Are you here to enlight others? If not, what makes you think I am here to do so?
Also, I don´t see how your link refers to what I´ve said. I guess you need to switch into good ol’ discussion mode.
P.S. I am not “a Postmodernist”, to me that´s mere namecalling
I was hoping I wouldn’t have to explain sarcasm… read the footer on that page, you’ll get it.
Ah see, I was optimistical, I thought you actually wanted to contribute to the discussion…my bad…lol
A government is institutionalized coercion, which is unnecessary.
Governance can be private and voluntary, and it’s unavoidable when groups want to work together.
By interacting with the government, I give it legitimacy because I recognize it as such. I cannot completely avoid that, but to the extent possible I keep that involvement minimal.
I said I don’t want to be governed, not I don’t want to govern myself.
Foucault: I am generally aware, but I don’t know how it pertains to this topic.
How does it relate to you idea of coping with the structures?
You don’t expect people engage with you seriously after calling them politically impotent. I know there are people like janitor here who don’t mind but IMHO they’re only making things worse. Excuse my bluntness but I don’t think people who were exposed to the pomos (Derrida, Focault, especially if in academic contexts) have retained much of the capacity to think rationally (this is a generalization of course, but one has to be efficient), so I am only here to backtroll. Sorry if this wasn’t obvious, I hope it is now.
Change your discourse and you might see better reactions.
I referred to this:
Probably got you wrong.
Well it pertains this topic because you and others constantly talk about “government” when it´s actually about governance and Foucault is one of the first who have made this distinction clear (still, his understanding of “governance” is different to the one you´ll commonly find in common political science). I have never advocated government, neither in an abstract way nor in a specific one. I described what governments do and I stated that even if you don´t care, governments will matter to you and me, same as everyone else does. However, the main point here is that the crackdown that is just about to come is not just backed “power holders”, but more importantly by public discourse. Many people outside this bubble will rather agree with the political agenda then with yours and mine - the institution is irrelevant, what matter is where institutions get their power from. Even if all governments world wide would cease to exist, there will still be governance. I don´t see any option than dealing with it.
I don´t expect to engage with people seriously who twist my words. I think you are trying to find an excuse to go off-topic. I don´t see why I should care for your “better reactions”, that´s really up to you.
Who is twisting your words?
You can’t assume responsibility for what you said 1h ago but you’re complaining that people pretend “not to be responsible for society” ?
At least I can assume to be quoted correctly.
Here´s how you referred to my statement.
I didn´t “call” anyone political impotent. I described how the act of plainly laughing off governments appears to me personally: a cultivation of political impotence. I don´t see why my opinion should be an insult to anyone, unless your whole point is about political correctness of course. Possibly your connotations with “impotence” are different to mine, I was referring to it analytically, you apparently took it quite personally. Anyhow, that´s again OT, so maybe we leave it here, there are plenty of other people both of us can have debates with ;).
Clarification: I do not want to be part of a government, i.e. in a position to tell others what to do.
I want to govern myself, and in a free society the necessity of dealing with governance isn’t a burden: if you don’t like how you group or organization governs itself, you leave it and join another one, or just be on your own and engage others at terms acceptable to you and them.
Ok that puts things into a different perspective clears. It’s fine to me having different mindsets, but if you don’t mind, which is apparently the case. Anyway, would you mind answering this theoretical question: if a stranger nearby gets hit by a man with a stick for no visible reason: do you walk away or feel urged to intervene? The latter is political behaviour (in the sense of governance). Many people will walk away with the reason “I don’t want to be part of it” (which is political behaviour as well).
Not to be affected is an understandable wish imho, but society effectively means affection by others. The only solution I see is leacing society…
If the man with a stick is a policeman, I walk away.
If he’s a civilian, then it depends on circumstances, including a consideration of how likely I am to win if I were to fight the man with a stick. If I have a gun, I’ll probably ask what’s going on.
A difference between the two situations shows the sociopathic effects that the government has on the people.
On topic: the attackers seem to have used plain text messaging. Let’s ban unencrypted messaging!
It’s unencrypted because it’s easier for their handlers in the government to track them and make sure they’re doing exactly what they’re told.
Why would you? Because you believe it´s right or because you are afraid to get in conflict with executive forces?
See, that´s what I meant: Of course we can make fun of that obvious discoursive hypocrisy/contradiction, but circlejerking cynical statements in a bubble of people who already have that opinion won´t change the power the narrative has in society.
Having said this, of course, I am unaware whether you also talk about this outside of the “bubble”. I just wanted to point out by that example what kind of behaviour I believe is not at all productive.
Agreed,the only way to beat this is to try to change the narrative through all mediums possible, using the strongest arguments against their position/ideology.
Aside: Same with ISIS in fact, we’re fighting an ideology, a war that cannot be won with weapons, but words -clear and reasoned argument to win the hearts and minds. 
I’d walk away because I can. It’s my right, just like the guy who the cop is beating has the right to defend himself (or pay someone to do that for him) in case of uninitiated aggression against him.
You are attempting to create a moral dilemma with this cop beating a guy scenario, but there is none in this case.
There is a number of better cases on Wikipedia (and a recent one that’s probably not on Wikipedia yet is: would you buy a robot car that would crash you into a wall in order to avoid hitting a bunch of kids carelessly crossing the street) and some have no correct answer in any system of values.
Overall, though, the libertarian rule is simple: do not initiate aggression. In the both cases (the beater may be a cop or civilian) I have the right to walk away. I may not use it if I feel compassion for the suspected victim, but there is nothing that obliges me to help and this is what you consistently fail to understand, both here and earlier when the EU anti-encryption plan was discussed.
I wonder (well, not really) if you noticed how I didn’t ask you what you would do in that situation and the reason is of course that it doesn’t matter - you have the right to do whatever you see fit. Maybe you’re also inside or outside of the bubble, but it doesn’t matter. If you want to help, stop minding other people’s business because a long time ago governments were established with the same idea, to solve all such problems and now we’re in a situation where it’s hard to tell which of the two groups of force initiators in Bruxelles is the real terrorist.
I wonder if ISIS disallows their “citizens” to use encryption (and virtual currencies) or is the EU the only organization trying to do that.
Either that, or he was asking why the distinction in attitudes between your response to an authority figure and your response to a non-authority figure.
Really? Any system of values? I’m pretty sure I’d say yes in any case and I have a “value system”…a belief system…or whatever you want to call it.
A) Because it would make me a better/safer drive and I’d be extra vigilant for kids who may be careless.r.
B) Surely you’d swerve into something to avoid a bunch of kids however “careless” they were being.
C) What’s the polar alternative to this scenario? To buy a car that ploughs on regardless into kids without taking evasive action - a death penalty for “carelessness”?
When framed in this way, I think you can see which ethical end of the “moral dilemma” seems most appropriate to be on,
Interesting you stress that everyone has the right (three times, one time even in bold) to do whatever he*she likes to do, even though I never questioned that…
I am not “attempting” anything. I was interested in your answer and argument since you made a distinction between a policeman and a civilian. Gees… I really suggest you stop reading stuff between the lines that I didn´t write. Asides, I disagree that there is no moral dilemma at all. Whether there is a dilemma or not depends on the person. If I see someone gets hit on the street and I don´t see any reason then I feel a moral dilemma if I´d walk away. Depending on the moral other people won´t bother.
As you probably understand, that idea of “helping” only suits to your political agenda, not mine. I personally believe that your intent of not minding other people´s business effectively leads to a world where people with ressources control politics and to me the US is one of the best practical examples. Anyway, I don´t bother disagreeing here, just pointing out that you are currently minding my business.
Political structures are created to control - from that point of view “governments” and “terrorist” have never been any different. That´s why the terms are so counterproductive when evaluating political structures. However, “control” is just one factor of political systems, therefore looking at only this one virtue of political structures is quite 2-dimensional. To you it seems to be the only relevant one, but other people (like me) find the idea of controlling everything autonomously quixotic and choose a pragmatist approach. Anyway, that´s just to explain my perspective, I don´t expect coming to a common view here either.
“The EU” isn´t doing anything - unfortunately you´re just conforming with the narrative of the headline.
Oops, sorry - I thought you were trying to make a point somewhere along the way, but I guess I was mistaken.
I should have saved the time spent on this pointless discussions (I’m talking about comments I wrote). Muting this topic now.
I did and your remark is probably the most ridivulous escape I have read on this forum, particularly the (childish) muting part…