@ssu I've said many times that what actually passes for discussion and philosophy is in fact " public therapy" and venting due to low self esteem and frustration.
The consistent Authoritarion super ad hominem postage is generally a sign of lack of skills eloquence and paranoia.

Well said.

@ssu :up: Politics surely does bring out the worst In folks. I really think this kind of ad hominem distracts from Free Speech. But anyways,we cooler rational heads will march on Freely.

And a weird touch of scatological homoeroticism as well. Sign of the times, I suppose.

@NOS4A2 :cool: I did note the wild language! I shudder to examine it too closely. Who knows what insights one could glean?!

The problem is that some hear dog whistles everywhere.

Although they don't know anything about you, Asif, they have well fixed stereotype for you as you mentioned "Free Speech". Your know in the box of "people who speak of Free Speach".

Just like the weird dedication to a leader of a foreign country, our Canadian. Sign of times too? :snicker:

@ssu You are spot on! Dog whistles!!! I like it!
Ah,so "free speech" will now put me in some kind of "conservative" trope. If only they knew what politics I subscribe to!!!

Perhaps. I’m more American than Canadian. I suppose that’s the benefit of a multicultural society—I get to retain my culture at the expense of a new one.

Yep, you got it.

You have only made 20 comments on this forum and some people are eager to judge/disregard/condemn you from that.

Btw, my father told me when I was young and living in the US (Seattle, actually) that if I would stay in the US for couple of years more, I would become an American.

I believe him. Becoming an American is easy. Becoming a Finn is really hard. My wife has lived in Finland for 18 years and she is an citizen (finally) of the country, but she really doesn't feel as if she would be a Finn and thinks she will never be one.

@ssu Cheers for the heads up.
Its truely bizarre and patronising how people who claim to value truth and "oppose" authoritarian groups are so quick to get triggered by folks defending Free Speech. Pot kettle black.

It’s true. The melting-pot vs multicultural society is an interesting dichotomy. I have trouble identifying as Canadian despite my citizenship, no matter how much hockey or maple syrup I imbibe.

But out of respect for the OP we should return to the topic if you can think of any way to swing it in that direction.

If you examine the premise of "govt" it is absolutely Authoritarian no matter which wing or type you have.
A single elite group with a monopoly on law,taxation,violence,printed money,education yada yada.
Authority is having ONE Author a copy book of laws and traditions designed to restrict and treat people as purely economic resources for the benefit and stability of the said elitist authority.
No getting round this point. The current covid climate emphatically highlights what the motives and aims of govts have always been.
Freedom has ZERO relation to govern ment. (Latin for mind control.)

That's why it's so important to divide the people into hating each other.

Divide et impera.

@ssu 100% agree. But surely philosophers cant fall for divide and conquer. :chin:

It is especially the philosopher types who fall for it. They are the first ones. Not all, but some.

You only have to sprinkle a bit of a benign ideology, refer to a good sounding cause, and their all for it. It is this certain type of philosopher that absolutely loves and cherishes authorities and authoritarianism.

Perhaps these certain type of "philosophers" hope that they are now living at a crucial point of time where something extremely important is happening and that the society will change dramatically, if they will participate in giving the correct push. And of course, as they are participating in this great endeavor, it makes them important. Hence especially philosophers can opt for the radical change, so away totally with the old!

Just ask yourself, how many great philosophers have been taken as a cornerstone of an ideology of an political movement that has tried to radically transform the society and that in the end has utterly failed with only ending up just killing a mass of people on the way? We surely don't hold the actual philosophers responsible themselves, but surely someone has had to take the cause very seriously.

@ssu Oh I agree with that analysis. In fact I would go further and say philosophers/priests,are the investigators and bulwarks of all govts and ideological movements.
Guys like Plato and moses laid the written foundations for large scale fascism and elitism. I blame them 100% they knew what they were doing. And its that narcissism
and will to power that drove these men.
What I was saying in my post was ironic, thats why I put the thinkers emoji there. I'm suggesting these people considered "philosophers" great or otherwise are really Authoritarian rhethoricians and politic sophists concerned with ruling and dictating to society.
Real philosophers are concerned only with individual and Real Freedom.

I'm suggesting these people considered "philosophers" great or otherwise are really Authoritarian rhethoricians and politic sophists concerned with ruling and dictating to society.
Real philosophers are concerned only with individual and Real Freedom. — Asif

Well, don't blame Machiavelli for writing things as they were with power in his time. He made his most famous book for a genuine Prince, not the public. If someone correctly writes about an issue, it then really is about that issue.

We never should forget the time and place where these smart people lived and observed the World around them. They could not anticipate a totally different World that we now live in. So when you say "real philosophers are concerned only with individual and Real Freedom", notice you are talking from the viewpoint of today. Two or three hundreds years from now people might disagree with you just what philosophers ought to be concerned with now. With their hindsight of this century and the next one, they could make a convincing case why you are wrong.

It’s true. The melting-pot vs multicultural society is an interesting dichotomy. I have trouble identifying as Canadian despite my citizenship, no matter how much hockey or maple syrup I imbibe.

But out of respect for the OP we should return to the topic if you can think of any way to swing it in that direction. — NOS4A2

We can do that, NOS4A2.

Because we both aren't Americans, but do understand how important for Americans is the belief in the US: the belief in their constitution and the freedoms on what their country stands and what it means to themselves. And those ideals in my view do stand for anti-authoritarianism, for freedoms of the individual.

(After all, it's just a revolt against taxes that has made you separate. If a British king would and his administration would have played their cards better, "the 14th Colony" of Nova Scotia might be part of the large North American state now part a Commonwealth and you would living with your southern neighbors in the same country with a post stamps depicting Queen Elisabeth II. Totally possible in a not so alternate reality, in my view. Yeah, there wouldn't be any US, just a Canada and Mexico on it's border at the south.)

Yet if Americans see themselves as beacon of Freedom, they surely have to have self criticism to be open about slavery and discrimination and things like that they indeed have supported authoritarian regimes. Unfortunately if that criticism is the only thing mentioned, then it is easy portray the American experiment to be a lie and really just as authoritarian as other countries.

@ssu My meaning of a real philosopher is like a wise elder. Someone who has observed society and politics and seen how actually power works. Your example of Machiavelli is perfect. But machiavelli never wrote with a view to declaring ALL politics to be exploitative and therefore a rigged game. He wanted to be reform Italian politics,and by any means necessary to be honest.
My point is you cannot reform what is intrinsically Authoritarian and ruthless and so the real philosophers who see through this focus on individual freedom and truth. Think Guatma Buddha. Apolitical practical and concerned with human individual flourishing only.

My point is you cannot reform what is intrinsically Authoritarian and ruthless and so the real philosophers who see through this focus on individual freedom and truth. — Asif

I agree. People who believe that the existing forms of power and control are the only ones will have difficulties in thinking that things could be different.

@ssu Do you feel there is or could be any system that is not exploitative not Authoritarian?

Perhaps. I’m more American than Canadian. I suppose that’s the benefit of a multicultural society—I get to retain my culture at the expense of a new one — NOS4A2

Well, thank you NOS4A2.

Well, don't blame Machiavelli for writing things as they were with power in his time. He made his most famous book for a genuine Prince, not the public. If someone correctly writes about an issue, it then really is about that issue. — ssu

Machiavelli was, I think, bit, but not too much more culpable than Nietzsche, who wasn't terribly, but sort of culpable. "Machiavellianism" was terrible enough, I suspect, for self-respecting libertarian socialists to refer to it as "barbarism". In Plato's case, though I don't really know think that his ideas were cited in the creation of the Roman Empire, his ideas were not in keeping with the times, so to speak, as they did have direct democracy in Ancient Greece. He did have a lot better of attitudes towards women than a lot of other people at the time, though.

Because we both aren't Americans, but do understand how important for Americans is the belief in the US: the belief in their constitution and the freedoms on what their country stands and what it means to themselves. And those ideals in my view do stand for anti-authoritarianism, for freedoms of the individual. — ssu

I think that there's something to the ideals that inspired the American Revolution, but for American patriotism to have become so lost in jingoism, beginning, in this regard, more or less with the Vietnam War that I find myself rather unwilling to be willing to invoke anything other than the First Amendment in arguments over just what the democratic project is and how it is to be carried out. The United States has, since the Cold War, become sort of geo-political bale for most other nations in the world, which is how I can see where the resentment comes from. There's a quote from the film, Z, by a Communist who is affiliated with the Pacifist politician who gets assassinated. He says, "always blame the Americans, even if you're wrong." Because our Intelligence service, to my estimation, is responsible for the survival of the far-Right after the Second World War, there is something to that logic, but I have found that Europeans can become somewhat lost in an odd kind of anti-American European chauvinism even to the point of, proceeding from, perhaps, a veritable critique of Liberal democracy, becoming almost oddly anti-democratic. It's not everyone; that's just a thing that I've noticed.

Do you feel there is or could be any system that is not exploitative not Authoritarian? — Asif

I'm not who this question is addressed to, but, I'll go ahead and answer it. A belief system does imply that a person does a system, and, therefore, an order that does hazard becoming somehow regimated, of, well, beliefs. Even Anarchism, when it becomes an ideology, can become authoritarian. I'm of the opinion that people should be politically a-political and a-politically political, which is to say that they should be against Politics as such, as so much of it is comprised of a contest of ideologies, but not necessarily against Politics, as it does seem like it ought to be vaguely synonymous with something like "conflict resolution". Having found myself in more or less every circle on the Left, I've come the realization that some of what I suspect for most people who become a-political to suspect about Politics is true. Most political groups are only really sort of devoted to their cause and are just trying to use their supporters in some way or another. Politics, regardless as to what it should be, is comprised of kind of a lot of personal feuds, usually concerning political power, but, on more occasions than you might expect, can more or less be chalked up to male chauvinism, which most people have no real reason to engage in whatsoever. It is kind of just a lot of people shouting without having any real idea of what they're saying and everyone really does attempt to push everyone around. There are grains of truth to all of the common platitudes that you hear about Politics and other absurdities that people don't necessarily notice. Jacques Camatte, for all that there is that is veritable of his theories, and I do think that there are aspects of his theories that are veritable, really did kind of write Communism into being him living in his home in the wilderness. Even though I do sort of agree with Simone Weil, the prospect of actually abolishing all political parties does seem to be entirely absurd. What is a person supposed to do? Entry a political party with the sole intent of destroying it? How will the party become destroyed when you could just easily be kicked out of it? When you think about it all with an open mind, you come to a lot of absurd conclusions. They're not entirely true, but there are grains of truth to them that can be helpful to get across at times. Even being a-political is somewhat absurd, as effectively making it so that a person does not have to engage in Politics ends up involving quite a lot of Politics in the practice of doing so.

A governance that actually substantiates freedom, as it follows, equality, predicated upon nonviolence, the praxis in the creation of which should meaningfully invoke free association and solidarity, wouldn't, perhaps, have abolished authority entirely, but would be a step in the right direction in the general anti-authoritarian movement. It could be anything from a more participatory democratic Liberal democracy to the Commune of communes.

The difficulty for anti-authoritarians is how to deal with authoritarians. One would like to ban them, but alas it is impossible.

@thewonder I dont feel any system or group can govern without coercion or violence. All govts have military,police,taxation,judiciary and all govts enforce and legitimise themselves with force.
The entire ideology of politics is predicated on coercion and taxation. The only thing politics is good for to a philosopher is to criticise. The philosopher lives in the gaps of the state. And creates his own gaps. Mind the gap!

That’s one of the things I enjoy about western culture in general, and American culture in particular. It has more or less vanquished its monsters. We have recognized and transcended our crimes, and continue to do so. That’s something to be proud of.

Given that, a nation cannot forever identify with its monsters, especially when freedom won out over oppression. That seems to be the case with the anti-Americanism, and in my estimation, authoritarianism pervading the culture these days.

In so far that there is some sort of revolution or something, I actually have a plan for this. It's kind of nebulous as what I'm suggesting are basically ethical interment camps, but I do feel like it is the most humane solution to this problem. People who have abuse their positions of power and are likely not to wage a counter-revolution against whatever the new system of governance is could be placed in what I call "Communities in Isolation". It'd basically be like a cross between a white-collar mental institution and a retirement community. There'd only be two floors, you'd be able to go outside, there'd be activities such as music and arts and crafts, you'd be able to have visitors, there'd be comfortable beds, clean individual washing areas, good health professionals, good locally sourced organic food, a few televisions, good books in the library, video games, board games, cards, maybe even swimming, trips even, perhaps, basically anything that you could ever want for a mental institution to be like. In a way, it'd sort of be like a utopian planned community, but for people who have abused their positions of power, the purpose of which was to reform them. There'd only be two floors, with the bottom floor being the commons area wouldn't be too much of an issue because you wouldn't need to send that many people to them. The Central Intelligence Agency, for instance, only has 21,575 employees. Even if a fourth of them had to go to a Community of Isolation, the CIA, probably having the highest percentage of people who would need to placed in such a facility, that's only around 5,000 people. Let's say 40,000 people total, and that's kind of an overestimate. As the CIA would be dissolved, their 2.3 billion dollar budget could probably cover that by itself. They'd be so nice that anyone who is of such an ilk or whatever would just want to give whoever up in order to drop out of whatever the society that they're a part of is like. They could also serve as the model for prison reform. People'd probably only ever even be there for two to eight years. I haven't really done any research into how to actually carry this out, but, something like that, I think, could resolve the problem of what to do about the authoritarians. Putting them in ethical interment camps isn't the most ideal solution imaginable, as somehow convincing them to stop being authoritarians would be, but, as that'll take years for just one person, it's kind of the only ethical thing to be done. Even if you're okay with just killing them, which I'm not, you then inevitably have to think about how to get the military to decide not to fire upon its citizens in a revolution, eliminate them, in which case, when they could be placed in something like Communities in Isolation, why?, and, then, also have the military agree not to make you, then, subject to them when they just carried out the revolution for you, which is just far too nebulous to engage in.

With all that being said, though, I'd really prefer not to think about what an ideal society should be like in terms of what kind of ethical interment camp I intend to put people who are just currently incompatible with it or whatever in. Without there being systemic rewards for authoritarian behavior, I do think that, aside from special interest cases or whatever, the authoritarian personality type or whatever will just more or less disappear.


Coercion is impossible to do away with entirely given that there does not yet exist a perfect society, but it should always be being continually minimalized.

I also think this gaps idea is kind of interesting.

@thewonder You are only Free when you Dance in the gaps. Herr nietzsche expressed this idea but it wasnt original to him.
Society is one of those nebulous words.
Coercion is the original and only sin.

...ethical interment camps, but I do feel like it is the most humane solution to this problem. — thewonder

Haha. Let me know when the anti-authorities are in charge.

Anti Authorities in charge! Bravo! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :cool: