Thoughts on Thelemic Government
-
What are your thoughts on how to integrate Law of Thelema into western culture toward the governing of a Thelemic Nation on the world stage.
Using America or UK as a launching platform for the revolution. Let's say there is a global catastrophe that wipes out half the world's population, destroys the economy and infrastructure, depletes military resources, forcing the West to rebuild society. Let's pretend the presidential figure in charge at the time understands Thelema and wants to rebuild America ensuring True Liberty for real this time. How will that work?
How would you change the way the Federal Government operates in order to permit Thelemic Culture?
Or, to make the question simpler, let's say you had your own private island nation with a million Thelemites.
How do you provide order of government while protecting individual liberty? -
That thread already exists around here somewhere
(Maybe someone can research it and post a cross-link here.)Oh, maybe here: <!-- l --><a class="postlink-local" href="http://heruraha.net/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5498&p=30579">viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5498&p=30579</a><!-- l -->
-
@Priory Soul said
"What are your thoughts on how to integrate Law of Thelema into western culture toward the governing of a Thelemic Nation on the world stage"
Vote for Ron Paul in 2012.
-
@he atlas itch said
"
@Priory Soul said
"What are your thoughts on how to integrate Law of Thelema into western culture toward the governing of a Thelemic Nation on the world stage"Vote for Ron Paul in 2012."
Ha Ha! Had me going there for a second! Good one, very funny!
Love and Will
-
I'm serious. While I'm sure a Thelemite can thrive under any political system, the ideals of libertarianism seem closest to my current understanding of Thelema.
-
To be honest, I see the best avenue for the practice of Thelema as an anarchist society. The individual communes, or whatever you want to call them, can function according to the True Wills of the people composing them, and if someone's Will clashes with the arrangement of that particular society, they are sure to find a new one if they do a bit of walking. Even if someone abuses the system and creates their own pocket tyranny, they'd only be dominating a small number of people.
Feel free to pick at all the holes in this-- I'm still trying to work out how an anarchist society would avoid technological regress. I'm thinking something with much scientific cooperation across the Internet, coordination of effort through anarchosyndicalist worker's councils, and technology rather more advanced than we currently have. -
@he atlas itch said
"I'm serious. While I'm sure a Thelemite can thrive under any political system, the ideals of libertarianism seem closest to my current understanding of Thelema."
Thelemites take an entirely different approach in managing the governing of people, managing sovereignty.
In the big scheme of things, across the whole spectrum of ideologies, in comparison with Thelema what discernible distinction is there between republican democrat libertarian?
To fill such a role these days, a career in politics or law enforcement is the anti-thesis of Thelema.Politicians are dangerous people. Attempting to minimize the danger posed by tyrannical governments, Thelema provides an example for what Honest Government looks like. There is no separation of church and state here because the basis of all our laws is spiritual love, void of separation of any kind.
Love is the Law.
How can Love be a Law?
How are we to uphold the Law?
What is the penalty for not upholding the law, or for intentionally breaking it? -
@he atlas itch said
"I'm serious. While I'm sure a Thelemite can thrive under any political system, the ideals of libertarianism seem closest to my current understanding of Thelema."
I want to make this as simple as possible. Then we can go our separate ways on the subject because people will believe what they want.
As I see it, and understand the dynamics from the historical record, as well as from actual governments I can point to in existence at this very moment. The 'end game' of the libertarian model is the fascist/military state—where the larger population is brutalized and exploited by a small, elite sub-section of the population with an army to back up their authority. They do this because they can—all very libertarian, no?
But you will say: no, that's exactly what libertarian ideology is against. And you would be wrong because in a pure, libertarian system there would be nothing to stop people from forming factions and consolidating power, resulting in the system I cite above. These governments exits, and they existed in the past, this cannot be reasonably denied.
As the debate plays out in American politics, it sounds fair to people who are not very smart, "get government off my back." But the reality is that it simply frees the monied interests to really take control. Fact is, there is no such thing as a self-regulating state, or system of organic anarchy that would last for more then a few days. By definition, it's too much of an open ended opportunity for those non-governmental power structures to consolidate the power unto themselves.
Here's the conundrum. For a libertarian system to work, there would have to be some enforcement to keep the power from being consolidated and abused. Does this sound familiar? It should because it's the system we have now with regulations, monopoly restrictions, fair trade practices—everything the libertarian rails against!
As a philosophy it is presented as a fair and honorable system that will reward individual effort, but the characterization is the lie. It is promoted by people like the Koch brothers because it will mean, should any portion of the libertarian ideology make it into accepted practice, they can do anything they want without worrying about possible government intervention; but more immediately profitable in their eyes, they will not be held responsible for any harm they do to you, me, or grandma—you need a government dedicated to enforcing this socially mandated responsibility, always have, always will.
The resemblance to Thelemic concepts is superficial, and literalizes an energy that I prefer to see in terms of its ability to transform human consciousness, not supply the model for a state—a gross mistake, imho.
Love and Will
-
Robert, the ultimate purpose of government is to restrict freedom, so the ultimate purpose of the people must be to restrict government (including its military strength). So instead our founding fathers created a constitution that was supposed to do just that, as well as include in that founding document the right and need for "well organized militias" (local body's of armed civilians self-regulated). My understanding is that the Libertarian party of today and the Tea Party movement are standing on that very cause. As a matter of fact I heard Ron Paul in the first Republican Debate state very clearly that his ambition was to bring the troops home and then reduce considerably the size of the U.S. military.
-
@Takamba said
"Robert, the ultimate purpose of government is to restrict freedom, so the ultimate purpose of the people must be to restrict government (including its military strength). So instead our founding fathers created a constitution that was supposed to do just that, as well as include in that founding document the right and need for "well organized militias" (local body's of armed civilians self-regulated). My understanding is that the Libertarian party of today and the Tea Party movement are standing on that very cause. As a matter of fact I heard Ron Paul in the first Republican Debate state very clearly that his ambition was to bring the troops home and then reduce considerably the size of the U.S. military."
This is a very incomplete message. It seems simple, but it isn't, not in practice.
My understanding is that government is the product of the people, the idea being to create a mutually enhancing system of contribution and shared interests for the benefit of the community.
Ron Paul and his ilk are on record plenty of times saying they should be able to do whatever they want with their money. They ignore the fact that they were only able to make this money in an environment that enforced contracts, had less corruption than almost any other place in the world, could insure an educated, and fairly healthy workforce, and on and on. They were protected from the worst of the predators that have all but had their way in other countries less fortunate. Now they want to be the predators because it makes money sense.
This good fortune was the direct result of public movements in the states. Before the unions we had pretty much a libertarian state. I doubt anyone who knows anything about the abuses of the upper classes from that time would choose to go back to it. But this is exactly what is proposed by the Libertarian agenda. It doesn't matter squat if they are against the war, or any war now, so are liberals and progressives last time I looked.
Now, there is a productive discussion to be had about the scope of government—it has nothing to do with Libertarian extremism. In the end it will ultimately hinge on what promotes the greatest freedom, prosperity, and happiness among the people, not the few.
You are not free if someone can take that freedom away from you by a simple show of superior force. Government should limit that power to insure freedom.
Love and Will
-
Just think a little down the road.
We end the EPA, one of the libertarian objectives. Okay, no one to oversee and attempt to protect the environment, the one we live in. Then what? It's all gonna be fine right? Really?
We make it impossible and disadvantageous for unions to form. Hey, no problem there, the bosses will look out for the interests of their employees, right? Walmart is only a shadow of the abuse we can expect to see.
We deregulate the banks! I don't see any problem with that, do you?
When we say we want to limit government, what do we mean?
Frankly, I've never had a problem with paying for something I felt was important. Isn't this supposed to be our attitude to the Great Work?
Just let me see the books from time to time so I can be sure no one is stealing and that the money is being spent on those things I value, as a citizen. Of course, we will need a governmental agency to keep transactions honest. It will have to be funded or it won't be worth much.
Love and Will
-
@RobertAllen said
"Just think a little down the road.
We end the EPA, one of the libertarian objectives. Okay, no one to oversee and attempt to protect the environment, the one we live in. Then what? It's all gonna be fine right? Really?
We make it impossible and disadvantageous for unions to form. Hey, no problem there, the bosses will look out for the interests of their employees, right? Walmart is only a shadow of the abuse we can expect to see.
We deregulate the banks! I don't see any problem with that, do you?
When we say we want to limit government, what do we mean?
Frankly, I've never had a problem with paying for something I felt was important. Isn't this supposed to be our attitude to the Great Work?
Just let me see the books from time to time so I can be sure no one is stealing and that the money is being spent on those things I value, as a citizen. Of course, we will need a governmental agency to keep transactions honest. It will have to be funded or it won't be worth much.
Love and Will"
I'm not entering into this to start a debate on political preferences, I'm stating my opinions and you are stating your opinions (and we all know where opinions really belong).
