Help from Libertarians/Anarchists by Geezer

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
That is because "give everyone a gun" and "imagine a new paradigm [of self-government]" are exactly how anarchy would work, in a nutshell. All other "solutions" would be details derived from these two principles. If these arguments don't do it for you, nothing will. Just accept that you will never accept anarchism.

I can't accept what I can't understand and so far no one has been able to explain "what" it is and "how" this will work. (I get the "why" you want it to.) So I put your reply into the realm of non-responsive. Ask 100 anarchists and you don't get 125 answers, you get one. Maybe.

So like I said, how about we try this discussion from another angle? If anarchism is truly a description of what you DON'T want (as Frem said) rather than what you DO want, what would you eliminate first, specifically, how do your propose to do it, and what would you hope would result?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:17 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem- I realize I get a little (ahem!) sarcastic,
so thanks for continuing the discussion despite. I hope other people will be drawn in.

I've spent some time thinking about what I would get rid of first. Honestly, I can't decide between "politicans" and "police"... altho I think the national intelligence agenices would be a good start too!!

Getting rid of politicians: Personally I think we should turn our government into a direct democracy. Everything put up for vote by everyone after a suitable discussion period: Say, six months to a year. I can see a few really good outcomes from that: (1) There'd be a lot fewer laws passed, since we wouldn't have a group of leeches and their hangers-on (for the most part) whose sole function it is to bang the gavel from time to time, and (2) People would have to become a lot smarter about, and a lot more involved with their government.

Getting rid of police: This is a kind of partial move. The police almost never prevent violent crime. So as "protection", they suck. We really don't need "beat cops", we need investigators, doctors and neuropsychologists to assess and treat criminals.

So, with that in mind, would you still vote for getting rid of national security agencies first? And if so- why?

PS- How 'bout a new thread? Mayeb we should leave all the bile behind and start fresh.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:29 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pointless, eh ?

Guess we shoulda stayed a british colony then.

You need to read something.

Quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

These guys actually had a legitimate grievance. The government they were trying to divorce themselves from had done some really harsh and stupid things to them. Yet they are not saying "all government is bad we must give everyone a flintlock, kill the mental defectives and shoot anyone that messes with your stuff." What they said is that governments exist to secure the rights of the people and the powers the government uses to secure those rights are only the ones given to it by the people.

I said it before, the government is a tool of the people. Now you may view it as a tool that has been taken over by special interests and is being used against you - well if that's the case take it back and reform it. You tell us not to blame guns for gun violence because a gun is just a tool. If you truely believed that then you could not blame government for "government violence" either. It's just a tool. If you are too stupid to properly secure your weapons then you deserve to have them used against you.

Note the section on "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." These people should know, they lived with a government far far worse than any you've had to experience. You want to abolish it because you cant do everything you want when you want to? That's the hissy fit of a child. Societies are about compromises and deals. Compromises mean that sometimes for the greater good you don't get your own way, deals need someone to enforce them. At it's core that's what governments do, they establish and enforce a social contract between people to their mutual advantage and they oversee the deals the people make to try and keep them fair. That sounds a long way from "give everyone a gun and let them sort it out."

Quote:

Violence is part of life, in fact, many times it is defense of life, no sense dressing it up and pretending it doesn't happen - someone tries to harm you, take from you, and will not reason or negotiate, and you have the means and ability to clobber them, you're GOING to do it... let's not pretend otherwise.

Actually Fremworld encourages the bully it doesn't make it less likely. You seem to think that if you just gave him a gun, ordinary meek Joe will be encouraged to stand up for himself against mean bully Burt. If he was going to do it Joe would have stood up for himself already, he doesn't need the dutch courage of a loaded weapon. Burt may beat the shit out of him or Burt may be a coward and back down, in either case the consequences of the encounter are unlikely to be too severe.

Give them both a gun and suddenly the situation can escalate until one or both of them are dead. You always assume that it will be Burt that blinks first and you think that because that has to be the consequence if guns are to make this situation better and not worse. But what if Burt doesn't blink? What if in the ensuing exchange Joe gets killed, hell it could happen and I'm guessing that the deterrent effect will work just as strongly on Joe as you think it will work on Burt.

So where as before Joe might have stood up for himself eventually and who knows maybe even won. Now his life is on the line he might actually swallow it back, or shoot Burt in the back when Burt isn't looking. I suppose that's ok if Burt truly deserved it. Funny thing is that in another thread you said people shouldn't be tased for being an asshole? I took that at the time to mean that the action didn't fit the "crime" now I see you'd have just shot them.

Now let's ask the question of what happens if Joe is physically unable to use a gun to confront Burt? Joe's an invalid or old or sick. You say "well that's what friends are for" and I'm sure that you imagine some guys with shotguns in the back of a pickup heading off to "explain" things to Burt.

Now think on it. If Burt gets a chance to shoot then some of these folks might end up dead. Those are pretty good friends for Joe to have that they would be willing to put their lives on the line for him? And if he has that level of friends where are they now when the risks are not so severe?

In reality the bully will rule the roost in your system because the reasonable people will be more inclined to decide that the bully's actions are not worth dying for than the bully will think he's likely to be killed for doing them. If that were not the case, if people are likely to shoot a Burt at the smallest provocation then I cant see how you would even have a society?

Quote:

Speakin of which, while the tendancy may be there, without the environment in which it festers, the monster is stillborn and you get a person instead - THAT is what CITIVAS and The Childtrauma Academy is all about, when it comes right down to it.

Genetics may load the gun, but it is environment that pulls the trigger.

That's an opinion, it's an informed opinion but you don't know for sure that it's always true. Your argument to Rue is that serial killers are always environmental and you don't have the evidence to support the always part. She on the other hand does not claim that all of them are "born bad" so only you are making the sweeping generalization. If Rue is right -- and you can't completely exclude the possibility -- then it only takes one or two of them to have a field day in Fremworld because they will be smart enough to deal even with the paranoid world you'd have made. Unless someone takes time/effort and money to track them they will just keep going. Like I said, murder the daughters of the poor, move from self contained, self governing community to another, dump bodies in rough land miles from the place where you took your victims and you may never be found.

Quote:

And regardless of obfuscatory spin, to me a brain dead body, once the Ka has fled that body, if it ever even inhabited it, is just a body - you're talking about someone capable of meaningful interaction with another human being, intentionally and willfully distorting the position, as you have from the beginning of this thread, as many have.

The core of Rue's question remains unanswered and I notice you still haven't answered it. So let me ask it straight. In 30 years in Fremworld when Sig and my sister-in-law have passed. Assuming that their efforts to provide for their kids have been unsuccessful and assuming no family is there to step in. What happens to the kids? You can hold a conversation with my nephew, he can look after his basic hygiene but he can't support himself. So what happens?

Quote:

Like I been sayin, the mental disconnect here is too wide, but it does tell me a lot, the pyschotic rabidity with which the ideas here being expressed are attacked.

Were we to achieve the necessary Socio-Emotive maturity casting aside those structures would require, does not it then logically follow that violence would quickly fade as a pointless and wasteful form of negotiation ?

Never occured to you, eh ?
Didn't think so.

I attack the ideas so you will make a reasoned argument to support them. I'm still waiting. If we had the kind of maturity you seem to be talking about then i wouldn't vote for Fremworld I'd vote for Rueworld because it sounds more like the Lennon vision and I think I've already established that the tune is better.

If a precondition to anarchy is a more enlightened populous then surely they would have built a working minimalist government by then? I agree more perfect beings could live in a more perfect and strife free world. I watch Star Trek I know it's true, but I live in the world that exists now and it's from that viewpoint that I question these ideas.

You know thats an interesting question. You talk about sovereign citizens and self determination. We know of that town in Utah that is the center for those fundamentalist Mormons. If in Fremworld pedophiles set up a similar town where they lived as a majority. I suppose your advice to the kids living there is to just bend over and grab their ankles right? If an armed simple majority wants to do something, even something unpleasant to a minority I guess they'd get away with it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:55 AM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ask 100 anarchists and you don't get 125 answers, you get one. Maybe.

Dang it, Signy, I am so very, very sick of you and Rue, for years now, slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while. I wish the both of you, whom I have grown to respect IMMENSELY, would cease and desist with these premature victory dances. I don't doubt that more than one of your "defeated" foes have simply walked away from the conversation because of this kind of rudeness.

I have every intention of giving you my best understanding of the situation but I have not had the time over the past two days. It's all I've been able to do to keep tabs on the thread between gulps of OJ and brushing my teeth before I'm out the door. Meanwhile you malign everyone who hasn't dutifully jumped through your hoop. It's really frustrating.

The irony of ironies brought to light by this thread (thank you, Geezer, you really asked the right questions this time), is that this kind of presumption and hostility is exactly the "human nature" (why the quotes, btw?) that you build your world view upon and it speaks to exactly why "discussing" philosophical anarchy with you--which for me has EVERYTHING to do with mental health and early childhood development that CANNOT be reduced to the sound-bite your lack of real interest demands--is not something I'm expecting to go well in the least.

And really, that's all I have time for atm. Please, folks, slow it down. Be patient. Ask for clarification and wait until ya get it. And if you have the urge to post a "oh, and another thing I revile anarchism for..." let it wait, k? Please.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
But please be specific.

First, in abidance with the principles of anarchism, I have no desire to coerce others to be freer than they want to be through the democratic process. So specifically, I would create a libertarian country, NOT an anarchistic one. Libertarianism would be one more baby step towards the ideal anarchistic paradigm, which the world is not ready for yet.

The country would be founded on a Constitution (very similar to the American one) that does 2 things: (1) governs the government, not the citizens; and (2) define citizen rights and the contract for citizenship.

1. The government's function would be limited to these: political structure, public roads, taxation, courts, police, and military.

Political structure would follow a corporate model. Citizens would be similar to shareholders, and the President would be similar to a CEO. There would be no limit in terms, as long as the CEO is performing satisfactorily. Just as the CEO has only one responsibility to the shareholders (protect fiduciary interests), the President would have only one responsibility to its citizens: protect constitutional rights. All other functions of courts, police, and military fall under the same mission.

2. Taxation would be a small sales tax of new goods exceeding a certain worth. For example, it could be 5% of all new items above $500. The bottom line is taxation must be on voluntary, luxury purchases.

3. Public roads and office buildings will be the only land the government is allowed to own and operate. Operations will be performed by government employees, and subcontracting public functions to private providers will not be allowed. (Public tax money will not be allowed to reenter the pockets of private enterprise as in the American system.)

4. Citizenship is earned by signing the Constitution as an explicit social contract. Aspiring citizens agree to pay taxes and abide by Constitutional principles and court decisions; in return, they get citizenship, which earns government protection of those same rights.

5. All rights are derived from the bedrock principle of individual sovereignty. All citizens are sovereigns of the state.

The sovereign right to absolute autonomy over one's own body and bodily functions is categorically inviolable. Autonomy includes what one wishes to think, believe, say, ingest, inject, carry, own, possess, etc. That is, they can say anything, own anything, believe anything, do anything they want to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't violate the sovereignty of another individual.

6. All interactions with other sovereigns have to respect these rights and be consentual. The courts investigate and adjudicate conflicts between sovereign individuals; the state's police enforce court decisions.

7. The citizenship contract can be terminated by the citizen at any time. Non-citizens are welcome to visit or live in the country--they simply are not afforded government protections.

These are the "specifics" in a nutshell. Of course, things could get a lot more specific, but that is the general idea. It is not complicated. Live and let live.

--------------------------
To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
--Henry David Thoreau

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 6:56 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Genetics may load the gun, but it is environment that pulls the trigger.

Quote:
which for me has EVERYTHING to do with mental health and early childhood development

In point of fact genetics is not "the" leading cause of brain dysfunction. Brain development is very complex and any little thing can throw it off... exposure to any number of common viruses, lack of certain minerals and vitamins or exposure to toxins (street drugs, Rx, natural toxins like aflatoxin, different maternal blood type), and in quite a number of cases (like autism and dysplasia) researchers have not YET figured out how to prevent it. Pinning all of our problems on "genetics" and/or "upbringing" overlooks the fact that nature is a bitch with dice in her hands. (In other words "shit happens" by pure chance.) If you get rid of all child abuse you prolly get rid of about 80% of the problem and a fair bit of "brain damage" (which comes from beating or shaking a child) but there is an irreducible developmental neurological component to the issue.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:02 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Dang it, Signy, I am so very, very sick of you and Rue, for years now, slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while. I wish the both of you, whom I have grown to respect IMMENSELY, would cease and desist with these premature victory dances.

Got it, with my apologies.

And thanks for the reply despite my snark.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:03 AM

FLETCH2

You see CTS that's a much clearer answer.

1) So how do you get representation (elect presidents, lobby grievances etc?)

2) If the courts adjudicate against you and you refuse to comply, do the police come after you?

3) What rights do corporate entities have in this system? Rights equal to the sovereign individual or lesser?

4) Are there regional states or provinces? What rights, functions and responsibilities do they have if any, how do they derive the income to provide these functions?

5) If 4) who oversees interstate commerce?

6) How do you deal with harmful actions like pollution, and acts of violence (gang violence) that can not be dealt with by the individual?

7) In the event of national disaster/pandemics, do you take collective action, if so who decides when and how to do that and under what authority.

8) In the event that a person's "personal sovereignty" is in conflict with the public good -- say for example someone wanting to travel with a highly contagious disease --- at what point does the group have the right to over ride that sovereignty (if ever.) If not do you just let him do as he likes and then try to fix the damage later?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:22 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while"

I think the last time I did that was two years ago, and it was with Geezer who was actively posting on other threads while ignoring one where he just didn't have an answer. Time to update your internal references.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:33 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while"

I think the last time I did that was two years ago, and it was with Geezer who was actively posting on other threads while ignoring one where he just didn't have an answer. Time to update your internal references.

Might want to scroll up in this very thread as a refresher to your 'internal references'.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 7:42 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Let's see - I mentioned being all alone on the board, and also that 'no one' had answered a question yet. Also chided CTS for ignoring a question while she was actively posting on that very topic and very obviously on the board.

Might want to learn to read, bud.

So, does CTS get points taken off for doing a victory dance after refusing to discuss her own positions ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:05 AM

BIGDAMNNOBODY

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Let's see - I mentioned being all alone on the board, and also that 'no one' had answered a question yet. Also chided CTS for ignoring a question while she was actively posting on that very topic and very obviously on the board.

That is less than two years ago, yes?

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Might want to learn to read, bud.

I can read very well thank-you, pal.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, does CTS get points taken off for doing a victory dance after refusing to discuss her own positions ?

Maybe you are right and I cannot read. I thought CTS has discussed and continues to discuss her position.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:21 AM

Question #1 is more detail than I want to get into.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
2) If the courts adjudicate against you and you refuse to comply, do the police come after you?

Yes. When you sign the Constitution, you agree to comply with the decisions of the courts, or accept enforcement by the police.

Please note there is no mechanism for making laws. The Constitution is the only law in the land; the only illegal thing you can do is to violate the sovereignty of another person. So the only law enforcement would be for violent crime and property damage. If the courts find you guilty of violating the sovereignty of another person, you have to pay the consequences.

Quote:
3) What rights do corporate entities have in this system? Rights equal to the sovereign individual or lesser?

There is no such thing as a corporate entity. Sovereigns can collectively invest in some enterprise--but they are all personally liable for the decisions of that enterprise.

Quote:
4) Are there regional states or provinces? What rights, functions and responsibilities do they have if any, how do they derive the income to provide these functions?

I don't imagine this little libertarian country to be big enough for provinces. But no, there is no provision to make any other law than the Constitution, so whatever people want to work out on a more local level, they can work it out--it just won't involve changing the Constitution.

Quote:
6) How do you deal with harmful actions like pollution,

Pollution is property damage. The government can prosecute property damage on behalf of a group of sovereigns as it can on behalf of only one sovereign.

Quote:
7) In the event of national disaster/pandemics, do you take collective action, if so who decides when and how to do that and under what authority.

Whether sovereigns want to act collectively is up to them. If absence of action can be proven in court to somehow violate the sovereignty of other citizens (which I highly doubt), then the citizen guilty of the violation would be culpable like anyone else.

Please note, the Constitution does not provide for the *prevention* of sovereignty violations--it can only punish after the fact.

Quote:
8) In the event that a person's "personal sovereignty" is in conflict with the public good -- say for example someone wanting to travel with a highly contagious disease --- at what point does the group have the right to over ride that sovereignty (if ever.) If not do you just let him do as he likes and then try to fix the damage later?

Prevention is not a function of the government.

However, individual sovereigns may take it upon themselves to restrict the movement of the sick person. If the sick person files charges, the courts can decide how much of a threat to other people's right to public thoroughfare was the sick person, and how much restriction by other sovereigns was justifiable.

In the real world, there are a helluva lot of judgment calls. Those judgment calls aren't going to be perfect. But the idea is to remain, as consistent as possible, to the principle of individual sovereignty.

Edit to add disclaimer: All this is my imagination only, and does not represent the views of other libertarians and/or anarchists.

--------------------------
Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer.
--Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 8:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hi AnthonyT

"But a brain damaged child who can't even feed themselves or control bathroom functions, who has no capacity for reasoning, and who is not expected to recover... I think they need to die. At least someone with Down's syndrome or some similar malady can contribute to society."

I wasn't even considering 'total care' children.

I brought up brain damaged children as the most obvious example of people who might be incapable of caring for themselves in a devil-take-the-hindmost world. Since we were discussing such anomalies as Bundy, I thought it might be more useful to discuss more common issues.

Children who are 'slow' or have difficulties compared to other children make up a fair part of society. Just a limited number of conditions adds up to over 10%.

autism 0.1%
childhood epilepsy 1.0%
Down syndrome 0.1%
dyslexia 3%
dyscalculia 6%

But whether you are born that way, or come to it later in life due to illness, accident or age, we will all be disabled at some point. Who cares for and protects those who can't do that for themselves ? Especially if they have no family who might potentially have an interest. How will they fend for themselves ? Who out of general society will make the effort to provide for strangers ? What do you do to prevent these people from dying on the street ? Or worse, what's to prevent me - mr businessman - from taking in a whole bunch of disabled people and working them to death on simple tasks ? B/c some people WILL take advantage. Not everyone, not even most people, but some. And then what do you do ?

I guess I'd like to see some answers from people who are proposing their society as THE answer to all of life's injustices.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:07 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"NO ONE, is born like that, period.

You're arguing that point from a position of.. what, assumption ?"

No, from decades-long involvement with children who were born that way, and their families.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:19 AM

OK, Signy, now to your question, "What about the feeble?"

I can sympathize with the question, because I was disabled for 10 years. At worst times, there is no doubt that I would have died had it not been for those who took care of me. I understand about completely being at the mercy of others.

The question is, should a libertarian society force its citizens to take care of the feeble, whether they want to or not? Obviously, the answer for a libertarian (let alone an anarchist) is, no hell no. No force. Lack of action is not an active violation of someone's sovereignty.

In countries where no one is forced to take care of the feeble, the feeble are still taken care of--by family, by community. Sure, some fall through the cracks and die, but some do that even in socialist societies. Do more fall in the cracks where there is no social net? I haven't seen any research on this, but just from my travels and living around the world, my personal opinion is no.

I have some experience as a social worker working with the poorest of the poor in the USA. The idea of a social net to catch the feeble is very attractive in theory, but in practice, that net is full of large, large holes. In my experience, that "net" is an illusion, like everything else govt provides. In some ways, it even hurts the feeble; people are less inclined to be charitable when they think there is already a net to catch those who fall (diffusion of responsibility), and it keeps the feeble "caught" in the net so that they are less likely to ever be free of the net. Voluntary family and charity nets are more responsive and empowering, and much less wasteful. As a former social worker, helping the feeble, both financial and physical, is a big issue with me. Social services is the least of my complaints about govt. But my opinion remains that voluntary charity is in all ways superior to govt charity.

Of course, when I say charity, I don't just mean food and shelter, but protection as well.

--------------------------
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it. Truth stands, even if there be no public support. It is self sustained.
--Mahatma Gandhi, Young India 1924-1926 (1927), p. 1285

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Honestly, I can't decide between "politicans" and "police"... altho I think the national intelligence agenices would be a good start too!!

You know, I can't disagree with you here. I like the idea of a direct democracy. And I agree about the police as impotent in prevention. I should say that police of CTSLand would be there to investigate crimes and enforce courts decisions.

There is one more important aspect of CTSLand I egregiously left out. The Constitution would require that all citizens be members of the military. That means when people sign the social contract to become citizens, they sign an agreement to join the military, train to use weapons of all sorts, and deploy in event of a war. And when if there is a war resulting from a direct attack, all able-bodied citizens are drafted. There is no sending someone else's son to die for no good reason.

--------------------------
I would say that my position is not too far from that of Ayn Rand's; that I would like to see government reduced to no more than internal police and courts, external armed forces - with the other matters handled otherwise. I'm sick of the way the government sticks its nose into everything, now.
--Robert Heinlein

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:55 AM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
OK, Signy, now to your question, "What about the feeble?"

I can sympathize with the question, because I was disabled for 10 years. At worst times, there is no doubt that I would have died had it not been for those who took care of me. I understand about completely being at the mercy of others.

The question is, should a libertarian society force its citizens to take care of the feeble, whether they want to or not? Obviously, the answer for a libertarian (let alone an anarchist) is, no hell no. No force. Lack of action is not an active violation of someone's sovereignty.

But if a "feeble" person has no family, no friends to speak of, and there is no governmental "net" (however flawed), aren't you forcing people to volunteer?

Short of asking people to watch their helpless elderly neighbor crawl around in their filth and eventually die, what would the alternative be to "voluntarily" helping?

What if people wait around for someone to step up and take on what can be a very big burden, and the neighbor dies in the meantime? Would that be... completely alright? How is it really different from watching rape and torture be carried out? Would that even be a crime? Refusing to help is refusing to help, right? Is the only crime, then, the one that gets reported by the victims?

I suppose, I am uncomfortable with a society that doesn't provide some right for physical care for the helpless. Some officially expressed social will to prevent suffering.

This is difficult to me because I have some fondness for the idea of maximum responsibility/maximum freedom. Where it stops working for me is the reality of weakness and suffering. Mostly, I think it's a way of life that would work better in a more primitive world. Lots of space and no expectation of ease or lack of suffering.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:02 AM

FLETCH2

CTS

Two things. First the Constitution only applies to government, it doesn't apply to individuals or none government institutions. So where as the government can't restrict your free speech I can fire any of my employees who leaks company information. If you are implying that to become a citizen I have to provide constitutional protections for personal and business interactions that just won't fly. The Constitution is not and was not a system of law, it's higher than that. The US chose to retain over 1000 years of the common law as the basis of the legal system. What the Constitution does is set down the system of government in a form that is hard for the government itself to change and to put limits on the government that restrict what it is allowed to do and the kinds of laws it can enact.

Second if we take your previous explanation seriously, then there can be no direct democracy. If there is no law but the constitution (which is not in fact a law at all) then how can a direct democracy function? Democracy in the end is about deciding who makes laws and what they should be. In the absence of laws there is no need for a democracy as long as there is a competent civil service.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I'm gonna answer in the next thread 'cause tis is getting waaay too slow for me!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:31 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

1. "The government's function would be limited to these: political structure, public roads, taxation, courts, police, and military."
And while I hate to keep harping on this, who takes care of the people who can't take care of themselves ? In most primitive cultures this is considered a basic social function. You are proposing a society even more primitive than those.

5. "All rights are derived from the bedrock principle of individual sovereignty. All citizens are sovereigns of the state."
Now here is where HKC, FremD, SergeantX, CTS and LeGuin have divergent opinions, especially when it comes to children, parents and school.

I'll start with LeGuin first b/c hers is the most completely thought out, and, I b/c I also presume its HKC's position. In her society (which I have to say she stacks quite carefully to give the best chance of working, down to a new language) families stay together out of mutual agreement. Children who are old enough to find their way can live in the 'dorm' and eat at the 'refectory'. In her vision, there is some kind of 'care' consistently available for very young children. (While she doesn't state it explicitly care is either given by someone who likes spend their spare time doing that kind of thing, or by voluntary selection from a 'worklist' of basic social tasks.) In her vision there is also no school - everything is open, children hang out where it's interesting and people teach children what they're doing if / when the mood is on them to teach.
How do these children learn to read, write and do math ? A very few will pick that up from general exposure, but they are difficult enough tasks for most children that it will require some concentrated effort an somebody's part. How this happens isn't clear.

Frem's answer as best I can tell is private school. What I get from his posts is that 'public school' is all about killing the spirit, and that that is exactly what's happening to his niece. And that's why public schools should be abolished.
Personally, I don't see how private schools would fix that. Let's take the situation of his niece. If the parents are bad enough to pick a public school on its spirit-crushing ability, why would giving them a choice of a private school (or tutor) that they would chose for the exact same result be any different ? Or if the idea of mandatory school is the issue, how would home schooling be any better ?
His other answer as I understood it (and which I hope he was dissuaded from) is giving kids a piece to pack. How would this NOT create pathological children in large numbers ? Feeling burdened ? Put upon ? Misunderstood ? Don't like your vegetables ? You can solve all your problems with the equalizer !
Yes definitely ! there are children - too many - who are victimized sexually, physically and emotionally. But taking away any public interest in children's welfare and turning homes into inviolate hellholes doesn't count as an answer with me.

SergeantX as best I can tell seems to think there is no justification for public interest in children's welfare. Period. Now he doesn't say so explicitly but my impression is that a family is a private unit on which nothing can intrude, until it ends up in rape, death or beatings which leave permanent bodily damage, which are then crimes. Though this sounds like FremD's nightmare.

Now as best as I can tell (and I'm sure CTS will loudly complain that I'm picking on her no matter what I say) schooling is all about choice. No schooling ? Fine. Home schooling ? Great. Private schooling ? No problem. Whatever floats your boat and whatever you can afford.
It's all about the parents choice and the price. Should you decide to deny your children an education it's all good. Should you chose a madrassa that's great, the curriculum is your choice. Should you be unable to afford one for your children, it's all good too. Though again this does all seem to be about the parents rights, abilities and prerogatives, and not so much about the children.

So, whose vision do we follow ?

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:46 AM

Quote:
If you are implying that to become a citizen I have to provide constitutional protections for personal and business interactions that just won't fly.

There is no such implication. As a sovereign, you would have complete autonomy over your properties and business transactions. Whatever contract you and your employee agree to is binding.

Quote:
If there is no law but the constitution (which is not in fact a law at all) then how can a direct democracy function?

The CTSLand scenario is different from my reply to Sig about direct democracy. That is, I like the idea of direct democracy as a reform measure for our existing country (Sig asked what we would take away from our current situation, I agreed with him on "politicians"). The CTSLand constitution would be my ideal if I were to start a country from scratch. I wouldn't have direct democracy (except to elect the President) in CTSLand.

--------------------------
I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away every thing else.
--John Locke

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But if a "feeble" person has no family, no friends to speak of, and there is no governmental "net" (however flawed), aren't you forcing people to volunteer?

OK, we gotta have some common ground on the word "force" here, because it is a MAJOR concept, and we seem to have different definitions.

When libertarians speak of force, they mean someone is pointing a gun at your head threatening you with prison or death unless you comply. So no, people are not "forced" to volunteer.

Quote:
..what would the alternative be to "voluntarily" helping?

There is no alternative to volunteer to help. But here's the thing. Believe it or not, people don't need to be forced to help, esp if they know there is no safety net (no diffusion of responsibility). I've seen it time and time again in societies with no social net. They help each other for the sake of helping.

Quote:
Would that be... completely alright? How is it really different from watching rape and torture be carried out? Would that even be a crime? Refusing to help is refusing to help, right? Is the only crime, then, the one that gets reported by the victims?

Death is never completely all right. It isn't different from watching rape and torture from being carried out--and note that there is no law that says you MUST stop rape and torture if you happen to see it. Note that in our society, it is NOT a crime to refuse to help even when rape and torture is going on. It is not even a crime to not call the police. It is not a crime to watch your neighbor starve to death.

Current law does not force you to help your neighbor. All it does is force you to pay taxes, then rationalize that this force is necessarily because a very small fraction of it goes to help your neighbor. It is an illusion that hides the fact that had you not been forced to pay taxes, you would have had plenty of money spare, and would have helped your neighbor anyway.

Quote:
I suppose, I am uncomfortable with a society that doesn't provide some right for physical care for the helpless. Some officially expressed social will to prevent suffering.

Social will is all good. We can express it all we want, and put our money where our social will lies. But government has nothing to do with social will.

Here is another illusion of government: that law is the society's moral compass. In other words, if it is moral, it should be legal. And conversely, if it is immoral, it should be illegal. If helping your neighbor is the right thing, it should be legally required. If it is wrong to watch your neighbor starve to death, it should be illegal. And if it isn't reflected in the law, then the society must not be very moral.

In reality, citizens can be plenty moral without anything said in the law. Social or moral responsibilities do not have to be government responsibilities. People are capable of acting in good will outside of government purview.

The thread has apparently moved here:
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=32312&

--------------------------
Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.
--Henry David Thoreau

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, January 17, 2008 11:45 PM

AGENTROUKA

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
There is no alternative to volunteer to help. But here's the thing. Believe it or not, people don't need to be forced to help, esp if they know there is no safety net (no diffusion of responsibility). I've seen it time and time again in societies with no social net. They help each other for the sake of helping.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. "Volunteering", though, in that case doesn't really imply doing it freely or without resentment.
I also, though, know that caring for someone sick and old can be an extreme burden, time consuming and not always rewarding if you don't have personal ties to that person, and the person "volunteering" to do it can come to resent it quite a bit. If there is no diffusion of responsibility, society doesn't equally participate and it ends up with the person unlucky enough to be close by, not a paid professional. That kind of resentment can easily translate into bad care.

If times are good and people have time and resources to spare, I can even easily see this working better than institutionalized care. But if times are bad and people need their time, attention and resources elsewhere, I see this going down ugly places.

Quote:

and note that there is no law that says you MUST stop rape and torture if you happen to see it. Note that in our society, it is NOT a crime to refuse to help even when rape and torture is going on. It is not even a crime to not call the police. It is not a crime to watch your neighbor starve to death.

Somehow I cannot believe that if you are in a room where rape is being carried out and you do nothing, the law will not have something to say about it. Isn't that aiding the crime?

Quote:

Current law does not force you to help your neighbor. All it does is force you to pay taxes, then rationalize that this force is necessarily because a very small fraction of it goes to help your neighbor. It is an illusion that hides the fact that had you not been forced to pay taxes, you would have had plenty of money spare, and would have helped your neighbor anyway.

I would have helped my neighbor, yes. But I would likely have hated it a lot.

Is it irrational of me to favor a system that doesn't make me choose between giving up my life to care for a stranger if I don't want to watch them die?

Quote:

Quote:
I suppose, I am uncomfortable with a society that doesn't provide some right for physical care for the helpless. Some officially expressed social will to prevent suffering.
Social will is all good. We can express it all we want, and put our money where our social will lies. But government has nothing to do with social will.

In reality, citizens can be plenty moral without anything said in the law. Social or moral responsibilities do not have to be government responsibilities. People are capable of acting in good will outside of government purview.

I'm not saying they can't. In fact, I am sure they would. I am, however, not sure that this is any more fair then taking taxes to provide care. The work needs to be done but if the responsibility is not defused in some way, it's a huge burden on a small group (or individual) rather than a small responsibility for a big group. Bottom line is that the person suffering doesn't even have any recourse.

It wouldn't even have to be governmental, so much, but would a government-free system be able to provide a system that takes care of the helplessly sick stranger than shows up needing help? I just can't see people not ending up forming some kind of health insurance system, down the line, and in squabbles over who paid in and who didn't, questions of "voluntary or not" would play in, unless those who refuse are happy to be leeches to such a system.

Unless you have a BIG generous institution like the catholic church in the middle ages. People funded free hospices then to get brownie points from God, but those were already the incredibly rich and influential to begin with. How would that not end up translating into some kind of political influence?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 18, 2008 12:47 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Signy, all you're doing is plopping anarchy down on top of our existing system and saying: see, it don't work! You remind me of former Secretary Watt's quip, "If you want an example of the failures of socialism, don't go to Russia, come to America and go to the Indian reservations."

Anarchism would not and could not simply impose itself on your life one day. Anarchism is really a pretty alien way of thinking from what we get stuffed down our throats in this country. Have you read The Dispossessed? Le Guin goes into great detail about the childhood and school age years of a boy growing up in an anarchist community. The values instilled in the young are in many ways antithetical to a lot of crap we take absolutely for granted in this country.

Your example of the ambulance ride is a nightmare of impersonal mega-communal living which in an anarchic system could not/would not function. If you actually want to live like insects in a hive, then anarchy would not appeal to you. Communities would be smaller and people would have a much more thorough working knowledge of how the community functions and who to trust and such. Anarchy is a system requiring tremendous personal responsability compared to our entranced consumer culture. Different communities would have a huge database which they shared with other communities, of which you as a citizen would have to have a working knowledge. Imagine if you had the kind of knowledge you have about our elected officials in Washington about the medical practitioners and other professionals in your area. Everyone would have to dabble in all kinds of civic minded avocations--volunteer this, volunteer that--anarchy is not a system for people who want to be left alone to wallow in privileged ignorance--such folks would not fare too well.

I've been away and apparently have missed one hell of a discussion. I have a lot of reading to do ahead of me it looks like.

I wanted to comment on this particular thought HK... I've posted this story before about a year ago and I think it illustrates your point very clearly. I know Frem's read it, but I would recommend it to you or Signy or anyone who hasn't read it before.

It's called "And Then There Were None" by Eric Frank Russell. It honestly gave me chills when I read it and admittedly I do believe it actually changed the way I thought about a few things when I was 24 years old.

You can find the story here in it's entirity:
http://www.abelard.org/e-f-russell.htm

Enjoy. I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on it who has read it or who reads it after reading this post.

anarchy is not a system for people who want to be left alone to wallow in privileged ignorance--such folks would not fare too well.

Well.... there's the catch, innit?

Liberty doesn't just come to those who sit on their fat ass and demand it. I believe someone was quoted as saying that it takes eternal vigilance. Anarchy is such a tough sell, not because of the BS consumer culture generated arguments against it, but because it's a hell of a lot of work and it requires a much more evenly spread of responsibility on those who are part of the community.

Heh.... in fact, I wanna steal Fox News's "Fair and Balanced" tag and affix it to Anarchism. Even those who outright oppose Anarchism in here I would suspect could probably agree that it fits there better than FN. At least I know PN has my back there....

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, January 18, 2008 4:04 AM