100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: reasonable on December 28, 2010, 09:08:14 PM

Title: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 28, 2010, 09:08:14 PM
I study political philosophy at the graduate level, and I have a side interest in economics (a subject which is very wrapped up in political issues), so I've been interested for a while in getting a sense of what sorts of political/social views prevail among the members of this board. I mean this in a broad sense; I'm not interested in what you think about the finer points of the Bush tax cuts. One might characterize one's political views very broadly with terms such as 'conservative,' 'anarchist,' 'liberal,' and so on. One could get a little more specific while still broadly characterizing one's views, e.g., 'Rawlsian liberal,' 'Burkean conservative,' 'Anarcho-syndicalist,' and so on. A further specification of such views might include a description of the core commitments of those views. Thus, an anarcho-syndicalist might describe his or her view as anti-state, anti-capitalist, and perhaps collectivist (maybe...I'm not intimately familiar with this political philosophy.) The latter term, 'collectivist,' names a social philosophical view. So that's where the social philosophy comes into the picture here.

It seems to me from reading the various things posted up on this site and the users' comments on this board that most people here adhere to some sort of fascism or traditionalist conservatism. At the very least, there is a lot of collectivism and authoritarianism going around these parts. I have serious misgivings with such views, but whatever. A couple of people have expressed some libertarian sympathies in the past, and I know that there is at least one out-and-out anarcho-libertarian on this board (mandrake).

Personally, I am what might be described as "right-wing" libertarian. Core commitments: Anti-authoritarianism, anti-collectivism (I do not think collectives have any moral standing at all, nor do I think such abstract things as traditions and nations have moral standing), and robust private property rights. I arrived at this view from a deontological moral perspective, but when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

Perhaps some of you don't have a name for whatever political/social views you hold, and perhaps you don't find naming them of much use, but if you can broadly characterize your views of these matters, please share. I am very interested to hear about these things.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: lord.aspie on December 28, 2010, 10:07:24 PM
The problem with much of modern politics comes from peoples insistence on the right/left symbols instead of doing what makes sense.

I dont like to adhere to any political/social label because I am a pragmatist. Because of this I tend to gravitate towards the right side of the spectrum.

I am aware that I need to become better read in history and philosophy before I can take an honest stance on anything of this nature. Much of traditionalism (as far as I understand it) resonates deeply with me though.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 28, 2010, 10:31:46 PM
I dont like to adhere to any political/social label because I am a pragmatist. Because of this I tend to gravitate towards the right side of the spectrum.

Given what you've said here, I feel like I should recommend that you read A Conflict of Visions: Ideological Origins of Political Struggles by Thomas Sowell (Sowell is black, and I don't know if you hate black people, but I recall seeing some remarks about "congoids" at the old main ANUS forum years ago, which for some reason doesn't exist anymore, so yeah...) Part of what Sowell does in this book is characterize a certain kind of Burkean/Hayekian pragmatic conservatism, as far as I can tell. It's a good primer on a certain strand of "right wing" thought that you might find congenial. There is a tinge of classical liberalism in all of this, though, so you might take issue with that. But it's a good read if you want to bone up on some political thought. I take issue with the use of the term "pragmatic" sometimes, however, since in many cases it's used to project an image of being non-ideological, which is highly misleading.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Transcix on December 28, 2010, 11:47:01 PM
Personally, I am what might be described as "right-wing" libertarian. Core commitments: Anti-authoritarianism, anti-collectivism (I do not think collectives have any moral standing at all, nor do I think such abstract things as traditions and nations have moral standing), and robust private property rights. I arrived at this view from a deontological moral perspective, but when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

Awesome. Regarding political and social views I would be pretty similar to you except more left-wing to the extent  economics is intertwined in the equation. I loath things like patriotism, tradition for the sake of tradition, etc. However I'm strongly spiritual and have a whole paradigm, and I don't think a frontal approach can manage to land that political/social ideal into reality, so frequently I adopt various roles depending on context, including trickster, discordian, fool (qabalistically speaking!), sage, etc; often these roles conflict on an immediate level with the overall paradigm I maintain (but harmonize precisely and intricately with my overall paradigm on a broader level).
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Iconocloaca on December 29, 2010, 12:02:51 AM
Politics is a waste of time, a bunch of people bickering over nonsense and trying to have it apply to everyone.  I'd rather not leave my house and have to deal with other people.  I should form a political party over that.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 29, 2010, 12:04:59 AM
I just realized I should point out that I'm not an "anything goes" kind of guy. Many people would be somewhat surprised at some of my social views. I am anti-collectivist and anti-authoritarian, but I have a pretty clear conception of what is and is not a valuable path in life, and it's quite a bit more stringent than the views taken by a lot of my liberal friends. I can sympathize with certain aspects of modern liberalism, but I can't take a laissez-faire attitude towards things outside of my political philosophy. I am not into this "anything goes/don't judge me" way of thinking that many modern liberals take. Fuck that. I would rather hang out with a bible thumper to be quite honest (which suggests that I'd rather not hang out with some of the friends that I have, but I don't even think that those people truly believe the stuff that they say and their behavior militates against such views anyway). I disagree with the notion that coercion ought to be used to enforce certain conceptions of the Good (because of my ethical views), but that doesn't mean I don't have a conception of the Good.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Umbrage on December 29, 2010, 01:00:58 AM
I am
Nationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.
(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.
Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.
Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: nous on December 29, 2010, 01:25:18 AM
I disagree with the notion that coercion ought to be used to enforce certain conceptions of the Good (because of my ethical views), but that doesn't mean I don't have a conception of the Good.

There is good coercion and then there is bad coercion. Just think of education as an example. However, if by coercion you imply deception, yours is a rather normal standpoint if you ask me. I always have to smirk when in his Politeia Plato suggests that the leaders should lie to the other castes for the good of the city, but elsewhere lets Socrates say, "I would rather die than to commit an injustice." I believe that when it comes to the city-state, Plato tends to undermine the love of the neighbour, without which, however, no good city-state is possible. But perhaps that is only a minor detail. That being said, the Politeia is a good model of a theocracy, and the occassional rationalism could be explained by the absence of a fresh Revelation at the time--which is not too different from the situation we have at the present time.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: lolmetal on December 29, 2010, 04:56:22 AM
I'm a registered libertarian. I know for sure that I am liberal on social views. On the other hand, I am really torn on economic policies. For economics there are two questions:
1) How do economic systems work?
2) How should they be implemented?

1 seems to be a prerequisite to figuring out 2. The problem is that we only so much about how economics seems to work. There seems to be a lot of misinformation and propaganda. Often when someone is advocating their economic philosophy, they argue that not only is the competing economic philosophy ethically wrong, but the science/research/reasoning it is based on is false. Question #2 is the only question that can be answered more or less apriori because it is an ethical or normative question.

I think that money should be used for the benefit of all people. It seems absurd that so many people can live in luxury yet other people are literally starving to death. On the other hand, people definitely have different levels of ability and are willing to put more effort in and risk more, so they should be rewarded more. Basically I believe that people should get what they "earn", although that is a pretty subjective concept and I'm not sure if this ideal can ever be attained. Ideally I would like to see this unfold naturally in the free market because it has a certain elegance that politicians trying to patch things up based on what is "fair" lacks. Private companies seem more efficient than government bureaucracies (eg the MVA) because there is no competition (for starters), and taxes really are technically taken by force. I suppose a "minarchist" view of public services such as the fire station or whatever appeals to me most.

