'Let him die.' -- a perspective on the individual mandate by NewOldBrownCoat

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"I disagree that your vision of "freedom" is a core principal of humanity, and offer the examples of the Aborigines, the African (I believe it was?) tribe who had no concept of property, and the Native Americans, to whom "owning" property was alien."

Hello,

I'll first and foremost disagree with you that Aborigines, Africans, and Native Americans have no concept of property. I know for a fact that Native Americans owned property and traded it. Where they differed is in what things they considered property, and the things they considered worth getting upset about.

I don't know about Native Americans or First Nation People as I think they prefer to be called now, but I do know that the idea of invididual property was pretty much unknown to Australian Aboriginals. That is not to say that they didn't have possessions, but they were a collective culture. There still exist many collective cultures where the rights and wishes of the individual take a lower status or value than those of the many (usually the extended family). In these sort of cultures individuals share wages, and collectively own property. An individual will give up a lot of choice and freedom to conform to what the family/collective sees as appropriate. These societies function well, and have a lot of pluses in the way they operate. People have less choice, but they have more security. They expect to be looked after when they are sick and old, and they do.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 1:42 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I live somewhere where it would be illegal to walk away from someone who is dying and not assist, and I don't know whether anyone here connects that law with rights. I see it as a fundamental human value that you should help your fellow man, but individual rights and values often clash."

Hello,

There was a famous case here in the United States... I can't remember the name of the victim now. But anyway, someone was dying from an attack. They were on a sidewalk dying for a long, long time. People walked over or past this person and never helped them. I want to believe that no one realized the person was dying. I want to believe that because the alternative is sickening.

"If I can take this back a step to the hospital situation, no one is forcing anyone to help anyone."

If the public pays for the care, then everyone is forced to help everyone. Even evil people who hate other people and don't believe in helping anyone. Not just the noble doctors and nurses in the hospital.

Now, as I said, I'm willing to apply that force... but I never stop thinking of it as force. Somewhere out there is someone who would prefer not to pay for this care, and I am taking their money by force. Should I have no pity for them because they are evil, selfish jerks? Should I fail to empathize with their free will being thwarted? My answer is no. I should feel bad about whoever I'm stomping on, even when I deem it to be for the greater good. This sentiment and empathy will prevent me from harming those I don't have to, and it will incite me to minimize harm to those I do have to.

"I'm not sure how it goes in the US"

Currently in the US, hospitals are required to provide life-saving medicine regardless of ability to pay. (The public ultimately pays for this in some fashion, probably through increased insurance/health care costs to those who CAN pay.)

However, this means they will only stabilize a dying person. Such meager treatment won't necessarily save them in the long run. I worked security at a Hospital, and I saw many homeless people wither away for lack of proper medical care. Stabilizing a patient without curing the underlying conditions only prolongs death and suffering. The proposals for Universal Health Care would solve this problem, ideally. Everyone could get care who needed it, even homeless people without a dime. They would be fully restored to health, rather than stabilized and released to die a little more inside.

"I still find the idea that you can own land kind of bizarre."

Well, technically you can't actually own land in the U.S. You buy it from an 'owner' and then pay the government a fee for using it for as long as you 'own' it. The government may seize the land if you don't pay the land ownership fees. The government may also seize the land at any time by paying you 'fair value.' Purchasing land may or may not confer mineral rights, depending on the details of the purchase. Usually you have water rights to water within your zone of ownership, but you are not allowed to destroy the resource (supposedly.)

My grandfather once owned some land in the Everglades, but the government wanted to seize it and offered him a sum of money. My father considered this sum very unfair, as it was far below the value of the land. However, my grandfather was a grateful citizen, and said (I kid you not) "If the United States needs this land, they can have it. They have given me so much already."

The surrounding land-owners held out for a better deal, and they got it.

The land was seized in an effort to protect the Everglades, a precious natural resource. Years later, it was sold by the government to developers who drained the land and built housing complexes. I don't know how that was arranged, but it didn't make me very happy when I heard about it. The Everglades has been redefined from time to time during my lifetime to allow the construction of housing in land that was once preserved swamp. As a result of this continual encroachment and associated population increase, the aquifer is threatened. It makes me sad.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 1:50 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"That is not to say that they didn't have possessions"

Hello,

I'm confused by the concept of not having property but having possessions.

Possessions are property. And if I can't walk in and take all the possessions, then there are property rights.

Am I missing a crucial detail?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT

If the public pays for the care, then everyone is forced to help everyone. Even evil people who hate other people and don't believe in helping anyone. Not just the noble doctors and nurses in the hospital.

Now, as I said, I'm willing to apply that force... but I never stop thinking of it as force. Somewhere out there is someone who would prefer not to pay for this care, and I am taking their money by force. Should I have no pity for them because they are evil, selfish jerks? Should I fail to empathize with their free will being thwarted? My answer is no. I should feel bad about whoever I'm stomping on, even when I deem it to be for the greater good. This sentiment and empathy will prevent me from harming those I don't have to, and it will incite me to minimize harm to those I do have to.

I suggest to you that you choose to see an insitution set up to assist the ill and prevent, when possible, death carrying out its business with people, regardless of their capacity to pay as being force. It is really your perception based on your ideology, and in fact, it takes your ideology to its extreme, as others have attempted to point out here. That of course, is entirely your choice, and it is very difficult to argue with people's perceptions, especially if they are core values that they hold, as this obviously is for you.

But I would invite you to consider that there may be other ways of viewing this situation, other lenses that see things differently as others on this thread have attempted to explain.

Quote:
However, this means they will only stabilize a dying person. Such meager treatment won't necessarily save them in the long run. I worked security at a Hospital, and I saw many homeless people wither away for lack of proper medical care. Stabilizing a patient without curing the underlying conditions only prolongs death and suffering. The proposals for Universal Health Care would solve this problem, ideally. Everyone could get care who needed it, even homeless people without a dime. They would be fully restored to health, rather than stabilized and released to die a little more inside.

As you are aware, I support universal health care, and we allegedly have it here, although we have a bit of a tangled public/private system which has its fair share of issues and problems. However, you do get treatment at public hospitals and no citizen is turned away. I have lived with this system all my life and I find any other way of doing things incomprehensible.

Quote:

Well, technically you can't actually own land in the U.S. You buy it from an 'owner' and then pay the government a fee for using it for as long as you 'own' it. The government may seize the land if you don't pay the land ownership fees. The government may also seize the land at any time by paying you 'fair value.' Purchasing land may or may not confer mineral rights, depending on the details of the purchase. Usually you have water rights to water within your zone of ownership, but you are not allowed to destroy the resource (supposedly.)

Same here. Land ownership is really just a perception as well. You are not allowed to privately own beaches or waterways here, and water rights in this dry country are a real issue that gets people's blood boiling.

Quote:
My grandfather once owned some land in the Everglades, but the government wanted to seize it and offered him a sum of money. My father considered this sum very unfair, as it was far below the value of the land. However, my grandfather was a grateful citizen, and said (I kid you not) "If the United States needs this land, they can have it. They have given me so much already."

Well good on him. He sounds like he had a big heart and maybe he had a point. Someone once said that if you have found yourself born a citizen of a country such as the US or Australia or another wealthy western nation, guess what, compared to much of the rest of the world, you've already won the lottery.

Quote:
The land was seized in an effort to protect the Everglades, a precious natural resource. Years later, it was sold by the government to developers who drained the land and built housing complexes. I don't know how that was arranged, but it didn't make me very happy when I heard about it. The Everglades has been redefined from time to time during my lifetime to allow the construction of housing in land that was once preserved swamp. As a result of this continual encroachment and associated population increase, the aquifer is threatened. It makes me sad.

That would make me sad too. I hate seeing natural resources, especially significant eco sytems such as the Everglades destroyed by exploitation.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:08 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"how can I secure the things I need to survive?
Cooperation."

Hello,

While 'cooperation' is a wonderfully succinct answer, it doesn't really confine my imagination to an actual method. I note that 'cooperation' is how I survive now. Yet it is a form of cooperation you deem incredibly inequitable.

Look, you're trying to describe the color Orange to a blind man, so you're going to have to give me more than brilliantly succinct answers. So let's be specific about me and my situation.

*******************************

I am a married man who works for a bank. My current job involves data entry, document imaging, and indexing. I enjoy reading and writing. I enjoy video games and movies. I aspire to write a novel some day. Other marketable skills I have include: Telephone-based customer service and Security.

I 'own' a house, three bedrooms. (for which I owe ~50k)

I 'own' a car, a Toyota Camry. (for which I owe ~10k)

I pay for insurance for these possessions.

I own a television in my living room. It is currently the only television installed in the house. It's one of those flat screen jobbies.

I have cable service and I own a DVD player and two game systems: A Wii and an Xbox.

I own the usual furniture: Sofas, chairs, tables, beds, desks.

I own two desktop computers and one old laptop computer.

I own two cell phones and subscribe to cell phone service.

I own an assortment of firearms, including shotguns, pistols, revolvers, and a rifle.

I own an assortment of clothing, sufficient to clothe two people for two weeks each.

I have sufficient groceries in my house to feed two people for two weeks, if they aren't picky about what they eat.

I own three cats and three dogs.

********************************

Now, what does my life become when society becomes communal? Exactly what? How do I live?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"That is not to say that they didn't have possessions"

Hello,

I'm confused by the concept of not having property but having possessions.

Possessions are property. And if I can't walk in and take all the possessions, then there are property rights.

Am I missing a crucial detail?

--Anthony

I think you are missing the point of 'individual' possessions. Niki tried to explain it earlier on. Collectively, you have things, individually nothing is yours.

As for land, as I understand it, it was more a caretaker system than strict ownership. When local Indigenous People welcome you to country here, they welcome you as one of the traditional custodians of the land. That is they used and cared for the land traditionally. They did not, in our sense of the word, own it.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"how can I secure the things I need to survive?
Cooperation."

Hello,

While 'cooperation' is a wonderfully succinct answer, it doesn't really confine my imagination to an actual method. I note that 'cooperation' is how I survive now. Yet it is a form of cooperation you deem incredibly inequitable.

Look, you're trying to describe the color Orange to a blind man, so you're going to have to give me more than brilliantly succinct answers. So let's be specific about me and my situation.

*******************************

I am a married man who works for a bank. My current job involves data entry, document imaging, and indexing. I enjoy reading and writing. I enjoy video games and movies. I aspire to write a novel some day. Other marketable skills I have include: Telephone-based customer service and Security.

I 'own' a house, three bedrooms. (for which I owe ~50k)

I 'own' a car, a Toyota Camry. (for which I owe ~10k)

I pay for insurance for these possessions.

I own a television in my living room. It is currently the only television installed in the house. It's one of those flat screen jobbies.

I have cable service and I own a DVD player and two game systems: A Wii and an Xbox.

I own the usual furniture: Sofas, chairs, tables, beds, desks.

I own two desktop computers and one old laptop computer.

I own two cell phones and subscribe to cell phone service.

I own an assortment of firearms, including shotguns, pistols, revolvers, and a rifle.

I own an assortment of clothing, sufficient to clothe two people for two weeks each.

I have sufficient groceries in my house to feed two people for two weeks, if they aren't picky about what they eat.

I own three cats and three dogs.

********************************

Now, what does my life become when society becomes communal? Exactly what? How do I live?

--Anthony

So you are describing life in a capitalist system which encourages a system of private ownership of property. Are you saying that you know of no other system that has ever existed? Are you wanting explanations of how collective/communal/feudal socities operate?

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:21 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I am asking for an example of what would become of me in communal/collective societies, and how I would make a living, and what the quality of my life would be.

If we can imagine me being transported into one or the other, or we can imagine my society becoming suddenly collectivist and what impact that would have on me.

I suspect I'd no longer work for a bank, for instance.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
"That is not to say that they didn't have possessions"

Hello,

I'm confused by the concept of not having property but having possessions.

Possessions are property. And if I can't walk in and take all the possessions, then there are property rights.

Am I missing a crucial detail?

--Anthony

I think you are missing the point of 'individual' possessions. Niki tried to explain it earlier on. Collectively, you have things, individually nothing is yours.

As for land, as I understand it, it was more a caretaker system than strict ownership. When local Indigenous People welcome you to country here, they welcome you as one of the traditional custodians of the land. That is they used and cared for the land traditionally. They did not, in our sense of the word, own it.

Hello,

Could I take the clothes from their back? (If they had clothes?) The decorative piercings from their bodies? Could I seize their hunting spear? The food they would feed to their children? Could I take their hut or other dwelling? (If they had one?)

Was anything apportioned to the individual and considered theirs, or could I seize it all and leave them naked and starving?

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:28 PM

BYTEMITE

Quote:
by the sounds of the ways things might be in the US, on this one count, I think we got it right.

Actually, the health care cost and crisis right now is that the ERs generally don't turn away people whether they can pay or not. There are hospitals that might make the news by gathering up sick people and curb dumping them or taking them to cheaper hospitals, or of someone dying after waiting for hours in the ER for help, but that makes the news because it's rare.

The argument in this country is because some people in that industry aren't happy about not getting paid. There's an illegal immigrant population that often can't pay, also people might go bankrupt from medical bills and the bill collectors might go calling but can't really do anything if they just don't have the money. Supposedly that's the cause of skyrocketing medical and insurance costs, which I doubt. The current argument seems to be more about them making more money than fixing the system, and I see the healthcare bill we passed as a big gimme to that.

EDIT: Ah, I see Anthony talked about this already.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:39 PM

I have no idea what would become of you. People who are used to one type of society and suddenly find themselves in another with a different set of values often struggle, particularly if they have not chosen to have a change of life. You may be very satisfied with how you live and not wish to live in a collective society.

I would also assume that because your family are from Cuba and chose to leave (I think) that you would have heard about life in a collective society, and that your views are based upon what you have heard or witnessed.

I have never lived in a collective society, so I can't give you any first hand information. Certainly there would be a lot of variables in how such societies work. I am sure that there would be people who choose collective lifestyles in the US?

From what I know, some examples of living in a more collective culture would include

you don't individually own housing, it is owned by the state, a company, a landowner, a family, the military. Your living there would be contracted and probably involve some obligation on your behalf to the collective entity (if I can call it that).

You might not individually own anything, you might get what you need, as long as you fulfill your obligations to the collective entity.

You may have decision making capacities as member of the collective entity, or you may have none (ie feudalism)

You may only receive what you need from the collective entity as long as you are useful to them, or you may have it for life no matter what your circumstances.

Does that explain?

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

Hello,

Could I take the clothes from their back? (If they had clothes?) The decorative piercings from their bodies? Could I seize their hunting spear? The food they would feed to their children? Could I take their hut or other dwelling? (If they had one?)

Was anything apportioned to the individual and considered theirs, or could I seize it all and leave them naked and starving?

--Anthony

You need to try on another pair of glasses, because you aint ever gonna get past the idea of private propety while you see everything through the lens of a 21st century homeowning, wage earning, mortgage holding American.

You are asking the wrong questions. You have to imagine yourself somewhere where accumulation of goods is not the main raison d'etre for existence. Why would you steal clothes and food from those who contribute to your survival? Why would you take things from them when you have what you need and you all have the same? Why would you take a course of action which would piss everyone off and result in your being thrown out and having to survive on your own without the support and nurturing of others around you?

I think collective cultures view things quite differently.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 2:57 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"Certainly there would be a lot of variables in how such societies work..."

Hello Magons,

Well, those are certainly a lot of variables. I feel that Signy has something specific in mind when he/she speaks of such a society, so perhaps he/she can narrow down the field of possibilities and explain what is specifically being advocated for.

The reason this is a conversation is because there are people advocating for such a society in MY society, so the possibility of a shift in living style and circumstance is an actual possibility if they ever get their wish. So my wish is to know what their wish is. I've been convinced of a lot of things, and if their wish is for something that seems good, I may wish to be part of it. If not, I may not wish that and will oppose it.

You are correct in that my knowledge of collective (specifically dictatorial communist) society is via family lore and communication with people currently living in such a society. In the specific instance of Cuba, I can confirm that the average citizen is less happy than they were before the change, based on the actual testimony of those who lived before and after it.

My immediate family (grandparents, parents) left Cuba just a few years before Castro took power and the change occurred. The process of immigration was very different for them than for those who followed. I have been exposed to both kinds of lore, because different parts of the family came across at different times, for different reasons, and under different conditions.

The best analogy I can come up with to differentiate between Batista era and Castro era immigration is this:

Some came because they wanted to be here. Some came because they found survival too hard there.

This difference, which seems a nuance, creates vastly different outlooks.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:03 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"You are asking the wrong questions. You have to imagine yourself somewhere where accumulation of goods is not the main raison d'etre for existence. Why would you steal clothes and food from those who contribute to your survival? Why would you take things from them when you have what you need and you all have the same? Why would you take a course of action which would piss everyone off and result in your being thrown out and having to survive on your own without the support and nurturing of others around you?

I think collective cultures view things quite differently."

Hello Magons,

It is true that it is difficult for me to stand in the shoes of this other type of culture.

One of my problems is this: There always seems to be someone who wants to take what you have.

It must even have been true in these simple, tribal cultures, for I have heard that they battled each other sometimes.

Battled why? For what?

Somebody wanted something and somebody else didn't want them to have it.

And then when the Europeans came, there were battles then, too. I have even read of rather frightening New Zealand islanders who made such an impression on the visiting Europeans that people were advised to avoid the place for a time.

The suggestion I make is that sooner or later, someone comes along who will want something that you need. These societies either had a policy to deal with it, or they invented one. In any case, I can not imagine that violence would ever surface unless someone, somewhere said, "THIS IS MY THING AND YOU CANNOT HAVE IT."

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:13 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Quote:
from that I'm assuming everyone else would enact the law?

wha? Do people keep missing that Anthony has said he supports the "give a man a drink" law?

Hello,

Yes, everyone keeps overlooking that I support Universal Health Care and giving thirty people water.

I suppose the fact that I do not do these things with unfettered relish is the source of great consternation to them.

Not everyone. I got that, I really did. I added the bit about the Native Americans merely as an illustration to get everyone thinking about the idea of societies without firmly-defined property rights in some areas.

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservatives." - John Stuart Mill

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:23 PM

I have answered your question, not because I advocate that a collective society is better than a society of individuals. I think that actually there are few or no pure examples of either, but that for some reasons, you feel the need to see things in this argument in terms of absolutes.

I would put to you that all societies contain individuals and have collective elements, but that there is a spectrum on which how the needs of the individual are weighted against the needs of the many. For example, I think there are currently many examples of cultures which have a collective element function perfectly well in a capitalist system - most Asian countries would fit that example.

I would also add that all societies have possessions, but not all place value on individual ownership or accumulation of possessions.

I believe there are many good things about ensuring individual rights, but I also see that there are advantages to having a collective approach to some things. Unlike you, I don't feel any ideological angst weighing up one against another. Everything is a trade off in life and I have little time for ideological purity.

I know of no one who has come from Cuba, but I have known people who lived under Communism in Europe. They had mixed tales to tell, and while they hated some things, they still miss other aspects of life in those systems.

I don't by any stretch of the imagination believe that our current system is the best one ever, or that it is as good as it can get. We certainly have the capacity to own a lot, given the right circumstances, but does that make us happier than people who own little and have a strong network of supportive, enduring relationships?

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 3:35 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I don't by any stretch of the imagination believe that our current system is the best one ever, or that it is as good as it can get. We certainly have the capacity to own a lot, given the right circumstances, but does that make us happier than people who own little and have a strong network of supportive, enduring relationships?"

Hello,

I don't think our current system is the best it can be. I don't know enough about other systems to know if there have been better ones that produce more overall happiness. I hear a lot of good things about European countries that weigh heavily towards socialist policies.

As for having a strong network of supportive, enduring relationships... that would be a very good description of what I observed and lived as part of the Cuban-American community back home in South Florida.

Anyway, as I say, there are people here who advocate a shift towards collectivism, so this isn't merely the hashing out of a theory, but a measurement of one of my possible tomorrows.

"Unlike you, I don't feel any ideological angst weighing up one against another. Everything is a trade off in life and I have little time for ideological purity."

I don't think an ideological purist weighs anything against anything else, and I doubt they angst at all over their choices. This perception baffles me. Ideological purists don't have this kind of pain because the ideology dictates exactly what must be done in any circumstance.

It is people who have an unpure ideology, one muddied by multiple considerations, who experience pain in decision making.

In any event, I think that if someone is contemplating a decision that will affect your life, you would much prefer that they carefully weigh that decision, pros and cons, goods and ills... rather than just arbitrarily making a choice.

I certainly want my decision makers to angst and fret when they change the course of my destiny. I think I deserve that consideration, and I think others deserve it from me.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 4:21 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

"Okay, society has the power of deciding whether I live or die."

No, society is the resource that keeps you alive.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 4:27 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"No, society is the resource that keeps you alive."

Hello,

To be fair, there are societies, ours and others, who have killed people. So it's not a one-sided-wonder-boon.

A society is what you make of it.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:00 PM

BYTEMITE

I actually used to think society was a good thing so long as people constructed it with the assent of everyone who was part of it. A society couldn't exist without some agreement regarding morality and ethics and a code of conduct.

Maybe it's just my crazy talking, or my not being very socialized as a kid... It's not anything you said, it's something my sideways thinking jumped to, I caught a glimpse of something and I'm not even sure I fully understand it or can explain it. I mind-wedgied myself.

The whole of human society and humans themselves are messed up/broken/exploitive/abusive so not right. I'm a little shaken up. I'm not sure I can contribute to this thread much more or remain very rational or coherent.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:

It must even have been true in these simple, tribal cultures, for I have heard that they battled each other sometimes.

Battled why? For what?

Somebody wanted something and somebody else didn't want them to have it.

And then when the Europeans came, there were battles then, too. I have even read of rather frightening New Zealand islanders who made such an impression on the visiting Europeans that people were advised to avoid the place for a time.

Maori culture is and was very different from Koori (Aboriginal) culture and I had a long discussion over this with DT in another thread. My understanding of Maori culture is limited, but I know that they were a warrior and agrarian society, who also had castes, so very stratified. They may have 'owned' land in a much more european sense.

In this land, when Europeans arrived, they throught they were 'buying' land off the local population with blankets and beads. The locals assumed they were just asking if they could stay and hang out, use the land and it was kind of 'oh and thanks for these blankets' kind of things. They were custodians and they had been asked and they said yes. All good, until it dawned on them horribly that the Europeans meant that the land was now not theirs to use at all, that they were expected to bugger off, and if they didn't (and even if they did) they got hunted down, poisoned, dislocated. Then they got pissed off.

A local mob recently gave back to the government some blankets and beads. It was a kind 'thanks but no thanks, in hindsight' kind of guesture.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 5:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
I don't think our current system is the best it can be. I don't know enough about other systems to know if there have been better ones that produce more overall happiness. I hear a lot of good things about European countries that weigh heavily towards socialist policies.

As for having a strong network of supportive, enduring relationships... that would be a very good description of what I observed and lived as part of the Cuban-American community back home in South Florida.

As I said, not either/either.

Quote:
Anyway, as I say, there are people here who advocate a shift towards collectivism, so this isn't merely the hashing out of a theory, but a measurement of one of my possible tomorrows.

It is unlikely that many or any are suggesting a place where no one would own property and that invidividuals have no rights.

Quote:

I don't think an ideological purist weighs anything against anything else, and I doubt they angst at all over their choices. This perception baffles me. Ideological purists don't have this kind of pain because the ideology dictates exactly what must be done in any circumstance.

I'd say the exact opposite and I see a little of this in you, in the nicest possible way. If you are an ideological purist, you really need to grapple endlessly with how life does not fit into neat ideological boxes and you have constant angst over how much misery and suffering you can endure in order to live up to your own ideals against trading off your ideals for a compromise which in turn causes you ideological angst.

The way I see it, no one has to decide 'collective good/individual bad' or vice versa. You can say 'we can have a system which has universal health' and the 'individuals can own private property and have a series of rights'

I know because I live in such a system. I may be fooling myself, but I don't feel my rights are infringed upon by having a taxpayer funded hospital system, along with an education system, roads, infrastructure etc etc. Of course, were I to find a place without taxation where it was all user pays and individual rights were held up to the enth degree, I might realise I've been living in a totalitarian regime or something akin to it.

I might also add that one of the major pains with individualist society versus collective is the amount of decision making you do have. I have found that increase as the years roll by and we move from a system where state owned a lot of utilities and services to one where user pays in a competitive market. Do I really want to spend time thinking about which telecommunications company/medical insurer/car insurer/retirement fund I need? Endless choice. Doesn't fill me with thrills frankly.

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 6:36 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

"I'd say the exact opposite and I see a little of this in you, in the nicest possible way. If you are an ideological purist, you really need to grapple endlessly with how life does not fit into neat ideological boxes and you have constant angst over how much misery and suffering you can endure in order to live up to your own ideals against trading off your ideals for a compromise which in turn causes you ideological angst."

Hello,

I do not see myself this way, but it troubles me that you do. I must either dismiss your opinion or consider the possibility that you may be seeing something about me I have been blind to.

I think I will spend some time considering the possibility that I am not who I think I am.

--Anthony

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Friday, September 16, 2011 7:24 PM

I did say 'I see a little of it in you' from your posts, but I don't know you and I may be wrong.

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 5:32 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
I actually used to think society was a good thing so long as people constructed it with the assent of everyone who was part of it. A society couldn't exist without some agreement regarding morality and ethics and a code of conduct.

Maybe it's just my crazy talking, or my not being very socialized as a kid... It's not anything you said, it's something my sideways thinking jumped to, I caught a glimpse of something and I'm not even sure I fully understand it or can explain it. I mind-wedgied myself.

The whole of human society and humans themselves are messed up/broken/exploitive/abusive so not right. I'm a little shaken up. I'm not sure I can contribute to this thread much more or remain very rational or coherent.

I apologize for triggering anything like that, no matter how accidentally.

The sense of exactly how precarious our existence may be can be very unsettling. But any individual existence is precarious, whether human or fish. And it always, without exception, ends badly.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 6:10 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
The land was seized in an effort to protect the Everglades, a precious natural resource. Years later, it was sold by the government to developers who drained the land and built housing complexes. I don't know how that was arranged, but it didn't make me very happy when I heard about it. The Everglades has been redefined from time to time during my lifetime to allow the construction of housing in land that was once preserved swamp. As a result of this continual encroachment and associated population increase, the aquifer is threatened. It makes me sad.

Off topic, but that's a perfect example of what I was talking about when saying "we" (conservationists, environmentalists) never actually "win" any war. We have to fight it over and over again while if we lose one time, what you describes is what happens.

Unfortunately, we are dependent on who and which party is in power to keep our "win" from becoming a loss. Those in Congress and the White House can change the rules of the game, just as they did in your example, and take away permanently whatever we fought tooth and nail to preserve. Sickens me.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:00 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Grk. Okay, society has the power of deciding whether I live or die. Society IS the process of deciding who lives and who dies.

I get it. You can stop terrifying me. It's time for me to start running away very fast.

Byte, my friend, where are you going to run to?.

You have a couple of choices-

You try to find a hole to live in, off the grid as much as possible (which works until you need something only a technologically-advanced society can provide, like steel tool, or cloth, or medicine)

You can stay and try to convince your fellow citizens to vote to make this society more careful of its HUMAN members and less careful of its MONEY.

Or you can try to find a place in which this ever-present and all-powerful society is already careful of its human members, and allows them much freedom. I suggest any of the northern European nations.

Sorry dear, but your choices are limited.

*HUGS*

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:04 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I agree with Magons in that "I see a little of it in you." That someone would view giving a thirsty person a drink of water as being "forced" is to me pretty ideological. From what you write, it SEEMS as if you view virtually every restraint or law as "forcing" you, and that view is one neither I nor apparently Magons agree with.

I'm confused by

Quote:
The reason this is a conversation is because there are people advocating for such a society in MY society

That's where I see something you apparently do not. I don't see anyone advocating communism or socialism, but obviously you do. There are advocates for society having responsibilities toward its members, and that as such, given not all will agree (for example, that there should be a right to abortion), a consensus needs to be reached and laws enacted to give everyone the same rights. That you see people advocating for (apparently) some kind of communism or socialism is part of what causes me to view you as an ideologue. I don't view some of the things you no doubt see as attempts to change our society so drastically the way you do.

I HAVE lived in the closest form of communal living we have in the U.S. It wasn't anything like the tribal forms we've discussed, but it had aspects of communality. We all paid equal shares of rent, we all put in for food and each of us cooked the food by alternating. We paid equal shares of utilities, bought a TV together and came to agreements on what we would watch, etc. We each did the house laundry, alternating, and the same with gardening, house cleaning, etc. In some cases people had preferences, so one person would take over completely house cleaning, one gardening, etc.

We had personal possessions, of course, and when one of us lost their job, we picked up the slack and divided up their rent, etc. Those of us who had better jobs bought things for the house and loaned (sometimes gave) money to those making less. At one point we sold drugs, and all worked together at the jobs that required, receiving either drugs or money for our share. We had few problems with this arrangement, as we all chose to live communally so we knew how we had chosen to live and what it required of us. When someone left, others would suggest a replacement and we would decide amongst us who to accept as a new "family" member (because that's how we saw the situation). When someone had a significant other, they stayed if they wanted at no cost; if it became onerous, we'd discuss and decide how to proceed.

We shared rooms, as there were more of us than there were bedrooms. I slept on a mattress on the floor at one point in the bedroom of another couple. People shared rooms depending on the size of the room and how many of us there were.

Now the big caveat to that is that we were all YOUNG. Whether going to school or part of the work force (or both), our lives weren't settled yet so we were free to choose how to live. I have no doubt eventually we all went our separate ways; I left before the house I was in broke up, but doubtless it happened. At one point we lost the lease on our house, there was shuffling as we found a couple of smaller places, then when someone found a big house again, some of us returned and started again.

Obviously this situation only works in some ways and for some time, but I also know a communal living situation up in the hills North of us, it's a stable one, has land everyone works, and they're not "into" many of the things you listed as your possessions, like TVs and cell phones. They live much more simply and do so in part so that they CAN live together in the way they want. Within the group are married couples, some with children, single people and people living together.

So that's just an example of how it works within our society. It's about deciding that one wants to live slightly outside what society considers the "norm" and not being tied to the idea of ownership of property, improving one's living situation with "things", etc.

I think the one that bothers me the most is your repeated assertion of how to protect your property from being "seized". That seems to indicate a fear which some of us don't worry about as much; there are laws to protect our possessions to a certain degree; some of us have the mentality of "sharing" and others don't feel that strongly about possessions. It seems to be a reoccuring theme for you, where for some of the rest of us, that fear isn't as prevalent.

I guess Jim and I are somewhat of an example. We supported his brother off and on for some twenty years; he never paid rent or utilities, sometimes he worked, sometimes he didn't, and we had no problem with that until he was such a divisive force in the house, and had become SUCH a taker, that we asked him to pull his share. He left.

We took Jo in, who came with absolutely nothing and was unable to work, and supported her for four years--in her case, costing us quite a bit...more than we intended or knew until she was gone. Toward the end she contributed nothing to the household and stole from us, lived in filth, rarely left her room because she was always heavily on drugs, and became somewhat violent at times. We put up with it for a very long time before I discovered she'd been re-upping meds my doctors and dentist had prescribed for me, was ordering drugs off the internet with our money, and more. The we put her on a plane back to England.

Currently Choey lives with us, and has for over four years now. Unlike Curt and Jo, she does MORE around the house than anyone else, by choice. She puts gas in the car and insists on paying us $100 a month from her disability. We don't know if she'll ever be able to work again, and we don't care. She has a home with us for life if she so chooses; she's a very responsible person and wouldn't dream of abusing her situation here, so I can never envision a situation where we would ask her to leave. Her boyfriend (also out of work currently and doing odd jobs while he tries to find a job) stays over, they use our cars to go places (as he has a motorcycle and they like to take her dog); Choey is responsible so he gives her money for food and she cooks for him, always making enough for Jim and I to share, if we wish. Sometimes she buys and cooks food for the three of us, sometimes I do, Jim usually buys, cooks and eats his own food (he's a fish-and-chicken-only vegetarian and has a condition where he needs to eat something every four hours or so, while I usually only eat twice a day). Choey doesn't pay for for utilities, cable, internet or anything else. Given she is 53, I am about to turn 63 and Jim just turned 73, she may outlive both of us. If Jim dies first, I will give her the house in my will, as I have no family (we own our home outright). If I die first, he will no doubt give the house to his son (his daughter married money) and would choose at that point whether to have Choey live wherever he moves, or go it alone, I've never asked. But I know as long as both of us are alive, Choey is part of our family and will live with us as long as she chooses.

So you see, Jim and I have a different perspective on "owning property". Mine I know comes from having lived communally; I find it a nice way to live. Jim, I imagine, comes to his from an overdeveloped sense of responsibility, something he has always had (family dynamics instilled it in him). But I know both of us consider Choey family and have no problem with the arrangement.

I'm writing all this to try and show that we have what I think is a different perspective on property, "property rights", and the fear of someone seizing our property than you do. Maybe that helps you understand our differences, maybe it doesn't, I just thought I'd offer it to show my/our perspective on the issue. It would never occur to me that giving someone a glass of water because it was required of me by law was onerous in any way, I'd do it with or without the law. I don't mind paying taxes, even tho' that IS onerous in some ways and at some times, because I am part of a society and that means I have responsibilities beyond just myself. Maybe that's what it comes down to; I have no problem being part of a society which requires things of me, including money, and I don't see that as anyone "seizing" anything from me.

Sorry this is so long, I wanted to provide specific examples.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:15 AM

BYTEMITE

Sig, I'm seriously reconsidering a number of my non-violent positions and whether I think I want ANY form of society to exist. Me running away and hiding is the best option for everyone ELSE.

In other words, DON'T. This is not a tipping point you want me to go over, and I'm bowing out of this conversation out of ethical necessity.

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:20 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Tony, your arguments are internally contradictory, and there are definite examples of societies doing things differently, but neither of those points will address the feeling you have that your family had something vital which was taken away. In your schema, the right to own that farm has turned into a sacred right, an inviolable one... the right to own property in order to survive. Is it a right that you think belongs to everyone?

So, I ask you for a moment to consider the families which had NO land (and there were many such, in Cuba). Where were THEIR sacred rights?

As far as the internal contradiction, I found this interesting.... in several places, you said that it is only in a milieu of complete abundance that property rights become irrelevant, because if everything is immediately replaceable then there is no necessity to "own" anything. On the other hand, the institution of property rights.... as YOU envision them (sacred, superseding nearly all other considerations) ... means that some people can accumulate much, while many others live in poverty. In other words, it appears as if property rights... as YOU envision it... actually creates poverty, the very lack of abundance which requires property laws.

It seems as if a near-absolute "right to property" creates a social milieu of suspicion, greed, and theft, as well as a milieu of "property ownership".

So OOC, who has the greatest interest in maintaining these rights? The poor?

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: Please take several deep breaths and consider your state of mind carefully.
*hugs*

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:30 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello Niki,

In your last message, you assert that no one is advocating for a collectivist society.

Yet, in my (apparent) delusion, idealoguery, obsession, or extremism, I don't have to go farther than this *thread* to find people who do advocate for a collectivist society, and would prefer it. In this *thread* I am informed that while the abolishment of the concept of property and property rights are preferable to some collectivist advocates, certain personal possessions may be reasonably preserved, like my favorite boomerang.

Next, you wonder at my concern over having property seized.

Then you describe situations where your property was seized, and you were forced to exile people in defense of your property and livelihood. Thankfully, they left peaceably.

I have decided that there is a serious problem of communication and perception here. Perhaps the problem is mine. Perhaps in my pure ideology and extremist position I am misreading the material above this message. This is not my perception, but it is A perception, and it may be valid to you.

In any event, before I depart this thread, I will explain a couple of thoughts. I hope you will humor me.

Pure Ideology. The Tea Partiers have a pure ideology. This allows them to shout, "Let him die, hell yeah!" when confronted with a person who has no means to pay for medical treatment. This is a position that requires no angst or deep thought on the part of the true believer. The ideology informs the decision directly. They do not worry about how the real world fits into their notions. Pure ideologists operate on faith, follow their ideology, and don't concern themselves over consequences.

I have thought about this all night and part of the morning. This is not me. I have ideals (as I hope we all do) but I consider people and problems and ethical concerns outside my ideals when coming to a decision. This allows me, through careful consideration, to move outside my ideals when making a decision. This is why I am not a "Hell yeah, let the fucker die if he can't pay" Libertarian- someone who would feel no angst over the situation in question. If I had purity of belief, there would be no conflict in my mind over any such decision.

Second-

A Collectivist Society. It seems very likely to me that in the near future, the Democrats will lose power to the Republicans. In fact, this is already beginning. When another Republican comes to power, I anticipate financial abuses and abuses on liberty and human rights that will shock the nation.

There are currently people who advocate for a collectivist society, but such people don't gain much traction. We all like our stuff. However, in the shock and pain likely to follow another Republican majority and Republican presidency, I anticipate that the message of collectivism and a shift away from personal property rights may be much more attractive. And why not? What we would have been doing already was clearly not working.

And so, I reached out to find out what sort of life that would be. How would I live and work in a world converted to collectivist ideals? The first conclusion I came to was that if personal property ceased to exist on any scale, then the lending industry would probably go away, and I'd probably not be working for a bank. I anticipate other changes, but I have no idea how it would all work.

The advocates of collectivism today will be the architects of collectivism tomorrow, so it seemed reasonable to ask people like Signy or Kiki what would become of me under this new system. Magons tried to help but she is not a specific advocate of the system so could only speak in generalities.

I don't know where my conclusions or concerns went awry. But clearly there is something terribly wrong, and the message is not getting across.

I seldom say this, but I am done here. Very basic ideas are not being communicated accurately here. Simple language and even simple conceptions of reality are not translating.

I can not describe Orange to you, and you can not explain Purple to me.

But thank you for trying. I have the sense that you all were really trying to make me understand.

I tried, too, but I could never explain the tyranny of forcing someone to do something, and why we should be reticent to do so.

I also was unable to explain to people why property rights were important to me. I am unable to explain this even to people who were forced to defend their property against seizure.

When such basic concepts are beyond my ability, it's time to move on to something else.

--Anthony

P.S. At some point we will have to have a talk about my 'family farm.'

_______________________________________________

"In every war, the state enacts a tax of freedom upon the citizenry. The unspoken promise is that the tax shall be revoked at war's end. Endless war holds no such promise. Hence, Eternal War is Eternal Slavery." --Admiral Robert J. Henner

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:44 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

It was small and had fruit trees, and I think you grew a little tobacco on it. That it was truly a family farm: one which grew the food your family ate, and provided perhaps a small amount of money from sales. Very much like the farm my dad grew up on in Poland, and my hubby in Hungary. Both of them had very fond memories... drying prunes in the fall, growing lupine on the riverbank to improve the soil, the big cherry tree where you could climb up and hide in, eating cherries until you were sick. The piglet raised for fall. The chickens. The poppies for poppyseed.

Nonetheless, there were many (MANY) people without even THAT level of assurance of sustenance. Very much like the situation in Poland and Hungary before WWII.

Tony, what if a bank had taken it over because of some small amount of owed money?

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:50 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Sig, I'm seriously reconsidering a number of my non-violent positions and whether I think I want ANY form of society to exist. Me running away and hiding is the best option for everyone ELSE.

In other words, DON'T. This is not a tipping point you want me to go over, and I'm bowing out of this conversation out of ethical necessity.

I have abstained for much the same reasons, only the ephiphany you seemed to have just had came to me a whole lot earlier.

If you wanna talk about it, vent, or whatever, I offer my shoulder, and if not (ever more likely) just know that I understand, more than you know.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 8:50 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Anthony, we definitely see things differently.

On your first point, I disagree wholeheartedly. What I see is people trying to get through the point that not all things are property to be protected, in some ways you already cannot protect your property, and that property in and of itself doesn't possess the extreme importance which you seem to place upon it. Is ANYONE here actually suggesting we should have no property or that we should go the way of communism or socialism? I kind of doubt it. It's a matter of DEGREES; what you write indicates that you want all property to be inviolate, and any law infringing on that is denying freedom.

Second, we never considered our property "seized", we weren't paying attention or would have caught what was going on, and it wasn't a big deal that she stole from us, it was just an indication of the fact that she was unable to control herself, our efforts to help her had failed, so we had to give up and return her to her ex and her family, who were willing to deal with her. "Seizing" indicates taking by force, which is apparently how you interpreted what happened. The word never would have occurred to Jim or I; we saw it as hear sickness and our not paying enough attention.

Quote:
I have ideals (as I hope we all do) but I consider people and problems and ethical concerns outside my ideals when coming to a decision. This allows me, through careful consideration, to move outside my ideals when making a decision.

Absolutely, and in a way I admire you because of this. You are willing to consider, and even permit, things outside your ideology. But from the way you write, it IS your ideology, and when you go outside it, you see it as DESPITE what you believe in. To rate everything as "does it impinge on my freedom" to the extent of believing giving someone a drink of water comes under that category IS extreme ideology, in my view. Others of us don't think twice about giving someone a drink of water, it's just the right thing to do and in no way affects our freedom.

Quote:
It seems very likely to me that in the near future, the Democrats will lose power to the Republicans. In fact, this is already beginning. When another Republican comes to power, I anticipate financial abuses and abuses on liberty and human rights that will shock the nation.

I'm very fearful of this, too, but I don't see the pendulum swinging back as far as you do, into collectivism. Our country has survived any number of bad Presidents and Congresses and, while it always swings back, it hasn't yet done so to the extent you envision. I therefore doubt it will, should both our fears come to pass. What you envision is a turn to communism, or socialism, and while I have no problem with a bit more socialism injected into our society, I can't envision America changing so dramatically as to become truly socialist, much less communist. We are too individualistic a society for me to believe that will happen.

Okay, I'm willing to agree to disagree, sadly, because yes, I WAS trying very hard to explain how a middle ground not only exists, but can be preferable to, the ideology of possessions and property being all important.

Your family farm is of no importance unless you want to discuss it; it seemed to explain to me a bit of your extreme attitude toward property and seizure, that's all. I keep coming back to that drink of water; that you should have to consider whether that is abrogating your freedom in any way is foreign to me, I can't understand it so I was confused as to how such an extreme attitude could come about. If your family had property which was seized (which was obviously the case, from your mention of the Everglades property), it seemed to me to help explain your attitude somewhat. That's all.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 2:52 PM

Niki, your experience of communal/collective living reflects experiences of others I have heard of. That they are difficult to sustain and often break down after several years. The ones that do last have (from what I have heard) have fairly susbstanatial governance so that everything is not constantly up for debate and discussion, but there are set perameters and boundaries to which people have to agree if they want to live there.

Kinship societies (not anything to do with state collectivism) are very rule based, that's how they seem to continue on without breakdown. It's not as if rules are law either, but traditional ways of doing things. There is little room for invididual choice or decision making and if you fall outside the box in terms of how you are or want to live your life, its kind of too bad sweetheart. I know that such societies have a variance in how strict those tradtions are, but there is a kind of rigidity to their lives.

So I admire plenty about them, I admire the support that they have when they raise children, support that I didn't have. I admire the fact that they don't seem to need counsellors or psychologists to support them when life gets rocky or lawyers and or mediators to sort out their issues when things go wrong, or retirement homes, or home nursing because that can all be taken care of within the kinship system. I like the fact that you don't have to endure the angst of decision making about how to live your life, because there are not significant decisions to make.

And on the other side, there is a lot to hate about a society that values the individual all else. I hate our selfishness, our obsession with our own happiness to the exclusion of all else. I work in an industry that sees the consequences of people's decisions about their lives and the fall out that occurs for their friends and family and in particular their children, but most people don't see it or don't care. I hate the lonliness and depression and isolation that I see as being endemic in this kind of society.

But could I just suddenly start living in a kinship society or a collective one. I'd really struggle. I don't think I could do it. I'd hate not having decision making about my life - I've been taught since day one that it is my life to make decisions about and I couldn't give that up. I've hated when family members have tried to tell me what to do, god help me if I'd been 'forced' to listen to them. And as for collective/communal living - I can't abide endless discussion and negotiation about how things can be done. Decision making by committeee - lord knows I've had to endure that over the years in various workplaces and other institutions I've been involved in - drives me batty. IT's long and labourious, hard to reach consensus. I've found in the absence of an overt power structure, a covert one evolves anyone and is usually much more of a headf*ck to deal with. So I'm kind of stuck here in the system that I exist within, having been thoroughly indoctrinated so that I could tolerate no other.

And as for property, you know I'd probably be reasonably happy (maybe) if the state did provide some kind of housing that was reasonable, I could do up if I wanted, and I had it for life. Currently I own - well actually I pay a kings ransome to the bank - for a small house that needs fixing with a bit of land around it. it's a kind of modern feudalism that I live within, because the bank owns me frankly, but the alternatives - private renting is expensive, unreliable, public housing is limited and for low income only and pretty dire. Collective living I can't do, so here I am. Choiceless in an society where choice is supposed to be everything.

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:25 PM

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Isn't there a thing , philosophically, in Western Europe at least, called the " social contract?"
It's endorsed by at least the Judeo-Christian religions. Doesn't it define, in a loose and unwritten fashion, certain things that society owes to the individual, and in the other direction, certain things that the individual owes to the society and to other individuals? Isn't water to that thirsty guy in the desert covered by that? Isn't taking a little individual risk, or making a little individual effort, to preserve the life of another part of that? Isn't " do unto others as you would have others do unto you?" Isn't Christian "good Samaritainism?" Isn't it about giving the other guy a break, regardless of how you have been treated?

Do we, or don't we, subscribe to it?

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:56 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Byte

If you are still reading, let me suggest that you may not be in a DIY mental state. I think you should talk with a professional or several until you find one you would literally trust with your life. Obviously this discussion strikes a deep-seated response. While I am certain you can reach understanding and perspective, I don't think that will happen on its own. So, be responsible to yourself, get yourself the break you need.

Let us know how you are doing, if appropriate.

Hugs.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 7:58 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"Do we, or don't we, subscribe to it?"

In this economy it's a sucker's game.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Saturday, September 17, 2011 9:20 PM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"... to find people who do advocate for a collectivist society ..."

Certainly not me. Please re-read my posts and try to find, specifically, where you think I was advocating and not describing.

We've had a similar discussion with SergeantX who seemed to think that every individual was a wholly self-sustaining entity who never received one iota from society and therefore should never be answerable to it one iota.

Personally, I can't think of a single instance where people survive as isolated individuals or where they survive without that most social of human tools called language. Can you? OTOH there are societies without personal territory, and societies that live communally. All this is by way of challenging your emotion that territory and property are exquisitely necessary for survival, but society is dispensable. In fact the exact opposite is true.

While I personally wouldn't advocate giving up all personal property, I also don't think we need to be at the other extreme - defending the extremely wealthy as having an absolute right to everything they can grab. That seems to be the position you have.

The only person who seems to be unhappy with less than an extreme position is - you. Yeah, OK, you will grudgingly give that person some water, or make health care socially available - but if you could find some way to NOT do that, you'd be MUCH happier. After all, it requires you crack open that tight-clenched fist at the behest of society. And god knows what they will want from you next. No?

That separation from society gives me an inkling into your mindset, which is related to the position of your family in Cuba. As modest as what you had was, your family were the 'haves'. Pretty much everyone else were the 'have nots'. There was you ... and them. Separate, with different histories, resources and agendas. No wonder you see society as hostile.

Remember when teachers, public employees, Planned Parenthood, NPR and PBS crashed the stock market, wiped out half of our 401Ks, took trillions in taxpayer funded bailouts, spilled oil in the Gulf of Mexico, gave themselves billions in bonuses, and paid no taxes?

Yeah, me neither....

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

Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:20 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Magons, I don't think I could live like that, either. What you describe of the kinship society would be way too rigid for me. In the communal houses, we didn't need that much discussion once it was set up. I came in after the set-up and just had to agree to what they had put together, as did other new people. Beyond that, we only dealt with stuff that came up, like new members, and since everyone brought friends around (which was a GREAT improvement over going to bars, etc., to date), we always already knew new people. But again, it would only work for the young and free, and no doubt each house broke up when the people got older, married, etc.

The communal farm, as far as I know, is still going. It certainly had a pretty long history when I met them. I'm sure there was contention from time to time, but I never noticed much.

And boy, everything you said about the individualistic society; ours has gone so far in that direction that children and the elderly really suffer because of it!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

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

Sunday, September 18, 2011 5:26 AM