Re: dbts: Privacy Fetishes, Perfect Competition, and the Foregone

[Anonymous <nobody@replay.com>]

>You are proposing a means of setting up a benign government.  For it to be
>a government, it must wield sufficient power to rule.  For it to be
>benign, it must be run by "good" men (i.e. those who will not use the
>state to increase their personal power).  But as you pointed out, it is
>foolish to trust that the state will be run by such individuals,
>regardless of who they are.  Thus it would seem that it is impossible to
>create a benign state.  Thus we should avoid having one.

State is not "created" or "set up". This assumes in-born willingness and
desire of subjects to have a state, and that a state becomes because
so-called "people" need it. Or that having a state is somehow natural
order of things.

A state is just an extension of a tribal power structure, or, deeper
into the past, successor to silverback hierarchy. A group of people
(families, clans, etc.) that happen to have power over the rest on some
territory. The centuries long brainwashing to the contrary has
successfully muddled the issue and made it "something complicated and
not for ordinary people to worry about." And a great topic for ranting.

The semantics of this indoctrination are deep in the language. In
newspeak it is impossible to think wrong thoughts. A state is not "run"
by individuals - (that neatly implies that it is something above mere
individuals) - state is just a terrific excuse for individuals for
herding the rest.

"State" is not good or bad, any more that a tree is good or bad. State
is creation of human ability to abstract, and demonstrates
self-limiting attribute of intellect in general. We are capable of
imagining extremely perverse systems for screwing ourselves voluntarily.
Using that to one's personal benefit is as natural as eating. And history
proves that.

The question is, can we really escape newspeak limitations ? Is a new
language required for individuals to exist ? Maybe use of an ancient
tongue that is not polluted with the modern bias ?

Me