(Part 2) Best products from r/Anarchism

"One cannot simply choose whatever one's starting positions are arbitrarily. After all, I cannot simply say "I believe I'm the most important thing in the world, so I can justifiably steal from you or harm you for whatever purpose."

>Well why not?

If your moral theory compels you to accept an ethical proposition such as "I value myself and not others in such a way that I can (for example) permissibly torture you to death for the pleasure I derive from it" then that counts against the plausibility of your ethical theory. It's a huge bullet to bite. I'm not saying you're being inconsistent by adopting such a starting position and following through with it. But consistency isn't the only metric by which we can evaluate moral theories.



>I've not ever seen a good argument that objective, universal values exist. Or that values exist outside of our own choices at all.

I can recommend some well regarded stuff. Enoch's [Taking Morality Seriously](https://www.amazon.com/Taking-Morality-Seriously-Defense-Realism/dp/0199683174) Shafer-Landau's [Moral Realism: a Defense] (https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Realism-Defence-Russ-Shafer-Landau/dp/0199280207/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_img_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=CNVDTNHGJW3FHXNR8821), Oddie's [Value, Reality and Desire] (https://www.amazon.com/Value-Reality-Desire-Graham-Oddie/dp/0199562385/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496676933&sr=1-1&keywords=Value+reality+and+desire), Huemer's [Ethical Intuitionism] (https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Intuitionism-M-Huemer/dp/0230573746/ref=pd_sim_14_4?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0230573746&pd_rd_r=0X50H65ZP0KD630TPQGQ&pd_rd_w=imPRX&pd_rd_wg=uCVqd&psc=1&refRID=0X50H65ZP0KD630TPQGQ), Parfit's [On What Matters] (https://www.amazon.com/What-Matters-Three-Derek-Parfit/dp/0198778600/ref=pd_sim_14_19?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0198778600&pd_rd_r=S7VW3J457CTBW6RT503R&pd_rd_w=Gz5f7&pd_rd_wg=Vrfn0&psc=1&refRID=S7VW3J457CTBW6RT503R)
Wedgwood's [The Nature of Normativity] (https://www.amazon.com/Nature-Normativity-Ralph-Wedgwood/dp/0199568197), Cuneo's [The Normative Web: An Argument for Moral Realism] (https://www.amazon.com/Normative-Web-Argument-Moral-Realism/dp/019958138X/ref=sr_1_6?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1496678105&sr=1-6&keywords=terence+cuneo).


And here's some free papers you can read (too lazy to name them all, sorry):

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Boyd5/publication/240034001_How_to_Be_a_Moral_Realist/links/556f6f4308aec226830aab09/How-to-Be-a-Moral-Realist.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/4116101/Why_Im_an_Objectivist_about_Ethics_And_Why_You_Are_Too_

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=433000088031098030104101075089022124028072042008084011092124087113084016108098084005098003032035018116033080110110127020085084106080012039033080068103113067015099089032030091083096096084064089109093065079071016028099008078093021125125068072101086002&EXT=pdf

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=207103102008006126082026003080087077015002001000090086121025066112086090029103080091030096049125038001052020081100031102121000046002046043009065006112075102115099049080048111067091106094117103109111097113120126103124079110093018090122114122112110007&EXT=pdf

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~umer/teaching/intro181/readings/shafer-Landau2005EthicsAsPhilosophyADefenseOfEthicalNonnaturalism.pdf

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1007/s11245-016-9443-7?author_access_token=R2EN7zieClp6VWWEo8DyZPe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY6_LyD8T3yNLLNQUBcKQRpfV5lbirZE36eSIc6PLipzIUjIvQrTe9aO4meFw0oJ_Dp784B0R9TnA9qTFaNLe9oWPQUaroxf3o-BsITKWjp_6Q%3D%3D

http://www.owl232.net/5.htm

















>Maybe. But if so then what are these properties?

Moral realists are traditionally divided into two camps on this. Moral Naturalists take moral properties to be natural properties, and Moral Non-Naturalists take moral properties to be sui generis, irreducible, that they cannot be wholly understood in natural terms, that moral properties supervene on the natural. (This is a woefully rough outline: here's a good place to read about the difference: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-non-naturalism/. And here's an attempt to describe what non-natural moral properties are: http://spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/INP.pdf


>And what is "good" and "bad". I've not seen a definition that doesn't just feel arbitrary.

It has been argued that it is precisely that these things cannot be defined that makes them what they are. See the non-naturalism SEP entry above in the section on Moore's Open Question Argument and this for more responses: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/#OpeQueArg

>And even if it's possible to believe in objective values one way or the other - the fact is that no-one's come up with an ethical system that's so convincing everyone agrees.

True, but disagreement about x doesn't necessarily mean right answers are impossible to derive.

>And the objective fact is that at present different people have different values (and good luck trying to get them to change!)

True again, but we can test the reasons why they hold these values.


"But even slaughtering a final generation is better than breeding and slaughtering generations in perpetuity."

>I think that if we're making that decision on animals behalf, without asking them - then that's still domination.

Slaughtering them? Sure is. I'm not saying that's the best solution. Just better than what we're doing now. That's how bad it is now.


>That's the thing I can't see any relation with animals at present that isn't some kind of domination.

That's why some vegans basically want to leave them be. Other vegans will argue having pets is ok, so long as the pet is amenable to being domesticated, like dogs seem to be, and provided we can provide them with a good life. In fact, helping animals like these could be argued as being a good thing.

Other vegans will maintain that some animal use is justified, like medical experimentation. (Not all, but some.) Others will argue that even killing animals for food is justifiable, provided a person does this to survive and be healthy -- or if affordable, healthful alternatives are not readily available to them.

>We all die someday. If had to choose between getting killed at 30 or not existing at all, I'd rather die at 30.

Again, this rather misses the point. The question is, is someone justified to kill you at 30 for whatever purpose, provided they were instrumental in bringing you into existence? It doesn't seem so.

>Equally there's plenty of people who know that they're about to give birth to a child with a life threatening disability, who still choose to make that life anyway. If we don't give farm animals that same choice then we ARE treating animals differently to humans.

In this case, the parents aren't really giving that child a choice. They are making the choice to bring a child into existence. Furthermore, it doesn't seem we have an ethical obligation to bring children into existence. Perhaps it's a permissible option, but it doesn't seem to be a duty. After all, I could have a child and probably provide her a good life. But if I get a vasectomy, that doesn't make me akin to a murderer. Non-existing beings cannot make choices, and they cannot be harmed.




>I don't personally think it's a bad thing to do that. But I do think that it's not possible to come up with a plan for agriculture that doesn't involve humans making decisions on animals behalf - either slaughtering them or placing further restrictions on their freedom than they have already.

Which supports the idea that we shouldn't bring them into existence in the first place.


Edit: fixed a link. And fixed "non-natural terms" to read "natural terms".

1. Figure out how you can get/make some off-grid energy. You might not be able to be 100% off-grid, but something's better than nothing. Maybe you could use some solar panels, or maybe even an exercise bike generator. A crank charged radio might be useful as well.
   
   
2. LOTS of political graffiti artwork. Things with anti-state, anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, anti-fascist, anti-consumerism messages and the like.
   
   
3. A library. Lots of liberating reading material.
   
   
4. It might also be good to be less dependent on super markets for food. Gardening would be the first step. Tomatoes are usually pretty easy to grow, and you might be able to get some money by growing your own food if there's a farmer's market nearby. You could also grow some pot, if you are inclined to do so. Depending on where this place is located, you might be able to get some meat by fishing or hunting.
   
   
5. If you can, try to get the rest of the community around you involved.
   
   Edit: Also, get lots of rain barrels.

A Paradise Built in Hell by Rebecca Solnit is a good one. Its not "counter culture" as in 1960s counterculture. Its about the "counter cultures" that result from disaster situations (9/11, earthquakes, fires etc) that resemble anarchies because of their horizontalism and sense of community. Also a lot of people find so called disaster situations funner and with more opportunity than the media/history makes them out to be. The book was based off ethnographic studies and people's histories. Highly recommend. It was a joy to read.

Provo: Amsterdam's Anarchist Revolt by Richard Kempton. This is closer to the 1960s counterculture, but like 100,000 times better. Provo was a sort of anarchistic counterculture group of the mid 1960s. Its a short but fun read.

Squatting in Europe by the Squatting in Europe Kollective. I actually haven't read this book yet (my reading list is like 100 books deep as it is) but I would like to and it sounds like something that you would be interested in.

Two things, there are very few books that are written on magon in English, but a GREAT book was written recently called "The Return of Comrade Ricardo Flores Magon" by Claudio Lomnitz please read it. The second thing is that the PLM does not like to be identified as being a kind of "personality cult" as many of the other groups during the mexican revolution were, so please don't identify them as being associated with Magon but rather as PLM forces. Also, theres some extremely high quality archive pdfs of Magon's newspaper Regeneracion on this website (use google translate to navigate it if you are not a spanish speaker):

http://archivomagon.net/

The later issues of Regeneracion have some english language articles(Ricardo was in the US at this time), they are great, you may also enjoy a lot of the art within the newspapers although it's very contextual, my favorite is this picture:

http://oi57.tinypic.com/ipuqhf.jpg

From Edition 4 Number 122

EDIT: I also just remembered, you can find the Manifesto of these PLM guys (in it's original form) in this scan of Regeneracion from archivomagon.net:

http://archivomagon.net/wp-content/uploads/e3n11.pdf

Or you can read the google translated version here:

https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ordenjuridico.gob.mx%2FConstitucion%2FCH6.pdf&edit-text=

And you can find the second version of this manifesto (published 5 years later, it's a long story why):

http://archivomagon.net/wp-content/uploads/e4n56.pdf

And it's translated version:

https://libcom.org/library/manifesto-magnon

Probably the best I know of (in their own words) is El Fuego y la Palabra (translation). I don't know if the translation is good, because I read it in spanish, but as a history it does what seems like a good job of laying out basic ideas and a timeline of the movement. Also, this is a decently good article coming from an outside, explicitly anarchist perspective and talking about where the movement is now. Finally, if you read Spanish at all, you should totally read Muertes Incomodos because it is hilarious and fun to read. I don't know if a translation could do it justice though.

> The goal of being completely self sufficient is something I'd like to achieve.

I honestly believe it's "the revolution." Going self-sufficient and internal instead of external and reliant on a huge unethical system of resource distribution.

> You know where I can go to get some solid information on aquaponics?

If you casually read here http://www.reddit.com/r/aquaponics/ you'll eventually come by everything you need. If you want it quick, I'd say do as much research on the web as possible. Youtube is probably the number one place I got information for the book.

> Particularly the style used in the book involving tilapia, mussels and crawdads.

Most systems use tilapia. Cohabitating a few different species together is rare and I've only stumbled upon one guy who was doing it. Alas, I've lost that little page of the internet.

What I've gathered from research is there's a LOT of trial and error to aquaponics. And one of the quickest and easiest ways to get started is to make a small system from an old "IBC tote." Here's a video on that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYFM7J_TpTU&feature=related

I've looked into that and totes on Craigslist (in San Diego at least) are probably 35 to 50 bucks. If I had any space, that's how I'd start.

If you get pretty good at growing stuff in fish poop, you might want to scale up. I got a lot of info for the book from these guys: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheUrbanFarmingGuys

I shit you not, youtube has a video for damn near everything.

> And do you know anymore good reads on post scarcity or related subjects? Thanks!

I don't. I'm about the only one I've seen tackling the subject. I had read the theories of "post-scarcity" and actually one theory called "the post-work leisure society" a long long time ago just on random people's web pages. I wrote them off as pure fantasy, until I saw the open source e-cology guys and their GVCS.

http://www.ted.com/talks/marcin_jakubowski.html

Which got my imagination going to design my own post-scarcity machines for personal production and how that would fit in with permaculture, urban farming, etc.

Apparently, there's a space flight entrepreneur and founder of the Singularity University who wrote a book called "Abundance," but I can't vouch for it. Haven't read it and I don't know how far out and wacky he goes. (As some Singularity guys can get.)

http://www.abundancethebook.com/

>Loved the book dude, read the whole thing, and hey y'all it's pretty great, easy read but engaging.

Thanks, and I hate to ask since you've been so nice, but, is there any possible way I could trouble you to write a review at the big ugly online mega book retailer? I know it's attacking the Death Star itself, but the more reviews that get put in, the better the book does. (I know. I don't feel great about it. It sucks that I have to charge people, but I have to fit into the capitalist society too. Writing is how I support myself and if this does well, it means I can write more books instead of working at McDonald's.)

Again, I really hate the whole system, but if you could, I'd super appreciate a review: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B008J7CNW4

Thanks for reading. I'm glad you enjoyed it.

To start, I would check out The Dragon in the Land of Snows by Tsering Shakya. He is one of the most prominent Tibetan historians in the West. It is a history of modern tibet since 1947.

Other notable books to start include The Tibetans by Matthew Kapstein and History as Propaganda: Tibetan Exiles versus the People's Republic of China by John Powers.

A history of Tibet is complicated. But there is a lot of misinformation out there, shaped by Orientalism, and reinforced by an apologetic look at Mao's destructive policies and rule. Tibet was never a shangi-la, only uninformed westerners thought that it was. But China's rule in Tibet has been incredibly repressive, devastating, and near genocidal.

If you get through those books, here are some more suggestions for some in depth understanding:

• The Autobiography of a Tibetan Monk by Venerable Palden Gyatso
  
• Buddha's Warriors: The Story of the CIA-Backed Tibetan Freedom Fighters, the Chinese Communist Invasion, and the Ultimate Fall of Tibet by Mikel Dunham
  
• Arrested Histories: Tibet, the CIA, and Memories of a Forgotten War by Carole McGranahan
  
• Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West by Donald Lopez
  
• The Story of Tibet: Conversations with the Dalai Lama by Thomas Laird
  
• In Exile from the Land of Snows: The Definitive Account of the Dalai Lama and Tibet Since the Chinese Conquest by John Avedon
  
  I'll also mention these two by Melvyn Goldstein, with the preface that he is academically rigorous, but widely thought of in Tibetan communities as an apologist and biased towards China.
  
  
• A History of Modern Tibet, 1913-1951: The Demise of the Lamaist State, and
  
• The Snow Lion and the Dragon: China, Tibet, and the Dalai Lama
  
  One final note is that Tibetans do not want a return to the past, they want freedom. They want freedom of religion, freedom to practice their culture, freedom from military occupation, and a return of the Dalai Lama. Check out Phayul for current news from Tibetan exile communities.
  
  Happy reading

Did I say do nothing? I don't remember that. Just as I said, I will not offer a political or other social solution because it will be inherently flawed - as all solutions currently are.

Let's reevaluate WHAT the actual problem is, then take action.

Every culture goes through these cycles - from anarchy to tyranny. Each time we go through the cycle, the drop from tyranny to anarchy is just a little worse (more violent, more chaotic) because more people lose valuable survival and coping skills because they are not necessary, making the next tyrant that much more powerful. People in general seem to think that the time they are alive is a novel time of struggle and oppression. Yet if you understand history you will see very clearly that at the basic level very little has changed from the past centuries. Americans and other groups are currently in the latter parts of our own cycle - as each cycle lasts from about 300-700 years (read Day of Empire).

Ok, great. So why have humans ALWAYS organized and form collectives - which have always lead to oppressive collectives which then get broken up and reform as smaller collectives which then grow and on and on?

Evolutionary psychology helps us understand that our ancestors were naturally selected for group formation traits as it was in our long term best interest for survival to be cooperative in groups. However those groups were usually very small and our brains adapted to maximize for that small number, (Dunbar's number). Back then (10,000years), small groups would confront each other and kill the less dominant group because resources are naturally scarce and populations naturally grow creating pressure on each group to get as much resource as possible. If you then recognize all of the natural factors that lead to scarcity (drought, disasters, pests) plus the relatively small amount of naturally livable land for all creatures, then you realize you are living in a competitive world where survival is paramount.

As it has happened, our technological and cognitive development has outpaced our biological and neurological development. So what does that mean, that means we are trying to apply complex developed thought and understanding of natural rights and property to a hardware system that is optimized for survival, reproduction, power domination and coercion. We didn't select to be the dominant species through egalitarianism.

Yes, we here, less then 1/100th of 1% of the worlds population that has access to a computer and electricity, wireless internet, shelter food and water can sit and pontificate on egalitarian principals and the nature of the human by enhancing our minds through external brain computer interfaces (BCI) (laptops). However most people cannot do these things - and even if they had access to them, would not understand their use. In fact most (and I know you know some) would reject it out of habit or fear of change.

I could go on about how flawed the human architecture is from a neurological and historical perspective to long term, large scale peace, but I won't because there is plenty of proof out there.

So if you want me to give an answer, here it is:

Refine on a wide scale the architecture of the human brain which builds errored heuristics (bias) through either implanted BCI's or some other means and develop a super rational (AI) understanding of the universe and subsequently our own world such that we can better predict and control natural factors in order to mitigate scarcity and overpopulation and optimize resource allocation while maximizing human freedom to choose.

The Human is not peaceful because the world is not peaceful, therefore whatever we do, will not be unless we change the way the mind works and engineer our environment. I'm gonna go back to working on my developmental AI now.