Quote of the day–Mohandes Gandhi

Political power means capacity to regulate national life through national representatives. If national life becomes so perfect as to become self-regulated, no representation becomes necessary. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state every one is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor. In the ideal State, therefore, there is no political power because there is no State.


Mohandes Gandhi
November 17, 1921
[Maybe it’s just crazy talk but it seems to me that Gandhi has it right.


In the ideal State there is no government because there is no need of government. Agreed, my utopia is just as unattainable as everyone elses. I concede government is necessary. But the less government we have the closer to the ideal we are. Yet so many people seem to think more government (via Kevin) brings us closer to the ideal.


Do these people even have a glimmer of what their end result looks like? Either they don’t have any concept of the principles, as explained above by Gandhi (and countless others including the people who wrote our constitution), or they have a radically different view of what utopia looks like. Both of these possible conclusions are equally frightening.–Joe]

8 thoughts on “Quote of the day–Mohandes Gandhi

  1. Well, in my utopia everyone peacefully coexists — but all weapons are rendered harmless.

  2. I told you she’d be back, and it appears she is oblivious of her prior defeat.

    I’ll be cautious of my label of “Troll” for you, ubu, as I have my doubts, tho I also suspect because of the nature of your comments and responses, as well as how oblivious you appear to be of the topic at hand.

    That being said I’ll respond to you and give you an opportunity to prove me wrong in my suspensions.

    Gandhi pretty clearly points out that in a utopia there is no need for government, as everything will function as it should, so there is no need to regulate what is perfect.

    I assume you are not being metaphysical with your statement of “all weapons are rendered harmless.” (if you are please clarify) but if your first corollary of “everyone peacefully coexists” what relevance does the second part have?

    I mean if there was no crime, I’d have no need to carry my gun, as I carry my gun to protect myself from criminal acts. But if there was no crime (myself included of course) my gun, and what I do with it has zero relevance. I could still carry it loaded and “peacefully coexist” as much as drop it in the middle of the park and wander off (as anybody else who finds it will peacefully coexist as well) or melt it into slag.

    And of course what do you mean by “all weapons” a weapon is really a question of how things are used. A group of kids in a park hitting a ball with a bat, the tools are sports equipment. Suddenly one kid brains another with the bat and we now have a weapon, with zero mechanical changes. I made dinner for my wife who was feeling poorly, I used a couple of razor sharp knives to prepare the food, and we both used a steak knife to eat the food. Certainly if I was so inclined I could turn them into weapons.

    Either way I suspect you missed the point, and honestly I’m more curious about your motives for commenting here are.

  3. “…they don’t have any concept of the principles…”

    Bingo!

    Gandhi’s utopia requires people to be responsible for themselves, and respectful to others – both concepts are completely foreign to the left.

    To the left, the purpose of the government is to relieve you of all responsibility for the consequences of your actions, while relieving you of any personal philanthropic notions towards others by eliminating the concept of charity and replacing it with government coercion. The idea of Personal Responsibility is anathema to the left.

    Just look at how the left views sex:

    Any statement suggesting that people should be responsible about who they boink, when they boink, or how they boink will send a leftist into near apoplectic fits of rage.

    There are plenty of religious wackos out there who claim that AIDS is God punishing gays… personally, I think that’s complete nonsense. When I feel like tweaking a leftist, I re-frame it in terms a libtard can understand (if never accept): AIDS is Mother Nature’s / Gaia’s punishment for some downright unsanitary (and therefore irresponsible) acts.

    Really, from a scientific perspective, it’s little different from the mechanisms responsible for things like cholera or dysentery: Improper Hygiene and unsanitary practices have negative consequences… but again, the idea that actions have consequences is anathema to the left.

    Many STDs will render a sufferer sterile, that’s just natures way of curbing irresponsible behavior. Modern medicine has tipped the balance back towards the indiscriminate, and the result will [eventually] be over-population, then some other disease that thrives in those conditions (or good old-fashioned drug resistant strains of STDs) will tip the balance back…

  4. Did you catch the item last week in which a group of anarchists were organizing (!) to crash/disrupt Tea Party Rallies, in part to prevent those nasty Tea Partiers from gaining political power and thereby ceasing government social welfare programs?

    As noted in comments to one of the articles about it, I wonder what the definition of “irony” is in their world…?

  5. There is then a state of enlightened anarchy. In such a state every one is his own ruler. He rules himself in such a manner that he is never a hindrance to his neighbor. In the ideal State, therefore, there is no political power because their is no State.

    I believe the quote actually comes from Karl Marx.

  6. The modern version would be Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.”

  7. Well, in my utopia everyone peacefully coexists — but all weapons are rendered harmless.

    What if people are the weapons? Hands and feet can and do kill, and all manner of everyday things can be used as a weapon with which to cause another person serious bodily harm.

Comments are closed.