The Libertarian and Anarchist Society- Part II by SignyM

People can change Rue.

Didja know, during my youth I actually thought that removing human emotion from the equation would benefit our society ?

I learned the foolishness of that long, long before seeing the movie Equilibrium, but damn it sure drove the point home that it wasn't our humanity that was the flaw, it was our society!

And in my initial forays into Anarchism, my goal was initially to smash flat the established order, without regard to what came after, cause it couldn't possibly get worse, right ?

"Never challenge Worse, Worse always wins."
-Bill Cosby

But I also saw the flaw of that before long too, and one look at Iraq drives home the stupidity of not having an after-action plan either.

People CAN learn, people CAN change... only the damndest of idealistic morons "stay the course" right off a cliff, and when that cliff looms closer and closer, even the most stubborn of folk DO tend to start lookin at options other than speeding up.

So if even a few folks are reconsidering their trust in Government as the answer to all ills, more power to em, and I don't see the harm of it.

Hell, even *I* nearly voted for Shrub cause I just couldn't stomach Clinton anymore, and considered Shrub* so abysmally stupid and pathetic he'd be too overwhelmed by the job to do any real damage - hadn't counted on Cheney, PNAC and the NeoCons tho... in the end, I just couldn't stifle the gag reflex long enough to vote for either one.

So if folks wanna get off that bus straight to hell, I will gladly bite my tongue, force a smile, and hold the door for em.

-Frem
*I forget as it was a long while ago, but there was a political cartoon during Reagans administration that cracked me up, busting on Shrubs chops...
"A Bush so pathetic and small, you're seldom sure he's there at all..."
I didn't know about the pile of skeletons in his closet at the time, neither.

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

On reflection, I don't think anarchism will work. It's too primitive. You can't model a complex structure (like a society) from the behavior of its individual parts (people). Fully mentally healthy, well-meaning people can STILL create pathological entities (corporations) that have lifespans and drives beyond human. And that doesn't account for the clever sociopath (and yes- people ARE born that way) who will game the system, or the occasional disaster that throws a giant monkey-wrench into everything.

It's like a programmable chip my SO was creating (ATMEL ATV 2500B PLD). 2,500 gates, 100,000 connections. The individual gates are as equal as manufacturing can make them, but you can program these suckers to do anything. Now in my SO's creation 98% of the connections were utilized, so it was a very complex circuit indeed. But one of the things that was specifically built in were procedures to "walk out of" states that in theory shouldn't even exist. That prevents the chip from going off into some neverland and getting "stuck". (And the rest of the connectiosn were blown.) One has to create dynamic procedures to handle situations when things go wrong. I can see anarchism going off the rails and not recovering.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:12 AM

My view can be summed up like this--- your personal freedom to swing your arms ends at the end of my nose. Now depending on who's talking the libertarian/anarchist answer to this seems to be.

1) Psychologically healthy enlightened people don't swing their arms.
2) People would have to pay restitution for busting your nose.
3) Suck it up! Concern about your nose should never curtail my rights to swing my arms.
4) If you had a gun you could shoot the guy that's attempting to bust your nose.

None of which really helps me if I don't want my nose busted.

Some of these answers make a little more sense than the others, however many seem to be mutually exclusive. So if I sign up for the "psychologically healthy" society, how do I know that I won't in fact end up with a bloody nose, since according to other people that could be an alternative?

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:23 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BTW- I DO agree with the concept that people should not be inured to "authority". But I see that as the first step to a different society, not towards anarchism.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:48 AM

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

"I DO agree with the concept that people should not be inured to "authority" ..."

I've been thinking about that specifically when it comes to schooling. For a few years I kept an eye on Montessori schooling as a potential alternative to regular 'school' - but I don't any more, for reasons I'll explain below.

For those not familiar, Montessori claims to be a more natural method of learning: "Montessori is not a system for training children in academic studies; nor is it a label to be put on educational materials. It is a revolutionary method of observing and supporting the natural development of children. Montessori educational practice helps children develop creativity, problem solving, critical thinking and time-management skills, to contribute to society and the environment, and to become fulfilled persons in their particular time and place on Earth."

However studies (which have to do with evidence-based ideas) show that Montessori doesn't seem to promote anything except the bottom line of the business.

And when you think about it, primitive societies which one might think are more in tune with our evolved propensities - are teaching, teaching, teaching all the time with consequences graver than failed exams. The lessons are not just how to 'do things', they are about how to be an accepted member of the group. This is in government-free society where not knowing how to hunt or which foods to gather mean starvation, and not being an accepted member means exclusion or expulsion, and death.

Which is not to say I've given up on a better way of doing things - I just haven't found it yet. And I'm not willing to follow anyone who says - don't question, don't look for answers - just trust ...

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:04 AM

I think, that as long as folk believe some, or any, or even all, people are "born evil" then there really isn't anything left to talk about.

In a lifetime, every scrap of verifiable evidence I have ever found points in the opposite direction, the *potential* may be there, but they do NOT come down the chute fully intent on wrecking havoc like pint size godzillas, and this is coming from someone with seriously diminished emotional capacity themselves, mind you.

It's the same as "Human nature is so evil we might as well not waste the effort" argument, it's one I do not accept, especially as it is used as an excuse to not act to better the conditions in which we find ourselves.

If human nature really is that horrible, and if some percentage of us are born monsters then we're doomed and just wasting time.

I find that hard to believe.

-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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If not anarchism, then what?

I think we all see the depressingly familiar cycle of human history: A group gains a little power, and parlays it into a more and more power until it becomes too tall to support its own weight and collapses into chaos. (Think the Mayans or the Frech Revolution.) The mechanism that causes power to concentrate seems pretty damn strong, and it doesn't seem to matter if the power is based on religion, weapons, money or something else: once you bang one form of power down another form pops up, like whack-a-mole.

We need specific procedures to be able to move out of that "state" ... or preferably procedures that keeps us from getting INTO that "state" of highly concentrated power.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:20 AM

Quote:

If human nature really is that horrible, and if some percentage of us are born monsters then we're doomed and just wasting time.

The point is that you act to mitigate that risk and you do it as a society not as one-man-and-his-gun. We build societies to do things collectively that we can't do alone, I happen to think that limiting the psychos is one of them.

I don't think everyone is a bad person, I don't even think that most people are. Most people play by the rules, live their lives and get on with important stuff like raising a family. They are not out there somewhere robbing and cheating their neighbours.

But some are, and I'm sorry but even if I accept the theory that this is bad parenting how can you change that in the world of the "sovereign individual?"

I asked before and cited the "bad" family from our village who have been pulling the same crap for at least 3 generations. If you are right and it's all developmental, how do you stop it from going to generation four without trampling on their individual rights?

I haven't heard an answer and until I do I still prefer the John Lennon version 'cos the tune is better.

I know that doesn't sit well with you but it's my view and it's as valid as yours.

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I think, that as long as folk believe some, or any, or even all, people are "born evil" then there really isn't anything left to talk about.

Having seen a lot of brain-damaged kids, I can tell you that some kids are "born evil". It's not their fault, it's not even in their genes, but something's gone awry with their basic hardware, like autism, or extreme hyperactivity, or bipolar disorder. And what do you do about schizophrenia? Are you going to say that's all due to bad parenting?

There is nothing, as far as I can tell, in the anarchist schema that deals with that.

ETA: Oh yeah- And what Fletch2 said. How do you "ensure" that everyone is a good parent?

Quote:
If human nature really is that horrible, and if some percentage of us are born monsters then we're doomed and just wasting time.

That's a pretty black-and-white assessment, don't you think?

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:40 AM

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

"I think, that as long as folk believe some, or any, or even all, people are "born evil" then there really isn't anything left to talk about."

People used to think schizophrenia was caused by bad mothers - now most realize that there's an inborn tendency for it and some unknown (but potentially viral) trigger. People used to think autism was caused by 'refrigerator mothers' - now most know that that isn't the case. Tourette's syndrome seems to be caused (in some people) by an innocent strep infection.

Many are made pathological by the people and society around them. But some really are just born that way. It's not fair and (so far) we don't know what to do about it - but there it is. It's the essence of what the Greeks called tragedy. Undeserved suffering for no rational reason.

So, for the people-caused problems we should do everything we can. But for the rest - I don't know - if we can't blame people maybe we can blame a deity. Or maybe just mourn the suffering, help as best we can, and protect ourselves when all else fails.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:37 PM

CANTTAKESKY

First of all Frem, I like your friend's comment. Bull's eye, I say.

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I think, that as long as folk believe some, or any, or even all, people are "born evil" then there really isn't anything left to talk about.

I think some people are born "evil," but I prefer to use the word, "sick." Whatever is wrong with the way they are born, I believe it can be corrected or healed or cured. We may not always know what that cure is, but important principle is hope of change. "Evil" doesn't allow for much hope.

My daughter twirled around and around as a fetus in my womb. Nonstop, practically. She was born, and continued to twirl nonstop, practically. At her worst, she was like a tornado in a trailer park. I believe there is such a thing as biological determination of behavior (not choice, but behavior). As you all know, I've been experimenting with homeopathy. She's been taking a remedy that has amazingly resulted in remarkable improvement. She hardly ever twirls when she takes it. I believe no matter how one is born, there is hope for change.

So, in short, I do think there are some seriously sick folk ("monsters" if you will) who were born that way--but I don't think that makes us doomed.

--------------------------
It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world and moral courage so rare.
--Mark Twain

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:46 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Some of these answers make a little more sense than the others, however many seem to be mutually exclusive. So if I sign up for the "psychologically healthy" society, how do I know that I won't in fact end up with a bloody nose, since according to other people that could be an alternative?

Hey, it's an alternative now. What do you do now if someone who doesn't like your looks comes up and swings at your nose? Dodge? Try and block the punch? Run away? Call a cop? You could do the same things in an anarchist society, except the cop would be private, not public.

But, you say, nobody swings at my nose now. Why should they be any more likely in an Anarchist society where the first rule is to not initiate force?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:56 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If not anarchism, then what?

That question can only be answered by people who accept the opening premise, "if not anarchism."

Quote:
(Think the Mayans or the Frech Revolution.)

Or think the British Empire, the American Empire.

Quote:
We need specific procedures to be able to move out of that "state" ... or preferably procedures that keeps us from getting INTO that "state" of highly concentrated power.

Whenever you have procedures, you have procedural loopholes. You can slow down the inevitable collapse, but you can't really prevent it.

The only way we can ever get out of the cycle is to "see the light" so to speak. That is, self-awareness and clarity of vision (or as HK might say, good mental health) is the only real solution.

And what is this light that we must see?

The cycle of power is simply a cycle of addiction. Power is addictive. People think they can dabble in power recreationally or "for good"--but they can never stop there. It is the proverbial Lord of the Rings dilemma.

The only real solution is to avoid the Ring (eschew power). Don't get addicted to begin with, and you won't repeat the cycle.

Of course, anarchism proposes exactly that. But most people can't comprehend society without someone wearing the Ring to keep everyone in check. The only solution they can see is to propose that some mechanism is instituted to check the person who is checking everyone else. As long as this is the only acceptable solution, the cycle will continue to repeat itself.

--------------------------
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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:57 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Some of these answers make a little more sense than the others, however many seem to be mutually exclusive. So if I sign up for the "psychologically healthy" society, how do I know that I won't in fact end up with a bloody nose, since according to other people that could be an alternative?

Hey, it's an alternative now. What do you do now if someone who doesn't like your looks comes up and swings at your nose? Dodge? Try and block the punch? Run away? Call a cop? You could do the same things in an anarchist society, except the cop would be private, not public.

But, you say, nobody swings at my nose now. Why should they be any more likely in an Anarchist society where the first rule is to not initiate force?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

The point is that it's clearly understood that it's illegal and that someone that does that will be punished for it. YOU talk rentacop all the time, Frem never seems to mention it, it seems he thinks I will sort it out myself or the "militia" will deal with it.

I like the rule of law. I like the idea that societies make them, enforce them and that the mechanisms that enforce them are ultimately answerable to that society.

What I'm being offered to replace that seems to be either frontier justice or a for profit agency only answerable to shareholders. You will forgive me if I find neither system satisfactory.

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Of course, anarchism proposes exactly that. But most people can't comprehend society without someone wearing the Ring to keep everyone in check. The only solution they can see is to propose that some mechanism is instituted to check the person who is checking everyone else. As long as this is the only acceptable solution, the cycle will continue to repeat itself.

CTS you are NOT an anarchist. Nothing you have espoused for your "Right-anarchism" looks anything like what Frem and HKC are talking about except that there would be no government.

You keep everything the same, you just remove the government. Which means the "evil power" currently in the hands of none government actors is allowed to continue and grow. I can see why you like this, it means you don't have to pay taxes but at least there is still electricity. I don't think Frems world is nearly that organized, not if trades of ammunition for fuel oil are considered big deals.

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:17 PM

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

"The only real solution is to avoid the Ring (eschew power). Don't get addicted to begin with, and you won't repeat the cycle."

But power comes in many forms - as has been pointed out elsewhere, and at length. If you make the deciding factor guns - then the quick, dirty and organized will accumulate power. If it's money then the wealthy will. If it's based on social hierarchy then nobility will ... and so on. And once they get enough power they will change the ideology to justify it. The capitalists did that with social "Darwinism'. Simply getting rid of government doesn't get rid of either power or the will and ability to accumulate it and misuse it. What I DO see is people willing to change one power structure for another - business for government, street violence for government, mob rule for government. Which looks a lot more like 'libertarianism' than anarchy.

And nothing that I've seen proposed precludes any of this. So I'm still waiting for something other than - trust me, it'll all work out. (A phrase comes to mind - something like pie in the sky, by and by.)

BTW, even primitive people in small groups who might be considered prototype anarchists spend a LOT of time teaching their children how to be a human in the group. UK Le Guin also proposed a widely repeated philosophy of living. Anarchy, it seems, comes with the price of indoctrination.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:41 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The point is that it's clearly understood that it's illegal and that someone that does that will be punished for it. YOU talk rentacop all the time, Frem never seems to mention it, it seems he thinks I will sort it out myself or the "militia" will deal with it.

I like the rule of law. I like the idea that societies make them, enforce them and that the mechanisms that enforce them are ultimately answerable to that society.

Lack of government doesn't equate to lack of law. As has been noted many times, pretty much the first law for libertarians/anarchists is "do not initiate force against an individual". If you do so you are liable to make restitution. In a society where the vast majority of people accept this, one would assume that anyone witnessing your assailant pop you on the nose would be willing to detain him so he could be required to pay that restitution. In that case, society is enforcing the law directly, not through a proxy. It could also be that the business you were in when assualted would have on-site security to handle the issue.

As to 'rent-a-cop', that's what you got now, only you have no choice as to the amount of rent you pay, or recourse if they aren't doing the job to your satisfaction.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:01 PM

Not good enough. I might accept a better system I doubt i or anyone else will accept a worse one. Thanks for playing.

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:25 PM

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

"In a society where the vast majority of people accept this, one would assume that anyone witnessing your assailant pop you on the nose would be willing to detain him so he could be required to pay that restitution."

And then you're at the mercy of the bystanders' interest and abilities. And none of this is addresses the problem of a non-human actor - like illness, act of god, or accident. And in no case would I want to trust my life to non-professionals.

BTW - going far back to the earlier example of an accident - suppose there's no 911 (911 is supported by taxes). Who calls the ambulance ?
Wait a minute - let's back up. Doesn't someone have to rifle through your wallet to figure out if you're insured ? Then call the company to figure out whether you have ambulance coverage ? Then when the ambulance shows up don't they have to figure out how much they can do for you (sorry dude, you're only covered for life-threatening emergencies - a broken leg just isn't enough) and which hospital to take you to. And then they have to figure out what you're covered for in the ER. Gosh, no wonder private insurance is so inefficient and wastes so much money on paperwork and over head. Even in real life.
And that's assuming you have ID on you at them time. Now that brings to mind people-chipping services, like one does with pets. Except that all your medical coverage and history will be there, just waiting for anyone with a scanner. Now that sure makes me wonder why anyone with such a fear of government intrusion would be only too happy to hand over their private life to a business.

Man what a dytopia this is looking like.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:40 PM

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

This is a real life example from when I was decades younger.

I was working as a 'roadie' setting up equipment for a freebie outdoor concert. After the performance was well underway and there were maybe 250-300 people gathered the company owner nudged me and said - what's wrong with that man ? Far off to the left was a carefully dressed, well-groomed elderly man who was listing rigidly at a 45 degree angle to the right. I ran off to the nearest building and their security - fortunately someone had already asked them to call 911.
But out of all the people there I was the only one to go to the man - and the only thing I knew how to do was prop him up so that he wouldn't end up lying on the cold stone.
EMS got there shortly afterwards and took him to the nearest hospital, where it was discovered he had no ID on him and that he couldn't tell them who he was b/c of a massive stroke. And though it was a private hospital he was cared for out of county funds (as a John Doe) b/c it was considered too risky to move him.

How would this have played out in Geezer-land ? No one who happened to be around was capable of helping out, and very few were at all interested. No 911, no EMS. He probably would have quietly died there without too much fuss. Or maybe it would have gone further, but with no ID - probably no care for such an expensive, medically intensive un-reimbursed case.

It would have sucked to be John Doe in Geezer-world.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:30 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not good enough. I might accept a better system I doubt i or anyone else will accept a worse one. Thanks for playing.

So you think that the current system really reflects "Equal Justice Under the Law"? Very few property crimes are ever closed, and the closure rates for assaults, rapes, murders and other violent crimes aren't all that great. Rich folk can buy enough lawyers to stay out of jail no matter what crimes they commit. Poor folk are killed and no one ever goes to trial. If the current system is the best you got, and you're willing to settle for it, you're already accepting a bad system.

It's kind'a sad that you can't accept even the possibility that the mass of individual people can act in a rational and law-abiding manner, and correct those who choose not to, without an overseer standing there to whip everyone back in line if they break the rules. Are you afraid of your own "monsters from the Id"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:37 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And then you're at the mercy of the bystanders' interest and abilities. And none of this is addresses the problem of a non-human actor - like illness, act of god, or accident. And in no case would I want to trust my life to non-professionals.

Lots of places in the current world there are both private ambulance services and private hospitals. Most will send you a bill for services rendered after the fact, although most hospitals, in non-life threatening cases, will want proof of insurance. Why would you think that an anarchist society would not have the same?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:39 PM

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

I was looking for where CTS said something about of the of the few government functions she would keep - police would be one. So maybe you should take that up with her. *

But I ran across this and thought I'd respond:

"The fact is we don't know if feeble people die in significantly greater numbers where there is no social net than where there is. I guessed no, and you guessed yes. But in the end, they are just guesses."

The fact is that when Ronald Reagan turned a lot of mentally incapacitated and disabled people out of public hospitals they ended up either in the streets or in for-profit group homes. And the people who were lucky enough to end up in group homes have higher death rates than those in public hospitals, largely b/c the caretakers are minimum wage temporaries who have neither the training to recognize a neurological emergency nor the tools to deal with one. No one is counting the people in the streets.

It's a human experiment that's already been run.

* Ah, I knew it was there, in response to Geezer's completely insincere post "It's kind'a sad that you can't accept even the possibility that the mass of individual people can act in a rational and law-abiding manner, and correct those who choose not to, without an overseer standing there to whip everyone back in line if they break the rules. Are you afraid of your own "monsters from the Id"?"
here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=32253
"Anarcho-libertarians" are folks who dream of anarchy, but are willing to compromise and settle for minimal government. That means law enforcement, military and courts. Personally, I'd throw in public roads as well.
and here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=32253
1. The government's function would be limited to these: political structure, public roads, taxation, courts, police, and military.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:44 PM

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

Geezer

And what about 911 ? What about the fact that the EMS services are screened by government to meet minimum standards ? What about the people who can't pay their medical bills even in government-world - something that would be many times worse in Geezer-world without public health-care and assistance ?

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:44 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
How would this have played out in Geezer-land ? No one who happened to be around was capable of helping out, and very few were at all interested. No 911, no EMS. He probably would have quietly died there without too much fuss. Or maybe it would have gone further, but with no ID - probably no care for such an expensive, medically intensive un-reimbursed case.

Why no 911? Voluntary or private, there still is a need for emergency response and there will be someone to fill it. Any venue with a bit of sense would have some sort of coverage, and I kinda doubt that any hospital, public or private, would want the bad press of letting someone die from lack of care.

You sure have a grim view of human nature.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:52 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And what about 911? What about the fact that the EMS services are screened by government to meet minimum standards?

Do a study on 911 response in D.C. Check what they did for David E. Rosenbaum, who died of a beating while the EMTs thought he was just drunk. I'd suspect that paid private EMTs, who know they would be liable for such a mistake, would be more careful.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:58 PM

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

"Why no 911 ?"
B/c somebody has to pay the bills to equip it, to pay the electricity and phone bills and rent, to staff it, make sure people are well trained, to oversee it and make sure it works well; and to review various approaches to constantly improve it.
In Geezer-world if you aren't paid up as an individual then you can't access the services. OTOH if you pay as a community member - to have it available to all without complicated screening - then it sounds a lot like taxes. So if you're going to have the taxes you might as well pay someone to make sure you're getting your money's worth. And there you have - government.

"I kinda doubt that any hospital, public or private, would want the bad press of letting someone die from lack of care."
Lots of people do - every day. But let's say everyone knows :wink wink: 'they' just 'can't' let you die in the street. Then what leverage does the company have to make people get insurance ? Why not just put a big banner up - FREE CARE FOR ALL ?

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:03 PM

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

Geezer

I'm not going down your idiot rabbit trail of one example out of millions of people for whom 911 is a life-saving government service, and others for whom an ambulance ride is the difference between life and death.

Way to go btw - you're back in your usual form.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:25 PM

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

Ah, I knew CTS's preference for police was there.

So, in response to Geezer's completely insincere post (and also straw-man argument) "It's kind'a sad that you can't accept even the possibility that the mass of individual people can act in a rational and law-abiding manner, and correct those who choose not to, without an overseer standing there to whip everyone back in line if they break the rules. Are you afraid of your own "monsters from the Id"?" I direct him to CTSland:

here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=32253
"Anarcho-libertarians" are folks who dream of anarchy, but are willing to compromise and settle for minimal government. That means law enforcement, military and courts. Personally, I'd throw in public roads as well.
and here
http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=32253
1. The government's function would be limited to these: political structure, public roads, taxation, courts, police, and military.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Any venue with a bit of sense would have some sort of coverage

Why? If a "venue" or business is not the CAUSE of a patron's problems they can't be held liable. So they may have insurance against accidents, for example, but not unrelated health crises. After all, it would affect their bottom line, and that driver would still be in effect.

You're making all kinds of assumptions: that government is unresponsive and can never be improved, that business is always responsive and will never look to its bottom line. (Ever try dealing with health insurance companies lately?)

I'm not finding your proposals terribly persuasive.

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

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:33 PM

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

So, here we still have - no public 911, no public EMS, no healthcare for the poor/un-/under-insured. No care for the commons either. But we DO have police and military. And a promise that if we just all had guns it would all work out.

Sounds like my kind of place.

***************************************************************
BTW I am open to any reasonable argument otherwise. I just haven't seen one yet, b/c most arguments are based on unproven or outright fallacious assumptions. For example, that fewer people die when there is no government safety net. Or that hospitals (or insurance companies) don't just let people die.

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not good enough. I might accept a better system I doubt i or anyone else will accept a worse one. Thanks for playing.

So you think that the current system really reflects "Equal Justice Under the Law"? Very few property crimes are ever closed, and the closure rates for assaults, rapes, murders and other violent crimes aren't all that great. Rich folk can buy enough lawyers to stay out of jail no matter what crimes they commit. Poor folk are killed and no one ever goes to trial. If the current system is the best you got, and you're willing to settle for it, you're already accepting a bad system.

And the thing you should worry about is that the system you propose is worse.

To my mind it comes down to this, accountability. If someone mugs me right now the police are responsible for finding the culprit and are accountable if they fail. Now we can argue as to how effective that may be but if I'm being beaten and a police cruiser slides by and does nothing you can bet your life the chief of police/mayor whatever will hear about it. If the world is even half working the guy's in the cruiser and the guy that hired them will be looking for new employment because they were hired to serve and protect and they didn't.

In your system if Joe citizen decides not to get involved, well that's just his right as a sovereign ahole. We have had cases where groups of people have done nothing during assaults and rapes. You are asking for us to go from a system where someone has a job to serve and protect and is accountable if they fail to a system where someone might intervene if they are not too scared or too disinterested. If they don't no foul, guess it sucks to be the victim.

Then once the crime is committed the victim has to pay to have it investigated which means like I said that the poor will make tempting targets. Hit someone that can't afford to send someone after you and you're shiny. I asked on multiple occasions for details of jurisdiction about what powers rentacop has and how you control that power and that's been largely ignored. like I said not good enough.

Quote:

It's kind'a sad that you can't accept even the possibility that the mass of individual people can act in a rational and law-abiding manner, and correct those who choose not to, without an overseer standing there to whip everyone back in line if they break the rules. Are you afraid of your own "monsters from the Id"?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Here's my problem. If we look at the Frem/HKC view of the anarchist uberhuman we see a level of competency, restraint and good judgement not seen since the earliest days of Star Trek: the Next Generation. We are talking incredibly responsible civic minded, charitable...yada yada I mean these people are Riker boring.

THEN I look at the people we have now. i look at the groups that do nothing while a rape goes down, I see folks that don't even stop to help a breakdown. I see the world's most ME society. So you are going to turn to these people, these modern Americans, the self obsessed, self absorbed people and tell them "congratulations you are a sovereign individual you never have to do anything for anyone ever again if you don't want to... just do no harm."

Then like the farside cartoon there is a big sign that says "and then a miracle happens."

You see the disconnect? Frem comes in here every week and grumbles about the sheeple, how they are more obsessed with Brittany and Lindsay than the things HE thinks they should be worried about. These people whose parenting skills are so bad that they literally make every monster, psycho and sociopath themselves out of whole cloth. Every week he's in here telling us how bad and stupid this group or that group is and THEN suddenly it's ok? These people get their act together and become enlightened uber humans? Am I the only one that sees a disconnect here?

You are asking me to put my life in the hands of people Frem doesn't even believe can properly look after their own children. i have to hope that when I need someone that the person will be competent? I am exchanging a trained professional for the possible amateur help of a group of people with so little self control that 65% of of them are fat or clinically obese?

Are you being serious?

A few years ago, 2003 or 4 I was doing night work on a site out Georgia. It was in the middle of the boondocks I was more or less on my own and I had cable. That's my only excuse for having watched the Libertarian convention on CSPAN.

Now the interesting thing about watching this as an outsider is that I'm somewhat insulated form the political back story and ideology, so I'm just looking at what people say, how they present themselves and how they behave.

Now here's the interesting thing, I'd seen people exactly like these before. We have folks like them in England too except over there they haven't bought into the American cult of ME quite so hard.

There's no kind way to put this but these people are nobodies. Now most people ARE nobodies, 95% of human types are not captains of industry or mega stars or multi-multi-millionares. The thing is most people don't actually think about it. It's not that important to them because they are getting on with lifestuff. Yes they sometimes wonder what it might be like to be a movie star or a CEO or the President but they don't see the fact that they aren't as a personal injustice.

But the group of people I'm thinking of aren't your run of the mill folk. These people are smart, generally have a good work ethic, are reasonably responsible, one could even argue sane but none of that ever does them any good because they have no interpersonal skills worth mentioning. So instead of being on the cover of Forbes or in Fortune they tend to run their own small businesses, or work in the middle ranks of big companies and they get nowhere.

And unlike the rest of us who never end up on magazine covers either it vexes them something wicked because they know they are smart and they know they're not lazy. Now in the UK they just grumble a lot, because the UK has never pitched it's populous a myth quite as huge as "the American Dream" -- you know the idea that if you are smart and work hard you are gonna make it big? Well the guys we are talking about did that, they fulfilled their part of the contract, they were smart and worked their asses off and got noplace.

Well they know they did nothing wrong so the fault must be with America. Somebody stole the dream from them somehow, probably congress or the judges or the unions or the...... Their world is broken and so they need to fix it and so they envisage a world where people like them would flourish, a place where hard work is recognized, where hangers on don't feed off of their hard earned tax dollar, where all the incompetent politicos that made the world a mess to start with are ousted and the place run by smart, hardworking, sane people with poor interpersonal skills.... folks like them.

And that was exactly what I saw on CSPAN. Here was a group of guys tabling motions and amendments? It looked no different from what the Reps and Dems do at their conventions. Except there it makes a certain sense because these parties are hard core "machine' driven. You would imagine a party so high on personal freedom would have less formality, maybe a few less people in ties, maybe fewer grand speeches? However the sad truth is that they want to be taken seriously so badly they ape the very institutions they insist are doing a bad job.

It's just profoundly sad.

Now any changes made to a society has winners and losers. Give the vote to women and the women win a say in government the losers are those political types unable to deal with issues women feel are important. Juggle the tax code a little and someone pays more and someone pays less. There is and never will be a change to a system where everyone wins. If someone tells you otherwise they are selling you a line.

So when I hear all these great plans I look for winners and losers, because in general when you work out the effects you get a good idea who's hot for the idea. Needless to say the winners are hard working nobodies, at least in theory because they are essentially describing a free market meritocracy --- if it work to plan.

The losers are just about everyone else because the values our smart under achievers value --- the characteristics most like them -- are not ones shared by a large majority of the rest of the population. Most people generally just want things to work, it's why people pay more for Apple products. Time spent organizing and fixing unnecessary stuff is wasted time for most people, it only becomes a virtue when you like doing it for it's own worth. Most people want a society stable enough that clock cycles that are not being dedicated to adapting to change are used instead for work and family. So the challenging world the underachievers envisage is one most people don't actually want to play in.

That's fine though because the real point of making any new political or social order is that it favours you and people that think like you. So the underachievers should have utopia now right?

Of course it won't actually work that way. Because the people with better interpersonal skills can still end up gaming the system. They may not be called politicians any more but they will still find followers. And anyone that can concentrate enough power will grow to be the big man in the area.

Pity really.

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:01 AM

AGENTROUKA

After considering this for a couple of days, I've come to the conclusion that I can definitely see this system working. I keep picturing Mongolia and the family-based peaceful system that some people practice there.

I do think it's utterly possible for people to live without overt aggression and with an impulse of helpfulness and such. Raised without pressure, freedom, equality, etc.

My main point of scepticism has become that this sort of depends on space. Lots of space for people. I think an external factor in terms of aggression is the density of living these days. Crowds are an unnatural thing and make us nervous and aggressive, we cannot know everyone and care for everyone in a crowd.

I keep seeing our current city-based society as the main obbstacles to an anarchist society.

Thoughts, anyone of the experts? Is there something I'm not seeing?

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:01 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Why no 911 ?"
B/c somebody has to pay the bills to equip it, to pay the electricity and phone bills and rent, to staff it, make sure people are well trained, to oversee it and make sure it works well; and to review various approaches to constantly improve it.

And only government can do this? Private companies do the same thing all the time. Private hospitals, private ambulance services, private helicopter transport services. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that such businesses already exist?

Quote:
But let's say everyone knows :wink wink: 'they' just 'can't' let you die in the street. Then what leverage does the company have to make people get insurance ? Why not just put a big banner up - FREE CARE FOR ALL ?

Pretty much the same as now. You can get treatment at a public hospital without pre-paying but are expected to pay the bill if able. Doesn't stop people from getting health insurance now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And only government can do this? Private companies do the same thing all the time. Private hospitals, private ambulance services, private helicopter transport services. Why do you continue to ignore the fact that such businesses already exist?

And the first thing they do is check your insurance status when you come thru the door, as Rue -who has worked in both private and county hospital, was a certified EMT- has repatedly pointed out, which you have repeatedly ignored. 911 is open to everyone regardless of insurance status, as are county hospitals. If such a private system could exist (open to everyone w/o regard to insurance status) why are 911 and county hospitals so booked up? Why hasn't it happened already?

Quote:
You can get treatment at a public hospital without pre-paying

Paid for by.... gasp!- TAXES! Run by - guess what- GOVERNMENT! So, oh yeah.... your private system works, but ONLY if it's bailed out by the government.

Quote:
It's kind'a sad that you can't accept even the possibility that the mass of individual people can act in a rational and law-abiding manner, and correct those who choose not to, without an overseer standing there to whip everyone back in line if they break the rules. Are you afraid of your own "monsters from the Id"?

Geezer that's just a stupid straw man. But it's nice to know you haven't changed.

First of all, I notice that you refer the "law abiding". So, in this world of yours, are there laws?

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

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 4:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Why? If a "venue" or business is not the CAUSE of a patron's problems they can't be held liable. So they may have insurance against accidents, for example, but not unrelated health crises. After all, it would affect their bottom line, and that driver would still be in effect.

Well, as an example, when I was racing the track had ambulances and EMTs on hand in case there was a wreck. When a spectator had a heart attack an ambulance crew stabilized him and transported him to the hospital. Do you really think they would have left him in the dirt because it wasn't in their contract?

Quote:
You're making all kinds of assumptions: that government is unresponsive and can never be improved, that business is always responsive and will never look to its bottom line. (Ever try dealing with health insurance companies lately?)

I'm not finding your proposals terribly persuasive.

Yep. I'm making assumptions. I'm also looking for answers to some of your questions, and some of my own. I'm certainly not planning to plop an anarchist or libertarian society down on the US next week, or even at all - just trying to understand the concept. Fremd thinks getting the idea across will take decades at best (and from the reactions here, I think he may be optimistic). I suspect that people are ready for the concept right now about as much as the majority of folks in the Middle Ages were for representative democracy. Maybe folks will never be ready. Maybe it's not the answer. Time will tell.

I have found it interesting that the Libertarian/Anarchist side of this thread seems to have a much more positive opinion of human nature and of people's ability to get along - and help when needed - without some entity standing over them to keep them in line. The 'statists' on the other hand seem to think that kindness, consideration and cooperation don't exist unless handed out by the government - that 'society' and 'government' can't exist without each other.

I kinda wish that folks here had tried harder to reach a synthesis. AgentT(I think) proposed a lighter government earlier in these threads, and Fremd stated he could live with it. That would have been a good point to start if we hadn't gotten into the post-apocalyptic what-ifs. Maybe I'll look that up again.

Once again, I'm not trying to persuade you towards anything. I'm doing this as a mental excercise, and as a means of finding answers to some of my own questions. I'm as surprised as anyone about the amount of heat this topic has generated. At least we haven't reached quite the usual level of insults and namecalling, and have had some interesting ideas amongst the hyperbole.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Edit to add:

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer that's just a stupid straw man. But it's nice to know you haven't changed. First of all, I notice that you refer the "law abiding". So, in this world of yours, are there laws?

Well, I thought we were going to get through without insults and namecalling, but...

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:21 AM

Quote:
My main point of scepticism has become that this sort of depends on space. Lots of space for people. I think an external factor in terms of aggression is the density of living these days. Crowds are an unnatural thing and make us nervous and aggressive, we cannot know everyone and care for everyone in a crowd.

I keep seeing our current city-based society as the main obbstacles to an anarchist society.

Yes, that's an issue, and an actual question instead of attempt to derail, distort and slam, so I will answer it.

This isn't something you could drop wholesale on our current society, ours is way, way too screwed up for that, we're talking about an end point here, or were, initially - which is giving a lotta folk mental issues with the getting there from here part, it seems.

Thing is, when thrown back on their own resources, and over time developing a far greater sense of personal and community responsibility than we have now, folks would be less inclined to pop out kids THEY would have to be responsible for - You want em fed, clothed, educated, you'd better be ready, willing and able to do it... sure, members of your clan/tribe/etc might help, and if things go bad, might even be willing to take over responsibility if they had to, but you cannot depend on that, you don't have a Government sticking a gun to folks heads and forcing their actions.

Moral distortions aside, isn't it perhaps better for folks to have a kid cause they want to, when they feel they are ready and able to handle it, then make that decision based on medical coverage, employer leave policy, and government bailout/tax breaks ?

You are wholly right about piling people who do not know each other, nor actively wish to associate as a point of violence - put too many rats in the same cage and carnage does result, and that same study they heated the cage and wound up with an even more adverse reaction.
The murder rate of Baltimore city, on average, at least *doubles* when the temperature clears 90F.

Not sayin rats and people are all that much alike, but overpopulation within limited space and resources is a primary cause of violence between mammals, sure.

And yes, I do believe our technological advancement would take a sharp hit, and stagnate for quite a while until new methodologies for development and production come about, that's inevitable given how exploitive the current system of such is - but you also wouldn't have Government jackboots protecting monopolies and making it illegal for you to build your own variations of things were you able and inclined to do so.

Educationally, I see basic education as a parental responsibility, which, if neglected could be corrected by the child themself - if little johnny's parents didn't bother to teach him how to read, he can go convince aarons elderly grandfather to do it in exchange for helping take care of the old codgers legwork, since he don't walk so well anymore.

You wanna learn how to do something, fine - find someone who can do it and convince them that you're worth the effort, give them a hand, or even contract as an apprentice if you like.

As for the population problem, sadly, I think that's gonna sort itself in the next 50-80 years, and it won't be any kinda way you or I would like, alas - barring radical improvements and investment in space travel and colonisation, which would, in our current industry/production model require Government to do.. *hiss*

A catch-22 I am less than fond of, but could deal with if they'd actually DO it, which is unlikely cause every pysch study they've done on it has the same result of what would happen the instant a colony out of their effective reach became in any way self-sufficient, it'd be 1776 all over again.

The path there, either way, lies in not producing, or at the very LEAST producing less, mentally screwed up people - the mentalities and emotive patterns demanded for success in our current society are wholly destructive and unsustainable, which is gonna lead to that... erm, population correction... sooner or later, which I would prefer to be later or even not at all, but it's not like my opinion here is in the majority, right ?

Even IF we stopped it right this instant, we'd need a minimum of 2-3 generations to rebalance and more likely 4-5, and that's a damn long time, mind you - I wanna start rolling the boulder down the hill, though, in my lifetime at least.

One useful point is, that folks with a more adult socio-emotive profile CAN survive in this society, it's stressful, unpleasant and being unwilling to "stick it to the other guy" they might be less successful, they CAN survive, that is the point.

In the end, to my mind there's really only 2 ways this can go - and I could be wrong, since we're lookin at hundreds of years and more here.

We keep producing jack sociopath the corpo-climbing backstabber who'll turn on anyone and anything to smash them out of the way as he climbs that ladder to the 'success" carrot our society holds up in front of him like a plow mule, till our resources run low and we fight a series of extremely destructive wars over the remainder which if we are very lucky don't leave our planet an irradiated hulk - causing a total social collapse and possibly restarting the cycle all over again...

Or we grow the fekk up and begin actually embracing our humanity instead of rejecting it, going through that necessary stage of anarchism or semi-anarchism, which might be an end point, or maybe just a beginning, but is far less likely to result in the utter destruction of our species as a whole.

As far as the supposedly irredeemable kids go, by your own rules *I* should be a fully functioning sociopath, having such a diminished emotional capacity, but it's that very drive to cling to the humanity I DO have that has lead me to understand it's crucial importance, so just because a kid has "issues" does not automatically and outright condemn them to that fate, unless abandoned as "hopeless" by folk who believe they're "born bad" and we shouldn't waste the time and effort...

And sometimes... not even then.

-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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Do you really think they would have left him in the dirt because it wasn't in their contract?

HMO Dumps Legless Man in Skid Row YEP!

Quote:
I have found it interesting that the Libertarian/Anarchist side of this thread seems to have a much more positive opinion of human nature and of people's ability to get along - and help when needed - without some entity standing over them to keep them in line. The 'statists' on the other hand seem to think that kindness, consideration and cooperation don't exist unless handed out by the government - that 'society' and 'government' can't exist without each other.

Not at all. That's a complete mis-representation of everything I, Rue, and Fletch2 have said. We have said, over and over.... and over and over... that people are MOSTLY cooperative. So why do you keep ignoring our repeated and repeated and repeated statements in favor of the straw man that you keep re-proposing? I have a question: Why don't YOU act like a rational person?

Quote:
Geezer that's just a stupid straw man. But it's nice to know you haven't changed. First of all, I notice that you refer the "law abiding". So, in this world of yours, are there laws? -Signy

Well, I thought we were going to get through without insults and namecalling, but... -Geezer

Thank you for evading the question.

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

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 6:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
My main point of scepticism has become that this sort of depends on space. Lots of space for people. I think an external factor in terms of aggression is the density of living these days. Crowds are an unnatural thing and make us nervous and aggressive, we cannot know everyone and care for everyone in a crowd.I keep seeing our current city-based society as the main obbstacles to an anarchist society.- Agent

attempt to derail, distort and slam, so I will answer it.- Frem

Frem, I always thought you were passionate, but yanno, when people have legitimate questions... and nobody seems to have any thought-out answer... it's not "slamming", or "derailing". For your consideration, Rue brought up this same issue about... oh... 100 posts ago. You want us to "get with the program"? How about addressing our concerns, as a rational person that you hold up as the ideal? Yes, these questions may be difficult to answer, but so far the most persuasive person has been HKC.

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

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:07 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, I copied your post into Libertarian and Anarchist Society part III as the most complete vision so far. I hope to continue the discussion there along more productive lines.

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

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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:15 AM

Siggy, I got no problem with legit questions, beyond the fact that I might be busy with RL stuff and unable to address them as speedily as some would like - but a lot of questions are couched in terms and assumptions that render answering them as pointless as "So, are you still beating your wife", and other such setups.

I did note Rue's comment about technology taking a hit or not continuing to advance, and HKC already stated that it wouldn't, I thought we were clear on that point initially, and then realised perhaps it should be re-iterated.

Thing is, a lot of what HKC says approaches unity with what I say, only he does one hell of a better job than I do of articulating it... point in example...

He mentions the Genie, and letting it out of the bottle - compare that to my own comments such as "The more a persons humanity is suppressed, the more distorted the form in which it finally expresses itself."

We're saying the same thing - but HE manages to get it across, while when I say the same thing it either doesn't get across, or is instantly dismissed, or no one pays attention to it.

This is also why I am more inclined to give you a direct answer, as well, because you simply ask the question - rather than distorting the whole concept, throwing in assumptions that change it's nature radically, and then framing the question in such a way that no answer is going to make SENSE...

I cannot stress how wide the mental disconnect between the two forms of thought are, it's VERY hard for me to "get" what someone is asking unless they're very direct about it, without assumptions that other aspects of society would remain exactly the same, few of which, if any, would... and that changes the whole nature of the question and answer into something that would not even apply, you see?

And that is driving the folks trying to explain things up a wall, when even trying to get THAT across in either direction is also contaminated by various levels of hostility and snark in both directions - to be honest, I did not expect this discussion to be as productive as it has been, and I am seriously grateful to HKC for his ability to conceptually express a lotta things I been sayin around here for years now.

I already made my point for the folk I don't feel are here TO discuss it, so I need not re-iterate, just, if you want straight answers, ya need straight questions that are not pre-loaded with assumptions, right ?

-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

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 7:17 AM