Thinkers such as Ayn Rand appeal to me on one hand but so do Mikael Bakunin and Noam Chomsky. Also note they have divergent views on economics but seem to be in the same boat socially and on religion.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: MediterraneanSun on December 29, 2010, 05:57:01 AM
I would describe myself as:

1) Nationalist: Preserve Culture and Race
2) Eugenicist: Not "whooaa kill the weak". But gradually cleanse the race of bad genes, that are not just abstractly bad for the race but a potential torture for every kid born with these. The methods for those eugenics may vary, but I am more in favor of birth control than instant killing of lessers, why kill someone if you can prevent them from being born.
3) for Federal Goverment / Autonomous Communities: Kind of restricted Federal Goverment, regulating only the vital national issues. For example if a community decides to dump toxic waste... waste them.
4) Eco-Fascist: Nature valued above human "development". At least above more "development".
5) Anti-Techno-crat: We don't need to actually attain nuclear annihilation in order to understand that technology is not some abstract godly progressive force. Technology is a tool, with a tool you can hunt for food, you can make art and you can destroy too. With a huge tool you can destroy everything. Add to that, advanced technology leads to over-specialization of jobs and alienation of people.
6) Organised Religion: The masses need to be herded. The elite can believe in whatever they want to.
7) Aristocracy: Only the best can rule.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Humanicide on December 29, 2010, 06:03:06 AM
Reading anything by Ayn Rand is a mistake. That woman was batty.

Like lolmetal, I would call myself a pragmatist. I tend to lean towards the right on many issues, but I do not find the entirety of leftism to be at fault. I'm not opposed to miscegenation (as long as the two people who marry each other are both productive, happy people), I'm in favor of civil rights (as no one should be treated as inferior for their skin color if they have potential to do good in society), and I also do not oppose government funded welfare programs for people in need (such as temporary aid for a pregnant mother). However, I find humanism to be thoroughly repulsive and presumptuous. To think that we humans are THE most important thing on the Earth; HA! Don't make me laugh. I'm in favor of setting limits on family size, as well as implementing a voluntary neutering program for people who have the common sense to realize "hey, maybe I shouldn't have a kid". It's obvious I favor some eugenics programs too.

Regarding the OP's views, I would agree on the anti-authoritarian stance and private property rights, but I cannot fully oppose collectivism; as a healthy society which operates as a collective could accomplish much if given the chance to flower. Collectivism in modern times always seems to lead to communism or military dictatorship; the former having too much insistence on everyone sharing the load even if they do nothing, and the latter leading to paranoid leaders who slaughter their people needlessly in the name of "progress".
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Cargést on December 29, 2010, 06:22:45 AM
when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

How about defense against Virtue Ethicists, Moral Skeptics, or Moral Nihilists?  Also, do you mean Consequentialism or, more specifically, Utilitarianism?  Finally, do you mean Act or Rule Consequentialism?
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Von List on December 29, 2010, 07:47:26 AM
I am
Nationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.
(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.
Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.
Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.



Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.


I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.


To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.


Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: zebra bodine on December 29, 2010, 07:56:58 AM
Confucianism: act according to your nature, respect the hierarchy to which you were born, work within the system, "have no twisty thoughts", equity over equality ("the treasure of states").

I never took the works of Confucius as elucidating a concrete political system, more a loose template for natural human harmony (which is possible and doesn't exclude the reality of conflict).
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Cargést on December 29, 2010, 08:24:48 AM
Confucianism: act according to your nature, respect the hierarchy to which you were born, work within the system, "have no twisty thoughts", equity over equality ("the treasure of states").

I never took the works of Confucius as elucidating a concrete political system, more a loose template for natural human harmony (which is possible and doesn't exclude the reality of conflict).

Confucianism is certainly inductive to communal wellbeing, if it's adopted by all individuals within the community.  I think Tokugawa Japan is a pretty good example of this - 250 odd years of relative peace and social stability, which was only rumbled by exterior (Western) influence (meddling).  Meiji Restoration can suck my cock.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 29, 2010, 10:47:59 AM
There is good coercion and then there is bad coercion. Just think of education as an example. However, if by coercion you imply deception, yours is a rather normal standpoint if you ask me.

I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

How about defense against Virtue Ethicists, Moral Skeptics, or Moral Nihilists?

Good questions. Regarding virtue ethicists, I'm not sure what to say. Virtue ethics is beyond any sort of expertise I have and I only have a very basic understanding of it. I guess I would need to know specifically how somebody might object to libertarian views on virtue ethical grounds. I do know that there is a growing literature dealing with the idea of generating libertarian or classical liberal views from virtue ethical premises, but I have no familiarity with that stuff.

Regarding moral skeptics and moral nihilists, it seems like those people don't really want to play the game that I want to play, so to speak. I'm not sure how to argue about these matters with somebody who disagrees with me in such a fundamental way. When you're arguing about political philosophy with somebody, moral realism/non-skepticism is taken for granted. If I wanted to convince such a person to adopt my views without arguing metaethics, I would probably appeal to something that we both value and ask "How can we both come to a rational decision for organizing the social and political in such a way that it optimally promotes our shared value?" Of course, such a person can say something like, "Well, since morality is completely without basis/we have no moral knowledge, I don't have to care about promoting anybody's interests besides mine, so go fuck yourself." In that case we would either have to start arguing metaethics or stop the game entirely.

On the other hand, if the moral skeptic/nihilist wants to articulate and defend some alternative political or social arrangement, then he or she has to speak the ethical language; the only way to avoid it in that context is by obfuscating. In this case we just asses the moral arguments the best way we can (which is a vexed issue, to be sure).

Quote
Also, do you mean Consequentialism or, more specifically, Utilitarianism?  Finally, do you mean Act or Rule Consequentialism?

More good questions. Regarding the first one, yes, I guess I mean utilitarianism broadly construed as a thesis about individual well-being. If somebody wants me to argue for my views on the grounds that they promote some kind of Nietzschean ideal or Heavy Metal Romanticism or whatever, I don't think I can do that.

Regarding the second question, given that what we're talking about are general rules for the regulation of society, a consequentialist defense of probably any given political philosophy would most naturally seem to be better supported on rule consequentialist grounds. I don't see how libertarianism could be supported at all on act consequentialist grounds, and if I were a consequentialist I certainly would not be an act consequentialist. Rule consequentialism has its own problems as well, though.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Skullduggery on December 29, 2010, 11:14:02 AM
Regime: slightly-Authoritarian / Collectivist society, with electoral Aristocracy.
Economic system: Some sort of "small business" capitalism, or "artisan-ship" exchange market, with a centralized body inspecting economical enterprises to prevent certain things from happening (Facebook, for example).
Values: Moral codes precede "grand" individualist allurements taking their toll socially and culturally. Call it virtue-ethics.
As I see it: Conservatism (conversing societal / communal values) really means "morality" which leads to a better "social order" [historically, a possible negative side effect is ignorance]. Liberalism or libertarianism means "individuality" which means "atomized relativism" which leads to decay (this is how I interpret Platonic political theory). Individuals can be a-moralist, since they can believe their are detached from society and thus place themselves beyond ethics. A People have no such privilege, if there's a a body to enforce laws and instill moral strictness - they do as they are told or are inclined to act in a certain way collectively, towards a common goal. I believe it is authoritarian, to a certain extent. Nonetheless, from a moral / ethical perspective - I believe it is best, as I do not believe in humans as individuals.
My premise is that morality is needed for us, as humans, to survive and thrive collectively. Thus, any philosophy that emphasizes individual liberty is potentially paradoxical and harmful as it is, in fact, not really concerning morality - but includes moral statements as addendum to their core arguments.

In general: I think all political systems are incomplete and can never really pertain to be rational in any way. Any theory we may offer will, at some point, be revealed in all its slippery faultiness. It seems one prevalent view in our time is that "rationality" is making what good for you, as a private agent and materialism / monetary attitude will get you far on the scale of rationality. Political systems based on private economical interests aren't exactly rational, as some people may think. I think this state is merely a privilege of high civilization and the modern world, and when the liberty of the privileged becomes an excessive-obsessive occupation with wealth and such - it comes on the expanse of morality and social order.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: nous on December 29, 2010, 11:51:00 AM
I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Roughly:
1. priest / contemplation
2. warrior / transcendent action
3. worker / balanced action
4. pleasure-seeker / mundane action

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.
So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Iconocloaca on December 29, 2010, 12:25:15 PM
I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Roughly:
1. priest / contemplation
2. warrior / transcendent action
3. worker / balanced action
4. pleasure-seeker / mundane action

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.
So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

Roughly:
1. Whining bleeding-heart / contemplation
2. Pot-bellied police officer / transcendent action
3. Garbage Man / balanced action
4. Barfly / mundane action

See!  Abstractions are fun!
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Athanasius contra mundum on December 29, 2010, 12:40:01 PM
I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Roughly:
1. priest / contemplation
2. warrior / transcendent action
3. worker / balanced action
4. pleasure-seeker / mundane action

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.
So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

Roughly:
1. Whining bleeding-heart / contemplation
2. Pot-bellied police officer / transcendent action
3. Garbage Man / balanced action
4. Barfly / mundane action

See!  Abstractions are fun!

Too bad the logic behind yours is open-ended and thus inapplicable. Maybe the poster you were poking fun at should have used simpler terminology though.

1. organizer
2. bullet-catcher
3. food collector
4. welfare dependent

You can find that level of organization in almost any collectivist species.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Iconocloaca on December 29, 2010, 12:47:43 PM
I'm not quite sure in what sense education is coercive. I don't see how education per se is coercive, but I suspect that you didn't even mean to suggest that anyway. Certainly things like compulsory attendance laws are coercive, but those generally apply only to those we consider to be children, and I consider children to occupy a different moral category. That is not something I have thought a lot about, though.

I should make it clear that when I discuss political philosophy, I use the term 'coercive' in a very restricted sense, referring primarily to physical coercion and secondarily to fraud. But of course there are various ways of coercing somebody.

Roughly:
1. priest / contemplation
2. warrior / transcendent action
3. worker / balanced action
4. pleasure-seeker / mundane action

Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.
So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

Roughly:
1. Whining bleeding-heart / contemplation
2. Pot-bellied police officer / transcendent action
3. Garbage Man / balanced action
4. Barfly / mundane action

See!  Abstractions are fun!

Too bad the logic behind yours is open-ended and thus inapplicable. Maybe the poster you were poking fun at should have used simpler terminology though.

1. organizer
2. bullet-catcher
3. food collector
4. welfare dependent

You can find that level of organization in almost any collectivist species.

Of course it is open-ended!  That's why making these ridiculous abstractions are a waste of time.  Let's add another one: poopsmith.  So every traditional society needs someone to shovel shit.  Hmm.  Let's also throw in scapegoats, because the organizers need patsies to rally the masses behind.  Oh, yeah, and don't forget "toilet-paper maker" as every higher civilization needs to wipe their asses.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 29, 2010, 01:06:48 PM
Most people (4, hoi polloi) are like children. Cf. Plato - Politeia. They must be forced to do things they would not by themselves. Take a simple thing as tidying up one's room. If you cannot "coerce" your child into this task, it will probably not do it. Of course, this is education towards virtue, but it is important education nonetheless. The situation is different with knowledge, because knowledge is normally attractive enough to make coercion superflous. Since education is not only that of the rational, but also that of the willing part of the soul, it must include an element of force, or it will be useless.
So, in conclusion, even physical coercion could be justified, but fraud--never.

Well, of course physical coercion is sometimes justified, otherwise there would be no way of justifying any kind of law and order at all. I'm not against physical coercion per se. The principle I'd want to adhere to would be something like 'No action ought to be coercively prohibited unless it is an initiation of force against somebody.' I've realized over time that fleshing out that principle is fraught with some serious difficulties, though.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Dead_Soul on December 29, 2010, 01:36:46 PM
I lean to the right on many issues, and have a great deal of respect for libertarian ideals, but I could also be identified as an 'ecofascist'. This causes me some difficulty, as there is a preponderance of leftists in the environmentalist community, and many libertarians either disregard or oppose any efforts at conservation. How do those who post on this forum reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions?
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: nous on December 29, 2010, 01:48:31 PM
Look at Prince Charles. Does he look like a leftist?
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Umbrage on December 29, 2010, 02:43:49 PM
I am
Nationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.
(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.
Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.
Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.



Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.


I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.


To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.


You lost credibility by stating that "NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society." There's no way that you can prove that. You're making assumptions and generalizations. The many communists organizations and literature that's out there proves you wrong, reality proves you wrong. If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc. You can't prove that either, it would just be even more generalizations.

I mean, come on... What kind of arguing is this? "I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly." That sounds very insecure man, plus you suggest there is evidence but don't offer any... So what do you know for sure?

Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism. There is no way you can run an ecofascist state and then tell people "it's ok for you to have a heated swimming pool in your backyard but not for them" or "it's ok for you to pollute the environment more than others because you are special" etc. Hence everybody would have to follow the same ecofascist rules, there's no place for luxury!

So everybody makes roughly the same amount of money. Useless people are killed. People who achieve things get status, awards, higher places in business and society. But not more money. The point is that people should work for something bigger than themselves (the state) and if that's too much trouble for them then they are untermenschen (selfish capitalists) and have no place in an ecofascist/communist society.

Religion could be used as a tool to empower the state but I feel that people who have a need to believe in irrational fairytales are undesirable too. I don't see the point in giving preachers the same power as the state (or even more power because after all religion controls "the afterlife") I'd also dare say that the communists achieved a hell of a lot more than the muslim fundamentalists did. Soviet Russia certainly had a higher quality of life than Afghanistan did under the Taliban, I'm not in favor of returning back to the stone age. And don't be fooled by an economic crisis such as in Cuba, the embargo forced by the Americans is to blame for that, not Fidel Castro or just having a communist system. If a nation has resources that the world really needs then the world will do business with them anyway regardless of their convictions and how they deal with human rights etc, just look at Saudi Arabia or China.


