Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Ka

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 51
The Kitchen Sink / Re: left libertarianism
« on: January 07, 2017, 01:35:03 PM »

The reason nomenclature like "Green Libertarian Socialism" is invented is because Communism has been so thoroughly trashed by the propaganda machine in the FSoA over the last century.  So the lefty crowd looks for new buzzwords to identify the ideas that hopefully are more palatable to J6P.

A Rose by any other name...  :icon_sunny:


No, it's not just buzzwords. Socialism is governmental control of the means of production. Communism is (quoting Wikipedia) "the social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production and the absence of social classes, money, and the state." The theoretical basis for the Communist parties that ran the USSR, China, etc., was that by establishing socialism, a communist society would eventually emerge. That is why the second S is USSR is "Socialist" and not "Communist".

Now I think we can agree that the communist socioeconomic order described would be a wonderful thing, but I for one do not think its emergence is inevitable. In fact, I can't imagine it happening at all short of a global cure of Original Sin (to put it in Christian terms -- think "Maya" for those of other religious persuasions), and while I personally think that will happen someday, it won't happen through political means. You can't force people to be good. All you can do is remove the survival problem, and let them think for themselves. So as I see it, to call yourself a communist is to promise more than you can deliver.

Hence I am not a Communist, because I am leaving that assumption of the emergence of a communist society out of the picture. I would like it to happen, but that's just personal, not a political goal. But that "let them think for themselves" is the reason to include the modifier "libertarian". While I am very religious, I would not want to exclude atheists from the political process, as long as they are ok with religious people being included. In fact, I would prefer that both religous and non-religious be in charge. Let Darwinism and Intelligent Design be both taught as "this is what some people think, and why they think that, and that is what other people think, and why" The only exception is, of course, that any religious group that attempts to force conversion must be suppressed, as being violators of the freedom of others.

As for greenery, well, that's just CFS as far as economic means and goals are concerned in a world of declining resources and climate change. It is really more intended to modify 'libertarian' than 'socialism', in that it emphasizes that one's personal freedom does not extend to doing things that harm the biosphere.

The Kitchen Sink / Re: left libertarianism
« on: January 06, 2017, 09:43:15 PM »

They also have to learn how to not breed up so many they run out of room.


With cradle to grave security, the usual motive for large families isn't there.

My question to you is: if the goal is to save as many as possible, do you see an alternative to GLS? Granted, the odds of it coming to pass are not all that great, but as I see it, it is the least ugly political solution.

The Kitchen Sink / Re: left libertarianism
« on: January 06, 2017, 08:37:39 PM »

It sounds like Communism with a Green-Washed name to me.


With the elimination of corporations and a recognition that industry must decline I see no reason the socialist government can't do more than lip service w.r.t. greenery.

At the outset, it will be socialist (centralized gov't owning the means of production). Whether it can evolve into communism will depend on what happens in the rest of the world (as long as there are external threats, a strong center will be necessary to support a military), and how well the populace can be converted to being content being materially poor.

The Kitchen Sink / Re: left libertarianism
« on: January 06, 2017, 06:09:49 PM »
... as long as they keep to the basic GLS principle.


Green Libertarian Socialism. The principle is "no one is free unless everyone is free, that freedom in general requires freedom from want, and freedom from want requires a healthy biosphere".

The Kitchen Sink / Re: left libertarianism
« on: January 06, 2017, 05:11:28 PM »

In this scenario, is "the government" synonymous with "the state"?  That would be one possible variant of state socialism. 

Or is "the government" an anarchist collective of some sort?  That would be anarcho-socialism.  I suppose.

Many of us here have already indicated that we would prefer voluntary communalism, rather than a communalism of the top-down, state-enforced kind. This is what makes REVOLUTION a mighty tricky topic content with.  In a bloody revolution (which I do not advocate for), first the heads are lopped off as per RE's guillotine / cockroach pesticide (brand?) scenario.  That's stage one.  Then everyone's going, "Oh, shit, now what do we do?" Stage two.  Stage three is usually for the "power vacuum" to be filled by ass holes at least as brutal and thugish and nasty as the former, now headless batch -- though they will unmask themselves slowly as not to lose their own heads.  In stage four The Who has an unexpected reunion tour -

It would be a military, top-down government for the indefinite future. See my response to RE -- this would only be feasible after the country has experienced a complete financial/economic meltdown, with everyone having experienced a week or more of empty shelves, food riots, etc. Eventually, one would hope, more and more decision-making will be localized as much as possible, and the local community can set up their own processes, as long as they keep to the basic GLS principle.

The Kitchen Sink / Re: left libertarianism
« on: January 06, 2017, 04:43:36 PM »

Those answers are reasonable, and for the most part socialist, but they don't seem very "libertarian" to me.

That's because right libertarians think in terms of freedom as freedom to have lots of material goods. After the revolution, the propaganda corps will need to brainwash minds into thinking of freedom as artistic/intellectual freedom, which doesn't require lots of material things. (Ok, so artists won't be free to make monumental sculptures.) No requiring the masses to chant quotes from Chairman Mao.

First off, Da Goobermint has TONS of control here, and would need a large Enforcement apparatus to make sure everyone conforms to these rules.  Individuals and Corporations in the society need to be CONSTRICTED to prevent them from stepping on anyone else's toes.

You betcha. The only way I can see this coming to pass is through a military takeover following a complete financial/economic meltdown. Basically, the armed forces become the government, nationalizing all entities involved with production and distribution of food, water, electricity, etc., and telling all the employees that they are now civil servants. As I see it, the question is whether in that scenario, the generals are aware that economic growth is no longer possible, and that socialism is the only way to manage industrial decline equitably. In short, the generals become doomers with guns and a social conscience. If they don't have a social conscience, well, that's too bad for us.

It's also rather facile to just dismiss the DAPL issue by saying there will be no DAPLs.  As of now, pipelines are still being constructed in many places.

There won't be any more corporations period. But yes, this is all pie in the sky at this point. It might be different after TSHTF, depending on how thorough the meltdown is.

The Kitchen Sink / Re: left libertarianism
« on: January 06, 2017, 03:23:40 PM »
Let's see how Green Libertarian Socialism handles these. For those who are unacquainted with this solution to all y'all's political ills, the basic idea is that no one is free unless everyone is free, that freedom in general requires freedom from want, and freedom from want requires a healthy biosphere. Hence:
- the government is socialist, responsible for ensuring that everyone's survival needs are met, doing so in a manner that does not harm the environment, and without interfering with people's freedom, enforcing restraints so that one person's freedom does not adversely affect another's or the biosphere.

Beyond that, who defines where my rights end and yours begin?  Is that at the edge of your property line?

The government owns all land and buildings, so there is no more property line.  One does have the right to privacy within the building you are renting from the government.

Am I free to have a Rooster and Chickens if my Rooster is waking you up every morning?

Yes,  because to ensure food for everyone while not harming the environment entails moving food production as close to consumption as possible. (N.b., if you are not used to roosters, I suggest moving to Kauai, where feral chickens are all over the place. You'll get used to it.)

Are you free to run wild parties with loud music that keeps me up every night?

No, in that by playing loud music you are forcing your neighbors to hear what they don't want to hear, and so is a case of adversely affecting the freedom of others.

Am I free to go off-grid because if too many people follow my example the power company will go outta biz and you won't have electricity on demand?

Yes, and in fact are encouraged to do so, in that the government owns and runs the grid, and the more people not on it, the easier it is to run it.

Are Homeless people free to set up their tents on the vacant property next to your house in a gated community?

Ain't gonna be any more homeless, or gated communities.

Am I free to be a slob in my digs?

Yes, as long as it doesn't attract pests.

Is DAPL free to build a pipeline on land granted them by Da Goobermint when the people next door don't want it there?  If not, DAPLs rights are constricted.  If they are allowed, then the rights of the Sioux to protect their water supply is constricted.

Ain't gonna be no DAPL.


I read that piece you linked does make it easier to understand.  The MUI, I mean, makes it easier to understand how consciousness is the fundamental, rather than the physical. Much good food for thought, for me. For people who spend so much time clicking on icons, it's a good way to explain it so that it can be understood.

I wonder if what we can perceive in altered states of consciousness (McKenna and his machine elves come to mind) is some fragment of a world more real than the one we think we live in.

That other guy I mentioned (Bernardo Kastrup) has a theory on this. He regards human minds as something like dissociated identity disorder (new name for multiple personality disorder) of the One Mind. Which is to say that to be a human mind requires being ignorant of most of reality. Psychedelics reduce brain processing, which, he thinks, allows more to be experienced. So would death.


I honestly don't know where you're going here, but I will say this much.:  I'm an "ontological experientialist," which phrase I may be coining on the spot (?) ... by which I mean if there is no experience of being/existence/objects/persons/rocks, whatever... going on somewhere we may as well regard that as a non-pheonomenon or a non-existence.  Experience, rather obviously, requires an experiencer of some kind -- in the broadest, most open-minded sense of what this may entail.

As ontology, such "experientialism" simply means "Nothing ultimately or finally exists in any meaningful sense without experience".  Since experience requires consciousness to manifest, I will go as far as to say that "Nothing meaningfully exists without consciousness".  But this is hardly a revolutionary statement!  We are, after all, using language.   And thought!  And neither of these could exist without experience or "consciousness".

That said, I do think it is plausible that a physical universe roughly similar to our own could in some weird sense "exist" without anyone around to "experience" (or be "conscious) of it or its parts.  But if it did exist as such, no one would be around to imagine, think or say a thing about it.  And in this way it would simply be "dark" -- as if it never existed at all!

Yes. Bernardo Kastrup makes this argument (google him for videos, or see for a short summary of his views, which are roughly mine). He calls it the argument from parsimony: since if anything existed outside of experience, it might as well not exist, there is no reason to assume such extra-experiential stuff. Especially when assuming it drops one into unresolvable difficulties. But if so, why call consciousness a mystery? (Speaking ontologically, I treat 'consciousness', 'awareness' and 'experience' synonymously.)


I consider panpsychism to be as plausible as any other theory or hypothesis.  But even panpsychism CAN include the possibility of emergence.  There, is, after all, no solid reason we should presume that a rock, a bacteria, a tree, a non-human animal and a human are all EQUALLY and similarly "conscious" and intelligent.  (Which I take to be two different but continuous things.)

I think of consciousness as being more-or-less synonymous with "awareness".  In panpsychism, presumably, dust and rocks are aware in some sense or another.  Maybe so!  I've actually first hand experienced the "awareness" of space, and without the aid of drugs.  ;) :-\  So I'm anything other than closed-minded. 

I reject panpsychism, at least of the bottom-up variety (it has the combination problem). It strikes me as an ultimately futile attempt by former materialists who have given up on the "hard problem", but still wish to deny the possibility of post-mortem existence. In any case I do not assume that a rock is a conscious entity. It is, rather, how we (fail to) perceive an underlying consciousness -- it is like hearing a word that we fail to perceive as a word, and perceive as just noise.

Problem is, we (as a whole culture) haven't even begun to have a theory of "consciousness" per se.  And I think this is no good reason to completely abandon all of the contending theories other than our own personal favorite.

Remove the idea that consciousness is an emergent property, and there is no need for a theory. Rather, we need a theory for why there is the appearance of nonconscious stuff, such as Hoffman's (link in my previous post).

I have several good reasons for abandoning the contending theories. Why else would I have a favorite?

Since consciousness cannot be produced by non-consciousness

This seems to me to be highly speculative.  Consciousness may well be an emergent property, as far as anyone knows.  But we know ever so little about consciousness, really.  Its the biggest mystery we have.

Philosophers and scientists have been trying for a couple of centuries to imagine how consciousness can be an emergent property, and have gotten exactly nowhere. On the other hand, imagining how there can be the appearance of nonconsciousness is not difficult (e.g., comparing waking reality to dream reality, or you can take a look at for something more elaborate). Then there is the evidence from mystics over the last couple of millennia. The only reason one thinks of consciousness as a mystery is because one believes it is an emergent property. Drop that belief and -- no mystery. It is just what is.


Also, no one has posted if they believe "We are it" or if they is sentient life outside Earth.

Since consciousness cannot be produced by non-consciousness, and consciousness cannot produce non-consciousness, and since the one fact that cannot be denied is that there is consciousness, it follows that reality is nothing but sentience.

Doom Psychology & Philosophy / Re: Nibiru INCOMING! A Thought Experiment
« on: December 28, 2016, 12:12:16 AM »

The Professional Astronomers with the big telescopes pick up this object incoming somewhere outside of Pluto's orbit.  It's not yet visible to the naked eye, or even with a typical amateur telescope.

Would they make the knowledge public at this time?

Upon passing Pluto, the object becomes visible to Amateur Astronomers.  They begin to report this to Blogs and the MSM.  Fringe blogs pick the newz up quickly, the MSM waits a while but more reports start flooding in.  Does the MSM report it though before it becomes visible to the naked eye?

Upon passing Jupiter, a light visible to the naked eye becomes apparent.  The light grows larger by the day.  It no longer can be denied, there is a PLANET KILLER headed straight for Earth!

Would this be known at the passing Jupiter stage? Serious question -- how accurate can projections be at this point, for example might its trajectory be altered slightly by passing nearby asteroids? If there is any uncertainty, governments would be foolish to do anything but say "It is overwhelmingly likely to miss us" even if the odds are not so unlikely.

It continues to grow, and as it passes Mars it begins to look more and more like the Moon, and gets bigger every day.

What will be the reactions and behavior of the populatin at large as it sinks in that the Earth is going to be WIPED OUT in just a few more days? How will Da Goobermint react?

Governments will probably urge everyone to pray a lot.

What would your reactions and behavior be once you realized you only had days left to live, and in fact every living thing on the planet was about to be wiped out?

Sit quietly and wait. Neglect to brush teeth or any other sort of maintenance task.

Marathon Man Newz / Re: The Election Never Ended
« on: December 21, 2016, 02:51:14 PM »
Personally, I'm afraid he will be presiding over a tremendous recession and financial disarray shortly, that you and most here will be all very eager to blame him for.

That's because it will be his fault.  If you're at the helm when the Titanic hits the iceberg, you get the blame.  Take a job with a lot of power, you get the responsibility that goes with it.


Thank You for proving my point, some here called my accusation silly.

Well, I called it 'strange', not 'silly', in that I found it strange that you would accuse "most" Diners of not being aware that financial/economic dislocation has been a long time coming, and so wouldn't blame it specifically on Trump, and not at all if it occurs on or shortly after Jan. 21.  On the other hand, as time goes on, Trump will likely share in the blame, just as I blame Obama for not responding appropriately to the situation after 2008.

As for RE, he is just pointing out the obvious, that when times get tough, the populace tends to blame whoever is nominally in power at the time. Sure, it is irrational, and it will be exploited by the Democrats, but that's just politics.

In typical disgusting Lefty fashion; Obama inherited all the troubles of the world from Bush and Cheney, the poor thing, while everything that happens after Inauguration day is the fault of Donald.

Or to put it another way, I would prefer not to be lumped in with "disgusting Left[ies]"

Marathon Man Newz / Re: The Election Never Ended
« on: December 20, 2016, 02:47:16 PM »

Personally, I'm afraid he will be presiding over a tremendous recession and financial disarray shortly, that you and most here will be all very eager to blame him for.  :-\ :-\ :'(

That's a strange thing to say. Seems to me that most here has been predicting recession and financial disarray regardless of who got elected, whether Clinton, Trump, Sanders, Stein, or Johnson.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 51