Toyama Koichi

[kempff]

TV Speech for Tokyo Governor campaign


Speech for US Presidential race


Laugh, go ahead, but listen.
And yes, he's serious.

[High's .Valentine.]

A friend of yours Nivi? XD

What shocked me the most, I must say, was when I saw the comments for the video. How he 'rocks so hard' and how much they 'love' him. Kinda scared me. Then again, you can't tell if they're being serious or if they think it's just way too kewl to be an anarchist supporter.

Then again, majority of commenter on youtube are nitwits.

But hehe, I've never heard anything from an anarchist before. Is he really being serious?

[kempff]

Yeah.
And I'll be frank, this kind of guy interests me and I'd love to meet him. I wish I'd bumped into him when I was lost in Tokyo.

What he's saying is the truth though; many, many people hate the current way of things but they're a minority to a mass of sheep worldwide.
Wait until we're older, wait until you see where political decisions happen that hurt people you know and yet you can't do anything.
Wait until your vote seems like nothing, and these reforms don't help anyone but the rich and powerful.
Wait until those politicians mean nothing to you and have let you down on false promises.
Then it might dawn on you that you're just a silly sheep; but I don't think so. It just happens to see from this point of view; you don't run around looking for it and find it.
The thing is, it's not constructive on its own, but you can't move beyond it until it's too late to stop what was and begin what's new.

And Anarchy means rule without government by union of people, not lack of order (a lot like communism, but some differences). Remember who teaches you these terms by the way.

I'm waiting for the comments to tell me I'm a naive, stupid, unAmerican, terrorist loving, (godwin invocation) Nazi.

[nascent]

And Anarchy means rule without government by union of people, not lack of order (a lot like communism, but some differences). Remember who teaches you these terms by the way.

In that sense, the early days of America was the closest thing we've ever seen to a nation ruled by Anarchy. Interesting...

Sadly, though the ideals of Anarchy are admirable (freedom from oppression, no taxes, no backroom politics, destruction of the terrible bedfellows relationship between economic and political power, etcetera...) it's the kind of human ideal that can never truly be made to work. You cannot, by definition, have an Anarchist government or an Anarchist nation; any rules put in place to govern the process of how the masses rule, any attempt to create a national treasury or collect taxes, any move to create an army beyond localized militias, and any efforts to perform public works (build highways, run a national school system, fund scientific research, etcetera) are by default not Anarchy. Such things put power of some kind in the hands of specific people instead of the people at large. In short, you cannot organize Anarchy and thus you cannot maintain the basic functions of a nation with an Anarchist mentality.

Instead, Anarchy is a stage that governments go through. Sometimes it's healthy (the American Revolutionary War, the recent election protests in Iran) and may even lead to an improved way of life (for a while, anyway). Sometimes an Anarchy movement just loses all sense of focus and purpose and falls into mindless, brutal savagery and the things people typically associate with the idea of Anarchy (the French Revolution, for example). Historically speaking, effective Anarchy is a lot like chemo therapy: when there's just no other way to kill the cancer or the malignant disease you simply have to tear the system apart and make a royal mess of normal life, come within inches of KILLING the very thing you're trying to heal, then flush the system and focus on getting better again. There is no sustained Anarchy, just like you wouldn't expect someone healthy to spend their whole life getting chemo. It's the reset button, dangerous but occasionally necessary.

Just felt like pointing that out.


EDIT: Also, this guy is just a goatee and a Tiberium crystal away from being Kane.

PEACE THROUGH POWER!!

[/center]

[kempff]

Aug 24, 2009 20:48:48 GMT -5 @nascent said:

And Anarchy means rule without government by union of people, not lack of order (a lot like communism, but some differences). Remember who teaches you these terms by the way.

In that sense, the early days of America was the closest thing we've ever seen to a nation ruled by Anarchy. Interesting...

Sadly, though the ideals of Anarchy are admirable (freedom from oppression, no taxes, no backroom politics, destruction of the terrible bedfellows relationship between economic and political power, etcetera...) it's the kind of human ideal that can never truly be made to work. You cannot, by definition, have an Anarchist government or an Anarchist nation; any rules put in place to govern the process of how the masses rule, any attempt to create a national treasury or collect taxes, any move to create an army beyond localized militias, and any efforts to perform public works (build highways, run a national school system, fund scientific research, etcetera) are by default not Anarchy. Such things put power of some kind in the hands of specific people instead of the people at large. In short, you cannot organize Anarchy and thus you cannot maintain the basic functions of a nation with an Anarchist mentality.

Instead, Anarchy is a stage that governments go through. Sometimes it's healthy (the American Revolutionary War, the recent election protests in Iran) and may even lead to an improved way of life (for a while, anyway). Sometimes an Anarchy movement just loses all sense of focus and purpose and falls into mindless, brutal savagery and the things people typically associate with the idea of Anarchy (the French Revolution, for example). Historically speaking, effective Anarchy is a lot like chemo therapy: when there's just no other way to kill the cancer or the malignant disease you simply have to tear the system apart and make a royal mess of normal life, come within inches of KILLING the very thing you're trying to heal, then flush the system and focus on getting better again. There is no sustained Anarchy, just like you wouldn't expect someone healthy to spend their whole life getting chemo. It's the reset button, dangerous but occasionally necessary.

Just felt like pointing that out.


EDIT: Also, this guy is just a goatee and a Tiberium crystal away from being Kane.

PEACE THROUGH POWER!!

[/center][/quote]

Wha?
No, no, no.

Anarchy has no reason to use "nation", "government", or any of that. Anarchy exists so long as no one tries to organize people, anarchy exists without its name in fact. As long as no one gets the idea "gee let's make some group to make things more collected", anarchy stays in place.
As I pointed out in another thread, Anarchy polices itself to keep these kind of usurpers quiet. (Man, there are so many things involved with this: religion, climate, etc.)
NOW, you would be right to say it's a stage: I find it hard to believe that any species once achieving self-awareness, vocalization through language/other means, technology or culture, would continue to exist only through anarchy. (But, we've got the Native American tribes to show that a people can in fact do so.)

It's like trying to create purely Nihilist art, impossible. But actual Anarchy, like actual communism can exist; in fact it has, just not permanently. But then no form of organization or government can.

Democracy is not actually democracy if majority rules and a system of greed like Capitalism are in effect.

[nascent]

(But, we've got the Native American tribes to show that a people can in fact do so.)

Not really... I see your point there, but even at their most Anarchistic the Native Americans still had tribal leaders/chiefs, shamans, belief in animal spirits, and some type of hierarchy amongst their settlements. You can't say they were truly Anarchists.

Democracy is not actually democracy if majority rules and a system of greed like Capitalism are in effect.

No... that's actually the definition of a Democracy. In a true democracy all the decisions are made by a direct vote and Capitalism itself is merely people "voting" with their money. This is clearly echoed in that most famous of early American statements "We the people...".

However, just like true Communism or true Anarchy, a true Democracy is an elusive beast indeed. America, despite public misconceptions, was never actually a Democracy -- it was founded on many democratic principles, but it is in fact a Republic. Republics, as we know, are supposed to be a "representative Democracy" (in theory, anyway), where the people en mass do not dictate policy but rather elect individuals who will do so for them and represent their interests (again, in theory... but clearly not so much in practice). The problems we see in the current day come in when (A) political parties are formed as a way of amassing and monopolizing political power (Thomas Jefferson, as I recall, was firmly against the idea), (B) elected representatives cease to represent the beliefs, ideals, and values of the people who elected them, and (C) when powerful special interest groups and corporate entities butt in on the political process and institute their own agendas.

Likewise it is not Capitalism itself that is corrupt, though I won't deny that it is an easy road to corruption. Capitalism, by definition, is the free market. It is the ability for people to buy and sell based upon agreement and the principles of supply and demand. Ideally, capitalism forces the seller and the buyer onto the bargaining table until they reach a price or exchange that both agree to -- it's like an economic form of Anarchy. The problem comes in with corporations, advertising (read: social engineering and propaganda), monopolies, and the refusal to involve the buyer in the act of price setting. This is where we cross the line from honest Capitalism into the dark realm of Commercialism, where the buyer is no longer an equal entity to be bartered with but themselves a commodity to be bought and sold. Don't believe me? Consider this: television and internet ads don't make the advertising company money by selling the product or service featured... rather, what is "bought and sold" in advertising is commonly referred to as "eyeballs" -- the attention of the viewing public. This is an industry fact. Advertising, and by connection every company that engages in advertising, is engaging in blatant social engineering. There is no equality or fairness in the current economic system -- far from it! We are treated like sheep to be herded here and there at the whim of the shepherds' crook, and THAT is Commercialism, a corrupted and heartless form of Capitalism deprived of its original purpose.



EDIT: I just wanna take a moment and say that I'm deeply concerned that once people become disenchanted enough with the current system they might be so reckless as to try something like a Computocracy (or "Digitocracy", if you prefer) where people attempt to remove all chance of government corruption by having a country governed by a computer system. WAY too much that could go wrong (SKYNET, anyone?). Just figured I'd throw that out there.

[kempff]

Man, Nascent, you're getting this all, but you're not. Get all of that public school schmuck out of ye. (c'mon, joke, laugh)

Not really... I see your point there, but even at their most Anarchistic the Native Americans still had tribal leaders/chiefs, shamans, belief in animal spirits, and some type of hierarchy amongst their settlements. You can't say they were truly Anarchists.

Wasn't saying that. Never said True Anarchy once. And you realize there were hundreds if not thousands of tribes and not all of them had permanent leaders, correct? In fact, one of the few organized government bodies would be the Iroquois nation.
Let me state this again: True Anarchy/Communism/Democracy cannot function just as you cannot create 100% Nihilistic Art. Everything is derived from something else.
I was saying that the Native Americans show a people sticking to their Anarchistic ways; the Iroquois were an exception to the rule.

No... that's actually the definition of a Democracy. In a true democracy all the decisions are made by a direct vote and Capitalism itself is merely people "voting" with their money. This is clearly echoed in that most famous of early American statements "We the people...".

Come again? An actual democracy would involve everyone having a say individually with NO MAJORITY rules. Thus it would take forever and implode.
Whoa, Capitalism isn't reflected in three words from the Preamble.
And come on Nascent, don't you know Washington's biggest secret concerning the Constitution? No one in Washington pays attention to it. ;D

I agree with you on the democracy bit. Nicely put.

Likewise it is not Capitalism itself that is corrupt, though I won't deny that it is an easy road to corruption. Capitalism, by definition, is the free market.

Capitalism is a means to satisfy people's wants,GREED, in a faster, more efficient manner while making more $, thus GREED.
Greed is necessary for this system to work: thus corruption is inherent to make the wheels keep spinning to satisfy the greedy people. Don't forget, if the people aren't greedy, YOU the one who controls the means of production, won't make $. And you need to supply this $ to the people for them to buy your junk, and keep their and your greed satisfied.
As for your Free Market bit....that doesn't exist anymore. It stopped existing in 1916 when Rockefeller changed the controls of the market so the big boys weren't the only ones making money.
The big boys (JP Morgan, Rockefeller, etc) manipulated and extorted everything viciously before then.
The Free Market is an ideal that when occurs, imagine (the)Walmart having a say about everything it does and setting its own rules while its suppliers smile like happy, obedient puppies. Then add in about 4 or 5 others of these little guys (what do you know, sounds like Wall Street).

It is the ability for people to buy and sell based upon agreement and the principles of supply and demand. Ideally, capitalism forces the seller and the buyer onto the bargaining table until they reach a price or exchange that both agree to -- it's like an economic form of Anarchy. The problem comes in with corporations, advertising (read: social engineering and propaganda), monopolies, and the refusal to involve the buyer in the act of price setting. This is where we cross the line from honest Capitalism into the dark realm of Commercialism, where the buyer is no longer an equal entity to be bartered with but themselves a commodity to be bought and sold.

The idealized Capitalism would not work with Anarchy since Anarchy would not use money. It'd be barter. And then there'd be no set market price as not everyone would be able to barter the same thing endlessly.
Honest Capitalism?? Are you kidding? Come on, you think profiteers back in the late 19th and early 20th century weren't trying to make money?
BTW Commercialism didn't really factor in until 1920, and then really came back in the 40's, 50's. Then we have today: a completely unsustainable lifestyle with a government that uses presidents as decoys for blame concerning everything.

I don't fear technological growth in human life, the technology can't do anything but what it is programmed to do. I fear HUMANITY and who is in position to control, gain power, and profit from such means.

I enjoy this Nascent, I do. Don't take me as anything, but giving a good discussion.

[Heroic Bilby]

INTERMISSION

I wonder if the bit about McDonald's is true?

