The Libertarian and Anarchist Society- Part II by SignyM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
AND THEY DO IT - our of sheer reflex without a thought, don't they ?

Tell me again, that our nature is so damn selfish and horrible, and while your at it, show me the title to that bridge in new york again ?

Cause I ain't buyin neither one.

-Frem

I am not saying at all, nor did I ever, that human beings are selfish and horrible. We're just lazy.

In a crisis, we tend to be great. New and acute things motivate us like nothing. But in the long run, we tend to suck. Take care of someone for a week, once, and most would do it gladly. Take care of someone for years to come, someone you don't know or like? Most would not do it gladly. Especially if they are left alone with it.

I'm watching my little sister grow up, 16 months now and she has both sides in her, selfish and generous. Cooperation is hardwired but so is wanting to get away with things.

I'm not trying to sell you that humans are all horrible. Are you trying to sell me that all problems of care WILL be resolved, no one left behind, no one full of resentment, if we rely on people's good nature alone? Gee, why hasn't it always been perfect then? We haven't always been organised under governments, right? Why didn't things stay perfect? Oh, wait, we live longer now. Don't die from diseases and infections and childbirth all over the place. More people actually need care now, for a longer time.

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 8:40 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What about the ones cared for by the net that would also rely on the voluntary aid? Charity-run organizations would completely pay for all that is now provided publicly? How much in terms of charity would that require of people? Would a few who care be bearing the brunt of that cost or is it assumed that people will all automatically care more and give to charity in the needed amounts?

The able-bodied people who actually rely on the social net on a long term basis more often than not have dysfunctional lifestyles. They can get their act together and go to work, if they had to.

The disabled people who need a monthly stipend to live independently would the only ones who would truly suffer if the social net weren't there. There is no reason to think though that a private charity couldn't provide the same, if it weeded out all the dysfunctional able bodied folk. If people didn't have to pay taxes, they would have the money to spare.

Would they do it? After 911, private donors gave $500 million in two weeks. Total private donations are likely to be over $2 billion.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/04/911/Sept_11_donations_swa.shtml

And this is folk who are already paying taxes.

After two years in social work, I have no doubt that a private charity could provide the social net needed. I would stake my life on it.

--------------------------
What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.
--Bertrand Russell

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 9:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
What about the ones cared for by the net that would also rely on the voluntary aid? Charity-run organizations would completely pay for all that is now provided publicly? How much in terms of charity would that require of people? Would a few who care be bearing the brunt of that cost or is it assumed that people will all automatically care more and give to charity in the needed amounts?
The able-bodied people who actually rely on the social net on a long term basis more often than not have dysfunctional lifestyles. They can get their act together and go to work, if they had to.

Do they make up that large a number? I am honestly asking, I don't have the information. (Btw, My questions about that privately run security net are all asked in honesty, just as my concerns are honest ones. If your facts line up, I'm more than willing to admit that it might work. Not my personal choice, but.. whatever. I'm just curious about how realistic the logistics are.)

Quote:

Would they do it? After 911, private donors gave $500 million in two weeks. Total private donations are likely to be over $2 billion.
http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/04/911/Sept_11_donations_swa.shtml

And this is folk who are already paying taxes.

But that was a crisis response. Huge crisis, huge response.

I don't think we can equate that sort of reaction to a steady, unchanging, unexciting amount of care and money needed, unless it's made up in such a way that people fall into a habit of pooling their money. An automatic monthly donation you don't think about, like private insurance. I don't have the numbers, as I said. If you think it can be comfortably achieved, I'm not inclined to disagree just on principle.

I'll think about this more.

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 9:50 AM

RUE

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

Geezer and Finn

I'll post my quotes and links as I please. That's the libertarian way - eh ?

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

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 10:01 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Finn- It's nice to see that such families as yours still exist, given our intensely individualistic and competitive society.

It would seem to develop in this Anarchic society that ethics could be different from group to group, depending on whatever could be defended. So one group might be into kidnapping and slaveholding, another might be a large capitalist business, another might be a cooperative in which nobody owned anything. Would any of these groups violate Anarchist ethics? If so, what ethics are being violated?

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

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 10:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Finn- It's nice to see that such families as yours still exist, given our intensely individualistic and competitive society.

As it would seem to develop in this Anarchic society, ethics could be different from group to group, depending on whatever could be defended. So one group might be into kidnapping and slaveholding, another might be a large capitalist business, another might be a cooperative. Would any of these groups violate Anarchist ethics? If so, what ethics are being violated?
.

I suspect they would be against slavery. Of course if the slave society was better armed then nobody would do anything about it. Hey they could call it "New Sparta"

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 1:42 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Bump for those who may not have seen it yet but might like to answer.

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

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 2:28 PM

Well, both Kidnapping and Slavery violate individual sovereignity, so that's a slamdunk, besides which - yanno, it's really hard to make slaves of armed people, not sayin it's impossible, just so bloodily unprofitable, especially against folk who, once they realize what yer up to, will very likely adopt old school soviet nihilism scorched earth tactics against you.

A little patience willya, rough day and a screamin migraine ain't makin it easy on this end here, right-O ?

Might be a while in gettin back to this.

-F

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 3:05 PM

RUE

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

"People with no family to look out for them get bad care, period, whether society participates or not."
Which is worse do you think - bad care or no care ?

"being a witness or a bystander is not a crime"
Ahh - but being a victim with onlookers idly watching by and no help on the way has got to be the worst.

"They catch all the people who fall through those large holes in the social net I was talking about."
Sure is nice to have that net to catch that 95% though.

"We get local restaurants to donate hot meals."
Tax-deductible ? B/c AFAIK that's pretty much the only reason businesses give away anything substantive.

"... we tried to find some long term solutions for them--food stamps, get them in the VA system somehow ..."
Were those your first options ? B/c it seems to me you were trying to get them help through the very system you would like to dismantle.

"Most of what we got for these vets were from private sources, not public."
And as I sad earlier as well - they do it b/c it's tax-deductible. Not 100% of the time, but nearly all of the time. Oh, and food banks which depend so much on individual charity - are at an all-time critical low. So are blood banks and the Red Cross. In fact the Red Cross is having to lay people off and downsize. That's the thing about generosity - it's sometimes there but many times - not.

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

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 3:08 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So one group might be into kidnapping and slaveholding, another might be a large capitalist business, another might be a cooperative in which nobody owned anything. Would any of these groups violate Anarchist ethics? If so, what ethics are being violated?

As Fremd noted, the slavery and kidnapping would violate the Libertarian/Anarchist philosophy against initiating violence against the individual. A Capitalist business would be OK, free trade being one of the touchstones of both philosophies, as long as all transactions were free and un-coerced. The concept of a cooperative where no one owns anything would seem a non-sequitur because each individual owns, if nothing else, themselves. If they wanted to pool their property and all agreed to it, probably no problem, unless they decided to insist that everyone else did the same, then it's initiating force again.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 3:13 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, so individual sovereignty is a given. What does that mean?

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

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 3:22 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, so individual sovereignty is a given. What does that mean?

My understanding is that you are the sole owner of yourself and your property. No person or group of persons (read as "state" or "government") has any claim on your person or property that you did not willingly contract. No one has any right to damage you or your property, and is liable for any damage they do cause, either by design or accident.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 4:16 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Okay, thanks Geezer and Frem. I know this is Libertarianism & Anarchy 101 so I appreciate you going through this with me step by step. You've given me something to think about.

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

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
yanno, it's really hard to make slaves of armed people, not sayin it's impossible, just so bloodily unprofitable, especially against folk who, once they realize what yer up to, will very likely adopt old school soviet nihilism scorched earth tactics against you.
-F

I think you over state things. Think on it, armies are made up of young healthy people, heavily trained in weapons and very well armed. If what you say it true, no army would ever surrender no soldier ever captured by an enemy. Hell I'm sure those Israelis taken by Hamas were very well trained and armed and I suspect Hamas didn't think it too costly to capture them. Talk to a miner, talk to a deep sea fisherman, they have dangerous jobs and they know people that get injured and killed doing it. You're average suburbanite with a gun is not nearly as dangerous as you think he is.

As for scorched earth, they can do the same back to you, and if there are more of them and they are better armed you would lose.

As for

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 6:21 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay, thanks Geezer and Frem. I know this is Libertarianism & Anarchy 101 so I appreciate you going through this with me step by step. You've given me something to think about.

It's L&A 101 for me as well. I'm just a couple of chapters ahead, probably. An interesting learning experience.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Friday, January 18, 2008 6:51 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Well, it still seems to me like the only ‘ethic’ of anarchism is “might makes right.” If you have the firepower and the element of surprise, you‘re in charge.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:36 AM

"armies are made up of young healthy people, heavily trained in weapons and very well armed."

And are a function of the state.

Standing armies are one of the greatest dangers to liberty there is, all of our founding fathers agreed on this, and it's part of why we are not supposed to have them - not that it stops a cabal that's prettymuch ignored that provision of the Constitution from day one, but there you have it.

Without a state, you don't have a standing army - maybe, MAYBE you could ponder a corporate army, if the corp was large enough, but even so, the whole reasoning fails because you assume a communities militia would "fight fair" and get creamed.

That is, to my mind, ridiculous, and the same kind of thinking that is causing us to get our ass handed to us by what amounts to tribal militias.

Look at what the Mujahadeen did to the Soviet army, and what they are, in spite of puff pieces to the contrary, doing to ours - guerilla and insurgency tactics would be adopted almost immediately against a superior opponent, and in the case of a corporate army, would make it unprofitable to engage in such behavior due to the destruction of the very resource base they would want to secure.

You are taking bits and pieces out of one world, placing them in a world that would by it's nature be preventative of their formation, and then making assumptions based on an entirely different pattern of thought and behavior from the folks who would even WANT to live in such a society.

Sure, the US Army would cream a bunch of suburbanites toting hunting rifles...

But that is not what would happen.

A warlords ratpack, of average to poor training, discipline and equipment, looking for loot or plunder, would get CUT TO PIECES by a neighborhood militia willing to rabidly defend their own turf at any cost - like any bully or criminal, they depend on easy targets and walkovers, such crime is the realm of slackers who want easy money without putting effort into it, if they didn't, they would work or trade.

And of course, folks fighting in defense of life and turf do not play nice and go head to head with you anyway.

You do NOT understand the mindset of the people or society we're discussing, and I am not at all sure I could get it across to you if I tried, to be honest.

And no, the 'ethic' of Anarchism is that MIGHT MAKES WRONG, actually.

To sum that up ?

"You wanna force me to do something ? HA!, come and make me, and I'll make sure it costs you dearly."

Anarchists aren't the kind of people where you can shoot two out of a hundred and the other ninety-eight knuckle under... you'd have to shoot at LEAST ninety of them, by which time they'd probably rip you limb from limb, and even if they didn't you have to sleep sometime - and what would you have, TWO of them ? maybe five ? and it cost you thirty men, or more, to get that ?

The whole psychology is radically different from the ground up, we've been sayin that for a while, but ain't no one seeming to GET it, I think.

The profit-loss equation for trying to force them to do something, or forcefully take from them, sucks so bad that it would be idiotic to prefer that option over negotiation and trade.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 3:38 AM

Re: Monkeysphere Monkeyshines.

Now, I don't know that other folk can do this, it stands to reason some can, and I might not be able to explain the concept, but imma try.

The mind has.. several layers of memory, but let us simplify that to short and long term...

The long term, stuff like your graduation, wifes birthday(or else!), home phone number, the archive deep storage, right ?

Short term is stuff like what you had for lunch, which pocket your car keys are in and yes honey I put the trash out this morning.

Well, that deep-storage archive is where most folk keep their Monkeysphere, but it is added to and subtracted to by the short term.

You with me so far ? I hope so.

When I see or interact with another person, a grocery store clerk, a fare, etc - I make eye contact, and in that second take careful note, reading their facial expression, posture and general sense, and then mentally flag them into the Monkeysphere short term buffer.

And I deal with them as if they were part of it - and when we part company, simply dump them from the buffer without allocating to deep storage.

Not sure if that comes off, it's a hard concept to explain, but my grocery clerk today, was named Linda, had red hair, and was definately having a bit of a rough day, and so I offered her patience, calm and comforting words, and a small smile as I bid her good day - by tomorrow none of that will "stick", but by doing so, I deal with people, as PEOPLE, by temporary inclusion into the Monkeysphere by conscious process.

As I said, I am not sure that other folks can do a pan-and-scan temporary inclusion like that, but it stands to reason that at least SOME can - and it's well worth a try, especially if you deal with people on a regular basis.

Been tryin it with voice too, seems to totally WEIRD support people out when you talk to them as PEOPLE, instead of some annoying part of the background machinery.

So far I have had only ONE person resent my temp-inclusion and treating them like a person, some Dunkin Donuts clerk up in Flint, and seeing that, simply dumped her right back out of my MonkeySphere, since she didn't wanna be there.

Give it a try, you might be fascinated with the results.

-F

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Well, it still seems to me like the only ‘ethic’ of anarchism is “might makes right.” If you have the firepower and the element of surprise, you‘re in charge.

I'm beginning to believe that a lot of the confusion here comes from a misunderstanding of the difference between the multiple meanings of "Anarchy" and their relation to "Anarchism".

Just using Wiki's definitions:

Quote:
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, "without ruler") may refer to any of the following:

"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[1]

"A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[2]

"Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere."[3]

It should be noted that "ruler", if used in the context of the third bullet point, has no explicit connection to the term "rules". In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposed from above, by a ruler (leader, authority). Some Languages, such as Norwegian[4] have two separate words for the two meanings. This lack of separation causes problems of understanding in a similar way that the word "free" in English causes misunderstandings when relating to open-source software.

Anarchism (from Greek ἀν (without) + ἄρχειν (to rule) + ισμός (from stem -ιζειν), "without archons," "without rulers")[1] is a political philosophy encompassing theories and attitudes which reject compulsory government[2] (the state) and support its elimination,[3][4] often due to a wider rejection of involuntary or permanent authority.[5] Anarchism is defined by The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics as "a cluster of doctrines and attitudes centered on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary."[6]

The Anarchists here, I believe, are looking for the reduction or elemination of government, not a descent into a state of lawlessness.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:03 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Been tryin it with voice too, seems to totally WEIRD support people out when you talk to them as PEOPLE, instead of some annoying part of the background machinery.
F

I use this with telephone soliciters on the rare occasions I pick up my land line. When they introduce themselves, I remember their name. Usually if you try to cut into their spiel they just go right on, but if you say their name assertively (although you know it's probably not their real name) you can get them to stop so you can politely ask to be put on their 'do not call' list. Yeah, I know, but my momma raised me to be polite to everyone, and it won't wear off.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:04 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You do NOT understand the mindset of the people or society we're discussing, and I am not at all sure I could get it across to you if I tried, to be honest.

I think what is not being understood here is that only a small number of people in any society have the mindset your talking about. And that is why Anarchic societies are unstable and break down into dueling warlords. Most people are simply content to live their lives, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but in an Anarchy that means they become pawns in a chaotic society while the people your talking about duke it out for supremacy. And you keep avoiding this fact, but human nature does not allow for an Anarchic society to be any kind utopia or offer any kind of freedom - it will always be chaos, excepting the case in which a rigid ideology holds the society together, such in the case of the Amish. But that’s hardly the utopia of freedom either. It is a rigid society where everything is controlled, from what you are allowed to say to what you are allowed to wear, which ironically demonstrates that the only way for an Anarchy to be stable is for it to be anything but an anarchy.

And even though you seem to be avoiding accepting this reality, you also don’t deny it. You’ve made statements to the effect that we are not ready for an Anarchy or “The whole psychology [of an Anarchic Society] is radically different [from modern societies] from the ground up.” But this is what we’ve been saying all along. It simply won’t work. It is not stable for this very reason - it does not realistically account for real human psychology.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 5:30 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
...Yeah, I know, but my momma raised me to be polite to everyone, and it won't wear off.

Just made me think of 12 Angry Men.

Juror #11: I beg pardon...
Juror #10: "I beg pardon?" What are you so polite about?
Juror #11: For the same reason you are not: it's the way I was brought up.

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

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"armies are made up of young healthy people, heavily trained in weapons and very well armed."

And are a function of the state.

And you ignore the point again. Those young Israelis are armed trained and ready. They know if they are taken alive that the people holding them are predisposed to do all kinds of crap to them. If any group of people are predisposed to fight to the death rather than be taken alive these guys are it, but they were captured. Why? Because the non psychotic human being wants to live and given a choice between 2% survival and 100% death they will chose to survive.

So this idea that you sling some suburbanite a gun and he suddenly becomes John Rambo is bullshit because if someone comes down hard enough on him that using his "piece" will 100% cost him his life and that of his family he will fold in favour of the 2% hope that they will survive. Ten men come into your house hard and hot with assault rifles pointed at your family the .38 in your hand makes you a target and not the Equalizer.

Quote:

Standing armies are one of the greatest dangers to liberty there is, all of our founding fathers agreed on this, and it's part of why we are not supposed to have them - not that it stops a cabal that's prettymuch ignored that provision of the Constitution from day one, but there you have it.

Yep I know, I read that too however it's not germane to what I was discussing.

Quote:

Without a state, you don't have a standing army - maybe, MAYBE you could ponder a corporate army, if the corp was large enough, but even so, the whole reasoning fails because you assume a communities militia would "fight fair" and get creamed.

That is, to my mind, ridiculous, and the same kind of thinking that is causing us to get our ass handed to us by what amounts to tribal militias.

Look at what the Mujahadeen did to the Soviet army, and what they are, in spite of puff pieces to the contrary, doing to ours - guerilla and insurgency tactics would be adopted almost immediately against a superior opponent, and in the case of a corporate army, would make it unprofitable to engage in such behavior due to the destruction of the very resource base they would want to secure.

Let's look at that in detail a moment. First I would hope you would see that these are not JUST tribal militias, they are proxy armies for larger powers that provide know how and ongoing material aid. In Afghanistan Charlie Wilson was busy lending US support to ABL's "Arabs" in Iraq it's the Iranians. Smalltown USA comes into this fight with limited weapons, limited ammunition and limited personel. If the other side inflicts enough damage early on there is no way that Smalltown can make good those losses without a sugar daddy to pick up the bill. Be harsh and brutal enough and you can make them fold. Yes there will be die hards that will keep fighting but they will dwindle over time.

Now if you look at separatist and nationalist group like the IRA and ETA they actually support your arguments better. However, the people that form these groups tend to have a collectivist ideology not a vastly independent one, they also see themselves as governments in waiting, have command structures and commanders. Further they "bleed over" into the societies that support them. For example in Belfast punishment beatings were common for petty crimes and since the groups doing battle were sectarian from the point of view of religion, a protestant boy could be beaten for being seen with a Catholic girl. This was not a situation where personal freedom was being maintained. If the collective group with guns decided what you are doing is wrong, that could get bad for you.

In fact those same folks "handing us our ass" in Iraq are forcing previously secular Iraqi women to adopt the Islamic dress code and of course as they have guns and there are more of them the women comply.

So I still believe the quaint idea that you'll have some romanticized citizen militia that with no organization just stands up to the bad guys is wrong. You will either have disorganized victims with guns who are easy fodder, or you will have a warlord with his better organized group that lives in your village and from whom you get protection. No problem there until he starts to realize that he has the power to run the place.

Quote:

A warlords ratpack, of average to poor training, discipline and equipment, looking for loot or plunder, would get CUT TO PIECES by a neighborhood militia willing to rabidly defend their own turf at any cost - like any bully or criminal, they depend on easy targets and walkovers, such crime is the realm of slackers who want easy money without putting effort into it, if they didn't, they would work or trade.

This is where your assumption fails. First I think I've indicated that I don't believe that your suburbanites would fight at any cost. Second the warlord is going to be better armed than the militia the only way he can win is overwhelming force, that's going to be a prerequisite and if he has to build to that point then I suspect he will.

Very few jobs these days involve a risk of death to do them but even those with high risk like deep sea fishing, mining and ocean oil rigs have people willing to do them when there are easier and safer jobs elsewhere. These are not slackers, ---trawlermen work hard while they are at sea, they all know men who have been killed they could all apply that same work ethic to a land job.

You keep thinking these warlord guys will just be sneak thieves with guns. That's not the case. Look at gangs that pull armoured car heists, they know going in that they will face X amounts of armed opposition and they ensure they overcome that. Even then they can and do get shot, there are easier and less risky jobs out there, why not take them.

I propose to you that like the fishermen that accept the risk because they like the lifestyle there are criminal elements that will just work the armed populous into their calculations and continue as normal.

You seem to think that faced with a heavily armed group of private citizens these guys will be "scared straight" and "get a real job." To these guys this is a real job and they will continue to do it.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:13 AM

Frem I got a little long winded there.

I think the point I was trying to make is that you don't need an army to really fuck with someone's rights under your system any sufficiently well armed organised group can do that be it corporate goon squads, traveling bandits to the militia from the next town over or even your neighbors if they collectively decide to mess with you. Throwing a guy a .38 does not make him Rambo they idea that a well armed group will not try to impose their will is naive. Now of course your suburbanite with his .38 can join with a few of his neighbours but that just creates another group of guys with guns with a fairly equal risk of things going bad.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:31 AM

Finn sayeth..
"you also don’t deny it."

I absolutely deny it, it's a false reality force-fed to folk cradle to grave by an established set of bastards dependant upon it to feast upon us peons while offering us naught but more chains in payment.

You cannot see past it, cannot even concieve of a world without it, but dude, that's YOU.

Not everyone is like you, not everyone is like me - that's the point you are intentionally and deliberately not getting.

That "small number" is due to a system designed, top to bottom, to crush those "dangerous" thoughts out of people before they become a threat to the status quo.

You also seem to have the idea that everyone would be at each others throats, and that's damned unlikely unless you picked up existing frameworks and societies and dropped them wholesale into an entirely DIFFERENT society with no frameworks to support them in the first place.

And you seem to have the idea that we are all rabid, slavering, greed-infested, sociopathic monsters only kept in check by Government and it's laws, a truly, truly laughable concept down on cass corridor at four in the morning, I can assure you. **

And since you're on the topic of avoiding reality, YOU seem to be willfully, intentionally, even maliciously, avoiding the reality that people get along with each other BETTER in the ABSCENCE of Government force involving itself in that equation.

Your own comments regarding family show that - and by contrast the breakdown occurs when a Government/Corporate oligarchy takes SO MUCH of a persons resources that they are forced to break those bonds in order to "stay afloat" and not sink deeper into the debt trap, a price not paid in coin, but in humanity as well.

What does it say about a society when a person is forced to abandon personal relationships, even at the level of a family bond, in order to survive at a (often barely) comfortable level of existence ?

What you call real human pyschology I call a perversion of humanity, and it is my firm belief that as the gap between what children are taught in our brutal education-indoctrination system and what their natural human instincts are gets wider and wider, we see a stronger and stronger reaction, evidenced in many forms when they, in essence "choke on the kool-aid" - the direct result of which has landed us at the point of an ever growing waterfall of psychotropic drugs pushed on them while we demand they sabotage, bury or subvert their natural instincts in order to survive and thrive in this hell we call a society.

There's nothing NORMAL about it.

The more you suppress a persons humanity, the more twisted a form it takes when it finally does bust free and express itself.

If human nature was really as awful as people here are making it out to be, we would have never successfully built ANY civilization in the first place, would we ?

-Frem
** EDIT, ok that came out a bit wrong...
I go down there, pick up, drop off, deal with these people - and it's never come to violence because I can deal with them, de-escalate, negotiate, and if it does come to cases, can either spin rubber out of sight, or fill them with holes.. I am not "prey" to them, but a service they need now, and may need in the future, and it carries no advantage to piss off the few drivers who will still pick up there.

Government has cursed little to do with it, between the folk who need/want a pickup or dropoff down there at those hours, and myself, business and mutual advantage has everything to do with it.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:47 AM

Fletch, point by point..

The critical difference is that in an Army people are taking orders to secure someone else's wants and desires, not their own - this is why slacking off and desertion happen.

Also, call them psychotic if you wish, but the type of people who favor Anarchy (even over Libertarianism) ARE the type of folk who, confronted with ten guys holding assault rifles, WILL empty that .38 and see how many they can take with them, it's in their nature, it's who they are, and a key part of their entire mindset and pyschology.

And yes, that scares some folk, but that IS how a threatened Anarchist responds.
(See Also: Babylon 5, subsearch: Shadows)

The problem seems to be you are applying the typical here-and-now MODERN suburbanite mindset, the kind of people who handed over their weapons when confronted during Katrina, sure, THOSE people will react as you state, but we are not whatever talking about those people.

The kinda person who WANTS to live in that type of society isn't going to go easy, and they know full and well that life is dangerous - who would carry an AK-47 and know how to use it, while less able family members reloaded magazines for them, for example.

And yes, overwhelming numbers might see the job done, but if in the end all you get is scorched earth and a few survivors and wounded, you've accomplished damned little for your pains.

I ain't sayin there would not be banditry, that happens in any society, only in this one it's organized, rapacious and we call it Government...

I am saying that a wholesale attack on a community would simply not be worth the effort for the potential gain, not against THOSE people.

And yes, if you wanna call it so, by THIS societies standards, in THIS day and age, I supposed they could be called "insane", sure.

But ya know what ?

That would be their perception of us, who take orders and hop to the tune of folks we know are screwing us over.

Food for thought, that.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 7:57 AM

One of those guys has a gun to the head of your wife another to your 13 year old daughter. You shoot, one of them is dead, absolutely and 100% sure. Are you REALLY saying that Mr Anarchist opens fire knowing that his family WILL die?

I'm curious, because I wouldn't want to live anywhere near that person.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:15 AM

You really don't understand the mindset, the wife would be trying to rip the one's eyes out and the 13yr old would be sinking her teeth into the others wrist and going for a disarm before you even cleared leather, gun to the head or no, certain death or no.

That also presumes wife doesn't have a piece *snort* and kid doesn't have a knife, and the aggressors made it through the door somehow without having to wipe out the defenders, who would no doubt set the place on fire if a breach was imminent.

You're really saying you'd prefer to live with people who did *not* defend themselves with absolute rabidity ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

You're really saying you'd prefer to live with people who did *not* defend themselves with absolute rabidity ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

I'm wondering if I'd have that knife in me if I pissed the daughter off. I'm wondering if I wouldn't get my brains blown out if I stop off to drop off misdelivered mail... so yeah.

Do you have a wife and children Frem?

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:45 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
One of those guys has a gun to the head of your wife another to your 13 year old daughter. You shoot, one of them is dead, absolutely and 100% sure. Are you REALLY saying that Mr Anarchist opens fire knowing that his family WILL die?

I'm curious, because I wouldn't want to live anywhere near that person.

I'm curious that you would trust armed folks, who have already forced their way into your home and threatened to kill your family, to let you go on living if you just put your gun down.

edit to add: especially if you consider it likely that folks would shoot you just for misdelivering the mail.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:09 AM

RUE

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

oops. Meant "edit" not reply"

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You really don't understand the mindset, the wife would be trying to rip the one's eyes out and the 13yr old would be sinking her teeth into the others wrist and going for a disarm before you even cleared leather, gun to the head or no, certain death or no.

That also presumes wife doesn't have a piece *snort* and kid doesn't have a knife, and the aggressors made it through the door somehow without having to wipe out the defenders, who would no doubt set the place on fire if a breach was imminent.

You're really saying you'd prefer to live with people who did *not* defend themselves with absolute rabidity ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Would they have that kind of extremely aggressive defense response if they live in a period of peace and prosperity? I mean, I will utterly give you that people are not sociopathic monsters by heart because I think that most people not used to violence and horror would have a high level of hesitancy to respond with such vehemence. I can see it if the society is constantly threatened by violent crime, or in war time, but if they are not a society traumatized by exposure to such violence... I just don't see it being the natural response, especially of a 13-year-old. The mother, maybe. Except her child might die, so that might stop her.

Unless people engaged in constant high level self-defense training, really. Which, I guess, is what you're envisioning there.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
One of those guys has a gun to the head of your wife another to your 13 year old daughter. You shoot, one of them is dead, absolutely and 100% sure. Are you REALLY saying that Mr Anarchist opens fire knowing that his family WILL die?

I'm curious, because I wouldn't want to live anywhere near that person.

I'm curious that you would trust armed folks, who have already forced their way into your home and threatened to kill your family, to let you go on living if you just put your gun down.

edit to add: especially if you consider it likely that folks would shoot you just for misdelivering the mail.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well the same could be true of those captured Israeli soldiers, why wouldn't they fight "to the death" in fact why would any army surrender ever? Let's be clear on this situation, if you open fire at least one of your family dies instantly with the rest to follow because the other side has overwhelming force. You may kill a few which may give some people with a psychotic mind set some satisfaction but right at that moment you pulling the trigger means 100% certainty that at least one of you will die, and realistically probably garentees that you all do. Even if you have 2% chance of survival by surrendering at that point. It has to be a better choice. Let's say you ARE Rambo and you take 3 of them down with you. It does you no good at all if your entire family is dead.

The mail comment was this. No attacker is going to send you a postcard saying he's on his way. For Frem's highly armed nuclear family to even stand a chance they would have to be on guard constantly, they would have to view any stranger with suspicion, would probably answer the door armed. Otherwise this is academic since they can be caught cold. Let's say they live at 350 W High Street and I move in to 350 E High street and find a pile of their mail and being a good new neighbor I decide to deliver it to them. When I walk up their drive carrying something that could conceal a weapon they HAVE to meet me expecting trouble or the Frem idea just doesn't work.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:29 AM

I've been trying to work up a serious post on the subject of philosophical and psychological Anarchism but the discussion keeps getting mired in hysterical hypotheticals. Sorry, Signy, I'm still trying to formulate my ideas--it's a BIG topic.

Meanwhile, I gotta interject here. I have undergone what I think could be called "high-level martial arts training" and I can tell you it doesn't turn you into a rabid paranoid. Quite the opposite, it gave me a very grounded sense of security that I never had before.

And for a second, forget the "high-level" part, just 6 months of good training would have a profound effect on a community, on a culture if enough people participated. In those six months, for instance, the "threat" of a box cutter would be largely neutralized. Think of the effect that would have had on 9/11. Bunch of humiliated would-be hijackers. But more importantly, the plan would have never gotten off the ground because the terrorists would not be able to count on the passengers acting like sheep.

Martial arts training has given me an awareness of people's energy, force, power, momentum, body language, even some of their physical intent, so I am much better able to judge questionable situations now. Think of your wonderful household pet--gentle, great with kids, empathetic to your needs and moods, and pretty deadly if you were to try something physical. Even a house-cat could mess you up good if you weren't very fast. Not because they're violent, vicious creatures, but because they know how to move! Good martial arts training is designed to make you more at home in physical space, more aware of how reality works, more like the fully functioning animal you were born to be.

So in the case of Frem's hypothetical family...their training would be to assess actual threat, actual body language and intent, not this ham-fisted "ooh, that guy out there's got a package...bligh' me, it could be a gun--RED ALERT! BATTLE STATIONS!"

Martial arts doesn't teach you to trust everything and everyone less, it teaches you to trust yourself more.

So the family Frem wouldn't be going medieval on ya unless you crossed a big, big line in terms of behavior or intent. On the contrary, if you were friendly and had a good story to tell, they'd prolly invite you in for dinner. If things got ugly they'd have the turf advantage.

See, that's one of the big "paradigm shift" things a lot of folks are missing. In this world we live in here, you can expect most inhabitants to be docile and compliant--this expectation gives violent people opportunity, a sympathetic environment for them to work their will. In Fremworld, that assumption of a docile public would not be there for the guy who wants to mess with 'em. He'd have to assume every fight would get ugly, even if the reality was that he could catch the family Frem unawares and win out.

The issue is, does the average criminal want to take that chance? In our world, experience teaches the criminal that it's not that big of a chance. A country can be brought to its knees with box-cutters. In Fremworld, experience would teach a different lesson. Docility and subservience are not human nature, they are accomodations to systematic abuse and control.

Whoops, I just lost a whole bunch of folks with that last comment, didn't I?

Well, that's all I got time for atm.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:59 AM

On 9/11 we know, ---because the idiots that took over the Penn flight used the radio instead of the cabin PA the first time--- that they actually told the passengers they had a bomb. Now we know it was a lie and the terrorists never had a bomb but the passengers didn't know that.

It's a question of evaluation of risk. Prior to 9/11 most hijackings had ended with most of the passenger's surviving, so faced with rushing the "hijacker with a bomb" with 2% chance of success and going along with things with a 95% chance of survival most people went along.

What made the Penn incident different to the others was that the folks on board found out about the previous 2 planes and did the math. Now they knew 100% that they would die if they did nothing, so a 2% chance that they could overrun the hijackers before the "bomb" went off looked like a good move.

So in fact how fast you can disarm a guy with a box cutter was never part of the equation on 9/11 as the Penn passenger's showed, it was could you take back the plane before the "bomb" goes off. Show me a martial art that lets THAT become an easy action and I'll buy.

You also fall into the same trap as Frem in assuming the criminal element just give up. What evolution shows is that when a prey animal becomes tougher you end up with tougher predators. These guys will not just give in and take a job flipping burgers in McDonalds, they will evolve to counter the threat. They may kidnap rather than burgle, they may do home invasions where rather than controlling the occupants they kill them outright before they can use "stupid monkey foo" or whatever martial art you're selling.

A few years ago I had to itemize the approximate value of my household effects for customs and duty purposes. Now even excluding items like furniture that are not easy to carry off it comes to a reasonably large number. Think of what you earn, remove cost of living stuff like food and accommodation and savings. What's left is probably somewhere in your home right now and it's a reasonably big figure, far more I suspect than you could make in a month of a regular job. Given that people do legitimate high risk work already, can you really be sure that nobody is going to be interested in taking the risk to rip you off?

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:02 AM

Btw, I never implied that self-defense training would make people aggressive. It was a serious thought that - obviously - hits your vision on the head, nail-wise.

So far my understanding of this society has been improved by the following:

1) Care for the helpless through a highly organized net of voluntary charity.
2) Self-defense training from childhood on to create a sufficiently ruthless response to physical threats.

I want to understand it, magical mystery "paradigm shift" or not, I'm trying to get a feel for what people are imagining the everday of it to be like. Or the not every day.

For example, what if actual war is at hand? Can this society exist as a country next to governmental societies, realistically? This independent judge thing, how realistic is that to work in a society of individuals/groups that place such importance in being in control of their own affairs? Things like science and medical advancements, would they go on at the same level as now? Aside from a greater focus on family and treating people like people (as if it's so very unusual now *eyeroll*) what would social values be, how would kids be raised and treat each other growing up? Do the types of jobs available change from what they are now? Does social entertainment change? Gender roles, body image, university education? Would cities remain as they are?

I may be a sceptic, but I'd love to hear what proponents imagine it to actually be like, instead of saying "It will be so different, but you will never understand it because it can't be explained to the likes of you."

Anyone?

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
What evolution shows is that when a prey animal becomes tougher you end up with tougher predators.

Ack, so depressing. So monumentally depressing. You folks sling this stuff like it's common knowledge, when it is only common myth and self-serving prejudice. You do know that many animal species have no natural predators because they've evolved a defense mechanism that has outclassed the local predator population, right? Nature is not macho. Nature has nothing to prove. Nature is all about going the way of least resistance. Uh, um, species like, f'rinstance, the human species? Where's evolution's big bad adaptive predator on us? And where was she when we were just getting the whole walking upright thing down, or the tool use thing figured out? And don't go selling me no line on viruses. Germs are not predators, they're parasites and they fail if the host dies.

But, ack, your whole way of thinking is like a virus and it's infected me! Criminal humans are not comparable to predatory animals in the first place! That's just violence-fetishist romance for what is, again, the result of systematic abuse and control and violent, coercive and contemptuous child rearing practices.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:57 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That's just violence-fetishist romance for what is, again, the result of systematic abuse and control and violent, coercive and contemptuous child rearing practices.

So, in an anarchist world, all parents would magically be good parents? Ready, able, no family disruptions, abandonment, divorce, drug abuse, violence within the family, etc? I mean, if it's all about how the child is reared, can't parents still make the same mistakes they make now? Or is it all "the system" that makes them do bad things?

Oh, and in the case of child abuse, who interferes? Concerned neighbors? Or would that just not happen? I repeat, I am not asking to bait, I am asking to understand.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:05 PM

Hi, AgentRouka,

I got a little time here so I thought I'd give you some quick answers to your queries.

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
For example, what if actual war is at hand?

War is a big problem for any population. Period. On a psycho-social level wars are like cancer or a psychotic break. There are many things anyone can do to reduce their chances of getting cancer and there are certainly things we can do to reduce the likelihood of having a psychotic break. So are there things any society could do to reduce their chances of war.

Wars have universally been used by Governments to consolidate their power over their citizens. War's have primarily been wars of conquest by oligarchs. So, first of all, an Anarchist "Union" would not be starting any wars. And, I'll admit, to survive a ground war an Anarchy would prolly need some serious geographical advantages, not unlike the U.S. of A. Friendly nations on our borders and oceans between us and the expansionists. An Anarchist America would also likely have awesome trade relations with the saner segments of the human population, so we'd have most of the world on our side if push came to shove.

Quote:
Can this society exist as a country next to governmental societies, realistically?

Of course. Do you really think Canada would invade? Mexico might cause some trouble, and our southern border might change, but can you not imagine an equilibrium being struck at some point?

Quote:
This independent judge thing, how realistic is that to work in a society of individuals/groups that place such importance in being in control of their own affairs?

Sorry, I missed this part of the conversation. Y'know though, there's some comparison to be made between some aboriginal cultural values and the values of a future Anarchist culture. Respect for elders would prolly be greater than in our youth-obsessed consumer culture. So age, experience, knowledge might carry a little more weight than they do in our corporatist funhouse.

Quote:
Things like science and medical advancements, would they go on at the same level as now?

Rue alluded to this before and I think she made a good point about nano-technology--something of which I have but the slightest understanding. I'd say that in the transition to Anarchy our technological base would take a hit. Advancement might very well stagnate for a while. But here's a thing:

You heard about the semi-aquatic theory of proto-human evolution? The idea that pre-human hominids began an adaptation to aquatic life when the interior of the continents became more and more inhospitable and then doubled back when the climate mellowed? This is a perfectly respectable theory, that just isn't very popular today--you should look it up, fascinating stuff.

Anyway, one of the issues it addresses is how humans were able to evolve in enough physical safety that we actually evolved into physically less dangerous creatures. The idea was that when we moved into a tidal existence we found a place of remarkable safety from large predators. The big predators from the land would not venture far into the water and the big predators from the sea surely wouldn't go up on shore. So, if we were clever and getting cleverer, we could have it pretty easy in that regard. Furthermore, the relative ease of living in the tidal zone, coupled with the constant availability of rocks made the development of tool use possible.

So what I'm saying is: sometimes freedom can have a profoundly beneficial effect upon the mind.

Quote:
Aside from a greater focus on family and treating people like people (as if it's so very unusual now *eyeroll*) what would social values be, how would kids be raised and treat each other growing up?

This is the hardest of your questions to answer because most people's prejudices on this subject were imprinted on them in their first 3 years of life and such prejudices will never be shaken by mere talk. Unless, maybe, maybe, maybe, the one doing the talking is Alice Miller. She lays it out again and again in simple, lucid prose for anyone who is willing to follow her reasoning. I direct you to her short (136 page) book, The Drama of the Gifted Child. Don't let the title scare you off, this is no feel good new agy tract. She's german and she's hardcore.

If you want to read a novel set in an Anarchist culture that spends most of the book describing the childhood of one of their great scientists, I highly recommend The Dispossessed by Ursula Le Guin.

Quote:
Do the types of jobs available change from what they are now? Does social entertainment change? Gender roles, body image, university education? Would cities remain as they are?

Running out of time here and these questions are all huge. Short answer, yes, probably. People would live more like highly social and inventive animals, if you will, and less like alienated lapdogs waiting for their next treat. So yeah, big changes. Read Miller and Le Guin.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

In this postulated world, are there any other ways to mediate disputes besides violence?

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

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:17 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So, in an anarchist world, all parents would magically be good parents? Ready, able, no family disruptions, abandonment, divorce, drug abuse, violence within the family, etc? I mean, if it's all about how the child is reared, can't parents still make the same mistakes they make now? Or is it all "the system" that makes them do bad things?

Oh, and in the case of child abuse, who interferes? Concerned neighbors? Or would that just not happen? I repeat, I am not asking to bait, I am asking to understand.

Oh man, this topic really brings out the contempt in people. Contempt, which you feel completely, unassailably justified in voicing here. You mean the question sincerely enough, but you can't frame it in anything resembling neutral terms. Do you see?

Another Alice Miller book, two: For Your Own Good and Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. The basic deal is that family norms and cultural norms are the same thing. To the extent that we live in families where sexuality is repressed and lied about, where an emotionally distant father gets his way time and time again, we will live in a culture ruled by irresponsible hyper-masculine liars. But seriously, do some reading--it really is fascinating stuff.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
In this postulated world, are there any other ways to mediate disputes besides violence?

Signy, in your own life, are there any other ways to mediate disputes besides the Government forcing its will on you?

In your own head, do you come up with good solutions to problems without adhering to some external authority?

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So, in an anarchist world, all parents would magically be good parents? Ready, able, no family disruptions, abandonment, divorce, drug abuse, violence within the family, etc? I mean, if it's all about how the child is reared, can't parents still make the same mistakes they make now? Or is it all "the system" that makes them do bad things?

Oh, and in the case of child abuse, who interferes? Concerned neighbors? Or would that just not happen? I repeat, I am not asking to bait, I am asking to understand.

Oh man, this topic really brings out the contempt in people. Contempt, which you feel completely, unassailably justified in voicing here. You mean the question sincerely enough, but you can't frame it in anything resembling neutral terms. Do you see?

Another Alice Miller book, two: For Your Own Good and Thou Shalt Not Be Aware. The basic deal is that family norms and cultural norms are the same thing. To the extent that we live in families where sexuality is repressed and lied about, where an emotionally distant father gets his way time and time again, we will live in a culture ruled by irresponsible hyper-masculine liars. But seriously, do some reading--it really is fascinating stuff.

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.

I'm sorry if my questions came across as more judgmental than sceptical, I'll try to work ont that.

However, the sad reason is that I'm asking all these questions here because I don't have the time to read the books right now. Studying for finals, writing papers... Were it February, it'd look different, but the thread is right now.

I'm not saying you have to educate me, that's not your job and I have no right to ask it, but if you felt that short precise sentences to sum up certain things were something you wouldn't mind giving me, I'd be very grateful. No problem if you don't. Just saying that I won't be able to read the lit now and my questions would remain unanswered.

I'll add to my list, though not fully defined yet.
#3) Child-reading: cultural norms = family norms.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 12:53 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So I still believe the quaint idea that you'll have some romanticized citizen militia that with no organization just stands up to the bad guys is wrong.

Why do you assume that a citizen militia would have to be unorganized? All sorts of voluntary clubs, associations, charities, etc. get established and function very well now, and lack of government shouldn't prohibit that from happening.

As to eight armed marauders invading your home:
1) How likely is that to happen anyway?
2) Why should we consider it more likely to happen in an Anarchist community?
3) Wouldn't a community who rely upon themselves for defense against this unlikely circumstance have aome sort of plan worked out? Panic buttons to summon the militia or the private security firm? Massive turnout of force?

As has been noted, plopping down a particular situation in the midst of your bedroom and requiring that you alone respond to it ignores the fact that like-minded people would have some mutual agreement to provide aid, and procedures would be in place to do so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 1:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hi, AgentRouka,

I got a little time here so I thought I'd give you some quick answers to your queries.

And I'm very appreciative that you took the time, thank you.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
For example, what if actual war is at hand?

And, I'll admit, to survive a ground war an Anarchy would prolly need some serious geographical advantages, not unlike the U.S. of A. Friendly nations on our borders and oceans between us and the expansionists. An Anarchist America would also likely have awesome trade relations with the saner segments of the human population, so we'd have most of the world on our side if push came to shove.

I see that starting wars wouldn't be a priority, certainly, but I note you didn't really answer my question fully. I wasn't asking about a hypothetical America and why it wouldn't be attacked, really. I'm more interested in a possible practical response to war in an anarchist society, which would likely be an attack from a foreign army, then.

Some coordinated effort to defend would have to take place, and in the absence of government I'm merely interested in the proposed model of coordination.

Quote:

Quote:
Can this society exist as a country next to governmental societies, realistically?

Of course. Do you really think Canada would invade? Mexico might cause some trouble, and our southern border might change, but can you not imagine an equilibrium being struck at some point?

As I said, not asking about America, per se. More in terms of... diplomacy. Foreign governments would be talking to each sovereign citizen directly, I take it? Just to help me get an image in my head.

Quote:

Quote:
This independent judge thing, how realistic is that to work in a society of individuals/groups that place such importance in being in control of their own affairs?

Respect for elders would prolly be greater than in our youth-obsessed consumer culture. So age, experience, knowledge might carry a little more weight than they do in our corporatist funhouse.

Noted, thank you. :)

#4)Disputes - ingrained cultural respect for independent judgement.

I suppose in that theory, going to a judge would already be an act chosen with great deliberation and a wish for some kind of agreement. Cases with more stubborn disagreement would have to be handled in some other way.

Quote:

Quote:
Things like science and medical advancements, would they go on at the same level as now?

I'd say that in the transition to Anarchy our technological base would take a hit. Advancement might very well stagnate for a while.
(*snip*)
So what I'm saying is: sometimes freedom can have a profoundly beneficial effect upon the mind.

I suppose I'm looking for a slightly more practical description than that. Research would be financed by businesses? Donation? Both? Scientists sell their own inventions and use that money? Is there going to be such a thing as intellectual property or patents? I'm leaning towards no... I can see science running for the sake of science. Universities funded through tuition and donations competing with each other, researching what pays well and some on top. *nod-nod* Would things like ethical concerns in medical science be a subject at all, or would that be part of the total freedom?

Quote:

Quote:
Aside from a greater focus on family and treating people like people (as if it's so very unusual now *eyeroll*) what would social values be, how would kids be raised and treat each other growing up?

Thank you for the recommendations on the subject, I'll note it down for the near future when I have time again.

Quote:

Quote:
Do the types of jobs available change from what they are now? Does social entertainment change? Gender roles, body image, university education? Would cities remain as they are?

Running out of time here and these questions are all huge. Short answer, yes, probably. People would live more like highly social and inventive animals, if you will, and less like alienated lapdogs waiting for their next treat. So yeah, big changes.

Hey, if you'll call me out for using judgmental language, you shouldn't use it yourself. ;)

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:47 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Signy, in your own life, are there any other ways to mediate disputes besides the Government forcing its will on you? In your own head, do you come up with good solutions to problems without adhering to some external authority?

At least ten times a day and twice that on Sunday

But some disputes have been irreducible and so I've gone to court to get them resolved.

I can think of a LOT of disputes... property-type disputes.... that don't quite rise to the level of kneecapping your neighbor but which might require more than negotiation or accommodation. And since this world seems to depend a lot on individual agreements by contract, what if someone breaks a contract?

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

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 2:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So I still believe the quaint idea that you'll have some romanticized citizen militia that with no organization just stands up to the bad guys is wrong.

Why do you assume that a citizen militia would have to be unorganized? All sorts of voluntary clubs, associations, charities, etc. get established and function very well now, and lack of government shouldn't prohibit that from happening.

Governments didn't come into existence fully formed they started as ay to more efficiently provide common services taht were agreed to by the community, as time went by they were given more duties and pulled together more power. Given the right circumstances almost any group of individuals can become a force for tyranny -- look a some home owners associations and condo councils.

If you have an organized militia then I'm assuming it has leaders and followers I assume it has some form of discipline and I assume for efficiencies sake that the guy in charge gives orders that the group expects to have followed.

This is incidentally how armed nationalist groups like ETA and the IRA operate. The problem is that it's an arbitary and largely unaccountable concentration of power. In Belfast like I said you could see the wrong girl and take a beating for it if the guy that runs the local IRA thinks it inappropriate. You could be burnt out if you moved onto the wrong street. No government set these guys up --which seems to be what Frem doesn't grasp, they started out as guys with guns defending their communities, but that's the thing about unaccountable power it gets out of hand.

These are real world examples there are others. So as I see it if your militia has an organized core group you run the risk they will eventually run the place as warlords because those inside the group will become better armed and trained than the rest of the community. If instead of having a core group and a clear chain of command you have a more ad hoc structure -- in order to limit the risk of tyranny from what could become a semi-standing army ---- then the militia will not be as effective against other organized armed groups.

Quote:

As to eight armed marauders invading your home:
1) How likely is that to happen anyway?

Type "home invasion" into a browser, you will see that it's a new popular crime. As to there being 8. This assumes that in order to cope with a more heavily armed population you need to apply a numeric advantage. Home invasions today are usually done by groups of between two and four. Faced with an armed family in the Frem model groups smaller than the typical family unit would be unlikely to assert enough control to avoid the family taking action. Just as lone thieves realised that they could do bigger crimes by massing in 2 and 3 man teams the ways around this is a bigger group. To deal with an armed family of 4 I'm assuming 6 or 8 bad guys.

Quote:

2) Why should we consider it more likely to happen in an Anarchist community?

1) Movement to a hard currency means that more of a families assets will be available in untraceable liquid funds.

2) A heavily armed populous makes some types of crime --- burglary for example -- relatively high risk for a single perpetrator. You seem to imagine these people will give up. I believe at least some of them would look at ways to mitigate the Frem family numeric advantage. This is the way to do that.

3) The move from a professional local police department backed by a national FBI to an adhoc system of private security and untrained militia means the chances of getting away with the crime if you survive the initial encounter with the victim is actually better. Who will maintain national criminal records, who will coordinate information sharing between private security firms that are in fact each other's rivals? If someone commits a crime in Nevada, can you extradite him from California? Under who's authority? Surely if personal liberty means anything it means you can refuse to go with people that are just employees of a company with no legal powers?

There are more but you get the picture. I chose this specific type of crime because I wanted to show that there would be circumstances where an armed homeowner would probably chose not to take action that would endanger his family. I was not expecting Mossad trained 13 year old girls to be considered "normal." However if this were the case I suspect that home invasion homicide robberies would be "the in thing" because nobody would want to take the risk the cute 13 year old might gut them with her knife.

Quote:

3) Wouldn't a community who rely upon themselves for defense against this unlikely circumstance have aome sort of plan worked out? Panic buttons to summon the militia or the private security firm? Massive turnout of force?

That's a response to a problem once it's happened, after which I'm sure any bandits would take counter measures. My point was that giving people a gun does no more to improve your security. It's as big a mental crutch as many of you think police patrols are. The difference is that you HAVE to believe in the deterrent and practical use of guns because this system of yours falls apart otherwise. So if it doesn't deter -- because criminals will exist in the new system --- and it doesn't actually promote personal safety --- because the bigger the risk you are to them the less chance there is that they will not just kill you. Well, that just shows it up for what it is.... kinda pointless.

Oh, and as guns are legal and I'm sure self defence classes are, there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing this now anyway. So get out there and make your kid lethal with a knife.

Quote:

As has been noted, plopping down a particular situation in the midst of your bedroom and requiring that you alone respond to it ignores the fact that like-minded people would have some mutual agreement to provide aid, and procedures would be in place to do so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Well you see we have that already it's called the local and national police force.

This is how I see it. Right now one of the very few things that all people, right and left look to the government to provide is security. To make a case for no government you have to address the security question. I don't think you do that very well and here's why.

First there is an emphasis on deterrents, and indeed there is the expectation that deterrents will work so well that the problem is solved. I believe the bad guys will just change tactics. You guys seem to think this is what they do to avoid getting a real job but if you look at it for some of them this is a real job. Just as there are people doing real jobs with high personal risk there will be people willing to come into your house even if you have a gun.

Then we have the militia. Which at various times goes from being a highly organized group of people with a central command structure (and therefore the same potential abuse problems the police have) to your neighbour and his gun. Now it could be that at the first sign of trouble Mr Wilson grabs his gun and rides to your aid. Or he might not want to run into a situation he's not sure of. CTS says you have no obligation to stop a rape happening right before you so why would Mr Wilson put himself in harms way for you? What puts you that far up his monkey list? Just curious.

After the crime investigation will be by rentacop. We don't know how competent they are, who licenses them (nobody I assume) or how diligent they are. We don't know how you go on if you cant afford to pay them or what happens to your case if you are no longer able to pay.

There is as far as I can see no control over them at all. If one shows up at your house to arrest you can you refuse? If not it seems your personal sovereignty can be violated by any company with enough firepower. If they need some kind of official permission to extradite you who gives it? How bound are you by it. If a guy comes into your community and kills someone and then goes home, what power do you have if his own people dont turn him over when you ask? He is in their monkey list, you are not, why should they believe you?

I could continue.

In essence, crime pays under this system even with increased risk because once you are clear of the area there is little chance you can be apprehended.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:12 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Fletch

Rather than try to respond point by point to your post, I'll try to hit what I understand as some general principles of Libertarianism/Anarchism which may answer your questions.

Anarchism does not preclude people from forming either volunteer or commercial self-defense or law enforcement organizations. There is no reason that they could not be as trained as the current police. There is no reason that these organizations should not be nationwide. The guiding principle would be that initiation of force against an individual is wrong, and that the individual, and anyone who wants to help, either from the goodness of their heart or because they're contracted to do so, can respond forcefully to that inital use of force. Not sure why you consider that this would be less efficient than cops who are on the public payroll and have no reason to work too hard on a case unless it's high-profile and risks the displeasure of their political bosses.

People who believe in the Anarchist philosophy would not band together to use their power as a group to initiate force against anyone. It would be totally antithetical to their way of life. Thus the concern about militias taking over is unfounded.

Yes, there will always be criminals. The fact that there may be criminals in a Anarchist society does not invalidate the goals or ideals of the society. Criminals who got away from the immediate crime scene would be pursued by the voluntary or paid law enforcement organizations. They have initiated force against a person and are liable for restitution. This assumes that the criminals survive the initial encounter. I don't hold the average intelligence of criminals in as high a regard as you apparently do.

The return to a hard currency doesn't mean everyone keeps their gold/diamonds/uranium/? under the mattress. No reason there shouldn't be private banks, or you might have your extra cash invested in the neighborhood brothel or smoke shop.

People who understand that they are primarily responsible for themselves and their security will be more likely to take better precautions than the folks who let anybody in a power company cap and jacket in their front door. And no, this doesn't mean shooting anyone who shows up in a power company outfit. Good locks, a peephole, Checking ID, calling the power company to verify their ID, any number of simple things are very effective.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 4:55 PM