Re: MD Real Libertarians Please Stand Up

[Wim Nusselder]

Dear Glen,   I don't mind to agree to disagree with you on the value of drug use. I have no strong opinions on it and wouldn't even mind much to call a retreat if someone explained to me that drug use is essential to create certain higher-level-valuable phenomena, of which psychedelic music is not necessarily on, if Gerhard is right.   I'm not happy with your handling of the socialism versus capitalism debate. I wouldn't call myself a socialist but you probably would. I think it is a battle between phantoms or even spectres, the real issue being something else. But I can't explain that yet before I have finished some other threads, so I won't enter that debate.   I definitely don't agree to disagree with you on the value of non-violence for it is not a matter of opinions for me. I feel you deny part of my experience (my self-respect) or even of my identity when you call me a mere subject when I have no rifle and somehow see Dynamic Quality in an individual right to possess and use arms. Slightly overcharging for the sake of argument I deny you the right to call your libertarianism (whatever that may be) founded on the MoQ if you hold that libertarianism implies such a right.   Be a human, Glen! Defend yourself. I called you a coward! (Well, almost. I don't know whether you really own a rifle and would use it against a cop trying to infringe on your precious right to pursue selfish interests or only think it would be "cool" to do so.)   I stated  12/6 23:17 +0200: "No cause (= intellectual pattern) legitimises fighting with material weapons (= fighting social patterns by fighting biological patterns with inorganic patterns)." Dan wrote 14/6 13:17 -0500: "This is a tough one. I would like to intellectually agree with you but I am quite sure in a threatening situation my instinct for survival would precondition my actions. There would be no thought involved at all. Only action. And that action would be of a violent nature if that is what the situation called for, but only upon reflection. At the time it would be just what I had to do to survive. I think that part of 'me' is very old and very ruthless and it disconcerts me when I look at what we are capable of as human beings. There is no more dangerous creature on earth. It fills me with wonder too though. Dynamic Quality is very strange." I replied 16/6 21:59 +0200: "No dispute here. You describe reaction to biological or perhaps social threats: from an intellectual viewpoint illegitimate action but nevertheless unavoidable to the extent that one identifies with biological and social values. One can train oneself to identify more with intellectual values and less with lower level ones. In fact "Civilisation" is maybe about just that: offering scores of disciplines for this training. Aikido, which I mentioned in my e-mail to Clarke (12/6 22:46 +0200 same thread) is only one among many such disciplines." If you feel biologically and socially threatened and use arms I can excuse you, but that does not convince me that it has more value than a more civilised approach.   Socrates would not be remembered for establishing the independence of intellectual patterns from their social origins (Lila ch. 22) had he defended with arms his right to brainwash the youth of his day with Ratio. He proved the strength of those intellectual patterns by offering his life (biological and social patterns of value) for them. Was he a mere subject in doing so??? Do you have the courage to stand for your "right" to possess and use arms by offering your life (not using your rifle of course) for it? That "right" is just a misnomer for the biological "law of the jungle", the "right of the strongest".   For the sake of argument I am even willing to be so impolite to state that in my humble opinion the United States of America are a backward part of civilisation as long as this "right" is being upheld. My view of the facts of history is that civilisation (intellectual evolution for the better) means that nations increasingly monopolise violence vis-a-vis their citizens (if they trespass) and even increasingly cede sovereignty to use violence to supranational bodies.   Whether non-violence would succeed against Hitler or Stalin is not a valid argument. Courage implies taking risks. Anyway a majority of Hitler's citizens supported him. (About Stalin's citizens I simply don't know.)   Between 20 and 15 years ago I stopped being a principled non-violent activist. I don't hold anymore that no-one should ever use arms. Instead I adopted the stance of George Fox when William Penn asked him whether he (being a court official) could go on wearing a sword (when he would be seen by his peers as being almost "naked" without it): "Wear thy sword as long as thou canst." meaning: as long as God does not call you personally to stop wearing it. (This anecdote by the way was first put to paper more than two centuries after the death of both gentlemen, so it probably more accurately reflects the values of some 19th century Quakers than it does those of George and William.) I still can't experience any Dynamic Quality in fighting or even threatening with material weapons for any cause. At best it is low-level static quality to do so.   With friendly greetings,   Wim Nusselder