END INTERMISSION

[kempff]

2nd Intermission

Nrlly, Ronald wants to eat your soul to bring about his world domination against the BKing.

End 2nd Intermission

[Beaver Dude]

NAZI!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, the whole gentlemen thing reminded me of that quite a bit. xD

Personally, I think anarchy can only work if everyone's about to die. Now hear me out - this concept has been broached in various works of science fiction (Ursula LeGuinn "The Dispossessed" illustrates this quite nicely, I think) - that in order for people to work together for their own benefit, they must be constantly on the edge of a precarious existence wherein they are more or less forced into mutualism or risk perishing altogether.

The alternative, 'voluntary' co-existence is simply not tenable in a situation of plenty. Morals and ethics are luxuries that are subject to change and often abused for whatever reason. I think we all need to sit back and realize that while stealing's wrong, it is also often a very efficient means of energy input/output - only dangerous. People willing to take those risks have always been legion and no system cobbled together by human society has yet to dissuade them and without some form of centralization, I'm fairly certain that it'd sooner or later revert to the rule of the strongest (notice I used the word revert, strongest here is a blanket term that encompasses more than merely physical strength but also political, capital-based, etc.) unless even petty theft would be enough to put a great number of people's lives at risk in which case certain safeguards would have sooner or later evolved if only as a means of survival.

(Basically, people need a reason to CARE about their neighbor's transgressions. No one really cares about that kid stealing candy bars from the dollar shop, but everyone wants to know about the recently released murderer living in the neighborhood. In a similar manner, people need to start caring more about everyone, and not just their immediate circle of acquaintances. As it cannot be done voluntarily, it may be better to do so environmentally)

While the system we have in place now is hardly ideal, it is by far the most liberal (save, perhaps, pre-agrarian societies but the carrying capacity of pre-agrarian socities caps at about 8 million) that the world has ever experienced by quite a large margin. We are creatures of not reason, but rather all too often, instinct. Will the fact that certain people are homosexual create a catastrophe that must be addressed at this moment as so many people think it must? No, probably not. And yet still it engenders kerfuffles for no better reason than people really not liking the idea of men poking their manly bits into other men. Please don't use religion as the scapegoat, I really don't buy that argument for even a moment.

Also, honestly, without the rule of law, I'd be terrified for daughters/sisters/etc. I'm not trying to be chauvinistic here 'women need to be protected, etc, etc, etc.' but while law has not always been kind to the female gender, the past hundred years have has seen a remarkable shift in thinking and treatment of women that I think the current system should be given a pat on the back for, if for nothing else. Obviously it was the civil rights movement (and those world wars) that were truly responsible for this change in status, but it was the fact that the system was resilient and flexible enough to stomach the changes that makes it worthwhile to examine and not dismiss quite so easily. Are there problems anyways? Hell yes. Would I suggest that we go back to the same thoughts and ideas that existed five hundred years ago? Hell no.

BUT, I'm nothing close to a poli-sci student and I really don't understand all the thinking that goes behind most political theory so feel free to nut my various observations and point out my inconsistencies. I haven't thought too much on any of this so I kinda rambled without trying to see if the various puzzle pieces fit.

[kempff]

While you have good points and I agree with aspects of what you have displayed, consider two things.

Aren't you putting a lot of faith in Humanity's ability to control and organize itself? Even more so, humanity has never been in a situation of widespread mass extinction. What would actually be the response in an age where we would hear about it instantly (or if we lost this capability)? If there seems to be no hope at all in a future where all will be killed, how many needed individuals in a dying species will give up and leave a fledgling group to die out slowly?

Secondly, it's a lot of change to become Anarchy in any situation; most people would certainly see this as a regression in human social "development". How many people would react in order to survive rather than give up hope? But most importantly, Anarchy itself cannot come from a situation where the populace believes we've all lost something. In order to retain some "sense" of our own fabricated order, a dictatorship will naturally occur. If not a dictator, a tight group of very powerful and influential individuals.

Anarchy is either brought on as a unanimous choice, or naturally grown into. Probably all social development is like that.

edit: I didn't even include the insanely religious that would consider this a sign of whatever god that all humans must die.

[Beaver Dude]

Honestly? My personal prediction is we'll make it to 2060 before the crap really hits the fan and we realize that there are too many people on the boat called Earth and won't those be fun fun times.

Hopefully not, of course. But we're growing WAY too quickly right now. Medicine, despite our compulsive need to point at cancer, HIV/AIDS and etc. has been perhaps too efficient and Mauss is no doubt soon going to be the philosopher de jour and after that, I'm not certain if there will be many fashionable philosophers.

Certainly none of those who enjoyed walks in the parks and so on. It will certainly be interesting.

If there seems to be no hope... hope's a curious thing. That the lottery works is a testament to how unreasonable it is - the more dire the straits, the greater the gambles. Will many people abandon their morals and so on in the face of an unprecedented crisis? No doubt. Will someone try to, nonetheless, take what they consider moral highground? I do not doubt it either.

I once thought that if told you had 24 hours to live, people would go nuts. I no longer quite think so though I don't know what to project in its place.

Give them the entirety of five years though...

And while interesting, I have to admit that we're on somewhat different wavelengths right now - I can't exactly see where you're coming from and I know I responded kind of in the same fashion. Would you mind identifying for me my faith in humanity? I, personally, thought they were rather mundane statements but there's nothing like habitus to color perceptions. xD

[kempff]

Interesting use of habitus there, are you talking about the social concept??

(By the way, I'm not a poli-sci student, never would wish that upon myself. Just in case anyone thought I was.)

Let's take a look at your lottery example:

Hope. Lottery. Let's use the big lotto's as examples.

Both exist because they seem real: lots of money is up for grabs and there's a large chance you won't get it for relatively nothing. What's to lose? That simple, yes?

Of course we know in reality that is nothing, but what the businesses and states want you to think.
Lottery money comes in installments.
Lottery money can be split.
Lottery money may never come to you: thus you spend $$$ for tickets forever, and waste a lot of money.

IF you get this money, what happens?
You get mobbed by con artists.
You meet all members of your wide, wide "extended" family.
You spend like mad into a lifestyle you imagine, but can't support.

What's left?
You were hoping for something that gave you what you wanted, but a lot more baggage than you bargained for.
You really can't get much happier after a certain amount of "free" money.
The lifestyle you've gained is most likely not sustainable and you're catapulted into a social ladder you don't fit into.

Who would actually care about that though?
Isn't the allure and grandeur of free money great?
It is after all yours for free, granted you forget you spend $$$ on the tickets, probably hire a attorney to review the paperwork later, etc.
So do you reap what you sow?

Juxtapose that to survival among a dying race:
If you've got all the resources, everyone comes to you.
They will probably want to kill you.
You prevent them from what they want: resources.
If there's "reasonable" evidence to not kill you or anything to be gained from not killing you, you'll stop them, granted you want to survive. (Convincing "Family" members and con artists not to bother/steal from you....good luck)
Hopefully they care about that.
If you do become leader and control resources, you have some hard choices to make. Tough ones that will make people respect you entirely or hate you; but you're necessary as long as you can protect yourself and the resources.
Just like $$$, people need resources to survive. Sad, but it's true. I honestly doubt 99% of the population would be willing to turn to modest means, aka monks, priests. Even they have a tough time.

That what you were looking for?

[Beaver Dude]

Habitus - I admit I should use the word 'paradigm', but I like the idea of being environmentally shaped. We're not *that* rational after all. Ah, I'm probably using the concept in the wrong manner - my teacher explained it as those 'unconscious biases which make you act in a particular way while in certain situations - for example, downtown at 2 am versus suburbs at 2 am.'

You lost me somewhere though, I have to admit. Why are we discussing apocalyptic scenarios? Is it in regards to anarchism being more effective? Or that the current system is killing itself? I'm not doubting you there (refer to prediction) but you're starting to sound like you've got a tiff with human nature and not with political systems. xD

[kempff]

I do not believe political systems outlive human nature, that is the point I am making here. We WILL revert to instinct, but I am not entirely sure we could bring ourselves back. If such a scenario occurs, I've been pointing towards "order" being realigned; the ability of humanity to reassert itself will rest solely on who is left.

The real question that should be asked is what you're trying to say here. It seems you think an apocalyptic scenario isn't fitting, but you're leaning towards it with your conclusions. Yes, we may overpopulate, but Malthus attempted that path before and things changed quite a lot.

Please elaborate on your liberal age of the day and lack of social/philosophical change.