Well done, David! Thank you! Covered so much and so much one could comment on. I loved seeing that George Washington quote. What a great way to say it..."liberty abused to licentiousness." Appreciate the props to capitalism, too, which has long been gone from "...these united States."
Over the years, I've given thought to the Acton quote, too. I reframed it as, "It is not that power corrupts...it is that the corrupt seek power...over others." And we've all got a bit of that beast in us. It is through self-mastery alone that we keep that impulse in its place.
George Washington led an amazing and inspiring life. Thank you for reading and commenting. It is curious how much Climate Change, and COVID policy have in common, and how they both rather well and sadly illustrate this post.
"And we've all got a bit of that beast in us." Yep, "Those of us too good for this world, are adorning some other"
Hi Bob, may I slightly rephrase your question? "Is there a difference between abuse of power and agency?
Absolutely. The abuse of power has many chains of agency, and manifest in ANY system. In statism that corruption may easily manifest in government, In capitalism such abuse may manifest in corporate corruption and monoply. When statism is wedded to corporate globalism, or facism on a global scale, the abuse of power manifests in both, and this is todays threat. ( There are signs that they are now battling each other, the honeymoon may be over, as the financial institutions may see CBDC as somthing that exclues them.) In the days of Religious rule, abuse of power manifested under the titled, "authority of God" and the Church became the agency that power abuse manifested in.
The singular cause is however the same regardles of the the various chains of agency, individual corruption of the human heart and mind expressed as "power OVER others". However some social/political systems are more conducive to allowing expression of said corruption. The foundational principles of US government were specifically designed to place severe limits on that power.
Hello David, and thanks for the detailed analysis. You say so many good things, like - What works can rightly be called wisdom. But I won't list them all. I am not paid to be a researcher, so I will just share my opinions. I will also repeat some of your quotes, to relate to your article.
1. You don't need a state to have power over others. All you need is an army with better weapons than those around you. And that will back up all your political, economical, technical and financial weapons. The man of European origin, (light skinned) was always a genius at perfecting the next generation of weapons, and thus he was number one at colonizing the world. These European nations, and thus America, were social systems that engendered tyranny over others, for many 100's of years. There wasn't a zone on earth were they didn't work their mastery.
Many of the things you have said in the first few paragraphs sound right and like, that is what we want. But what is right on the micro level, the individual, may not be so ideal on the macro (corporate) level. Conflation between these two is to be avoided.
People confuse a government as an instrument of oppression, but with or without those institutions that we call government, there are the men behind those institutions that tyrannize the population, (and the world). I believe that they can do it more readily without a government, or with one that is stripped to the bare bones. For all intent and purposes there really exists no government; It's a guise, or a curtain to hide the real workings, and there are only those family dynasties that have their fingers in everything. You said it perfectly, "with government, (where the effect is often the polar opposite of the stated intent)."
Therefore libertarians have either a very shallow analysis, have basic assumptions that skip over what is really happening, or they work directly for the oligarchs.
2. You mention two social systems. One is the western capitalist recognition of the right to seek self gain. You did say that things were worse before, in that the vanished past of all nations are dark with many shames, yet there is much for each nation to be proud of. You may have referred to the past, although I think it has devolved much lower than that, even now. I take that from your acknowledgement of Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition, lobby groups looking for special privileges, banking methods that rig the monetary system and allow leverage of assets tantamount to gambling in fractional reserve banking on steroids, government decisions making risk public but profit private, government sponsored enterprises, and un-elected three letter agencies that, under direct supervision and authority of government regulators, are constantly working their magic against the population. You said that the US form of government is designed to prevent the formation of such tyrannies. But since these exact people ARE THE GOVERMENT, The present system is not going to cope.
The US congress cannot change, (by design). I have read a freshman's assessment of what he discovered cannot work in congress. The way committees are locked up for decades, nothing unapproved will be released for a vote. You will never have a position of a decision maker unless you play the congressional game. But more up to date is the Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jordan Peterson. She said at the freshman orientation meetings you are told, no matter what you believe or what is good for your constituents, you must support the party line and vote YES for the bills we submit to you. You must not seek to collaborate with the opposing party, because then they will then get some of the credit for anything good. You must make promises to lobbyists to get them to donate to our party. You don't need to read or present any bills. The rest of your time you can try to raise donations and get yourself reelected.
Then you mention number two;
where the “let live” part is easily forgotten in socialism, and both the “let live” and even the “LIVE” part are discarded in murderous Godless communism . You even give the numbers. (There are also other sources of numbers, each execution with the name and the city of birth), the Soviets were meticulous at recording the details. You also counterpoise self-gain against enforced selflessness, which I don't see as having any historical relevancy. There are many other factors, which would needlessly draw out this comment. I have no love for the Soviets, but I prefer an honest assessment.
Are these the two choices then?
Perhaps this is "real politic"? Is it what is happening on the ground?
Not really.
Excuses are always suspect; That Capitalism is in many respects is fundamentally honest, and that "anomalies are NOT caused by a capitalist republic, but are a perversion of it caused by the love of power over others, and the lack of cultural wisdom. The love of power for the purpose of subjugating others for one’s own ends cannot be removed by any government mandate or system. All harms are caused by the dark side of people."
In other words, Capitalism is distorted by men, but men are not distorted by capitalism? Something to look into for sure.
I suggest that we look at the state of the world today, (I think it is disintegrating, but you may not believe so?), and say;
"This is the result of social system A and social system B cohabiting the planet." Is there any chance that one of these systems will reverse this situation??? Or do we have to innovate something entirely new? If so, there is no sense defending either / or.
3. Back to weapons; For millennia societies were molded by military might. Not seeking power in an immoral way was not part of anyone's formula. In fact, it wasn't held as immoral. Even now, some major western politicians have recently said, " we have all these armaments, why not use them?" I think that it is safe to admit, that Stalin saved the world from nuclear winter, when in 1954, (after his death), the Soviets exploded the hydrogen bomb. We have had 70 years of "deterrence". (Oh, America would never have done that? But they did do it; to prevent Russia from invading Japan. Japan was not allowed to surrender to the Russians, which would have happened pretty quickly with conventional weapons.)
The trouble with deterrence is that if one nuke goes off, IT MUST BE ANSWERED, or deterrence is a sham. Quite a few of our esteemed capitalist leaders state repeatedly that their goal to dismember Russia. (Is that a threat?) President Putin said clearly, "Let them try". Go for it boys! Proxy wars are the most evil action on earth, because such a conflict cannot end. Just pump more bodies into the hopper. Even when those will become NATO bodies, (which will be more just), they'll be European, and not American. So the tyranny goes on.
Now in little over one year there are more military casualties (counting both sides), than America has sustained including the Korean war, from 1950 until 2023. Very likely by the end of this year or next, there will be more military losses than American has had from year 1900 - 2023. This honest capitalism won't be satisfied with anything less.
I doubt sincerely that they can dance around this one though. Then the next article is about China. I think, reading your positive appraisal of our system, Americans want to go for it, they want to "win".
Let them try. I am not out to save the world.
4. About deterrence: It seems that (reckless) western leaders no longer believe in the power of the Atom. It can never happen, because the prevailing meme is that just the first use of nukes would lead to the immediate destruction of planet earth. IS THAT TRUE?
Something funny went off in Beirut, and nobody really gave a damn. They were comfortable with the fable that properly aged-fertilizer goes nuclear in its power. One must look at all the scenarios. Some nuke, somewhere, is bound to go off. That will certainly change the calculus. If it goes off within Russia, some other country will certainly be trashed.
Will a more sober analysis emerge? I think that we will find out within our lifetime.
Thank you for reading and your considered response. I will give fair thought and share my perspective as well as I am able...
You write..."You don't need a state to have power over others. All you need is an army with better weapons than those around you. And that will back up all your political, economical, technical and financial weapons. The man of European origin, (light skinned) was always a genius at perfecting the next generation of weapons, and thus he was number one at colonizing the world. These European nations, and thus America, were social systems that engendered tyranny over others, for many 100's of years. There wasn't a zone on earth were they didn't work their mastery."
Response...Yes, "Power over others" comes in countless forms, remember I said most all common crimes reflect this corruption robbery, rape, murder, fraud, gangs, organised crime, etc... Yet you seldom if ever, have armies without nations. Now we may disagree a bit about the "Light skinned" man being particularly different then other races. I think it fair to say that globally all cultures and races were at one time almost gangs, or fiefdoms, engaged in violent battle with their own. Asia, Africa, many races and cultures, like native Amerricans, and South America, all were not exempt. As cultures grew and organised there has been a steady expansion of larger everything, including war making. Ghengis Khan certainly amassed a large kingdom. Japan with China was extremely violent. A western perpective is far to often, self focused.
I related the history of Alexander the Great and his experience in India for good reason.
Yes, on one hand it appears to support your assertion about "Light skinned men" yet if any nation was an exception, then it is possibly India, yet even India they has not been exempt from wars and internal conquests. The Orient has a long and bloody history. Islamic wars have been endless, and as paraphrased, the vanished past of all nations is dark with many shames. It is true that in the last two centuries or so the European nations colonised more, and led the world in developing ever more powerful weapons. They also developed ever more useful technology. Yet I would maintain that many Asian nations likely would have done conquest likewise, had they developed those means of violence, and no race is a complete exception. As a saint said, "Those of us too good for this world, are adorning some other."
Dear David A. I feel guilty that my few opinions made you work too hard. Well, thanks for all that effort. I'll try to be more clear.
I know very little about ancient American history nor African history. I don't think it has ever been researched in depth, like with Europe and Asia. So I have studied the latter two, and yes there was a lot of killing in all cultures. With the only means of production being human labor, I believe slavery was practiced everywhere. (Even a donkey needs a slave to lead it.) Much of the warring Asian tribes (steppe people), killed all opposing soldiers during and after a battle. All women and children were captured and sold into slavery. That was one of the most valuable parts of the booty. Younger captured children were trained as a future soldier class, (not made citizens). Concubines multiplied the population by orders of magnitude in a few decades. In the many 100's of years of wet cycles the Gobi desert bloomed and the herds multiplied fantastically feeding the hoards of new people. New breeds of horses were developed that were much superior for invincible soldiers.
The Middle East also employed genocide. It is even in the bible, that you had to kill all the goats and chickens too, not just the all the people. And all the other peoples practiced the same. Rome for sure. Killing was the way to solve problems with neighbors.
But the give-away history (that you acknowledge in your response), is that Europe colonized the rest of the known world for 100's of years. The rest of the world did not colonize Europe even for one year. The mutual violence is a matter of degree. (OK, the Ottomans went into Spain.)
You have proposed that IF - - - IF the Asians had developed "super weapons", then they would have gone on a rampage too. That is not a completely obvious postulate.
True, weapons do lead people to use them, we fight and conquer because we think we can win. New weapons are developed because:
1. They will help us attain our perceived needs, that now we don't have enough of. Europe is kind of "boxed-in" for resources.
2. We develop weapons because the "reasoning behind capital" (to go out and increase it), has become a moving force within our society.
3. We develop weapons because we have to stay in some balance with those others that are developing them faster than we are; or we will become an enslaved colony too. (Deterrence).
Asia has a lot of resources, and they didn't take hold of the reasoning behind capital early on. I don't see it likely that they would have made relentless efforts for the means of destruction. They could already defend themselves with their present means. (Not against the west of course.)
Now the whole world is in some form of arms race. Who are they balancing against?
____________
From below: You have indicated that there is a "government" (It is a priori existential), and it attracts power corrupted individuals because of the real power OVER OTHERS it offers. I am saying that there is basically no government, and power corrupted individuals make one, what turns out to be a sham government, (or they gradually pervert it if it was better conceived). But it is convincing enough for you and me, and they write the laws, or they gradually alter them so their POWER OVER OTHERS, becomes the "legalized norm". I see that as the blatant result. It is no theory. It is staring us in right the face, and they are thumbing their nose at us with a hearty laugh.
You may be indicating that without a government-decree, tyrants can't move. Pirates rule the seas, trade union busters have their Pinkerton armies, Terrorist lynching keeps whole communities cowering. Yes, I believe that a governing force is essential. How to move with the current "locked-up-tight" American model I couldn't begin to foresee. Maybe we pretty well agree on the current state of affairs.
And here I think we get to the message I have somewhat failed to clearly convey, In the post I stated "Capitalism" does zero harm, and the Government also does zero harm. All harms are caused by the dark side of people. This understanding is vital to determine a system that most successfully prevents empowering this evil." and "This understanding of true and universal happiness engendering actions and psychology is no small matter, and is so deeply missing in modern social science that failure is inevitable and all systems are doomed. " This I mean quite absolutely. We can quibble about the best system.
And I do maintain that the foundational ideals of the US are exemplary, although now betrayed. Yet that is what always happens until mankind in sufficient numbers spiritually matures.
And it is why I think your next statement ...
"Many of the things you have said in the first few paragraphs sound right and like, that is what we want. But what is right on the micro level, the individual, may not be so ideal on the macro (corporate) level. Conflation between these two is to be avoided."
Is in fact not correct! You cannot avoid it. One is primary cause, while the other is merely the chain of agency. It is not what we "want" it is what "we are", as we all live and manifest our philosophy and if it is good and has"wisdom" it will flourish, and the mature spiritual man, like Damdamis, will make any macro system better, far far better. You cannot seperate the indivdual from the social structure that is composed of nothing but individuals. If you think that virtue on the individual level, some how does not apply to society, well that is simply wrong and lacks logic.
I will insert my comment below here in all lower case in (...) to clairify. ...You state...
"People confuse a government as an instrument of oppression, but with or without those institutions that we call government, there are the men behind those institutions that tyrannize the population, and the world."
(Certainly and indeed, as I said, even communism would almost work if lived in and run by saints, however, make no mistake, "government" was called a "necessary evil" as in "evil" because of the rule of law giving "power over others" by decree, enforced by force. yet as stated government attracts power corrupted indivduals because of the real power OVER OTHERS it offers)
You state..."I believe that they can do it more readily without a government, or with one that is stripped to the bare bones."
Response...( well we may need to define barebones, yet again, without government decree they have no standing to enforce with violence if necessary what they decree.
This is not an argument for anarchy, as government is a "necessary evil" but the primary function is to ensure freedom, liberty FOR ALL, and I hardly see any non governments that have perpetuated the violent democides listed, so i do not agree about the "more readily". Certainly in anarchy the same psycopaths will commit attrocties, and they will try to end anarchy as well and set up the strong tyrannical government. The foundational ideals of the US were the result of understanding so much, and it is a tragedy the US ideals and laws of protection are being ignored by global government and by the US government. )
You state..."For all intent and purposes there really exists no government; It's a guise, or a curtain to hide the real workings, and there are only those family dynasties that have their fingers in everything. You said it perfectly, "with government, where the effect is often the polar opposite of the stated intent."
Response...(where you apply the rule of law with the legal force to back it, you cannot accurately say "there is no government" as government power is certainly real, the "polar opposite" of government stated intent, is rather strictly the result of corrupted men seeking power over others. read my global warming post. ) https://open.substack.com/pub/anderdaa7/p/global-warming?r=slvym&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Your next paragraph ends with "But since these exact people ARE THE GOVERMENT, The present system is not going to cope."
Response...( yes, again, as stated no system will cope when it is run by corrupt individuals diseased with power lust over others. don't blame the system. The "this time it will be different" is a pipe dream, it wont be. We will get past the present tragedies, and without wisdom gained individually and culturally, we will, inevitably, corrupt the next system as well. The US system founding ideals of limited government worked for a long time, as George Washinton said, with a moral people, and that is required in any system, regarding what Tulsi said to Jordan Peterson, yep, a broken system, broken by love of power over others, by lack of wisdom)
Your next paragraph is not clear to me, yet I will quote this... " You also counterpoise self-gain against enforced selflessness, which I don't see as having any historical relevancy"
Response...(my goodness, they are completely relevant and essential. "self-gain" is, as described, unavoidable and an essential aspect of the human condition, and not necessairly evil, while "enforced selflessness" is the basis of government power lust over others for all of recorded history with Plato's - "Such is the nature of the Tyrant, when he first appears he is a protector". See recent US actions and global actions with forced neither safe nor effective vaccines, etc... the examples are endless. "forced selflessness" is the basis of communism, and "this time" it will NOT be different. )
Further response...Regarding your "excuses are always suspect" paragraph. (it has nothing to do with excuses, and everything to do with the lust for power over others universally manifesting in any system, which is factually, historically, and philosophically logical and true. )
Response Regarding paragraph 3 "back to weapons...
("might is right" has in fact been held as immoral by many from diverse cultures for many thousands of years and i gave you an example above from India. Christ would certainly also be an example. I can give so so many more examples where this has been debated and asserted within many cultures. yes, we have had 70 years of deterrence, although i would hardly credit Stalin, as the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made a far stronger impression on the global psyche, although that action has been defended, I certainly do not condone it, although i understand the conditions and argument. However I in no way shape or form condone many many recent US actions. We have strayed very very far from Washington's advice to stay out of foreign conflicts, and live moral lives. What is going on in America is certainly not capitalism, and has nothing to do with capitalism, it is facism, government power wedded to corporate power, striving for global government. Most can see this now. It has infected Europe and much of the world. yet again, and again, it is not an excuse to NOT blame the system, the system is not the essence of the problem, the corrupted human lust for "power over others" is, and ALWAYS will, and ALWAYS has historically manifested in every system.)
As a wise saintly sage said, "If not brothers in life, then brothers in violent death" Please consider reading my post again and begin to grasp the only real solutions hinted at, perhaps to vaguely, but they will be further flushed out in an upcoming post on "The inability of science to solve life's mystery is absolute" true or false" Again, put the man on the flip side of the world puzzle together properly, and all the nations of the globe fall into place.
I'll go to my main question, and try to support it. I ask:
Is Capitalism distorted by men, or are men distorted by capitalism?
(Or by the "present state of the system")? Surely both, but let's look further at the details.
First I'll look at the plight of the so-called "Sheeple" in an Authoritarian society. For me, this is just psychological obviousness.
__________
We learn through experience and experiencing, and no one teaches anyone anything. This is as true for the infant moving from kicking to crawling to walking as it is for the scientist with his equations. "Talent" or 'lack of talent' may have little to do with it. It is highly possible that what is called talented behavior is simply a greater individual capacity for experiencing.
The game of life in society is a natural group form, providing the involvement and personal freedom necessary for experiencing. If there's limited outside authority imposing itself upon the players, telling them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, each citizen freely chooses self-discipline by Accepting the Societal Rules of the game ("it's more fun that way") and enters into the group actions with enthusiasm and trust. With no one to please or appease, the citizen can then focus full energy directly on the problems of living, and learn what he has come to learn.
Very few of us are able to make this direct contact with our reality. Our simplest move out into the environment is interrupted by our need for favorable comment or interpretation by established authority and our peers. We either fear that we will not get approval, or we accept outside comment and interpretation unquestionably. In a culture where approval/disapproval has become the predominant regulator of effort and position, and often the substitute for love, our personal freedoms are dissipated. Abandoned to the whims of others, we must wander daily through the wish to be loved and the fear of rejection before we can be productive. Categorized "good" or "bad" from birth (a "good" baby does not cry too much), we become so enmeshed with the tenuous treads of approval/disapproval that we are creatively paralyzed.
Having thus to look to others to tell us where we are, who we are, and what is happening, results in a serious (almost total) loss of personal experiencing. We lose the ability to be organically involved in a problem, and in a disconnected way, we function with only parts of our total selves. We do not know our own substance, and in the attempt to live through (or avoid living through) the eyes of others, self-identity is obscured, our bodies become miss-shaped, natural grace is gone, and learning is affected.
Trying to save ourselves from attack, we build a mighty fortress and are timid, or we fight each time we venture forth. Some, in striving with approval/disapproval develop egocentricity and exhibitionism; some give up and simply go along. In all cases, contact with the environment is distorted. Self-discovery and other exploratory traits tend to become atrophied. Trying to be "good" and avoiding "bad" or being "bad" because one can't be "good" develops into a way of life for those needing approval/disapproval from authority, and the investigation and solving of problems becomes of secondary importance.
Approval/disapproval grows out of authoritarianism that has changed its face over the years from that of the parent to the teacher and ultimately the whole social structure (mate, employer, family, neighbors, government institutions, etc. etc.).
______________
Now to talk about the system distortions in those that seek to dominate, (our hidden and our visible leaders):
A healthy societal relationship demands a number of individuals working interdependently to complete a given project with full individual participation and personal contribution. If one person dominates, the other members have little growth or pleasure in the activity; and a true group relationship does not exist.
To succeed in anything is confused by many as exhibitionism (and therefore with the fear of exposure), the individual fancies himself one against many. He must single-handedly brave a large number of "malevolent-eyed" people sitting in judgment. The student, then, bent on proving himself, is constantly watching and judging himself and moves slowly.
Societal participation and agreement would remove all the imposed tensions and exhaustion of the competitiveness and open the way for harmony. You have called this "enforced selflessness". Without such a participative experience, no westerner can even envision it. You kind of caught on to it when you said "Saints could make communism work."
A highly competitive atmosphere creates artificial tensions, and when competition replaces participation, compulsive action is the result. Sharp competition connotes to even the youngest, the idea that he has to be better than someone else. When a player feels this, his energy is spent on this alone; he becomes anxious and driven, and his fellow citizens become a threat to him. Should competition be mistaken for a teaching tool, the whole meaning of learning is distorted. Freedom in learning allows a person to respond with his "total organism within a total environment." Imposed competition makes this harmony impossible.
When competition and comparisons run high within an activity, there is an immediate effect on the participant which is patent in his behavior. He fights for status by tearing another person down, develops defensive attitudes (giving detailed "reasons" for the simplest action, bragging, or blaming others for what he does) by aggressively taking over, or by signs of restlessness. Those who find it impossible to cope with imposed tension turn on their apathy and boredom for release. Almost all show signs of fatigue.
The use of energy in excess of a problem is very evident today. While it is true that some people working on compulsive energies do make successes, they have for the most part lost sight of the pleasure in the activity and are dissatisfied with their achievement. For when a goal is superimposed on an activity instead of evolving out of it, we often feel cheated when we reach it.
When the goal appears easily and naturally and comes from growth rather than forcing, the end-result, enterprise or what-ever, will be no different from the process that achieved the result. If we are trained only for success, then to gain it we must necessarily use everyone and everything for this end; we may cheat, lie, crawl, betray, or give up all social life to achieve success. How much more certain would knowledge be if it came from and out of the excitement of learning itself. How many human values will be lost and how much will our art forms be deprived if we seek only success? Will our society actually crumble?
Does any of this sound familiar? It is not a natural human state. It is due to a distorted system.
_______________
There is more to say too. It is about the allegation that the west is the most racially tolerant society. Americans are all settler/colonialists. They all came for free land and prosperity. Under the umbrella of prosperity, all races can get along. Now it is based on printing paper dollars, so they didn't count before and don't count now. Racial tolerance is about the original inhabitants. 30 million native Americans were reduced to 2 million. Or just in California, 150,000 in 1848 were reduced to 16,000 in 1900. Killed dead.
It's completely the opposite in Asia. Many hundreds of races and ethnicities existed on their own land for 1000's of years. We're not talking about settler/colonialists. The Huns were only 600,000 people but they controlled from the Pacific to Europe, 10's of millions of people. How did they do it? By exemplary racial tolerance. The Mongols were only 800,000 people, and likewise their vast empire or 10's of millions was preserved with racial tolerance. They visited all of their territories to collect their taxes, but for the most part it was live and let live.
The Mongols did not conquer Russia, they were partners. There were three centers of warring powers in Russia, and the Mongols were allied with the Moscow branch. Those Russians Rented the Mongol army to maintain power, for which they collected a tax from all of Russia to pay for it.
The Russians and the Soviets have inherited ethnic tolerance from the Mongols, and it is still the basis of holding their vast territory together. This has no chance to be understood in the west. There are no precedents to even allow it to appear in the western mind.
It is my opinion, but I have read these things repeatedly, and find them credible. (I hope that you will too.)
You assert... "The Russians and the Soviets have inherited ethnic tolerance from the Mongols"
I must say, your writing is long, and rather unclear, yet appears to be a great distortion of history. When you make a generality, it would be helpful to give a specific example.
Gengis Khan is thought to be responsible for the deaths of up to 40 million people in his lifetime, and scholars estimate that he may have killed a full three-fourths of modern-day Iran's population during his war with the Khwarezmid Empire. All told, the Mongols' attacks may have reduced the entire world population by as much as 11 percent."
Khan's son did do much to bring some organization and broader respect of other cultures to those conquerored lands.
The Soviet Union committed massive democide.
On the one hand you say no government exists, ( incomprehensible) on the other you exalt some of the most murderous governments in History. If you do write more, pleasse make your assertion plain and simplify it, as it is quite self contradictory and often has over broad generalzations that are plainly not true or even applicalble to said assertions.
As said clearly many times, and an issue you fail to directly address, it is clear that mankind that chooses evil, corrupts any system. Quote what I wrote, and state a clear objection. Your view of history is your own, it is not what many many apolitical historians from diverse cultures have stated and shown to be history.
This was some time ago, and I am engaged in other projects. this is the way I learned it. The Mongol population for 200 -300 years of their control of Asia never exceeded 800,000. How many were warriors? Even 200,000 is to many to be feasible. The vast majority of the population support the logistics of armies.
Asia and China had populations of tens of millions. How the heck did 200 - 150,000 horsemen kill 40 million people? Where did those 40 million people even come from? I fully doubt your sources.
Genghis Khan had the Yassa as his law. It only lasted his lifetime. The highest transgression was to not adhere to your promises, not to keep your word, for which you were killed. Not many were killed because not many broke their word.
Certain Kievan RUS princes Killed the Mongol emissaries that came into their city for negotiations. That was considered as breaking their word, and everyone in that city was killed. The Yassa also says there is collective responsibility. Everyone in that city had to die. (Of course some escaped into the forests.)
My sources say that out of 300 Russian cities, 15 were leveled flat. After that no Kievan prince assassinated a Mongol emissary. That is the basis of this post
OK another thing. How did 200 thousand warriors control all of Asia? Tens of millions? They did it through tolerance. You pay my exit tax and I will come back next year. In the mean time you run the situation and collect the money for the next time.
With regard to Moscow, the Mongols were a mercenary army that Moscow paid to dominate Kiev. Long after Genghis died, after 200 years, they shook the Mongols off. By then the Mongos were in total disarray.
Sorry I can't take time to read your 20 pages. It could be interesting.
I am absolutely saying that the dark side of human nature is responsible. I will answer in greater detail when I find the time. (within a day or two) but the nature of that assertion is in the post.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you read the entire post.
That's fine, I'm not attacking capitalism, I think it's a great system in many ways but it certainly is not pure until corrupted by the "dark side of human nature." I'm much less concerned with the history of the formation of all monopolies ever, which you couldn't prove anyway than I am interested in your answer to the first question.
I think a good place to start would be to define this "dark side", and if you are able to do that explain how it conflicts with capitalism, and where the vitalistic concept of "fairness" is said to exist within the framework of capitlism. No hurries no worries
Doug you suggest, "I think a good place to start would be to define this "dark side"
Please tell me what you think I meant by it, as it is somewhat flushed out in the post.
(As you are asking me to restate what is somewhat written out in more detail in the post, I need to see what you gathered from what I already wrote in defining the "dark side" of human nature.)
The dark side does not conflict with any system, except that it corrupts ANY system when it manifests. Capitalism is neither pure or evil, as the virtue or vice, is supplied by the participants. As I said in a comment below, "And yes, power is not of itself good or evil, and in general the physical often reflects psychological/behavioral truths. (Nuclear power can be very productive, or destructive) Explosions in general can blow things up, or power industry." This is true of "free market capitalism" Oh, and the fairness is in the word
"Free" preceding market capitalism.
Indeed, tyrants are exercising liberty. As are robbers, murderers, rapists, extortionists, blackmailers, etc... And I have no problem with laws against exercising "power over others"
Free market capitalism is very fair as an ideal. Anyone can build a better mouse trap, produce a product or service more efficiently, etc... This does not mean there should be no laws to rein in the "dark side" of human nature that develop within any system, including capitalistic approaches. The "free market" is what
is protected by monoply laws, and the ideal of a free market is inherent within capitalism. All of this is in the main post.
I don't have time or brain power to get to this today but I appreciate your POV and willingness to discuss. I can say I've learned from it. I don't *want* to come back and read this again, but I also do want to lol so perhaps it will happen.
THIS is why I read a million hours, to find this magnificent, one-day-on-the-path-is-equal-to-a-thousand-lifetimes arrival. For the writer in me, had I been your editor for this immeasurable atonement, I would have offered 2-3 minor typo/punctuation edits and only one tense suggestion but otherwise no word or voice changes. I am immensely grateful to you, David A, for pointing Does Absolute Power Corrupt into the emptiness of unconscious thought, and I will be sharing its radiance henceforth. Be well, friend.
You say, "Some forms of global government are likely inevitable, simply due to how small and interdependent the world now is. "
Have you considered, your medical wellbeing is ensured by an exchange of information between you and your doctor. Your life support, your work is an exchange of your effort and the frozen effort, money, from another productive person, your employer. In today's world, we have really provided a chair for the bureaucrat to sit on while he exercises control over those transaction. he does so because we pay him to with our tax dollars. Stop funding the people that incarcerate, is the first step on the road to freedom.
At inception, the founding idea of the US of A was, those who exercise appropriate self-control needed no outside control. The government was entrusted to bring control over those who either chose not to, or could not, stop from inflicting physical harm on the peaceful members of society.
We don't need controllers as much as we need to recognize that we can control our own actions and have the responsibility to not initiate force on peaceful fellow travelers on this planet. That would make us sovereign individuals, self-made men as Frederick Douglass would say.
garret, yes, that maturity ( "we can control our own actions and have the responsibility to not initiate force on peaceful fellow travelers on this planet.") is not just needed, but required, of whatever system is incorporated, as that system will only be the agency for the abuse of power that manifests with evil. I agree, the foundational views of the US are ideal, and all government must be severly limited, particularly global ideals.
Thanks for linking me over here David. You may notice that we play in nearby ballparks if you read my stack material. Most people have category confusion with Capitalism. It is not a political thing, it's an economic thing. The ego is fine, but the lesson to be learned with these events is to see that it's proper role is to serve essential, inherent or authentic self, rather than the other way around as we do now.
Technocrats feel they are in a position to further embed the notion that being precedes consciousness in society. With that further devaluation of inner life is insured. The goal is to stifle introspection and developing better relation to Source, because elite power is dependent on the common persons lack of recognition of his own creative power. Stoked by connection to Source.
Was going to send excerpts to my daughter, who has two little ones & would not have the time nor the attention to read a whole essay, but that proved to be an impossible task — too rich. So, we will have to wait for an opportunity to deliver it whole cloth and keep It safely labeled & filed til then. With many stars!
Thank you. I attempt to write with the purpose being to present ideas in a manner that are non -offensive, yet challenging to disparate perspectives. The Global Warming Post in particular approaches a conservative perspective and critique of the politics of Global Warming, yet even that is based on extensive quotes of their own words. If you do share I appreciate sharing any response you receive.
Yes, I agree. Of everything you mention only chemotherapy could be, perhaps, rationally debated.
( I have not studied it in ANY detail) Many things you mention also wreck havoc with the cultural understanding of those very actions and morality that leads to universal happiness.
COVID the virus, likely man made, and the jabs may well become number one on the democide list.
David, do look into Chemotherapy, as well as alternatives being used successfully. It will save you or your loved one’s life one day.
Many thinking physicians have come to lament their use of these on their patients after seeing the iatrogenic harm, suffering and death conventional chemo and radiation therapies have caused. These — and I would extend that to most AMA trained “treatments” — are barbaric and, as with the cv vac, outright criminal. The taught ignorance and arrogance in the medical community is appalling. I’m grateful for that aspect of what the covid saga has taught us: be careful whom you trust; it is not necessarily your doctor.
It does take research and sifting, but it’s immensely worthwhile and it gives one some necessary tools as we navigate these rocky shores.
I agree with the silver lining of this COVID government policy, as you say, "I’m grateful for that aspect of what the covid saga has taught us: be careful whom you trust; it is not necessarily your doctor."
Personally I think the SAD diet (standard american diet) is likely partially causative to the most prevalent diseases we see. I have learned a great deal in the last year about fasting and the resulting "autophogy"
Sugar, high fructose sugar, seed oils. Highly processed food (SAD). When I gave them up, my health improved substantially. The rise in HFCS (70’s from Nixons AG program) and seed oils like canola is symmetrical with the rise in chronic illness and obesity. Our food supply is polluted and getting worse. I’m sure you know all this. I live rural surrounded by small producers and such. I’m making friends. 😉. I can grow a huge garden but right now there are plenty of good local food options. I have fasted over a day a couple of times but mostly IF. I’m not sure 75 and older should do long fasts. (Me) We need protein and muscle stability to prevent muscle wasting and loss of appetite or food dysphoria might result. I was bulimic as a young woman and my body suffered. Protein and movement are my mantras. Cheers.
Janet, I am glad you are doing well. Each must make their own decision regarding fasting. However check out the link a comment or two below. It is very educational and I think your concerns may be allieviated
I am mainly keto-carnivore. This is supposed to help alleviate muscle wasting. I feel the very best this way. I would fast longer if I was ill or diabetic. or having a major health crisis. Definitely. I’m also a woman (a real one🤔 LOL) and there is some real science on post menopausal fasting—pros and cons. With my eating disorder background I have to still be careful about my relationships with food or no food. I sought treatment when I was beginning to think I could eat nothing. No one who hasn’t had an eating disorder can understand the hell on earth it can be. But everyone should research and do n=1. Many seniors like me I know are so afraid of fat, salt and calories they barely eat anything. They look it too. Thanks! Cheers!
I suppose the same folk responsible for SAD, are also responsible for the SADS we are seeing daily now.
I have done a few 3 to 4 day fasts. Nothing longer. I can only say it is true what they say, in general on the 3rd day it becomes relatively easy. ( A high feeling of health, of mental clarity, of power or freedom from the body) You may find this presentation inspiring, and informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuOvn4UqznU
I think it was an Asian doctor that learned about autophage, and won the Nobel Prize in medicine.
Great question about power. Lord Acton “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1887) When I read quote that I simply accepted it as true. Yet, I agree with you that power does not have to be evil. I define evil as the "cause of injury" & good is "free from injury." Not all power causes injury... only some people with power are willing to do evil.
1/3 of the people in the world would lie, cheat, steal & kill if there were no law against it. That seems about right to me and it seems that they are the ones who tend to use power for evil.
You write,
"Those social systems which mostly easily engender tyranny should be rated poorly in their chance of producing a prosperous and happy society."
Yet tyranny is liberty for the tyrant. Tyrants live like the kings that they are. Master/Slave
Thank you for your comment, and formalizing and sourcing the quote I referred to. (added to the post) The wisdom of the US founding Fathers is quite amazing to me. George Washington had tremendous power, as did Gandhi.
And yes, power is not of itself good or evil, and in general the physical often reflects psychological/behavioral truths. (Nuclear power can be very productive, or destructive) Explosions in general can blow things up, or power industry.
Indeed, tyrants are exercising liberty. As are robbers, murderers, rapists, extortionists, blackmailers, etc... And I have no problem with laws against exercising "power over others"
“Love of power over the free will of others is corruption.”
If you have had the opportunity to be around some of the wealthiest people in the world, you would discover that they are often as miserable as anyone else. True and scientific studies of behaviors and attitudes that universally engender happiness and or misery, would be very helpful.
Well done, David! Thank you! Covered so much and so much one could comment on. I loved seeing that George Washington quote. What a great way to say it..."liberty abused to licentiousness." Appreciate the props to capitalism, too, which has long been gone from "...these united States."
Over the years, I've given thought to the Acton quote, too. I reframed it as, "It is not that power corrupts...it is that the corrupt seek power...over others." And we've all got a bit of that beast in us. It is through self-mastery alone that we keep that impulse in its place.
George Washington led an amazing and inspiring life. Thank you for reading and commenting. It is curious how much Climate Change, and COVID policy have in common, and how they both rather well and sadly illustrate this post.
"And we've all got a bit of that beast in us." Yep, "Those of us too good for this world, are adorning some other"
comment above accidently removed
Hey, I recognize all your pithy quotes ("the vanished lives....","life should be chiefly...", "I am also a son of Zeus...", etc.) :-)
Hi Steve, indeed, since 1973!
Hi David, I may have a year or or month on you: 1972! :- )
A typo: "Satama Dharma" = Sanatama Dharma.
Is there a difference between power and agency?
Hi Bob, may I slightly rephrase your question? "Is there a difference between abuse of power and agency?
Absolutely. The abuse of power has many chains of agency, and manifest in ANY system. In statism that corruption may easily manifest in government, In capitalism such abuse may manifest in corporate corruption and monoply. When statism is wedded to corporate globalism, or facism on a global scale, the abuse of power manifests in both, and this is todays threat. ( There are signs that they are now battling each other, the honeymoon may be over, as the financial institutions may see CBDC as somthing that exclues them.) In the days of Religious rule, abuse of power manifested under the titled, "authority of God" and the Church became the agency that power abuse manifested in.
The singular cause is however the same regardles of the the various chains of agency, individual corruption of the human heart and mind expressed as "power OVER others". However some social/political systems are more conducive to allowing expression of said corruption. The foundational principles of US government were specifically designed to place severe limits on that power.
Hello David, and thanks for the detailed analysis. You say so many good things, like - What works can rightly be called wisdom. But I won't list them all. I am not paid to be a researcher, so I will just share my opinions. I will also repeat some of your quotes, to relate to your article.
1. You don't need a state to have power over others. All you need is an army with better weapons than those around you. And that will back up all your political, economical, technical and financial weapons. The man of European origin, (light skinned) was always a genius at perfecting the next generation of weapons, and thus he was number one at colonizing the world. These European nations, and thus America, were social systems that engendered tyranny over others, for many 100's of years. There wasn't a zone on earth were they didn't work their mastery.
Many of the things you have said in the first few paragraphs sound right and like, that is what we want. But what is right on the micro level, the individual, may not be so ideal on the macro (corporate) level. Conflation between these two is to be avoided.
People confuse a government as an instrument of oppression, but with or without those institutions that we call government, there are the men behind those institutions that tyrannize the population, (and the world). I believe that they can do it more readily without a government, or with one that is stripped to the bare bones. For all intent and purposes there really exists no government; It's a guise, or a curtain to hide the real workings, and there are only those family dynasties that have their fingers in everything. You said it perfectly, "with government, (where the effect is often the polar opposite of the stated intent)."
Therefore libertarians have either a very shallow analysis, have basic assumptions that skip over what is really happening, or they work directly for the oligarchs.
2. You mention two social systems. One is the western capitalist recognition of the right to seek self gain. You did say that things were worse before, in that the vanished past of all nations are dark with many shames, yet there is much for each nation to be proud of. You may have referred to the past, although I think it has devolved much lower than that, even now. I take that from your acknowledgement of Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition, lobby groups looking for special privileges, banking methods that rig the monetary system and allow leverage of assets tantamount to gambling in fractional reserve banking on steroids, government decisions making risk public but profit private, government sponsored enterprises, and un-elected three letter agencies that, under direct supervision and authority of government regulators, are constantly working their magic against the population. You said that the US form of government is designed to prevent the formation of such tyrannies. But since these exact people ARE THE GOVERMENT, The present system is not going to cope.
The US congress cannot change, (by design). I have read a freshman's assessment of what he discovered cannot work in congress. The way committees are locked up for decades, nothing unapproved will be released for a vote. You will never have a position of a decision maker unless you play the congressional game. But more up to date is the Tulsi Gabbard interview with Jordan Peterson. She said at the freshman orientation meetings you are told, no matter what you believe or what is good for your constituents, you must support the party line and vote YES for the bills we submit to you. You must not seek to collaborate with the opposing party, because then they will then get some of the credit for anything good. You must make promises to lobbyists to get them to donate to our party. You don't need to read or present any bills. The rest of your time you can try to raise donations and get yourself reelected.
Then you mention number two;
where the “let live” part is easily forgotten in socialism, and both the “let live” and even the “LIVE” part are discarded in murderous Godless communism . You even give the numbers. (There are also other sources of numbers, each execution with the name and the city of birth), the Soviets were meticulous at recording the details. You also counterpoise self-gain against enforced selflessness, which I don't see as having any historical relevancy. There are many other factors, which would needlessly draw out this comment. I have no love for the Soviets, but I prefer an honest assessment.
Are these the two choices then?
Perhaps this is "real politic"? Is it what is happening on the ground?
Not really.
Excuses are always suspect; That Capitalism is in many respects is fundamentally honest, and that "anomalies are NOT caused by a capitalist republic, but are a perversion of it caused by the love of power over others, and the lack of cultural wisdom. The love of power for the purpose of subjugating others for one’s own ends cannot be removed by any government mandate or system. All harms are caused by the dark side of people."
In other words, Capitalism is distorted by men, but men are not distorted by capitalism? Something to look into for sure.
I suggest that we look at the state of the world today, (I think it is disintegrating, but you may not believe so?), and say;
"This is the result of social system A and social system B cohabiting the planet." Is there any chance that one of these systems will reverse this situation??? Or do we have to innovate something entirely new? If so, there is no sense defending either / or.
3. Back to weapons; For millennia societies were molded by military might. Not seeking power in an immoral way was not part of anyone's formula. In fact, it wasn't held as immoral. Even now, some major western politicians have recently said, " we have all these armaments, why not use them?" I think that it is safe to admit, that Stalin saved the world from nuclear winter, when in 1954, (after his death), the Soviets exploded the hydrogen bomb. We have had 70 years of "deterrence". (Oh, America would never have done that? But they did do it; to prevent Russia from invading Japan. Japan was not allowed to surrender to the Russians, which would have happened pretty quickly with conventional weapons.)
The trouble with deterrence is that if one nuke goes off, IT MUST BE ANSWERED, or deterrence is a sham. Quite a few of our esteemed capitalist leaders state repeatedly that their goal to dismember Russia. (Is that a threat?) President Putin said clearly, "Let them try". Go for it boys! Proxy wars are the most evil action on earth, because such a conflict cannot end. Just pump more bodies into the hopper. Even when those will become NATO bodies, (which will be more just), they'll be European, and not American. So the tyranny goes on.
Now in little over one year there are more military casualties (counting both sides), than America has sustained including the Korean war, from 1950 until 2023. Very likely by the end of this year or next, there will be more military losses than American has had from year 1900 - 2023. This honest capitalism won't be satisfied with anything less.
I doubt sincerely that they can dance around this one though. Then the next article is about China. I think, reading your positive appraisal of our system, Americans want to go for it, they want to "win".
Let them try. I am not out to save the world.
4. About deterrence: It seems that (reckless) western leaders no longer believe in the power of the Atom. It can never happen, because the prevailing meme is that just the first use of nukes would lead to the immediate destruction of planet earth. IS THAT TRUE?
Something funny went off in Beirut, and nobody really gave a damn. They were comfortable with the fable that properly aged-fertilizer goes nuclear in its power. One must look at all the scenarios. Some nuke, somewhere, is bound to go off. That will certainly change the calculus. If it goes off within Russia, some other country will certainly be trashed.
Will a more sober analysis emerge? I think that we will find out within our lifetime.
.
Dear Prudent Perspectives;
Thank you for reading and your considered response. I will give fair thought and share my perspective as well as I am able...
You write..."You don't need a state to have power over others. All you need is an army with better weapons than those around you. And that will back up all your political, economical, technical and financial weapons. The man of European origin, (light skinned) was always a genius at perfecting the next generation of weapons, and thus he was number one at colonizing the world. These European nations, and thus America, were social systems that engendered tyranny over others, for many 100's of years. There wasn't a zone on earth were they didn't work their mastery."
Response...Yes, "Power over others" comes in countless forms, remember I said most all common crimes reflect this corruption robbery, rape, murder, fraud, gangs, organised crime, etc... Yet you seldom if ever, have armies without nations. Now we may disagree a bit about the "Light skinned" man being particularly different then other races. I think it fair to say that globally all cultures and races were at one time almost gangs, or fiefdoms, engaged in violent battle with their own. Asia, Africa, many races and cultures, like native Amerricans, and South America, all were not exempt. As cultures grew and organised there has been a steady expansion of larger everything, including war making. Ghengis Khan certainly amassed a large kingdom. Japan with China was extremely violent. A western perpective is far to often, self focused.
I related the history of Alexander the Great and his experience in India for good reason.
Yes, on one hand it appears to support your assertion about "Light skinned men" yet if any nation was an exception, then it is possibly India, yet even India they has not been exempt from wars and internal conquests. The Orient has a long and bloody history. Islamic wars have been endless, and as paraphrased, the vanished past of all nations is dark with many shames. It is true that in the last two centuries or so the European nations colonised more, and led the world in developing ever more powerful weapons. They also developed ever more useful technology. Yet I would maintain that many Asian nations likely would have done conquest likewise, had they developed those means of violence, and no race is a complete exception. As a saint said, "Those of us too good for this world, are adorning some other."
second response to follow...
Dear David A. I feel guilty that my few opinions made you work too hard. Well, thanks for all that effort. I'll try to be more clear.
I know very little about ancient American history nor African history. I don't think it has ever been researched in depth, like with Europe and Asia. So I have studied the latter two, and yes there was a lot of killing in all cultures. With the only means of production being human labor, I believe slavery was practiced everywhere. (Even a donkey needs a slave to lead it.) Much of the warring Asian tribes (steppe people), killed all opposing soldiers during and after a battle. All women and children were captured and sold into slavery. That was one of the most valuable parts of the booty. Younger captured children were trained as a future soldier class, (not made citizens). Concubines multiplied the population by orders of magnitude in a few decades. In the many 100's of years of wet cycles the Gobi desert bloomed and the herds multiplied fantastically feeding the hoards of new people. New breeds of horses were developed that were much superior for invincible soldiers.
The Middle East also employed genocide. It is even in the bible, that you had to kill all the goats and chickens too, not just the all the people. And all the other peoples practiced the same. Rome for sure. Killing was the way to solve problems with neighbors.
But the give-away history (that you acknowledge in your response), is that Europe colonized the rest of the known world for 100's of years. The rest of the world did not colonize Europe even for one year. The mutual violence is a matter of degree. (OK, the Ottomans went into Spain.)
You have proposed that IF - - - IF the Asians had developed "super weapons", then they would have gone on a rampage too. That is not a completely obvious postulate.
True, weapons do lead people to use them, we fight and conquer because we think we can win. New weapons are developed because:
1. They will help us attain our perceived needs, that now we don't have enough of. Europe is kind of "boxed-in" for resources.
2. We develop weapons because the "reasoning behind capital" (to go out and increase it), has become a moving force within our society.
3. We develop weapons because we have to stay in some balance with those others that are developing them faster than we are; or we will become an enslaved colony too. (Deterrence).
Asia has a lot of resources, and they didn't take hold of the reasoning behind capital early on. I don't see it likely that they would have made relentless efforts for the means of destruction. They could already defend themselves with their present means. (Not against the west of course.)
Now the whole world is in some form of arms race. Who are they balancing against?
____________
From below: You have indicated that there is a "government" (It is a priori existential), and it attracts power corrupted individuals because of the real power OVER OTHERS it offers. I am saying that there is basically no government, and power corrupted individuals make one, what turns out to be a sham government, (or they gradually pervert it if it was better conceived). But it is convincing enough for you and me, and they write the laws, or they gradually alter them so their POWER OVER OTHERS, becomes the "legalized norm". I see that as the blatant result. It is no theory. It is staring us in right the face, and they are thumbing their nose at us with a hearty laugh.
You may be indicating that without a government-decree, tyrants can't move. Pirates rule the seas, trade union busters have their Pinkerton armies, Terrorist lynching keeps whole communities cowering. Yes, I believe that a governing force is essential. How to move with the current "locked-up-tight" American model I couldn't begin to foresee. Maybe we pretty well agree on the current state of affairs.
Thanks
.
And here I think we get to the message I have somewhat failed to clearly convey, In the post I stated "Capitalism" does zero harm, and the Government also does zero harm. All harms are caused by the dark side of people. This understanding is vital to determine a system that most successfully prevents empowering this evil." and "This understanding of true and universal happiness engendering actions and psychology is no small matter, and is so deeply missing in modern social science that failure is inevitable and all systems are doomed. " This I mean quite absolutely. We can quibble about the best system.
And I do maintain that the foundational ideals of the US are exemplary, although now betrayed. Yet that is what always happens until mankind in sufficient numbers spiritually matures.
And it is why I think your next statement ...
"Many of the things you have said in the first few paragraphs sound right and like, that is what we want. But what is right on the micro level, the individual, may not be so ideal on the macro (corporate) level. Conflation between these two is to be avoided."
Is in fact not correct! You cannot avoid it. One is primary cause, while the other is merely the chain of agency. It is not what we "want" it is what "we are", as we all live and manifest our philosophy and if it is good and has"wisdom" it will flourish, and the mature spiritual man, like Damdamis, will make any macro system better, far far better. You cannot seperate the indivdual from the social structure that is composed of nothing but individuals. If you think that virtue on the individual level, some how does not apply to society, well that is simply wrong and lacks logic.
I will insert my comment below here in all lower case in (...) to clairify. ...You state...
"People confuse a government as an instrument of oppression, but with or without those institutions that we call government, there are the men behind those institutions that tyrannize the population, and the world."
(Certainly and indeed, as I said, even communism would almost work if lived in and run by saints, however, make no mistake, "government" was called a "necessary evil" as in "evil" because of the rule of law giving "power over others" by decree, enforced by force. yet as stated government attracts power corrupted indivduals because of the real power OVER OTHERS it offers)
You state..."I believe that they can do it more readily without a government, or with one that is stripped to the bare bones."
Response...( well we may need to define barebones, yet again, without government decree they have no standing to enforce with violence if necessary what they decree.
This is not an argument for anarchy, as government is a "necessary evil" but the primary function is to ensure freedom, liberty FOR ALL, and I hardly see any non governments that have perpetuated the violent democides listed, so i do not agree about the "more readily". Certainly in anarchy the same psycopaths will commit attrocties, and they will try to end anarchy as well and set up the strong tyrannical government. The foundational ideals of the US were the result of understanding so much, and it is a tragedy the US ideals and laws of protection are being ignored by global government and by the US government. )
You state..."For all intent and purposes there really exists no government; It's a guise, or a curtain to hide the real workings, and there are only those family dynasties that have their fingers in everything. You said it perfectly, "with government, where the effect is often the polar opposite of the stated intent."
Response...(where you apply the rule of law with the legal force to back it, you cannot accurately say "there is no government" as government power is certainly real, the "polar opposite" of government stated intent, is rather strictly the result of corrupted men seeking power over others. read my global warming post. ) https://open.substack.com/pub/anderdaa7/p/global-warming?r=slvym&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Your next paragraph ends with "But since these exact people ARE THE GOVERMENT, The present system is not going to cope."
Response...( yes, again, as stated no system will cope when it is run by corrupt individuals diseased with power lust over others. don't blame the system. The "this time it will be different" is a pipe dream, it wont be. We will get past the present tragedies, and without wisdom gained individually and culturally, we will, inevitably, corrupt the next system as well. The US system founding ideals of limited government worked for a long time, as George Washinton said, with a moral people, and that is required in any system, regarding what Tulsi said to Jordan Peterson, yep, a broken system, broken by love of power over others, by lack of wisdom)
Your next paragraph is not clear to me, yet I will quote this... " You also counterpoise self-gain against enforced selflessness, which I don't see as having any historical relevancy"
Response...(my goodness, they are completely relevant and essential. "self-gain" is, as described, unavoidable and an essential aspect of the human condition, and not necessairly evil, while "enforced selflessness" is the basis of government power lust over others for all of recorded history with Plato's - "Such is the nature of the Tyrant, when he first appears he is a protector". See recent US actions and global actions with forced neither safe nor effective vaccines, etc... the examples are endless. "forced selflessness" is the basis of communism, and "this time" it will NOT be different. )
Further response...Regarding your "excuses are always suspect" paragraph. (it has nothing to do with excuses, and everything to do with the lust for power over others universally manifesting in any system, which is factually, historically, and philosophically logical and true. )
Response Regarding paragraph 3 "back to weapons...
("might is right" has in fact been held as immoral by many from diverse cultures for many thousands of years and i gave you an example above from India. Christ would certainly also be an example. I can give so so many more examples where this has been debated and asserted within many cultures. yes, we have had 70 years of deterrence, although i would hardly credit Stalin, as the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki made a far stronger impression on the global psyche, although that action has been defended, I certainly do not condone it, although i understand the conditions and argument. However I in no way shape or form condone many many recent US actions. We have strayed very very far from Washington's advice to stay out of foreign conflicts, and live moral lives. What is going on in America is certainly not capitalism, and has nothing to do with capitalism, it is facism, government power wedded to corporate power, striving for global government. Most can see this now. It has infected Europe and much of the world. yet again, and again, it is not an excuse to NOT blame the system, the system is not the essence of the problem, the corrupted human lust for "power over others" is, and ALWAYS will, and ALWAYS has historically manifested in every system.)
As a wise saintly sage said, "If not brothers in life, then brothers in violent death" Please consider reading my post again and begin to grasp the only real solutions hinted at, perhaps to vaguely, but they will be further flushed out in an upcoming post on "The inability of science to solve life's mystery is absolute" true or false" Again, put the man on the flip side of the world puzzle together properly, and all the nations of the globe fall into place.
Thank you again for reading and considering...
All the Best
David A
I'll go to my main question, and try to support it. I ask:
Is Capitalism distorted by men, or are men distorted by capitalism?
(Or by the "present state of the system")? Surely both, but let's look further at the details.
First I'll look at the plight of the so-called "Sheeple" in an Authoritarian society. For me, this is just psychological obviousness.
__________
We learn through experience and experiencing, and no one teaches anyone anything. This is as true for the infant moving from kicking to crawling to walking as it is for the scientist with his equations. "Talent" or 'lack of talent' may have little to do with it. It is highly possible that what is called talented behavior is simply a greater individual capacity for experiencing.
The game of life in society is a natural group form, providing the involvement and personal freedom necessary for experiencing. If there's limited outside authority imposing itself upon the players, telling them what to do, when to do it, and how to do it, each citizen freely chooses self-discipline by Accepting the Societal Rules of the game ("it's more fun that way") and enters into the group actions with enthusiasm and trust. With no one to please or appease, the citizen can then focus full energy directly on the problems of living, and learn what he has come to learn.
Very few of us are able to make this direct contact with our reality. Our simplest move out into the environment is interrupted by our need for favorable comment or interpretation by established authority and our peers. We either fear that we will not get approval, or we accept outside comment and interpretation unquestionably. In a culture where approval/disapproval has become the predominant regulator of effort and position, and often the substitute for love, our personal freedoms are dissipated. Abandoned to the whims of others, we must wander daily through the wish to be loved and the fear of rejection before we can be productive. Categorized "good" or "bad" from birth (a "good" baby does not cry too much), we become so enmeshed with the tenuous treads of approval/disapproval that we are creatively paralyzed.
Having thus to look to others to tell us where we are, who we are, and what is happening, results in a serious (almost total) loss of personal experiencing. We lose the ability to be organically involved in a problem, and in a disconnected way, we function with only parts of our total selves. We do not know our own substance, and in the attempt to live through (or avoid living through) the eyes of others, self-identity is obscured, our bodies become miss-shaped, natural grace is gone, and learning is affected.
Trying to save ourselves from attack, we build a mighty fortress and are timid, or we fight each time we venture forth. Some, in striving with approval/disapproval develop egocentricity and exhibitionism; some give up and simply go along. In all cases, contact with the environment is distorted. Self-discovery and other exploratory traits tend to become atrophied. Trying to be "good" and avoiding "bad" or being "bad" because one can't be "good" develops into a way of life for those needing approval/disapproval from authority, and the investigation and solving of problems becomes of secondary importance.
Approval/disapproval grows out of authoritarianism that has changed its face over the years from that of the parent to the teacher and ultimately the whole social structure (mate, employer, family, neighbors, government institutions, etc. etc.).
______________
Now to talk about the system distortions in those that seek to dominate, (our hidden and our visible leaders):
A healthy societal relationship demands a number of individuals working interdependently to complete a given project with full individual participation and personal contribution. If one person dominates, the other members have little growth or pleasure in the activity; and a true group relationship does not exist.
To succeed in anything is confused by many as exhibitionism (and therefore with the fear of exposure), the individual fancies himself one against many. He must single-handedly brave a large number of "malevolent-eyed" people sitting in judgment. The student, then, bent on proving himself, is constantly watching and judging himself and moves slowly.
Societal participation and agreement would remove all the imposed tensions and exhaustion of the competitiveness and open the way for harmony. You have called this "enforced selflessness". Without such a participative experience, no westerner can even envision it. You kind of caught on to it when you said "Saints could make communism work."
A highly competitive atmosphere creates artificial tensions, and when competition replaces participation, compulsive action is the result. Sharp competition connotes to even the youngest, the idea that he has to be better than someone else. When a player feels this, his energy is spent on this alone; he becomes anxious and driven, and his fellow citizens become a threat to him. Should competition be mistaken for a teaching tool, the whole meaning of learning is distorted. Freedom in learning allows a person to respond with his "total organism within a total environment." Imposed competition makes this harmony impossible.
When competition and comparisons run high within an activity, there is an immediate effect on the participant which is patent in his behavior. He fights for status by tearing another person down, develops defensive attitudes (giving detailed "reasons" for the simplest action, bragging, or blaming others for what he does) by aggressively taking over, or by signs of restlessness. Those who find it impossible to cope with imposed tension turn on their apathy and boredom for release. Almost all show signs of fatigue.
The use of energy in excess of a problem is very evident today. While it is true that some people working on compulsive energies do make successes, they have for the most part lost sight of the pleasure in the activity and are dissatisfied with their achievement. For when a goal is superimposed on an activity instead of evolving out of it, we often feel cheated when we reach it.
When the goal appears easily and naturally and comes from growth rather than forcing, the end-result, enterprise or what-ever, will be no different from the process that achieved the result. If we are trained only for success, then to gain it we must necessarily use everyone and everything for this end; we may cheat, lie, crawl, betray, or give up all social life to achieve success. How much more certain would knowledge be if it came from and out of the excitement of learning itself. How many human values will be lost and how much will our art forms be deprived if we seek only success? Will our society actually crumble?
Does any of this sound familiar? It is not a natural human state. It is due to a distorted system.
_______________
There is more to say too. It is about the allegation that the west is the most racially tolerant society. Americans are all settler/colonialists. They all came for free land and prosperity. Under the umbrella of prosperity, all races can get along. Now it is based on printing paper dollars, so they didn't count before and don't count now. Racial tolerance is about the original inhabitants. 30 million native Americans were reduced to 2 million. Or just in California, 150,000 in 1848 were reduced to 16,000 in 1900. Killed dead.
It's completely the opposite in Asia. Many hundreds of races and ethnicities existed on their own land for 1000's of years. We're not talking about settler/colonialists. The Huns were only 600,000 people but they controlled from the Pacific to Europe, 10's of millions of people. How did they do it? By exemplary racial tolerance. The Mongols were only 800,000 people, and likewise their vast empire or 10's of millions was preserved with racial tolerance. They visited all of their territories to collect their taxes, but for the most part it was live and let live.
The Mongols did not conquer Russia, they were partners. There were three centers of warring powers in Russia, and the Mongols were allied with the Moscow branch. Those Russians Rented the Mongol army to maintain power, for which they collected a tax from all of Russia to pay for it.
The Russians and the Soviets have inherited ethnic tolerance from the Mongols, and it is still the basis of holding their vast territory together. This has no chance to be understood in the west. There are no precedents to even allow it to appear in the western mind.
It is my opinion, but I have read these things repeatedly, and find them credible. (I hope that you will too.)
.
You assert... "The Russians and the Soviets have inherited ethnic tolerance from the Mongols"
I must say, your writing is long, and rather unclear, yet appears to be a great distortion of history. When you make a generality, it would be helpful to give a specific example.
Gengis Khan is thought to be responsible for the deaths of up to 40 million people in his lifetime, and scholars estimate that he may have killed a full three-fourths of modern-day Iran's population during his war with the Khwarezmid Empire. All told, the Mongols' attacks may have reduced the entire world population by as much as 11 percent."
https://carolinaasiacenter.unc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/8684/2018/11/Genghis-Khan-.pdf
Khan's son did do much to bring some organization and broader respect of other cultures to those conquerored lands.
The Soviet Union committed massive democide.
On the one hand you say no government exists, ( incomprehensible) on the other you exalt some of the most murderous governments in History. If you do write more, pleasse make your assertion plain and simplify it, as it is quite self contradictory and often has over broad generalzations that are plainly not true or even applicalble to said assertions.
As said clearly many times, and an issue you fail to directly address, it is clear that mankind that chooses evil, corrupts any system. Quote what I wrote, and state a clear objection. Your view of history is your own, it is not what many many apolitical historians from diverse cultures have stated and shown to be history.
This was some time ago, and I am engaged in other projects. this is the way I learned it. The Mongol population for 200 -300 years of their control of Asia never exceeded 800,000. How many were warriors? Even 200,000 is to many to be feasible. The vast majority of the population support the logistics of armies.
Asia and China had populations of tens of millions. How the heck did 200 - 150,000 horsemen kill 40 million people? Where did those 40 million people even come from? I fully doubt your sources.
Genghis Khan had the Yassa as his law. It only lasted his lifetime. The highest transgression was to not adhere to your promises, not to keep your word, for which you were killed. Not many were killed because not many broke their word.
Certain Kievan RUS princes Killed the Mongol emissaries that came into their city for negotiations. That was considered as breaking their word, and everyone in that city was killed. The Yassa also says there is collective responsibility. Everyone in that city had to die. (Of course some escaped into the forests.)
My sources say that out of 300 Russian cities, 15 were leveled flat. After that no Kievan prince assassinated a Mongol emissary. That is the basis of this post
OK another thing. How did 200 thousand warriors control all of Asia? Tens of millions? They did it through tolerance. You pay my exit tax and I will come back next year. In the mean time you run the situation and collect the money for the next time.
With regard to Moscow, the Mongols were a mercenary army that Moscow paid to dominate Kiev. Long after Genghis died, after 200 years, they shook the Mongols off. By then the Mongos were in total disarray.
Sorry I can't take time to read your 20 pages. It could be interesting.
.
"Corporate monopolies that unfairly drive out competition."
I agree, from the perspective of a primate who values fairness...
However, where is it stated that monopolies are unfair vis-à-vis Capitalism?
Capitalism is a system, not a game or a sport. Any ideas of fairness are projections of what one thinks it wishes capitalism is.
Are not monopolies but a product of capitalism itself? What is the capitalist mechanism that prevents this result?
Surely you're not saying that all monopolies have been as a result of the dark side of human nature?
I am absolutely saying that the dark side of human nature is responsible. I will answer in greater detail when I find the time. (within a day or two) but the nature of that assertion is in the post.
Thank you for reading, and I hope you read the entire post.
All the Best...
That's fine, I'm not attacking capitalism, I think it's a great system in many ways but it certainly is not pure until corrupted by the "dark side of human nature." I'm much less concerned with the history of the formation of all monopolies ever, which you couldn't prove anyway than I am interested in your answer to the first question.
I think a good place to start would be to define this "dark side", and if you are able to do that explain how it conflicts with capitalism, and where the vitalistic concept of "fairness" is said to exist within the framework of capitlism. No hurries no worries
Doug you suggest, "I think a good place to start would be to define this "dark side"
Please tell me what you think I meant by it, as it is somewhat flushed out in the post.
(As you are asking me to restate what is somewhat written out in more detail in the post, I need to see what you gathered from what I already wrote in defining the "dark side" of human nature.)
The dark side does not conflict with any system, except that it corrupts ANY system when it manifests. Capitalism is neither pure or evil, as the virtue or vice, is supplied by the participants. As I said in a comment below, "And yes, power is not of itself good or evil, and in general the physical often reflects psychological/behavioral truths. (Nuclear power can be very productive, or destructive) Explosions in general can blow things up, or power industry." This is true of "free market capitalism" Oh, and the fairness is in the word
"Free" preceding market capitalism.
Indeed, tyrants are exercising liberty. As are robbers, murderers, rapists, extortionists, blackmailers, etc... And I have no problem with laws against exercising "power over others"
Free market capitalism is very fair as an ideal. Anyone can build a better mouse trap, produce a product or service more efficiently, etc... This does not mean there should be no laws to rein in the "dark side" of human nature that develop within any system, including capitalistic approaches. The "free market" is what
is protected by monoply laws, and the ideal of a free market is inherent within capitalism. All of this is in the main post.
I don't have time or brain power to get to this today but I appreciate your POV and willingness to discuss. I can say I've learned from it. I don't *want* to come back and read this again, but I also do want to lol so perhaps it will happen.
THIS is why I read a million hours, to find this magnificent, one-day-on-the-path-is-equal-to-a-thousand-lifetimes arrival. For the writer in me, had I been your editor for this immeasurable atonement, I would have offered 2-3 minor typo/punctuation edits and only one tense suggestion but otherwise no word or voice changes. I am immensely grateful to you, David A, for pointing Does Absolute Power Corrupt into the emptiness of unconscious thought, and I will be sharing its radiance henceforth. Be well, friend.
You say, "Some forms of global government are likely inevitable, simply due to how small and interdependent the world now is. "
Have you considered, your medical wellbeing is ensured by an exchange of information between you and your doctor. Your life support, your work is an exchange of your effort and the frozen effort, money, from another productive person, your employer. In today's world, we have really provided a chair for the bureaucrat to sit on while he exercises control over those transaction. he does so because we pay him to with our tax dollars. Stop funding the people that incarcerate, is the first step on the road to freedom.
At inception, the founding idea of the US of A was, those who exercise appropriate self-control needed no outside control. The government was entrusted to bring control over those who either chose not to, or could not, stop from inflicting physical harm on the peaceful members of society.
We don't need controllers as much as we need to recognize that we can control our own actions and have the responsibility to not initiate force on peaceful fellow travelers on this planet. That would make us sovereign individuals, self-made men as Frederick Douglass would say.
garret, yes, that maturity ( "we can control our own actions and have the responsibility to not initiate force on peaceful fellow travelers on this planet.") is not just needed, but required, of whatever system is incorporated, as that system will only be the agency for the abuse of power that manifests with evil. I agree, the foundational views of the US are ideal, and all government must be severly limited, particularly global ideals.
Thanks for linking me over here David. You may notice that we play in nearby ballparks if you read my stack material. Most people have category confusion with Capitalism. It is not a political thing, it's an economic thing. The ego is fine, but the lesson to be learned with these events is to see that it's proper role is to serve essential, inherent or authentic self, rather than the other way around as we do now.
Technocrats feel they are in a position to further embed the notion that being precedes consciousness in society. With that further devaluation of inner life is insured. The goal is to stifle introspection and developing better relation to Source, because elite power is dependent on the common persons lack of recognition of his own creative power. Stoked by connection to Source.
Thank you Sounder, and I will check out your posts!
Excellent!
Was going to send excerpts to my daughter, who has two little ones & would not have the time nor the attention to read a whole essay, but that proved to be an impossible task — too rich. So, we will have to wait for an opportunity to deliver it whole cloth and keep It safely labeled & filed til then. With many stars!
Thank you, very much!
Thank you. I attempt to write with the purpose being to present ideas in a manner that are non -offensive, yet challenging to disparate perspectives. The Global Warming Post in particular approaches a conservative perspective and critique of the politics of Global Warming, yet even that is based on extensive quotes of their own words. If you do share I appreciate sharing any response you receive.
Another form of democide is government policies that lead to deaths.
Which is often called social murder.
Abortion - USA 60 million. I would argue this is a delberate democide.
Getting rid of patriots. In generations before making it easy either they raised the chldren or adopted them. Abortion eliminates them.
How many worldwide?
Adn what about drugs like opium, crack cockaine, and fentanyl - the latter of which Biden is allowing to flood into the USA.
Democide.
And this is not to mention C19 jabs, chemotherapy and numerous other sketchy drugs that have been killing us all.
Yes, I agree. Of everything you mention only chemotherapy could be, perhaps, rationally debated.
( I have not studied it in ANY detail) Many things you mention also wreck havoc with the cultural understanding of those very actions and morality that leads to universal happiness.
COVID the virus, likely man made, and the jabs may well become number one on the democide list.
David, do look into Chemotherapy, as well as alternatives being used successfully. It will save you or your loved one’s life one day.
Many thinking physicians have come to lament their use of these on their patients after seeing the iatrogenic harm, suffering and death conventional chemo and radiation therapies have caused. These — and I would extend that to most AMA trained “treatments” — are barbaric and, as with the cv vac, outright criminal. The taught ignorance and arrogance in the medical community is appalling. I’m grateful for that aspect of what the covid saga has taught us: be careful whom you trust; it is not necessarily your doctor.
It does take research and sifting, but it’s immensely worthwhile and it gives one some necessary tools as we navigate these rocky shores.
I agree with the silver lining of this COVID government policy, as you say, "I’m grateful for that aspect of what the covid saga has taught us: be careful whom you trust; it is not necessarily your doctor."
Personally I think the SAD diet (standard american diet) is likely partially causative to the most prevalent diseases we see. I have learned a great deal in the last year about fasting and the resulting "autophogy"
Sugar, high fructose sugar, seed oils. Highly processed food (SAD). When I gave them up, my health improved substantially. The rise in HFCS (70’s from Nixons AG program) and seed oils like canola is symmetrical with the rise in chronic illness and obesity. Our food supply is polluted and getting worse. I’m sure you know all this. I live rural surrounded by small producers and such. I’m making friends. 😉. I can grow a huge garden but right now there are plenty of good local food options. I have fasted over a day a couple of times but mostly IF. I’m not sure 75 and older should do long fasts. (Me) We need protein and muscle stability to prevent muscle wasting and loss of appetite or food dysphoria might result. I was bulimic as a young woman and my body suffered. Protein and movement are my mantras. Cheers.
Janet, I am glad you are doing well. Each must make their own decision regarding fasting. However check out the link a comment or two below. It is very educational and I think your concerns may be allieviated
I am mainly keto-carnivore. This is supposed to help alleviate muscle wasting. I feel the very best this way. I would fast longer if I was ill or diabetic. or having a major health crisis. Definitely. I’m also a woman (a real one🤔 LOL) and there is some real science on post menopausal fasting—pros and cons. With my eating disorder background I have to still be careful about my relationships with food or no food. I sought treatment when I was beginning to think I could eat nothing. No one who hasn’t had an eating disorder can understand the hell on earth it can be. But everyone should research and do n=1. Many seniors like me I know are so afraid of fat, salt and calories they barely eat anything. They look it too. Thanks! Cheers!
Yowza! And it is sad indeed! I have intermittent fasted for ages, but have yet to do a “real” fast. What a wimp!
I suppose the same folk responsible for SAD, are also responsible for the SADS we are seeing daily now.
I have done a few 3 to 4 day fasts. Nothing longer. I can only say it is true what they say, in general on the 3rd day it becomes relatively easy. ( A high feeling of health, of mental clarity, of power or freedom from the body) You may find this presentation inspiring, and informative. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuOvn4UqznU
I think it was an Asian doctor that learned about autophage, and won the Nobel Prize in medicine.
"Original Thesis" could be an answer if people can actually read the book.
https://www.amazon.com/Dianetics-Original-L-Ron-Hubbard/dp/1403144869
I do wish you well, as We are All on this Orb in Space, so Survival would seem to be desirable. :-)
Run, GenEarly!
Enjoyed your essay pertaining to 'Absolute Power'. Well researched and thought-through.
Great question about power. Lord Acton “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1887) When I read quote that I simply accepted it as true. Yet, I agree with you that power does not have to be evil. I define evil as the "cause of injury" & good is "free from injury." Not all power causes injury... only some people with power are willing to do evil.
According to https://sovren.media/c/ron-paul-revolution/235537/5e025eb501ead9fe8c3f3aeb068b5516
1/3 of the people in the world would lie, cheat, steal & kill if there were no law against it. That seems about right to me and it seems that they are the ones who tend to use power for evil.
You write,
"Those social systems which mostly easily engender tyranny should be rated poorly in their chance of producing a prosperous and happy society."
Yet tyranny is liberty for the tyrant. Tyrants live like the kings that they are. Master/Slave
Thank you for your comment, and formalizing and sourcing the quote I referred to. (added to the post) The wisdom of the US founding Fathers is quite amazing to me. George Washington had tremendous power, as did Gandhi.
And yes, power is not of itself good or evil, and in general the physical often reflects psychological/behavioral truths. (Nuclear power can be very productive, or destructive) Explosions in general can blow things up, or power industry.
Indeed, tyrants are exercising liberty. As are robbers, murderers, rapists, extortionists, blackmailers, etc... And I have no problem with laws against exercising "power over others"
“Love of power over the free will of others is corruption.”
If you have had the opportunity to be around some of the wealthiest people in the world, you would discover that they are often as miserable as anyone else. True and scientific studies of behaviors and attitudes that universally engender happiness and or misery, would be very helpful.
Henry George “Progress and Poverty” got it right for egalitarians.
https://sovren.media/c/aristaeus-club/224030/6a5ba7254cf40003c852bcd30f6574c3