The Pathos of Distance

THIS IS AN ANNOYING LOG-IN POP UP JUST FOR YOU
The Pathos of Distance

- Agile Minds in Perpetuum -


    Fooq da po-lice?

    Share
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 352

    Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Barracuda on Thu Apr 12, 2018 8:23 pm


    I'm reading this article here that makes a weird point. But I felt it is an interesting topic of contention.

    Abolition of the public sector means, of course, that all pieces of land, all land areas, including streets and roads, would be owned privately, by individuals, corporations, cooperatives, or any other voluntary groupings of individuals and capital. The fact that all streets and land areas would be private would by itself solve many of the seemingly insoluble problems of private operation. What we need to do is to reorient our thinking to consider a world in which all land areas are privately owned.

    Let us take, for example, police protection. How would police protection be furnished in a totally private economy?

    Part of the answer becomes evident if we consider a world of totally private land and street ownership. Consider the Times Square area of New York City, a notoriously crime-ridden area where there is little police protection furnished by the city authorities. Every New Yorker knows, in fact, that he lives and walks the streets, and not only Times Square, virtually in a state of "anarchy," dependent solely on the normal peacefulness and good will of his fellow citizens. Police protection in New York is minimal, a fact dramatically revealed in a recent week-long police strike when, lo and behold!, crime in no way increased from its normal state when the police are supposedly alert and on the job.

    https://mises.org/wire/privatize-police

    Given that Manhattan is absolutely not crime-ridden anymore, (where does this person live? Alaska probably), it is rather proof of an almost diametrically opposed case; namely that, due to government presence, there has been built a public consensus against crime, a conviction that crime doesn't pay in Manhattan. New York is a rather emasculated city since Giuliani's sweeps, it was a hell of a lot livelier and city-like with all the crime, but that is not the point. The point is that public ownership is what allows for a big-city situation, where omni-privatization causes scattered gated communities connected by economic dead-zones, more like LA and what one sees in South America.

    The idea that private police would not be inclined to harass is not really well considered, since it would mean different parties control different police forces, which would then naturally compete, and case trouble for each other. This would result in a Damascus type of situation.

    Government is required for our standard of culture.


    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Zoots Allures on Tue May 01, 2018 2:06 pm

    i personally don't begin with the premise 'fuck the police', but my circumstances prevent me from being in any sort of compliance with authority and/or law enforcement by virtue of accepting them as necessary in principle. in other words, they are necessary for society, but society is not necessary.

    moreover, even it being the case that although society isn't ncessary, it can still be something to aspire to, implies that one should expect that society and its law enforcement be first and foremost subject to its own institutional demands; that it be competent, reasonable, and above all else, honest.

    now the problem is compounded. not only is society unecessary, but even in making an attempt at itself in establishing a body laws and its enforcement, it gets it all wrong, anyway.

    but i'd never say 'fuck the police' because i wouldn't ever become angered at something that's such a joke. i don't esteem law enforcement enough to hate it. it is below me, contemptible, and nothing to take seriously unless it puts my life into immediate danger. it has ruined my life (to a great degree), but it hasn't yet threatened my life. and even if it did, i would attack without the slightest feeling of ressentiment. that's when you know you're a sociopath, jakob. when you can put a bullet in a cops head as easy as you would place an order at burger king.

    my problem is not with the fact that man is an inherently despicable creature who acts for his own self interests, but with the fact that still today man continues to believe he is something more than this... then believes he has established a collective society by virtue of recognizing what he believes, erroneously, is something more than a pure expression of power. has he not yet heard that might makes right... or has he heard it but continues to pretend it isn't true?

    in any case, if i had to present a cop with an essay on how everything he believes is bullshit before i busted a cap in his ass, i'd get arrested. it is somebody else's responsibility to inform him, not mine. you just picked the wrong job, pal. *bang bang*


    _________________
    soundcloud

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Zoots Allures on Tue May 01, 2018 2:17 pm

    i think perhaps my last post was a little excessive. let me be more succinct. i have two words for the police; sa prize!
    avatar
    Barracuda

    Posts : 151
    Join date : 2018-02-11
    Age : 352

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Barracuda on Wed May 02, 2018 9:30 am

    Zoots Allures wrote:i personally don't begin with the premise 'fuck the police', but my circumstances prevent me from being in any sort of compliance with authority and/or law enforcement by virtue of accepting them as necessary in principle. in other words, they are necessary for society, but society is not necessary.

    moreover, even it being the case that although society isn't ncessary, it can still be something to aspire to, implies that one should expect that society and its law enforcement be first and foremost subject to its own institutional demands; that it be competent, reasonable, and above all else, honest.

