/liberty/ - Liberty

Gold, Property Rights, and Physical Removal

Index Catalog Archive Bottom Refresh
Name
Options
Subject
Message

Max message length: 12000

files

Max file size: 32.00 MB

Total max file size: 50.00 MB

Max files: 5

Supported file types: GIF, JPG, PNG, WebM, OGG, and more

CAPTCHA
E-mail
Password

(used to delete files and posts)

Misc

Remember to follow the Rules

The backup domains are located at 8chan.se and 8chan.cc. TOR access can be found here, or you can access the TOR portal from the clearnet at Redchannit 3.0.

/wsj/ - Weekly Shonen Jump

8chan.moe is a hobby project with no affiliation whatsoever to the administration of any other "8chan" site, past or present.

(392.90 KB 1775x2560 1984.jpg)

Understanding Power and its dangers Anonymous 02/14/2021 (Sun) 01:21:31 Id: fdef8f No. 4331
If you haven't read and properly understood 1984 you should geniuently never speak about politics. Although basic and very popular, it feels as if people are starting to disregard Orwell's writing as overrated or perhaps missunderstand them. Despite being a socialist, Orwell is an incredibly important writer to libertarianism as a whole, and should be a warning against any kind of authoritarianism. There is one 1984 quote that I have not seen being thrown around too much, even though it is probably the most important part of the book and the most important revelation to political thought that you could ever have, especially as a libertarian. "Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from the oligarchies of the past in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just around the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power." Those words, give us the most obvious explanation for why things go the way they do, one that is not understood by many. Many people who get into politics often believe in the idea of gaining power for the sake of establishing a better society that would in return grant more freedom either to the entirety of populace, or just a group of them. THIS IS NOT HOW POWER WORKS I'm not saying that you cannot be a politician who geniuently wants to improve the quality of life of people, but giving the governing bodies more power will always inevitably lead to tyranny and opression by the simple fact that the structures of power are naturally built for the rulers to seek more power to keep themselves in power. Even if they have the absolute best of their citizens in mind, gaining power will always make them seek more power for the simple reason that gaining power allows them to keep ruling and push forwards their visions. And if they don't go that path, they will simply be replaced by someone who does not have the moral qualms of seeking more control over populace, simply because controlling people makes you more effective at governing and keeping in power than not controlling them. Any kind of power seeking for good means will be either corrupted, or derailed by sociopaths. This is why, you cannot expect to use a Fascist or any other authoritarian system to institute a Libertarian one simply because, authoritarian systems will ALWAYS seek more power for themselves to simply keep existing. In a theoretical situation where you become a ruler of a country, if your goal is even to prepare society for a Libertarian system by the means of an authoritarian one, that will too force you to seek more power for an authoritarian system so that you can accomplish your goals. At the end of the road, either you will abandon libertarianism, or someone who has will replace you to use the newfound power more effectively. This is why the core of Right Wing Libertarianism to begin with is the deconstruction of power. Free market is a system that decentralises power structures into smaller power structures, rivarly between naturally appearing power structures makes them not grow out of control and take over every facet of our lives. A political goal of a libertarian who wishes for the preservation of freedom should never be gaining power, it should be working towards the decentralisation of power, because that is what the idea of Liberty is about. We cannot get rid off of power structures, but we can decentralise and privatise them to such an extent, where they no longer have such a large grip on the individual. This is true both for dictatorships and democracies. Never fall for the government meme, never fall for the power meme. Power needs to be ALWAYS stripped away from the governments and any other ruling bodies, not increased. Even if it seems that a temporary increase of government powers might lead to bigger amounts of liberty later on, this is a fallacious line of thinking. Power and control always require more power and control over the lives of men to be worth anything for the rulers. I hope you understand how important decentralisation of structures of power is so that it doesn't extend a grip on our personal lives and liberty. No one wants to live in an authoritarian nightmare. Reject the idea of establishing centralised power structures, always decentralise them into private property. Do not fall for the Authoritarian meme.
ALL societies are inherently oppressive because they are unnatural Oppressive can simply be seen as "against our natural desires" forcing a wolf to eat grass is oppressive while forcing a sheep to eat grass is not at least in most situations Human beings are meant to function, have EVOLVED to function in small societies where all individuals know each other and preferably care for each other Looking at how societies developped one can see that laws were pretty much a desperate attempt to control the fact that "shit fuck shit fuck fuck shit they are killing each other rathern than working in the fields the whole village will starve" We have lived for millions of years like animals and for only a feeble 15.000 years as anything more organised and civilised. We are as unnaccustomed to this type of life as the very animals we have domesticated. Look at a dog, it knows how to follows rules sure but it opperates on the instincts it had as a wolf, it feels affection for the owner because the owner triggers to it the same fealings the pack leader triggered. Yet it cannot survive like a wolf either it will die in a forest. It is unsuited for both worlds. And so are we. Thats why chaos vs order is such a big meme in our culture. Because our nature is splintered between the two. As such every society is fundamentally opposed to nature but we are unnable to return to primitivism and it wouldn't be good either due to the inherent brutality of a primitive life. Its naive to think primitivism is a solution. in short there is no solution we are doomed. There are 2 options. 1. We evolve into more eusocial-type animals internalising putting society above the self to the point where we are naturaly predisposed to communism or fascism which means oppression will be appealing to us and we will quite literally find happinesin slavery, the same way an ant probably feels something resembling joy when blindly but effectively contributing to the colony. At such a point oppression itself wouldnt be oppressive for it would be our desire to be oppressed as nightmarish as it sounds or 2. We perpetually form societies that keep us "just satisfied enough" to not revolt. In an endless cycle of infinite imperfect societies. During monarchy they couldnt imagine capitalism. During capitalism we cannot imagine the next system. But the systems that are stable are the ones that are meh. A perfect one cannot exist, a horrid one can't be sustained for long. Monarchy was not as bad as fascism or communism. Thats why it stayed for a long time, it was MEH. The current system is meh too. What follows is an endless cycle of as of right now unnimaginable but imperfect societies with every attempt at a radical change ending in tragedy and violence until the sun blows up and kills us all
>>4332 >>4331 Rewriting language and history is a common Marxist strategy. Orthodox Marxist intellectuals redefined the term “bourgeoisie” to conceal the fact that they themselves were objectively part of the bourgeois class. Similarly, postwar Western Marxists redefined “proletarian” to mean “a person who is non-White or part of the LGBT,” and developed a range of Newspeak terminology: “Institutional Racism, Microaggression, White Fragility, Whiteness, etc.” Bolsheviks, such as Lenin and Trotsky, redefined ‘racism’ — the act of acknowledging that different human races exist and possess unique characteristics — as an act of “oppression.” All Leftist political discourse is an intricate web of self-referential gobbledygook, designed to bamboozle the masses, impress the intellectually insecure, and obfuscate their true intentions.
Good point. Real patriots wish that they could stay awake 24 hours a day spreading freedom.


Forms
Delete
Report
Quick Reply