REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part IV

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Thursday, February 14, 2008 21:54
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 6931
PAGE 1 of 4

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:31 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Anybody want to join me here?

Geezer thinks that "intellectual property" should be gotten rid of. (Glad to have you aboard! Please give to the Free Software Foundation www.fsf.org/ and the Electronic Frontier Foundation www.eff.org/ ).


Personally, I think we should get rid of "the police". (Too bad there's no foundation for THAT one!)

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:39 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


Does this mean like music, and art and photography?

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:40 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


I was also in the middle of saying that capitalism is inconsistent with anarchism, and that you need a structure of procedures (like direct-vote democracy) and laws (like only recognizing a cooperative-type business model) to preserve individual freedoms. Which I recognize is a contradiction, just like anarchism.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:45 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Does this mean like music, and art and photography?
And software, books, scientific discoveries, the human genome (which was placed firmly into the public domain when a consortium of universities outraced Venter, who was going to lock all of the info in his company). And if a company wants to keep a "trade secret" but you can reverse engineer it or reformulate it... it's yours.


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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 10:53 AM

RUE

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


"If a system needs everyone to always behave well, it just ain't gonna fly."

SignyM - once again you've put into a very few words what I've been trying to say all along.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:21 AM

RUE

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


Hi HKC

To reply - I hope you don't think I'm individually affluent except on the global scale and as compared to abject poverty. I was not personally born into privilege, was beyond poor as I supported myself and worked my way through school, and it's only been in the last 20 years that I'm scheduled to work just 40 hours/ week (and at my age it's about time). Before that I always had a FT job and at least two per-diem jobs for a normal 7+shifts workweek. So I hope you don't confuse me with someone who really is personally 'privileged'.

As for your social definition of privilege - with technological societies as invariantly exploitative - I'm wondering if you count Sweden and the Swedes as exploitative. I bring it up b/c as a society it seems non-exploitative, very humane, and they get to keep the benefits of modern technology.

I know you disagree with the idea of a born sociopath. But it makes sense on a biological and statistical model. We are all at least a little sociopathic at least some of the time (I want what I want) and our countervailing mechanisms are at least a little attenuated in some circumstances (I don't 'feel' about you when that 'you' is a billion faceless strangers on the other side of the world).

Where these neurological mechanisms exist they are on a statistical distribution - and somewhere along the line you'll get a person with more of one and less of the other.

And personally I have seen too many instances of biologically-driven 'personality'. *

Finally, to say there's NO biological basis for sociopathy implies there's no biological basis for schizophrenia, autism or Tourette's either. And that's simply beyond belief. Which is not to say that some, or even most sociopaths aren't created - the human mind is a modeling mechanism after all. But not all sociopaths can be explained that way. Some are the unfortunate result of bad biology. (BTW, sociopathy, like schizophrenia, seems to confer a survival advantage. Only while schizophrenic traits lead to increased reproductive success of related individuals, 'cheaters' in a society of 'cooperators' lead to increased overall stability of the group.)

I've read some of Alice Miller, and I intend to read more. But I will read it in the light of my medical knowledge and personal experience.

* Some of my experiences which inform me personality is biologically driven:
1) SignyM's child who is the sweetest (and bravest) child possible who at 2.5 yrs old became intentionally, adroitly and delightedly sadistic on phenobarbital (to control seizures). She would be all smiles and heartwarming behavior to deliberately entice you closer - so she could try to poke your eye out. At which she'd giggle. And it was like a switch - off the medication, a sweet child. On the medication she was a different personality. They tried on and off the medication a few times to check and the result was always the same. SignyM later found out that 30% of all children on that AED (anti-epileptic drug) have to be withdrawn to another drug for exactly that medication-driven 'personality' problem.
2) A neighbor's child with bipolar disorder who would be fine for weeks or even months, then episodically have violent and potentially deadly rages. And since I've been a close observer of the family for over 20 years I can categorically state that there was never any abuse or neglect. Mostly the parents were worried, actively sought help from a very early age from counselors, neurologists and the like - and eventually gave up - overwhelmed - as their daughter spiraled into drug dealing, prostitution, theft and other serious problems, and grew old enough to legally be out of their reach.
3) Personal experience as someone with ADHD and a visual processing deficit - it was just something I was born with, which led to a lot of internal and external frustration, as the normal stuff of life - perceiving - was difficult. (One positive outcome - I will never be susceptible to subliminal messages.)
4) Watching my father develop a different personality after hip surgery. You would not believe the difference - in real life he was intelligent, thoughtful, reserved, loving, loyal and dedicated to his family. After his drug-induced personality change he was violent - threw random swings at family members when you were off guard and bit when and where he could, suspicious, foul-mouthed and as personally nasty as he could manage to be. Fortunately I remembered a phrase my grandmother used once to sum up her response to a neighbor - in a very accepting way she said - 'well, she's not in her right mind'. I took that as my mantra - he's not in his right mind.
5) Scientists who have noticed that primates are born with personalities - timid, laid back, confident, calm etc. And pediatricians who've noticed the same about human children (Brazelton).

The vast amount of our mental processes - probably 95% - are out of reach of our consciousness. And I believe our personalities are formed there. We think we're in control - but we're not. We're just riding the wave.


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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:38 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

She would be all smiles and heartwarming behavior to deliberately entice you closer - so she could try to poke your eye out.
BWHAHAHAHAHA!!!!


PERFECT description! Fortunately for me, I wear glasses. So I still have both my eyes.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:16 PM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
LeadB

How do you explain Win/tel dominance in the face of determined anarchists like the FSF and AMD ?


Our capitalistic society and corporate person-hood? Excessive protection of IP, where with various 'tricks of the trade' copyrights seem to extend indefinitely and marginal modifications make for 'new' patents. I despise software patents. I can't tell you how many times I've seen bits of patented code and thought 'gads, they did the obvious thing to do'. I understand brief periods of protection. I have no problems with someone's book being just there's to sell for... 15 years? But at some point, it needs to just be cut off.

Personally, I'm pretty impressed at the progress Linux and FSF have made. I don't know about you folks, but I don't buy micro soft office any more. I almost had my wife cut over to Linux, but she didn't like the way the browser worked (and I didn't have the patience to figure out if it was a configuration issue or what). Linux is close. And as frustrated as I am getting with my wife's new Vista platform, my next home pc is very likely to go pure Linux.

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:38 PM

RUE

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


Hi LeadB

My next will be dual boot, provided by someone much more adept that I.

My question was in the mode of Geezer's scenario - and the answer you provided pretty much supports my point. In full capitalist mode - which Geezer supports, I believe - monopolies/ consortia have a natural positive feedback. And they then influence the society that engenders them. (Didn't you know ? Bill Gates is a god b/c he figured out a way to get all that money !)

It takes a determined effort by a lot of people who are working for something other than profit to counter the inherent effects of capitalism. That was the point I was trying to make.

I understand Linux is doing much better in Europe and South America where the pernicious grip of 'capitalism first, last, and in between' isn't so pronounced.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 3:53 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, can we get rid of the police-with-guns? I think we can. I know a few police, and I only know of one who collared a criminal more-or-less "in the act".

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:01 PM

RUE

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


For on-scene work I think I'd replace them with generic 'first responders' - all around fire/ rescue/ EMT. And first on the scene calls in other equipment and people as needed.

Though what we would do for black humor I don't know. I'm still giggling over the buncha' policemen who surrounded an SUV, emptied their guns (can you say 'Polish firing squad' ?) and hit nobody. THANK GOD ! Or maybe - oh my god ! They were a friggin' 10 feet away - or less. But still ... the only thing that would've been funnier is if they had shot each other.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:10 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
"most of those potential investors would morally balk at ripping people off."

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ...... SA gold and diamond mines. Need I say more ?



You really don't get it at all do you? If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:13 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer thinks that "intellectual property" should be gotten rid of.



Where in the world did you get that idea? I suggested that IP is just like any other property, and cannot be forced or coerced from the owner.

Pretty pointless to go on with this when you're so locked into your own little mindset that you can't concieve of anything else.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:15 PM

RUE

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


"You really don't get it at all do you? If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off."

You fool. I've never been talking about the 80 % being 'bad'. I've always been talking about the 20 % - or 2 % - who will break any system that depends on voluntary good behavior.

BTW the other 20% who have no such compunctions will get even fatter and richer for being fewer.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:19 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Personally, I think we should get rid of "the police".



But then who enforces the laws against the pathological corporations and monopolies?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:22 PM

RUE

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


"But then who enforces the laws against the pathological corporations and monopolies?"

auditors and CPAs ?

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:24 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
You fool. I've never been talking about the 80 % being 'bad'. I've always been talking about the 20 % - or 2 % - who will break any system that depends on voluntary good behavior.

BTW the other 20% who have no such compunctions will get even fatter and richer for being fewer.



And they'll also morally balk at being ripped off, or letting other people be ripped off. People being ripped off violates Rule 1, and allows Rule 2 to come into play.

Currently the folk with no compunctions get away with it because they have the government to protect them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 4:28 PM

RUE

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


Silly goose.

People shop at Wal-Mart all the time - despite it being one of the biggest rip-off artists around. u-soft still makes an obscene profit. People still buy gasoline.

Every now and again someone gets up a boycott - against Nestle - which was the last semi-effective one I remember about 30 years back. But moral outrage fizzles in the face of cheap products, convenience, and lack of choice.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 6:37 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Where in the world did you get that idea? I suggested that IP is just like any other property, and cannot be forced or coerced from the owner.
Ummm... OK. Maybe I misinterpreted.

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

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

Tuesday, January 29, 2008 9:51 PM

HKCAVALIER


Hey Rue,

Thanks for the reply. Yes, I was using the word "affluent" in the global sense. We Americans stand on the shoulders of the global underclass. We're working on outsourcing poverty entirely--out of sight, out of mind.

I don't know much about Sweden, really--not in the nuts and bolts way I understand the American system. Don't they still get a lot of their goods form China and Korea?

I gotta interject here. I started posting in this thread because I thought I understood some of the issues Geezer was asking about and then all the hysterical crap started erupting and I thought for while that I could help to stem the tide. I never would have identified myself as an anarchist before this thread started, frankly. I'm not a big fan of utopia or "solving the world's problems," but in terms of a social system that isn't at least 50% b.s. and self-delusion I gotta say anarchism makes a lot of sense to me. And, upon reflection, it is more or less the way I live as far as I am able within the system as it exists.

I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said. When this kind of thing passes for a summation of all that's been said by those of us speaking for anarchism, I hesitate to make any comment at all. But okay, though I may very well regret it: what about a system that demands that one third of the population be mentally healthy and committed to the community as a whole? Is that too outrageous to contemplate? What percentage of the population, in your view, behaves well all the time in our current system? Is there any possibility, in your view, that that percentage could improve? What would do it?

Okay, as far as the born sociopath thing goes, I want to talk about your examples for a sec. NONE OF THEM present any kind of explanation for organized criminal exploitation. Your examples are too chaotic, too low-functioning, too self-destructive. Psychotic behavior is not the reason for the power structures strangling liberty in this world.

No one is born with a taste for revenge. No one is born ashamed of feeling. No boy is born ashamed of crying or showing affection. No child is born feeling her emotions are dirty, disgusting or animalistic. No child is born believing that weaker creatures deserve less than strong. But this poisonous training begins at birth and will, in most cases, solidify even before the child has said his first word. It's the violation of a child's natural self that turns children into vengeful alienated criminals.

Of course, healthy non-adversarial child rearing would not end all anti-social behavior--no one has said it would. But would it reduce it to a problem that could be handled as a medical, rather than criminal issue? That, I can see.
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Finally, to say there's NO biological basis for sociopathy implies there's no biological basis for schizophrenia, autism or Tourette's either.


What the heck? I mean, WHAT THE HECK?
Quote:

5) Scientists who have noticed that primates are born with personalities - timid, laid back, confident, calm etc. And pediatricians who've noticed the same about human children (Brazelton).

