Interview With Ray Peat On Government, Libertarianism, And Social Class

[goodandevil]

I think one problem with all of these terms, and RP points this out in the interview, is that their original meanings have been changed so it is difficult to really nail down any of these concepts. Also there have been so many varieties added to each category that any one subset of libertarianism could be very similar to a subset of anarchism.

But IMO the original meaning of Anarchy is that of no ruler or government; only voluntary associations amongst individuals without the coercive force of Government. To me Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism is the establishment of a representative government to use its force to protect the rights of property and individual freedoms. So though I see some overlap, I still don’t think they are compatible in their original sense.

It is very possible that Kropotkin was a true believer and didn’t know he was being used. He certainly wasn't happy with the outcome of the revolution. That wouldn't have been unique in his time or in ours.

Interesting how there's even a term, supplied by power, for the absence of power, with connotations of violence and destruction. I agree with ray in that there's something natural about socialism, giving to others, but i think there's something natural, too, in the notion that he who risks should be rewarded. Rulers split society and when people go too far in either direction, losing touch with the utility of each concept, and then the state is the inevitable victor. Those who risk should be rewarded but thlse who are rewarded should help others, but it should be from their own volition. Without ideology everything would he so plain but even attempting to describe this simple philosophy is impossible vecause of the terms people associate it with.

 

[DaveFoster]

Interesting how there's even a term, supplied by power, for the absence of power, with connotations of violence and destruction. I agree with ray in that there's something natural about socialism, giving to others, but i think there's something natural, too, in the notion that he who risks should be rewarded. Rulers split society and when people go too far in either direction, losing touch with the utility of each concept, and then the state is the inevitable victor. Those who risk should be rewarded but thlse who are rewarded should help others, but it should be from their own volition. Without ideology everything would he so plain but even attempting to describe this simple philosophy is impossible vecause of the terms people associate it with.

Repetition is the cornerstone of learning, or unlearning in this case.

 

[goodandevil]

Repetition is the cornerstone of learning, or unlearning in this case.

Couldn't agree more, it's what makes our neurons connect. So I say allocate the greatest suspicions to the most frequent message. Know I'm sayin?

 

[DaveFoster]

Couldn't agree more, it's what makes our neurons connect. So I say allocate the greatest suspicions to the most frequent message. Know I'm sayin?

If it were true, people wouldn't have to say it all the time.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

What's wrong with talking about identity politics ?

Anyone who believes or wants to talk about class struggle can just join any communist party.

“Identity politics” has been a powerful way to distract people from their economic interests."

But I don't think he realizes that it's not a distraction, it's what crazy liberals, progressives, SJW's believe on their own volition. No one is distracting them. No one is forcing or advertising to them that they should hold such beliefs. They believe in it themselves. One's worldview may be genetic so it's not just a class thing. You can have people from the same class who are more left or right. He said "powerfully." Well, just look at how many of the left are today. They powerfully believe in their hateful worldview so much that they are violent, and if not violent, they will disrupt private, not public, meetings, events, personal places etc.

When someone says "As a..." fill in the blank "this is how I feel," that shows you how dumb that person is. Their personal experience means nothing to other people who are the same gender and ethnicity when discussing a broad topic.

.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I laughed when I saw this:

"During his campaign, Mr. Trump openly supported authoritarian sentiments like capital punishment, ethnocentricity, military action, and even nuclear weapons — many of the same things you were concerned by in the ’50s. Do you think we are seeing a resurgence in authoritarianism in the West, or is there another aspect to the overall picture?"

Ethnocentricity? Are you serious? Please provide one example.

Military action? Sometimes it's needed. It's not perfect. Bad things happen. But the reality is it's a dangerous world. You have crazy people in North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and on and on, so in order for you to keeping running "reformermag.com" you better be glad someones doing the dirty work for you.

I was very disappointed when I saw this:

"Presidents, including Clinton and Obama, have been saying that the US is a post-racist society, and that no remedial federal activity is needed."

I would love to know exactly what "remedial federal activity" would be and who would get it. There are many "light skinned" folk who can certainly use some help too.

"Slavery and the annihilation of the native population were part of the context of their understanding of liberty."

Native Americans annihilated each other long before anyone else showed up. Also, 90% of them died from smallpox, measles or flu. Things would have been very different if they didn't die from those viruses. The non NA would have not simply murdered them.

.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

I'm not surprised this thread is quiet

It was posted for only 3 hours when you said that. You expect everyone to respond within 3 hours?

 

[goodandevil]

If it were true, people wouldn't have to say it all the time.

Exactly.

 

[keith]

I think one problem with all of these terms, and RP points this out in the interview, is that their original meanings have been changed so it is difficult to really nail down any of these concepts. Also there have been so many varieties added to each category that any one subset of libertarianism could be very similar to a subset of anarchism.

But IMO the original meaning of Anarchy is that of no ruler or no government; only voluntary associations amongst individuals without the coercive force of Government. To me Libertarianism or Classical Liberalism is the establishment of a representative government as a force to protect the rights of property and individual freedoms. So though I see some overlap, I still don’t think they are compatible in their original sense.

It is very possible that Kropotkin was a true believer. The fact that he wasn't happy with the outcome of the revolution makes me think he just didn’t know he was being used. That wouldn't have been unique in his time or in ours.

"True believer" is a bit of a loaded term also, to your point above. Kropotkin's opposition to the Bolsheviks was based on their authoritarianism, not their radicalism. One can't help how other people use their ideas, and if good ideas can be manipulated, that doesn't make them bad ideas. From what I've read by and about Kropotkin, he seems in many ways similar to Ray Peat. I'm not going to spend any more time defending him, though. If anyone wants to know more about his ideas, most, if not all, of his work is available online for free, including a fascinating autobiography. Draw your own conclusions.

 

[schultz]

Military action? Sometimes it's needed. It's not perfect. Bad things happen. But the reality is it's a dangerous world. You have crazy people in North Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, and on and on...

Thank goodness we have America to police the world for us!

 

[keith]

Thank goodness we have America to police the world for us!

Iraqi children won't just starve themselves, you know.

 

[Makrosky]

There are obviously people with different levels of intelligence. Therefore it's important for any group that wants to maintain influence over a population to set their people at different levels to provide influence as people climb up the ladder so to speak. This is easily accomplished by realizing there are certain things that are disseminated by those in a position to disseminate and that people with a certain amount of intelligence will reject and so you have the higher levels influence tell them the truth about these things. For example you have this person say nothing but agreements about the what the group you want to influence believes in. This garners trust and a willingness to accept new information from the source. Then you can have that person disseminate information that you want the "followers*" to believe or accept as mostly correct. (*I mean this in the sense that you view this person as rationale, objective, sincere, and good source of information and/or ideas) .

I was reading your comments... And you immediately remembered me precisely the kind of things Chomsky talks on his books when he talks about establishment trying to manipulate people. Sorry I can't cite anything, I know a comment like this is worthless without proofs but.... it just reminded me so much what I've read from Chomsky in the past.

 

[AJC]

If you remove the Che Guevara overtones of violent revolution, I would define it as someone who is acting on the belief that the power struggle in any society, is and always has been, based on class lines.

Thanks. Yeah, I was wondering where "warrior" fit in.

 

[Simonsays]

@AJC

I would define it as someone who is acting on the belief that the power struggle in any society, is and always has been, based on class lines.

This.

 

[Queequeg]

Interesting how there's even a term, supplied by power, for the absence of power, with connotations of violence and destruction.

+1 that's almost Lincolnesque

 

[goodandevil]

+1 that's almost Lincolnesque

Thanks for the compliment good sir. "God must have loved the common man- he created so many of them" -A. Lincoln

 

[Queequeg]

Thanks for the compliment good sir. "God must have loved the common man- he created so many of them" -A. Lincoln

“Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don’t feel so stupid or insecure,it’s not your fault.” President Elect Trump

 

[Constatine]

If it were true, people wouldn't have to say it all the time.

Love this

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Thank goodness we have America to police the world for us!

Yes, thank goodness we do.

You need to watch some videos from the website documentingreality.com. Watch what ISIS does to people. Watch what goes on outside of Canada. Look at how horrible some people are. It's real and it happens every day.

In order for you to keep living your happy Canadian life, some things need to be done. Some unfortunate things happen but there's nothing you can do about it.

Obama said to Bill Maher in their recent interview, that the world depends on the US to be there in case some ***t goes down. It's true.

All of those Canadian hockey fans wouldn't have anything to riot over when their teams loses if there was no US military.

Iraqi children won't just starve themselves, you know.

The US war in Iraq was a mistake. But that doesn't that the US should never do anything to crazy dictators ever again. That's just one example. Also, if you're concerned about "starving children," theres many more in other places. Have you ever donated to help feed them? What about your western life has ever benefitted them as you sit here on a net forum?

 

[keith]

Yes, thank goodness we do.

You need to watch some videos from the website documentingreality.com. Watch what ISIS does to people. Watch what goes on outside of Canada. Look at how horrible some people are. It's real and it happens every day.

In order for you to keep living your happy Canadian life, some things need to be done. Some unfortunate things happen but there's nothing you can do about it.

Obama said to Bill Maher in their recent interview, that the world depends on the US to be there in case some ***t goes down. It's true.

All of those Canadian hockey fans wouldn't have anything to riot over when their teams loses if there was no US military.



The US war in Iraq was a mistake. But that doesn't that the US should never do anything to crazy dictators ever again. That's just one example. Also, if you're concerned about "starving children," theres many more in other places. Have you ever donated to help feed them? What about your western life has ever benefitted them as you sit here on a net forum?

What I do or don't do to help starving children is completely immaterial to this discussion, and is just an attempted distraction from the topic.

What gives the U.S. the right to do whatever it wants? If another country made a "mistake" that resulted in millions of lives, it would be a war crime. If the U.S. does it, we claim we were doing the right thing, but just made a "mistake". How would we react to another country doing to us what we do to them? What if Yemen started flying armed drones over the U.S. and bombing people they claimed were terrorists based on top secret information they couldn't reveal for national security reasons, and then, if they hit a wedding, just said it was a mistake? It is complete hypocracy.

Americans are constantly confused about why so many people in the rest of the world hate them. This is why. We constantly interfere everywhere in the world. We always think we know best. We insist on playing with a different set of rules than everyone else, and yet we don't even see it when it smacks us in the face.

I won't pretend I think I can change your mind, but hopefully I've given you some food for thought.