental difference between the average advocate of socialism and the average advocate of liberty. The socialist makes no room for dissenting lifestyles. The libertarian demands that room fundamental to his or her view.

I reminded of this whole 'force' debate you and I have had in the past. To me, it appears that libertarians want to impose a system of Libertarian law on everybody, without regard to their own wishes.

Yet I have no interest in doing this and everytime you try to put these words in my mouth I swallow them. Please try to understand:

If you have no interest in liberty or economic freedom, give them up to your chosen extent. I do not care what you do with your freedoms, your money, your labor, your life. They are not mine to dictate. If you want laws, enact them and enforce them. If you want taxes, enact them and collect them. If you want violence, arm yourself and fight. Simply do not force me to live by your standards, do not force me to pay for your values, do not force me to march in your army. I disagree with your principles and do not wish to live by them. And I support your right to disagree with mine and to live by your own.

According to you guys, this system is simply the only one that's morally permissible, all others being in some abstract sense a violation of everyone's rights. You argue that I can be as communistic (or whatever) as I want in my own community, but this disregards the fact that my whole group would have no choice about living under laws based on the most rigid and extreme interpretation of property rights, in which if we go broke we're screwed. I am not fond of movements that want to dictate to non-members what the only allowable way to run a society is, no matter how well they argue that the other systems, not theirs, are the ones really doing the dictating.

LOL...you can be as communistic as you want in your own community, but somehow you think this is not enough until you get to dictate what other communities do? That doesn't make much sense.

What I'm telling you is to be as communistic as you like and you may feel free to ignore, reject, or even completely repeal any "laws based on the most rigid and extreme interpretation of property rights, in which if we go broke we're screwed". I'm not proposing a universal system of property rights to which those who disagree should be subject. Yes, I believe rigid interpretations of property rights to be a good thing. But if you don't agree, then don't live by property rights. Ignore them. Compromise them. I don't care. I certainly don't want a federal system of property rights being imposed upon 49% of a nation that disagrees with them.

But do not expect universal property rights when you yourself refuse to accept them. In other words, don't expect to steal a car while at the same time owning it. Don't steal from others and then be angry when others steal from you -- your own ideology demands it.

If you want to live communistically, do it. Find some land and squat on it. Bring your friends. Make some good music and grow some food. But do not pretend that someone else somewhere else has some kind of obligation to your survival. Do not pretend that you may dictate to them a way of life while valuing the ability to choose your own. Do not contradict yourself.

Your analogy didn't really help me out here. Can you elaborate?

Failure should always be embraced when one's actions are destined to fail. Embracing the ends to your means is the theoretical definition of knowledge itself. Those who promote liberty absolutely promote failure for those whose actions should fail, just as they promote success for those whose actions should succeed. The rejection of failure, the pretense that one's means can always lead to one's chosen ends is a disconnect that leads to atrocity.

Too often on this board I hear statements like "we must have xxxx, regardless of what it would take". These are the statements of those who would never embrace failure and, as such, pay no heed to the means to their desired ends. And with that they invite means most awful.

baraka wrote:

You talk about force all the time, yet it is your philosophy that imposes absolutes.

"Impose" implies a target. Who or what is my target?

Absolutism creates intolerance

(LOL..."absolutism creates intolerance" is an absolute)

"Intolerance" implies a target. Who or what is my target?

Once you convince yourself that any other agenda is morally wrong and violates your rights, it's not that big a step to the conclusion that you have a right to use force on those trying to advance the opposing cause.

Were I of the belief that my ends justify any means, you'd be right.

To hear you guys talk about rights to self-defense and defense of property, and the incompatibility of those rights with such things as taxation for government actions outside the limited role you envision, I have to wonder what reason you'd give for NOT having taken up arms.;)

That doesn't surprise me.

The reason I haven't "taken up arms" is the same reason I'm asking you to drop yours.

And the odious Objectivist branch of the Libertarian movement (you're familiar with those guys ) are capable of embracing such arguments for violence imo, since similar ones are endorsed in their guru's novels.

"Morality ends where a gun begins" -Rand

For all her faults, Rand built an entire revolutionary model around sloth as opposed to violence. You're going to have a tough time supporting this one.

At least with what we've got now we can adjust it and change our minds, we can incorporate a variety of differing philosophies, and make compromises back and forth.

This is ironic coming from someone defending the compulsory prescription of a philosophy. And we can talk about compromise the minute you disown coercion.

A society built on true Libertarian principle allows little or no compromise on any matters of law, and settles all such questions by simple absolute principles decided in advance by a small group of ideological leaders.

So much for liberty then. Odd that you would find this to be "true Libertarian principle".

We are then expected to live with the consequences as best we can, and if we happen to end up worse off than before, that doesn't matter. The important thing is not that we do what we feel works best for ourselves, but that we stick by the principles. I am not going to support putting some random tool's opinion of moral principle ahead of the consequences for real flesh and blood people. That's a form of 'liberty' that, from my point of view, looks suspiciously like theocracy.

LOL...where am I saying you have to "support putting some random tool's opinion of moral principle ahead of the consequences for real flesh and blood people"? You don't and shouldn't have to! Put your own principles ahead of those thing. Put them behind those things. Put them on equal footing. I don't care what you do with them. Simply don't pretend that you can put my principles on either side of them.