    Id add that the laws which is enforced need to be coherent, first of all with each other.
    There woud need to be a very fundamental and unshakable logic at the basis of a Constitution, for a police force to be able to attain to some honesty.
    Because nature herself is biased from the ground up - honesty is an attainment, a very special thing in nature.
    It is said of the Crown that the Sovereign must appear to be above partiality - but this is a very radical ambition, indeed a "divinity" attained.

    now the problem is compounded. not only is society unecessary, but even in making an attempt at itself in establishing a body laws and its enforcement, it gets it all wrong, anyway.

    The layers do relate to each other; if society were necessary, the ways and means of attaining to it would make more sense.

    A question of philosophy is thus in what way we can conceive society as least unnecessary.
    What would justify society?
    Direct question to you.

    What could it, in theory, offer to make itself into a positive value?

    but i'd never say 'fuck the police' because i wouldn't ever become angered at something that's such a joke. i don't esteem law enforcement enough to hate it. it is below me, contemptible, and nothing to take seriously unless it puts my life into immediate danger. it has ruined my life (to a great degree), but it hasn't yet threatened my life. and even if it did, i would attack without the slightest feeling of ressentiment. that's when you know you're a sociopath, jakob. when you can put a bullet in a cops head as easy as you would place an order at burger king.

    I see a sociopath as the opposite; someone who kills "because he is on the job", not someone who recognizes a categorical enemy.

    To your first point, I wholly understand and sympathize, there are many malevolent creatures that have caused me harm about which I could not care in the slightest whether they live or die. I would take no pleasure in their suffering, as even their voluntary forms of existence are so far below me that there isn't really a perceptible difference between their happiness and their hell.

    my problem is not with the fact that man is an inherently despicable creature who acts for his own self interests, but with the fact that still today man continues to believe he is something more than this... then believes he has established a collective society by virtue of recognizing what he believes, erroneously, is something more than a pure expression of power. has he not yet heard that might makes right... or has he heard it but continues to pretend it isn't true?

    Again I agree, to a point. Anywhere man justifies himself in terms of his society, he is despicable. But sometimes, society is still a stage for a real being, something "beyond man", a dancer on a stage surrounded by mere humans, what we may regard a Spectacle. A Napoleon or a Jimi Hendrix; someone who uses society as fuel for his dance.

    Beyond this, there is no inherent worth to man; when man evolved into city-populations, the worth he had as hunter and agrarian was lost.
    Trade ruined man. The trading class is fundamentally dishonest, and in most fundamental need of police force.

    in any case, if i had to present a cop with an essay on how everything he believes is bullshit before i busted a cap in his ass, i'd get arrested. it is somebody else's responsibility to inform him, not mine. you just picked the wrong job, pal. *bang bang*

    Be it in death or in the moments before it, I don't think he would have much use for understanding your motivation for shooting him anyway.


    _________________
    I do not want to be right. I want to believe in you. I want to believe that in this world there is someone who never lies, cheats or compromises, who is always noble. - ᛁᚹᚫᚱ

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Zoots Allures on Wed May 02, 2018 1:11 pm

    There woud need to be a very fundamental and unshakable logic at the basis of a Constitution, for a police force to be able to attain to some honesty.

    there is a constitution, and to the extent that its definitions aren't irreducibly vague, it is usually followed. the problem lies in positive law... the interpretational ambiguity of said definitions, and the advantage that gives prosecutors and law enforcement to abuse enforcement and prosecution for their own personal gain.

    plato approaches this problem when he talks about the guardians. indifferent regulators that have nothing to gain from doing their job.

    today, when you have an assistant public prosecutor who wants to gain tenure and improve his chances of promotion, he'll seize any opportunity to get a conviction. and he can do this because of the interpretational ambiguity inherent in the language of law.

    the practice of law is more a process of sophistry than it is the application of clear and certain procedures for handlling clear and certain criminal acts.

    What would justify society?
    Direct question to you.

    the only purpose of a society would be to transcend the very things that make life absurd; mortality and in general, suffering. but it isn't the society that accomplishes this directly. rather society acts as a base from which exceptional individuals rise, and it is these types that have as their task both the accomplishment of such goals and the enjoyment of that accomplishment.

    great people can only ever be engaged in making an attempt at these goals... or in assisting those who are... or in floundering in the pursuits of personal pleasures. i'm mean there is only one 'grand goal' pertaining to the problem of man- becoming god, becoming immortal. only then is his condition no longer absurd. now it may be that exceptional people are satisfied with their lives through their successes and attainment of pleasure, but this is not a legitimate approach to the grand problem and the grand goal.

    also important to this matter... something that woulld fundamentally change the circumstances, is the issue of the eternal recurrence. the ER makes any collective effort and goal irrelevant, and puts the emergency only upon the individual. everyone becomes a universe unto themselves, and the salvation of the 'rest' is no longer a concern.

    so the point of society depends on the circumstances it is in, and since we can't know exactly what its fate is, we can't know exactly what it is to do, or what those who are in it, should do.

    basically you just identify the demise of the thing in question and naturallly make as its goal, the eradication of that demise.

    saully once said we are at war against nothingness.


    _________________
    soundcloud

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Zoots Allures on Fri May 04, 2018 11:46 am

    I see a sociopath as the opposite; someone who kills "because he is on the job", not someone who recognizes a categorical enemy.

    i like to modify the conventional definition, and disregard the clinical definition as morally prejudiced.

    many if not most sociopaths... well let's use psychopaths instead. you can exclude those psychopaths that have become what they are because of a prolonged alienation from others, as being of this higher level. their psychopathology developed as a reaction, and therefore a kind of hatred, and is therefore based in morality. so long as the psychopath's modus operandi is subconsciously or consciously vengeful, he is nothing more than a dangerous outsider who is full of ressentiment. there are plenty of people like this; the only difference is, this guy has become violent.

    but if you have a psychopath who does what he does because he genuinely enjoys it, and not because it is a means of revenge... well, now you're talking.

    also, the type that is disgusted with people... but doesn't 'hate' them... that is the elevated type.

    compare kemper and bundy. kemper was the awkward nerdy guy who couldn't get laid. bundy was the successful republican and law student who had no problem dating. both are doing the same thing, but for different reasons. of course, they both 'enjoy' it, but kemper is full of anger and hatred, while bundy simply relishes in the erotic intoxication and thrill he gets from his sadism.

    so in a sense i'm agreeing with you; bundy was 'on the job'... kemper engaged in a battle against his own inadequacies, identifying women as a 'categorical enemy.'
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 757
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Satyr on Fri May 04, 2018 4:06 pm

    You say 'sociopath, I say social rebel.

    I believe psychology has dropped the term 'sociopath'.....then again they've taken homosexuality off their lists of paraphilic mental disorder.



    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Zoots Allures

    Posts : 319
    Join date : 2018-04-16

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Zoots Allures on Fri May 04, 2018 6:11 pm

    nah you couldn't do that. 'social rebel' isn't exacting enough, not specific enough. everybody is a social rebel to some extent or another. you depreciate the value and privilege of being a sociopath by equating it with the characteristics of ordinary people. even the DSM does this... creates criteria that is applicable to everyone to some degree. we all lack empathy in some circumstances. we are all compulsive in some circumstances. we all take risks in some circumstances. we are all self serving in some circumstances. we all have an inflated sense of importance in some circumstances. but what all of us are not is that higher type that recognizes, understands, and accepts that there is no god, no objective morality, no purpose, and that the 'herd' is irrelevant.

    what we really need is a hannibal lecter type... the pure genius, aesthete and nihilist, who lives only to serve his own desires. lecter is no mere 'social rebel'. give him some credit, man.



