Anarcho-primitivism

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't see why border raids where one kills all the man and afterwards rapes the woman are better than wars for the modern reasons.

Cause if tribes were small and conflicts small-scale, fewer people would die. The killers would know who they kill, why, and they could see his face. Maybe not everybody would be able to kill like that. But everyone is able to kill when he is doing it through an artificial interface where he can t even see his victim. That has to count for something... I think this is the key aspect here. Modern societies are just huge. They can t possibly function correctly because they need such gigantic bureaucratic machineries - and nobody can be smart enough to understand exactly how those machineries function and where is the role of the individual human being in all this.

I m reading about Kafka s work for college and I can see how many thinkers were terrified by this allienation of the human being and the impersonal nature of our societies, in which nobody knows what he is doing, why and for whom, and on whom will his actions affect (sometimes tragically).

Wouldn t you agree? What need to be done in your opinion, if not a regress?

[Xanafax]

Personally I can think of nothing worse than regression.

[Brutha]

Cause if tribes were small and conflicts small-scale, fewer people would die.

More people died as there were more conflicts.

A lot of tribes 10,000 years ago had male death rates due to tribal warfare of 0.5% per year.

The killers would know who they kill, why, and they could see his face. Maybe not everybody would be able to kill like that.

People who live in tribes who can't don't survive and evolution goes it's way.

[Xanafax]

I agree with Brutha.

It's a bit like when your parents reminisce about their school days, about how wonderful and simple it was, how great the world was and really it wasn't that good or great, but time has dulled the bad memories.

When we used to live in tribes we died of disease, malnourishment, attacks etc...

What about science? Production? would those things just stop...

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Xanafax

I agree with Brutha.

It's a bit like when your parents reminisce about their school days, about how wonderful and simple it was, how great the world was and really it wasn't that good or great, but time has dulled the bad memories.

When we used to live in tribes we died of disease, malnourishment, attacks etc...

What about science? Production? would those things just stop...

Would any of you here gladly act as prison guard / judge / IRS / politician / fighter pilot / bank employee / PR manager for a company or ministry whose real activity you are not able to understand / chemist developing some strange substance / physicist / engineer working on a project whose finality you have no control over etc ?

[Brutha]

Would any of you here gladly act as prison guard / judge / IRS / politician / fighter pilot / bank employee / PR manager for a company or ministry whose real activity you are not able to understand / chemist developing some strange substance / physicist / engineer working on a project whose finality you have no control over etc ?

I would rather want a job as judge or politician than spending my time as hunter/gatherer.
I'm even consider going into science.

I don't have a problem with living in a world that isn't boring and has a lot of uncertainty.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

I would rather want a job as judge or politician than spending my time as hunter/gatherer.

The hunter/gatherer isn't the only option for change, I hope you can also see other options.

I understand you could be a judge. But as a judge, would you be willing to sentence people even in situations where you would be unable to figure out what really happened? Would you be able to sentence according to the law if, in a given situation, that punishment would go against your beliefs? Do you agree with the monopoly of violence by the state ?

Would you declare someone guilty if the punishment required by the law would seem inhumanly cruel to you? Would you send people to prison if you had never been imprisoned for at least a month to know how it feels? How would you evaluate the punishment required in each situation?

I would also like to be a politician.

But as a politician - would you quit if at a certain point, you found that you have almost no control over your actions, being caught in a large-scale bureaucratic machinery?

Originally Posted by Brutha

I'm even consider going into science.

I love science too, but if I were put in the position of doing harm to others, I would be forced to oppose that decision, even if it meant breaking the terms of a contract and facing legal charges. That doesn't mean I wouldn't consider being a scientist. I just happen to be more attracted to other things.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I don't have a problem with living in a world that isn't boring and has a lot of uncertainty.

Brought to the extreme, a society where man becomes just a small piece in a gigantic bureaucratic machinery and is like a robot, is pretty boring. Do you think we are currently heading towards that kind of society or towards higher independence?

[Brutha]

The hunter/gatherer isn't the only option for change, I hope you can also see other options.

That model is what the thread is about.
I can see a lot of bad models. We could change our system to be a bit more like Somali for example or to be a bit more like the former Soviet Union.
What system would you prefer?

I understand you could be a judge. But as a judge, would you be willing to sentence people even in situations where you would be unable to figure out what really happened?

There something called the presumption of innocence in law.

Would you be able to sentence according to the law if, in a given situation, that punishment would go against your beliefs?

I believe in the rule of law and would have no problem with judging according to German law or even American law.

And there are passages in the German constiution that allow people to go against laws that violate basic principles of human rights. In the US you have similar constructs.

Do you agree with the monopoly of violence by the state ?

I think that this is one of the peaceful times in history inpart because the state has the monopol on violence.
I don't want to live in those areas of the world where the state doesn't have an monopol on violence.

Brought to the extreme, a society where man becomes just a small piece in a gigantic bureaucratic machinery and is like a robot, is pretty boring. Do you think we are currently heading towards that kind of society or towards higher independence?

We communicate at the moment over the internet with each other. That means that we aren't independent of each other.
Human beings don't do well being completely alone and totally independent.

We form groups and groups have to somehow find a way to act together whether it's my local toastmasters club, this forum or a state.
I don't think that there something wrong about forming groups and being loyal to them.

But within those groups I think that choice rather increases than decreases.

[bluedragon]

My problem is just that I can't figure out what is happening in a huge institution like modern companies which have thousands of employees. Or when it comes to structures withing a state. How intelligent must a human being be, to make sense of it all and conduct his every action according to his own choices and principles? If you are an employee at the lowest end of the hierarchy in a firm, and the policy of the firm is not to share it's top-level activity with every single member of the team, what should a man with principles do? Quit? Demand the management that he be personally informed from then on? How about when you are the employee of the state, charged with applying it's monopoly of violence? I don't know about others but I for one cannot bring myself to hurt others just because I'm told that this is my function as a piece of the machinery. Maybe the machinery is good, but I must be able to understand that before obeying. And I don't know if there is anyone with an IQ high enough to understand everything. However, even the least smart person should be able to understand, otherwise, they act as machines.

The system should be more transparent in my opinion. More hierarchical steps so that everyone could have his say - but of course, not in the Agora, like in ancient Greece, cause there is just too much population, but still, everyone should be able to chose and make a difference.

Originally Posted by Brutha

I think that this is one of the peaceful times in history inpart because the state has the monopol on violence.
I don't want to live in those areas of the world where the state doesn't have an monopol on violence.

I see no difference between supporting violence in general and supporting violence by the state.

And saying that legalized violence is necessary to preserve security implies that security is more important than freedom. As long as we know there are judicial errors and still, we prosecute and condemn, we are OK with imprisoning and torturing innocent people. And why do they make "deals" between prosecutors and attorneys? If someone admits to a crime he didn't commit, he deserves less punishment than someone who defends his innocence till the end? (that is not a presumption of innocence. it's a presumption of guilt - someone can face a greater punishment for having dared to say he is innocent till the end). And how do we chose those who judge? Does any ordinary citizen, as a person, know about each and every judge and jury, that they are clean and have a rightful consciousness? That they value justice and would not condemn the innocent? If we don't know that, why do we support the judicial system?

Also, the state is more cruel than most human beings would. We have prisons. But how many of us would keep someone locked in our garrage in a cage, while he begged for mercy to be left out to see his kids and his wife? Just because he stole something or some other "horrific" act.

Originally Posted by Brutha

We form groups and groups have to somehow find a way to act together whether it's my local toastmasters club, this forum or a state.
I don't think that there something wrong about forming groups and being loyal to them.
But within those groups I think that choice rather increases than decreases.

I agree with this, as long as choice is truly increasing. However, I can see no job (except for being self-employed) where an entry-level employee has any idea what the company is actually doing. Not to mention being a politician.

[ThoughtAddict]

Originally Posted by bluedragon

And saying that legalized violence is necessary to preserve security implies that security is more important than freedom.

Whose freedom? A person is not free if he must live in fear. It is a thin line to walk protecting the innocent and putting the guilty in jail...

If someone admits to a crime he didn't commit, he deserves less punishment than someone who defends his innocence till the end? (that is not a presumption of innocence. it's a presumption of guilt - someone can face a greater punishment for having dared to say he is innocent till the end).

Plea bargains are a problem in the US, as is a severe lack of prosecutorial discretion. It has been the informal position of many defense lawyers that prosecutors have been violating the ethics rules that require them to charge only the crimes they feel are justified by law. Judges and politicians have served as poor checks on the system.

And how do we chose those who judge? Does any ordinary citizen, as a person, know about each and every judge and jury, that they are clean and have a rightful consciousness? That they value justice and would not condemn the innocent? If we don't know that, why do we support the judicial system?

Because it is the best system we've got. I'd rather trust my fate to twelve folks in a jury box, a judge who is trying to be impartial, and a system that has holes and flaws rather than trust my fate to a mob or person overwhelmed with passion. Judges and juries make mistakes. The courts let some who are guilty go free and some who are innocent go to jail. It does not mean we are wrong to set up systems that try to get it right. Despite our precautions, mistakes happen. But that does not mean we should abandon those precautions.

If this concerns you, come try to make it better. I am.

[bluedragon]

I'd rather trust my fate to twelve folks in a jury box, a judge who is trying to be impartial, and a system that has holes and flaws rather than trust my fate to a mob or person overwhelmed with passion.

But mobs and passionate killers, you can at least run from them. But once the justice gets you, you're pretty much done. I would rather not put my fate in anybody's hands, even if that means some people can still try to attack me.

If this concerns you, come try to make it better. I am.

Maybe I should. I feel very strongly about this. But when I see so many people supporting this violence on people - saying that people "should pay for their mistakes", it makes my stomach turn. I can't sit face to face with someone who supports murder (even if it's institutionalized), and talk nicely to someone who keeps people locked up like animals. I don't know how I would react if I ever met such a person "in person" and they would try to give me the "but this is my job" story.

Honestly, how can we talk about love and healing, and compassion, and being in the present moment, and then punish people like that for something they did before, which may have been a mistake, or that maybe didn't happen in the exact way that some experts would want us to believe?

[Brutha]

But mobs and passionate killers, you can at least run from them.

Only if you know beforehand that they are out to get you.
But that still means that you are usually separated from everything that's dear to you if you have to flee.

It also not impossible to disappear in states and escape criminal justice.
Either way you have to disappear in both cases to prevent people from getting to you.

But once the justice gets you, you're pretty much done. I would rather not put my fate in anybody's hands, even if that means some people can still try to attack me.

Then do that. Some people will still get attacked by the state for doing things that are against the law.
I personally think the right to be able to defend yourself in front of a court against charges is important instead of having to face mafia or the mob who don't give you that chance but different people might find different rights important.

I can't sit face to face with someone who supports murder (even if it's institutionalized)[...]Honestly, how can we talk about love and healing, and compassion, and being in the present moment

Seems you have some learning to do. Part of practicing unconditional love and being in the present moment is the ability to sit face to face with anyone regardles of what they have done.

Additionally hating the state hasn't anything to do with love. Practicing acceptance is rather a loveful act.

[bluedragon]

Originally Posted by Brutha

Seems you have some learning to do. Part of practicing unconditional love and being in the present moment is the ability to sit face to face with anyone regardles of what they have done.

Additionally hating the state hasn't anything to do with love. Practicing acceptance is rather a loveful act.

I don't yet possess absolute emotional balance - I'm still subject to anger and frustration. However, I would more readily accept a criminal who who has done something once (because I can forgive), than accept a judge who has sentenced hundreads, and who intends to keep doing so. One day I will be able to accept him too, as a peroson, but I think that would be the ultimate proof of tollerance in my case. If there is one thing I can't tollerate, it's intolerance. Especially an intolerance supported by what seems to be the majority of people.

I don't think people will find peace by supporting violence, hiding behind the claim that it's necessary. This is also a behavior originating out of fear. If I am not afraid of what will happen to me, then I will not kill to ensure my safety, even if that means letting pirates and bandits roam the land. I would protect myself on the spot, even kill to save my life, but I don't agree with killing or emprisoning someone preventively (so that he will not break the law again, in the future), or our of vengeance (uh... justice), because of something he did in the past.

[ballhit2]

Anyone interested in Anarcho-Primitivism could burn some fossil fuels and travel to CO to participate in the Feral Futures gathering.

Personally I think it's an awesome ideal, but not an awesome idea. Better to astral-project to a planet without a civilization, or choose to incarnate next time somewhere like that. Possibly that's why you're here now.