Joe Kelley
Administrator
|
Hi,
This is a note to the 1000 hits per week that this forum so far generates. For all I know that 1000 hits per week is one person or even (for all I know) a computer program randomly hitting this forum 1000 times per week.
I'm growing (up, old, stupid or who knows?) and this is a note to express my progress of growth.
Time dictates that all things shall pass and it looks like my posts on this forum will continue to pass but, perhaps, not as much.
I am developing a viewpoint that is becoming difficult to communicate. I understand what I am writing; mind you - what is not easy – however - is transferring the viewpoint in a manner that finds agreement. The communication finds ignorance. I mean: I am ignorant as to how well or how badly the viewpoint is communicated.
No feed back
Here is the latest expression of my viewpoint:
“I'm not clear on how this isn't anarcho-capitalism...”
I'm probably butting in but here goes anyway:
The terms used to describe the deeds done matters for two reasons and both reasons matter not as far as the deed in concerned not once the deed has already been done and is a part of the past.
This may appear like an odd way of injecting a new perspective into the discussion currently going on with you two, however, it fits even when someone can’t (or won’t) see it.
The deed, prescribed by law, I’m pointing out is the deed of harming someone. That ‘justification’ goes by many names but no matter what name that ‘crime’ is called, no matter what, the fact remains and always will remain a true and undeniable fact – someone harms someone else.
The mere thought of taking responsibility for harming someone can send a person into fits of denial; hence the obfuscation of the deed with words.
To the point:
The capitalists demand ownership, rather, some people demand ownership and those people tend to swarm about in proximity to the light called capitalism like moths to a flame.
A capitalist will not give up the authority that the capitalist possesses, not lightly, and certainly not if that abdication is not profitable. It should therefore be no surprise to note that powerful people tend to be capitalists. Children, for example, are not capitalists by nature; not the one’s with parents. It is also easy to see how a capitalist tends to be an anarchist. Once a person has power there isn’t a whole lot of natural incentive to give it up. It can also be seen as to why anarchist/capitalists are conservatives. Once a person possesses power - there is little chance of that person voluntarily giving it up. The powerful person desires to conserve the power of authority over their own personal power and the same powerful person will not easily give up that power of authority without a clear advantage to be gained, eventually, and – in writing.
And at this point the capitalists are aghast at the attack on their honor or, if no such threat is perceived (their power includes a powerful confidence) – the capitalists (the “anarcho” prefix is a superfluous redundancy) simply nod in agreement – at this point – the capitalist have the power, will not give up the power voluntarily, and will conserve every bit of power, and govern the flow of power so as to ensure a steady and healthy return of more power for each unit of power released. The power people nod in silent unison. The world is as it should be and everyone (all the capitalists) can return to the business of increasing the return on investment – if only the socialists would stop mucking things up.
Incidentally there is today a big return on investment for the war and the prison industry.
My point is: A means for a person to justify harming another person is available to everyone – it is a power – call it something and then harm someone with it. That power is available to every single human being. It is pre-meditated aggressive violence ‘justification’.
By any other name it still stinks. If you ignore the deed that justifies one person harming another person, by authority, then, in my opinion, you miss the point. That power is addictive like a genie asking for one wish and the bright idea hits the fortunate son right between the eyes with perfect clarity – wish for unlimited wishes. The second wish is bound to be falsehood.
The two reasons:
Accurately communicate all relevant information concerning the deeds to be done.
Falsify everything that may threaten the power to commit the deed with impunity.
Posted here:
http://www.anarchism.net/forum/board_entry.php?id=7176
|
