Thelema & Liber...
 
Notifications
Clear all

Thelema & Libertarian Political Viewpoints  

Page 2 / 2
  RSS

Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
03/05/2009 8:59 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
It was not even necessarily their true Will to have them.

Absolutely right. But there are always going to be some people who want what they can't afford, whether or not it's in line with their true will.

What we need to do, to protect the economy, is to regulate those who are lending money to try to prevent these bad loans.

I'm all for people discovering their true wills, but when it comes to actually making laws, we need to make rules that protect the economy from predatory lenders and from people who want what they can't afford (whether or not they're acting in accord with their true will).

"MichaelStaley" wrote:
Bill Gates has given a lot of money away to charitable causes over the years. He recognises that no man is an island and that he is part of a social fabric to which he gives and from which he receives.

Good point, Michael. It's interesting that Gates is also an atheist, so we know that he's not donating money to charity in order to "get something" for it in some afterlife.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/05/2009 9:43 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
It was not even necessarily their true Will to have them.

Absolutely right. But there are always going to be some people who want what they can't afford, whether or not it's in line with their true will.

What we need to do, to protect the economy, is to regulate those who are lending money to try to prevent these bad loans.

I'm all for people discovering their true wills, but when it comes to actually making laws, we need to make rules that protect the economy from predatory lenders and from people who want what they can't afford (whether or not they're acting in accord with their true will).

I wasn't aware that anyone was seriously advocating that there be no reasonable protection of the economy, or of the people in general. That sounds like it might be a knee-jerk reaction of some people to too much protection, to unreasonable protection. As always, balance is everything. There is a point at which protecting the people so insulates the them from the realities of life that they grow weak and dependent, that they lose any semblance of self-reliance, any ability to think for themselves and make choices in their own best interest. Some will argue that this is acceptable so long as the people remain safe. Where do you stand on this, Los? Anyone?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/05/2009 10:47 pm  

Yes over-regulation may lead to a socialist nanny state. But regulation is the reaction to the collective delusion that one can live beyond their means or make profits without risk. Regulation is the necessary evil that occurs when people abuse freedom and lack any sense of accountability.

For example I agree subprime borrowers were living an artificial lifestyle, but the delusion existed also on Wall Street. The widespread usage of CDOs in which banks no longer gave out loans based on actual reserves, the practise of rewarding bank employees for how many loans they gave out regardless of the loan recipient, the belief that they were "too big to fail", all contributed toward denying the inherent principle of risk that comes with making profits. If subprime borrowers were living beyond their means, so were the banks by giving out loans on the basis of CDOs rather than actual reserves and placing the entire system at risk. Banks were no longer "banks" in any traditional sense, but more just a place where loans were freely dispensed. The whole thing was a collective pipe dream. Of form over substance.

When the govt intervened with taxpayers' money to prevent systemic collapse, the fundamental principles of capitalism no longer made any sense. It does not make sense for hardworking taxpayers to subsidize subprime borrowers or extravagant salaries and severance packages of CEOs and management of firms like AIG, Merrill Lynch/Bank of American or RBS - the very people who played a role in creating the crisis. Why should failure and incompetence be rewarded? Especially by taxpayers struggling to make ends meet and less wealthy than the management of these firms?

Regardless of Democrat/Republican politics, I doubt things will go back to "business as usual" when the global economy recovers in a year or so. There has been a crisis of confidence from the realization that capitalism has reached its natural limit. Personally I think this is a good thing. 250K seems like a very reasonable limit for taxation.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/05/2009 10:56 pm  
"Camlion" wrote:
That sounds like it might be a knee-jerk reaction of some people to too much protection, to unreasonable protection. As always, balance is everything. There is a point at which protecting the people so insulates the them from the realities of life that they grow weak and dependent, that they lose any semblance of self-reliance, any ability to think for themselves and make choices in their own best interest.

Sorry I meant to respond to the above.

Surely the last 10 years in the US is a perfect example of people growing weak and dependent on the system? Failing to maintain a realistic lifestyle based on a reasonable ratio of household income vs. savings? Or believing banks believing they can make profits without risk and rewarding this delusion?


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
03/05/2009 11:38 pm  
"tai" wrote:
Yes over-regulation may lead to a socialist nanny state. But regulation is the reaction to the collective delusion that one can live beyond their means or make profits without risk. Regulation is the necessary evil that occurs when people abuse freedom and lack any sense of accountability.

I, for one, freely acknowledge that the synthetic securities market was a tremendous ongoing gamble, unfortunately one upon which far too much was in jeopardy both locally and globally. (This really should have been no surprise to anyone, though. It wasn't to me. Also, it should not be mistaken for a justification for a 'class war' now, as would seem to serve certain interests). My question is, however, exactly how much of a "socialist nanny state" is required now to prevent this banking fiasco from reoccurring? Not much, I would hope.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
03/05/2009 11:46 pm  

We now face a "free market" where we need insider information as to which corporate entities will be saved and which will be allowed to fail. Regulation is just regulation and won't result in change. Just like Wall Street insiders, rating assets at over valued prices; unless there is prosecution involved and those that make bad decisions are held liable, the crisis of confidence will continue. As long as there is a Bad Bank to pool bad speculation into and tax payer money available the Casino of Debt Manipulation will create another bubble illusion not in property that is priced out of the market growing money as you sit in; but in the illusion that the economy is fixed and that retirements and savings are gaining interest as its purchasing power is Weimar and Zimbabwe โ€“ ized . I hear people saying they have to work 10 more years to make up the loss with no guarantee that it wonโ€™t happen again.

I like Crowley's advice
something like making your life work on ball bearings , persevere , find your will.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/05/2009 12:27 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
There is a point at which protecting the people so insulates the them from the realities of life that they grow weak and dependent, that they lose any semblance of self-reliance, any ability to think for themselves and make choices in their own best interest. Some will argue that this is acceptable so long as the people remain safe. Where do you stand on this, Los? Anyone?

I don't see how setting up and enforcing rules that prevent predatory lenders from taking advantage of people is going to make anyone lose a sense of self-reliance -- I see that it's going to protect the entire system.

No one is advocating socialism or the elimination of risk. What we're suggesting is that since deregulation has failed spectacularly, we need to regulate the system in some way.

Deregulating business and banks, as was done over the past eight years -- throwing people to the wolves -- doesn't make people more self-reliant or help anyone find their true will. Instead, it bankrupts the economy and hurts everybody.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/05/2009 1:43 am  
"Tiger" wrote:
We now face a "free market" where we need insider information as to which corporate entities will be saved and which will be allowed to fail. Regulation is just regulation and won't result in change. Just like Wall Street insiders, rating assets at over valued prices; unless there is prosecution involved and those that make bad decisions are held liable, the crisis of confidence will continue. As long as there is a Bad Bank to pool bad speculation into and tax payer money available the Casino of Debt Manipulation will create another bubble illusion not in property that is priced out of the market growing money as you sit in; but in the illusion that the economy is fixed and that retirements and savings are gaining interest as its purchasing power is Weimar and Zimbabwe โ€“ ized . I hear people saying they have to work 10 more years to make up the loss with no guarantee that it wonโ€™t happen again.

I like Crowley's advice,
something like making your life work on ball bearings , persevere , find your will.

I like that advice that you attribute to Crowley, too, Tiger.

Actually, things are even worse than they seem, if you are looking only at the banking fiasco. The rise in unemployment and the housing market correction are only marginally related to the banking crisis, and these two additional problems are only marginally related to one another. All of this seems to be happening more or less 'coincidentally,' so the solution to one crisis is pretty much assumed to solve the others, but I don't see that as necessarily being the case.

It is the 'perfect storm' in terms of a crisis of confidence, as you put it. Nothing is safe, nothing is certain, there is no excuse for complacency. We can expect certain interests to try to push their agendas forward at such a time. Socialism, with its absurdly untenable promises to keep us safe and secure, tends to become more and more attractive at times like this. Were it not for the fact that it has already proven itself to be impossible as a viable environment for humanity, it might seem quite seductive.

You mention prosecution as deterrent to misbehavior in financial circles. Well, in the fairly recent experiments with socialism, such offenders were literally lined up and shot by firing squads representing 'the people.' Then, these violators of public trust were promptly replaced by equally, if not more corrupt assholes representing 'the people.' These socialist experiments did not work out very well in the end.

In other fairly recent experiments during times of fiscal crisis, fascism took its turn. Usually, all the trouble was blamed on a scapegoated people, other Asians by the Japanese, Jews by the Germans. Hispanics are being scrutinized even more than usual right now in the US under the dying gasps of the Rightists. You know the drill.