    _________________
    soundcloud
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 757
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Satyr on Sat May 05, 2018 9:20 am

    You've misunderstood the Lecter metaphor.
    As one who was obsessed with him, for a while, and still consider this artistic representation one of the art's greatest characters, I can only tell you that Hannibal is not a Hedonist, nor an individualist.
    Harris' book is better or different from the movies...and the television series that was soon cancelled before it could complete its seven parts - produced by a homosexual ironically - was also a nice adaptation, more in-line with Harris' book.

    Hannibal is a loner by circumstance.
    He is seeking his own kind, among the herd he finds himself in.
    He wants to give himself, show himself, to one who is worthy - like himself.
    Why does he consume his victims, which are never random? He does not kill to kill.
    He consumes them as a wolf would consume a lamb.
    But not any lamb....the sickly.
    He selectively butchers the mentally and morally ill.....those that insult his aesthetics.
    He can enjoy the finer things in life, like food and drink, and still not turn away from great suffering, enduring it stoically.
    His entire story is him not remaining comfortable...as he could if he would just stop killing.

    In the book he saves Clarice from the herd....and she runs away with him. He risks himself to liberate her.
    In the homoerotic series it is Will he rescues.
    The character is an embodiment of the overman...and how such a man would relate to mankind and to existence.
    The overman is the man who no longer resents his temporarily....he no longer fears death.
    This is what defines him as what he is - above the herd.
    He is driven by a motive...to find and cultivate, rescue, his own kind.
    We see a similar theme in Fight Club.

    For the herd he is a sociopath...a radical, a rebel...
    From his point of view he is what he is, relative to others.
    For his own kind he is more than willing to lower himself, expose his vulnerabilities, share what he knows - sacrifice.

    The Hannibal Lecter type is already taking form....not in the movie hyperbolic sense, but as the emergence of minds that no longer relate to humanity as 'his kind'.
    Minds that hide, pretend to be like others....empathize but do not sympathize...looking for their own kind in the crowds.


    _________________
    Know Thyself
    avatar
    Magnus Anderson

    Posts : 58
    Join date : 2018-02-25

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Magnus Anderson on Tue May 08, 2018 8:44 pm

    How does devouring people make him closer to attaining his goals i.e. rescuing his kind?

    Also, wolfs consume lambs for an entirely different reason -- they do it in order to feed themselves so that they can survive. If they don't do it, they die. In what way is that similar to Lecter's cannibalism?
    avatar
    Satyr

    Posts : 757
    Join date : 2018-03-03

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Satyr on Tue May 08, 2018 8:51 pm

    Magnus Anderson wrote:How does devouring people make him closer to attaining his goals i.e. rescuing his kind?
    Did I say rescue his own kind, or find his own kind?
    Clarissa he wanted to rescue from her ignorance...once he identified her potential as a mate. In the book he awakens her to herself, in relation to others.  


    Magnus Anderson wrote:Also, wolfs consume lambs for an entirely different reason -- they do it in order to feed themselves so that they can survive. If they don't do it, they die. In what way is that similar to Lecter's cannibalism?
    Shift from genes to memes.
    He was a memetic hunter....his identity was memetic, aesthetic, idealistic.
    He was a human genetically, and yet nothing like the humans he killed and devoured. There's also an element of the primitive.
    The hunter ate the best part of the kill...and so Hannibal only eats select morsels from each kill...even what parts he cooks are symbolic.
    This is not unlike the fragmentation occurring in our time, along idealistic lines. We congregate with those who are like us, in spirit, in mind. We feel alien to those who do not share this.  
    He did not eat them to sustain himself....he ate those that insulted his aesthetics - his memes.
    If you noticed, he never kills indiscriminately. He kills with symbolic intent.  

    We change our perspective from genetic species, to memetic species.
    He was of a different memetic species.

    Hannibal - Profile of a Caricature


    _________________
    Know Thyself

    Sponsored content

    Re: Fooq da po-lice?

    Post by Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:31 am