Government is mandated by the people (and if their apathy mandates a tyrant, so be it). But the function of government is explicit in the word - to govern (think of that device on your vehicle that prevents it from going past 120 mph even though we all know it has the horsies to do so). Due to the fact that that is sole function of government, the wise men who claimed the victory of the American Revolution wrote a document designed to be a governor placed upon government (but good ol' honest Abe made sure that some of the restrictions would eventually lift). That's the time this nation got railroaded, and I know the history you are referring too.
But imagine (if you can) a world where workers were the commodity, where workers pick and choose who to be employed by - wouldn't then the unions just be another form of taxation? It's a myth that workers need a paid union with union organizers. My mother was in a union, the Teamsters Union, and she got screwed, used, and abused until she walked out and chose her own career as an entrepreneur. I myself was never so "lucky" as to have a union for any of the employment I participated it - Unions only exist like lotteries, for the generally under educated industries. There's no "computer programmers union," no "market researchers union," no "psychology students union." Wonder why. Wonder why. (And it's not because I made any more money, because honestly I didn't. My taxes and health insurance costs made up for that.)
The fact of the matter is, those jobs gave me better insurance coverage and more vacation/holiday benefits than my unionized friends got (but they frequently had more cash than I).
I understand your fear of abolishing regulatory bodies. I think the extreme idea of only a free market regulating itself in all areas leads to a rather dystopian image and with some pretty good logic. It's been known that companies dump toxins where ever it pleases them, or is cheapest. But this happens whether it is legal or not. And an extreme imagination would paint a scenario in which a land is completely poisoned by this practice and this is not a completely illogical conclusion to expect. But when we make it the government's federal obligation to police these things, we not only take the burden of responsibility for the local communities and workers, we lose the power to anything effectively. Maybe when we invent teleporters and computers with AI we can eliminate the expensive bureaucracies we've created. And if I believed in conspiracy theories I might even be able to argue that one event in history dictated the responses that led to the next event and so on in something that gave us the illusion of gaining power while instead taking all our liberties away - but I don't believe there's a 12 person committee completely behind all this. Instead I offer another solution, go to your local religious bodies for free food and clothing when you need it - they operate a lot more swiftly and far more effectively. Let local peasants gather with torches and pitchforks when the monster is created above the village in the castle (this actually requires encouragement I agree, but the very system you might be proposing actually discourages).
I myself live on a pay-go plan. I haven't had a credit card in my life. The closest things to credit I've ever used is that I pay for my electricity after I use it, and I write checks that I cannot afford to let become overdrafts, and I've ran tabs at bars until last call at which time I had to pay up. I fear that the credit market is what is destroying this economy. And I don't believe it is my responsibility to pay for other people's bad choices in that market.
But anyway, I digress. My main point remains - the Will of government is to govern. The Will of the people is to not be governed or to be self governing. Give them free cake and that takes will away.
-aumnasty
-
nice!
-
sorry for the very long post
@Takamba said
"Government is mandated by the people (and if their apathy mandates a tyrant, so be it). But the function of government is explicit in the word - to govern (think of that device on your vehicle that prevents it from going past 120 mph even though we all know it has the horsies to do so). Due to the fact that that is sole function of government, the wise men who claimed the victory of the American Revolution wrote a document designed to be a governor placed upon government (but good ol' honest Abe made sure that some of the restrictions would eventually lift). That's the time this nation got railroaded, and I know the history you are referring too."
It is my experience that government increases freedom. My logic and my reading of history leads me to conclude that less government results in less freedom. This perception is of course a numbers argument, and its true for the majority of souls, and is generally the reverse of how it is seen by the few at the top of the economic pyramid. I can see the world in this light because I choose to look at those government programs that directly help people survive and improve themselves—freedom. I don’t think this is so much about an opinion, yours versus mine, as a choice to see as broadly as possible.
As such, I can accept the argument that there will be a point when Government is too invasive and we start to see less freedom, generally. There are examples of this in recent history—they are well worth the study so we know what this actually looks like in practice, and we don't start labelling things without an understanding what those labels mean, and if they really apply. Otherwise we are just name calling. The word-play aside, the government we were given by the founding fathers was intended to work for the people, not the other way around: of, by, and for the people.
I can't get to excited by any other notions concerning the word 'government' about keeping people enslaved because the idea, one which is also shared by the Tea Party as I understand their point of view, is that government should work for us, which is now a common place concept defining government, even in places like Syria.
My point is that 'no' government is impossible. We tend to agree that we get the government we deserve. Too little government is still government in the extreme because it aggressively serves the upper class—ther is always government, there is always a lot of it, even if the actual machinery seems small or non-existent
@Takamba said
"But imagine (if you can) a world where workers were the commodity, where workers pick and choose who to be employed by - wouldn't then the unions just be another form of taxation? It's a myth that workers need a paid union with union organizers."
I couldn't disagree more. Without the ability of workers to bargain collectively with the bosses, they are little more than serfs. Is this really a contentious position? I follow the news. I know that the local elections in Wisconsin were flooded with outside money, much of which came from noted libertarian billionaires like the Koch bothers, to elect conservative Republicans to the legislature there. The first thing they did was draft a law to make collective bargaining illegal! Why(?), because on the face of it, the right to band together and negotiate with an employer as a single entity should be beyond the laws ability to mandate or prohibit. But like I pointed out, there is no such thing as no government, it is a bastard, or your friend, you decide.
@Takamba said
" My mother was in a union, the Teamsters Union, and she got screwed, used, and abused until she walked out and chose her own career as an entrepreneur. I myself was never so "lucky" as to have a union for any of the employment I participated it - Unions only exist like lotteries, for the generally under educated industries. There's no "computer programmers union," no "market researchers union," no "psychology students union." Wonder why. Wonder why. (And it's not because I made any more money, because honestly I didn't. My taxes and health insurance costs made up for that.)"
I'm sorry for your mother, though you don't provide any details so I don't really know what to think about her experience other than it was negative. But since this is about personal stories now: My father had one job his entire life—working for the telephone company as a technician. In a libertarian system, there were two distinct times during his career with the phone company when he would have been discarded for economic reasons, pure and simple. 1. An on the job injury when he was rear-ended by a drunk driver resulting in minor brain damage that required him to relearn how to speak. Without the 'good' work of the unions to insure he wasn't treated shabbily, he, and us would have been left out in the cold. He got the support he needed to make a full recovery and go back to work. 2. With the transition from an old infrastructure to the modern digital his position became insecure, certainly he would have been at risk of being let go if there were no protections to keep business from firing workers who either required investment to keep their knowledge base current, or sometimes just let go months before becoming eligible for retirement benefits as a cost saving measure. I personally know several recent stories where this has happened—with the weakening of such protections it is now easy to screw people who have served your company faithfully for many years.
@Takamba said
" The fact of the matter is, those jobs gave me better insurance coverage and more vacation/holiday benefits than my unionized friends got (but they frequently had more cash than I)."
And this is part of the point I want to make. That even if you have not directly benefited from a Union, you are still indebted to them in ways which are easy to overlook. I have been, by default, the member of several teachers unions when I was teaching. I never really got anything from this, though I did pay dues—so other people probably benefited from my participation, which makes me quite happy btw. I digress, the point is this, the integration of our core entitlement programs and the ideas of social welfare, of protecting people from exploitation, as well as providing the means to advancement, these ideas are now considered an important the function of our Government, and this all goes hand and hand with the unionization of significant sections of the population and the ideas they championed. I went to expensive schools several times over in my life. My family paid for none of it because they never had the means to help me. To pay for these degrees I took out student loans that were either guaranteed or mandated by government! I'm still paying off my last loans for my degree from Columbia University. I know for a fact, that none of this would have been possible without the great period of the unions, the new deal, and the various wars on poverty and inequality that make up the best of what America is, in concept and in practice.
@Takamba said
" I myself live on a pay-go plan. I haven't had a credit card in my life. The closest things to credit I've ever used is that I pay for my electricity after I use it, and I write checks that I cannot afford to let become overdrafts, and I've ran tabs at bars until last call at which time I had to pay up. I fear that the credit market is what is destroying this economy. And I don't believe it is my responsibility to pay for other people's bad choices in that market. "
Every conservative, ‘screw the little guy’ movement begins the same way. It begins by playing on a persons sense of being wronged—their greed; it is promoted by the idea that someone over there is trying to take things from you, that you are under attack! This sounds like an opinion, but I would argue it is informed by clearly ascertainable, historic facts. Wealthy landowners gutted the California educational system with Prop 13, by making people feel they were being robbed by paying property tax that allowed the state to carry on its business. After the proposition was passed, none of these, mostly middle class people, saw any benefit other a few extra dollars—the gains worth making were made by exceedingly wealthy corporations and individuals. I was there, I saw the educational system go from among the top two or three systems in the country to next to last of all the states—I think Alabama is rated below us.
If government doesn’t do the job you want it to do, you are as much to blame as the Government. And so you will be if the Libertarians ever take over, because any ability you have of taking care of yourself with what seems to be the basic tool-set of the normal, non-unionized person at large, will be taken away from you.
Libertarian is one of those words, broadly meaning any number of things, very different in themselves, each from the other. In Europe it is synonymous with anarchy. And there is something called Libertarian Socialism, which I personally know nothing about because it doesn’t impact my world as far as I can determine. But the libertarian ideology, which forms so much of the newly energized conservative movement these last few years, is the variety inspired by a vision of elitism promoted by people like Ayn Rand. In this vision of how the world should work, you are a nothing Takamba, you are already a slave because you are not already rich, not a member of Skull and Bones. You are my kind of people, someone I can have a beer with in a local pub.
Love and Will
-
Robert,
Well said but not any more or less factual than what I also know. I still say it is all opinion at this point and I have no aim to convert anyone.I will not say that less government means more enslavement although I agree that less regulation means more need for "buyer beware." But it has always been "buyer beware" and I'm not going to expect otherwise.
As far as seeing me as "your type of people," and so forth, perhaps. But let me tell you what you don't know.
I grew up mostly in Anaheim, California. I was in the fifth grade when Prop 13 was enacted, and you are right that I have seen since then a decline in California's education quality. I spent my last years in California at Huntington Beach High. I then lived on my motorcycle for a year, hiring myself out for gas and food and whatever - mainly carrying guitars and PA equipment from vans to stages and back again. Good times. I then moved to the capital city in Nebraska.
I've sipped brandy with the best of them, and counted Busch Light empties with some of the least of us. You see me as "one of you" because everyone sees me as "one of them." I've slept with University professors (while not a student, mind you - as that would be like cheating). I've slept with tattoo artists. And a chain of types in between (got to love the ladies). I'm not typecast. So sure, I'd love to have a beer with you. Meet me at O'Rhourke's and I'll buy some pitchers.
(but give me some advance warning as I no longer live in Lincoln but will get there if it's worth the effort) -
@RobertAllen said
"I've sipped brandy with the best of them, and counted Busch Light empties with some of the least of us. You see me as "one of you" because everyone sees me as "one of them." I've slept with University professors (while not a student, mind you - as that would be like cheating). I've slept with tattoo artists. And a chain of types in between (got to love the ladies). I'm not typecast. So sure, I'd love to have a beer with you. Meet me at O'Rhourke's and I'll buy some pitchers.
(but give me some advance warning as I no longer live in Lincoln but will get there if it's worth the effort)"Takamba,
I really appreciated the back and forth. I didn't really know you before, and I suppose I still don't, but you feel closer to me now, more real, more like someone I really do like, and whose company I would enjoy.
If we go someplace with good craft beer, or at least Sam Adams, your on.
Love and Will
-
Myself and a few brothers actually considered starting a political party based on Thelemic laws in Australia in the mid 90s. Why not? We were young, intelligent and strong willed. Stupider people were in power after all. We intended to openly buy into a brothel and use the profits to help fund it. We saw this as a suitable statement in the annihilation of sexual repression within our society. There may also have been beer involved in this discussion serving to fuel our open disgust of politics at the time. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) we decided it was more than likely financial suicide and let it slide but the disgust was still there. It certainly would have been interesting times had we gone through with it!
-
I've toyed around with the idea of something along a mixture of the Spartan two-Ephor system, combined with the format of the early Roman Republic. I have an essay on that very subject somewhere around here, and I might dig it out if I feel like gracing the lot of you with my profundity and wit. (j/k
)"Myself and a few brothers actually considered starting a political party based on Thelemic laws in Australia in the mid 90s. Why not? We were young, intelligent and strong willed. Stupider people were in power after all. We intended to openly buy into a brothel and use the profits to help fund it. We saw this as a suitable statement in the annihilation of sexual repression within our society. "
I like your thinking. Not so sure about the brothel, as there might be a tendency towards the objectification of women/etc.--but we don't need to get into that. 'Twas a nice pipe dream. (Or in this case, can dream, I suppose.)
Edit: Actually, a brothel decorated on Egyptian/Grecian lines with women dressed in period would be kinda cool.
-
this is like I have said, that the lose of noble elites allowed the money powers to take over control. The problem is that governments are basically bribed by the money powers, the sanctions hurt the competition of the big business and we run wars all over the world to open markets for big business and to secure poverty conditions in places to outsource labor, the government is supported by and works for the big businesses.
What we need is to restore the aristocratic class and the monarchy, which has power and authority without dependancy on money and big business. a power that comes for their character virtues and noble disposition, and ability to prove their skills and ideals work in practice, not based on popularity contests of democracy nor on the ability to pander to the big businesses. Men of genius and vision who do not give in to what the masses want but guide them with a form hand to what they need to grow and prosper as a community.
These are the Tory ideals which Crowley was a life long supporter.
-
I am to blame. I spoke the name we do not mention on another thread and woke the ancient evil.
My apologies to the forum.
Love and Will