The lefts better argument

Basicaly Balbus I think you will find Shane's arguments tend toward the left
wing -However - he also feels that he has anarchist sympathies - and
leans more heavily toward anarchism.
I think you will find that anarchists generally disasociate from the left wing
because "the left" is socialist in concept (note that it is not communist) Since both anarchists and communists want the same thing - the difference between a communist and an anarchist is HOW we get to a state of communism or anarchy. Communists accept the idea of socialism - anarchists do not. Socialism is basically an alternative to a market driven economy. This naturally entails having a government or legislative body.
Anarchists do not want a ruling body - they want an apolitical culture
one which is not a flow of directives but a communal discussion - and the
real difference is that they will use Nihilist tactics to get it if necessary -
with no period of socialism between the collapse of the existing order
and a state of anarchistic affairs. The above should be read with the
emphasis on the word "apolitical"

 

1. Jesus Christ, you're still making assumptions, why? How many times do i have to show your assumptions about me as incorrect. Stop bringing up what you think you can guess about me personally and stick to the discussion.

2. Key word was obsession. No one wants to suffer or die or see others suffer and die. Not the point. I wasn't advocating pain or death. The focus was on the fear. As long as it will make life easier human beings are apt to disregard the consequences of their collective actions.

Any law can be justified as long as you can demonstrate that an amount of pain, suffering or death is avoided or aleviated. Force people to wear seatbelts, ban smoking, make suicide a crime, hinder free speech, illegal wars, national identity cards, government control of the internet (just mention pedophile enough times), there's even talk of putting GPS tracking units in or on children. As long as you can use the fear to justify the control everything's hunky-dory.

Fear for personal safety and desire for longevity become the perfect pacifers.

Again, i don't give a shit about the early asian american nomads!

Maybe debunked was too strong of a word. My point was that there is hardley a concensus on the early human envolvement in the extinction of large mammals.

not that this topic has anything at all to do with the discussion.

Sarcasm.

Kaczynski talked a bit about how decisions about adoption of technology are made, a process that inherently reduces the likelihood that overall societal considerations are taken into account. The result is a dependency on a technology that may not be in our overall best interests.

You spelled out part of my arguement for me.

 

Thought i spelled it out pretty well.

Lefties want to use governmental control in order to change the world.

Anarchist (those who are not left leaning) want to remove governmental control in order to change the world.

Where's the confusion?

Addressed in above post.

 

I can see your point.
I'm sort of a reformed leftist.
Still drawing lines.

Agreed.

 

Bullshit.

They just differ in the parts of government they want to see increase.

 

It was only meant as a viewpoint that an anarchist can draw
on the arguments of the leftwing to prove a point - I think
all anarchists have sentiment in the left wing but reason in the
apolitical. I was just alluding to the fact that Balbus wanted
to know how an anarchist can deny they are from the left wing.
However the point Balbus was making was directed at you, shane
so I had to draw on what I knew of your politics.
Its ok for anarchists to lean leftwards and use the left
Its just that there must be a reason we classify ourselves as anarchist
and that comes out of a tradition of thought that wants
an essentially Nihilist conclusion to politics

 

Thought i spelled it out pretty well.

Lefties want to use governmental control in order to change the world.

Anarchist (those who are not left leaning) want to remove governmental control in order to change the world.

Where's the confusion?

You are talking about methods in changing the world, but what about what about in what way the world is changed?

For example you admit that communal ownership and communal action are very much part of Anarchist ideas.

**

**

Addressed in above post.

The main part of that post was -

Any law can be justified as long as you can demonstrate that an amount of pain, suffering or death is avoided or aleviated. Force people to wear seatbelts, ban smoking, make suicide a crime, hinder free speech, illegal wars, national identity cards, government control of the internet (just mention pedophile enough times), there's even talk of putting GPS tracking units in or on children. As long as you can use the fear to justify the control everything's hunky-dory.

I would say it depended on the context.

Let us take motorcycle helmets

Is it a individual’s right to wear one or not?

Yes

The thing is that more serious accidents happen to people without helmets.

This means that more resources are needed to deal with the possible consequences of not wearing a helmet, if resources are being spent dealing with them then it isn’t going elsewhere, coursing others possible pain and suffering.

Besides the resources needed, there is emotional pain and suffering of love ones worrying about what might happen and having to deal with the aftermath.

An anarchist who thought of the communal good and had insight would wear a helmet.

The same with seatbelts they wouldn’t need a law they would just wear them.

The thing is how do we deal with non-anarchists that don’t have that anarchist insight? Are you saying that besides the suffering and pain they should be allowed to soak up more resources that could be spent on better things than dealing with their lack of insight?

