The Broken Windows Theory states that if one person does crime, most specifically stuff similar to vandalism, anti-social behaviour and other stuff, that it will create an environment where that is allowed and sometimes encouraged or the norm. People often use it to say why we should prevent crime and try to fix the damages of crime as quick as possible. This is to prevent the property and the property nearby from loosing value. But I am proposing something different. Instead of opposing the Broken Windows Theory, why not embrace it? What do I mean? I mean to let people put graphitte on your dwelling, dont stop a criminal doing their crime. Why should we do this? Because the more criminals that vandalise your property with their gang symbol, the more their competitor gangs want to 1 up them. Also if criminals see that it is easy to get away with a crime in a place, more will come do it. Then more criminals come, law enforcement starts to loose power, and is more crime comes and they loose power by the hour. Then they start to try to hire more cops. This part is bad, but more cops leads criminals to recruit more members to their gangs. They soon will have more power than the law enforcement. When the criminals are ahead of the cops at this point, the law enforcement has little chance of catching up. They will also mostly target more serious crimes. This leads to you having more freedom, LE will have less control over you and will big you less. Just maybe pay the criminals some money if they ask. I have had this idea this idea for a while. I recently heard that this was happening in Seattle. Tons of homeless people live there, and LE has little power there. They make this look bad, but I think it is good. There is more freedom there. This theory seems to lead to freedom. Thats why we should embrace it. Also, who does’nt like some art on their property?
The State of the Union is happening today as I am writing this. There are many issues with the state of the union which I wish to cover. The 1st issue, and this happens a lot even outside of the state of the union. This issue is that people call the USA, America. The USA MAINLAND is in America, but they are not the only part of America. And Not all of their land is even in America(such as Guam). Here is a Map of America and the USA.
The Blue is The USA, Everything in the line is America. Yes I know I left out some islands part of America and Parts of USA-Only/Non-American Land. But as you can see, USA is not the only part of America. And even though they are not on this map, some islands the USA owns are not in the Americas. When they call themselves just “American” they seem to think they are the only Americans. I often call people from USA “United Statesian”, I am United Statesian, and I do not think that we are the only part of America.
Next thing, they have many references to god. Many people belive in god, but there are some people who do not. When you put god references in your speech to the whole country, even full of people who do not belive-in a single god or any higher power, they are leaving those people out. If you belive-in god, that’s ok, but I do not think they should push that on people who do not belive-in a higher power.
They also like to say how the “State of the Union is Strong”. This can be good or bad depending on how you view it. In this case, in many ways I think it is bad. Being together with the federal government lets them control you more, they block autonomousness.
Another thing, is they talk about closing boarders more. Why should we even have boarders? Boarders stop business decisions and just benifit the state. EU contries dont really have boarders with other EU Contries, why should we have such strong boarders? Wouldnt all that crime eventually spread out and be even? Boarders I think do more harm than good. We could work together with contries, but the state does not seem to like that. If state did not exist, there most likely would be no borders. It would be great IMO.
One thing they said is how they are working on a “trade deal” with PROC (People’s Republic Of China). What kind of “trade deal” could they be making? Why cant they just let the people who live in the country decide the trades on their own? Why do they need governement to do that for them? Or do they mean tarrifs when they say trade deals? Those are bad, they are just the government saying how much power they have and how they do not want you to benifit other contries even if it benifits you.
Another thing is that Trump called us Socialist, which in some ways we are depending on who you ask. But I think we are more of a Social Democracy. Socialism I think is more of a transition to Communism and maybe in super rare cases capitalism. But do you think we will ever go to Communist or Capitalist? I doubt it, if we did, then the government would loose their power. And we all know they do not want that.
Another thing, he says they will cut taxes. Sounds good IMO, but is it really do you think? Do you actually think the government will cut its spending on things we do not really need? No! They are probobly just going to build more debt that the newer generations will have to pay off.
One last thing I want to mention for now, is how the U.S President is picking sides. They are claiming that their pick for the president of Venezuela is the legit president fo Venezuela. There is still debate on that. And they also claim that Jerusalem is the capital is Isreal. It may be, but it is also under dispute with Palestine. The USA does not recognise Palestine for some reason, they are just spitting in their face. Also, USA claiming the legitness of their side probobly makes their allies angry, such as Russian Federation or PROC. I recognise Palestine, but USA government does not.
Now there are many more things I would like to cover, but I am a little low on time and ideas now, I will most likley be editing this to find more problems with the state of the union.
I have always been against DNA Finders for this reason. I have said that the FBI will be able to have access to your DNA. If you have an identical twin who does crime you can be in trouble. DNA is a big thing used in Crime finding, but even if you claim you have nothing to hide, you still probably want the FBI or anyone knowing what you DNA is. Sometimes, you can be wrongly accused of a crime because your DNA was found. Plus, the government will always know where you go if they find your DNA in other places. Also, “Nothing to Hide” can be a flawed Argument, this is an article from DuckDuckGo/Spread Privacy, an online privacy company. I am sure there is some stuff even if not illegal that you do not want the people to know. A Reddit User gives a great example of this.
42 points · 4 months ago
Whenever I hear someone saying that they have nothing to hide, I ask them when they last masturbated and how often they do that. Then suddenly they seems to have things to hide after all… strange… If you have nothing to hide, you are either deliberately lying or have seriously bad imagination.
******OK Back To Me *******
Not everyone may be scared to hide this, but I doubt you want certain people knowing, and this is just one of millions of things people like to hide, and giving the government access to your DNA more easily can make it much easier for government to know that you were linked to something even if it is not illegal.
The Final Point I would like to make, is that if they can get away with this, they will eventually be able to get away with it even more. USA is already in many ways a censored police state with tons of surveillance. Do you really want more? I think life would be better if we all fought against all the spying we have, not allowing more.
If the FBI knows they can get away with 1 thing, then they know they probably can with another. They may say they have only used it for a few cases, but government has a rep of lying to people, and could have used it more, or even found a way to copy the whole DNA database to use for all future cases.
I would also recommend this writing on the Anarchist Library.
Please Note, this is the old article, for the new article please look at The Leftist Case against a Minimum Wage.
The minimum wage is suppose to help people in the lower classes not be poor. But there are many disadvantages to it, 1st of all, it is anti-capitalist, and such a thing would not exist in Communism either, since wages do not exist in communism. Its just a regulation. If someone pays too low, then people can just not work there. If you are limited in options, you can just go on strike in a union of other workers until they either pay you back or do not have any employees. If everyone pays low, you can go to a communist group. The government must just be assuming that we are too stupid to decide what we can live off of. They, like all the time, are using paternalism to justify what they are doing so they can control us more. Its not “wrong”, but I think it has more bads than goods, another thing is it makes it harder for a startup to hire anybody and makes it so it is harder for them to gain momentum. This in turn causes for less jobs and higher unemployment (which government seems to care about). If they do need to hire some people for a minimum wage, then the goods start to cost more. Some of the things these people do are easy and probably do not require minimum wage to be done. Another thing, is that if people cost too much, then the employers are just going to hire people off-shore or use robots to do the work for them. This is just a regulation to try to stop unchecked capitalism. Unchecked Capitalism is good for people like me, but not for governments, so that’s why they try to stop it in my opinion.
Edit 27/09/2019 CE :
I am now an Anarcho-Communist, and see minimum wage as a way to keep the capitalist and power and make it look like the state is helping. The Minimum wage does not help workers in my opinion, the prices of things will just go up, as long as there is capitalism, there will be oppression.
I often hear the phrases “Communist Country”. This term is flawed because in order to have communism, the state must wither away or have been abolished. While all countries today (that I know of) have centralised governments and claim land that they do not even use. Even “Communist” countries suffered from these things. They are mostly centralised, and often were imperialistic. These countries were is almost no way communist, but rather a version of Marxism. These countries are mistakenly called communist. Not even all of them say they have achieved communism yet. The more accurate way of how communism would work, is that there would be communes, these communes do not have centralised government, and decisions are made collectively by the commune. This is to make sure everyone is equal. Communes would also never be that big. Maybe a few hundred people at most, they may have set boundaries, but you are free to go in and out, and its almost never more than they need. You would always be able to easily leave your commune and join another, while in most countries you could not. People often misunderstand what I mean when I say I want communism, they seem to think I want the whole United States to be a single communist country. This is not the case; we do not want to keep the United States or whatever country, rather people would be in communes, there would probably be millions of communes in a place like the United States area, it would not be a single country. And if you really were to not like communism, I am sure there would be a lot of land not claimed by a commune which you could do capitalism stuff if you really wanted to.
Colleges and Universities are tools of the Bourgeoisie, not only that but they ARE the bourgeoisie. Under this semi-capitalist system, in order to get a job that you can feed yourself with, if you don’t go to college and try to apply for a job, you will likely get rejected if it is a job you can feed yourself with. But all the colleges care about is gaining capital and reputation (so they can get more capital). In order to get into many of the “Good” colleges, you need to do well in Primary Education. Whats in primary education? State and Bourgeois propaganda, at least if you go into a public school. There have been many times where the bourgeoisie has paid politicians in order to make the education system to benefit them. This commonly happened with factory workers who would pay politicians to teach them not to question the system and to obey. The idea for them was that since factory work was the most common job in the 1800 and 1900’s, and if their employed these people, they would not have to teach them. And in the United States of America and I would belie most countries, you are taught at a young age that you are “free”, though I dont think I have seen them explain HOW exactly we are free. To be honest, we are not free. Under this Semi-Capitalist State system we will never be free. They make you take classes about which country you are in so they can show you how great it is, sometimes they will say how we used to be bad so they can say how much better they are now. And in Private schools, there may be less state, but there is almost always more bourgeoisie. Private schools are owned by individuals and are making profit, so they would want you to think good of the system as well. Home school or Unschooling may be better, but they still would probably make you answer a bunch of questions that would have required you to study propaganda to “prove” you were educated.
You need to go through one of these paths because most governments force you to go to a school, and you need to do well in order to get into one of those “good” colleges. In order to do well in school, you often need to have a lot of time. If you do not have a lot of money, you often can not get many of the resources you need to do as well as someone who is much richer than you. This means that the bourgeoisie has a much easier time getting into colleges and staying at the top. The less rich people cant afford to get into the college, and since they did not do as well in school they are not offered a scholarship. Rich families can afford tutoring, study manuals, gifts for the teachers, bribing the people high up, and the kid not having to spend all their time doing work for the family. These are all advantages the bourgeoisie has that the average person does not. Many financial aid programs such as Grants are just ways for the state and bourgeoisie to get a favourable opinion from you. And colleges themselves suck, the stuff they teach you is becoming more and ore useless, and the prices are insanely high. The colleges are super rich, they have more money than many countries and some like Harvard, could pay their tuition for over 100 years. These institutions are almost fully tax free, even private ones, and sometimes even receive money from the state, even private ones once again. So even someone who did not go to college has to pay for colleges. You can bet there is some corruption going on. Even if you did somehow happen to make it into college, you would probably be taught a bunch of propaganda, stuff you already know, stuff you dont need to know, and more. Lots of the stuff in fact, I am sure you could learn on Udemy or Skillshare or something similar. Colleges make you take a bunch of general education classes and prerequisite classes just to take the class you want to take. This is a way for them to squeeze propaganda and and your money. After you are done you are left with huge amount of debt that will last you decades. This makes it so you will be owing tonnes of money to lenders and so you have to work harder in your job, benefiting your boss. If you are in debt, you cannot safely go on strike, or start your own business, so you would not be able to compete with your boss, making you largely a slave of them. So you would end up working in school and going to college just to spend your whole life working for a bourgeois. It is almost impossible to become rich with all that debt you have, so the bourgeoisie, stays the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat, stays the proletariat. If that individual had a family, since they would not be rich because they maybe still had debt or since they could never rise up, just never got that much money, then the cycle would repeat, making the new child just like their parent. This is what happened in the middle ages and this would repeat over and over again. This system also provides justification for adults to control the lives of minors. I am almost 16, and go to a pretty basic school named El Modena High School. They are so controlling of me, and they work with parents rather than the student themselves. If you do poorly academically, your parents would often punish you or tell you how to run your life, if you did something the school did not like, even if it was something perfectly fine like talking back, your parents would punish you. Parents use this system to justify them being able to control their children. I do not support this as a victim of this system. I do not think they are making my life much better, and do not think it will make a lot of difference in the future because I , and probably anyone else, will probably revert back to their old ways after they leave their parents and do poor in college. While many people are told that this system is great. The bourgeoisie and state benefit from this system, the people who come out of college are poor and will need to boot lick their boss, and have done well in all the propaganda, and will get money from all the loans the student needed to take out. While the student is just making it by, having to work really hard to support themselves. The state benefits by forcing propaganda and having a few less homeless and questioning people. Colleges limit the amount of people they can accept for a reason, they want to keep their reputation so they can get more money and charge people more to be admitted. This allows for the bourgeoisie to get the best of the bunch and the college to make money. The idea that people had to cheat to go into a good college or university (like the scandal a few months ago) just shows how highly the system is failing and how selective these schools are and how little they actually care. Grades are just a way to judge how good people are so the colleges and bosses know, its an outdated system meant to favour the elite.
This system is filled with things you do not want and is highly optimised for the bourgeoisie and state. I mean, do you want to have to work hard in school and have to be controlled by your parents just so you can work for some bourgeois for the rest of your life?
Here is a Solution
None of these issues would happen in anarcho-communism. In anarcho-communism, there is no centralised state to give you propaganda. There is no bourgeoisie to find people to exploit. In anarcho-communism, everyone has an opportunity, everyone would get a good education if they wanted it, they would then be able to do higher education if they wanted that. People would not probably be forced to do any education if they do not want to, but it would be encouraged so you can better contribute to the commune and do something you may be interested in, like making tools or building something. You would not be taught a bunch of stuff you do not want or need to know. The teachers would not be teaching you to get a paycheque, but rather because they like teaching. The teachers would work with the student, grades would have no reason to exist. Parents would have almost no involvement in your life because you dont need them because you can manage your self and are not in a harsh semi-capital statist would that would make you dependent on them. Colleges would exist to teach you new skills that you want to learn, you would be doing it not because you will be homeless if you don’t, but because you want to. And work hours would probably be lower because with everyone working together, they could probably make everything they need in 5 hours a day. This would mean you have plenty of time to study and do well. And after you are done, you would not have a huge debt, you would just contribute as normal or maybe a little more. No Propaganda, no useless stuff, no debt, no restrictions on who can get in. They may teach about anarcho communist principles, but this would mainly be so they dont revert back to the previous system.
I will be submitting this to the Anarchist Library and other Radicle Libraries, I would suggest you read it there because this site often has issues. I will provide a link to some of the accepted ones.
Has someone ever implied you know to do something or implied you knew not to do something?It kinda sucks when they are angry at you or stop you from doing something because you did not follow a something implicit.
But another question, what is the point of using implications? They seem to only save little amounts of time if they work and seem to create lots of confusion and issues if they fail. People assume you know something that you do not. They do not take “you never told me” or “you never said” and an answer when the thing is, if they had told them, then this would not of likely happened, and they would of done it better.
I have no shame taking advantage of these implications most of the time. If they never said not to do to do something, and it benefits me, I often do it. I often also use it to avoid doing work. In Fact, this may be one of the steps we need to take to get rid of Implicities.
Some implications can be ok and may have a use, but are often not. One example is if you tell someone to do something and want them to do something else, and the 2nd thing you want them to do absolutely has to be done for the 1st thing to be done. But this can still have an issue if the 2nd thing does not HAVE to be done or the person you are giving the task to finds away around it. Also another one is if you include a word the other person does not know in a face-to-face or instant chat conversation. This CAN be ok because they an just tell you the word they don’t know. But this still can be annoying and it is often better to just use simpler vocab if you can. It is still better to not use this one.
Both of these philosophies are used in controlling organisations to try to justify them controlling you. Both of them have egoism involved as we have already discussed. By The way, ADHERING TO SOMEONE ELSE’S EGOISM IS NOT EGOISM, and is not good in my opinion. But what exactly is the difference between tough love and paternalism?
When someone is doing paternalism, they are also doing tough love, and vice versa, I will explain how after I have covered them both.
Tough love is putting someone through a time they may not like because they may “benefit in the long term” or just “for their own good” and sometimes “morality”. The issue with this is that their is no best outcome, just whatever the person wants. If someone wants to do something, they often get punished by parents or some other organisation. If the punishment is time out, then this is most likely tough love, since it is often suppose to benefit the victim of tough love. We will talk about the disadvantages of tough love in this forum. The phrase originally came from a movie.
Paternalism is similar to Tough love. It is taking away a right for someones “own good” or “moral reasons”. Many of the same disadvantages are the same as with tough love. This would be shown if I stopped you from eating too much candy because I said you would get fat. This is flawed because if the person knows, then they are just choosing to eat the candy and do not care about your health, and its your life. I will talk about the disadvantages to this on this forum.
Paternalism comes from the word paternal meaning father, and means controlling someone in a fatherly way.
How they overlap?
Paternalism is taking someones right, tough love is putting someone through tough times, if you are putting someone in a tough time, then you are taking their right to the time and the ability to say no. If you take someone’s right, then you are putting them through a tough time. So they overlap.
This is also going into the egoism section.
I am an egoist. I do what benefits me. I do not despise being an egoist, I encourage it. What I do not like though, is you following someone else’s Egoism for less benefit to you. This is what allows the state to exist. Paternalism and tough love are suppose to be someone doing harm to you or taking away your freedom so you will benefit from it in the future or because it is not in your best interest. This has many flaws and many ways Egoism can be involved in it.
First of All, Psychological Egoism states that everyone is motivated by self interest, even when they care about others. This argument can be used even when it does not appear the person using Paternalism/Tough Love is gaining anything, they have a greater change than not of having a way that they will benefit. Sometimes you can even see how the Paternalism or Tough Love can benefit. An example is a parent forcing you to do labour and saying it will benefit you later, even if you never plan on doing the thing you are suppose to be learning, and are just getting your time wasted and in a miserable way. You can most likely see how the parent would benefit from this, its less work for them, and they can say they are doing you a favour. John Stuart Mill disagrees with state paternalism saying “His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.” . He states that people knows whats best for them, and I agree. It is your life, and you should be able to do what ever you want, if you want to ruin your life, its your life. If the person does not appear to benefit from enforcing paternalism or tough love on you, that does not mean they cannot benefit at all. Some people may gain respect/reputation, they may get pressure from other paternalist if they are not paternalist. They may feel morally(for people who believe in that) just, or maybe sad if something happened to you if they have invested in you. Max Stirner in the Ego and Its Own covers why people stop crime that has nothing to do with them, one of the reasons he says is people’s morality tells them to. Morality is a flawed idea but many people still believe it. To some that is a benefit worth having. You need to be the egoist, you need to not let this happen, letting this happen is most likely not egoist. We must spread anti-paternalism and anti-tough love. None of them really benefit the victim to that great of an extent. Stop feeding into other people’s egoism, and be the egoist.
Today, March 12, the world wide web became 30 years old. It Has Progressed a long time since then with development of HTML.