I agree, which is why now when I have convinced the other person that the government is unjust and the other person says “but we need government for blah, blah, blah” I respond with “Are you saying that you don’t think society can function without mass slavery and extortion?”
This is a really great story, I’m glad I got to read it. I think it shows how unique each human experience is and why some people come to some conclusions and others come to other conclusions. I’ve been following a meme Thomas Sowell wrote about called “Conflict of Visions”, it’s also a book that I’ve yet to buy but fully intend to. He points out that human experience is so vast, so complicated, so unique and individual and those experiences ultimately influence worldviews so much that two people can look at the same situation, the same facts and come to totally different conclusions based on life experience. You know, another thing that occurs to me is that as a Jew, I grew up with the story about the Holocaust and Hitler and it really stuck with me that one bad apple, just one, can make life hell for a lot of people if that bad apple is given enough power. I’ve read some of Mussolini’s Fascist Doctrine, the blueprint for totalitarian regimes, and it’s just so disturbing. It’s interesting how these tyrannical figures can have such an effect not just on one generation but the many who follow afterwards. Anyways, great post.
I like that one!
edit: to add a bit more. I like that because it gets into why people in general think gov’t is important to protect people from brute force, but what is usually not realized is the gov’t also operates on that level as well, ie “mass slavery… extortion”.
thanks.
Could you share, even a little bit about Mussolini’s Fascist Doctrine? That guy was so much about fame it seemed. He was a different character than Hitler. The latter was all about domination, Mussolini seems to be somebody that loved to have his picture taken (obviously though he killed for it).
Here’s a link to some really cool pictures that I found, actually last night. They are old pictures that a person blogged. The pictures are of ca. Germany, Japan (includes some of China), Spain, France, Bulgaria, and Italy 1914 to 1946.
Check this one out. That one guy looks so giddy, and awe-struck:
Adolf Hitler: meets with german sovial-democrates during 1914. Berlin, square “Odeon"
“Thus many of the practical expressions of Fascism such as party organization, system of education, and discipline can only be understood when considered in relation to its general attitude toward life. A spiritual attitude (3). Fascism sees in the world not only those superficial, material aspects in which man appears as an individual, standing by himself, self-centered, subject to natural law, which instinctively urges him toward a life of selfish momentary pleasure; it sees not only the individual but the nation and the country; individuals and generations bound together by a moral law, with common traditions and a mission which suppressing the instinct for life closed in a brief circle of pleasure, builds up a higher life, founded on duty, a life free from the limitations of time and space, in which the individual, by self-sacrifice, the renunciation of self-interest, by death itself, can achieve that purely spiritual existence in which his value as a man consists.”
I think this was a central theme of italian fascism.
Hitler was certainly a different breed of tyrant but some of the themes of the annihilation of the self in favor of the fatherland were echoes of Mussolini. Mussolini was clearly a much brighter, more intellectual tyrant.
“The organizes the nation, but it leaves the individual adequate elbow room. It has curtailed useless or harmful liberties while preserving those which are essential. In such matters the individual cannot be the judge, but the State only.”
Adolf Hitler shows to Benito Mussolini the results of the explosion in the Cartographical hut.
Oh and it includes Japanese photos too from that era:
“The games” of the japanese officers. China, 1937.
Japanese soldier-suicide.
The banners of the countries from the “Anticomintern pact” on the Tokio`s street.
I found Spanish Civil War, same era, too:
In Warsaw`s citadel after the capitulation
Those pictures give me the shivers.
I can’t help but wonder what is going on in that young mind of hitler in 1914. Look at that picture. His eyes are SO BIG. He is so go-go eyed there with his mouth wide open. Like a kid in a candy store.
those pictures are awefully scary. the symbols of the nazi flag in tokyo. “the games” the japanese played. those pictures say more than i could ever.
Hitler was a psychopathic megalomaniac. Unfortunately, he was also very charismatic and happened to come around at the right time and say the right things. I’m reading this book called The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt. She talks about all the cultural, economic, political and intellectual forces that lead to up to Hitler and Stalin. It’s fascinating.
This struck me. I know Hoppe wrote about in “Democracy: The God That Failed” how the U.S. economically has been downward spiraling since WW1 except for one upspike ca. early-mid 1950’s (not sure of exact date), which this upspike had to do with gov’t cut spending AND taxes. Also the jobs that piled up as Europe needed rebuilt and the regimentation of the war effort returned to the private market again so lots of work to switch back the manufactoring focus, etc… Hoppe says in that book that WW1 was the beginning of the decline of the U.S. (maybe Europe too can’t remember).
There is an on-going trauma noted in Americanindians to this day. It’s the cultural beat-down. The brainwashing to totally destroy their culture. The on-going lack of self-worth which due to the conditions that Americanindians live in still for the most part leads to a destruction of their self, family, and community. There current story is one of extreme hardship, mental disorder, high rates of suicide, and alcholism, etc… Some, such in the southwest, are still strong culturally and thus have ways to build community strengths and help them feel not shame for who they are. Pow-wows are such a big part of their community life that sustains positive relational bonding.
"The prevalence rate of suicide for AI/ANs is 1.5 times the national rate. AIAN males ages 15 to 24 account for two-thirds of all AI/AN suicides. Violent deaths – unintentional injuries, homicide, and suicide – account for 75% of all mortality in the second decade of life for AIANs."
–
I wonder if there have been any books or articles written on how destruction impacts what is usually considered a healthy human relations generationally. How people lived one way and then suddenly had to change their lifestyle to overcome a tragedy. And sometimes the depths of the impact can put a society in ruins with hardly a glimmer of hope. There is only so much people can take and then with seemingly no way out the impact can last for a long time. Especially when some of the same ruinuous actions continue, ie. Federal Reserve, War, Education Propaganda (for example; I don’t know for sure but I heard Hitler learned a lot by the U.S. role-modeling treatment of Amerindians), etc…
I thought you had added something to the discussion z1235 that was worth working through. I had made some comments here to a post of yours due to the added inspiration in what you wrote and the kind of thoughts it gave me. It was good. I was waiting for a back-and-forth dialogue, but you didn’t come back sadly. Maybe you misinterpretated something I wrote. I think what you had to say offered something of value. I was and still hoping that you would further discuss that train of thought that we were getting into.
I suppose it really depends on the statists. If they are using the same underlying ideas you are, then yes, they are illogical for being statist. If, on the other hand, they use different underlying ideas, then it is quite logical for them to arrive at a different conclusion.
As far as arguments from personal experience go, most occasions where I argue with anarchists (whether ancaps or ancomms) and I say I disagree with their starting axioms, I am usually accused of being illogical, at which point they push their favorite book like a Scientologist claiming Dianetics answers all my objections if I but think. Usually said book simply begins with the same starting axioms they did, amazingly enough. Apparently reading them in a more verbose form makes them true.
Aster_,
The focus was also on base-level decisions of gov’t individuals. Truth, peace, negative liberty, justice, and love is not a policy of their; and if it is, then they are going about it illogically, thus, in an impossible manner. Gov’t is destruction.
This does not follow from anything anyone has said. In response, I shall say, “There is no such thing as a right of humans to make strawmen when arguing.”
I think it is safe to say most statists on these boards aren’t going to disagree that the current governments are a bad thing. What we question is whether any possible government would necessarily be a bad thing. Given that what we define as a “bad thing” may derive from different values than yours, it is logical to say yes. For example, I disagree with the axiom, “All violations of property rights are immoral.” Consequently, the NAP doesn’t hold nearly as much strength to me. So, I return to my original statement: It depends on the statist.
And yes, generally the ones in power now as you stated do not rule by truth, or peace, or justice, or liberty, or love, or if they do they are doing it wrong. You are right in that regard. I suspect there may be some who are pretty good at logically sticking to worthwhile principles, but they don’t get re-elected because they pissed people off. [:D]
Oh yes, there are many who believe we just need the right group in power. They fool themselves though in expectation of an omniscient government capable of providing all of their needs along with everyone else.
Hayek once made an interesting point.
What are your thoughts on that?
Wilderness and I were also tossing around the important roll fear plays on statists.
Well, if we want the lowest possible denominator so we get uniformity, then anarchy is great! I’ll grant you that fear plays much less a role in anarchist views.
Personally, I don’t think any system, anarchy or government, will work, no matter who is in power. The problem isn’t the system, it is the people.
But why can’t we isolate human error to the individuals who error? Rather then blanket the accident over an entire nation, or perpetuate known accidents indefinitely?
Seconded.