**

Smoking it is up to the individual as long as it doesn’t effect others (although smoking related diseases cost a society a great deal)

Suicide, what do you mean, if it is related to depression wouldn’t it be better to treat the depression? If it is euthanasia, it would be a matter of the circumstances (was the person doing it because they thought they were a burden or because they were in pain)

**

“hinder free speech, illegal wars, national identity cards, government control of the internet (just mention pedophile enough times), there's even talk of putting GPS tracking units in or on children”

What?

How are these related to the “eradication of pain, suffering and premature death”? For example ‘illegal wars’ seems to be about creating “pain, suffering and premature death”.

**

 

I'm just confused on the term premature death. When you die you die, what is premature about it? Obviously it was your time to go, therefore it could not have been premature.

 

Cute

I’ll try and explain.

The expression is usually associated with deaths that could have been prevented if assistance or regulation had been in place.

For example

A drug or operation that could have been given but wasn’t administered because the person was too poor.

A child getting caught in dangerous machinery because they were cheaper to employ than to change the machine and they had been worked 16 hour shifts.

 

Exactly, communal living is "a part of" anarchist ideas, not the central focus as it is with the left. The individual is the central focus point for anarchists, when the individual is placed first the communal concerns will follow. When the community is placed first (often times at the expense the individual) the individual will always suffer and will never truely be free from force and coersion.

Either way, thats not what this thread is about.

Education not prosecution.
This is the same type of mentality that has us continuing the wars on drugs and terrorism with no end in sight...

Keyword in your post, treatment.
Making self inflicted suicide or assisted suicide illegal and punishable doesnt help anyone.

Turns into a crime (against one's self) instead of what it actually is, an act of desperation.

Okay, i don't know why i have to spell this out further, maybe you misunderstood.

You tell people you want to control the internet and they say no way. You tell people you want to control the internet to keep their children safe from perverts (using their fear of "pain and suffering") and you make increased control over a free medium a reasonable suggestion.

You tell people you want to invade and occupy a sovereign nation to gain control over it's resources and provide you with a strategic foothold and they say no way. You tell people you want to invade and occupy a sovereign nation as a premptive measure against a future attack from a WMD, though you have no proof, (using their fear of "pain, suffering and death") and you get a free pass and elected to a second term.

You tell people that you want to enforce "free speech zones" and fence people with opposing views away from those who support you and they say no way. You tell people that you want to enforce "free speech zones" because: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” (John Ashcroft) or: "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way.” (Secret Service agent Brian Marr on NPR), well then it makes perfect sence.

Your fear of possible pain, suffering or premature death is used as a way to bypass any reaonable objection you have against being controlled.

And this drive to protect the publics health for them is driving me insane!
From smoking bans to attacking fluffernutters to seatbelt laws, to sin taxes(which they are about to put on soda now) to helmet laws to the drug war....

Is it's bad for your health chances are there is a group of progressives ready to fine you for it...

As far as you comment:
The same with seatbelts they wouldn’t need a law they would just wear them.

That is just straight up sickening.
And the reason why the left is no better than the right.

"For your own good"

 

"Exactly, communal living is "a part of" anarchist ideas, not the central focus as it is with the left. The individual is the central focus point for anarchists, when the individual is placed first the communal concerns will follow. When the community is placed first (often times at the expense the individual) the individual will always suffer and will never truely be free from force and coersion".

As a left winger I think that the balance between the communal needs and the individuals needs are if anything equal and mutual. I would think that in an Anarchist society it would be essential.

And look at your own writings on the subject where you suggest that ‘organisations’ of anarchists would arbitrate between individuals as well as the needs of the individual and the needs of the community.

And since these ‘organisations’ have the authority to tell people what to do that is in effect a form of coercion.

**

"Education not prosecution."

Yes education. Lets say you have a child and the two of you find yourselves on a cliff top path very close to the edge. You warn her not to play, but she is a child and forgets and begins to skip and jump and nearly slips over the edge.
Do you let her continue and just risk losing her, give her another warning (but knowing she’ll probably forget again) or do you take her hand and lead her until the path becomes safe?

"This is the same type of mentality that has us continuing the wars on drugs and terrorism with no end in sight..."

What?

Once more you make a leap into a completely different subject, that seems to accuse people of ideas they are on record as opposing.

**

"You tell people you want to control the internet and they say no way. You tell people you want to control the internet to keep their children safe from perverts (using their fear of "pain and suffering") and you make increased control over a free medium a reasonable suggestion.
You tell people you want to invade and occupy a sovereign nation to gain control over it's resources and provide you with a strategic foothold and they say no way. You tell people you want to invade and occupy a sovereign nation as a premptive measure against a future attack from a WMD, though you have no proof, (using their fear of "pain, suffering and death") and you get a free pass and elected to a second term.
You tell people that you want to enforce "free speech zones" and fence people with opposing views away from those who support you and they say no way. You tell people that you want to enforce "free speech zones" because: “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty … your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and … give ammunition to America’s enemies.” (John Ashcroft) or: "These individuals may be so involved with trying to shout their support or non-support that inadvertently they may walk out into the motorcade route and be injured. And that is really the reason why we set these places up, so we can make sure that they have the right of free speech, but, two, we want to be sure that they are able to go home at the end of the evening and not be injured in any way.” (Secret Service agent Brian Marr on NPR), well then it makes perfect sence."


OK this argument is spurious at best.

We are talking here about left wing views and in that context I asked how you were relating the “eradication of pain, suffering and premature death” (which most left-wingers believe in) with the hindering of free speech, illegal wars, national identity cards, and government control of the internet?

You reply by throwing at me the policies of right wing neo-cons and a quote from a member of the Christian right.

You then say that this proves that my left wing “fear of possible pain, suffering or premature death is used as a way to bypass any reaonable objection you have against being controlled”

COME ON

My views on all the subjects you mentioned are on record here.

I (and many other left wingers) have been attacking the neo-con stance and it’s policies for years and I personally think Ashcroft a dangerous jerk, and have said so.

I predicted the use of ‘paedophile fear’ as a means by which governments and police agencies might try and control the internet some ten years ago and have warned against it many times since.

Look Shane just because your argument is weak is no excuse for silly smear tactics like this, please man try and calm down and think straight, this kind of crap is not worthy of you.

**

"As far as you comment:"

The same with seatbelts they wouldn’t need a law they would just wear them.

"That is just straight up sickening."

That is a statement not an argument. Yes you may find my views sickening but that doesn’t make the points I raised go away, they just remain unanswered and un-refuted, as such they remain valid.

You might not like it but the fact is that car crashes damage even kill not just the people involved but others like family or friends and seatbelt do save lives and reduce damage.

You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice” but most parents would be devastated and only wish to turn back time so they could lock the seatbelt themselves. And I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt.

So any self aware person that thinks about the feeling of others as well as themselves would use a seatbelt.

In my view an anarchist would have to be one of the most self aware of people are you saying they would not?

 

Thanks, but I was just joking. I knew what it meant. However, a better way to describe it, in my opinion, would be preventable death. Like I said if it was your time to go, sure it may have been able to be prevented (a lot of deaths can be prevented) but that doesn't mean that you are not finished serving your purpose on earth (or just begin as many influential people don't become so until they are dead).

In any event, I'm sorry to interrupt the debate, I was just screwing around. I found the term premature death to be amusing is all.

 

Sorry Cute, should have know you were joking, and yes I think ‘preventable death’ is a better description than ‘premature death’ and I’ll try and use it in future.

Yours

Balbus

 

You see the State as a parent figure, looking out for our best interest?
I think history shows otherwise.

Already addressed.
"For the greater good" "ends justify means" mentality...

Smear tactics?
Care to point them out?
I was giving examples of political use of fear by both left and right.

There is a difference between using personal responsiblity and being legally bound.

An anarchist would wear a seatbelt to save their life, not because it's the law.

Perfect example of a member of the left (you) using fear ( "You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter", "I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt") to promote government coersion (laws that punish an individual for choosing not to wear a seatbelt).

How is that any different than the right's use of fear? Because it could save lives? Thats the same arguement they use for the patriot act, wiretapping and the drug war. I'm not swayed...

In one post you just proved my point.

 

So – would you let the girl play and risk her life or do you take her hand and lead her to safety?

Is a simple question.

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
"This is the same type of mentality that has us continuing the wars on drugs and terrorism with no end in sight..."

What?

Once more you make a leap into a completely different subject, that seems to accuse people of ideas they are on record as opposing.

Already addressed.

The problem is I’ve show that you replies on this don’t make sense

**

Smear tactics?
Care to point them out?
I was giving examples of political use of fear by both left and right.

Really Shane, try and keep a grip on what’s being said. OK I say that like many left wingers I hope for a reduction in peoples pain, suffering and preventable deaths through left wing policies.

Your argument is that people need to suffer and die even if that suffering and those deaths are preventable, because “We need pain as much as we need joy” because “Without pain what is pleasure?”

I disagree

You then throw at me examples and quotes from the right, about things that many left wingers (including myself) oppose.

Isn’t that a bit unfair, doesn’t it seem like an attempt at smear?

Or are you saying that you know best, that it doesn’t matter if I oppose something if you think I’m in favour of it I must be in favour of it.

