The phrase "corporation-state" gives me an eerie feeling. Sneaky fascism.

On 03.10.14 09:32, Odinn Cyberguerrilla wrote:
> Actually, there is not "must" to anything here. No-one has my consent
> to establish a notion of "government" (which, IMHO, is much better
> described by the term 'corporation-state') by stating we must (or should
> or shall) "expand our mutual definition" of it. In point of fact, since
> we are on the subject of definitions, one could argue that strictly
> speaking, the "government," or "corporation-state," or whatever (x, y,
> or z) you want to call the non-consensual point of reference to which
> you refer, does not meaningfully exist. It is a fiction which is used
> to emasculate (and hide the remains of) the truth of the process by
> which that fiction's adherents continue to function.
>
> The world will operate just fine without anyone's adherence to whatever
> notions you decide to create. Naturally, you'll still be able to find
> plenty of people who can be tricked into believing that they've granted
> your notion consent to exist and to have it be intricately woven into
> their lives.
>
>
> Define it or redefine it as you like, but the nature of humankind is
> such that there will always be despots, no matter whether they attempt
> to exert pressure and and excess of force on others physically, through
> their efforts to imprint old terms (such as "governance") upon the
> blockchain in hopes of somehow preserving them for antiquity, or through
> whatever other methods of coercion some might imagine and intend.
>
> I see this as a divergent point in the conversation. How did the old
> poem go? "Two paths diverged in a wood..... Goodbye."
>
> In closing, I wish to add the following, which was a contribution to one
> of my writings co-authored by an old friend:
>
> "If you become attached to the ship and love the ship, when you arrive
> at the shore of enlightenment will you disembark? Similarly political
> ideologies are all equally empty. People are imbued with the essence of
> justice, can recognize it, and have a root knowledge that transcends
> reason of what a just society will look like, even though it has yet to
> manifest itself on this earth. We build political ideologies and
> analysis in order to take us to this just society, but all too often
> fall in love with these ideologies, and treat them as if they are the
> just society. This misidentification of the vehicle for the destination
> leads to authoritarianism and the opposite of the just society. The most
> important part of the post globalization popular revolts is the
> identification, development, and expression of the people’s intention to
> live in a just society. The many vehicles or ideologies presented are of
> limited and waning importance. Whichever boat some one takes is not
> important, that all people arrive is."
>
>
> On 2014-10-03 00:13, Josh Walker wrote:
>> I believe they do, but to discuss them we must expand our mutual
>> definition
>> of "government". If we accept that government is a de facto monopoly on a
>> set of services, rather than an *involuntary* monopoly on goods and
>> services (enforced by the threat of deadly force, at present), we may
>> make
>> progress. You speak of Government, and I wish to merely discuss
>> government.
>>
>> Consider a new definition of government. Let us define our new government
>> as, a set of services where the price of consensus is less than the price
>> of dissent. In fact, the sad reality is that's already true today, which
>> our "enemy" also knows. Therefore our goal must be to shift that
>> balance in
>> the favor of dissent, without violating our ethical principles.
>>
>> The fragility of the individual human is the weak link in the creation of
>> sustainable systems of governance, whether anarchy, democracy, oligarchy,
>> etc. It is not easy to fight against the biological imperative for
>> survival, so we must temper the amount to which we blame "weaker"
>> minds for
>> succumbing to the incentives of corrupt systems.
>>
>> Put simpler, how do we engineer a superior set of incentives such that
>> simpler minds' incentives are *aligned* with the incentives of the
>> system's
>> superset?
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem
> _______________________________________________
> unSYSTEM mailing list: http://unsystem.net
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/unsystem