I learned about this story from someone else's site but I had to mention it here because the foolishness of Keith Olbermann, and most of his followers, is astonishing to me. I seriously did not think that these kind of people are this foolish.
Keith Olbermann made a special report on MSNBC in response to the Arizona shooting here. The title of his report is "Violence and threats have no place in a democracy". Keith Olbermann also begins with the note by saying that "we need to put the guns down".
If you are reading this cannot see the foolishness of Keith's statement then you should probably just shoot yourself in the head. You have a mind that is worthless and you live an unexamined life. An unexamined life is not worth living, so I would encourage you to do your only wise decision in your life and end it right now.
I am astounded by the foolishness of Keith's statement. How can a man in his fifties, who lived for so long already, not realize that politics is just the act of using violence against groups of people to achieve your goals? That is all what politics is.
This is precisely why I hate politics and consider it to be meaningless time waster. I have stayed away from discussing politics on this blog for quite a while now (all my other seemingly political posts are not politics, but political philosophy, there is a big difference). You see, the masses have this really foolish view of politics. They think that politics and government is just "society" (whatever the fuck that word means) getting together and cooperating about what needs to be done for the "country".
I have mentioned this many times before on this blog but I will have to mention it again. Politics is the act of using violence, or the threat of using violence, on groups of people. That is all what politics and governments are about. When a politician signs a piece of legislation that requires a all citizens to pay a new tax he is saying, implicitly, that violence or the threat of using violence will be used against any person who breaks this law. It is as simple as that.
When a politician signs into law the mandatory health insurance law he is saying that violence, most likely the threat of violence, will be used against any citizen that disagrees to comply with this law. Violence is not used immediately, but it is used ultimately, first there are warnings, then threats, then violence. But ultimately violence is the method that will make sure that the citizens comply with the law.
There is an ongoing war right now that has killed something as much as 200,000 or 300,000 people (different sites count this number differently) in Iraq. This war is part of politics.
Everything about politics is the call to use violence ultimately. Politicians are simply people who direct the flow of violence to one aspect of society. Sadly, most politicians do not realize this, they are not philosophers after all, if they did truly and honestly realize it, they will most likely not be politicians. Sadly, most political commentators do not realize this either, they too are not philosophers, if they did truly realize that politics is just a game of violence against citizens they would most likely stop being political commentators or at least being pro-peace activist commentators.
It is complete foolishness to suggest "we need to put the guns down" when all of our society and most of the world is organized with guns pointing to people's faces. Of course, I do not mean literally pointing in people's faces, if you smart enough you would realize what I mean by this metaphorical language.
Why is it okay for the state to use violence or the threat of violence against people, but not individuals? I do not understand. It makes no sense to me. Saying that politics should not contain any violence is like saying sex should be practiced by prostitutes, and it is like saying drinking should be removed from bars. How about you also screw for virginity while you are at making politics free from violence.
At least statists, in political philosophy, are smart enough to see the gun of the state. They have some really strange justifications for it, and terrible double standards, but at least they acknowledge it. I do not have to sink so low and explain to them that politics is just a game of violence of one group against another group.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Violence in the service of society is different than violence in the service of yourself. They are not equivalent. When an American Soldier kills a Nazi Soldier, it is not the same thing as when a private U.S. citizen kills another private U.S. Citizen. You want to compare all acts based upon the result, but the law has a great deal more nuance then that and civilized people recognize that its not black and white. When the police incarcerate someone for tax evasion, it may be true that violence is used (handcuffs etc.), that is not the same thing as wanton murder.
ReplyDeleteIt is you who lead an unexamined live. In your quest to be intellectually consistent with your hair brained views on libertarianism, you leave behind civilization and become simply a crude caricature of a real person and an uncouth boor.
You missed the entire point of the post. It is foolish to say that "let us go to a whorehouse and not have sex" just as it is foolish to say "let us be peaceful and avoid using any violence in politics".
ReplyDeleteIt is foolish because politics is about using violence to organize society. How can you seperate the nature of politcs, which is using violence, from itself?
Now you may think it is a good idea to organize society with a barrel of a gun. You may think it is a good idea for a select group of people to have guns and use them on everyone else for breaking laws that they make. You may stand behind that idea.
But to then say that "let us be peaceful and civil in our discussions" is self-contradictory statement to make when you advocate the use of violence in a whole lot of issues.
If you truly and honestly believe that violence (politics) is a way to address and deal with social problems then believe in that. Stand by that idea and preach it to the world, well, you do not need to preach it most people already inadverdently accept it.
But do not then say that you want a civil political discussion. That is just a self-contradictory statement. You believe that a select group of people have a right to use violence against another group of people, do not then tell me, the Keith followers, that you want a "peaceful society of civil political discussion". Rather say, "we can a society in where non-state needs to be peaceful and civil, but the state can be violent", - that is honest and consistent.
"In your quest to be intellectually consistent.":
Oh no! How dare I be consistent! Consistency is such a great evil. I must run away from all this rational thinking, consistency and trying to get rid of double standards. How dare I do that?! I must retreat to a life of contradictions and inconsistencies, because that is the right way to life.
"you leave behind civilization."
Civilization is not the state.
Is it acceptable to assassinate a leader because you oppose their policies? I say no. The government disagrees, because they regularly threaten or carry out such actions.
ReplyDeleteNo, putting a person in jail is not identical to wanton murder. It is identical to locking a person in a cage for not consenting to be robbed.
The problem with this supposed distinction between public service and individual wants is that the government is entirely in the service of private wants.
Oh, and also, there are other possibilities. I can also claim that my actions are in the 'public service' just as easily as if I wore a tin badge and a black shirt. Why do you believe one claim and not the other? Is it more acceptable if I'm robbing the bank (of their ill-gotten money, by the way) to give the money to the poor?
ReplyDelete"But to then say that "let us be peaceful and civil in our discussions" is self-contradictory statement to make when you advocate the use of violence in a whole lot of issues. "
ReplyDeleteNo it isn't. What I am advocating is the normally functioning democratic state having a a monopoly on violence. Yes, the people may have the right to resist the state if it is unjust to the citizens but if there are courts of law and due process, at least in theory there is an opportunity to redress your grievances. There is nothing contradictory about that argument. I know you don't believe it, but in my view, in a democratic state, the people are represented by the government. However imperfect that representation is, it is still way more representative of the general will than any particular individual's ideas.
"Is it acceptable to assassinate a leader because you oppose their policies? I say no. "
I say yes. It would have been acceptable to assassinate Adolf Hitler. It is not acceptable for the state to assassinate one of its own citizens however, and if such death occurs in a democratic state, it is not legal.
"Oh, and also, there are other possibilities. I can also claim that my actions are in the 'public service' just as easily as if I wore a tin badge and a black shirt."
Unless you are an authorized representative of that state you are limited in your ability to use force...as you should be.
"No it isn't.":
ReplyDeleteThen reject my argument. I made an argument to why politics is all about violence, and the threat of violence, in organizing society. That is all what politics is, and that is all how the state functions. That was what I said.
In your response to me you did not explain why politics is free from the use of violence. Nowhere did you refute what I said. You rather went on explaining how a democracy functions. What you need to do to to refute me is to explain that politics is civil and peaceful - which it is not.
"if there are courts of law and due process, at least in theory there is an opportunity to redress your grievances.":
Let us ask the government is if judges itself to be legimate or not. What a great idea. While we are at it how about we also allow corporations to decide for themselves if they are liable damages or not. Next time a corporation dumbs toxic waste into a river how about we ask it itself if it considers itself guilty?
"It is not acceptable for the state to assassinate one of its own citizens however, and if such death occurs in a democratic state, it is not legal.":
There is a quotation by Martin Luther King that I consider to be epic win in response to you, 'remember that what Hitler did in Germany was legal'.
"However imperfect that representation is, it is still way more representative of the general will than any particular individual's ideas.":
ReplyDeleteIn a way anarchy is the most democratic system that there is. Because the people can choose by themselves into what they want to be represented by. If anything at all, or if they just want to be complete loners with no interaction with people. From this point-of-view I am more democratic than you are.
But whatever all "democracy" really is, is a euphemism, for a beauracratic power heierachy that people casts votes into. Of course, when said that say such a system is immediately seem quite primitive. But when people say "democracy" is when "the people rule", they are just using political euphemisms to hide this more honest description of a democracy.
I say yes. It would have been acceptable to assassinate Adolf Hitler. It is not acceptable for the state to assassinate one of its own citizens however, and if such death occurs in a democratic state, it is not legal.
ReplyDeleteAre you joking? You're on here constantly defending a president who claims precisely this right. The government routinely kills citizens.
Also, if it is acceptable to assassinate politicians because of their policies, what is wrong with Palin and Angle's comments? Or do you only allow such behavior by those in power, not those recently in power?
Unless you are an authorized representative of that state you are limited in your ability to use force...as you should be.
Why? The state is as surely ruled by private interests as I am. Even in your imagination, it only represents the will of a slight majority of the population. Why are the rest unable to act in the public interest?
"Even in your imagination, it only represents the will of a slight majority of the population.":
ReplyDeleteI am sure you agree with me but I wanted to mention this more explicitly but it is an important idea. Statists, somehow, assume that the state is "for the public". By what madness do they get this idea from? People, as a general rule, act primarily for their own self-interests (not that that is inherently a wrong or bad thing). A state is a power structure with people in it. How can one possibly believe that these people in power will care more about the citizens then they care about themselves? They, just like everyone other person in the world, put their self-interests first. I can understand that a friend can care for his fellow and consider his friend's interests above his own (though this is still rare). But by what madness, can someone possibly propose that the person in power would not act to seize more power to to care for a stranger he has never met in his entire life?
The same problem persists under a democracy even assuming a democracy functions the way it is supposed to function (which is very often not the case). First, for the same problem that was mentioned about. Second, the voters are voting for not the interests of their fellow man but for themselves. Market failure is when everyone pursuing their self-interests leads to less utility for everyone in the group - which does happen. But what about government failure? Why is that never mentioned? That is, voters pursuing their own interests that leads to less utility for everyone in the group?
"How can one possibly believe that these people in power will care more about the citizens then they care about themselves? "
ReplyDeleteNo one believes that they do care more about others than they do about themselves. However...and this is the crux of the matter; the degree to which they care has a lot to do with the make up of the government. If the government is designed so that power is controlled by a small elite it is more likely to reflect the specific interests of a particular clique. All governments however are composites. To the extent that power is diffuse and the number of participants is large it will more accurately reflect the society that it represents. That is the essence of the democratic idea and it should be simple to understand. In the U.S. there are many sources of state power and many divisions, therefore in my opinion it can be said to roughly approximate the publics desires in many ways. That it does not in more ways should be the subject of reform not abolition.
"Are you joking? You're on here constantly defending a president who claims precisely this right. The government routinely kills citizens. "
Puzzled...I have never been on here defending the President. I think you are leaping to assumptions rather than reading what I write. I don't blame you for being puzzled though because you are misunderstanind basic terms in the debate. The government in certain states (as representing the general will) has the right to execute its citizens if they committ heinous crimes. If that is what you mean by killing its citizens, I would suggest that this is a different moral category than one citizen murdering another. It is unfathomable that you do not see that. Other situations where the government kills its citizens (such as during riots or in error during police operations to apprehend criminals) is subject to review; however imperfect. It is also NOT in the same moral category. The black and white approach that a persons death by anothers hand is always equivalent is an absolute falsehood.
I would leave this with one final point. I became friendly with a person who is a guard at Rikers Island. He regailed me with tales of his 15 years their, where a certain percentage of the population is so motivated by violence that they are incapable of many ordinary human empathic emotions. A defense of libertarianism must begin with an explanation as to what to do with these people; without recourse to state power; for with state power, we are only discussing degrees, not philosophies.
"No one believes that they do care more about others than they do about themselves.":
ReplyDeletePeople do believe in that. I used to believe in that. People always talk about how "the government is the people and it our will". So people do believe in that. They might admit they do not believe in that when you explain to them what stupidity it is to believe in such an idea, but they do think the state is for the masses and what they want.
You did not answer my question. Let us say that people voted under a democracy to get something done. This president is supposed to act on what was voted upon, but what is telling you that his primary interest is that vote and not his own self-interests for more power or more money? The same vices that run a business run a state too, because the state is also a business, except that it earns its money outside the market system.
" I became friendly with a person who is a guard at Rikers Island. He regailed me with tales of his 15 years their, where a certain percentage of the population is so motivated by violence that they are incapable of many ordinary human empathic emotions. A defense of libertarianism must begin with an explanation as to what to do with these people; without recourse to state power; for with state power, we are only discussing degrees, not philosophies.":
ReplyDeleteYou let them run around in the street killing people and raping little puppies. Because we all know that libertarinaism do not believe in a legal system. We know they do not believe in any kind of defense. They are just utopians who think the world is magical and there will be no problems at all. They do not believe in any kind of court system either. So I say arm them with assault rifles and let them march in the streets.
Do you know that many of the gaurds become the monsters that they watch over? The same lack of various emotions that inmates lack the gaurds lack also. Does anything need to be done with the gaurds? I do not think so, being a psychopath is not necessarily wrong. I am a pyschopath myself, when I did wrong to others I did not feel guilt for my actions. I appologized to them and tried to fix the problem but I did it not because I felt guilt for my actions but rather because I concluded it is the right thing to do, also in the process of trying to make him feel better I thought to myself how irrational and motivated by passions people are that I have to waste my time going through with this. But as a psychopath I am not a dangerous person.