Loyalty to the State
POSTED BY: canttakesky
UPDATED: Monday, March 31, 2008 03:34
VIEWED: 19263
PAGE 2 of 27
Detention ?!
Shit, they deserve MEDALS.
I think it's funny that we *say* to them that peaceful protest and student government and civil disobedience work - but when they dare actually use them against us, we adults respond with authoritarian scorched earth tactics.
Just like dissolving student governments when they successfully block your draconian dress code regulations - such a wonderful way to accidently teach the TRUTH, that such constructs are pure fiction and the true face of The State is raw, naked force.
But that only works when you can make them more afraid of you, then they are angry at you.
Especially when they know what krazy-glue is.
(use your imagination, WE certainly did!)
And if you really want a frightening thought, ponder the fact that our younger generation has made their own contacts within this one - thus making them able to draw on far more knowledge and resources than our generations did.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I gotta say, I'm more and more impressed with some of the kids coming out of this latest generation. I don't know whether it's the influence of the internet, or just the way the pendulum swings, but they really seem to 'get' it.
My experience with the Ron Paul campaign was a real eye opener on that front. I'd heard a lot of younger people were involved (ironically, a lot of older people too - not as much in the middle), though I fully expected the enthusiasm from the kids to be faddish in nature. But they really got it, maybe even more than the older folks who were more interested in practical issues, taxes and the like. The younger people saw the hypocrisy we're up against and were ready to go toe-to-toe with it.
I came away feeling like those of us in the old guard have a real responsibility to respond to their call-to-action and keep the movement alive.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Am I? Your post reeks of "my and mine property rights". At the heart of almost every anarchist (Frem and HK excepted) is a person who reveres "property rights" because they equate "property rights" with "freedom". In your case, you'd shitcan a kid's freedom, holding them hostage by armed force (in essence) to maintain your property rights over them.
Yup, and I win. My kids don't belong to the state, they "belong" to me. If you want to characterize that as inhumane or callous feel free. But if you come to take my kids from me, you'd better be well armed. :) edit to clarify: I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Frem, you ARE a devil!
I think it's funny that we *say* to them that peaceful protest and student government and civil disobedience work - but when they dare actually use them against us, we adults respond with authoritarian scorched earth tactics.
Just like dissolving student governments when they successfully block your draconian dress code regulations - such a wonderful way to accidently teach the TRUTH, that such constructs are pure fiction and the true face of The State is raw, naked force.
But that only works when you can make them more afraid of you, then they are angry at you.
Especially when they know what krazy-glue is.
(use your imagination, WE certainly did!)
I love the way your mind works.---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think Serg is right. You are inappropriately framing the argument as “property rights.” That a father seeks to protect his children by providing them with the direction and shelter he understands they need for a safe and happy future does not mean he is securing his “property“ through “armed force.”
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Am I? Your post reeks of "my and mine property rights". At the heart of almost every anarchist (Frem and HK excepted) is a person who reveres "property rights" because they equate "property rights" with "freedom". In your case, you'd shitcan a kid's freedom, holding them hostage by armed force (in essence) to maintain your property rights over them.
Yup, and I win. My kids don't belong to the state, they "belong" to me. If you want to characterize that as inhumane or callous feel free. But if you come to take my kids from me, you'd better be well armed. :) edit to clarify: I believe you are inappropriately framing this issue was one of property rights.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Obviously, I think I'm framing the debate in an insightful way.
I think Serg is right. You are inappropriately framing the argument as “property rights.” That a father seeks to protect his children by providing them with the direction and shelter he understands they need for a safe and happy future does not mean he is securing his “property“ through “armed force.”
So, in your vision of all this Finn, where does the "mom" fit into all this? And "the kids"? Don't we have enough examples of fathers whose "understanding" of "shelter" and "direction" turn them petty tyrants who- without actually starving or physically damaging their kids - demean and strip the whole family of a sense of worth and freedom, turning women into baby-factories and kids into slaves?
Strangely, I find that the flip side to many anarchists is authoritarianism as well as corporatism. It's not so much they they want to do away with authority as much as they want to BE the authority.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nothing insightful about it. It’s just dishonest.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Obviously, I think I'm framing the debate in an insightful way.
I think Serg is right. You are inappropriately framing the argument as “property rights.” That a father seeks to protect his children by providing them with the direction and shelter he understands they need for a safe and happy future does not mean he is securing his “property“ through “armed force.”
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:well, unless you show me HOW I'm wrong, (yanno, actually engage in a discussion instead of making insulting and unsupported assertions) then I have no reason at all to pay attention to anything you just said.
Nothing insightful about it. It’s just dishonest.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Insulting and unsupported statements? Wow! This from the person whose entire argument is to claim that because a father loves their children it means they are “petty tyrants” who want to “demean and strip the whole family of a sense of worth and freedom.” So if you don’t want to pay attention to anything I say, be my guest.
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:well, unless you show me HOW I'm wrong, (yanno, actually engage in a discussion instead of making insulting and unsupported assertions) then I have no reason at all to pay attention to anything you just said.
Nothing insightful about it. It’s just dishonest.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn- the problems I'm having with Sarge's statement are several:
1) SARGE framed it in a "me and mine" way. I didn't put that in there, he did, and it seems to reflect a bias towards viewing family as "property".
2) I find no assurances that Sarge would tolerate any interference from "the outside" except in cases of outright physical abuse or neglect. And yet, as Frem well knows, there are myriad ways that a family can be abused besides being beaten, starved, or sexually assaulted.
3) I find no allowance for the view of OTHER members of the family. It seems that only Sarge and his weapon of choice really matter. It would seem quite natural that a family member with a shotgun (or whatever) could be viewed BY THE FAMILY not only as "protection" but also as a threat. Sarge seems to propose a strongly imbalanced family power structure.
---------------------------------
Let's party like it's 1929.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME