Dependency and Sycophancy

So dependency and sycophancy are issues not strictly associated with anarchism, but a lot of anarchists subscribe to hardline views because they are strongly compatible with the anarchist mindset.

Let's just consider what life is under the state. We are born, forced to go to school and be educated under a generic mass doctine, pressured to join a slanted rat race for arbitrary wealth, indoctrinated to believe that a wife and family is the ultimate happiness, and it turns out it isn't because the other 50% of families that don't end up in divorces are trainwrecks anyways.

To forget how nihl life is under a system of containment and isolation, we become sycophants for drugs, casual sex, and underwhelming entertainment such as television and meaningless smalltalk.

No one is going to fully come to terms with the love and passion that is natural in man, with such an unnatural system in place.

Almost forgot dependency. What has happened to this world?

Everyone thinks they are entitled to something, and the truth is that they are entitled to nothing. Nobody owes you anything

All the constant talk about rights and equality hurts my head. You make your own fate, and trying to work within the confines of a broken system is not salvation, but your own damnation.

One of the reasons I liked Malcolm X over Martin Luther King was because he understood reality. The mainstream elements of the civil rights movement were constantly crying entitlement, and then you have Malcolm X telling fellow African Americans that no, you are not entitled, but with the right mindset you can be empowered and not rely on others for your state of well being.

Honestly I don't like being dependent on society, but society forces me into a state of dependence, because if they didn't, the authority that controls society would have no power.

Final thing.

So many people misinterpret John Locke's natural rights. People think it means that they have the RIGHT, or are ENTITLED to this or that.
Not the case though.

Natural rights were a concept that promoted the idea that we had right to do stuff within our natural state, not within an unnatural framework. Promises to protect natural rights were promises to protect some of the things that we could only do separate of control.

Well here is what I have to say to that. If constitutions claim to protect natural rights, then they should cease all regulations to the human lifestyle that interfere with what humans capable of doing separate of control, in their natural non-artificial state.

Blackflag: In their classical formulation, you're more or less right about natural rights. I think you and John Stuart Mill would have had a lot in common.

The problem is, those people were fallible. Your only standard of reference here is their assertions, and your own. And yes, you are fallible too.

What is happening is that the world is gradually becoming more liberal. Old social orders are being challenged. And I see that process of debate and rational discourse as a positive thing. 100 years ago people shouted "nobody owes women the vote!", 50 years ago it was "nobody owes black people the vote!" ... today, the same rhetoric still comes from the conservative side to counter progressivist ideas.

100 years ago people shouted "nobody owes women the vote!", 50 years ago it was "nobody owes black people the vote!" ... today, the same rhetoric still comes from the conservative side to counter progressivist ideas.
The conservative side supports the black and women vote. Conservatives back the status quo, IE, why they are called conservatives.

Reactionaries want to move backwards, and a lot of people who are conservative are really reactionary.

today, the same rhetoric still comes from the conservative side to counter progressivist ideas.
Except I am not arguing reactionary rhetoric.

Nobody owes you anything, and you are entitled to nothing that you do not make for yourself. People can aid and assist you, but they are not obligated to you. This concept is so simple and true.

Once people realize that the Stalinist-liberal state is literally the preservation of cowardice, dependency, and sycophancy, they will finally begin to return to the natural state of man.

And Malcolm X, who definitely was not conservative, said himself that the white man does not owe the black man the right to vote. He also challenged the claim that the black man does not have equal opportunity.

His argument was that black people were subjecting themselves to a state of slavery by working within the confines of the state. Many free slaves encouraged every slave to actively try to escape captivity each day, but the reason they didn't was because they were still rung with cowardice and had became dependent on the master-slave social order.

It is time to do away with order and authority all together.

Blackflag: Conservatives back those things now, but it was the progressives of the past who led the change. Indeed progressives are STILL not satisfied with gender and racial equality, and I'll bet the conservatives tomorrow will be disgusted at conservatives today. But progressives will fight on doggedly against the tide of people who seek to stop the progress of modern society.

Everything you argue has no basis. There is no support, and no warrant. At most you appeal to authority. You're not convincing anybody. I don't understand why you bother.

Conservatives back those things now
No, because if they did then they wouldn't be conservative, but reactionary like Krit was.

but it was the progressives of the past who led the change
It was mostly just general unrest that led to reform. Independent liberal politicians really did not have any influence, but rather a change in heart from the aristocracy and rich capitalist politicians that dominated society all the way from the 1800's to 1960's. Even now the majority of politicians in the world are rich, and their motivation to shift in policy is out of fear.

Everything you argue has no basis. There is no support, and no warrant. At most you appeal to authority. You're not convincing anybody. I don't understand why you bother.
I am making plenty of points. Can you refute them instead of playing the tired dismissal game?

Why are people drawn to the state if not for cowardice, dependency, and sycophancy? Can you answer me that question?

Also since you apparently don't accept my claim, explain to me why you are entitled to certain things? What those things are in which you are entitled to? What are others obligated to provide you?

You apparently also disagree with my appeal to authority, but all I was doing was establishing that I agree with him.

Since you obviously disagree with Malcolm X, can you please explain to me why people oppressed in a system should continue to work within the confines of said system? Are you also making the claim that since slavery was primarily legal up until the 1830's for most of the civilized world, it was wrong for slaves to try and escape from the system that was put over their heads?

Would you also say that since the state forces me to follow a set of laws and regulations that I don't agree with, pay a certain proportion of my wealth that I believe will be spent unwisely, and restricts my access to move freely without both their permission and guidelines, that I am not an institutionalized slave?

If I as a white man wanted to work t outside the system, you think I should be put in jail, but if black people wanted to escape slavery during the early 1800's, they should be allowed too?

I believe I asked you nine questions. I request that you answer them all instead of selectively choosing one to draw out, so that way the conversation can actually progress.

I also would prefer you give me simple answers to my questions, because usually I am making very specific points, and you respond by writing large walls of text that are both muddled and get off topic.

Blackflag: You're making plenty of statements. Not points.

People are drawn to a state for the promotion of liberty and equality, among other reasons.
I am entitled to certain things for the insurance of my freedom and equality. I am entitled to freedom and equality as a human being.
Others are obligated to provide me with freedom and equality. I have the same obligations to them.

Hope you enjoy the simplicity of my answers.

admin: I asked you 9 questions, so please answer all of them.

People are drawn to a state for the promotion of liberty and equality, among other reasons.
Are you confusing the promotion of equality and freedom with not taking away equality and freedom?

It would be pretty closeminded to believe that a black man would want to join an authority just to be equal with white men.

I am entitled to certain things for the insurance of my freedom and equality. I am entitled to freedom and equality as a human being.
Oh really, and where do you derive this sense of entitlement.

If I was a dictatorwho controlled you and "gave" you less rights (lol), and you tell me that I can't do that because you are "entitled" to this and that, why the hell should I even listen to you?

You are living in a fantasy world in which you are special and are obligated for things that you had not earned yourself.

Others are obligated to provide me with freedom and equality. I have the same obligations to them.
Okay, and explain how I am obligated to give you freedom and equality.

You can say others are obligated to you, but that doesn't make it true.

Blackflag: In response to this post:
No
From the fact I am human. Those are human rights.
The question of how is not relevant. I don't care how.

In response to your other post:
Because the benefits outweigh the harms
No
Yes
Depends what you mean by "outside the system"

In response to both:
What makes you believe you are entitled to answers from me on any question?

From the fact I am human. Those are human rights.
You claim they are human rights, but if they can be taken away, then your claim is baseless.

If you still feel they are human rights, then you should also see that a system with the power to derive you of your humanity, is in fact, inhuman.

Depends what you mean by "outside the system"
Here is what I said earlier

Would you also say that since the state forces me to follow a set of laws and regulations that I don't agree with, pay a certain proportion of my wealth that I believe will be spent unwisely, and restricts my access to move freely without both their permission and guidelines, that I am not an institutionalized slave?

Am I or not subjected to slavery under these circumstances, and if so, then do I have the right to work outside the confines of the system which forces me to undergo these burdens?

What makes you believe you are entitled to answers from me on any question?
I am just wondering if you want to be taken seriously?

Blackflag: I don't think a legitimate state does take them away, in aggregate. That is the function of a social contract. Contractual law - another thing which, like basic statistics, you've apparently never studied up on.

No you are not.

I don't particularly care if you take me seriously, since nobody takes you seriously.

I don't think a legitimate state does take them away, in aggregate
Because you decide what is legitimate? No, if anybody has the right to decide legitimacy, it is the state itself.

Why can't my dream be legitimate?

No you are not.
Please elaborate. When my lifestyle is regulated in a certain way, when my level of arbitrary wealth is strictly controlled, and my ability to move and breath freely is infringed upon, how is that now slavery?

I think I know why? You are what African Americans here would refer to as a "House Nigger"

I don't particularly care if you take me seriously
Do you care if others take you seriously? Why are you doing this then, for attention?

Blackflag: States are a human institution, and therefore have no right to abrogate human rights.

Slavery is defined specifically by the condition of forced labor for a particular employer, especially with little recompense. None of that meets the standard you're talking about.

I was asking you the same thing. That's why I posted here in the first place.

Speaking of slavery, this shirt is amazing.

http://funnytshirts.savatoons.com/slavery.html

It looks better on a person.