What is it, a lapse in judgement, a smear or what sounds like megalomaniacal delusions?

**

Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus

"As far as you comment:"

The same with seatbelts they wouldn’t need a law they would just wear them.

"That is just straight up sickening."

That is a statement not an argument. Yes you may find my views sickening but that doesn’t make the points I raised go away, they just remain unanswered and un-refuted, as such they remain valid.

You might not like it but the fact is that car crashes damage even kill not just the people involved but others like family or friends and seatbelt do save lives and reduce damage.

You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice” but most parents would be devastated and only wish to turn back time so they could lock the seatbelt themselves. And I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt.

So any self aware person that thinks about the feeling of others as well as themselves would use a seatbelt.

In my view an anarchist would have to be one of the most self aware of people are you saying they would not?

There is a difference between using personal responsiblity and being legally bound.

An anarchist would wear a seatbelt to save their life, not because it's the law.

And do you remember what I said 8 days ago Shane?

“Let us take motorcycle helmets

Is it a individual’s right to wear one or not?

Yes

The thing is that more serious accidents happen to people without helmets.

This means that more resources are needed to deal with the possible consequences of not wearing a helmet, if resources are being spent dealing with them then it isn’t going elsewhere, coursing others possible pain and suffering.

Besides the resources needed, there is emotional pain and suffering of love ones worrying about what might happen and having to deal with the aftermath.

An anarchist who thought of the communal good and had insight would wear a helmet.

The same with seatbelts they wouldn’t need a law they would just wear them.

This said some time ago agrees with what you are saying now. An Anarchist would wear a seatbelt or helmet because they would want to save themselves from injury or death and the suffering of others. They wouldn’t need a law.

(You seem to be saying things I’ve already mentioned and calling me sick for things you clearly didn’t understand, please try to read more carefully in future it would save us time.)

Anyway the point is what of others-

“how do we deal with non-anarchists that don’t have that anarchist insight? Are you saying that besides the suffering and pain they should be allowed to soak up more resources that could be spent on better things than dealing with their lack of insight?”


**

Quote:
You might not like it but the fact is that car crashes damage even kill not just the people involved but others like family or friends and seatbelt do save lives and reduce damage.

You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice” but most parents would be devastated and only wish to turn back time so they could lock the seatbelt themselves. And I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt

Perfect example of a member of the left (you) using fear ( "You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter", "I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt") to promote government coersion (laws that punish an individual for choosing not to wear a seatbelt).

How is that any different than the right's use of fear? Because it could save lives? Thats the same arguement they use for the patriot act, wiretapping and the drug war. I'm not swayed...

In one post you just proved my point.

OK first of all are you saying you could shrug off the death of a son or daughter and say ‘It was their own choice”?

Next why would I want to bring in things I oppose such as the patriot act, wiretapping and the drug war?

 

Again.

In one post you just proved my point.

Perfect example of a member of the left (you) using fear ( "You might be able to shrug off the death of a son or daughter", "I’m sure that the people that have gone through a windscreen and now live with painful and disfiguring scars, if given the chance would have worn a seatbelt") to promote government coersion (laws that punish an individual for choosing not to wear a seatbelt).


Nuff said.


Trying to appeal to my fear of losing a family member to argue for the need of a law proves the point I'm making.

Not wearing a seatbelt is idiotic, It could lead to my or (if you insist) my child's death.

Making seatbelt usage mandatory and non seatbelt usage punishable is not the answer.

​

​

​

Instead of using coersion to to force seatbelt use, education should be used as to the benefits of seatbelt usage.

If an individual then decides not to wear a seatbelt, they take on the risk, no one else.

 

How does that analogy apply to this discussion?

Again, are proposing the State as a parental figure looking out for the best interest of the individual? With the Left at the wheel of government instead of the Right?

 

Didn't say you supported those things.

What i said was that you(even in this discussion) and the Left use the same arguements and justifications for your use of Government control as the Right.

Fear.

 

Allowed to soak up more resources?!?!

That is the crux of the arguement it seems.

It is not up to you, the left, or the right, to allow or not allow an individual to preform or not preform an action that affects no one but himself.

As far as resources, are speaking of medical care?

Someone could set themselves on fire as an act of protest, but we don't outlaw matches on the basis that it drains medical resources to treat self inflicted burns.

Imposed restrictions on individuals as a deterrent to possible future injury or death is hardley a valid justification.

Again, how does this differ from the Right?

Restriction of Individual rights through coersion or force to protect individual and/or the public from possible future catastrophes is the same arguement that they use.

How does that make the Left any better?

 

You titled this thread: The lefts better arguements, but as far as i can tell from reading through it you haven't stated what those arguements are, only that they are better than the Right's.