Anarchist.

my response to : Kitty and Jaron

yes, Kitty, that is true-, but with a regulation of substance, we could significantly lessen numbers of people who become addicts- and with that problem under some control, we can actually be able to help the truly sick people.

and Jaron, -

its not the Nicotine in cigarettes that blackens your lungs, its the other shit mixd with the tobacco that does-- the nicotine simply serves as an 'addiction agent' if you will.

also- Alcoholic drinking too much coffee? what did you mean?

and yes- overall, of course there will still be a group of hardcore addicts- but dont you think it could be a good thing- to lessen the numbers of how do i put it-- 'occasional addicts'-- like people who'll get hooked from the use-- and the reason they started is that the substance is illicit.

and i mean- no plan is perfect- there will always be unhappy people that will turn to drugs to numb their pain- thats just how things go-- but maybe, with positive political reform re: drugs and their illicit status- we can make things better for a whole lot of people, and control it- so there are less problems.

oh btw- in case anyone wanted to accuse me for talking out of my arse-- ive had a fair bit of experience with less than legal substances- a variety of them- , just in case you wanted to know.

there should be treatment. but criminalization is wrong.

exactly-- you dont put cancer patients in jail, you put them in a hospital -so hopefully you can treat them-- & addiction is a sickness, not a crime.

so is most of the stuff on the tele LOLOLOL

id say-- most stuff on the tele IS A CRIME. as well as a sickness.

except the daily show.

which is ?..... what exactly?

YOU DON'T KNOW THE DAILY SHOW???

[URL=http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/community/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1110&highlight=and+now+here+it+is+your+moment+of+zen]GO HERE.[/URL]

or [URL=http://www.comcentral.com/dailyshow/index.jhtml]HERE.[/URL]

NOW!!!!!

oh, i apologise, the comedy channel hasnt deemed Australia worthy of such a program- so ill have to cite 'being hemispherically challenged' yet again. it looks good though.

Daily show is overrated.

well, so are you.

WS, "coffee" was where my mind went on a different tangent than my fingers did. I was thinking about getting another mug full of highly-caffeinated liquids, and... well... yeah.

In any case, control is irrelevant. People will do whatever, whenever, and in many cases because the media tells them it's "cool" to do such a thing. Take, for example, drugs (which is the basis of this particular tangent of this particular conversation on this particular message board in this particular continuum). The media "pimps" the idea of using drugs, especially with the heavy drug users in the music industry and the other "popularly acclaimed" whatchamacallits that the youth fall head over heels in love with, and why? Because it's a society that they belong to which pimps the idea, and they want to fit in and be "cool", so start doing drugs and end up getting addicted. It ain't accidental use, it's societal influence.

yes good points Jaron, but also consider-- if its ( your drug of choice here ) is easily available and had quality control, the likelihood is that its more likely to be used responsibly and in a 'safer' situation ( and yes, i know how contradictive that sounds, but roll with it )-- and naturally the media plays a role in all of this-- im just saying-- we can make it a better exp. for everyone-- and help ppl who are truly sick/ out of control-- rather than push them to the fringe of society- or jail.

sick people need help, not to be jailed.

They have their own society, and always will. Gun fanatics have theirs, hardcore drinkers have theirs, and generally anybody else who is an extremist about anything at all will have their own society.

Of course, society does "push them out" to an extent, but not nearly to the extent that you seem to be implying. They push themselves out.

Edit: This isn't only high-brow philosophy. It's from personal experience, as well.

yep, noted.

well, ill take heroin addicts as an example. people with a real problem, usually end up pushed away - to the fringe as it were-- and can be driven to all kinds of personal lows.

dont you think?-- if we can give them safe doses of their addictive substance and a place to shoot up- they will be more likely to want help-- that they will be more open to education on how to not let that substance overtake them, and make them lose control.

-- btw, anyone feel free to answer--

Addiction, for many people, is sort of like having a panther as a pet. It's all warm and cuddly, and you absolutely love it, but you live with the constant horror that it can kill you at any moment in time. However, you feed this pet and coddle it like your little baby because you love them, even though it's incredibly dangerous.

It's a psychology thing, dude.

of course its partially mental, but dont discount the fact that it can be a physical addiction too-- and anyway, you didnt answer the question.

My answer is "maybe".

On the one hand, they may decide that it's socially acceptable and keep on doing it, bringing the drug industry into Years of Milk and Honey without law persecution. The government could decide that it's profitable and, hell, since half of the cabinet and a third of congress are addicted to various previously-illegal substances, they might as well keep it that way! After all, treatment may be mandatory but taking the drugs is no longer against the law. Cocaine would be like liquer, or maybe heroin would. They'd only "socially shoot up" or only "socially snort", sort of like if people were to "socially smoke" or "socially drink" these days. Eventually, alot of people would come to the startling revelation that they are, in fact, addicted for some strange reason (despite the fact that they only did it a few times, because they were experimenting).

On the other hand, people may be treated and "drugs" (or rather "herbs", or weed) would become a social norm. People wouldn't smoke up at work (except maybe a light joint or two at lunch), just as they wouldn't drink at work. The general public (especially drug users) would have more information available, since more reasearch would be put into those previously-illegal substances and many people would "see the light", and quit (or at least cut back). Families would bloom, and the world would be all happy and stuff.

well yeah- who knows- i mean, i cant 100% confirm any of my ideas will definitely work- im just the kind of person that wouldnt discount that possibilty- as it COULD ( in theory) help alot of people that need help. thats all.

Idealistically, a benevolent dictatorship could help a large number of people. Does that mean that you'd suggest that a benevolent (or benign, even) dictatorship be instated?

im not talking about dictatorships and governmental systems -- so i apologize that this thread has gone way off track-- i started to by using the 'dont do drugs' mentality as something that we should change - and i guess it was an offshoot of recalling how stuck in the 50s our government is over here.-- ok, so on that note ill quit about the 'drug reform ideas' ive got -- if i feel the need to make noise about that again- ill do that in another thread,

Heh. It's a god damned conversation, and conversations are (or should be) fluid. Otherwise, you'll never get anywhere.

actually what may have escaped me to ask in this so far is-- with the ideas re: anarchy, governmental horse-shit etc-- what are youre hopes/aspirations for what 'systen' youd prefer to be installed and how it works.....?

the floor is yours Jaron.

Somewhere between primitivism anarchy, and fractal anarchy.

Primitivism, in that everything would (hopefully) be more real. It may be shitty, for people living in it, but it'd be without all the bullshit that comes from modern society, media, and politics. If there were to be governments, and preferably not, then they'd probably be dictators (and out for their own good). They'd be overthrown by the people, periodically, and a new system would be reinstated because the people (while not happy) would at least KNOW that they're not happy with it and could potentially do something to change it. REAL free speech would be not only tolerated, but encouraged because honest and open discussion brings about intelligent thought. Anarchy would need to be, at the start of this system. That is to say, someone would need to come along and give a big FUCK YOU ALL to society, especially the government, and probably start a full-out subversive war against the REAL modern superpowers that would somehow shudder their foundations and bring them toppling over. For this to work, EVERYTHING would need to come toppling over, including the "organization" that would bring everything else toppling over. (Unfortunately, you'd need to put someone in power who didn't actually WANT that power and who had a desire to bring that toppling down, so that they'd be willing to give it up as soon as it served its purpose. This usually doesn't happen, as you can see from Lenin's revolution and the subsequent bullshit that came from that.) This would, in some senses, bring everything "back to ground zero" and allow fresh starts.

Any questions?

yeah- where do YOU fit in to it all?

As one of the many, pretty much.

See, I don't think I'm very important, in the bigger picture. In fact, I don't think any particular individual's important in the bigger picture, so I figure that if I sit around and don't bother trying to make any PERSONAL difference, but try to get other people to (fairly subversively, i.e. by making them think enough to get pissed off enough to fucking get off their ass and DO something), then it'll be so much better.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Jaron [/i]
[B]As one of the many, pretty much.

In fact, I don't think any particular individual's important in the bigger picture...[/B][/QUOTE]

So, does that mean your desire essentially is some homage to communism? Dont you want us all to 'thnk freely' and for ourselves though? How can we have a forward-thinking & positive society where the individuals thoughts/feelings dont matter?

Because it's the bigger picture that's important in the bigger picture.

I should actually rephrase what I said before. No individual matters, as an individual, not do their opinions matter as an individual opinion. However, they do matter in that they are part of the whole and will (whether consciously/intentionally or otherwise) influence the direction of the whole (as the chaos theory, mathematical, would indicate).

But as individuals, we don't matter.

As a part of the whole, I hope to introduce (or at least influence) enough factors (individuals) to allow for significant change. This'd mostly be in terms of making people think, of course, which would ultimately change the course of the masses.

And I'd say no, it's not a homage to communism.

Communism would be the perfect goverment, for a small group of people.

Only for a small group of people, who all got along and totally agreed with each other. I.e., communism would only work for a community of individuals with roughly the mental equivelant of sheep.

Exactly! But it is a logical idea. Just not a logical plan.

For an idea to be logical, it needs logical reasoning for the methods with which you will reach that particular idea. The idea of communism is, actually, a good idea. However is only and will only ever be an idea, because the methods with which it would be achieved corrupt the ideas upon which the idea of communism is based.

So if you isolate the idea of communism, it's an awesome idea.

If you relate the idea of communism to reality, it's a good, but illogical, idea.

Exactly.

XChuck
- you really have no grasp of understanding what the hell we are talking about, do you?

oh and Jaron- great post before-- kind of summed up what youre saying.

wouldn't that suggest that there is a possible way to do it but we're too stupid to figure it out?

Thanks, Wes.

bronskrat, if there's a possible method with which to go about something that's impossible for the only current catalysts to perform, then it's impossible.

[QUOTE]bronskrat, if there's a possible method with which to go about something that's impossible for the only current catalysts to perform, then it's impossible.
[/QUOTE]

wait. jaron, luv ya baby, but could you pick a side? like, either be an idealist or be a pessimist. i mean first you want to tear down everything "to ground zero" as you put it, and create anarchy with periodically overthrown dictatorships.

HELLO?!?!?!?!? this is what we have right NOW. and yet you seem to believe that this anarchic system will be to the betterment of mankind.

and then, in your answer to bronskrat, you delimit the possible as only what's available at the current moment, which is inherently pessimistic--by your own contradictory arguments, anarchy, being that it is not possible for the current catalysts (being anarchists like yourself) to perform (otherwise presumably you'd have done some of this already rather than running your mouth on a message board), then the very "vision of anarchy" you were talking about is IMPOSSIBLE.

argh!!!

A breakdown of society hasn't happened for far, far too long. I'd say bringing everything back to ground zero would, at least temporarily, make everything more "real".

Also, the reason that anarchy's currently impossible is, YES, because the CURRENT catalysts are unable to perform the actions necessary to bring about a drastic change. However, if those said catalysts bring enough other people into this line of thinking, then it would be more realistic as the catalysts would then be able to carry through with the said actions.

Basically, anarchy is impossible. However, that's only at this current point in time. Socio-Communism is also impossible, at this current point in time. So is democracy. Why? Because the people, right here and right now, can't actually do anything about it except talk about it. However, when enough people think about it and think that it'd be better for society, then it'll become possible.

ok, so again- in light of insomnomaniac's post---

Jaron, other than talking about it- what are you doing to further this?
and dude, plz dont say its a secret. you can do better than that.

Play it by ear.

so, that means 'doing nothing'

Not actually.

When I say "play it by ear", it actually means that I'll do something spontaneous and (generally) unexpected (by most people). This means that the opposing party/parties don't usually have any defence against whatever particular assault that I have in mind, and if they erect one on the spur of the moment then it inevitably fails, because it's generally not entirely appropriate as a defense against whatever I so happen to choose to do at that particular moment (which may change at any given point in time, and regularly does).

In this case, it means that I'll probably simply talk to people and whip them into a frenzy (which I've done on numerous occasions, causing a fair amount of untraceable social dissonance in the local community, and a few international communities). This, if nothing else, is a significant effect.

We'd all get along alot better if everyone in the world wore
nametags....or watched Seinfeld together.

jaron, i love you and generally i think you're cool, but you are SO full of shit on this particular issue.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by murderkitchen [/i]
[B]We'd all get along alot better if everyone in the world wore
nametags....or watched Seinfeld together. [/B][/QUOTE]

ooh ooh, and we if smoked crack in our underwear and watch disney.

Kitty: I'm always full of shit, hun. Then again, pretty much everyone's always full of shit, whether they know it, acknowledge it, or admit it (even to themselves). I figure I at least have got a (mild) head start.

but is it compelling?

My shit, as opposed to other peoples' shit?

yes. i mean, if youre going to raise a crowd into a frenzy- you need some: a) cred , good oratory and c) compelling opinion vs subject matter.

Compelling opinion, usually, and generally careful manipulation. And usually, I whip the individuals into a frenzy then have them all get together.

One-on-one, until everyone's pissed off.

Then, they're all united with a common purpose and whatnot.

I actually caused a few (small) riots, and I'm planning a few more.