That is absolutely a valid philosophy; utilitarianism. Minimize the amount of suffering or conversely maximize happiness. Killing less innocent people will produce less suffering and is therefore the preferred option. If you are given three options: Increase suffering (guaranteed), Reduce suffering partially (probable), and reduce suffering greatly (highly improbable) it is logical to choose the scenario that has the highest chance of doing good. Of course we should strive for zero suffering, but we need to understand that making incremental improvements is better than choosing to do nothing.
I’m all for it ending the power of the state. Destroying it is a different argument, power vacuums don’t end well and have never resulted in no state.
I don’t want these things because I think it’s going to reduce suffering. For me it’s entirely about consent.
Any idea that it will lead to some reduction or gain in anything in particular except personal freedom is conjecture.
Also, I don’t base my ideas on the writings of long dead men nor suggest others do. If it’s not possible for one to travel their own path and make their own arguments based on first principles derived from their own experiences, then how can one argue anarchism is feasible.
The only path forward I see is to forward use the mechanisms of the state to make the state impotent; irreversibly neutered.
I have no interest in destabilizing things such that some power hungry asshole can come in and exploit the progress to is make things worse, which historical what has occurred each time.
The state will never wither away, the masters tool will not destroy the masters house. It can only stop existing through revolutionary conflict. Power hungry arseholes already have come in and have been in for hundreds and thousands of years.
but I didn’t have the secret police disappearing people off the street during the last Democratic presidency
It wasn’t as broad as what’s happening with ICE right now but some student protesters in encampments for Palestine in 2024 were arrested in unmarked vehicles.
For what it’s worth, what’s the ratio of dead and arrested Americans to Palestinians that makes voting for the party that will kill the same number of Palestinians but fewer Americans acceptable?
I feel like I don’t know the details and we won’t ever. If there is a real threat of attack against the US with a big risk of mass civilian casualties from some foreign operatives, and we have a way to take them out even with putting civilians at risk, there could be a case where it’s the right thing to do. Really tough call, of course. And I’m very glad that I don’t have to make such calls.
Such things need oversite and actual (US) illegal actions need to be remedied. But a lot of the information regarding it is very sensitive and we likely wont ever be privy to it. So it comes down to trust. You are very right not to trust the government, and I certainly don’t trust the current U.S. administration; but ai’m still willing to give Obama the benefit of doubt.
I feel like you watched way too much “24”. These strikes are not about thwarting immediate terror threats, they are about serving US (corporate) “interests”
It always comes back to natural resources, generally oil. That’s not necessarily the reason for specific strikes, but they are always in service to developing or maintaining “cooperative” local governments.
What might really blow your mind is how culturally liberal much of the middle east used to be. Then came the global oil rush and the decision that reactionary theocratic governments were easier to control. Western intelligence agencies are largely responsible for the level of religious extremism and violence we see today. In fact, it worked so well that they decided to try it at home in America. That’s the short version of how we got exactly where we are today.
We can’t accuse Obama of doing the normal thing that America has always done without examples, but we can exonerate him of doing so on the basis that he was thwarting unidentified terror plots? You don’t think your showing a little bias?
Has Obama even made claims that any such terror plots existed? It’s also kind of funny that, with all these terror plots getting foiled on a nearly daily basis, we were still willing to leave Afghanistan. And then, miraculously, no terror plots happened despite us not sending in drones to stop them.
I m so sick of the us power giving it the depraved privilege to justify destruction and murder. Fuck you and your disgusting country of coward killers, child molesters and nazis.
Agreed. But I can see that sometimes one has to be a bad guy to protect themselves from bad guys. The U.S. definitely overreaches with that a lot, way way too much. And child molestors and Nazis should not be tolerated; which the U.S. is also failing at rn.
I really see very little difference between this "you have to be a bad guy to protect yourself against bad guys"and the shit stephen miller is pulling out today. If you start goose stepping there is a point where the rest of the world will think of you as a nazi. And there is only one “good type” of nazi.
So you would be fine with illegal drone strikes killing innocent people as long as the number was a bit lower?
Why can’t you be on the side of the innocent people being murdered.
That is absolutely a valid philosophy; utilitarianism. Minimize the amount of suffering or conversely maximize happiness. Killing less innocent people will produce less suffering and is therefore the preferred option. If you are given three options: Increase suffering (guaranteed), Reduce suffering partially (probable), and reduce suffering greatly (highly improbable) it is logical to choose the scenario that has the highest chance of doing good. Of course we should strive for zero suffering, but we need to understand that making incremental improvements is better than choosing to do nothing.
You’re not minimising it, you’re continuing it. The only ethical answer is to destroy the state (reduce suffering greatly).
Source?
Also, weird that destroying the state is also the right’s alleged goal.
Source: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Uses anarchist instance, posts in anarchist memes comm, confused about abolition of the state being a core anarchist principle. Go figure.
I’m all for it ending the power of the state. Destroying it is a different argument, power vacuums don’t end well and have never resulted in no state.
I don’t want these things because I think it’s going to reduce suffering. For me it’s entirely about consent.
Any idea that it will lead to some reduction or gain in anything in particular except personal freedom is conjecture.
Also, I don’t base my ideas on the writings of long dead men nor suggest others do. If it’s not possible for one to travel their own path and make their own arguments based on first principles derived from their own experiences, then how can one argue anarchism is feasible.
The only path forward I see is to forward use the mechanisms of the state to make the state impotent; irreversibly neutered.
I have no interest in destabilizing things such that some power hungry asshole can come in and exploit the progress to is make things worse, which historical what has occurred each time.
The state will never wither away, the masters tool will not destroy the masters house. It can only stop existing through revolutionary conflict. Power hungry arseholes already have come in and have been in for hundreds and thousands of years.
If you believe that then what allows you to believe the masters will allow us to destroy it?
What is your mechanism for tricking them or forcing them to give up power and never try again?
I don’t expect them to allow us to, I expect it will take violent revolution and many deaths to gain it.
Removed by mod
There is a third alternative, it’s called abolishing the system.
The choice is pretty straightforward, overthrow mass murderers.
Ah just saw your last sentence, and deleted/banned. None of that apologist shit here thanks.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
It wasn’t as broad as what’s happening with ICE right now but some student protesters in encampments for Palestine in 2024 were arrested in unmarked vehicles.
For what it’s worth, what’s the ratio of dead and arrested Americans to Palestinians that makes voting for the party that will kill the same number of Palestinians but fewer Americans acceptable?
Removed by mod
I feel like I don’t know the details and we won’t ever. If there is a real threat of attack against the US with a big risk of mass civilian casualties from some foreign operatives, and we have a way to take them out even with putting civilians at risk, there could be a case where it’s the right thing to do. Really tough call, of course. And I’m very glad that I don’t have to make such calls.
Such things need oversite and actual (US) illegal actions need to be remedied. But a lot of the information regarding it is very sensitive and we likely wont ever be privy to it. So it comes down to trust. You are very right not to trust the government, and I certainly don’t trust the current U.S. administration; but ai’m still willing to give Obama the benefit of doubt.
I feel like you watched way too much “24”. These strikes are not about thwarting immediate terror threats, they are about serving US (corporate) “interests”
Actually I found “24” too stressful and disturbing to watch.
What were the corporate interests in the strikes that Obama ordered?
It always comes back to natural resources, generally oil. That’s not necessarily the reason for specific strikes, but they are always in service to developing or maintaining “cooperative” local governments.
What might really blow your mind is how culturally liberal much of the middle east used to be. Then came the global oil rush and the decision that reactionary theocratic governments were easier to control. Western intelligence agencies are largely responsible for the level of religious extremism and violence we see today. In fact, it worked so well that they decided to try it at home in America. That’s the short version of how we got exactly where we are today.
Yes, but you’re speaking in generalities, mostly historic. I don’t think that’s fair to lump that all on Obama without specific examples.
We can’t accuse Obama of doing the normal thing that America has always done without examples, but we can exonerate him of doing so on the basis that he was thwarting unidentified terror plots? You don’t think your showing a little bias?
Has Obama even made claims that any such terror plots existed? It’s also kind of funny that, with all these terror plots getting foiled on a nearly daily basis, we were still willing to leave Afghanistan. And then, miraculously, no terror plots happened despite us not sending in drones to stop them.
I m so sick of the us power giving it the depraved privilege to justify destruction and murder. Fuck you and your disgusting country of coward killers, child molesters and nazis.
Agreed. But I can see that sometimes one has to be a bad guy to protect themselves from bad guys. The U.S. definitely overreaches with that a lot, way way too much. And child molestors and Nazis should not be tolerated; which the U.S. is also failing at rn.
I really see very little difference between this "you have to be a bad guy to protect yourself against bad guys"and the shit stephen miller is pulling out today. If you start goose stepping there is a point where the rest of the world will think of you as a nazi. And there is only one “good type” of nazi.