Look at Prince Charles. Does he look like a leftist?

He looks like a monkey. And he wants to be someone's tampon...

Quote
* Charles to Camilla, in an intercepted telephone call: "I want to feel my way along you, all over you and up and down you and in and out. Oh God, I'll just live inside your trousers or something -- it would be much easier."

* Camilla: "What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers."

* Charles: "Or, God forbid, a Tampax (tampon). Just my luck!" Camilla: "You are a complete idiot! Oh, what a wonderful idea."

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=44686

Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Von List on December 29, 2010, 03:00:38 PM
I am
Nationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.
(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.
Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.
Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.



Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.


I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.


To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.


You lost credibility by stating that "NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society." There's no way that you can prove that. You're making assumptions and generalizations. The many communists organizations and literature that's out there proves you wrong, reality proves you wrong. If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc. You can't prove that either, it would just be even more generalizations.

I mean, come on... What kind of arguing is this? "I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly." That sounds very insecure man, plus you suggest there is evidence but don't offer any... So what do you know for sure?

Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism. There is no way you can run an ecofascist state and then tell people "it's ok for you to have a heated swimming pool in your backyard but not for them" or "it's ok for you to pollute the environment more than others because you are special" etc. Hence everybody would have to follow the same ecofascist rules, there's no place for luxury!

So everybody makes roughly the same amount of money. Useless people are killed. People who achieve things get status, awards, higher places in business and society. But not more money. The point is that people should work for something bigger than themselves (the state) and if that's too much trouble for them then they are untermenschen (selfish capitalists) and have no place in an ecofascist/communist society.

Religion could be used as a tool to empower the state but I feel that people who have a need to believe in irrational fairytales are undesirable too. I don't see the point in giving preachers the same power as the state (or even more power because after all religion controls "the afterlife") I'd also dare say that the communists achieved a hell of a lot more than the muslim fundamentalists did. Soviet Russia certainly had a higher quality of life than Afghanistan did under the Taliban, I'm not in favor of returning back to the stone age. And don't be fooled by an economic crisis such as in Cuba, the embargo forced by the Americans is to blame for that, not Fidel Castro or just having a communist system. If a nation has resources that the world really needs then the world will do business with them anyway regardless of their convictions and how they deal with human rights etc, just look at Saudi Arabia or China.


Look at Prince Charles. Does he look like a leftist?

He looks like a monkey. And he wants to be someone's tampon...

Quote
* Charles to Camilla, in an intercepted telephone call: "I want to feel my way along you, all over you and up and down you and in and out. Oh God, I'll just live inside your trousers or something -- it would be much easier."

* Camilla: "What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers."

* Charles: "Or, God forbid, a Tampax (tampon). Just my luck!" Camilla: "You are a complete idiot! Oh, what a wonderful idea."

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=44686




"Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism."

Ha, advocates for Marxism/Communism on the ANUS boards, this is rich.


"If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc"


Sure I can. Most of them were liberals or leftists of some shape or form. Leftism is at its very root delusional and rejects reality. Marx was a hack.


You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct? Also, why do you seem to assume that the only real alternative to capitalism is Communism?

Fact is, Communism simply does not work on a mass scale. We have seen this on many occasions throughout history. All Communism has ever done is create misery, genocide, broken people and failed states.

People need an incentive. You cannot tell me that a doctor will want to do all of the study, work and undergo all of the stress that goes along with his job and receive the same money as a janitor. It simply will not happen.


You're not going to like this but: Money is not a bad thing. Money is not the problem. People are the problem. To fix the fact that people spend their money on shit we have to reshape our culture starting with ourselves.


Ok, I want you to take everything that is considered a luxury and get rid of it immediately. That includes your computer, car, refrigeration, heating and AC etc etc etc . Put your money where your mouth is.  




--------------------------------------------------------------


As for me:


-I am a pan-nationalist.
-I favor smaller, more intimate communities with an emphasis on localism and community togetherness.
-Zero immigration unless you are valuable or a genius. English only.
-Communities will be organized so they are largely walkable/bike-a-ble.
-Nuclear power will be championed.
-Leaders will be strictly appointed by a tough meritocratic system. Only the best can lead in any area.
-Elected ruler with restrictions. Limited Monarchy.
-Large swathes of land shall be restricted for non-use by any human. National parks will be set aside for people to use.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Umbrage on December 29, 2010, 03:18:01 PM
I am
Nationalist: Preserve culture and bloodline.
(Stalinist) Communist: Abolish the free market. The state should monopolize the market so that everybody works for the state for a comparative wage while profits go directly to the state.
Authoritarian: The state should be considered more important than religion.
Ecofascist: Strict environmental guidelines. Eugenics are enforced.

Overall a high quality of life and expansion of the territories (gaining resources) would be high on my agenda if I were a true revolutionary. But I'm a philosophical nihilist and not affiliated with any political group. I'm just mentioning utopian ideals here (as requested, right?) not practical/local politics.



Hasn't most of this been tried before? Mainly Communism and authoritarianism? I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly. If people's lives are merely for the preservation of a "state" , what kind of existence is that? All you will be doing is working day in and day out with no real incentive but to make a secular organization wealthier. I think society needs at least some sort of spirituality that makes them feel a sense of awe and puts them in their place while making the transcendent a goal to work towards. Of course, this spirituality should be grounded in nature and culture. "The Earth is the truth". What I'm saying is, people need more than a state. They need to know that they can excel past their peers if they can prove themselves worthy and find themselves working towards a higher goal than "the state". Also, lets face it, NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society.


I'm totally on board with nationalism, no complaints there. Reasonable nationalism is a sign of a healthy society.


To me, just setting the bar low and have everyone make the same money is exactly what we want to avoid. That is basically egalitarianism and fake "equality". Let those who are intelligent and can create make more and reward them.


You lost credibility by stating that "NO ONE wants to live in a Communistic, authoritarian society." There's no way that you can prove that. You're making assumptions and generalizations. The many communists organizations and literature that's out there proves you wrong, reality proves you wrong. If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc. You can't prove that either, it would just be even more generalizations.

I mean, come on... What kind of arguing is this? "I think there is enough evidence to suggest that it fails relatively quickly." That sounds very insecure man, plus you suggest there is evidence but don't offer any... So what do you know for sure?

Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism. There is no way you can run an ecofascist state and then tell people "it's ok for you to have a heated swimming pool in your backyard but not for them" or "it's ok for you to pollute the environment more than others because you are special" etc. Hence everybody would have to follow the same ecofascist rules, there's no place for luxury!

So everybody makes roughly the same amount of money. Useless people are killed. People who achieve things get status, awards, higher places in business and society. But not more money. The point is that people should work for something bigger than themselves (the state) and if that's too much trouble for them then they are untermenschen (selfish capitalists) and have no place in an ecofascist/communist society.

Religion could be used as a tool to empower the state but I feel that people who have a need to believe in irrational fairytales are undesirable too. I don't see the point in giving preachers the same power as the state (or even more power because after all religion controls "the afterlife") I'd also dare say that the communists achieved a hell of a lot more than the muslim fundamentalists did. Soviet Russia certainly had a higher quality of life than Afghanistan did under the Taliban, I'm not in favor of returning back to the stone age. And don't be fooled by an economic crisis such as in Cuba, the embargo forced by the Americans is to blame for that, not Fidel Castro or just having a communist system. If a nation has resources that the world really needs then the world will do business with them anyway regardless of their convictions and how they deal with human rights etc, just look at Saudi Arabia or China.


Look at Prince Charles. Does he look like a leftist?

He looks like a monkey. And he wants to be someone's tampon...

Quote
* Charles to Camilla, in an intercepted telephone call: "I want to feel my way along you, all over you and up and down you and in and out. Oh God, I'll just live inside your trousers or something -- it would be much easier."

* Camilla: "What are you going to turn into, a pair of knickers? Oh, you're going to come back as a pair of knickers."

* Charles: "Or, God forbid, a Tampax (tampon). Just my luck!" Camilla: "You are a complete idiot! Oh, what a wonderful idea."

http://www.expressindia.com/news/fullstory.php?newsid=44686




"Let's look at the basics: what good is an excess of wealth in an ecofascist society? There is no way you can combine a free market with ecofascism."

Ha, advocates for Marxism/Communism on the ANUS boards, this is rich.


"If you really want to mess up then you should suggest now that all those communist intellectuals and activists are all kids/retards/cons/have something wrong with them/etc"


Sure I can. Most of them were liberals or leftists of some shape or form. Leftism is at its very root delusional and rejects reality. Marx was a hack.


You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct? Also, why do you seem to assume that the only real alternative to capitalism is Communism?

Fact is, Communism simply does not work on a mass scale. We have seen this on many occasions throughout history. All Communism has ever done is create misery, genocide, broken people and failed states.

People need an incentive. You cannot tell me that a doctor will want to do all of the study, work and undergo all of the stress that goes along with his job and receive the same money as a janitor. It simply will not happen.





Ok, I want you to take everything that is considered a luxury and get rid of it immediately. That includes your computer, car, refrigeration, heating and AC etc etc etc . Put your money where your mouth is. 

Well then the first thing I'll get rid off is your bullshit :)

"Ha, advocates for Marxism/Communism on the ANUS boards, this is rich. "

I clearly said I was in favor of (a version of) Stalinist communism. Not my fault that you confuse that with "zomg communism I learned about from teh movies"

Your remark also seems to suggest that "zomg guys this dude is commie scum we must all hate him because after all this is anus.com"


"You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct?"

Even if I am aware of that it would look better on you if you came up with some examples rather than pretending you're representing some infallible truth, wouldn't it?

"Fact is, Communism simply does not work on a mass scale. We have seen this on many occasions throughout history. All Communism has ever done is create misery, genocide, broken people and failed states."

Fact is, you're a whiney little faggot and you have a big hooknose. As long as you can't prove you don't have a big hooknose I am correct. So post some pictures of yourself or you'll only be proving the undeniable fact that you have a big hooknose.


Seriously: either someone tell me how ecofascism and a free market could work together or just admit you don't have your facts straight. I'm slowly getting a feeling that I'm discussing with a bunch of brainwashed Americans who got their worldview by watching episodes of G.I. Joe and WWF wrestling.

Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Wolfgang on December 29, 2010, 03:48:49 PM
Unsure at this point, but I'd prefer a Pan-Nationalist system that doesn't predicate itself on an attempt to hammer out some iron clad aspect of human nature as most systems we've created so far tend to do.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Jim Necroslaughter on December 29, 2010, 04:05:07 PM
Look @ Sparta for a variant of "communism."

I think Umbrage is right: I can't say I know a whole lot about these things, but it is my instinct that a discussion like this would have to assume FIRST that Ecofascism and Free Market DON'T work together, and then go from there if you think they DO.

I think an IDEAL society would, indeed, be communist.  But, of course, that society would have to be composed of near Zen-Masters with few desires.  But, hey, the ideal is an ideal for a reason.

You see, the people of a society would need something else, that SO FILLED THEM UP, they didn't care about money.  Take Sparta.  It meant SO MUCH to be a SPARTAN, that currency paled in comparison.  (I'm not positive that Sparta didn't have currency AT ALL, so I guess correct me if I'm wrong).
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 29, 2010, 04:12:22 PM
"You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct?"

Even if I am aware of that it would look better on you if you came up with some examples rather than pretending you're representing some infallible truth, wouldn't it?

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but this reply seems to suggest that you are more interested in defending your pride than seeking truth. Yeah, it would've been nice if he offered some examples to support the claim, but given the logic of his claim all you really needed to do to knock it down was to find an example of a communist regime that wasn't a bad polluter. Have you bothered to look into that? Presumably looking into this matter would be pretty illuminating for you given your concerns. And it would be pretty illuminating to determine whether communist regimes would on balance be worse polluters than capitalist regimes. You don't have to go far to find discussions of this sort. Simply google the phrase 'communism pollution' or something like that. The fact that you don't seem to have a ready reply to this concern suggests that you've arrived at your view too quickly. Also, since it is a documented fact that at least some communist regimes were really bad polluters (look it up) it might be worth examining whether that fact is the result of something inherent to communist regimes. But instead of examining any of this further you decided to remark on how this guy might go about looking better, which doesn't directly address the truth or falsity of his claim. What's the point of that?
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Umbrage on December 29, 2010, 05:17:42 PM
"You are aware that the various Communist regimes have raped the Earth too, correct?"

Even if I am aware of that it would look better on you if you came up with some examples rather than pretending you're representing some infallible truth, wouldn't it?

I don't mean to be offensive or anything, but this reply seems to suggest that you are more interested in defending your pride than seeking truth. Yeah, it would've been nice if he offered some examples to support the claim, but given the logic of his claim all you really needed to do to knock it down was to find an example of a communist regime that wasn't a bad polluter. Have you bothered to look into that? Presumably looking into this matter would be pretty illuminating for you given your concerns. And it would be pretty illuminating to determine whether communist regimes would on balance be worse polluters than capitalist regimes. You don't have to go far to find discussions of this sort. Simply google the phrase 'communism pollution' or something like that. The fact that you don't seem to have a ready reply to this concern suggests that you've arrived at your view too quickly. Also, since it is a documented fact that at least some communist regimes were really bad polluters (look it up) it might be worth examining whether that fact is the result of something inherent to communist regimes. But instead of examining any of this further you decided to remark on how this guy might go about looking better, which doesn't directly address the truth or falsity of his claim. What's the point of that?

Why should I have to defend myself against a statement that's offered without any arguments? Like I wrote earlier I might as well argue someone has a hooknose and claim they have a hooknose until they prove otherwise. It's ridiculous and immature. You can attack my character because of my refusal to debunk obviously unfounded claims but that just makes you even more immature. Here you are literally claiming things and then telling me to look it up on google. But we're not exactly discussing when someone's birthday is are we? So why don't you come up with some links or arguments to back up your claims? Why don't you prove that you did look into things? Maybe you're too "proud" for that? Hah!
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Umbrage on December 29, 2010, 05:55:09 PM
Look @ Sparta for a variant of "communism."

I think Umbrage is right: I can't say I know a whole lot about these things, but it is my instinct that a discussion like this would have to assume FIRST that Ecofascism and Free Market DON'T work together, and then go from there if you think they DO.

I think an IDEAL society would, indeed, be communist.  But, of course, that society would have to be composed of near Zen-Masters with few desires.  But, hey, the ideal is an ideal for a reason.

You see, the people of a society would need something else, that SO FILLED THEM UP, they didn't care about money.  Take Sparta.  It meant SO MUCH to be a SPARTAN, that currency paled in comparison.  (I'm not positive that Sparta didn't have currency AT ALL, so I guess correct me if I'm wrong).

That was what I meant. Or to put it blunt: idealistically people wouldn't be greedy selfish bastards. It would be GREAT to have people simply working for prestige in their field rather than monetary gain. I don't expect much loyalty from those who only pursue money. And with the advantages being made in cloning and genetic manipulation it seems more possible to create an ubermensch. And well, once you have a race of those then you can probably get them to go along with anything. I think having an expansionist worldview or not makes a big impact on the type of political utopia people dream about. You could also go for something small of course, local tribes and villages that live by the code of nature instead of science. But then how will you compete with other nations? If you have my type of utopia as your neighbor you might have a serious problem.

That said, I think it's a little sad that if we attempt to deeply discuss any of the ideas we mention we will always lose ourselves in detail anyway. In that sense this is another everybody-make-a-list-of-personal-stuff thread, kinda like the Metal Timeline one, which only function as a positive drone (OM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4e9hcqVVfY)) I'm not against those types of threads, I'm just saying that people will have to use their imagination a little when reading them rather than bickering over little things.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Cargést on December 29, 2010, 10:20:39 PM
Spartiates were not allowed to handle money - Perioikii acted as craftsmen and merchants, and fuelled whatever economy Lacedaemonia had during the Archaic and Classical ages.  A Spartiate was wholly uninterested in gold, silver, or any such frivolity, because such things were, from a practical perspective, worthless.  The education system instilled an appreciation of simplicity and functionality in the Spartan - indeed, the modern adjective "spartan", often used negatively in English to denote sparsity, comes from the truth of Spartans owning few possessions beyond necessities.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 30, 2010, 12:17:35 AM
Why should I have to defend myself against a statement that's offered without any arguments?

Because you don't need an argument for that particular claim in order to easily refute it given its logical form. Are you going to wait for him to offer one before you decide to advance the discussion when you could've easily advanced it in the first place? What's the motivation here?

Quote
Like I wrote earlier I might as well argue someone has a hooknose and claim they have a hooknose until they prove otherwise.

So what? If you didn't have a hooknose and somebody claimed that  you did you could easily refute the claim by showing a picture of yourself. What would be the point of not presenting that refutation in the first place? And this describes precisely the logical structure of what's going on between you and that guy. Yet you're refusing to refute the claim and instead waiting for this guy to present evidence. The issue he raised cuts right to the heart of this view you're presenting. Yet you appear not to have anything ready at hand to say about it. I would expect somebody who wanted to adopt such a view to first check out the environmental track record of communist regimes before they adopted that view. What's the point of not saying anything about that? You could've dispensed with his claim if you had some information about this matter, and if you don't have such information, then you're not justified in holding this particular view of yours, much less in putting it forth so aggressively.

Quote
So why don't you come up with some links or arguments to back up your claims? Why don't you prove that you did look into things? Maybe you're too "proud" for that? Hah!

Because I have  no stake in this particular argument. I was merely making a meta-observation about it.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: nous on December 30, 2010, 01:06:23 AM
I lean to the right on many issues, and have a great deal of respect for libertarian ideals, but I could also be identified as an 'ecofascist'. This causes me some difficulty, as there is a preponderance of leftists in the environmentalist community, and many libertarians either disregard or oppose any efforts at conservation. How do those who post on this forum reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions?

Keyword: conservative

Quote from: HRH Charles Windsor, The Prince of Wales
In these uprooted times, there is a great need for constancy; a need for those who can rise above the clamour, the din and the sheer pace of our lives to help us to rediscover those truths that are immutable and eternal; a need for those who can speak of that eternal wisdom which is called the perennial philosophy.

Keyword: environmentalist

Quote
None of us, I imagine, can fail to be conscious of, and be concerned about, those matters that might together be called “the environmental crisis of the twenty-first century”. Indeed, none other than Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, in his book Our Final Century, has said that:

"…in the twenty-first century, humanity is more at risk than ever before from the misapplication of science. And the environmental pressures induced by collective human actions could trigger catastrophes more threatening than any natural hazards."

http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html

Let me also point my fellow philosophers to another short paper, this time by F. Schuon, titled "No Activity Without Truth." (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/No_Activity_Without_Truth-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx) To quote from it: 

Quote from: Frithjof Schuon
In our time one has often heard it said that in order to fight against materialism—or materialist pseudo-idealism—a new ideology is needed, one capable of standing up to all seductions and assaults. Now the need for an ideology, or the wish to oppose one ideology to another, is already an admission of weakness, and anything undertaken on this basis is false and doomed to defeat. What must be done is to oppose truth purely and simply to the false ideologies, that same truth that has always been and which we could never invent for the reason that it exists outside us and above us. The present-day world is obsessed with "dynamism", as if this constituted a "categorical imperative" and a universal remedy, and as if dynamism had any meaning or positive efficacy outside truth.

No man in his senses can have the intention of merely substituting one error for another, whether "dynamic" or otherwise; before speaking of force and effectiveness one must therefore speak of truth and nothing else. A truth is powerful in such measure as we assimilate it; if the truth does not confer on us the strength of which we stand in need, this only goes to prove that we have not really grasped it; it is not for truth to be dynamic, but for ourselves to be dynamic in function of a true conviction. That which is lacking in the present world is a profound knowledge of the nature of things; the fundamental truths are always there, but they do not impose themselves in actual practice because they cannot impose themselves on those who are unwilling to accept them.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: nous on December 30, 2010, 01:29:18 AM
The principle I'd want to adhere to would be something like 'No action ought to be coercively prohibited unless it is an initiation of force against somebody.' I've realized over time that fleshing out that principle is fraught with some serious difficulties, though.

That is like saying, "as long as you don't bother others, you can be as vile as you wish", is it not? Sounds like a cheap excuse to me--and in reality it is not so simple, because everything we are and do has an impact on others and our surroundings. Of course not everyone needs to be told what to do, but if you ignore those who need to, destruction ensues. If there is really a soul-state analogy, we need castes, and a do-as-thou-wilt-standpoint such as above will certainly sabotage the state.
Why is that "principle" so important to you, if I may ask?
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 30, 2010, 03:33:43 AM
That is like saying, "as long as you don't bother others, you can be as vile as you wish", is it not?

Sure, it certainly allows people to engage in things that you find distasteful as long as it doesn't interfere in the relevant way with other people's activities.

Quote
Sounds like a cheap excuse to me

Really? Why? I could certainly turn around and say something like "Fascism is a cheap excuse to push people around." But I wouldn't want to argue against views I disagree with in that way.  

Quote
and in reality it is not so simple, because everything we are and do has an impact on others and our surroundings.

Sure, but there's a question of whether certain ways of impacting others leaves them at liberty in the relevant sense and their moral responsibility intact, and I think plenty of the ways in which people are impacted satisfy that condition.

