Punk rock applies to politics

Post Reply New Topic

By good manners and politeness rather than force. Most orderly behavior among humans is of a non-forceful nature. People want to get along with their neighbors when the world about them is more or less peaceful. Also, many of the modalities of getting along are habitual and customary rather than enforced at gun point or sword point. When fear rules, then people are not so nice with each other and force is often resorted to.


Think about this: Why do we conform our expression to the rules of whatever language we customarily use with no agent of force compelling us to do so?

ruveyn

Good point.

Anarchy is an intriguing idea. But human nature tends to throw a wrench in the works of even the best-laid plans. People can start out with the best of intentions, the noblest of aspirations, but it never works out quite right. The church is a very good example of this. Look how corrupted it's become after 2000 years! Other members like to taunt me with all the unspeakable things done in the name of Christianity, and of course I make no attempt to defend it.

This is what I love about the idea of anarchy. So you'd have all these people wanting to get along, wonder what happens when an Anton Sugar (No Country For Old Men) type character rolls through town or more likely some local thugs decide to rob a bank - for the money and just because people are p**** enough that they can:

"GET THE F*** ON THE GROUND!! NOW!! !! !"

"Emmm.....scyiz me s-s-ssir.....emm.....w-w-would you kindly use a different adjective?"

I suppose everyone could carry guns and it would be vigilante justice but still, then think about what happens when the entire legal code is a person's emotions or their clarity of thought on the human condition, and then the reactions from other people to that act; not very reassuring either.

This is what I've been trying to explain to them. ^

Its hard for me to figure out how anyone who believes in evolution at all (all atheists, I'd think, and most theists these days) could think we're all of a sudden these elevated beings - where does psychopathy, sociopathy, and narcissism come from in that case? Being victimized by the system or by capitalism?

Not all of a sudden. Even with punctuated equilibrium any substantial change in the gene frequency of populations takes at the very least hundreds of thousands of years. Evolution (the theory) is well supported by evidence. Young Earth theories are totally refuted by physical and geological facts. The planet Earth is over four billion years old, not 6000 (or so) as the biblical literalists would have you believe.

ruveyn

Right, which is why I have a real hard time understanding anyone who follows the more naive variant humanism to the point of thinking that either anarchy or socialism work. Especially for those who take evolution as disproof of any claim to a metaphysical reality, it boggles my mind that these people would assume we're that fundamentally good and saintly that we could operate as a working society at all under either of those systems (or in the first case I could say the inherent lack of a system). With socialism - when people realize they don't have to work - they won't, and they'll sit on the shoulders of anyone who does; we're sheisty like that. With anarchy, the most brutal will fill the vacuum of power and democracy or a republic gets replaced by true despotism/tyranny.

A music genre tends to apply more towards the style then the topic of the song. Punk Rock can have a political message and still be a Punk Rock song, so can rap, country, other rock, blues, and whatever.

Some gene's are more likely to discuss politics, but there's no law saying you can't make a political song in an unusual genre.

I'm not sure if the music itself really changes anything. That's something which is quite hard to gauge. I've never heard a lucid yet deep argument in a song, ever. That doesn't surprise me much because I think the purpose of a song is more to serve as entertainment. I sometimes hear political arguments in rap songs but they're usually weak or even fallacious. So I'm inclined to think that people should make up their own minds on social/political issues by different means than listening to music, and whatever those means are that does seem to be the case.

The most impressed I've been by the effect of a punk rocker's message on other people is Minor Threat's "Straight Edge" song and philosophy which of course is still very much prevalent today as this big movement. But even then I'm not sure how much that has to do with the music, or whether something similar would have started regardless of Minor Threat's symbolism.

As I read this page, I wonder the impact labeling has on one's perception.

Umm.... pretty easily, as stated later the use of diplomacy is more popular, not only that, but most organizations really don't need laws or coercion, I mean, organizations are often voluntarist, if you do not like them, you can freely leave.


Christarchy's idea is to rule these actions out on the side of the church a priori. I mean, the church could never have done a lot of what it did if it did not justify many violent/coercive acts.


Well, different anarchists have different ideas. In anarcho-capitalism, usually the code word is polycentric order, where there is no government, but there are numerous private enforcement agencies, all working within some code that is either fixed in the system(Rothbard's idea) or is the product of property rights and supply and demand for laws(Friedman's idea).

Christarchy is somewhat different though, in as much as it is a view of political theology more so than it is a political view. Christarchists usually don't want to change the system, they want to convert everyone to Christarchy and then have the system collapse due to this common code of Christian ethics. So, compared to many anarchists, they might have an even lesser probability of getting their dream, but most anarchists aren't getting their dream anyway, and often Christarchy cares more about relations to current political authority more so than advancing the dream. In any case, the issue with an Anton Sugar is somewhat valid, because a large number of Christarchists are pacifists as well, and so they would not use force so much as attempt to convert him.

From bad wiring inside the noggin.

I personally call it the fall-out of natural selection; those sorts of traits rather tragically make an animal, and I repeat, an animal far more successful at dominating the rest of its herd. True, everyone's vulnerable to group action and evils can catch up to them in the end but it makes doing certain things that you or I couldn't stomach thought of doing extremely easy for other people.

Who'd actively hold them accountable and make routine habit of double-checking their work?



No idea what they'd do for national defense.



I really just think its about emotion. Anarchy sounds daring, sexy, idealistic, an anarchist sounds like the dashing hero of some 19th century novelist. I really think its done for 2 reasons; 1) self-gratification and 2) its usually a guy's last resort for being seen as sexy by women when they don't have the social skills, the money, style, talent, and they're the types of people who could intellectualize themselves into believing anything if it got them to their ends. It doesn't have to make any sense - it just has to sound hot.

In my job, I meet a lot of "punks". Old punks (those who remember the 80s).. New Punks (those who wish they remember the 80s.) Skinheads, and all the other spinoffs. What I find amusing is the almost uniform nature of the young punks.. they are perfectly interchangeable, and almost picture perfect mimicries of 80s punks. They sing songs about Thatcherite politics. Whereas the 80s punks are all pushing forty, get tired after the first two songs, and fall asleep. Any anarchy they thought they were involved in died on its arse after you overhear them all conversing about their jobs. Whatever they thought their politics were, they wotk 9 to 5, have bosses and mortgages and kids, and cant drink as much as they used to.

The market. The idea is that a purely capitalistic state is more efficient than the government, and as such, the control mechanisms for the work of markets will be better than the control mechanisms underpinning governments. So, the ancap answer will be the following: competition will, and who double-checks the state?


Often they aren't interested in that. They want to save souls, they don't care about nation-states.


Christarchy? Umm.... Christarchists usually don't seem daring so much as they seem spiritual and perhaps more liberal than other Christians. Not only that, but it is more based upon the interpretation of the Christian text and of the outside world than other things, because Christarchists aren't considered popular within mainstream Christianity, and Christians are not considered popular in mainstream anarchism. Not only that, but pacifism is rarely seen as daring, but rather more along the lines of stupid.

In any case, I think the idea that it is about emotion is true for some people, but not for a significant number, at least if we take the "I really think its about emotion" to refer to an unusual level of emotion compared to other belief systems, as most belief systems don't lack emotional components. After all, there are a number of married men and intellectuals who are anarchists, and those 2 groups won't have as much reason to desire to be sexy and... I don't know what you mean by "self-gratification" but I would think that there would not be an unusual level of that necessarily in those groups, compared to other groups, at least relative to the intellectual commitment to ideas. In any case, I do think that your notion is oversimplified, as if you look at most people's political stances, there isn't a lot of intelligence, but rather a lot of self-gratification and a lot of pandering to some social conception.