Topics

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

General / Porcupine vs Lions - nature proves why we are stronger

« on: November 13, 2011, 03:41:18 PM »

The lions are the statists. We are the porcupines.

They may be many and full of agressors, yet look what happens. 

Porcupine vs. Lion

Enough said.

2

General / My paper on nethatred

« on: February 07, 2011, 07:57:23 AM »

Hello how we all doing?

Great.

This is an essay I wrote on my final test. During the course I was a bit afraid that my anti-govt views would affect my grade, even though the teachers aren't supposed to grade according to that. But this proved not the case, I got an A, and I bloody well deserved it.

I felt like I wanted to share this. The task was to write a response to a debate contribution made in a Swedish newspaper by a celebrity blogger, Birro, and a so called university professor, Pålshammar. Lots of people have channeled their hate via the net on Birro's blog. So Birro and Pålshammar are now wanting to solve the "nethatred problem" with some kind of compulsatory registration. This would remove the anonimity and reduce the hatred on the net, according to ghem.    

Thoughts are welcomed.

Anonymity - threat or blessing?

"Never in the history of man has there been a true free press"
- Julian Assange, founder of Wikileaks, recently to a well renowned Swedish newspaper.

"In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled."
- Dr. Mary J. Ruwart

Every time people experience that a problem exists you can be sure of, as sure of as the sky is blue, that someone will outcry "one should X, it should be like Y". Or as in the article "Nethatred at its largest amidst youths" where Pålshammar articulates that "if one did something about anonymity" and where Birro says he thinks that a system where one has to register would decrease the hatred. When people voice their opinion in this manner it's usually covert communication; what they in fact is saying is that "Mommy government should force all selfish others to act according to how I want. With the gun turned to the head of these selfish others if she has to."  

Tell me, does this sound like a favourable method to solve problem? Doesn't such a method, a method of coercion, in fact create five new problems? Every time the government tries to solve a problem it invariably creates five new ones, as my old grandmother always said.
 
I do have sympathy for Birro, nobody feels good about having nasty comments to ones' blogposts, which by nature are personal. A blogger puts himself into his posts and is therefore at that moment vulnerable, exposed. If he then receives nasty comments, like Birro has, it is easy to get hurt. Birro has probably not even met these nasty commentators and much less said anything nasty to them, yet they spew their hatred on him. They are projecting negative events from their own life towards Birro, just like Pålshammar says in his argument that anonymity makes the net an attractive place for one to get rid of aggressivity from ones own life.

Pålshammar states that anonymity pose a danger. Of course anonymity pose "a danger", nuts pose a danger to those allergic to nuts. To solve this "danger" with the method Birro and Pålshammar are proposing is by far a much more grave danger. They are talking about restricting everybody's freedom by ushering in compulsatory registration, which then would be run by some kind of department? I will not even begin to entertain the problems such a concept would involve by stating it here. The administrative nighmare alone to monitor 9 million individuals following such an endeavour is enough to keep signed up at night. Furthermore: Quiz custodiet ipzoz custoz? Who watches the watchmen?

Pålshammar's reasoning that "in the end the right to speech threatens the right to speech" is so absurd that I barf a little in my mouth. It is an formidable oxymoron that one wants to restrict the right to speech in order to protect it. How he on some level manages to dream up that this in any way would protect the right to speech is beyond my comprehension.

Birro is a victim (and that not said in a condescending tone) in this case, a victim of nasty words. He has been exposed to others initiating aggression aggresivity against him, which is wrong, always. But to then react by wanting to initate the threat of violence and physical aggression towards everyone who happens to live on the geographical landmass most commonly referred to as Sweden, is that right? Two wrongs doesn't make one right!

I believe in rights, I believe that they are a good idea and that it's a good idea to defend and uphold certain rights. I don't believe that all rights which many today consider are rights de facto are rights. HOWEVER if there is one right I believe in and will always defend it's freedom of speech. My philosophical axiom of life, if you will, is to allow everyone to do whatever they want as long as nobody gets hurt. In addition that the use of force is only just IF someone else has initiatied force against you or to protect your property against attempted theft. If we want to live free we have to honour our neighours choice, no matter what kinds of moral objections we happen to have about what he is doing. If we don't do that, who will defend us when someone (most likely the government) tries to opress us?

For it is most commonly the government that is the oppressor, the government is the largest threat to your freedom. "Terrorists! Suicide bombers" some will object. Please. Think about it. Through the government we take turns of being victims and agressors. That which one group gains from a law or a program another group loose, and vice versa. Birro and Pålshammar is stuck in this paradigm.

The paradigm indoctrinated through the government's schools; how you solve problems and make a difference. Students are thought through role playing and written essays that "children, if you could be the president for a day what laws would you make to do everything so much better?". Or to write to "your" so called "representative".

This paradigm is all about making sure the people are playing into the higher ups agenda by getting them to use the system, which in essence is about forcing what we happen to think is right, our will, upon others.

This is also what this debate about anonymity on the net boils down to, and I will make that apparent with three simple questions.

Does Birro and Pålshammar acknowledge that I'm free to have whatever opinions and ideas I might have? To this question surely their answers is yes, I hope.

Do they think that I am free to express these opinions and ideas? Again, here they will answer yes, hopefully.

Now to the interesting, and really the only relevant question: Are they ready to force me, with the gun pointed to my head of I don't wan't to, to pay for their opinions and ideas? Indeed here I hope their answer is no.

I also do hope that it's apparent that Birro, would he to answer yes, have gone from being the victim to the aggressor. And so is the cycle of violence and aggression propagated. The evil commentators are in turn victims in some way in their lives, this is where the aggresivity comes from in the first place. And guess who chiefly creates that? The government.

Can the reader see how it all goes together? Does the reader realize that it's not a constructive idea to try to solve problems with the government, the monopoly of violence? Anonymity on the net may be a danger, a threat. But to solve this with the method Birro and Pålsammar wants is by far a more grave danger.

The government is a gigantic monster, a leviathon. It devours everything in its path and is always searching for new ways to expand its control. The bureucrats and the politicians reward their friends and punishes their enemies. If the government  is allowed to grow in one area it gets hungry for more. Then it's set in stone that it will try to escalate its control even further.

They want to control you! They want to own you! (and for many intents and purposes currently they do)

If those that through some sort of registration of internet-users want to restrict mine and your freedom are allowed to make their plans come to fruition this is merely the first step. Behind the curtains the North Korean government is applauding and preparing welcome-to-the-club cards.
 
Nay, I say. Anonymity on the net is by and large a blessing. Now is the first time in the history of mankind, thanks to Wikileaks, a true free press exists, and this is invaluable. It will correct a lot of corruption within governments. As a consequence the resentment amidst the sheeple people will decrease.

The politicians and the bureucrats (read control freaks) will still exist with their biggest wish to restrict your freedom. Remember, it's OK, they know whats best for you, your children and your life. They know what is best for everyone. But their agenda will be harder to realize, easier to see through with anonymity on the net.

As a consequence Birro will, with some luck, be exposed to less hatred, a little less aggresiveness on his blog and email inbox.

There are other methods to solve these kinds of problems with than to either shut down ones blog or force ones will upon the selfish others and, worse yet, forcing me and you to pay for it. However good intentions Birro and Pålshammar might have it will result in unintended consequences when they want to coerce others.

If we restrict the freedom of others we create many enemies which in turn will want to take their revenge upon us, by restricting our freedom; In trying to control others, we find ourselves controlled.

Coercion is an uninmaginable more grave danger than anonymity on the net. About this theme one of Birros blogposts would be much better suited.

edit: replaced aggresion with aggresivity