Rue, being "born with personalities" does not in any way suggest that sociopathic personalities are inborn. You can say "But not all sociopaths can be explained that way. Some are the unfortunate result of bad biology" but it's just an assertion and a pretty sweeping assertion at that.
Quote:

The vast amount of our mental processes - probably 95% - are out of reach of our consciousness. And I believe our personalities are formed there. We think we're in control - but we're not. We're just riding the wave.

And 95% of what we learn about what's allowed and what must be denied and who gets what they want and who must suffer we learn in the first years of life and is likewise out of reach of our consciousness without therapeutic intervention or extraordinary reevaluation of our most basic beliefs usually brought on by catastrophic loss.

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  

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:27 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
I was also in the middle of saying that capitalism is inconsistent with anarchism.



Interesting take, considering that all libertarian/anarchist economists and philosophers consider free-market capitalism one of the keystones of their system.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 3:30 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Silly goose.

People shop at Wal-Mart all the time - despite it being one of the biggest rip-off artists around. u-soft still makes an obscene profit. People still buy gasoline."



"If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off."

Try to remember we're takling a different mindset here.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Interesting take, considering that all libertarian/anarchist economists and philosophers consider free-market capitalism one of the keystones of their system.
I like a lot of anarchist's ideas. But from what I read here, they seem to think that without government, capitalism will turn into some kind of Adam-Smith free market. That's just not going to happen. The forces that concentrate power and wealth are ECONOMIC forces, relating to efficiency and economies of scale, not governmental or "emotional" forces.

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

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 4:41 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said. When this kind of thing passes for a summation of all that's been said by those of us speaking for anarchism, I hesitate to make any comment at all. But okay, though I may very well regret it: what about a system that demands that one third of the population be mentally healthy and committed to the community as a whole? Is that too outrageous to contemplate? What percentage of the population, in your view, behaves well all the time in our current system? Is there any possibility, in your view, that that percentage could improve? What would do it?
HK, I'd like to interject if I may... The problem, as I see it, is that 99% of our current problems (barring tsunamis, volcanoes and other natural catastrophes) are caused by .000001% of the population who happen to own 50% of the world's resources. And this is in a milieu where 80% + of "the people" just want to get along. Anarchism has to be able to control the behavior of a vanishingly small percentage. If it's true that anarchism is a form of capitalism, all you'll get is the same problem over again because anarchists will have no morally compelling reasons to do anything about acquisitive behavior and sharp business practices. 'Cause it's all "allowed".

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

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 6:46 AM

RUE

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


Hi HKC

"I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said."

We are talking at cross purposes here. I think SignyM and I are thinking in terms of systems and how they behave over time. It's like talking about entropy or crystal growth - it's about an impersonal process.

Capitalism is a positive feedback SYSTEM - it WILL concentrate money and power over time - if only for the reason SignyM already outlined - economies of scale.

HKC, I think you really need to read Le Guin again. The reason why I mention that is b/c she has already figured out that there are 'power structures' (her exact phrase) in society - whether laws, money, goods, religion or other organization, or even custom. And she understands that some people will use any 'power structure' for their benefit. And further, to preserve anarchy you have to eliminate power structures. Capitalism is only one of many power structures that will break anarchism.

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

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 6:52 AM

RUE

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


"If 80% of the population think breaking Rule 1 is equivalent to slavery, they will morally balk at ripping people off."

Ahem. But the other 20 % will still do what they want to do. And they will benefit di$proportionately and use those benenfitS to springboard further economic accumulation.

It's not the mindset that drives this - it's the impersonal economic process.

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

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 7:57 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

to preserve anarchy you have to eliminate power structures.
Oh thank you. What I was spending many many paragraphs on, in a just a few words! Not just "government". Big media. Big religion. Big business. Anything that allows the consolidation of power. That's why I keep saying that anarchism as proposed is not wrong! Just incomplete.

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

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:12 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Ahem. But the other 20 % will still do what they want to do. And they will benefit di$proportionately and use those benenfitS to springboard further economic accumulation.

It's not the mindset that drives this - it's the impersonal economic process.



So child labor and slavery are still in play in the US? 12 hour workdays 7 days a week? Sorry, but if a large majority of folks think something is immoral, it'll end.

You may not like WallyWorld, but most folk see it as a place to get stuff cheap. If that changes it'll go away.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:29 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Ahem. But the other 20 % will still do what they want to do. And they will benefit di$proportionately and use those benenfitS to springboard further economic accumulation.

It's not the mindset that drives this - it's the impersonal economic process.



So child labor and slavery are still in play in the US? 12 hour workdays 7 days a week? Sorry, but if a large majority of folks think something is immoral, it'll end.




I don't know about your country but in mine it was ended by laws enforced by the state. Yes some activists lobbied against it and had that law enacted but it wasn't that the majority of people thought it wrong, just those with enough political clout to have the change made.


Quote:






You may not like WallyWorld, but most folk see it as a place to get stuff cheap. If that changes it'll go away.

"Keep the Shiny side up"




Cheap stuff made by child labour and 12/7 workdays. So it seems that people's moral sense only extends to people in their monkey sphere, otherwise people would be boycotting Walmart in order to enforce their "moral stand" on child labour and excessive hours.

Which comes back to those questions that you never seem to answer about who decides abuses have taken place, who decides what action is taken and why the 80% hard core individualists will slavishly follow though on that opinion and take collective action?


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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 5:48 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Cheap stuff made by child labour and 12/7 workdays.


The few times I've ventured into Wal-mart most of the product seems to be the same stuff you can buy anywhere else, just a bit cheaper. Cites on the child labor bit, as opposed to any other business, and opposed to what those kids would be doing otherwise, would be appreciated.

Quote:

Which comes back to those questions that you never seem to answer about who decides abuses have taken place, who decides what action is taken and why the 80% hard core individualists will slavishly follow though on that opinion and take collective action?


Individuals take action based on whether or not they think Rule 1 has been violated and Rule 2 applies. If they want to take collective action they will. If they want to take individual action they will.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 6:02 PM

RUE

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


Withdrawn, with apologies.


***************************************************************
I'm working on it.

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

Wednesday, January 30, 2008 10:38 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Cheap stuff made by child labour and 12/7 workdays.


The few times I've ventured into Wal-mart most of the product seems to be the same stuff you can buy anywhere else, just a bit cheaper. Cites on the child labor bit, as opposed to any other business, and opposed to what those kids would be doing otherwise, would be appreciated.




Not the point. What the kids would be doing or whether they would do the same thing for a different business is not the issue.

Your argument is that in the anarchist society rule 1 is so deeply ingrained that people will always act on it (actually it sounds kind of frightening, like a cult or collective brain washing or the 1970's version of "invasion of the body snatchers")

You then say that this acceptance of rule 1 is the same kind of gut feeling that prevents exploitation of child labour or excessive hours. However, people largely turn a blind eye to exploitation of children and excessive hours if it happens someplace else. So how "universal" the application of rule 1 would be is open to doubt. If it doesn't effect the anarchist or someone he knows directly will he really take action? Unless it is a cult I'd say not. People who professed to be Christian have done some terribly unchristian things in the past. Unless you are going to have some kind of anarchistic "purity police" I do wonder how many folks with be "Sunday Anarchists."

Quote:








Quote:

Which comes back to those questions that you never seem to answer about who decides abuses have taken place, who decides what action is taken and why the 80% hard core individualists will slavishly follow though on that opinion and take collective action?


Individuals take action based on whether or not they think Rule 1 has been violated and Rule 2 applies. If they want to take collective action they will. If they want to take individual action they will.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



So I sack Frank because he's an incompetent jerk. He refuses to leave my premises and starts damaging my property. I decide he's violating rule 1 and use rule 2 to have security eject him. Frank goes to his friends shows them the bruises caused by my legitimate use of rule 2 and claims I broke rule 1. They are his friends not mine. They decide that rule 1 was broken so they invoke rule 2 to tit-for-tat damage my car... because someone has to teach me not to treat poor Frank that way. I see the damage to my property that breaks rule 1, send rentacop over to execute rule 2.


Like I said, northern Pakistan runs on that same principle and tit for tat gets out of control.

Or another case. Bill breaks Dave's window, but Dave is a jerk and Bill is everybody's friend. Nobody believes Dave and no action is taken against Bill. When Dave retaliates (to get some justice for Bills action) the locals go ape on Dave for "starting" on Bill.

Great system.

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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 4:22 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not the point. What the kids would be doing or whether they would do the same thing for a different business is not the issue.



Sure it is. Folks keep saying WalMart is a monopoly and horrible exploiter of children and use this as an example of the failure of capitalism. Proof of this would be nice.

Quote:

So I sack Frank because he's an incompetent jerk. He refuses to leave my premises and starts damaging my property. I decide he's violating rule 1 and use rule 2 to have security eject him. Frank goes to his friends shows them the bruises caused by my legitimate use of rule 2 and claims I broke rule 1. They are his friends not mine. They decide that rule 1 was broken so they invoke rule 2 to tit-for-tat damage my car... because someone has to teach me not to treat poor Frank that way. I see the damage to my property that breaks rule 1, send rentacop over to execute rule 2.


And once again you apply present day ethics to the situation and blame the result on Anarchist philosophy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:47 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Folks keep saying WalMart is a monopoly and horrible exploiter of children and use this as an example of the failure of capitalism. Proof of this would be nice.- Geezer
Walmart is a horrible exploiter of everyone who works for them.
Quote:

Wal-Mart was removed from KLD & Co.’s Domini 400 Social Index because of what it called ‘sweatshop conditions’ at its overseas vendors’ factories.... KLD also cited charges that the company hasn’t been forthright about its involvement with a Chinese handbag manufacturer alleged to have subjected workers to 90-hour weeks, exceptionally low wages, and prison-like conditions. ... Some of the abuses in foreign factories that produce goods for Wal-Mart include:

Forced overtime
Locked bathrooms
Starvation wages
Pregnancy tests
Denial of access to health care
Workers fired and blacklisted if they try to defend their rights

.. the Kathie Lee clothing label (made for Wal-Mart by Caribbean Apparel, Santa Ana, El Salvador) conducted sweatshop conditions of forced overtime. ... It is common for the cutting and packing departments to work 20-hour shifts from 6:50 a.m. to 3:00 a.m. Anyone unable or refusing to work the overtime hours will be suspended and fined, and upon repeat "offenses" they will be fired. This factory is in an American Free Trade Zone. Wal-Mart regularly says it does not tolerate child labor or forced or prison labor but when it comes to walking the walk the company refuses to reveal its Chinese contractors and will not allow independent, unannounced inspections of its contractors’ facilities.

Clothing sewn in China is usually done by young women, 17 to 25 year old (at 25 they are fired as ‘too old’) forced to work seven days a week, often past midnight for 12 to 28 cents an hour, with no benefits. Or that the women are housed in crowded, dirty dormitories, 15 to a room, and fed a thin rice gruel. The workers are kept under 24-hour-a-day surveillance and can be fired for even discussing factory conditions. The factories in China operate under a veil of secrecy, behind locked metal gates, with no factory names posted and no visitors allowed. China’s authorities do not allow independent human rights, religious or women’s groups to exist, and all attempts to form independent unions have been crushed.

In October 10, 2002, the National Organization for Women (NOW) reported that the Maine Department of Labor ordered Wal-Mart to pay the largest fine in state history for violating child labor laws. The Department of Labor discovered 1,436 child labor law infractions at 20 Wal-Mart chains in the state.



www.ufcw.org/press_room/fact_sheets_and_backgrounder/walmart/sweat_sho
ps.cfm
Quote:

... Much of the clothing purchased by Wal-Mart is made in poor countries like Bangladesh.... It specifically says the company will not deal with any supplier that employs children under age 14... {BUT} Pictures were taken by hidden cameras in Bangladesh factories as part of Radio-Canada's investigation. Radio-Canada journalists posed as buyers in the Canadian garment industry so they could videotape inside factories in Bangladesh with hidden cameras. In one factory, typical of many in the country, children were busy with lower-skill tasks. In badly lit, dirty and overheated workshops, young boys were everywhere. A label reading Simply Basic, one of Wal-Mart's in-house brand names along with the number CA 28885, the corporate ID of Wal-Mart Canada, was seen in the factory
www.cbc.ca/world/story/2005/11/30/walmartbangladesh051130.html
Quote:

Despite its claim that it slashes profits to the bone in order to deliver "Always Low Prices," Wal-Mart banks about $7 billion a year in profits, ranking it among the most profitable entities on the planet. Of the 10 richest people in the world, five are Waltons-the ruling family of the Wal-Mart empire. S. Robson Walton is ranked by London’s "Rich List 2001" as the wealthiest human on the planet, having sacked up more than $65 billion (£45.3 billion) in personal wealth and topping Bill Gates as No. 1...

As Charlie Kernaghan of the National Labor Committee reports, "In country after country, factories that produce for Wal-Mart are the worst," adding that the bottom-feeding labor policy of this one corporation "is actually lowering standards in China, slashing wages and benefits, imposing long mandatory-overtime shifts, while tolerating the arbitrary firing of workers who even dare to discuss factory conditions."

Wal-Mart does not want the U.S. buying public to know that its famous low prices are the product of human misery... so while it loudly proclaims that its global suppliers must comply with a corporate "code of conduct" to treat workers decently, it strictly prohibits the disclosure of any factory names and addresses, hoping to keep independent sources from witnessing the "code" in operation...


... Even though China’s minimum wage is 31 cents an hour-which doesn’t begin to cover a person’s basic subsistence-level needs-these production workers are paid 13 cents an hour. Workers typically live in squatter shacks, seven feet by seven feet, or jammed in company dorms, with more than a dozen sharing a cubicle costing $1.95 a week for rent. They pay about $5.50 a week for lousy food. They also must pay for their own medical treatment and are fired if they are too ill to work.

The work is literally sickening, since there’s no health and safety enforcement. Workers have constant headaches and nausea from paint-dust hanging in the air; the indoor temperature tops 100 degrees; protective clothing is a joke; repetitive stress disorders are rampant; and there’s no training on the health hazards of handling the plastics, glue, paint thinners, and other solvents in which these workers are immersed every day.

As for Wal-Mart’s highly vaunted "code of conduct," NLC could not find a single worker who had ever seen or heard of it.

These factories employ mostly young women and teenage girls. Wal-Mart, renowned for knowing every detail of its global business operations and for calculating every penny of a product’s cost, knows what goes on inside these places. Yet, when confronted with these facts, corporate honchos claim ignorance and wash their hands of the exploitation: "There will always be people who break the law," says CEO Lee Scott. "It is an issue of human greed among a few people."

www.mcspotlight.org/beyond/companies/antiwalmart.html


I dunno what else you need to see, Geezer, but Walmart is a fine example of capitalism in action.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:19 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:


And once again you apply present day ethics to the situation and blame the result on Anarchist philosophy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



So what part of it doesn't apply does Anarchism mean that there will be no "Franks" does it mean I won't have property to protect. Please tell me exactly how anarchism makes this impossible?

I have asked specific questions about who decides rule 1 have been violated and how rule 2 is applied. You have refused to deal with specifics in favour of "well folks will do stuff" kinds of answers. So I give you an example expecting you to correct it and instead you just say "oh that would never happen" and let it slide.

How the rules are applied makes a huge difference to wether you end up living in a peaceful society or a hinterland of tribal groups and gangs so it's not a small question.

The point about the rule of law is that we all get together and decide what is a reasonable action and then we later audit that decision in a court. So If a guy pushes me and I shoot him dead that is likely to be considered inappropriate use of force where as if he attacks me with a knife and I shoot him dead then it's likely to be seen as self defense. In Geezerland both of his actions could be interpreted as the use of force which i would be allowed to react to however I see fit.


Similar systems to what you are proposing do exist in some places in the world but the cycle of mark and reprisal can get seriously out of hand. Other than saying that we brainwash our children to "think different" is there anything in the Geezer system that can counter this kind of escalation?






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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:31 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:

Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not the point. What the kids would be doing or whether they would do the same thing for a different business is not the issue.



Sure it is. Folks keep saying WalMart is a monopoly and horrible exploiter of children and use this as an example of the failure of capitalism. Proof of this would be nice.




I was making neither point and so it's irrelevant. Your contention was that anarchists respect for rule 1 was so religiously ingrained that they would always act on it, just as folks today would always act against child exploitation and excessive work hours.

There is a reason that cheap foreign goods are so cheap and that is because they use child labour and long work hours. People still buy the goods produced in that way even when they have a reasonable (but more expensive) alternative.

So it seems that despite these deeply ingrained principles they take no action even slightly detrimental to their self interest if the conditions don't effect them personally. Which means if Rule 1 is as deeply ingrained as you claim these principles are then most anarchists won't do anything about any act outside their monkey sphere either. It will simply not be their problem.

This leaves "bad people" able to do what they like because unlike your vision that 80% of the populous deals with the bad actors in reality most folks will be indifferent, which is how bad things happen right now.


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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, it seems to me that your world is just like capitalism, but without government. All of the same forces are in place: One the one hand you posit money, big business, stocks, banks, profit, intellectual property, and greed on the part of a few.

On the other hand there is... "people" who will do "something" about abuse, despite the fact that there is no moral foundation for it. For example

Rule No 1
The first rule of this philosophy is that every person owns himself and his property, and no one has the right to initiate force against any person or their property.


Okay, let's say that I have an offer: work for starvation wages or don't work at all. The company that's making me the offer has another option: Hire me for starvation wages or hire someone else for less. I sign the contract and the deal is done. What "force" has been applied to me except maybe "market forces"? Did anarchy outlaw market forces? I don't think so!

Your corporate Anarchist mind-set doesn't allow you to price-fix, which causes a forced transaction with your customer. It doesn't allow you to defraud the customers or stockholders or employees. It doesn't allow you to use strongarm tactics on workers to keep wages low. It doesn't allow you to stifle competition.

MY anarchist mindset won't allow me to do that, but George doesn't share my mindset. And his company gets bigger and bigger until it swallows mine. What does anarchism do about that?

Rule No 2.
If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.


That depends once again on your definition of "force". You seem to think it involves "sharp business practices" like price-fixing and low wages, but I don't see how you derive that from Rule No 1. Let's say that I'm honest about my product and prices, I don't kneecap people if they form unions, but I'm just so terribly efficient that I dominate the marketplace and I can therefore have a higher than-usual-profit margin by driving wages down a bit and prices higher a bit. And eventiually I take over everything. Is that "force"?

BTW- I'm curious- since you allow stockholders and so forth in Geezerworld, how do you feel about workers unions, consumers unions, cooperatives, and other economic forms?





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

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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:09 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
HK, I'd like to interject if I may... The problem, as I see it, is that 99% of our current problems (barring tsunamis, volcanoes and other natural catastrophes) are caused by .000001% of the population who happen to own 50% of the world's resources. And this is in a milieu where 80% + of "the people" just want to get along. Anarchism has to be able to control the behavior of a vanishingly small percentage. If it's true that anarchism is a form of capitalism, all you'll get is the same problem over again because anarchists will have no morally compelling reasons to do anything about acquisitive behavior and sharp business practices. 'Cause it's all "allowed".


First of all, there are plenty of anarchists that are thoroughly disenchanted with capitalism--I am certainly no friend of this addiction driven economic model, and have said so in this thread and throughout my stay at FFF.net. I haven't turned into Geezer overnight(except in that dream I had a couple years back..."Ooh-hoo, Dream Geezer...I believe we can reach the morning li-hight...")!

Meanwhile, the anarchists I have known in RL have all been what ya'd call "anarcho-communists," though they'd mostly just call themselves "anarchists." I believe (and wikipedia coroborates, so maybe I'm wrong ) Peter Kropotkin is considered an "anarcho-communist" so I didn't just make it all up.

Secondly, this stuff about 99% of our problems being caused by .000001% of the world population, well, I can hardly believe you buy into that. I mean, not seriously. Do you really think anyone has that level of godlike power? No one has that much control, no one has that much influence. Is that how it is in your personal life? 99% of the problems on your mind are caused by these people?

Where were these .000001 percenters when slavery was abolished in this country, or when segregation was brought to an end, or when Great Britain quit India? Were they trying to stop these developments or were they championing them? Hitler didn't just force all Germans to bend to his twisted will. Enough Germans shared enough of his twists to let him get as far as he did. Otherwise he would have been an out of work artist standing on a soapbox spouting nonsense to people with better things to do.

You can blame Bush for the war in Iraq, but the fact remains that every soldier in our military is there by choice.

Signy, you're playing the totalitarian's song when you grant them so much power. Totalitarians don't need you to love them, only for you to believe there is no way to fight them or to escape their influence.

I'm really sorry, Signy, I'm still pretty confused by what you're saying to me. You say, "Anarchism has to be able to control the behavior of a vanishingly small percentage," but why pick on Anarchism? What system in the known universe has that kind of control?

HKCavalier

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

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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 6:55 PM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:

Originally posted by rue:
Hi HKC

"I would like to say that the suggestion that anarchy is a system that demands that everyone behave well all the time, is just another gross distortion of what Frem or I have said."

We are talking at cross purposes here. I think SignyM and I are thinking in terms of systems and how they behave over time. It's like talking about entropy or crystal growth - it's about an impersonal process.


Yes! This is, I think, where our central disagreement lies (if it's not just a big misunderstanding). Somehow you get from individual humans working together to an impersonal "system" like entropy. On the most fundamental level you seem to remove human will and agency from the human sphere; our actions are determined by impersonal forces locked away from our conscious awareness never to be apprehended. In that light, I cannot imagine how you can conceive of political action or the value of democracy. And yet, I know that you do. I know that you are very active in pursuing and promoting your values. I know that I share many of them. So, I'm really, really stuck here.

I haven't failed to notice, btw, that you've said on more than one occasion in this thread that some form of anarchy is an ideal of your own, yet all we've seen from you in this thread is disparagement. I wonder what your idea of anarchy looks like, and upon what you rest your hopes for such a community.
Quote:

HKC, I think you really need to read Le Guin again. The reason why I mention that is b/c she has already figured out that there are 'power structures' (her exact phrase) in society - whether laws, money, goods, religion or other organization, or even custom. And she understands that some people will use any 'power structure' for their benefit. And further, to preserve anarchy you have to eliminate power structures. Capitalism is only one of many power structures that will break anarchism.

I'm sorry, this may seem like a cop-out, but I recommended Geezer read The Dispossessed, not because it was my anarchist bible, but because it was the best example of a living breathing anarchist system I've read. I thought it would help Geezer get a feel for what an anarchist system might look like. You know he was asking.

I don't think Le Guin's is the final word on Anarchism. I think her anarchy without an Internet and her starkly unconvincing use of a "famine" to create dramatic tension artificially interfered with her description of a successful anarchist system. It's a complex book, and she presents a complex understanding of human psychology which I greatly respect. I can see the need in humans for both belonging to something bigger than the self, and also wanting something for one's self that the collective can never have. It's a real human tension and might make sustained political anarchism impossible.

But it may be possible to find a balance between anarchy and some more structured form of governance. Y'know, something like the political pendulum swing in America from left to right and back to left again; Anarchism, until it starts to degrade (perhaps there's a schedule of some 8 or 16 years arrived at democratically), then a constitutional congress, some laws enacted with very specific sunset provisions, then back to "anarchy as usual." It would only work if anarchy were a value the majority of people believed in.

HKCavalier

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

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

Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:55 PM

FLETCH2


Reminds me of the saying that people are smart but "the people" can be dumb. I think the reason that Rue is talking systems is that the moment your groups get bigger than a hundred people (maybe even less than that) any chance of maintaining cohesion by personal relationships alone starts to break down. At that point you create a system even if you avoid calling it that just to cope with the complexity of interactions --- it's Frem's monkey sphere idea.

I have no evidence but it's my guess that the complexity of these systems increases with the size of community, which causes problems when you have to do complex stuff that involves a lot of people, which is essentially what the modern world is. I suspect Frem understands that too, which is why his description of Fremworld is a few hundred people with limited technical and medical means.

And that's really the point where you all loose me because I want to go back to the moon and beyond I don't want to be trading ammunition for fuel oil.

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

Friday, February 1, 2008 4:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Signy, you're playing the totalitarian's song when you grant them so much power. Totalitarians don't need you to love them, only for you to believe there is no way to fight them or to escape their influence.
Just because a small group of people wield a huge amount of power doesn't mean there isn't any way to end it. The Pharaohs of yesteryear are pharaohs no more. I think we both agree that the means to ending a reign and never having it arise again is not the sword, but the idea.

We're just discussing which idea will do that best. Now, in the thread about anarchism there seem to be as many ideas about anarchism as there are anarchists. (So maybe Frem was right: 100 anarchists, 125 ideas!) I was reacting mainly towards Geezer since he seems to be the biggest proponent of capitalo-anarchism, especially since I didn't hear any countering arguments from Frem or 6ix. I wonder what THEIR stance in in the comatibility of capitalism and anarchism.

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

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

Friday, February 1, 2008 4:34 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

I have no evidence but it's my guess that the complexity of these systems increases with the size of community, which causes problems when you have to do complex stuff that involves a lot of people, which is essentially what the modern world is. I suspect Frem understands that too, which is why his description of Fremworld is a few hundred people with limited technical and medical means.
One of those German philosophers (Hegel?) said that quantitive change leads to qualitative change, a point which is hard to understand but seems to be a fundamental operational law of the universe. For example: When do a bunch of golf balls turn into something else? When you have a quadrillion of them and they turn into a planet.

"Big" anything - big government, big business, big churches, big media - IMHO are antithetical to anarchism. There's no way that "big" anything can be controlled from an individual level. The only way to control "big" is to either make it a construct that everyone rejects, or create other "big" countervailing entities.

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

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

Friday, February 1, 2008 5:31 AM

FLETCH2


Well there's a process of compound agrigation. In the center of a snowflake is a spec of dust, in the center of a pearl is a grain of sand, once some kind of nucleus exists bigger things have a tendency to form around it.

I think my problem with this thread stems from three of the 125 positions that have been posited.

1) Those that think that in any large enough congrigation of people a power vacuum won't be filled by someone. The idea that these enlightened individuals won't end up being puppeted by corporate interests, religion or the few structures they allow themselves is naive.

The argument seems to be that that the problem will be self correcting because unlike the government these new entities won't have a "monopoly on force." The present government doesnt have a monopoly on force, it can just apply more force than anyone else much of which is overkill.

I'm sure an outfit like Blackwater could field enough forces to overwhelm a decent sized American town even if you handed the residents guns like they were candy and that's assuming that the "bad guys" take Frem up on the idea of fighting on the streets. You can think of all kinds of forms of control that don't require a shot being fired (economic or religious for example.)

2) Those that think the wild west makes a good model for human existance. Their attitudes remind me of "disgusted in Surrey" a kind of joke about a type of person who used to write to UK newspapers. These were folks that had been minor colonial officials back in "the good old days" who with the Empire gone live in retirement in Surrey, dream of the Raj and find everything about modern life "disgusting." Like the wild west crowd they basically don't fit with the modern world, they have no usable skills and resent that fact. They want to go back to a time and place where the skills they have would be relevent and they would be considered "important." I'm sorry but misery and death for thousands is not a good rate of exchange for some folks to feel like big men again.

3)Finally there are those that seem to miss the point that the human animal is just that, an animal driven by base instincts and desires many of which express themselves below conscious level. Yes you can socialise them, you can train them to play nice like you might a feral dog, but the underlying nature is still there. I've seen the idea that some miracle will happen and we'll all somehow become more enlightened souls. Who wouldn't want that? But if you read the private correspondance of people from 2000 years ago their drives and concerns are much the same as they are today. There are probably a few more layers of laquer covering the beat these days but the underlying beast is the same. Could you indoctrinate an entire population to play nice? Maybe. But at what point is someone doing something because they believe it and at what point are they doing it because you coersively imposed your belief structure on them? This is the same problem I have with the idea that vast numbers of truly independent individuals would see any situation the same such that 80% of them would follow the same course of action in lock step.

I served on a jury once. I sat with 11 other people that all heard the same evidence that I did and we ended up coming to 3 different conclusions that we eventually condensed down to one compromise that we could all agree on. The defendant probably got off lightly as a result because to get to any kind of consensus means settling for the course of action everyone can agree on. I'm not sure that a true society of individuals could ever achieve a concensus that has enough teeth to stop a "bad actor" which amy actually be a good thing unless you like the idea of mob rule.

Anyway...

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

Friday, February 1, 2008 7:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


So, speaking of bigness leading to biggerness...

Microsoft bids $45 billion for Yahoo
Software giant offers $31 a share - a 62% premium - in deal that could reorder online ad market. Microsoft's ballmer: 'Major milestone'

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/01/technology/microsoft_yahoo/index.htm?c
nn=yes

The end state of capitalism is monopolism.

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

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

Friday, February 1, 2008 7:10 AM

RUE

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


HKC

I have time for just a quick post -
once people develop 'systems' and live by them - capitalism or christianity or other system by whatever name you chose - then indeed the individual doesn't count in terms of how 'the system' operates.

I'll give you an example - you can have the nicest, most concerned, friendliest person in the world running a business in a capitalist system. AS LONG AS HE IS MAKING AND KEEPING A PROFIT HE IS CONCENTRATING WEALTH. Not b/c he's a bad guy, but b/c that's how the system works. And if he accumulates a large fraction of all available wealth then he has a large amount of power over others.

If he is the nicest, most concerned, friendliest person in the world then you might not have a problem (unless you are concerned with that concentrated power per se). But what if he is not ? What if he is a Bill Gates ? Can YOU guarantee there will NEVER be a Bill Gates running an abusive show through a bad combination of accumulated power and personal pathology ? Let me answer for you - no you can't. I OTOH can guarantee there WILL be a Bill Gates in that position - b/c statistically, it will come up. As long as you have a system of accumulation of power then all you are missing is the element of personal pathology. And it will happen. Maybe not in a year, but in 100, or 1,000. And unless your system either prevents that situation in the first place by eliminating power structures (Le Guin) or it has social control mechanisms for it (Sweden) then ultimately you are in a dead end, guaranteed.

I refer to The Dispossessed often b/c it is a thought out scenario. And, apologies to Frem, his linked piece (which I read through to the end) is a joke. We're just supposed to accept that in his vision of anarchy all political, social, personal, medical, economic and environmental ills will just automatically be cured. The sky is blue, the grass is green and everyone is attractive just b/c the anarchy fairy boinked the world with the anarchy wand. And it ignores the overwhelming historical facts that those ills were nearly always caused by the very forces he childishly believes in - the first and most central being accumulation of wealth.


BTW I want to comment on Iceland as the historical Shangri-La of anarchy.

" ... the Thorness king in 981 outlawed Eric (the Red) in Iceland and Norway for 3 years." So Iceland wasn't the land of pure personal freedom. There were at least local kings with international authority to impose punishment. And from Iceland we also get the word 'thrall' who is a slave whose very life is not his own. For example, by law a thrall wasn't permitted to defend himself against deadly force - b/c his life was not his own property. Again, not the picture of individual liberty and freedom. There may not have been central government but it doesn't mean there wasn't any government at all; or that there weren't coercive and harshly enforced laws and customs in which some people were definitely NOT free at the most basic animal level.

Finally, I DO support anarchy - but it isn't going to happen in Wintel/Exxon-land which is where Geezer wants to go right off the bat, and where Frem will end up over time.


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

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

Saturday, February 2, 2008 5:14 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by Fletch2:
So what part of it doesn't apply does Anarchism mean that there will be no "Franks" does it mean I won't have property to protect. Please tell me exactly how anarchism makes this impossible?



Impossible? So you're asking for a perfect world now? Kind'a hard to provide, I'm afraid.

I'm suggesting it would be less likely. In a world where initiating force is the big no-no, don't you think that most folk would be pretty careful about going directly to force at all, rather than trying to come to an amicable solution to problems?

Quote:

I have asked specific questions about who decides rule 1 have been violated and how rule 2 is applied. You have refused to deal with specifics in favour of "well folks will do stuff" kinds of answers.


And the answer pretty much is, "Who knows, but it'll be on the principle of Rule 1." I can't predict how a civilization that doesn't yet exist would deal with every individual situation any better than the Founding Fathers could. They set a few rules in place, based on their philosophy of government, and trusted that people would figure out how to apply them on down the road. Nothing in the Constitution about the EPA or OSHA, for example.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, February 2, 2008 6:05 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Geezer, in other words, your system has no answers to known, demonstrated systems problems.

Forgive me if I don't buy into it.

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

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

Sunday, February 3, 2008 5:28 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, in other words, your system has no answers to known, demonstrated systems problems.

Forgive me if I don't buy into it.



First of all, it's not MY system. I'm just having an interesting time studying and debating it.

Second, I'm not proposing a system, just a philosophy. Then again, any system, or philosophy, or code of conduct isn't going to work 100% of the time in an imperfect world. All the things you bring up as "known, demonstrated systems problems" have been known, demonstrated systems problems since forever. Civilization won't do away with them, but tends to reduce them. Would a body of people who think it's wrong to take another's stuff by force be less likely to cause your systems problems than a body of 'get it any way you can' people? I suspect so.

Lost in the discussion of monopolies and who'll put out the fire is the concept of individual liberty, which is, after all, what the libertarian/anarchist philosophies are all about. It's interesting that you're so upset about losing a bit of liberty to the possibility that some computer somewhere might listen to your phone calls, but are willing to give up to government your more basic freedoms of self-determination, self-defense, control of your property, etc.

Do I think an anarchist system could work? Not at present. I go along with Fremd's idea that folks just arent ready for it yet. There are too many people who won't buy into the moral philosophy now, just as there were too many people not buying into abolition of slavery 200 years ago.

Will we ever get to an anarchist system? Who knows? I find the Non-Aggression Principle worthwhile. I like the concept of communities and voluntary associations taking over government functions. I'd like to see the idea of personal responsiblity spread. Less government would be nice. A lot of the detail stuff is gonna require more study.

Before I get asked how many anarchists can dance on the head of a pin, I think I'll go back to reading the new books I got and see if I can come up with answers to some of those "known, demonstrated systems problems".

Thanks for your thoughtful questions.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, February 3, 2008 7:28 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:

Lost in the discussion of monopolies ... is the concept of individual liberty
I view monopolies as THE major destroyer of individual freedom. I don't believe individual liberty is lost in that discussion, individual liberty is the essence. The difference between you and I is that you view capitalism as a beneficent entity. I see blood on its feet from trampling the poor and the unorganized.

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

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

Sunday, February 3, 2008 9:51 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:

Originally posted by SignyM:
The difference between you and I is that you view capitalism as a beneficent entity. I see blood on its feet from trampling the poor and the unorganized.



I see capitalism as an economic system. If the people who use it want to trample the poor and unorganized, they will. Socialism is also an economic system. If the people who use it want to trample the poor and unorganized, they will. I can build homes or break heads with the same hammer. I have trouble with the concept that any economic system will inevitibly lead to a certain outcome regardless of the moral and philosophical will of the people.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Oops! Clown Justin Trudeau accidently "Sieg Heils!" a Nazi inside Canadian parliament
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:24 - 4 posts
Stupid voters enable broken government
Mon, November 25, 2024 01:04 - 130 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:09 - 7499 posts
The predictions thread
Mon, November 25, 2024 00:02 - 1190 posts
Netanyahu to Putin: Iran must withdraw from Syria or Israel will ‘defend itself’
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:56 - 16 posts
Putin's Russia
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:51 - 69 posts
The Olive Branch (Or... a proposed Reboot)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:44 - 4 posts
Musk Announces Plan To Buy MSNBC And Turn It Into A News Network
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:39 - 2 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Sun, November 24, 2024 23:35 - 4763 posts
Punishing Russia With Sanctions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:05 - 565 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Sun, November 24, 2024 18:01 - 953 posts
Elections; 2024
Sun, November 24, 2024 16:24 - 4799 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL