A mirror of the eeesite "A Song of Ice and Fire"

This is a mirror of the now defunct eesite ASOIAF webboard.

The discussions for G.R.R. Martin's awesome series "A Song of Ice and Fire" are now being held at: Current ASoIaF Webboard

You cannot post new messages to this board. Go to the Current ASoIaF Webboard for the most current discussions.

A Song of Ice and Fire / Other Topics / Materialism and Tools

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Feb 5th 2:29 PM
The last two posts before we borke the thread of this very interesting discussion.

Relic
User ID: 9328513 Jan 29th 2:21 PM
Jeff, what do you mean by gamble? How is that possible exactly? The only gamble one can take in life is death, everything else is personal opinion really. There isnt any one thing a persons NEEDS to accomplish during life, just things that soceity may place greater importance on.

Perhpase society wont change, it doesnt seem that way, but Min is right. You need to change yourself your surroundings. Ser Gary you still planning on starting a commune =)?
KAH
User ID: 0541004 Jan 30th 6:26 AM
Relic;

I think Jeff meant that during upheavals in society, several important (although greatly varying in importance individually) factors in our existence is at (more) risk;

In no apparent order; own life, lives of relatives, lives@#$#@$^START:51
When you put a label on it....."anarchy" the conotations are lets say not that positive. The word anarchy conjures up images of people running around in the street naked. Lets just call it freedom. Social and economic forces control a lot of what you can and cannot do. They limit you as does many of the thoughts and philosophies of the people with the fortune of holding and having the power. All throughout history we see the evidences of people who control the fate of many.

Who the hell said i wanted to grow up and attend a school that teaches me how to make money for these people in power, or even that i wanted to make other people do my bidding in order to make money or what the media and press call a living. Of course this does not escape from the reality that the world is a harsh place, where we do what we must to survive.. will we ever overcome that basic instinct. Can we not overcome to be better human beings??

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Feb 7th 8:19 AM
Guess there's a question pending, huh?

Relic, what I mean by "gamble" is that anarchists want to leap from society as it exists directly to a society devoid of any government, rules or laws. What that society would look like and how it would operate in practice is something even anarchists will admit they don't know. In fact, the inability to predict what such a society will look like is a necessary component of anarcho-syndicalist thought.

So, we would be moving to a society without any real knowledge of how it would work in practice. Would the elimination of laws and collective defense mean that there would be increased use of physical force by some individuals against others? It doesn't seem very smart to me to leap into a change without knowing what the result will be. That's the gamble to which I referred.

The better way is to gradually lessen the scope and power of government and _approach_ the supposed ideal of no government. Perhaps as we got closer, pure anarchy would appear less attractive. Or perhaps more attractive. But at least we wouldn't have thrown away a system that does work (whoever flawed it may be) for a system whose function we cannot know.

BTW, I think one of the principles of traditional anarchism is that "property is theft". That's always struck me as pretty interesting. If there are no laws, how can we classify any action as "theft"?

KAH
User ID: 0541004 Feb 7th 10:30 AM
Just a quick note;

The post of mine that Relic has pasted into his opening post here, has gone FUBAR.

Everything behind the 'START:51' thingee is someone else's post, which somehow repressed all the rest of my post.

Sphinx
User ID: 8882983 Feb 7th 4:38 PM
Sort of off topic, but: I heard a cool quote the other day in a song - you know you always hear the phrase 'live each day as if it were your last', well how about 'live each day as if it were your first'? Does anyone wish they still had the sense of wonderment that kids have?

Relic
User ID: 0547294 Feb 7th 4:54 PM
Jeff, I see what your talking about. But I think the logic may be a bit flawed. At least from an anarchists point of view. Moving towards an ideal govenment is impossible. At least in our lifetime. I can't think of a single government that was changed without the use of force. Do you think the people in charge would purposly lessen their control over the population? I doubt it. The Purpose of every government once in power is to stay in power. Every politician once elected works towards re-election.

Which is why so many anarchists are anxious in my opinion. They want to live in a society that they deem worthy, and they know it wont happen.

The loss of "control" is what is holding us back. Humans need to feel in control even though they arent. Ever. So why not gamble?

Relic
User ID: 0547294 Feb 7th 7:07 PM
Wow, i brought this topic out on a mailing list that my friend signed me up on, and i got attacked and put down. I'm glad i found a place where we can discuss things without slamming each other. Seriously. Its unique.

Kevin
User ID: 0053014 Feb 7th 8:20 PM
If anarchy (or ultimate freedom) is such a good idea how come in all the time man has been around there has never been such a place? Anytime people get together they agree (at least in practice) to certain rules therefore limiting freedom.

Relic
User ID: 0547294 Feb 7th 8:22 PM
kevin , in my opinion it is because man is weak, he cannot let go of control.

Min
User ID: 0074284 Feb 8th 6:29 AM
Sphinx: The innocence. Yes.

Jeff
User ID: 1536664 Feb 8th 12:25 PM
Relic, I'm not sure how you see that as impossible. There have been many revolutions that have resulted in less centralized control. It also has happened through elections. The U.S. and many countries in western Europe have elected governments that have reduced, albeit incrementally, the role of government. Such changes often are reversed by the next government that comes to power, but that's a change that is voted in by the citizens.

If ever politician once elected wants reelection, and if most people really want the lessened government you advocate, then it would seem that the best way to get reelected would be to give the people what they want and reduce the power of government. Though I also wish that the power of government would be dramatically lessened, I've finally admitted to myself that most people in the West do not. _Philosophically_, most people favor a government with less power. But when it comes to specific issues, many people want their social programs, highways, trade regulations, etc. So they vote for candidates who promise those things.

For me, fear of "losing control" has nothing to do with why I oppose anarchism. Almost the opposite, in fact. I'm a firm believer that an individual should be given maximum liberty to chart the course of his or her own life free from coercion from either government _or_ from other individuals. Anarchism advocates eliminating government coercion but ignores coercion by individuals. It pretends that it doesn't exist, or fancifully imagines that coercion by individuals won't exist if coercion by government is ended. Anarchism makes this assumption that private coercion will somehow disappear without evidence or reason. In fact, anarchist theory itself should preclude making this assumption because a premise of anarchism is that we cannot know what will happen if government is destroyed.

Kevin
User ID: 0053014 Feb 8th 1:22 PM
Relic - total freedom means that there would be NO social rules to live by. I'm not talking about a person in power/control, I'm talking about how we would deal with each other. If you are to have total freedom, you can not be beholden to any rule what-so-ever.

I know I wouldn't like to live in a world where I wouldn't know what to expect from any person I met. I also don't think that it is possible to have such a place. At the lowest denominator, man tends to revert to might makes right. THAT is by definition a limitation of freedom for the non-mighty.

Relic User ID: 9328513	Feb 5th 2:29 PM The last two posts before we borke the thread of this very interesting discussion. Relic User ID: 9328513 Jan 29th 2:21 PM Jeff, what do you mean by gamble? How is that possible exactly? The only gamble one can take in life is death, everything else is personal opinion really. There isnt any one thing a persons NEEDS to accomplish during life, just things that soceity may place greater importance on. Perhpase society wont change, it doesnt seem that way, but Min is right. You need to change yourself your surroundings. Ser Gary you still planning on starting a commune =)? KAH User ID: 0541004 Jan 30th 6:26 AM Relic; I think Jeff meant that during upheavals in society, several important (although greatly varying in importance individually) factors in our existence is at (more) risk; In no apparent order; own life, lives of relatives, lives@#$#@$^START:51 When you put a label on it....."anarchy" the conotations are lets say not that positive. The word anarchy conjures up images of people running around in the street naked. Lets just call it freedom. Social and economic forces control a lot of what you can and cannot do. They limit you as does many of the thoughts and philosophies of the people with the fortune of holding and having the power. All throughout history we see the evidences of people who control the fate of many. Who the hell said i wanted to grow up and attend a school that teaches me how to make money for these people in power, or even that i wanted to make other people do my bidding in order to make money or what the media and press call a living. Of course this does not escape from the reality that the world is a harsh place, where we do what we must to survive.. will we ever overcome that basic instinct. Can we not overcome to be better human beings??
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Feb 7th 8:19 AM Guess there's a question pending, huh? Relic, what I mean by "gamble" is that anarchists want to leap from society as it exists directly to a society devoid of any government, rules or laws. What that society would look like and how it would operate in practice is something even anarchists will admit they don't know. In fact, the inability to predict what such a society will look like is a necessary component of anarcho-syndicalist thought. So, we would be moving to a society without any real knowledge of how it would work in practice. Would the elimination of laws and collective defense mean that there would be increased use of physical force by some individuals against others? It doesn't seem very smart to me to leap into a change without knowing what the result will be. That's the gamble to which I referred. The better way is to gradually lessen the scope and power of government and _approach_ the supposed ideal of no government. Perhaps as we got closer, pure anarchy would appear less attractive. Or perhaps more attractive. But at least we wouldn't have thrown away a system that does work (whoever flawed it may be) for a system whose function we cannot know. BTW, I think one of the principles of traditional anarchism is that "property is theft". That's always struck me as pretty interesting. If there are no laws, how can we classify any action as "theft"?
KAH User ID: 0541004	Feb 7th 10:30 AM Just a quick note; The post of mine that Relic has pasted into his opening post here, has gone FUBAR. Everything behind the 'START:51' thingee is someone else's post, which somehow repressed all the rest of my post.
Sphinx User ID: 8882983	Feb 7th 4:38 PM Sort of off topic, but: I heard a cool quote the other day in a song - you know you always hear the phrase 'live each day as if it were your last', well how about 'live each day as if it were your first'? Does anyone wish they still had the sense of wonderment that kids have?
Relic User ID: 0547294	Feb 7th 4:54 PM Jeff, I see what your talking about. But I think the logic may be a bit flawed. At least from an anarchists point of view. Moving towards an ideal govenment is impossible. At least in our lifetime. I can't think of a single government that was changed without the use of force. Do you think the people in charge would purposly lessen their control over the population? I doubt it. The Purpose of every government once in power is to stay in power. Every politician once elected works towards re-election. Which is why so many anarchists are anxious in my opinion. They want to live in a society that they deem worthy, and they know it wont happen. The loss of "control" is what is holding us back. Humans need to feel in control even though they arent. Ever. So why not gamble?
Relic User ID: 0547294	Feb 7th 7:07 PM Wow, i brought this topic out on a mailing list that my friend signed me up on, and i got attacked and put down. I'm glad i found a place where we can discuss things without slamming each other. Seriously. Its unique.
Kevin User ID: 0053014	Feb 7th 8:20 PM If anarchy (or ultimate freedom) is such a good idea how come in all the time man has been around there has never been such a place? Anytime people get together they agree (at least in practice) to certain rules therefore limiting freedom.
Relic User ID: 0547294	Feb 7th 8:22 PM kevin , in my opinion it is because man is weak, he cannot let go of control.
Min User ID: 0074284	Feb 8th 6:29 AM Sphinx: The innocence. Yes.
Jeff User ID: 1536664	Feb 8th 12:25 PM Relic, I'm not sure how you see that as impossible. There have been many revolutions that have resulted in less centralized control. It also has happened through elections. The U.S. and many countries in western Europe have elected governments that have reduced, albeit incrementally, the role of government. Such changes often are reversed by the next government that comes to power, but that's a change that is voted in by the citizens. If ever politician once elected wants reelection, and if most people really want the lessened government you advocate, then it would seem that the best way to get reelected would be to give the people what they want and reduce the power of government. Though I also wish that the power of government would be dramatically lessened, I've finally admitted to myself that most people in the West do not. _Philosophically_, most people favor a government with less power. But when it comes to specific issues, many people want their social programs, highways, trade regulations, etc. So they vote for candidates who promise those things. For me, fear of "losing control" has nothing to do with why I oppose anarchism. Almost the opposite, in fact. I'm a firm believer that an individual should be given maximum liberty to chart the course of his or her own life free from coercion from either government _or_ from other individuals. Anarchism advocates eliminating government coercion but ignores coercion by individuals. It pretends that it doesn't exist, or fancifully imagines that coercion by individuals won't exist if coercion by government is ended. Anarchism makes this assumption that private coercion will somehow disappear without evidence or reason. In fact, anarchist theory itself should preclude making this assumption because a premise of anarchism is that we cannot know what will happen if government is destroyed.
Kevin User ID: 0053014	Feb 8th 1:22 PM Relic - total freedom means that there would be NO social rules to live by. I'm not talking about a person in power/control, I'm talking about how we would deal with each other. If you are to have total freedom, you can not be beholden to any rule what-so-ever. I know I wouldn't like to live in a world where I wouldn't know what to expect from any person I met. I also don't think that it is possible to have such a place. At the lowest denominator, man tends to revert to might makes right. THAT is by definition a limitation of freedom for the non-mighty.