No, I like that "ball-bearing" paraphrase of Crowley's you gave, but I can't find that quote. Perhaps someone else can? I did look through "The Revival of Magick (and Other Essays),' much of which seemed relevant to the topic this thread, but I have not found that particular quote.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/05/2009 2:11 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
There is a point at which protecting the people so insulates the them from the realities of life that they grow weak and dependent, that they lose any semblance of self-reliance, any ability to think for themselves and make choices in their own best interest. Some will argue that this is acceptable so long as the people remain safe. Where do you stand on this, Los? Anyone?

I don't see how setting up and enforcing rules that prevent predatory lenders from taking advantage of people is going to make anyone lose a sense of self-reliance -- I see that it's going to protect the entire system.

No one is advocating socialism or the elimination of risk. What we're suggesting is that since deregulation has failed spectacularly, we need to regulate the system in some way.

Deregulating business and banks, as was done over the past eight years -- throwing people to the wolves -- doesn't make people more self-reliant or help anyone find their true will. Instead, it bankrupts the economy and hurts everybody.

Now, Los. I have no interest in protecting banks, per se. I do not own one, do not invest with them and I have never been so foolish as to believe that banks are to be regarded as trustworthy authority figures, along with doctors, lawyers, policemen and parents. This is part of the social indoctrination that we were discussing elsewhere in these forums recently.

Business is another thing entirely, as you well know, unless you are thinking of all business as being in the same category as irresponsible banks. I think not. Free enterprise, entrepreneurship and commerce are not inherently evil in themselves. You do know that, don't you? Of course you do. You see, once business itself is scapegoated, the alternatives are much worse than irresponsible banks.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/05/2009 3:12 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
There is a point at which protecting the people so insulates the them from the realities of life that they grow weak and dependent, that they lose any semblance of self-reliance, any ability to think for themselves and make choices in their own best interest. Some will argue that this is acceptable so long as the people remain safe. Where do you stand on this, Los? Anyone?

I don't see how setting up and enforcing rules that prevent predatory lenders from taking advantage of people is going to make anyone lose a sense of self-reliance -- I see that it's going to protect the entire system.

No one is advocating socialism or the elimination of risk. What we're suggesting is that since deregulation has failed spectacularly, we need to regulate the system in some way.

Deregulating business and banks, as was done over the past eight years -- throwing people to the wolves -- doesn't make people more self-reliant or help anyone find their true will. Instead, it bankrupts the economy and hurts everybody.

Now, Los. I have no interest in protecting banks, per se. I do not own one, do not invest with them and I have never been so foolish as to believe that banks are to be regarded as trustworthy authority figures, along with doctors, lawyers, policemen and parents. This is part of the social indoctrination that we were discussing elsewhere in these forums recently.

Business is another thing entirely, as you well know, unless you are thinking of all business as being in the same category as irresponsible banks. I think not. Free enterprise, entrepreneurship and commerce are not inherently evil in themselves. You do know that, don't you? Of course you do. You see, once business itself is scapegoated, the alternatives are much worse than irresponsible banks.

Well said Camlion... It's also the idea that one business going down does not mean it will domino effect every other. Each line of business is a "Star" in itself moving freely between each other but able to interact and to keep the universal economy in which they exist. It's quite that simple! Free the business! let people exceed without being slowed down by irrational taxes. Not only the Law of Thelema but as well as Liber AL shows a code of conduct of Liberty and the DUTY to exceed! That is why I say ambitious Will is everything. And handouts do not feed ambition and compassionate bailouts and welfare fails to have people exceed!


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 243
04/05/2009 3:15 am  

I don't see how setting up and enforcing rules that prevent predatory lenders from taking advantage of people is going to make anyone lose a sense of self-reliance

It's sad to think that a nation full of relatively well educated people could be suckered into blaming banks for this mess. IMO, we usually forgo our own liberty through our own stupidity or sloth; i.e., without the help of anyone else.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
04/05/2009 3:51 am  
"Camlion" wrote:
Free enterprise, entrepreneurship and commerce are not inherently evil in themselves.

Of course they're not "evil."

I never intended to imply that they -- or anything else -- are "evil." I am merely pointing out that we know, from history (even from very recent history), that unregulated pure capitalism does not work. It needs to be regulated to some extent or it fails. Badly.

It sounds great in theory -- all this "every business is a star" stuff (you may want to double check that quote, FraterNepios) -- but it doesn't work.

The fact that unregulated capitalism fails should give pause to anyone who claims "Success is our proof."

You know, on second thought, now that I think about it, I would indeed encourage the fiscal conservatives here to vote Libertarian. I usually do approve of the conservative vote being split.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/05/2009 4:37 am  
"Los" wrote:
"Camlion" wrote:
Free enterprise, entrepreneurship and commerce are not inherently evil in themselves.

Of course they're not "evil."

I never intended to imply that they -- or anything else -- are "evil." I am merely pointing out that we know, from history (even from very recent history), that unregulated pure capitalism does not work. It needs to be regulated to some extent or it fails. Badly.

It sounds great in theory -- all this "every business is a star" stuff (you may want to double check that quote, FraterNepios) -- but it doesn't work.

The fact that unregulated capitalism fails should give pause to anyone who claims "Success is our proof."

You know, on second thought, now that I think about it, I would indeed encourage the fiscal conservatives here to vote Libertarian. I usually do approve of the conservative vote being split.

Actually Los I highly doubt you have even lived a day in your life when Unregulated pure capitalism existed... which when it did exist, somewhat it never truly existed but close about a century or more ago, well then business and the economy was booming... success was their proof! well for those whom were successful becuase they worked for it, people were yes poor but they were merely the beggers that would always exist they could have easily started a small business but instead choose to work in the factories because it was the easier choice... Hard work and Bold actions give you success, and now it is so hard to even start a small business due to all the regulation and inability to afford the minimum wage and taxes etc. etc. etc. But what collapsed it? Well the economic regulation that caused the Crash resulting in the Great Depression... sorry to say... And what did they do to "fix" it? more regulation and more was built up over the years and actually the last 16 years has the MOST regulation on the economy of all especially started in Bush's Term for he was NOT economically conservative... to correct you once again... ((haha I took alot of economic, government, and history classes in school)) and AGAIN bailing out businesses and helping businesses out is not Libertarian nor conservative as odd as it may sound, it is Liberal. And compassionate help for these businesses stupity is ridiculous just as much as the compassion for the lazy commoners relying on everyone else.

"Compassion is the vice of kings."

However, despite all this, this thread isn't about just Business ideals of Libertarianism in comparison with Thelema, but social views, which I believe many people have agreed match up fairly well.


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
04/05/2009 5:03 am  

93,

Perhaps the problem (other than unrelated tangents) is that the focus is on Will as a deciding factor for what political system is 'Thelemic'... when other values can easily be asserted:

* The fundamental dignity of the human is accepted
* The right of each individual to choose how to express their own sexuality is accepted
* The right of each individual to speak as they will, etc.
* The right of each individual to choose their line of work, etc.

Libertarianism certainly would support these value statements more than, say, communism or aristocracy or a tyranny. My point, though, is if you look at it from the angle of "does this help or hinder the fulfillment of someone's will?" it gets muddled and doesnt ahve an objective answer (e.g. is regulation 'Thelemic' insofar as it helps or hinders wills?) Instead we can only base a system off of similar value statements to those above, I think.

Theres also the problem of a system vs. its adherents. Christianity isnt the same as Christians, Capitalism isnt the same as Capitalists, just as any theory is a bit different in practice. The only problem is the belief that "Success is your proof" and so the adherents arent as easily separable from the "pure theory" as one might like.

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/05/2009 5:55 pm  
"Proteus" wrote:

I don't see how setting up and enforcing rules that prevent predatory lenders from taking advantage of people is going to make anyone lose a sense of self-reliance

It's sad to think that a nation full of relatively well educated people could be suckered into blaming banks for this mess. IMO, we usually forgo our own liberty through our own stupidity or sloth; i.e., without the help of anyone else.

Agreed, Proteus. Also, Los, who you quote above, writes of "a sense of self-reliance." I wrote of actual self-reliance in the post he was replying to. Any fool can have "a sense of self-reliance" without really having any at all. Self-reliance is often the difference between the hapless victim and the duly wary individual. People have to take some reasonable degree of actual responsibility for themselves and for the consequences of their actions or inaction.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/05/2009 8:13 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
93,

Perhaps the problem (other than unrelated tangents) is that the focus is on Will as a deciding factor for what political system is 'Thelemic'... when other values can easily be asserted:

* The fundamental dignity of the human is accepted
* The right of each individual to choose how to express their own sexuality is accepted
* The right of each individual to speak as they will, etc.
* The right of each individual to choose their line of work, etc.

93 IAO131,

I would say that maximum allowance for self-reliance, etc., satisfies the first of your bullet-points, and that maximum allowance for freedom of choice, etc., satisfies the final three. The former is denied by the current political Left and the latter is denied by the current political Right, disqualifying both from consideration.

So, I tend to favor an appropriate version of libertarianism, one somewhat more enlightened than is presently put forth by its enthusiasts.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
04/05/2009 8:17 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
Perhaps the problem (other than unrelated tangents) is that the focus is on Will as a deciding factor for what political system is 'Thelemic'... when other values can easily be asserted:

Confusion arises when Thelema is separated from True Will.

Liber Oz or discussing which political platform is closest to Thelemic principles is meaningless unless one is working toward discovering and doing his or her True Will. Thelema is based on a natural law of evolution and should cause one's individuality and independence to increase. Merely converting to Thelema, adopting a Thelemite identity with Thelemically-correct politics is just enslaving oneself all over again. First know your True Will and everything will become clear - whether to become a libertarian or vegetarian or whatever. A Thelemite's loyalty ultimately lies with their HGA, not some external party line.

I tend to agree with Zain's earlier comments that True Will has nothing to do with politics or environment. Germer attained KCHGA by reciting the Holy Books backwards while being held in a concentration camp. Various accounts indicate discovery of True Will is capable of occurring in - or rather, in spite of- any environment and apparent disadvantages thereof. The HGA is in control whether the person is aware of it or not. My understanding of True Will is that it relates to why a person has incarnated at this point in time, the nature of which is marked by an indifference to the concerns, worries and fears of the ego.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2009 12:00 am  

Very much agreed IAO131, however, regulation can hinder the will of those trying to make money...

And as for what Tai says I could definately agree however politics is very important part of MY life for it chooses the future abilities that I may have. To keep the path clear somewhat ahead by giving any sphere of influence available I will take. But you do make a really good point and should be understood that one can easily entrap their self in thelema if not careful.


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
05/05/2009 12:16 am  

I like that "ball-bearing" paraphrase of Crowley's you gave,

Hi Camilion

"...that nothing which might weaken or destroy the beauty and harmony of the mind must be permitted. Social existence of any kind renders any serious Yoga absolutely out of the question; domestic life is completely incompatible with even elementary practices. No doubt many of you will say. " That's all very well for him; let him speak for himself; as for me I manage my home and my business so that everything runs on ball bearings." Echo answers..."

from
householders guide to Skate boarding mount Abiegnus ๐Ÿ™‚
actually from Eight Lectures on Yoga
Third Lecture - paragraph 3

I should have said my extrapolation of A.C.

"...a sort of joke, that lovers are lunatics. Everything at their command is pressed into their passion; every kind of sacrifice, every kind of humiliation, every kind of discomfort - these all count as nothing. Every energy is strained and twisted, every energy is directed to the single object of its end."

Yoga for yellowbellies
First Lecture - paragraph 6


ReplyQuote
Proteus
(@proteus)
Member
Joined: 15 years ago
Posts: 243
05/05/2009 1:32 am  

I don't know where Crowley picked this up,

domestic life is completely incompatible with even elementary practices.

This ignores the fundamental advice that yoga be practiced in all stages of a yogi(ni)'s life - not just the renunciate. The practices change as we move through life, but it's still yoga.

Crowley was still decades ahead of his Western contemporaries in this regard.

A little off topic here, but I couldn't find any other thread to use...


ReplyQuote
Tiger
(@tiger)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 1503
05/05/2009 1:47 am  

I don't know where Crowley picked this up

It was probably from his Buddhist Teacher and he does talk about leaving that for a householders life I believe somewhere.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
05/05/2009 6:55 pm  
"Tiger" wrote:

I like that "ball-bearing" paraphrase of Crowley's you gave,

Hi Camilion

"...that nothing which might weaken or destroy the beauty and harmony of the mind must be permitted. Social existence of any kind renders any serious Yoga absolutely out of the question; domestic life is completely incompatible with even elementary practices. No doubt many of you will say. " That's all very well for him; let him speak for himself; as for me I manage my home and my business so that everything runs on ball bearings." Echo answers..."

from
householders guide to Skate boarding mount Abiegnus ๐Ÿ™‚
actually from Eight Lectures on Yoga
Third Lecture - paragraph 3

I should have said my extrapolation of A.C.

"...a sort of joke, that lovers are lunatics. Everything at their command is pressed into their passion; every kind of sacrifice, every kind of humiliation, every kind of discomfort - these all count as nothing. Every energy is strained and twisted, every energy is directed to the single object of its end."

Yoga for yellowbellies
First Lecture - paragraph 6

Thank you, Tiger. I did not make the connection in my fading memory banks. ๐Ÿ™‚ -Camlion


ReplyQuote
Michael Staley
(@michael-staley)
MANIO - it's all in the egg
Joined: 16 years ago
Posts: 3970
05/05/2009 10:35 pm  
"FraterNepios" wrote:
But you do make a really good point and should be understood that one can easily entrap their self in thelema if not careful.

I wonder if you could elucidate this rather unclear remark, please.

Best wishes,

Michael.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/05/2009 5:48 am  
"MichaelStaley" wrote:
"FraterNepios" wrote:
But you do make a really good point and should be understood that one can easily entrap their self in thelema if not careful.

I wonder if you could elucidate this rather unclear remark, please.

Best wishes,

Michael.

I am sorry Michael for not being more clear. It was more intended for those who are of feeble mind. Meaning, people can take it out of perspective and restrict themselves yes, through thelema. Case and point: If one was to refuse themselves of doing something because of what Liber AL states, being that it is a very occult writing in itself. Like for instance someone who does not like taking any drugs of any kind and reads "To worship me take wine and strange drugs" and thus feels obligated to do it, being that he/she could be feeble minded. Or those who ferociously spend too much time trying to decipher with gematria and not understand the actual purpose of gematria. the list goes on but it is meant in that sense... And as for in relation to this topic: One may make an obligation to join a political party because it fits thelema (in his/her compulsive perspective) instead of accepting broad perspective of all politics. I understand the perspective of Fiscal Liberal Democrats and Republicans and how one could see it fit with Thelemic ideals. However, I see personally that Libertarian is closest and have the will to expound it and vote that particular way... I hope that was elucidated enough


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/05/2009 1:17 pm  
"WildWitch" wrote:
I think these so-called "Libetarians" are hypoctitical. Don't join the Libertarian party. Continue to practice the principles of Liber AL instead.

I agree with these words completely and I am sure Politics should not be mixed with spiritual goals Thelema teaches about. And the only party to be trully liberal is OTO itself


ReplyQuote
IAO131
(@iao131)
Member
Joined: 13 years ago
Posts: 461
06/05/2009 4:49 pm  
"atra_felis" wrote:
"WildWitch" wrote:
I think these so-called "Libetarians" are hypoctitical. Don't join the Libertarian party. Continue to practice the principles of Liber AL instead.

I agree with these words completely and I am sure Politics should not be mixed with spiritual goals Thelema teaches about. And the only party to be trully liberal is OTO itself

93,

Aside from the OTO not being anything close to a political party, how can you possibly ignore all of the lines which seem quite political in Liber AL let alone the blatantly political writings of Crowley which "mix spiritual goals with politics" like, say, Khabs am Pekht??

IAO131


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
06/05/2009 6:33 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
"atra_felis" wrote:
"WildWitch" wrote:
I think these so-called "Libetarians" are hypoctitical. Don't join the Libertarian party. Continue to practice the principles of Liber AL instead.

I agree with these words completely and I am sure Politics should not be mixed with spiritual goals Thelema teaches about. And the only party to be trully liberal is OTO itself

93,

Aside from the OTO not being anything close to a political party, how can you possibly ignore all of the lines which seem quite political in Liber AL let alone the blatantly political writings of Crowley which "mix spiritual goals with politics" like, say, Khabs am Pekht??

IAO131

Many self-identifying Thelemites see 'Thelema' exclusively as something transcending the mundane, the practical day-to-day world, which is indeed partially true, as per both Liber AL and Crowley, but far from entirely true. Thelema is not Buddhism, for example, nor is it muddled metaphysics, nor is it fluff-bunny neo-paganism, although it superficially resembles these things at various points if one chooses to isolate those points to the exclusion of other contradictory points contained therein; other points seemingly intended to define Thelema as a realistic, balanced and truly viable modern worldview on all levels, and to differentiate it from other, less practical worldviews.

I agree with IAO131 that a thorough reading of Liber AL and Crowley in general should make obvious the practical applications of Thelema to human life on all levels, including the political sphere; and even the ugly word 'business' itself is to be found in Liber AL.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/05/2009 1:26 pm  
"IAO131" wrote:
93,

Aside from the OTO not being anything close to a political party, how can you possibly ignore all of the lines which seem quite political in Liber AL let alone the blatantly political writings of Crowley which "mix spiritual goals with politics" like, say, Khabs am Pekht??

IAO131

I just meant that politicians try to use different means to improve their image and make nothing for real development of people's minds


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/05/2009 4:15 pm  

The non-initiation of force creed is antithetical to Thelema, otherwise the Libertarian party has excellent ideas that I hope to see implemented in the future. The libertarian principle of total self government and total limitation of the State should be endorsed and supported by all that accept the Book of the Law within reason. However we should not mistake the party for an actual party of Thelema, there are still some major differences.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
07/05/2009 5:07 pm  
"atra_felis" wrote:
"IAO131" wrote:
93,

Aside from the OTO not being anything close to a political party, how can you possibly ignore all of the lines which seem quite political in Liber AL let alone the blatantly political writings of Crowley which "mix spiritual goals with politics" like, say, Khabs am Pekht??

IAO131

I just meant that politicians try to use different means to improve their image and make nothing for real development of people's minds

93 atra_felis: I don't think anyone contributing to this thread thus far has expressed a positive view of the typical self-serving vulgar politician. That the vast majority of these should seek employment other than public service is obvious, but a corrupt system attracts corrupt participants. If the various political systems were improved, they would attract a better sort of participant, and out goes the vulgar politician.

"KCh" wrote:
The non-initiation of force creed is antithetical to Thelema, otherwise the Libertarian party has excellent ideas that I hope to see implemented in the future. The libertarian principle of total self government and total limitation of the State should be endorsed and supported by all that accept the Book of the Law within reason. However we should not mistake the party for an actual party of Thelema, there are still some major differences.

93 KCh: While I do advocate for the principles of libertarianism as being most conducive to optimum facilitation and support of the Law of Thelema in practical application, I would not yet even grant a capital "L" to the libertarian party as it is at the present time, let alone suggest that it is "an actual party of Thelema," as you put it.

I would interested, however, in hearing your opinions on some of the major differences between libertarianism and Thelema. Please do elaborate, if you will?


ReplyQuote
Zaden
(@zaden)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 24
07/05/2009 6:40 pm  
"KCh" wrote:
The non-initiation of force creed is antithetical to Thelema,

Not necessarily. Non-interference with anothers Will is ingrained in Thelemic "ethics". If someone is "getting in the way" of your True Will, they have initiated Force and not you (i.e. use of force in self defense is justified). Use of force and initiation of force are not the same.


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
07/05/2009 10:55 pm  
"KCh" wrote:
total limitation of the State should be endorsed and supported by all that accept the Book of the Law within reason.

Actually, I think the state does a lot of good things for people, and it should continue doing good things for people (public services, government programs, safety nets, regulation of business, etc.).

The idea of a strong government isn't in and of itself contrary to Thelema. Crowley sometimes spoke about a strong government. The danger is, of course, in giving the state too much power. In this passage from chapter 87 of Crowley's Confessions, we see an example of Crowley's idea of a strong Thelemic government and an example of (that same government with) too much power:

"In the New Aeon [...] The worker will support a strong government as his best protection from foreign aggression and seditious disturbance instead of thinking it tyrannical [...] Everyone, whatever his ambition, will feel that he can rely on the whole force of the state to assist him [...] The bulk of humanity, having no true will, will find themselves powerless. It will be for us to rule them wisely. We must secure their happiness and train them for ultimate freedom by setting them tasks for which their nature fits them."

So Crowley certainly saw a strong government as consistent with Thelema. And indeed it can be. The danger is giving the government too much power -- and I think giving it the power to "set tasks" in line with the "nature" of people who haven't discovered their "true will" qualifies as too much power.

My point here is that there is a lot of room in Thelema for a wide range of political ideas and that no Thelemite "should" necessarily support any particular idea of government. For myself, I do not favor "total limitation" of government, nor do I favor allowing the government the power to "set tasks" for people. The middle path is quite a good deal more reasonable.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/05/2009 1:08 am  
"Los" wrote:
Crowley sometimes spoke about a strong government. The danger is, of course, in giving the state too much power. In this passage from chapter 87 of Crowley's Confessions, we see an example of Crowley's idea of a strong Thelemic government and an example of (that same government with) too much power

Yes, it's hard to believe almost a full century has passed since Crowley wrote his Confessions. Fortunately, just as humanity evolves on every level, so does political science in this case. Obviously some of Crowley's more off-the-cuff remarks were made for lack of knowing exactly what might realistically be done next with the world and the Law of Thelema. We can hardly fault him for that. After all, he was born in the old aeon, just ten years after the American Civil War ended, which sort of puts is life and times into perspective for us today.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
08/05/2009 11:03 pm  
"Los" wrote:
"KCh" wrote:
total limitation of the State should be endorsed and supported by all that accept the Book of the Law within reason.

Actually, I think the state does a lot of good things for people, and it should continue doing good things for people (public services, government programs, safety nets, regulation of business, etc.).
quote]

Now Los, I think that would indeed be nice, if ofcourse they didn't have to tax people's fruit of labor to do it. Leave it to charity. Besides when the government has more programs and regulations and things of sorts like medicaid it makes things raise in price dramatically. Actually for a great example if medicaid did not exist the costs of all medical treatments would be reduced by 53%! because 53% of ALL of you medical costs go to the government for medicaid to exist... Not only that you would have multiple private doctors competing having lower cost even more so they could get more business. That is the beauty of it! Now I hate the fact I don't have much of a choice between services because the government regulation cuts them all down... A hinderance on my will i think...


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/05/2009 12:36 am  
"FraterNepios" wrote:
"Los" wrote:
"KCh" wrote:
total limitation of the State should be endorsed and supported by all that accept the Book of the Law within reason.

Actually, I think the state does a lot of good things for people, and it should continue doing good things for people (public services, government programs, safety nets, regulation of business, etc.).
quote]

Now Los, I think that would indeed be nice, if ofcourse they didn't have to tax people's fruit of labor to do it. Leave it to charity. Besides when the government has more programs and regulations and things of sorts like medicaid it makes things raise in price dramatically. Actually for a great example if medicaid did not exist the costs of all medical treatments would be reduced by 53%! because 53% of ALL of you medical costs go to the government for medicaid to exist... Not only that you would have multiple private doctors competing having lower cost even more so they could get more business. That is the beauty of it! Now I hate the fact I don't have much of a choice between services because the government regulation cuts them all down... A hinderance on my will i think...

FraterNepios, I suspect that you're deliberately trying to antagonize poor Los?


ReplyQuote
Los
 Los
(@los)
Member
Joined: 12 years ago
Posts: 2195
09/05/2009 12:45 am  

Now Los, I think that would indeed be nice, if ofcourse they didn't have to tax people's fruit of labor to do it.

Personally, I find that the services provided by the state are useful for my will and conducive to the kind of society that it is my will to live in. Such services include public libraries, public education, public parks, roads, bridges, law enforcement, fire departments, the post office, etc.

It's no "restriction" on me or my will at all to contribute my fair share to the society of which I am a part (and whose services I make use of). That's the cost of being part of the social contract. If it is ever my will not to be a part of this society, I suppose I would go off to live in the mountains by myself. But, then again, I feel it's better to be a hermit among men.

Now, as far as healthcare goes, I naturally think that every single citizen should be given healthcare, as is the case in most first-world countries on earth. But that will not be a reality for a very long time in this country. For the time being, I have no doubt that some government programs could be improved, and that should be our priority -- to improve these services, not to end them.

I don't see at all how paying taxes "restricts" me in any way whatsoever. Money is almost always a means to an end -- it's not my will to acquire money in and of itself. And even if that were my will, taxes wouldn't "restrict" me...any more than the speed limit "restricts" my will to drive.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
09/05/2009 1:28 am  

It's all a question of balance, as I see it. No reasonable person will advocate the total absence of government. It really comes down to encouraging self-reliance, rather than encouraging dependence upon government, gods or artificial life-goals and such. Individual independence should be encouraged by education and by parenting, and that emphasis on independence should not be interrupted by government incentivizing failure and dependence upon itself to the point that individual initiative is suppressed. We do not want government cultivating weakness among us. Liberty, one of the core principles of Thelema, is one half individual independence, and the other half individual freedom of choice, as I see it.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
13/05/2009 9:16 pm  

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

ya know, the way i read Liber AL and it's commentaries, it seems to me that we're unabashed monarchists...

*ducks*

Love is the law, love under will.


ReplyQuote
 Anonymous
Joined: 51 years ago
Posts: 0
14/05/2009 7:58 pm  

"Libertarian Monarchs"


ReplyQuote
Page 2 / 2
Share: