He's refering to your morality. He sees your non-100% pragmatic view of life that has moral rules as merely a weak master. Once your morality disappears, you have nothing.
Jacob Bloom: I appreciate this suggestion. But it says he's an individual anarchist. I'm not interested in anarchy. I'm interested in reform. Thank you for taking your time to suggest this though, I really do appreciate it. If you haven't already, check this book out. I found it to be of the highest value to me. This seems like a book you may find interesting http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html And here is the wiki bio, just in case you want a quick overview before reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
I appreciate this suggestion. But it says he's an individual anarchist. I'm not interested in anarchy. I'm interested in reform. Thank you for taking your time to suggest this though, I really do appreciate it.
If you haven't already, check this book out. I found it to be of the highest value to me. This seems like a book you may find interesting
http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html
And here is the wiki bio, just in case you want a quick overview before reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
Actually, Stirner isn't really an anarchist though he has influenced individualist anarchists. He opposes the state because he personally finds it distasteful, as he does all limitations on his own personal power, including religion, morality, etc. Stirner's philosophy is all about rejecting any and all definite ideologies (though not all philosophical and scientific knowledge) as limitations on the freedom and power of an individual.
As Stirner says:
"Now why, if freedom is striven after for the love of the I after all -- why not choose the I himself as beginning, middle, and end?"
Jacob Bloom: Dondoolee: Jacob Bloom: After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism. However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me. But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right. I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect. I appreciate this suggestion. But it says he's an individual anarchist. I'm not interested in anarchy. I'm interested in reform. Thank you for taking your time to suggest this though, I really do appreciate it. If you haven't already, check this book out. I found it to be of the highest value to me. This seems like a book you may find interesting http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html And here is the wiki bio, just in case you want a quick overview before reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
Dondoolee: Jacob Bloom: After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism. However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me. But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right. I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect. I appreciate this suggestion. But it says he's an individual anarchist. I'm not interested in anarchy. I'm interested in reform. Thank you for taking your time to suggest this though, I really do appreciate it. If you haven't already, check this book out. I found it to be of the highest value to me. This seems like a book you may find interesting http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/stirner/theego0.html And here is the wiki bio, just in case you want a quick overview before reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Stirner
Jacob Bloom: After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism. However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me. But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right. I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect.
After giving it a lot of thought, I've realized that if the state has the power to use force to uphold a ruling against another state in the name of the majority, they also have the power to infringe on personal choice in the name of the majority. That's fascism.
However, I still do not see how a society can work without centralized force. It's a conundrum to me.
But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that at least part of what you were saying was right.
I also do not see how morality has anything to do with any of this, it's just...logic. If an argument can be made to allow one thing to happen, it can be made for another thing to happen. It's simple cause and effect.
Fair, enough. I was suggesting it mostly do to your views on morality and egoism, not on the "merits of anarchy". On a side note, I don't really think Stirner is an anarchist in the way you would think of the term. Really I don't know if you could call him an anarchist at all.
Let us look then and see, how they manage their concerns- they for whose cause we are to labor, devote ourselves, and grow enthusiastic
-Max Stirner, The Ego and His Own
Mlee: He's refering to your morality. He sees your non-100% pragmatic view of life that has moral rules as merely a weak master. Once your morality disappears, you have nothing.
Once my judgement and understanding disappears I have nothing? Is that what he is saying? If so, then if insanity and being illogical means "having nothing"... but I find that difficult to understand still. How can one understand the absence of understanding or the absence of judgement? I think that's why absence of either is called illogical - aka - it doesn't make sense.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
You're "critical thinking/pragmatic" thinking is weakened by your moral/ethical thinking.
Mlee:You're "critical thinking/pragmatic" thinking is weakened by your moral/ethical thinking.
I disagree, you shortchange yourself in the long run for short term self-aggrandizement.
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
I also disagree, however, I'm simply acting as a translator for Mr. Bloom.
Anarchist Cain: Mlee:You're "critical thinking/pragmatic" thinking is weakened by your moral/ethical thinking. I disagree, you shortchange yourself in the long run for short term self-aggrandizement.
This seems to roll over into a Time Preference argument. To not have the foresight and self-indulge cascading into stealing and fulfilling other present desires even if it means coercing others for them is an act that is dismissing future capital investments for only fulfilling high time preference desires. It's how the quality of society degenerates, standard of living decreases, and happiness is actually decreasing rather than increasing.
Mlee: You're "critical thinking/pragmatic" thinking is weakened by your moral/ethical thinking.
My critical thinking is weakened by judging (making a choice) and understanding my aim in life?
I know you're trying to translate Bloom, but I'm not getting this yet.
Simply put...
You build your self around moral theories that undermine your goals. When put to the test, these moral theories disappear, and the pragmatic thought processes that you should have used would not have sufficently developed, and your lack of attachement to them would make it harder for you to properly operate... :P
Why do I even try?
Mlee: Simply put... You build your self around moral theories that undermine your goals. When put to the test, these moral theories disappear, and the pragmatic thought processes that you should have used would not have sufficently developed, and your lack of attachement to them would make it harder for you to properly operate... :P Why do I even try?
In other words, I build myself around, according to Bloom, using good judgement and good understanding to determine my goals. I aim and shoot for the target. When this is put to the test and my judgement and understanding disappears, and the only thought processes left that I should have been using, again according to Bloom, are brute force and base appetites. For if I'm no longer judging and trying to understand the situation, then that would be worse than a person blindly roving in all directions stuck in the middle of 50 million acres with the goal to find a needle.
Good Luck Bloom with that blind roving of yours.
*Throws hands up in the air*
I give up!
Mlee: *Throws hands up in the air* I give up!
Yeah, I'm wondering how good judgements are cultivated. I don't know at the moment, but it may come to me.
Thanks for clarifying what he meant.
You mean: Thanks for trying to clarify what he meant.
Well, now that Jacob isn't here, this thread has lost some of it's fun.
Mlee: You mean: Thanks for trying to clarify what he meant.
Yeah, trying.
Jacob Bloom: "try your society if you think it's so good." Enact the policies of the book.
"try your society if you think it's so good." Enact the policies of the book.
Exactly Jacob has brought this up repeatedly. Do it now. Make your anarchy society...blah, blah, blah.
But I keep in mind his extreme high time preference. It's so high he wants everything now even if he has to steal, murder, and rape for it, but as he says, luckily he has a master to keep his extreme high time preference in check aka incontinence. But I'm wondering if his master is enough the way he is going, so, it's obvious by now how dangerous Jacob is.
Jacob is ignoring what I see many people, including myself, seemingly have here in the forum. A low time preference, thus, the ability to use foresight. I (we, I'm sure there are others) am a capitalist to the point of taking the time to presently fulfill my intellectual (and in other aspects of my life more physical goods) needs. I'm investing in capital for potential future gains.
Psycopath's tend to have a VERY high time preference. Although to be honest, I doubt that Jacob is one, for various reasons.
Jacob Bloom:... But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that ... what you were saying was right. ...
But I thought I'd try to be humble and admit that I realize that ... what you were saying was right.
...
Yes. We know we were right.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Jacob Bloom:I really truly believe that those weaknesses will prevent a free market from being able to supply law, order and security to a society of people that's larger than...maybe 1000 people. If you're going to have a group of millions of people, you need to have a centralization of force.
If human weaknesses will prevent a free market from working, your solution is to put those same weak humans in a monopoly position?(!!!)
Think outside the monopoly paradigm. Net-based microsecession | Why anarchy hasn't worked
Jacob Bloom: I make a point of investigating how philosophies effect the people who subscribe to them before I myself start programming my mind to think with that given philosophy.
This is cool, I like this. However,
Jacob Bloom: I've seen nothing on this forum that makes me want to read your books. Nothing. If anything, it makes me want to be anti-Rothbard. Hayek, Mises and Friedman I'll read. Rothbard and whatever other anarchists I won't. You might ask "why?" Because look at what these ideas have done to you people!! It's horrible.
1. Go to any other political forum on the entire Internet
2. Contest their views vigorously over and over
3. Try to get a better reception than you have received here
I know there are people insulting you a little here and there, and making some statements that sound outlandish to you, but compared to any other Internet forum where you have conflicting views, this is extremely mild. I think under the circumstances we'd get an A for our treatment of you - if we're grading on a curve.
And as for some of the odd statements, hey, this stuff is not exactly easy. People will have crazy ideas or sound crazy if they try to explain their views in short form. You've already adequately shown that, and some have attacked you for it. I have not, because I know people accidentally tend to sound crazy when talking about the dark, unexplored corners of the political world. For the same reason, I would not condemn anarchy based on your reception here. Go to DailyKos.com and try to get anything close to the relatively patient treatment you're getting here. I personally wish people would be much more patient, but compared to other sites we're paragons of discourse here.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap