Hive Post Deleted - I No Longer Support This Blockchain
Hive Post Deleted - I No Longer Support This Blockchain
7 years ago in #anarchy by kennyskitchen (76)
$58.50
- Past Payouts $58.50
- - Author $46.37
- - Curators $12.13
235 votes
- adamkokesh: $45.72
- lukestokes: $4.11
- sashadaygame: $1.86
- tribesteemup: $1.83
- terrybrock: $0.69
- kafkanarchy84: $0.59
- ace108: $0.48
- teamsteem: $0.45
- intothewild: $0.24
- erikaharris: $0.21
- crowdfundedwhale: $0.15
- alchemage: $0.15
- enjoyinglife: $0.14
- finnian: $0.13
- kennyskitchen: $0.12
- steeminganarchy: $0.11
- tylerdav: $0.08
- minnowpond: $0.08
- lesliestarrohara: $0.08
- dbroze: $0.08
- and 215 more
Ah, Kenny, I absolutely love this post. You said many things I was trying to say, but you said them better. It has to be a dialectic, not a debate. I was actually looking for an image about that I saw a long time ago comparing debates to discussions and what the Greeks did to find knowledge instead of a winner. I love that. I think the way we demonstrate our peaceful, respectful disagreements speaks to so many people who are watching this movement from the outside, longing for freedom, but unsure how it will impact them personally. If they will be verbally attacked for having different opinions, then they may stay on the outside looking in.
Thanks Luke! It was a great pleasure to do it, been feeling the inspiration build up over the past few weeks, and after a ROUGH day yesterday (5 hour flight between two linebackers & ending up with strep throat & a GI virus), I actually woke up feeling great today, and dove right into this. It's been fun to watch my flow of motivation shift back and forth between writing & videos.
I think this is one of the most important parts. If we're communicating aggressively, not listening to each other, not respecting each other, then not only are we operating in the old paradigm, but there is a good chance that someone who may be ready for the message doesn't hear it because the messengers aren't coming across well. Anarchy is based in compassion, in respect for others, so it seems pretty common sense for the biggest faces of the movement to embody respect & compassion. "Do as I say, not as I do" doesn't work for the human brain.
Ugh! Strep throat and a GI virus sounds terrible. Glad to hear you’re feeling better. We’re finishing up our Puerto Rico trip in the next couple of days and I already want to come back. :)
Thank you for y our comments, Luke! Great ideas and yes, we need to stress the dialectic much more than the debate. Hope you are feeling better and have that strong voice back!
Interesting discussion. I think presenting voluntarism to a larger audience of statists is important. I think bringing people together in ways that do not have them compromise their values while trying to help all people better evaluate information may be a winning pragmatic combination to shutting down the leviathan.
Until we continue to communicate in such ways and react from wrong parts of ourselves the chances to achieve what we want to achieve will be decreased
Only the power of positive energy (love) can help us to free ourselves from the Matrix and actually change this world
If we would start loving ourselves in true ways and realize how young Ego really is (in contrary to our real selves), we would probably bring peaceful revolution in a single day
No hard fact or any kind of knowledge will help us until we - inhabitants of human suits realize how we are all one, I'm reflection of you and vice-versa.
We came here to experience love & joy, not to be a part of a this Corporate consumerism bullshit & compete with each other on who has better ideas
Unity is only way to go, in this physical realm.
And I feel the speakers should work in ways towards achieving frequency of love, in order so they can vibrate truly and bring real changes
When realizing how we are actually One we may finally be able to work in a way that is beneficial for everyone from the start, rather than waste times on debates and all kinds of Illusions made up by human.
In our history, the main victory against us was tricking us into believing how we are Human suit when in reality we are pure energy in the motion - light
Keeping that in mind, it is obvious how light should be our purpose and only by implementing light in every single aspect of our lives can we get that pure Divine energy that we so hard need to change this world in a way we want to
Peace with you Kenny amazing post, like your philosophy
Beautiful, thank you!
I agree, that the internal work of each, the focus on raising our vibrations and moving from fear to love is the most important thing. Even Larken focuses quite often about how this is a paradigm shift, a consciousness shift.
In conversations like this though, I generally try to stick to more materialist-reductionist-friendly language :-P
Very thorough Mr. Palurintano. The points you raise about antagonism and being respectful are so important. Whether we ever reach a voluntary society is one thing, but we all have the power to make a better world right now by being excellent to each other. I recommend people join @sterlinluxan's Compassionate Anarchy group on facebook and enjoy his work to learn more about it.
I liked what @jeffberwick said, basically, we don't know what will work so why not try anything. Larken made a lot of statements in the debate about what was impossible. In my experience, and yours too I'm sure, you never know what's possible until you try. I'm sure this campaign will change things for the better no matter what.
There are quite a few movements around the world more focused on local politics, such as the Ubuntu movement in South Africa. I do believe that movements like that can bring lasting change, provided they have the right systems in place.
Thanks Kenny, have a great day
Thanks brother!
YES! YES! YESSSSS!!!!
Exactly; and if that thing doesn't feel in alignment to us, we don't have to be the ones to try it. If someone else feels like trying some strategy (with the same goal/intentions), let them do it, learn from the experience, and keep moving forward. The word impossible isn't something I really let into my vocabulary much at this point; in general it is simply used in place of ackowledging a lack of understanding, or out of pessimism/lack of creativity.
Agreed, and that's the most important part.
Absolutely! Even just in the US there has been great success with projects like Community Rights, The Free State Project, and of course the worldwide Transition Network
Blessings brother! Hope you have a magical, inspirational year!!
This says it all for me:
"Are we going into a discussion to see who's right and who's wrong, or are we trying to expand & increase the whole of human knowledge & insight? Are we cutting each other down or lifting everyone up?"
Our solidarity is their Achilles heel.
Why do you guys seem so averse to the idea that some things are wrong, and that wrong should not/cannot be lifted up?
I thought the debates were great discussions, and feel that they were dialectics as well, but a synthesis between oil and water just isn’t possible, really.
Even when things are wrong, you can learn from them, and it's very rare to find things that are completely wrong.
Edward de Bono has the idea of a po, an idea which is only intended as a stepping stone to get to a solution. Even an idea which is contrary to reality can be useful in this way.
Personally, I love ideas, and I do my best to gather more of them. You never know how an idea is going to be valuable until you fully understand it, explore it, and even attempt to apply it, or its children.
Have a good one
Definitely.
And I’ve learned that to compromise foundations always leads to a compromised foundation.
Does the non-aggression principle apply to verbal aggression? Isn't the very idea of debate adversarial?
Perhaps it's just semantics but it feels better when good people are working towards common ground to find the truth and to solve problems than focusing on differences.
No, the NAP does not apply to words, unless someone is saying things you do not want said on your property and you ask them to stop/leave. You really should look into learning more about the foundations of voluntaryism.
This drives me nuts! No one is trying to avoid solutions or “focus on differences.”
It reminds me of someone saying
“Sure slavery is bad, but why not try to find some common ground with the slavemasters. They’re not all bad.”
You guys need to become comfortable with black and white at times, in my opinion.
Words have meanings. An apple is not an orange, no matter how much “common ground” the two fruits have.
Lying, for instance, is violence and an infringement on our unalienable rights as it attacks our reality. I'm a simple kind of person. I do not feel the need to know every definition because I only go by right and wrong. Words may not violate NAP by your definition. In my opinion, they should or the NAP is incomplete.
Your slavery analogy.. Who is trying to find common ground with the slavemasters? ?
I think black and white to a fault, my friend. I was watching one of your videos and you were talking what a good thing it was that there was disagreement (debate?) going on. That I was uncomfortable with because when people disagree, someone's right and someone's wrong (black and white). That certainly isn't the goal though, to disagree. The goal is the truth and for everyone to see it.
Theft of one's property sure seems like it would violate the NAP but according to you, it doesn't if you get conned out of your money... no violence... that's the rule right.. .words can't be violent.
what kind of a non aggression principle is that? either your logic is off or your principle is or both
With all due respect, and in love, I do not care at all if you are uncomfortable that ideas are being discussed.
I'm not against that idea, and obviously as anarchists we all agree that some ideas are wrong (like authority, aggression, etc). I left a large comment on your reply above going in-depth on this part of the conversation.
Voluntaryism asserts that non-consensual authority is wrong, yes. And Adam Kokesh says that he can gain authority via a majority vote. Direct contradiction there, which so many are afraid to address, for some reason. Maybe because he is a well-known figure?
Thanks. I'll check out your reply above.
Though I'm not an anarchist myself, I read a lot of anarchist stuff- in fact, one of the thinkers most influential for me is James C. Scott, author of Seeing Like a State. I highly recommend it if you're interested in environmental history or the evils that have come from elaborate central planning and utopian schemes.
One conclusion I have come to in regards to anarchy is that due to the fundamentally open and decentralized nature of anarchist political strategizing, it's generally a better plan from a pragmatic anarchist standpoint to encourage dropping out of the system. (As you encourage.) Political opponents of anarchists are just as able to use strategies dreamt up by anarchists as the anarchists are, often with more funding and political machinery behind it, giving them a definite edge.
That's a somewhat alien conclusion to me- much of my political philosophy is centered around ideas of civic engagement within the bounds of the status quo (a sort of secular "give Caesar his due"). From your part of the playing field, though, it's a pretty sensible strategy.
Awesome, I'll have to check him out!
Absolutely. By dropping out of the system we can focus all our energy on building the new one, rather than trying to make tweaks to the old. Plus, it's just so much more fun to be playing around in that sandbox of free creation and imagination than inside of the strict rules of someone else's game, trying to change it.
Ya, inside the political game, it's going to be pretty tough to keep up with entrenched, professional, generations-embedded players of the game. This is literally what they spend their lives doing, and their resources & networks are all focused around this game, so coming in as a newcomer, with less money, talking about ending the game sure puts one at quite a disadvantage.
You definitely should, it's probably the most thought provoking book I read all last year.
once again this is a great assessment my friend, and while I usually always find something to disagree with in everything that I read, I cant find much here that I am opposed to.
Specificially on the general theme of coming to understanding instead of scoring debate points or trying to 1-up the other person. Sure, there is such a thing as a right and wrong, but if each side goes into a conversation thinking that 100% of their ideas are correct, then there is no hope in either side gaining any understanding. The fact that the debate format gets peoples egos wrapped up in this makes matters even more difficult, because people are always playing to the crowd.
We should be firm in our convictions about what we believe, while at the same time keeping an open mind that we could be wrong.
If conversations were approached this way, I think that both sides would go away learning something, even if their minds arent changed on the root topic
Exactly, well said @johnvibes. Great write-up, Kenny.
Thank you John! That means a lot to me, as you are one of those folks whose take on life and philosophy I greatly respect and enjoy.
That's such a great point! Nobody has to give their idea(l)s, or think that they are incorrect, but by being open to the idea that they may be wrong, even just about some piece of the puzzle, the conversation opens up greatly, as seeking truth becomes the goal, rather than proving that "I'm right and you're wrong"
Some of my most profound breakthroughs have come from the times I've been bouncing back and forth between people who hold many opposed beliefs... and most of the rest have been during conversation with people I disagreed about many things with :-)
Anybody who still says person x cannot be elected after Trump and Brexit must have their head so deep in concrete that it's coming out if their ass.
Adam can be elected. The biggest obstacle is the 2 party system. Trump didn't run as an idependent or part of a obscure party, he used the republican party to get him in.
If somehow a 3rd party could be established with the right people then this could be a alternative.
Trump proved it can be done.
Do you honestly believe that the American electoral process isn't a hopelessly rigged, corrupt system? In my opinion, it is. I truly believe that no one's vote means anything. I think that the deep state intended that Trump prevail all along. If only to insure that the left gain more power and take over when they deem it appropriate.
To continue to believe that there is any legitimacy in this system is, again, in my opinion, playing right into their hands.
Trump didn't win because he was the best America had to offer, he won because Hillary was damaged goods. Think back to the 2008 election. Obama didn't just beat Hillary he dismantled her, this tall mulatto with big ears took away what Hillary thought was rightfully hers for the taking, all Trump's team had to do was study that and replicate it and Trump did it. To add to it he was a celebrity and Americans whether they like to admit it or not like celebrities and this whole hollywood thing. Surely his TV persona helped him in some way. Also he made a lot of money or atleast people think he did and again Americans love money and success stories. Hillary the destroyer of nations was no real alternative.
No way the deep state wanted Trump or even foresaw his victory. He spent his first months as candidate being laughed at by his opponents and the media and having people say he'l be gone in a couple months and he has no chance of winning, none, z e r o.
Obama ran on change and he from the beginning was a fraud, he was what Bush and Hillary represented just that he created a fake image like some rock star celebrity promising hope and change and peace etc. Trump on the other hand was brutally honest even obscene (eg he said he would torture terrorists etc.(side info Obama torutured using Jsoc but that's a whole other discussion). He insulted, he accused, he bullied, he said he will do this and that, when he was starting the wall the media was like what he is actually doing what he promised well we can't have that lol. Ofcourse Mexico will never ever pay for the wall atleast not willingly. Not that they would be able to stop Trump from imposing sanctions or some other painful consequences if they refuse, howrver most likely US tax payers will end up paying for the wall if it ever gets built the way people envision it which is doubtful.
The US system is corrupt as Hillary proved when she manipulated the system to defeat Bernie Sanders who really was the popular democratic option. Bernie got robbed by Hillary and everybody knows it. That fact alone should be enough to discredit the democratic party.
The fact that the US system only furthers 2 parties interests is in my opinion some form of institutionalized corruption of the worst kind and the media is at the heart of that discrimination. How in the hell does a country of allegedly 300million people put forward only 2 people on debate stages. 2 people. And the media rather than to allow other parties a chance replicates this discrimination every election like it's normal. They ofcourse fear repercussions and they also fear destabilizing the US system. If it's 2 candidates you know what could happen but what if it's 5 or 10 from 5 different parties. It obviously wouldn't destabilize the USA but rather force the democrats and republicans to perfom better but the American people have failed to achieve this.
You put a man on the moon but you cannot put multiple parties on a final debate stage at a US Presidential election rather than just 2 people. Man I would have loved to see Jesse Ventura up against Trump and Hillary on a debate stage, Trump likes to get dirty and Hillary too but Jesse is a wrestler and navy seal and he is a very big man who knows how to talk. He could have beat them. Instead America ended up with the bad and the worse. You pick which one is which.
wow. just wow. gonna respond w a video. great piece.
I replied to @jeffberwick's interview of Larken and Kokesh simply. I love all three as friends. The same love is felt for Graham. We are all friends. All of us are, as I like to call us, Liberty Professionals.
I'm reminded of the interview of Friedman's son too where he suggested many different approaches should be welcomed to further individual liberty. That's all I would ask too. Is what you are doing furthering individual liberty or not?
That's the consistency I seek from friends of our common cause for individual liberty. We are all in the same battle, and we should be fighting shoulder to shoulder against our enemies, not against each other. Focusing our blows towards our common enemy only makes sense, right?
When Adam was arrested and @thejohalfiles gave 6K in donations for bail, the funds being donated to the Libertarian Party instead really bothered me. It was not my money, and I didn't donate it. Maybe it is none of my business how it was spent. I would have much rather seen that money returned however.
Am I wrong for being bothered by how that went down? School me here if I'm out of line. I won't mind it. Perhaps I'm the only one that found that to be strange?
We cannot fix the system from within the system. That's not going to happen. There is no new thesis to be gained by debating the issue either in that regard. Either we are trolling the system as I believe Ron Paul was doing, or we are being inconsistent and our motivations are not pure.
The more death and destruction the system spreads, the less I want anything to do with it too. It's like a video game that has frustrated me too much and is now dead to me. I cannot stomach playing along anymore. Except, real people are dying, and real people like Ross are rotting in cages. It isn't a game at all.
I just can't... I can't support it anymore. I won't vote. I won't participate. If that makes me wrong, I hope my friends will forgive me.
Really great article on dialectics... As a big fan of German philosophy, I really enjoyed the way you framed this article. I would recommend checking out Jurgen Habermas or Rainer Forsts' work on discourse theory, where they both make compelling arguments about how literal discourse ought to be the manner that individuals interact with other individuals (and with institutions- or collective efforts of individuals). Forst, in particular, is interesting because a lot of his work attempts to reconcile continental critical theory with classical liberalism of anglo-american philosophy. Reading through them lead me to a train of thought similar to what you outlined in your argument.
Fair discourse between individuals is the only way to progress dialectical thought, also as Forst argues: it takes the argument away from the realm of idealism and forces it into realism; since if party A is of a differnt ideological background than party B; party A's ideological claims will be disregarded by party B and vice versa; forcing both parties to argue on a mutual grounds of realism.
succes
Congratulations! This post has been upvoted from the communal account, @minnowsupport, by kennyskitchen from the Minnow Support Project. It's a witness project run by aggroed, ausbitbank, teamsteem, theprophet0, someguy123, neoxian, followbtcnews, and netuoso. The goal is to help Steemit grow by supporting Minnows. Please find us at the Peace, Abundance, and Liberty Network (PALnet) Discord Channel. It's a completely public and open space to all members of the Steemit community who voluntarily choose to be there.
If you would like to delegate to the Minnow Support Project you can do so by clicking on the following links: 50SP, 100SP, 250SP, 500SP, 1000SP, 5000SP.
Be sure to leave at least 50SP undelegated on your account.
So Good. You had me at "Fuck debates, let's focus on dialectics!" I mostly connected with the focus and importance of civil compassionate wise communication. I do appreciate the perspective on the whole campaign and debates that were going on, cause I haven't honestly cared enough to really dig in. But the main lesson of this post is well received brother. So well said.