My beautiful

Every day every fucking day

Every minute every hour every god dam second turned to dust

She did it why?

Why does one take the life of another?

The desire to fulfil desire is the quintessence of humanity

I dreamed

Warmth of her six beautiful wings

There with two ceaseless white sectors she covered her face

The bonds to the barrier of progress where so fragile

Our union with life so delicate

Beauty in the eternal... No

The finite brings every thing to being to extinction

But marionettes dancing on strings once the bonds of life are cut

I'm falling

I hit the ground

Fall through the infinite

To reality I wake stunned by the power of awareness

Numbed through the boundless insignificance of reality in a perpetually expanding universe

Feeling the gravity of existence

The weightlessness of forever

With two she covered her feet

I watched the night again

Felt crushing sadness that made me cold

I was at the bottom of an ocean, incredible pressure completely alone frozen

Dieing and breathless I finished with a smile

Died watching it and I felt nothing of desire lifeless nothing hurt any more

I did see white and felt the warmth that had been taken

With two she flew

Trust in some thing so weak was folly

Some thing that was never whole could never have been my beautiful

A steward should not be a creature

Faith should only be imparted to divine

A fool I was

With such a revelation belonging to the absent void is the source of our easily broken form

I see she didn't break me she was never whole

Her desire was strong

The gateway to perfection is crossing the line to irreducible complexity

To the place of no need

No a fool I am

If the line is crossed divinity is gone

No my beautiful could never be

Only she

I do not believe in free will

You may ask some thing like why do I get up in the morning? Its because I like getting up in the morning. I like doing things I have motivation to do so because of lusts for things like food social interaction love sex and knowledge. But this is irrelevant, nothing to do with whether or not we have free will or not.

Human beings are a product of the hard wiring in there brain and the conditioning that this brain goes through. If you choose to get out of bed its because you choose to based on your what ever motivation you have at the time. Lets just say your motivation is to get a banana(obviously very simplified). You go get that Banana because you have experienced Banana's in the past and have had positive feed back from eating bananas. Therefore you have been conditioned to like Bananas and therefore decided to get out of bed to get one. There is all ways causation for your actions. If you choose to do some thing its because the sum of your hardware and conditioning has caused you to do so.

You might say but hey ill not go get this hypothetical banana to prove this guy wrong even though I am hungry and I know bananas taste yummy. But you are not proving me wrong at all. You are choosing to not go get the banana because you have felt satisfaction from proving your point correct in the past (or some other singular or composite causation) hence you attempt to prove me wrong by not getting the banana. It is just another example of cause and effect.

You made a choice but a choice is just a calculation (obviously not necessarily in the mathematical sense of the word) you make based on your consciousness's perceptions and understandings of information which is the stimulus it is currently receiving and the memory of stimulus it has received in the past. And is therefore is not free at all. The same rules of cause and effect apply to your choices as to every thing else in the universe. If there is a part of your brain that reacts a certain way to certain stimuli and you receive this certain stimuli and there are no factors that stop you from reacting that way then that part of the brain will react that certain way to that certain stimuli.

What would free will be if it did exist? Magical randomness in the brain? There is no such thing as random events. The property of Randomness is just effects caused by things you do not have the ability to perceive (For example if you role a dice the result may appear random because you don't have the ability to perceive the factors that caused the given result but it is not. It was caused by the various factors involved in the dice throwing e.g mass of dice the way it was thrown ect). But assuming randomness could exist that isn't free will it is just randomness effecting our brain. Some thing that happens for no reason doesn't mean we have power over our destiny it just means things happen with out cause which is very separate from free will.

There is a appearance of free will but I acknowledge I am just a complicated chemical system that's a slave to the laws of physical reality like every thing else. Ill use a analogy to illustrate my thesis. Peoples lives are the trajectory of a cannonball they them selves are the cannon ball and the factors of there lives are the factors that effect the trajectory of the cannon ball. Once the cannon ball is fired it will have a set trajectory based on the given factors. The same is true with human beings once they are born they will react certain ways to given stimuli based upon many factors. The difference between human beings and cannon balls is the factors that make up the trajectory of a human life can not all be quantified and qualified and human beings have a consciousness. Human beings have a tendency to label these unknowable factors as free will.

You probably have a urge to believe that your actions are based on your environment then you utilise "free will" to react to the stimulus denying or accepting initial basic reaction. But remember the motivation to eat the Banana that was your initial and basic reaction to eat the banana because it tastes good. You may choose to deny it based on "free will" but as explained before you are just reacting a certain way based on the motivation that is not as apparent and hence you may not be conscious of this "higher" motivation so you assume you are doing it from free will.

You may still be denying my reasoning with out seeing a flaw in my logic.
You might have a little voice that says "what's my reason to do any thing if its true". For one this is a logical fallacy called appealing to consequences and two imagine I am right for a second would you really do any thing differently? You are still the same person that likes doing the same things the same person that Still gets upset when people you care about get hurt. Cause and effect is the only effect. I am not saying its good or bad I am just saying it is.

Basics of Anarchism and the ethical hypocrisy of the state

Anarchism in the classical sense is a society void or archons. Archons where traditionally the chief of the magistrates of Greek cities but it also in a wider sense meant leader of the table or ruler. There are many non mutually exclusive forms of anarchism. The Different contemporary forms of anarchism are each based around the conflicts and interactions of the individuals freedoms with society. For the purposes of this discussion and my further discussions anarchy is a philosophy stating society should not be organised by a coercive state. A coercive state being a area under the rule of a group of people who make legislature and use force or threat of force to impose this legislature on the population of the given area despite the will of the individual.

There is a common misconception about anarchism that needs to be corrected before discussion can begin. People often believe anarchism is synonyms with a society being in a state of anomie. Anomie is the lack of the usual social and moral standards and when applied to society would be a state of chaos and lawlessness lacking what we would call social norms. Anarchy can potentially exhibit some on the properties of a society in anomie but is not in and of it self a society necessarily lacking social norms and values. A organised anarchy in theory could be less chaotic then modern democracies. When people envision anarchy with fire and heinous violence this is a more accurate portal of a society in anomie then a anarchy.

The validity of anarchism as a philosophy is based on the assertion that the state has no moral justification for being exempt from the rules of the rest of society. You might say a anarchist doesn't believe in the government and the people. They believe there are just people and some people that coerce others. To illustrate why the state is morally bankrupt I will use a analogy. If you live in a neighbourhood autonomous of any external social systems and you magically get money and you can exchange this money with god for goods and services. Then Steve one day comes to your house and says "give me half your money I am deciding that I am taking half of every ones money and I will pay god to make a community hall and lots of other things" you reply "I don't want one! I am happy the way things are" Steve reply's "I have the support of most of the community and therefore I have the power to take your money and I will take your money if you don't give it to me". You give in and give Steve half your money even though you do not want any thing he and most of the other people do.

That is the end of the analogy. Steve is a archon with the use of power he gained through the support of the majority of society he coerced you and effectively stole half your money. I am drawing a analogy that your neighbourhood is the state Steve is a archon and the community largely gave him support he was hence unofficially elected by the population. This is a very basic model for most democratic governments today. Was Steve righteous in stealing your money even though the majority said he was allowed to? Does he have the right to imprison you if you refuse? Does he have the right to kill you if you attempt to forcefully resist his imprisonment? These are all powers the state has. It is assumed because the majority supports the state then the majority supports the means of the state hence because the majority accepts the means it is ethical conduct . Does the majority decide what ethical conduct is or does it exist objectively? Is the government forcefully taking money from some one ok because every one says it is?

You have been conditioned by society to assume that the state having power over its citizens is ethical because the majority has elected the government. But stop treating this as a axiom and consider the analogy. The state is just a collection of people empowered by the consent of the majority to force individuals to adhere to its chosen rules. Does might make right? The state would never allow you or a collection of individuals to steal off a community because the majority in the given area has given you permission to do so. The state would enforce its own laws and imprison you for doing so. This is moral hypocrisy as it does the same thing with in its own borders.

It is tempting to ignore the moral issues and make arguments of distraction like but how could we function with out the government. Because it maybe hard to acknowledge your living in and contributing to a society that's morally floored. Or because it is a alien concept. But it is important to acknowledge then the state is morally hypocritical.