Quote
Of course not everyone needs to be told what to do, but if you ignore those who need to, destruction ensues.

Well, I don't think destruction ensues as a result of only telling people what to do in the minimal sense in which I think they should be told what to do. But of course, I would have to know what you mean by this talk of destruction.

Quote
If there is really a soul-state analogy, we need castes, and a do-as-thou-wilt-standpoint such as above will certainly sabotage the state.

I don't see why that should be the case. I don't see the undoing of states as the result of an abundance of laissez-faire, but rather as the result of overreach and irresponsible policy, or invasion from some external force (see Iraq war, Bush), or internal revolution.

Quote
Why is that "principle" so important to you, if I may ask?

Because I think that human beings have certain fundamental rights (yeah, not a very kosher view in this corner of the internet) which entail a prohibition on the initiation of force, which is generated from a sort of Kantian view of respect for persons foundationally. In certain moods, I find contractarian explanations of this attractive. On a purely emotional level, I am offended by the idea of legally enforcing somebody's specific conception of the social good, but of course that has no justificatory force (unless, of course, you think my moral intuitions have evidential force).

By the way, why did  you put "principle" in quotes? Do you think it's a fake principle? Is it perhaps an ice cream cone masquerading as a principle?
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: zebra bodine on December 30, 2010, 08:33:01 AM
Confucianism: act according to your nature, respect the hierarchy to which you were born, work within the system, "have no twisty thoughts", equity over equality ("the treasure of states").

I never took the works of Confucius as elucidating a concrete political system, more a loose template for natural human harmony (which is possible and doesn't exclude the reality of conflict).

Confucianism is certainly inductive to communal wellbeing, if it's adopted by all individuals within the community.  I think Tokugawa Japan is a pretty good example of this - 250 odd years of relative peace and social stability, which was only rumbled by exterior (Western) influence (meddling).  Meiji Restoration can suck my cock.

Haha, good point.  That's the one downfall of Confucianism, that it must be "adopted by all individuals".  This requires a very diligent and well-educated populace, and a certain degree of selflessness and deference, which I rarely see in my current setting among the general population.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Conservationist on December 30, 2010, 11:59:13 AM
It seems to me from reading the various things posted up on this site and the users' comments on this board that most people here adhere to some sort of fascism or traditionalist conservatism. At the very least, there is a lot of collectivism and authoritarianism going around these parts.

Horse shit yet again. The world doesn't divide into handy Randian categories; all societies are collectivist and, unless they use a non-state solution like a monarchy, are statist. "Fascism" is completely misunderstood. Your average person here is a paleoconservative realist (that's what nihilists become) who realizes that without fascism, society decays.

And for the proof, open a window. Kick yourself awake. This is a moribund society with more problems than hope of solutions. What is falling, push. And when you rebuild, don't let your fear of what others might judge/"think" censor your need for things to be done right.

Regarding academia: it's thoroughly corrupt on an intellectual level. Get your knowledge from older sources or real-world experience (after you finish your degree). Until then, you're living in Ivory Tower land and they're shitting in your head.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Dogshit on December 30, 2010, 09:24:57 PM
I think the problem with modern politics is the insistence on viewing the world in purely economic terms without regard for the 'human' aspects like culture or aesthetics. I think the fact that the West (excuse my eurocentrism here, but, well, I do supprt ethnocentrism for all peoples) is in decline is almost entirely due to this, the greatest shaper and foundation of any civilization is art and culture. The only monuments the West has produced in the last 150 years are billboards devoted to Coca Cola products. We live in a cultural wasteland; modern art rejected the notion of 'art for art's sake' and insisted that all art must be 'functional' or 'utilitarian' - this turns artists into uncreative craftsmen who can only produce Apple products. I think artists and writers are more important than politicos because art inspires people and civilizations to greatness far more so than political rhetoric.

With that said I am sympathetic to both Nationalist and Greenist politics. Though I wonder whether 'nationalist' is the correct term; to me, the nation and the people that are part of the nation are one and the same. The nation's borders are dynamic in accordance with historical narrative and the march of the people. Heritage (ethnicity), culture, language and common mythos make up the nation and the people; according to this definition, not every nation has a state - and some countries are artificial constructs. I think Belgium should be split up as Flanders and Wallonia, for instance, and that the Basque Country, Catalonia, and other 'nations' should have political independence and autonomy. I also support Regionalism, that regional identity is as important as national identity, so that regions like, for example, Wessex and Mercia, deserve a certain degree of autonomy if not full independence. Considering that the term 'nationalism' is too much linked with the modern conceptions of 'nation-states', I prefer the term Tribalism.

Of course, since I support Nationalism for all nations, I support Israel and Zionism - this apparently upsets some Nationalists, but I just think they are being hypocritical. I won't go into more detail, but this website (http://masada2000.org/) explains the manner in which I support Zionism and reject the false 'State of Palestine'.

Nationalism is often linked with imperialism, but I totally object to imperialism in all forms. To me, imperialism and multiculturalism are but two sides of the same coin. I support total self-reliance and independence of all nations, I don't want to create any kind of 'empire', today European nations are experiencing mass immigration from former colonial countries so I consider imperialism as disastrous and harmful (for all concerned) as multiculturalism. Imperialism creates an dependence on foreign influences, it is also a form of egalitarianism - if we are to judge a foreign people by our own standards, they will always fail, but the African definition of civilization is different to the European definition. Why compare them? I don't see the need to compare different races or rule over them like imperialism does, just give each their own space.

For these reasons I am against 'White Nationalism', pan-Europeanism and Eurasianism. Firstly, White Nationalism (WN) considers all whites to be the same. It is completely ignorant to the vast cultural, historical and political differences between European Nations. WN would consider a Pole to be the same as German as a Frenchman; but they are culturally unique, and there is even different racial types within Europe - I believe these different cultural and racial traits and different languages must also be preserved. I object to Polish immigrants in Britain as much as Africans or Asians - And I say that as an Englishman with both Polish and Jewish heritage.

The same with pan-Europeanism, I do not want a single European State, or European Empire: not to mention that Europe is far too large to be ruled as a single entity, but it is just another form of multiculturalism and internationalism. I want no part of it. I also do not consider Russia to be a European country, it is not and has never been part of the Occident. It has a history of imperialism and anti-Western sentiment. As far as I am concerned, it is an Asiatic country with a mixed race population of Slavs, Nordics, Tatars and Mongols. I would split it up into Chechnya, Tatarstan etc.

Pragmatically, I think Eugenics is essential to eleminate elements that are detrimental to the whole health and well being of the nation; sterilize drug addicts and those with hereditary diseases, abort deformed foetesus, execute dangerous and habitual criminals. No welfare, or free healthcare to those that cannot help themselves or stand on their own. People who do not cause serious harm to wider society should be left alone, but if the community deems their behavior parasitic - exile them.

I mentioned Greenism, to me, Nationalism and Greenism are inter-dependent - 'blood and soil' and 'ecofascism' (http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/germany/sp001630/peter.html) are concepts I am firmly in agreement with. Honestly, green anarchists are the politicos I respect most. Another problem with modernity is the divorce of man from nature. Mankind must be seen as part of a much larger system, part of the totality of life itself. Man is not 'seperate' from nature, and definitely not more important. The most fundamental task for Man is to reconnect with nature. Everything else is secondary.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Iconocloaca on December 31, 2010, 12:45:03 AM
my butthole reeks when i take a shit
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: reasonable on December 31, 2010, 01:57:09 AM
Horse shit yet again. The world doesn't divide into handy Randian categories

Okay, your response is all over the place and I don't see how it really addresses what you've quoted in any way that I need to care about. First of all, what is a Randian category? Second of all, in what way have I attempted to divide the world into these "handy Randian categories"?

Quote
all societies are collectivist

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by this. I don't really see how this undermines anything I said.

Quote
and, unless they use a non-state solution like a monarchy, are statist.

Monarchy is a non-state solution? I would like to know why you contrast monarchy and statism. It is statist in pretty much every way that I care about. At any rate, what is the relevance of your point here?

Quote
"Fascism" is completely misunderstood.

So perhaps you can point out in what ways I have misunderstood "fascism," if that's what you mean to imply.

Quote
Your average person here is a paleoconservative realist (that's what nihilists become) who realizes that without fascism, society decays.

How is any of this inconsistent with the part of my post that you quoted?

Quote
This is a moribund society with more problems than hope of solutions. What is falling, push. And when you rebuild, don't let your fear of what others might judge/"think" censor your need for things to be done right.

Thanks for the advice. I don't know why you think I need it, but thanks.

Quote
Regarding academia: it's thoroughly corrupt on an intellectual level. Get your knowledge from older sources or real-world experience (after you finish your degree). Until then, you're living in Ivory Tower land and they're shitting in your head.

Academia has its uses, and those are the things that I value about it. The suggestion that academia is shitting in my head as though I am somehow under its spell and need this pointed out is both presumptuous and insulting. Anyway, I don't know why you're telling me to do these things as though they're somehow incompatible with being in academia.
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: metal on metal on December 31, 2010, 02:34:51 AM
National states are bullshit if not organized into a bigger threat, or to put it more clearly, an Empire. If that doesn't happen, another Empire will seize them as it has always been. Empires rise and fall while national states exist only for a flicker of an eye and they never had a true sovereignty.

Salute to the Iron Emperors!
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: Dead_Soul on December 31, 2010, 06:54:37 AM
@Umbrage: Look up "The Great Leap Forward".
I lean to the right on many issues, and have a great deal of respect for libertarian ideals, but I could also be identified as an 'ecofascist'. This causes me some difficulty, as there is a preponderance of leftists in the environmentalist community, and many libertarians either disregard or oppose any efforts at conservation. How do those who post on this forum reconcile these seemingly contradictory positions?

Keyword: conservative

Quote from: HRH Charles Windsor, The Prince of Wales
In these uprooted times, there is a great need for constancy; a need for those who can rise above the clamour, the din and the sheer pace of our lives to help us to rediscover those truths that are immutable and eternal; a need for those who can speak of that eternal wisdom which is called the perennial philosophy.
Nous

Keyword: environmentalist

Quote
None of us, I imagine, can fail to be conscious of, and be concerned about, those matters that might together be called “the environmental crisis of the twenty-first century”. Indeed, none other than Sir Martin Rees, the Astronomer Royal and President of the Royal Society, in his book Our Final Century, has said that:

"…in the twenty-first century, humanity is more at risk than ever before from the misapplication of science. And the environmental pressures induced by collective human actions could trigger catastrophes more threatening than any natural hazards."

http://www.sacredweb.com/conference06/conference_introduction.html

Let me also point my fellow philosophers to another short paper, this time by F. Schuon, titled "No Activity Without Truth." (http://www.studiesincomparativereligion.com/public/articles/No_Activity_Without_Truth-by_Frithjof_Schuon.aspx) To quote from it:  

Quote from: Frithjof Schuon
In our time one has often heard it said that in order to fight against materialism—or materialist pseudo-idealism—a new ideology is needed, one capable of standing up to all seductions and assaults. Now the need for an ideology, or the wish to oppose one ideology to another, is already an admission of weakness, and anything undertaken on this basis is false and doomed to defeat. What must be done is to oppose truth purely and simply to the false ideologies, that same truth that has always been and which we could never invent for the reason that it exists outside us and above us. The present-day world is obsessed with "dynamism", as if this constituted a "categorical imperative" and a universal remedy, and as if dynamism had any meaning or positive efficacy outside truth.

No man in his senses can have the intention of merely substituting one error for another, whether "dynamic" or otherwise; before speaking of force and effectiveness one must therefore speak of truth and nothing else. A truth is powerful in such measure as we assimilate it; if the truth does not confer on us the strength of which we stand in need, this only goes to prove that we have not really grasped it; it is not for truth to be dynamic, but for ourselves to be dynamic in function of a true conviction. That which is lacking in the present world is a profound knowledge of the nature of things; the fundamental truths are always there, but they do not impose themselves in actual practice because they cannot impose themselves on those who are unwilling to accept them.
I'm fully aware of the connotations that the term "conservative" has in the context of the discussions that occur on this board, but in my dealings with 'normals', identifying oneself as an adherent to conservative policies typically means something entirely different. I live in the Bible belt, and many who deem themselves conservatives are repulsed by those who don't hold an anthropocentric outlook. I'm trying to find a way to more easily recognize and collaborate with those whose goals are similar to mine, and calling myself a conservative usually complicates things in many cases(not always, though).
Unsure at this point, but I'd prefer a Pan-Nationalist system that doesn't predicate itself on an attempt to hammer out some iron clad aspect of human nature as most systems we've created so far tend to do.
Same here. The greatest impediment to the realization of such a state is that every country must agree to it, though. A consensus on that level will be hard to achieve.....
Title: Re: Political/social philosophy of ANUS members
Post by: JewishPhysics on December 31, 2010, 03:54:25 PM
It seems to me from reading the various things posted up on this site and the users' comments on this board that most people here adhere to some sort of fascism or traditionalist conservatism. At the very least, there is a lot of collectivism and authoritarianism going around these parts. I have serious misgivings with such views, but whatever. A couple of people have expressed some libertarian sympathies in the past, and I know that there is at least one out-and-out anarcho-libertarian on this board (mandrake).

Personally, I am what might be described as "right-wing" libertarian. Core commitments: Anti-authoritarianism, anti-collectivism (I do not think collectives have any moral standing at all, nor do I think such abstract things as traditions and nations have moral standing), and robust private property rights. I arrived at this view from a deontological moral perspective, but when people want me to defend it on consequentialist grounds, I can certainly play that game.

Perhaps some of you don't have a name for whatever political/social views you hold, and perhaps you don't find naming them of much use, but if you can broadly characterize your views of these matters, please share. I am very interested to hear about these things.
I'm fairly sympathetic to certain Libertarian concepts.  There are just too many instances where government interference simply leads to worse unintended consequences (e.g. the War on Drugs).  I'm also rather drawn to the notion that the onus lies on those wishing to use force / coercion and that non-intervention should be the assumed position.  However, I don't agree with the rational that force is only justified in instances where there is a direct conflict of "rights" (I put it in quotes because I reject the concept of human rights).  I support eugenics, euthanasia, abortion, the death penalty for all serious criminals, etc.