Statism: The Most Dangerous Religion

I waited some days for a comment but none. So I post my reflection.

Larkens description of Statism sounds to me as proprietary software manufactures as Microsoft and Apple. Gives a platform with limited possibilities and forcing its users in a general direction. Reminds me a bit of a prison when writing this. People want to be dictated or have learned/been programed to accept to be dicated. Not standing in their power and take responsibility of their own life.

The benefit of "statism" or proprietary software in general is what it can create. Just look at the countries, cities, manufacturing, Apple (With the Apple dictator force, Mac OS and all its applications is in general very easy to use but with a big cost. GNU+Linux is more a chaos where many free different wills walk their own direction, excluding Elementary OS that looks great and seems to be easy to use but sadly with open source mentality.) and more. Most of this has been created when people have given the power of their own life away and become a cog in a machine. Big beautiful things can be created this way IF the people in charge is loving beings. Look at todays world, it isnt loving people but evil people dictating.

So Microsoft, Apple and more dictates their created prisons called Windows and Mac OS. If you have the cog mentality its easy to again act as a cog and give your power away. I think this is why free software and open source is so small with general people. Its very comfortable to be a cog.

Since you want a comment (I will not enter a debate; I have to work), here it is: taxes on incomes (especially incomes from the capital) are too low, there is not enough State, almost anywhere in the world (Scandinavia might be an exception), less state means more inequalities and less meritocracy.

See the reality: most families cannot pay for studies, for health care, etc. Many families cannot even pay for a shelter and food. Without the State, their children are born screwed. No matter how brilliant they are, they will not pursue any studies and they will end up having the same kind of crappy jobs their parents have.

And no, almost nobody wants to live from public help. People want to earn a good living. Unfortunately, this has little to do with how talented they are. It mainly depends in what family/country they were born. Sociological studies repetitively show that.

The video you pointed to talks about a nondemocratic State that collects taxes to control the people through laws/police/teachers and prevent it from doing what it really wants. The good answer is a strong democratic State, i.e., a State that works for its people as a whole. It is not less State.

And it is no mistake on the part of who is behind the video. Less state is what unethical wealthy people want. People who do not care about the remaining 99.9% of the population. Those people do not need the State (they can pay for everything) and they do not want to help the poor through taxes. They prefer the law of the jungle because it is the law of the rich at the expense of the poor. In the jungle, you would not have one police but you would have many private polices controlled by the rich. Mafias.

To get less State through votes (they only are the 0.1%), they make videos where they try to convince you that the State is the enemy. Where our representatives would vote/execute laws against the general good. Where teachers are indoctrinators. Where taxes only serve to pay that system. But the real enemy is the one behind the video if you believe in equality between all human beings. The State is necessary. A democratic State, i.e., a State that works in the interest of everybody and not in the interest of the richest.

Here is an excellent documentary that eloquently demonstrates, among other things, how the laws of the USA already are dictated by the 0.1% wealthiest (the real "ruling class" your video is talking about): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6niWzomA_So

And just to be clear: there are a few details I agree with in the video you pointed to. I am obviously against police violence (a real problem in the USA, especially since Bush's "zero tolerance policy"). And I am against laws that are about controlling private behaviors (why couldn't I do drugs at home? I would spoil my own life, not the life of other people). But those are details and the video as a whole is disgusting.

I did not see the links but I'd like to leave you this (N. Chomsky) perl..

There were corporations as far back as the 18th century, and beyond. In the United States, corporations were public bodies. Basically, they were associations. A bunch of people could get together and say we want to build a bridge over this river, and could get a state charter which allowed them to do that, precisely that and nothing more. The corporation had no rights of individual persons. The model for the corporation back at the time of the framing of the Constitution was a municipality. Through the 19th century, that began to change.

That's a very big change. It's essentially establishing major private tyrannies, which are unaccountable, because they're protected by First Amendment rights, freedom from search and seizure, and so on, so you can't figure out what they're doing.

Statism reminds me of Learned Helplessness.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMPzDiraNnA

If a state was good hearted I will have no problem with it. A state that gives people a platform to survive on if something happens, help people heal their physical and emotional scars and help people stand on their own feet and can survive without the "parent" state. That isnt so in at least Sweden. The government controls everything and will never let their "children" free. Bad health care controlled by greedy corporations and a education that makes people cogs in the machine. A parasite/machine that teaches people they must have it even when it is obvious that it limits humanities potential.

But again. I see the correlation between statism and proprietary software. People have learned with "Learned Helplessness" to be depended on proprietary software. A small prison with less freedom but it works to survive in that smaller area of potential. A controlled environment for humanity to live in.

Free software is in one area to take the power back. To put yourself in a position that you say NO to be controlled by proprietary software. To help and support the programs you need to get your work done. And what you have helped to develop for your need will be out there defended by things like GPL to help other people to not be to be suppressed by software patents, corruption, being bought up and stuffed away = Development stopped. YOU have the power. The power is in YOUR hands.

I have now seen Park Avenue: money, power and the American dream - Why Poverty? It was good to see. It reminds me a lot of the society in the Hunger Games movies. Cold calculating people controlling and manipulating the masses through propaganda and the truth is hidden by the media.

As the Monopoly test at the start shows that everyone can be a greedy one. I had a little experience one time that it felt scary to loose the money I had worked together. I think that feeling but much stronger combined with a psychopath is devastating. Their we have a "capitalist" or a dictator.

In any country their is about 4% psychopaths. More or less everyone in power are psychopaths. They dont care about you, only them self. They are very good at reading and manipulating people. All is a game for them and if they can get more nothing will stop them from trying. They are in corporations and government. I see no difference between these two. Both work together so suppress humanity. Debt based economy helps these people to be parasites. Federal Reserve in the US is a private corporation that is one of THE BIGGEST parasites in the US.

When we look at how police today work they work, or some of them. Why would not some of them work in organizations like secret service or big corporations and murder people like Stan Mayer who invented making cars run on water?

My thinking is to go from unconscious living (Learned Helplessness) and using proprietary or take a stand, wake up and stand for freedom and use free software.

Proprietary is like a prison that has been built but it works. Why change something that works most people argue. Free software is running around in the wild testing everything that is possible to find new ways to do the same old tasks and the creativity is unlimited. I think this is why free software thinking is growing because more people see the limiting prison bars in the proprietary prison.

People who knows their potential, freedom, their limitations and responsibilities is much less needing a state and maybe only need a smaller community because they know when something they have done is wrong and knows where to find the help. Most people dont know this and when their body is full of illnesses because they cant take care of them they are forced to go to a hospital. People often give up (Learned Helplessness) and accept their illness because of a "DNA argument" or modern medicine dont know how to HEAL it so you have to treat it for the rest or your life (Money flowing to the corporations).

I dont like my arrogant attitude in my posts.

Hey Garsmith,
I believe in freedom. Freedom is good, it's good thing to aspire to, to acquire and it's a good thing to maintain. I feel strongly that fighting for open source software is maintaining freedom in our time. Open source software creates accountability, a good thing for even the likes of a Bill Gates, a Steve Jobs or a Linus Torvalds. Only when greed is eradicated will accountability no longer be necessary. It also encourages participation which is necessary for successful self-governance. In fact maybe open source development is naturally self governing: the projects that are the most desired by the most supporters have the greatest chance of success.

I don't think proprietary software and government are at all the same thing. I admire our US forefathers and the document that they created. But if enough people think 'me vs the government' rather than 'me a part of my government' then a few individuals will find it easier to take over. If our government is ever 'We the people...', this guy Larken Rose won't be a part of it; he better behave if he at least wants a seat in the peanut gallery for complainers. To be honest, I did not think he backed up anything I heard him say.

I don't see the government as my enemy yet though if corporate America is allowed to continue influencing our government the way they have been it may well become that. That's why we can't abandon the faith, can't give up the fight.

I tend to agree with where Magic Banana and SuperTramp went with their comments. The problem is the super, super rich are allowed to channel that money they never needed into bending our government to their will (and another Supreme Court decree, Citizens United). We need more good government to bend the corporate behemoths to our will instead of the other way around. And a greater tax revenue could be used to help average people buy a house one day and send their kids to college. We do need some redistibution of wealth however it's done.

This maybe a different subject but for now, I really wouldn't care so much if the CIA, FBI or NSA were reading my emails. It's a new time for law enforcement as well as everybody else and they need new tools to catch new kinds of criminals. If we have any better ideas they would probably be willing to listen. My ISP on the other hand has no right to the contents of my email any more than my postman has a right to open and read my mail. What I use my computer for is none of my ISP, Microsoft or Google's business. But it seems that whatever data they can glean from us it's not enough, their need to spy and analyze seems insatiable. And we can't vote them out of office.

> I dont like my arrogant attitude in my posts.

I know the feeling, I write a lot and then sit and read it and delete the most scathing statements and try to eliminate every word I can without taking the heart out of the message. No, really, I do that!

Geshmy - I like when Richard Stallman says "every time you say **free software** (instead of open source) you help us..

Please say free software. GNU is about freedom. It is not about convenience, performance or openness..

Hey SuperTramp,
I'll gladly use the term free software, especially around here since everyone in this community is associated with 'free software.'

I found the article you quoted from and now I know your historical or political context. I knew this context existed but hadn't really studied or personalized it. I've mostly come to my perhaps somewhat foggy and still developing positions on my own; without the existence of free software these positions wouldn't have been possible. What you say is good with me in that context. RMS says in that article re: '“open source.” The term was originally proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free software,...”' (in other words I think not free as in gratis) and that is the point I had in mind.

I was gratified to read also, "We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software." The two camps aren't friends exactly but at least can work together depending on the circumstances and have some of the same goals. The focus has to remain on the evils of proprietary software so we don't needlessly make enemies out of our possible allies.

> It is not about convenience, performance or openness.
Obviously openness is near the heart of it for me, (am I the only one that thinks programmers and developers need to be accountable?).

Note in the free software definition:
"In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of source code is a necessary condition for free software." And even further, "manuals are in effect part of the software."

Without openly readable source code (my openness), those four freedoms aren't happening so openness is assumed in the free software position and as such, my accountability is built in too. So I'm happy.
I would say openness is assumed in the free software position and when I used the term open source, I was assuming freedom.

Magic Banana from France! Yes, we had limits in place re donations and were working for a time towards publicly funding some campaigning but the Citizen United decision by the Supreme Court seemed to open up the door for corporate donations. This years presidential campaign will cost $5 to $10 billion I believe. Hilary Clinton already has a couple of billion in campaign funds amassed