Its disgusting, it really is. by Smartbutdumbblonde

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Socialism doesn't work and capitolism suffers from bouts of extreme excess and indulgence. Don't know if we'll ever find a happy medium.

Neither philosophies work alone, it's just "capitalism"’s collapse is more insidious than that of Socialism.

The only way to get a workable system (until some visionary comes up with something better) is to combine the best aspects of both. For all the bitching and moaning of free market capitalist history has conclusively proven that reducing regulation does not improve things, and the only people who benefit from reductions in social services (i.e. aspects of socialism) like public schools, public health and so on are the rich.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Sunday, July 30, 2006 11:48 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
If it's any comfort, the two richest people in the world are currently in the process of giving nearly all their money away to charity.

Yes actually, it is.

Ain't it cool Chrisisall

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

Sunday, July 30, 2006 12:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SimonWho:
If it's any comfort, the two richest people in the world are currently in the process of giving nearly all their money away to charity.

The Gates are giving a big chunk of their money to a global vaccination program. Then they buy stock in companies that manufacture vaccines, of course, to promote the good cause of vaccination.

Do other people see this, or is it just me? They give away a lot of money (tax write-off included no doubt) to buy products that will make their stock worth more and make them richer.

Look, I'm not dissing the Gates. Just think they are very astute businesspeople. Very astute indeed.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Sunday, July 30, 2006 1:50 PM

SIGMANUNKI

Quote:
Originally posted by Smartbutdumbblonde:

they are willing to spend something like $15,000 dollars on a belt buckle, that they will probably only wear once, while there are billions of people out there starving to death because they don't even have enough money to buy food.

...

Maybe the developed world should stop being so obsessed with the material, celebrity culture, and focus our intentions, and our money on the people who really need it.

I agree completely.

Quote:
Originally posted by Smartbutdumbblonde:

Here's an example. Ralph Lauren spent $200,000 on a fence for his ranch. A fence.

You couldn't have picked a worse example. First off, fences aren't exactly cheap. Secondly, when you have to build one for your ranch, they tend to be *very* long. Thus, quite expensive. Go ahead, ask any rancher that has built a fence to keep the cattle in.

Not to mention that he probably needs rather good security b/c he has a lot of cash to keep people out from hurting him, or kidnapping him, or...

On the other hand, if you would have mentioned a $50 mil USD home, then you'd have something.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

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

Sunday, July 30, 2006 3:49 PM

MONTANAGIRL

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Smartbutdumbblonde:

Here's an example. Ralph Lauren spent $200,000 on a fence for his ranch. A fence.

You couldn't have picked a worse example. First off, fences aren't exactly cheap. Secondly, when you have to build one for your ranch, they tend to be *very* long. Thus, quite expensive. Go ahead, ask any rancher that has built a fence to keep the cattle in.

I have to concur that fences aren't cheap.
From the the University of MN Extension service (because my dad wasn't handy to ask how much it cost us the last time we had to rebuild fence):

Quote:
The cost for one mile of five-strand barbed-wire fence with metal T-Posts (every 16.5 feet) is about $1300.00 per mile for fence and T-posts only.

(Note that that doesn't include labor costs to actually build the fence.)
And that's about the cheapest kind of fence to build short of using electric wire. Somehow I think he was probably building something a lot more substantial.

So while I agree that a $15,000 belt buckle is ridiculous, I'm with SigmaNunki that using fencing costs to prove your point is a misstep.

-------------------------------------------------
You ended that sentence with a preposition! Bastard. - O'Neill

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

Monday, July 31, 2006 10:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Smartbutdumbblonde:
Maybe the developed world should stop being so obsessed with the material, celebrity culture, and focus our intentions, and our money on the people who really need it.

It's heartbreaking. It really is, to contrast ridiculously obscene wealth with the dire poverty in which the rest of the world lives.

I grew up in third world countries. During my teen years, I lived across the street from a market garbage dump in Paraguay where kids routinely visited to get food. Kids went to school at night, because during the day, they have to work to be able to eat.

I am now living in Peru, where I am surrounded by very short people. Peru has one of the highest rate of stunted growth in the world because of poverty-related malnutrition. The girls my 6 year old daughter play with are the same height, and they are 12 years old.

Poverty has always been a big issue with me; I've been thinking about it for a long, long time. In a previous lifetime, I used to be social worker, working with the poorest of the poor in rural Alabama. After a couple of years in that line of work and having experienced what I have growing up, I have arrived at a few thoughts.

1. Poverty is like living in a hole in the ground. Giving poor people money might make their hole a lot more comfortable, but it doesn't help them climb out of the hole. The money you give them will eventually run out; the goods they buy with money will eventual wear down. And then they are still in the hole.

2. Education is the first step out of the hole. It is better to teach a man HOW to fish than to give them a barrel of fishes. Once they know how to make money for themselves, they aren't dependent on others (and their strings) for money. Once independent, they can make not just make their lives more comfortable, but they can make capital to actually get rich.

3. Capital to own a business (i.e. self-employment) is the next step out of the hole. A serf on someone else's land might be able to live comfortably, but they will always be poor compared to the land owner. The only way for a serf to get ahead is to own his own land and reap his own harvest. To escape poverty, one has to be able to own capital and earn profits rather than wages.

4. A free market and the force to defend it will keep the poor person from going back into the hole of poverty. Poverty is a political reality, not a financial one. Rich people want to get richer, or at least remain rich. They use their power to keep poor people from ever becoming a threat. To truly break free, the poor man has to have a deregulated small business market and enough force to defend the market's political independence. (Think of the brothel in "Heart of Gold." They needed weapons and force to defend their business from being destroyed by the rich and powerful.)

Let's continue with the serf / land owner analogy. For a serf to escape poverty, he has to work his own land. Landlords don't like that, because they have lose a chunk of land to every escaping serf. If every serf owns his own land, they won't have more land or wealth than others, so this is a big threat to them. They construct laws to make it hard or impossible for serfs to own his own land. Depending on the society, the serf has to either change the laws to be able to own land and compete with the landlord (e.g. as in the USA) or defend legitmately earned land with weapons (as is in Africa).

If a landlord is smart, and most of them are, they will appease the serf with a higher standard of living.and entice him to give up dreams of land ownership. Work for me, live comfortably--what do you need to get out of serfdom for? Landlords give up a little bit of cash up front for increased security that their land ownership and profiteering will not be challenged. They create a middle-class that will die as happy serfs, not caring about the landlord's obscene wealth. If they are really, really smart, they will be charitable to the poor and make their holes in the ground a bit more comfortable from time to time, enough to improve public image and maybe get tax write-offs. You'll notice no one, not the landlords and not the government, will ever do anything that will actually help the poor have the potential to be rich.

Now substitute "land" for business / capital, "serf" for employee, and "landlord" for corporation. It is not unlike the situation of black Americans in the early 1900's, when civil rights pioneer Vernon Johns preached that black business ownership is the only real way out of poverty and economic slavery.

I realize that "free market" and "deregulation" are buzz words that tap into emotional reflexes. Please allow me to clarify. I don't believe the USA has a free market and deregulation. Big business and corporations have rigged it so that there is free market and deregulation, but only FOR THEMSELVES, not their competitors. What kind of free market is that?

I have no problems with people amassing wealth and giving it to each other in their rich little circles for silly knick knacks like belt buckles. I only object when they use their wealth to politically oppress their potential competitors and keep them down. That is what I find disgusting.

I am not an economist or a good writer. I am not even saying I am right. These are just my thoughts and observations from having worked and lived closely with the poor, and having pondered the problem of poverty since I was 5.

For what it's worth,
Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Monday, July 31, 2006 12:21 PM

Great jumpin jeepers, finally someone other than me put 2+2 together and got four!

Every time I hear "Free Market" I cringe, because in all their moronic assessments, they forget the vile tendancy of those who DO have an exploitive lock to protect it by any means necessary - or, if they're arm-in-arm with some of those corporations, they make sure NOT to mention it, either way, the subject never comes up.

Quote:
A free market and the force to defend it will keep the poor person from going back into the hole of poverty.

That means, when corpo-agro decides to ruin your seed stock, salt your fields in the dead of night, or fly their choppers over your livestock attempting to stampede them... YOU SHOOT THEM.

And society MUST justify that action, or you have no Free Market.

Because without that caveat, there's really nothing to protect a small operator, since a supercorp is perfectly willing to take the slap on the wrist fine for almost any level of nastiness up to and including murder, to remove or eliminate your competition from THEIR "Free" market.

And that's what most of these shills are saying when they mouth the words - I prefer regulation over corpodominance... and as an Anarchist, I despise regulation.

But unless you're willing to face the fact that violence is going to occur within a free market simply due to human nature, than one should not go extolling the merits of a free market, cause that is not what it would be.

Quote:
To truly break free, the poor man has to have a deregulated small business market and enough force to defend the market's political independence. (Think of the brothel in "Heart of Gold." They needed weapons and force to defend their business from being destroyed by the rich and powerful.)

Over a decade of folks pounding on about the "Free Market" and CTS here is the FIRST person other than myself to mention this little speedbump on the way to achieving one... and what that tells me is that the folks mouthing the words are ignorant, incompetent, or have interest in the kind of "Free Market" that allows corporations like Enron or Haliburton to run roughshod and unhindered over everyone else.

Or worse, consider what they'll do to each other ?

Free Markets = Corporate Wars ?

That's a chilling thought, isn't it ?

-Frem

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

Monday, July 31, 2006 12:27 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Smart

Well said! Rant away!

People making money off the "little people" of the world need to give something back.

one of the Forsaken TM

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

Monday, July 31, 2006 2:02 PM

Whenever I hear "free market" I remeber the period and place where there was one, when there was no or at least next to no, government regulation, the period that free market capitalists like to forget about and ignore because it was a shit time to live in.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Monday, July 31, 2006 3:49 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That means, when corpo-agro decides to ruin your seed stock, salt your fields in the dead of night, or fly their choppers over your livestock attempting to stampede them... YOU SHOOT THEM.

LOL. Say what you really think, Frem!

My husband used to travel extensively in Africa. (And not the touristy 5-star hotels type of travel either.) He once told me a story he heard. We don't know if it is true or not, but he believes that it could very well be.

A corporation went to the Congo to do some mining. The business mined the crap out of the land, destroyed the ecosystem, and polluted their river. The tribes that lived out in the bush asked them to stop and fix what was ruined and clean up the river. The corporation refused. The tribe killed everyone in the company. The company destroyed their livelihoods and threatened their survival. What the company did was the equivalent of bulldozing their homes and robbing them of everything they owned. In the tribe's view, they were retaliating. The next company that came around might be more considerate.

Many people don't think of economic oppression or environmental destruction as initiation of force. But it is. I agree with you, Frem. I feel folks have a right to defend their livelihoods and capital, which buys their independence and freedom.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Monday, July 31, 2006 4:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
the period that free market capitalists like to forget about and ignore because it was a shit time to live in.

I consider myself a free market capitalist. (REAL free market capitalism, not this fake shit we have now where greed climbs in bed with the law and calls their dirty little deals deregulation.) And I don't argue that a true free market is a shitty way to live.

I think that is one reason I love Firefly so much. True freedom and free market is not knowing where your next meal is coming from. Freedom is escaping bullies and sadists and bounty hunters. Freedom is negotiating with people like Patience. Freedom is where there are no cops to defend you, and you have to shoot people like Patience yourself.

I don't hold any romantic notions about what real freedom would mean. It is harsh and hard and I don't blame anyone who prefers not to have freedom. I only resent it when they tell me I can't have freedom.

So Frem, when you do want to come over and we'll go start our own lawless country? :)

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Monday, July 31, 2006 6:26 PM

Hmm.. would it actually be a "Country" if it were lawless ?
More of a collective, one would think, but there would be ONE law.

Everyone. Must. Be. Armed.
Period.

The first defense of life, liberty, property and personhood is the ability and willingness to defend it, and someone unwilling to do so... is just fully beyond my comprehension, as is someone suffering the dichotomy of being unwilling, yet willing to depend on others to do so for them.

But, lets say we buy some unwanted chunk of real estate out in the boonies, or some deserted island, theoretically.... first things first, you'd need a NoookYularr weapon, even just one, to keep those american bullies out, or at least do a Chavez and show them you're willing to actually fight by buying enough firepower to do so, as a discouragement, and one that works well.

By choice, I would populate it with a mix of Finns and Russian peasants... why ?

Well, the Finns, as a rule, are not very aggressive - right up to the moment you step on their land and try to take it from them, and then they go back to their unrepentant barbaric roots and kick your ass right out of it.
Google: Winter War + Finland.

As for the Russian peasants ?
Ever seen those movies where the peasants flee before the invading horde ?
(The peasants of Rohan in LoTR come to mind immediately)
Russian peasants don't do that, they poison the wells, salt the fields, burn the crops and then spit on their hands and take up hoes and pitchforks, standing as fast as the Spartans over the body of Leonidas - and they WILL resist you, to the last dying breath, as Hitler learned when they cut his supply lines to ribbons.

Not to mention neither of them has a great deal of trust or use for government as an institution.

As far as currency, the lesson of the eleventh round stands out pretty clear, currency devolves into fiat money which devolves society itself.
http://alternativeperspective.blogspot.com/2005/04/eleventh-round-fabl
e.html
Currency discourages community and thus none would be offered or invented.
And Usury would be an outright shootin offense.

Laws ? nope.. I rather suspect these things would be every bit as self-enforcing as not parking your car sideways across a four lane highway.

A nice theoretical, mind you, but if you dare offer an alternative to the current system of debt-slaves serving a powerful elite, they WILL kill you, bank on it.

Which is one reason I am so all-fired for space exploration and travel, you get far ENOUGH away, out in the black, they can't find you, can't reach you, can't hassle you.

I suspect that message had a lil bit to do with why our show was cancelled.

-Frem

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 12:00 AM

SMARTBUTDUMBBLONDE

Quote:
Originally posted by SigmaNunki:
Quote:
Originally posted by Smartbutdumbblonde:

they are willing to spend something like $15,000 dollars on a belt buckle, that they will probably only wear once, while there are billions of people out there starving to death because they don't even have enough money to buy food.

...

Maybe the developed world should stop being so obsessed with the material, celebrity culture, and focus our intentions, and our money on the people who really need it.

I agree completely.

Quote:
Originally posted by Smartbutdumbblonde:

Here's an example. Ralph Lauren spent $200,000 on a fence for his ranch. A fence.

You couldn't have picked a worse example. First off, fences aren't exactly cheap. Secondly, when you have to build one for your ranch, they tend to be *very* long. Thus, quite expensive. Go ahead, ask any rancher that has built a fence to keep the cattle in.

Not to mention that he probably needs rather good security b/c he has a lot of cash to keep people out from hurting him, or kidnapping him, or...

On the other hand, if you would have mentioned a $50 mil USD home, then you'd have something.

----
I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

Thanks for the pointer, granted, I don't know alot about fences, so OK, that was a bad example. I kind of thought that it was extravagant because this is the same guy who paid someone good money to make his ranch door squeak, to make it sound authentic. And, now you mention it, someone did spend £47million on a holiday home.
By the way, what does USD stand for?

***************
I haven't had this much fun since the last time I ate a lightbulb

98% of teens have smoked pot, if you are one of the 2% that haven't, copy this into your signature

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 12:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Everyone. Must. Be. Armed.
Period.

The first defense of life, liberty, property and personhood is the ability and willingness to defend it, and someone unwilling to do so... is just fully beyond my comprehension, as is someone suffering the dichotomy of being unwilling, yet willing to depend on others to do so for them.

Well, the idea behind a country where everyone. isn't. armed. is that they don't have guns, and then you don't need a gun to fight them, and everyone is a lot safer.

not lazy just don't care (about anything but Firefly)

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 2:25 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
If it's any comfort, the two richest people in the world are currently in the process of giving nearly all their money away to charity.

Every time I hear about some big charitable giveway, these lines pop into my head:

Quote:
Pity would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor
William Blake

Poverty is not a "natural" state. it is CREATED by our economic system... as is egregious weatlh. After all.,.. how do you think the rich got rich in the first place?

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 4:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Hmm.. would it actually be a "Country" if it were lawless ?

No, we don't have to start out with an membership application to the UN. *snicker*

Remember those bush people in Africa? No one messes with them. They are a sovereign nation; they just don't have their own color on the geopolitical map.

We go there with a chunk of money, buy some land and set up the infrastructure needed for a modern society (so we can continue coming to FFF.net). And we put modern weapons in the hands of the bush people. Under the radar. Hopefully, no one will care we built our own private Disneyworld in the middle of Africa.

Finns and Russians would be welcome. Anyone would be welcome. Personally, I lean toward inviting American Indian Vietnam vets. Talk about people who distrust government--and have the combat experience to back it up. Haha.

A group of us will chip in voluntarily and contract a manager and some staff to oversee public services that can't be handled as well privately: buying and demarking public property to be used as roads, underground sewer system, pipelines for water and gas and the like; and printing currency.

I like the convenience of currency, gold-standard currency. I really don't like hauling chickens around. We can just dispense with the eleventh round. But currency use doesn't have to be compulsory. People can use whatever they want.

Quote:
Everyone. Must. Be. Armed.
Period.

That includes men, women, children--and dogs.

Quote:
you get far ENOUGH away, out in the black, they can't find you, can't reach you, can't hassle you.

You just can't have sovereignty without owning the ground under your feet. And all ground on earth has already been claimed. We all have to stand on something, even if it is just an old spaceship.

I think the point of all this is to say, buying wells for villagers instead of a belt buckle won't relieve their poverty. If someone really wants to relieve the poverty of those villagers, they would buy guns for them. Which is why it is forbidden by law. Which is why poverty is a political artifact, not an economic one. Which is why poverty can never be solved by charity.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 4:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ntlzyjstdntcare:
Well, the idea behind a country where everyone. isn't. armed. is that they don't have guns, and then you don't need a gun to fight them, and everyone is a lot safer.

The key word here is "everyone." Someone always ends up being armed, whether it is the police or the military or thugs who don't care about the law.
And they inevitably get paid by rich and powerful people to oppress poor people.

And if you have absolutely no one armed in your country, someone with arms will take it away from you--and there is nothing you can do about it.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 4:55 AM

Well, in Ireland the government is armed, the police are armed, and some criminals are armed. But I've only seen a gun once or twice, and nobody here walks around in fear of being shot.

I know there are different situations in different countries, but just so you know that you don't need guns

not lazy just don't care (about anything but Firefly)

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ntlzyjstdntcare:
but just so you know that you don't need guns

Respectfully, I think you do NEED guns if you don't want to be oppressed by the Irish government, Irish police, and Irish criminals.

The truth is, most people don't mind doing without a few freedoms if they have enough to eat and a place to live. It's not worth an armed revolution over. Moreover, most people prefer it this way--they don't want to bother with guns and protecting themselves. It is their right to choose.

Frem and I were talking about an ideal situation that *we* would prefer, if we could start from scratch (as opposed to taking over a current system).

Thomas Hobbes is famous for his secular justifications for monarchy/govt. He felt it is better for violence (weapons) to come from one concentrated source than for violence to come from a lot of tiny, different sources. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I think his definition of government is brilliant. In other words, govt is force in one big denomination and freedom is force in small denominations. You're gonna get violence either way.

I would rather deal with the occassional psycho with the gun than a government sending tens of thousands of young people to war.

So if I were to create a ideal country, I'd spread the force amongst everyone rather than have it centralized in one or two sources. It is just a lot harder to corrupt all individuals with weapons than it is corrupt one or two groups with weapons.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
I consider myself a free market capitalist. (REAL free market capitalism, not this fake shit we have now where greed climbs in bed with the law and calls their dirty little deals deregulation.) And I don't argue that a true free market is a shitty way to live.

Do you mean you don't agree? Not sure because the sentence works either way but the sentiment changes dramatically. If you don't argue that a free market system is a shitty way to live you're saying it is, but to you that is more preferable to living in a society that curbs your freedoms somewhat for the good of the group.

If you have too many laws, too many regulations you've curbed freedom to much, if you have none at all you end up at the same point, but from a different path.

In your anarchistic scenario the 'Ranch Burgess' with the biggest gun and the meanest nastiest streak would rule, and in the real world they don't get beat by do gooders that then leave you to return to your own ends, they get beaten by a bigger meaner nastier 'war lord'.

And lest we forget Mal’s ethos of allowing a man to go his own way is in direct conflict to how he runs his ship, it’s a dictatorship pure and simple, because if everyone was able to go their own way on Serenity the ship would fall apart.

That sort of system is in direct contradiction to the strong defending the weak, one of the basic laws of Human behaviour without which we wouldn't have survived long enough to walk erect let alone come up with ideas like anarchy.

Like Communism has been shown to work exceedingly well in small groups, such a (lack of) governing mentality may work in small groups, like a commune of less than one hundred individuals who all share a similar outlook and goal. If however you have individuals that have different outlooks and different goals you'll find the ethos collapsing quite quickly into groups of like minded individuals literally warring for control I think.

And if you DO have every one of like mind and goals surely it would be more correct to call that system some kind of loosely governed socialism?

Edit:
Just too add:
The problem with the pretty much anarchistic system you speak of is (unless you control who takes part, in which case it isn't anarchy, it would be *almost* fascism) is that power *WILL* concentrate in to war lords, and there is little to nothing you can do about it.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 6:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
If you don't argue that a free market system is a shitty way to live you're saying it is, but to you that is more preferable to living in a society that curbs your freedoms somewhat for the good of the group.

Correct.

Quote:
In your anarchistic scenario the 'Ranch Burgess' with the biggest gun and the meanest nastiest streak would rule, ...they get beaten by a bigger meaner nastier 'war lord'.

Bullies with big guns are inevitable. In our society, that warlord is called govt. In an anarchy, that warlord is called, uh warlord. The difference is in my scenario is that everyone else will be armed enough to put up a reasonable fight against the Ranch Burgesses. Govt is a monopoly of force. Freedom is that force divided in smaller denominations. Sure, some of those smaller denominations will be bigger than others. But none of them will be as big as a monopoly, by definition.

Quote:
And lest we forget Mal’s ethos of allowing a man to go his own way is in direct conflict to how he runs his ship, it’s a dictatorship pure and simple, because if everyone was able to go their own way on Serenity the ship would fall apart.

First, Mal's ship is a voluntary dictatorship. People are free to leave his ship whenever they want. Second, Mal's dictatorship ends on the boundaries of Serenity. He means other ships are allowed to go their own way. One always has a dictatorship or sovereignty on one's own property. That is why we all need our own sovereign ground to be truly free.

Quote:
power *WILL* concentrate in to war lords, and there is little to nothing you can do about it.

The businesses in Heart of Gold apparently thought so. Then someone decided she COULD do something about it, and did. But she couldn't have done anything about it had she not been armed. Again, there is a huge difference between monopoly of force and having somewhat bigger force than others.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Bullies with big guns are inevitable. In our society, that warlord is called govt. In an anarchy, that warlord is called, uh warlord. The difference is in my scenario is that everyone else will be armed enough to put up a reasonable fight against the Ranch Burgesses. Govt is a monopoly of force. Freedom is that force divided in smaller denominations. Sure, some of those smaller denominations will be bigger than others. But none of them will be as big as a monopoly, by definition.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

C'mon, you can't compare a democratically elected government with a warlord. Sure, they will take liberties with their power, but in an anarchy whoever gains power has absolute carte blanche. And if you take him down, you better become the new warlord or another will be more than happy to take all that power. There's a reason the system of government we have evolved the way it did.

It's a nice idea that you have, but it's not remotely realistic.

not lazy just don't care (about anything but Firefly)

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 7:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ntlzyjstdntcare:
C'mon, you can't compare a democratically elected government with a warlord.

I can and I do. A democratic govt is simply a warlord that the majority has chosen to all their guns to. Hopefully, they made a good choice and the warlord won't abuse that power. A normal warlord buys his own guns, but that doesn't mean he will necessarily abuse that power either. A wise warlord would act with enough judgment as to not make others turn against him.

Quote:
in an anarchy whoever gains power has absolute carte blanche.

I don't think you fully grasp the "everyone else is armed" concept.

Quote:
It's a nice idea that you have, but it's not remotely realistic.

You're welcome to disagree. That's why I want to start my own country--people who don't like it or believe in it don't have to be there, right?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Bullies with big guns are inevitable. In our society, that warlord is called govt. In an anarchy, that warlord is called, uh warlord. The difference is in my scenario, the difference in weaponry between Ranch Burgess and the others would not be as drastic as the difference in weaponry between govt and its citizens. Govt is a monopoly of force. Freedom is that force divided in smaller denominations. Sure, some of those smaller denominations will be bigger than others. But none of them will be as big as a monopoly, by definition.

I find the comparision between a democratic government, though flawed, and a warlord as favourable as somewhat strange. A warlord of the type that appears in a power vacuum is very much worse than a government. Standing alone against an organisation with a million guns is no different to standing before one with one hundred and fifty. In fact if the larger group has a vested interest in at least appearing even handed, where as the smaller just doesn't care you'd be somewhat worse off opposing the one hundred and fifty bargain assault rifles.

My point is realistically the odds of a million to one are no 'harder' than odds of one hundred and fifty to one.

But seriously by necessity having groups of warlords at each others throats instead of a monopolistic government is not going to make anyone freer, it will, however, make everyone’s chances of getting shot a hell of a lot higher.

Your freedoms will still be curbed, probably to the same degree.

Quote:
First, Mal's ship is a voluntary dictatorship. People are free to leave his ship whenever they want.

Are you implying that you are not free to leave the country in which you live? Point is Serenity could not and would not survive if everyone could just go their own way whenever they wanted, which is why an anarchy won't and can't exist. Within hours of it being formed everyone will either leave or it will begin to concentrate, at which point it is no longer an anarchy.

Quote:
Second, Mal's dictatorship ends on the boundaries of Serenity. He means other ships are allowed to go their own way. One always has a dictatorship or sovereignty on one's own property. That is why we all need our own sovereign ground to be truly free.

Although I won't argue with the concept of personal land ownership there really isn't enough to go around. But I fail to see how Mal's dictatorship ending at the boundaries of Serenity sets it apart from any government? I mean Mal is dictator over Serenity because he is able to enforce that, and ostensibly his dictatorship ends past Serenity because other people enforce theirs. The reasons Mal's dictatorship does not extend beyond his 'borders' are identical to the reasons a government's powers don't extend beyond theirs.

Quote:
The businesses in Heart of Gold apparently thought so. Then someone decided she COULD do something about it, and did. But she couldn't have done anything about it had she not been armed. Again, there is a huge difference between monopoly of force and having somewhat bigger force than others.

Except the balance of force there was much more even than the balance of force that would naturally occur within an anarchistic society. Anarchy works directly against the ideal of the strong defending the weak, a government doesn't. Thus you are far more likely to find exploitation of the weak in anarchy than in any other system, anarchy actually promotes it.

I'm going to try and sum up my thoughts a little more succinctly. Basically I don't see that anarchy is going to provide more freedom. Our freedoms today are curbed for the good of the group, or more succinctly to prevent our freedoms from trampling others. We can't all be completely free, because some of our freedoms will inevitably curb the freedoms of others.

With a government the ideal (though I recognise rarely, if ever the practice) is to curb everyone's freedoms by an equal amount, this requires an entity that is stronger than the individual in order to enforce this equality.

In anarchy everyone’s freedoms will be competing with each others, and therefore by necessity the only people who will be free are the strongest who can take the freedom's from others.

Essentially I think anarchy will tend to destruct into dictatorships where the only people with freedom are the dictators.

Or, even more succinctly and hopefully actually understandable:

There is only so much freedom to go around, and not enough for everyone to have it all. We can either dish out an equal rationed share to everyone, or allow a 'freedom grab' which will concentrate freedom to the few, and leave none for anyone else.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Are you implying that you are not free to leave the country in which you live?

No... uh... I am saying I want to leave my country and start my own?

Look, I could go on, addressing everything you said point by point. But what's the point? I've said mine, and you've said yours. Let's skip to the end and agree to disagree?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
No... uh... I am saying I want to leave my country and start my own?

My point was whether people are free to leave Serenity is a non-issue.

Quote:
Look, I could go on, addressing everything you said point by point. But what's the point? I've said mine, and you've said yours. Let's skip to the end and agree to disagree?

The point is that otherwise this isn't a discussion and there is no point in having these posts, this thread or these boards

.

But if thats what you want I can handle that.

Okay just reread the above and it sounds snipy which isn't the intent, what I mean is if you want to agree to disagree then okay, but the point of a discussion is the discussion itself.

(Not "if you don't want these boards..." which is kind of how it might sound.)

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 8:49 AM

Quote:
Except the balance of force there was much more even than the balance of force that would naturally occur within an anarchistic society. Anarchy works directly against the ideal of the strong defending the weak, a government doesn't. Thus you are far more likely to find exploitation of the weak in anarchy than in any other system, anarchy actually promotes it.

Doesn't fly.

Number one - in order to even HAVE a disparity of force, there would have to be organisation.. you're telling me that Anarchists would willingly submit themselves in warlord-flunkie fashion to a strongman ? Anarchists, mind you!

I reject that, categorically, the mere attempt to DO something like that would get you shot so fulla holes they could bury you at sea without a coffin.

Also, defense/exploitation of the weak ? in an armed Anarchist society ?
Not possible.
You see someone roughing up an old man in a wheelchair in our society, step in to defend him, and YOU may face charges or a civil suit.
In the society CTS and I are discussing it would be a toss-up which hit the bastard first, your .45 or the old mans sawed-off 12 Gauge.
Armed people are not victims, you can kill them, but you CANNOT make them victims.

A Government is where these problems come from - case in point, and this is a factual case I am referencing.
(From a 1978 NEA File warning of school violence.)

Bigger kids pick on smaller kid in school, rough him up pretty bad - since smaller kid is NOT allowed to defend SELF *by* Government, in this case, the school admin, he then takes his problem to them - and what happens ? hmmm ?

Summarily dismissed, laughed off, labelled a tattletale and by that now "justifying" the predatory actions of the bigger kids while labelling it as kids being kids.

Smaller kid, now realizing the Government that disarms him, also will not protect him, decides he is going to defy said Government, and the next day, does come armed.

Bigger kids corner and accost smaller kid in the lower hallway, smaller kid draws knife, indicates willingness to defend self - bigger kids retreat, run straight to admin, carrying tales.

Admin accosts, penalizes, and disarms smaller kid.

Later that day, smaller kid is accosted in the downstairs stairwell and kicked to death by bigger kids.

Oh yeah, did him a lot of good, didn't it ?

I submit to you that the "Government" of the school directly aided and abetted his victimizers, just as Governments in general aid and abet social victimizers of all kinds, from sexual predators to economic predation via Usury, arm-in-arm with all the abuses of the populace.

Quote:
In anarchy everyone’s freedoms will be competing with each others, and therefore by necessity the only people who will be free are the strongest who can take the freedom's from others.

As far as this would-be social breakdown, how many times can we repeat it ?

Everyone would be armed.

In due time the folks who would try such things would be quickly (and admittedly, bloodily) weeded out of the populace because we're not talking sheeple, we're talking about Anarchists who know damned well those kind of things lead to Governments, which lead to worse - and would consider it a dire and imminent threat.

Apparently it's never occured to some folk that most Anarchists, peaceable folk that they are, get EXTREMELY violent when someone tries to force them against their will.

If, as with our theoretical, they DID have a homeland, and for once COULD practice what they believe without governmental interferance - you couldn't take over, it's just not possible... oh you could kill them, sure, but all you'd ever get would be the real estate, and a whole damned lot of corpses, surrounded by used brass and empty weapons.

Once an Anarchist gets out of the reach of "The Gov", they'll die before ever submitting to an oppressive authority again, they're NOT the type of people who cow easily, or bow to fear... and lets be completely honest here, a lot of them are quite a bit crackers.

Arguments like the ones you are presenting, and belief in them, is WHY we are in the middle of what I consider WWIII right now, sooo, where's the good result of Government?... the only legacy I see is the piled corpses of the innocent dead.

-Frem

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 9:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:

Quote:
in an anarchy whoever gains power has absolute carte blanche.
I don't think you fully grasp the "everyone else is armed" concept.

Quote:
It's a nice idea that you have, but it's not remotely realistic.
You're welcome to disagree. That's why I want to start my own country--people who don't like it or believe in it don't have to be there, right?

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

Regarding the everyone is armed concept-it doesn't matter if you give everyone a battery of ballistic miisiles, some people will be stronger than others, and those people will tend to step on the weaker ones.

There will be a person/group that is stronger than you, and they will bend you to their will or they will kill you. (Unless you're doing the oppressing.) I don't know too much about how different anarchists are to the rest of us, maybe you will all resist the warlord until you're all dead on the floor and there's only the strongest remaining. But the reason modern democratic government developed was because people wanted it, so they didn't have to cower to the warlords. And there have always been warlords. It's just the way people work.

Of course you can make your own country, but I really don't think it would last very long.

not lazy just don't care (about anything but Firefly)

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:08 AM

Quote:
Doesn't fly.

Number one - in order to even HAVE a disparity of force, there would have to be organisation.. you're telling me that Anarchists would willingly submit themselves in warlord-flunkie fashion to a strongman ? Anarchists, mind you!

I reject that, categorically, the mere attempt to DO something like that would get you shot so fulla holes they could bury you at sea without a coffin.

Except Frem what you’re talking about isn't anarchy. You’re talking about some mythical thing where everyone has the same goals. How do you prevent people with disparate goals 'joining' your anarchy? You can't, therefore by assuming that you are only talking about an anarchy populated with people who share your views you are not talking about anarchy at all.

Quote:
Also, defense/exploitation of the weak ? in an armed Anarchist society ?
Not possible.

History is replete with the exploitation of people, even armed people. Besides two people with guns killing a third is still a form of the strong preying on the weak.

Quote:
Bigger kids pick on smaller kid in school, rough him up pretty bad - since smaller kid is NOT allowed to defend SELF *by* Government, in this case, the school admin, he then takes his problem to them - and what happens? hmmm?

Maybe you can explain how the outcome of this would be drastically different if the bigger kids had no brake on their own activities? Would the smaller child become superman without government perhaps? Or would that child still get beaten up but just happen to feel able to defend themselves if they happened to be capable of doing so?

Quote:
As far as this would-be social breakdown, how many times can we repeat it?

Everyone would be armed.

It makes no difference. If everyone has guns it's the same as NO ONE having guns. Since when has the strongest necessarily meant a Neanderthal with a club?

The strongest could just as easily be a bunch of people who all decide they want your strawberries.

Quote:
In due time the folks who would try such things would be quickly (and admittedly, bloodily) weeded out of the populace because we're not talking sheeple, we're talking about Anarchists who know damned well those kind of things lead to Governments, which lead to worse - and would consider it a dire and imminent threat.

Well firstly this doesn't happen. Those 'undesirable elements' would be the first to attack, they'd be the ones most likely to win/survive UNLESS the 'desirable elements' decided to band together into some king of 'force' to stop them. But again here you’re not talking about true anarchism, which is what I was talking about; you're talking about a gathering of likeminded individuals.

It sounds very much that you are advocating removing government injustices and immoral acts for GREATER injustices and immoral acts committed by individuals.

Quote:
Arguments like the ones you are presenting, and belief in them, is WHY we are in the middle of what I consider WWIII right now, sooo, where's the good result of Government?... the only legacy I see is the piled corpses of the innocent dead.

Then you aren't referring to my argument.

And perhaps we could look at the genocides of Africa, occurring at times when states had reached a point of anarchy, where are the good results of anarchy?

If total government control is Yang, and no Government is Yin then the argument you seem to think I am making is in the Yang portion and the argument you are making is in the Yin portion.

The argument I am actually making is Yin/Yang, balance is required between these two opposing view points. Your predicate would be proved if every area without government control was largely free of violence and oppression and every government was greatly more oppressive and violent than that. This is blatantly not the case.

Your proposed ideal requires the removal of undesirables from the equation. The moment you do that you stop talking about anarchy. In fact it's starting to sound more and more like an armed hippy commune.

But at the end of the day lets not forget we STARTED with anarchism. Or at least Anarchistic-Socialism, which developed into tribal chieftans from the existing Alpha pair, into monarchies and so on. Point is Government developed, it wasn't always so, and I think you'll find that if you enacted anarchism you'd soon find a microcosm of governmental development happening before your eyes.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
My point was whether people are free to leave Serenity is a non-issue.

Oh, Ok. I see. Then if I am reading you correctly, you are saying every ship has to have a captain? Someone will inevitably rise and be at the helm? There is no such thing as an anarchistic ship?

If that is the case, I see the misunderstanding. I am talking about leaving the core planet and Alliance system, and carving out a section of space where everyone owns their own spaceship, and captain their own boats however they see fit--as long as they don't initiate force against other ships. So in my country, we will all own land, and we will all be little dictators on our own land, and we will all leave each other alone unless someone is being hurt.

I don't know how to make it clearer. Hope that helps.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Oh, Ok. I see. Then if I am reading you correctly, you are saying every ship has to have a captain? Someone will inevitably rise and be at the helm? There is no such thing as an anarchistic ship?

Nope you can have an anarchistic ship, if you are the only one on it.

Which leads neatly to:

Quote:
If that is the case, I see the misunderstanding. I am talking about leaving the core planet and Alliance system, and carving out a section of space where everyone owns their own spaceship, and captain their own boats however they see fit--as long as they don't initiate force against other ships. So in my country, we will all own land, and we will all be little dictators on our own land, and we will all leave each other alone unless someone is being hurt.

I don't know how to make it clearer. Hope that helps.

I think I understand more or less where you are coming from, but the problem is we are a social species. We will concentrate toward social groups, alpha males and females will gravitate to leadership of these groups (not necessarily Patriarchal though, many early Human cultures may have been Matriarchal).

It's Human nature, it's how we work.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:49 AM

Or look at it this way. Since we don't have really have a global government, we have global anarchy right now. Every country is armed, some better armed than others. There are bullies who try to invade other countries and exploit them, and there are alliances to dominate the culture and economy of the planet. There are wars as well as goodwill amongst the countries. We are still social and interdependent.

The little countries, despite being bullied, are acknowledged to have the right to be armed, independent, and free to do as it pleases as long as it doesn't invade others. It isn't perfect, but for the most part, national sovereignty is respected.

In my scenario, it would be like a bunch of little countries made up of a population of 1 or more. Everyone who owns land would have his own "country."

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 10:51 AM

Interesting discussion folks.

One thing I'd like to say here (well a couple, I guess): Firstly, I sure don't consider Serenity a dictatorship, even metaphorically. Was Wash on the Politburo or something when he "forced" Mal to take him on a mission in "War Stories?" Um, ain't you folks ever heard of cooperation? I mean is any agreed upon organization between people a no-no with the anarchist crowd? And do the statists among us truly believe that people only behave because there's gun pointed at 'em? Holy moly, no wonder you're all so trigger happy!

First of all, Mal hires these folks, pays them to run his ship. So they do. Win/win, mutually beneficial arrangement. These folks are doing what they want and getting paid to do it. None of them would work for Mal if they didn't respect his judgement (Jayne is an exception, he lives in a fascist state of one, 24/7).

So, seems to me that your arguments for and against anarchy are totally dependent on your abysmal assessment of human nature. What is it that makes y'all think human beings can't cooperate and get along? And don't tell me it's self-evident, look at history, blah-blah-blah. Is that how it is in your personal lives? Forget the pornography that passes for news coverage these days, are people so vicious and untrustworthy in your actual lives? Y'all look at history your way and I'll look at it mine.

You know what I think? I think the folks that live by force and brutality are fewer and less free of oversight now than at any other point in human history. Is this because of the freakin' governments of the world? Hell no! Governments are always, always some 3 hundred years behind the curve of human developement. More and more people are ready to negotiate with other people, share and prosper, while our governments are still transitioning out of feudalism.

More and more people are getting just a little bit saner (that's part of the reason the force-fetishists have upped the anti so much of late). In this century the human race has begun to notice things--children, for instance! Women! Homosexuals! Slavery! Infectious diseases! Radiation! The Earth itself!

Sharing love and other information is easier now than at any time in our history. Marriage laws are becoming more and more inclusive with every passing year. Yes, the world is still a mess and the governments of the world are just beginning to face the innevitable PR mess of everyone knowing what they're really up to, mostly by trying to remove civil liberties and classify everything (and they're finding that it's kinda like trying to close Pandora's Box--or they would if they ever read a book in their lives).

But the human race, as a whole, will never return to the dark ages, "1984" was and always will be a specifically middle class terror, and Oprah Winfrey is more powerful, gets more of her will carried out than Queen Elizabeth ever did. And does she do it with guns? No, Oprah Winfrey gets her power because millions of people all over the freakin' world, love and respect her.

I'm not expecting anyone to be on the same page with me, but is anybody here even cracking the same books I'm reading? Just currious.

(We return you now to your regularly scheduled blood-bath, already in progress.)

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:07 AM

Quote:
The little countries, despite being bullied, are acknowledged to have the right to be armed, independent, and free to do as it pleases as long as it doesn't invade others. It isn't perfect, but for the most part, national sovereignty is respected.

But we do have a world government, at least ostensibly. Small nations were prayed upon and destroyed on a whim until very recently; it was the creation of the UN and similar organisations that compelled the big boys to leave the little guys alone. Now the UN is starting to lose its power and the little guys are getting more and more endangered.

There is however a rather disparate problem with the analogy. On a one to one basis if you kill your opponent they probably haven't had a chance to kill you.

In the Nuclear age killing a nation assures that their missiles are on the way to kill you.

If you could wire up some device that would kill anyone who killed you then you'd probably find a similar thing, everyone would have a gun, but no one would dare use it.

But then that's even more oppressive than a government isn't it?

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 11:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Interesting discussion folks.

One thing I'd like to say here (well a couple, I guess): Firstly, I sure don't consider Serenity a dictatorship, even metaphorically.

Mal has the final say. The analogy at government level is a dictatorship, whether or not its iron fist is irrelevant.

Quote:
So, seems to me that your arguments for and against anarchy are totally dependent on your abysmal assessment of human nature. What is it that makes y'all think human beings can't cooperate and get along?

Nothing, save that in large groups a certain amount of artificiality is required to make it happen. You are talking about interpersonal relationships between people who know each other to resolving relationships between people who do not and who are relating on a non-personal level. Communism doesn't work on the nation level because it requires certain qualities of Human interaction that do not exist at the grand nation scale.

This is why Communism and possibly Anarchism can work for small groups (less than one hundred) of like minded individuals. But not on the large scale, because for the smooth running of these systems they require interpersonal relationships that don't exist at a higher level.

Quote:
Is that how it is in your personal lives? Forget the pornography that passes for news coverage these days, are people so vicious and untrustworthy in your actual lives?

Like it or not the Human individual and the Human Group are entirely different animals.

Quote:
You know what I think? I think the folks that live by force and brutality are fewer and less free of oversight now than at any other point in human history. Is this because of the freakin' governments of the world?

But in a democracy is the government not at least partially reflective of the people?

Quote:
But the human race, as a whole, will never return to the dark ages

This statement seems to assume that there has been a stead upward curve from 'darkness' to 'light'.

We've slipped back before; it seems naive to assume it can't happen again.

Quote:
(We return you now to your regularly scheduled blood-bath, already in progress.)

What bloodbath?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 1:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
it was the creation of the UN and similar organisations that compelled the big boys to leave the little guys alone. Now the UN is starting to lose its power and the little guys are getting more and more endangered.

I would argue that the UN never had power, and the wrong little guy (e.g. Palestine) was never left alone, either before or after the UN was created. No, I don't agree that we ever had or now have a world government. Like in a school playground, some little guys are just picked on more than others.

Quote:
In the Nuclear age killing a nation assures that their missiles are on the way to kill you....If you could wire up some device that would kill anyone who killed you

Less than a dozen out of 150 countries have nuclear power. How do the other countries survive without such a "device"?

Look, I know you think it's silly and it's doomed to failure. But I believe most people on earth understand the idea of sovereignty on one's own land, and respect it as long as that sovereignty is reasonably armed.

Most people are not used to the idea of individual sovereignty, simply because individuals have never been able to own land. Even now, most landowners don't really own their land--they are renting it from the govt with property taxes.

If I started a country, that would be the singular difference--true land ownership and its accompanying sovereignty.

Can't Take My Gorram Sky

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 2:08 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

More and more people are getting just a little bit saner (that's part of the reason the force-fetishists have upped the anti so much of late).

Death-throes of the Fundamentalist? Last gasp of the Hawkish?
Reaction to the threat of a possible Global Understanding?

Hmmm...could be.....

Violent Peacenik Chrisisall

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

Tuesday, August 1, 2006 5:21 PM

Quote:
So, seems to me that your arguments for and against anarchy are totally dependent on your abysmal assessment of human nature. What is it that makes y'all think human beings can't cooperate and get along? And don't tell me it's self-evident, look at history, blah-blah-blah. Is that how it is in your personal lives? Forget the pornography that passes for news coverage these days, are people so vicious and untrustworthy in your actual lives? Y'all look at history your way and I'll look at it mine.

Yep, they have been - not so much these days, but in dealing with other folk I've found that self-defense is necessary, regardless of the law.

Look, for example, some wacked out nutjob who's ingested his favorite mind altering substance of choice bashes in your front door at 3AM and is waving around a machete, howling... sure, you can dial 911, and wait, and wait, and wait... and hope he has no harm in mind... OR, you can draw, aim, and dial 911 left handed, and invite him to leave the premises immediately.

The thing is, words on paper do not protect one from the bad things in life, and that's all laws really are, aren't they ?

As for the idea that Anarchists see cooperation as an evil, this is a misunderstanding, people NATURALLY cooperate, most of em... as an experiment, try this.

Put something just out of your own reach in your office, and pick a random coworker, and ask them to hand it to you as they pass - do they do it ?

It's a natural instinct in most folk, as long as is does not unduly put them out, they'll give you a hand, sure.

With most folk unable, unwilling, or legally forbidden to defend themselves tho, it only takes ONE selfish, immoral prick to jam up the works and exploit a hundred.

That's a huge part of the problem.

The argument that over a certain number of people, organization becomes a necessary evil is a good point to make, and when the crowd reaches that limit, most Anarchic types start looking for somewhere else to be - again, one reason I am so all-fired for space exploration, space is a right big place.

In our Theoretical, I doubt if there would physically be room in our tiny little collective for enough population to cause this issue.

Oh, and Citizen ?

In the example I stated, when the smaller kid displayed intent and ability to even TRY to defend themself, skill or ability notwithstanding, the bigger kids immediately retreated, a very telling thing, yes ?

Even worse is they ran to the authority who had disarmed their victims in the first place, and insisted on that disarmament.

Now, just for a second, look at that world through the smaller kids eyes.

Who's side is government on, to his perception ?

Look at us trying to "disarm" iraq, or any of the situations in the middle east when you start taking weapons away from one side, like palestine, and giving huge amounts of them to the other ?

How is this better ?

Lemme make a HUGE reccommendation here -
Go read "The Weapon Shops of Isher" by A.E. Van Vogt.

"The right to buy weapons is the right to be free."

-Frem

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 6:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Mal has the final say. The analogy at government level is a dictatorship, whether or not its iron fist is irrelevant.

Citizen, excuse me, but what the eff? I'm sorry. Mal is granted final say by his crew; their relationship is consentual and built upon mutual respect. He never once holds a gun to Inara's or Kaylee's or Zoe's or Wash's head. He has no "secret police" to keep the crew in line. People come and go from his crew at will. When he's disobeyed, no one's head is lopped off, even metaphorically.

So when a bunch of eight year old's pick a captain for their kick-ball team, they've created a model of the totalitarian state? No, they've created hierarchy. Is all hierarchy dictatorial?

I'm sorry, you're gonna have to come at this one again if I'm to understand how the heck you arrived at it. Perhaps one of you others who accept Citizen's analogy can straighten me out?

Quote:
Like it or not the Human individual and the Human Group are entirely different animals.

Y'know, I've had this kind of thinking drummed into me since I was a whee babe, but I've learned that the stuff that people have tried to drum into me is worth challenging. Individuals are capable of atrocity and so are groups. Individuals are capable of amazing generocity and love and so are groups. My take is that folks of a particular intellectual bent are frightened and alienated by the more emotional and instinctual actions which group dynamics tend to produce. It's this basic fear of the subconsious and instictual part of human nature which makes modern, urbanized man fear "the mob." The way I see it, mobs are reflective of individuals, minus, perhaps, a certain amount of impulse control. As individuals evolve, so do the groups they participate in. When was the last hanging you attended?

Quote:
But in a democracy is the government not at least partially reflective of the people?

Yes, democracy is more reflective of a healthy world view than, say, dictatorship. I'd say that people who express themselves democratically are prolly more healthy than those who participate in dictatorial systems. But a democracy is only as good, only as real, as its citizens make it. Trying to impose democracy on people who have no feel for it is utterly absurd. And anyone who thinks that as long as you have a lot of democratically arrived at laws on the books you have a democracy, is in for a rude awakening--if they awaken at all.

Democracy works because the people believe in it and nurture it by staying well informed and politically active. As information becomes more and more readily available, even unavoidable in the world, democracy becomes more and more possible. When less than half of a democracy's population vote, it's not really a democracy. At the moment. Give us time.

Quote:
Quote:
But the human race, as a whole, will never return to the dark ages
This statement seems to assume that there has been a stead upward curve from 'darkness' to 'light'.

We've slipped back before; it seems naive to assume it can't happen again.

No real, healthy growth is ever steady and upward. Growth is a kind of imbalance and all organic systems have a tendancy toward homeostasis. So major growth in a particular area is always followed by a partial retreat or regression into a previous, more stable form. Growth is painful. I'd say that imagining growth as a steady unencumbered, one-dimentional rise is naive.

Quote:
Quote:
We return you now to your regularly scheduled blood-bath, already in progress.
What bloodbath?

The one y'all focus your imaginations on to decide what can and cannot be accomplished by human beings. Inward processes stand in need of outward manifestation. What you expect will influence the outcome.

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, August 2, 2006 7:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Citizen, excuse me, but what the eff? I'm sorry. Mal is granted final say by his crew; their relationship is consentual and built upon mutual respect. He never once holds a gun to Inara's or Kaylee's or Zoe's or Wash's head. He has no "secret police" to keep the crew in line. People come and go from his crew at will.

"We do not vote on my ship because my ship is not the ruttin' town hall!"

And Mal does pull a gun on the crew, in the film.

When it comes down to it Mal makes the decisions, and if push comes to shove the crew has no say. A dictatorship only requires a dictator, not secret police or anything else. It needs one person making all the decisions and everyone else following those orders, the reasons they do so, and the impetuous and whether they can leave if they don't like those orders is entirely irrelevant.

Quote:
When he's disobeyed, no one's head is lopped off, even metaphorically.

No but they do run the risk of being thrown out an airlock.

Quote:
So when a bunch of eight year old's pick a captain for their kick-ball team, they've created a model of the totalitarian state? No, they've created hierarchy. Is all hierarchy dictatorial?

No, they're enacting a miniature model of a non-totalitarian dictatorship, assuming one eight year old makes the decisions and the others follow.

Totalitarianism does not equal Dictatorship.

An office is a dictatorship, the boss makes the decisions and the workers obey, or they are fired. There's no secret police or Gulags there either.

The point was that Mal, a man who believes in allowing a person to go their own way, also recognises that Anarchy doesn't function within a group. If the crew of Serenity could just do their own thing Serenity would still be sitting in the second hand ship lot.

People have to have their freedoms curbed in order to coexist with other people, either by their own impulse or by outside influence. All I have been saying is that some people are not capable of curbing their own freedoms and impulses, and anarchy doesn't enforce this. This is one major reason why Anarchy will collapse unless you ensure only the 'right' kind of person is allowed 'in'. In which case we're no longer talking anarchism.

Quote:
Y'know, I've had this kind of thinking drummed into me since I was a whee babe, but I've learned that the stuff that people have tried to drum into me is worth challenging. Individuals are capable of atrocity and so are groups.

You can reliably model Human Group movement with flocking/herding algorithms, but not the movements of a single person. You can model human group reactions with mathematics and probability but not the actions of a single individual.

Propaganda has been shown to be effective against groups but not so effective against individuals. Groups of people and individuals behave differently, this isn't just philosophy or 'fear of the mob' it's observable from the real world.

Quote:
As individuals evolve, so do the groups they participate in. When was the last hanging you attended?

Societal group behaviours changing does not negate the prediction that groups will act differently to an individual. But to run with your above mob statement, the fact that we still have mobs, we still have riots in which individuals act in ways they'd find abhorrent as individuals goes someway to proving my point.

Quote:
I'd say that imagining growth as a steady unencumbered, one-dimentional rise is naive.

That's my point. The idea that we can't have another dark age is naive, the dark age it self was a period when we slipped back.

Quote:
The one y'all focus your imaginations on to decide what can and cannot be accomplished by human beings. Inward processes stand in need of outward manifestation. What you expect will influence the outcome.

Do you think violence has no bearing on possible societal collapse?

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 7:58 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

CTS- Coming up with a hypothetical example (in this case school bullying) and then using it to support your points is unusually self-referencing, don't you think?

So, to inject a little bit of reality into the discusion, I thought I'd post a link to EFFECTIVE school anti-bullying programs. BTW, altho many USAers cite Columbine as "the" wake-up call to the problem of bullying (reinforcing the notion that guns are somehow required preserve freedom) the actual source of attention came from Sweden, when in one year (1983) three kids committed suicide because of bullying. An anti-bullying program was sparked from those incidents, which has been adoopted and adapted worldwide. Being ignorant of what's going on in other countries, the USA tends to think of itself as "the model" for everything when in fact we're the Johnny-come-lately to this issue, and a model of nothing.

www.montcopa.org/eoc/OEP/PDFs/BullyingReport.pdf

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:25 AM

Actually, as far as I am aware of, the first inklings of trouble came from that 1978 NEA report, and the report you mention was known to them too - and they ignored them.

In the early 90's, the issue was brought up again by concerned folk, this time with some research and backing from the FBI cause they could reference the statistical data better, not for any enforcement reason, mind...

And it was made *abundantly* clear to the educational system that this downward slide into bullying and violence was going to lead to a mass-shooting or "other unfortunate incident" within the next five years.

And they were, again, ignored.

Most school systems STILL ignore the problem, and kids still die, most of them by their own hand (like Tempest Smith) and few folk care because of the way our society refuses to regard them as human beings - they're given the status of pets... beloved property, but property all the same, and are not treated, respected, or regarded as human beings till age of majority.

None too helpful that many school admins see their charge as operating a kennel or a prison, and damned well act it.. that makes an impact.

To not see children as human beings, or see them as some lesser thing than human, this must first be overcome for anything else to make a difference.

That's the root and core of the problem, in a nutshell.

I'll stop there, but believe me, nearly 30 years into THAT problem, and ain't no one listenin or actin on it yet, not in the states, nope.

-Frem

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 8:58 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
"We do not vote on my ship because my ship is not the ruttin' town hall!"

And Mal does pull a gun on the crew, in the film.

When it comes down to it Mal makes the decisions, and if push comes to shove the crew has no say. A dictatorship only requires a dictator, not secret police or anything else. It needs one person making all the decisions and everyone else following those orders, the reasons they do so, and the impetuous and whether they can leave if they don't like those orders is entirely irrelevant.

So I gather that your definition of "dictatorship" is value neutral; nothing wrong with dictatorship if the dictator is a good guy. Can you name a single actual historical dictatorship that is in any way analogous to life on Serenity? Where are all the nice dictators who don't rule by fear and don't have secret police to enforce their control?

Quote:
Quote:
When he's disobeyed, no one's head is lopped off, even metaphorically.
No but they do run the risk of being thrown out an airlock.

To run with the silly political metaphor here: you're saying that capital punishment is inconsistent with any political system other than dictatorship? Jayne willfully threatened the lives of everyone on the ship for profit. Does it require "dictatorship" to punish criminals? This is silly. Mal was acting as an individual who's loved ones and way of life were grossly threatened by Jayne's actions. Mal is the head of no political body and has no political machine behind him. No, it's not the ruttin' town hall, it's Mal's life.

Quote:
Quote:
So when a bunch of eight year old's pick a captain for their kick-ball team, they've created a model of the totalitarian state? No, they've created hierarchy. Is all hierarchy dictatorial?
No, they're enacting a miniature model of a non-totalitarian dictatorship, assuming one eight year old makes the decisions and the others follow.

So all hierarchy IS dictatorial. Wha'? So elected representatives who make all kinds of decisions without constantly checking with the electorate are dictators?

Quote:
The point was that Mal, a man who believes in allowing a person to go their own way, also recognises that Anarchy doesn't function within a group.

Thought you said anarchy could function in groups of up to a hundred.

Quote:
If the crew of Serenity could just do their own thing Serenity would still be sitting in the second hand ship lot.

People have to have their freedoms curbed in order to coexist with other people, either by their own impulse or by outside influence.

Oh, criminy, is this the old freedom vs. licence confusion? The tyranny of traffic lights? Just because people have to make practical choices that don't necessarily coincide with their slightest whim doesn't mean that they have no freedom, or even that their freedoms (in any political sense) are curbed. Practical reality must be taken into account if we want to achieve anything.

Consensus is not required for every decision that's made. Division of labor requires someone to keep track of the overall operation. Mal coordinates the group effort. If Mal had stepped too far out of line the crew would have checked him, but he never went too far. (I know, I know, "The movie, etc." Forgive me, but I didn't find the events of the movie consistent with the events of the series or compelling character development for anyone involved. I assume you're talking about the lame scene after Book's lame death? That whole thing was out of character and trumped up to keep the plot going, "increase tension," graft some kinda unconvincing "dark-side" onto an already plenty dark Mal or Joss knows what.)

Quote:
You can reliably model Human Group movement with flocking/herding algorithms, but not the movements of a single person. You can model human group reactions with mathematics and probability but not the actions of a single individual.

Propaganda has been shown to be effective against groups but not so effective against individuals. Groups of people and individuals behave differently, this isn't just philosophy or 'fear of the mob' it's observable from the real world.

And I say that all of this is because groups tend to be less consious than individuals. Unconscious individuals are far more predictable than conscious ones. Psychotherapy wouldn't work at all if people's unconscious drives and compulsions weren't predictable. You could say that a successful course of psychotherapy always results in the patient becoming more conscious, more individual and therefore less predictable than they were before.

Quote:
But to run with your above mob statement, the fact that we still have mobs, we still have riots in which individuals act in ways they'd find abhorrent as individuals goes someway to proving my point.

That's funny, 'cause it also proves my point that modern man is ashamed of himself and foolishly thinks he can succeed by denying his violent impulses rather than integrating and healing them. As the truths of the psychotherapeutic process become mainstreamed there's more and more awareness that grief can be and is best dealt with in nonviolent ways.

Quote:
Do you think violence has no bearing on possible societal collapse?

Course not. I'd say it has "some," maybe even "a major," but not "a defining" one.

I think human beings have a long, long way to go. As a species we aren't quite ready for "true" capitalism or "true" democracy or even "true" anarchy. We've gotten as far as we've gotten by denying the more troublesome aspects of our natures. Denial works. Up to a point. Then it breaks down.

We're kind of at a global break down point. We are approaching the time when we as a race will have to integrate our "dark side" in a healthy life-promoting way or perish. We will have to learn to do something with our grief other than seek revenge. Grief is something that many individuals have learned to accept and heal; political bodies are naturally behind the curve by a large margin.

Sometimes growing things get sick and die. Doesn't mean they were never growing or that they couldn't have survived if things had gone even a little differently for them. I see the human race growing into itself, learning to accurately perceive and ultimately accept its nature. It's just taking a while and the whole thing might go kablooy. But I'm hopeful.

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, August 2, 2006 9:21 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
(I know, I know, "The movie, etc." Forgive me, but I didn't find the events of the movie consistent with the events of the series or compelling character development for anyone involved. I assume you're talking about the lame scene after Book's lame death? That whole thing was out of character and trumped up to keep the plot going, "increase tension," graft some kinda unconvincing "dark-side" onto an already plenty dark Mal or Joss knows what.)

Uh-oh. hold on there pardner.
I've seen this before.
"Buffy stopped being the show I knew after season 5."
Joss is the God of his 'Verse. I don't hold with peeps sayin' that Serenity isn't a true Firefly continuation. Like Star Trek: The Motion Picture wasn't true 'Trek' either?
The creator does as he wishes; it's only up to us to like it or not, but we can't dismiss it as "That's not how I would have it."

What say ye Chrisisall

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

Wednesday, August 2, 2006 9:43 AM

[momentary thread hijack]

Chris, we're talking about the political implications of the show. In order to have political implications, it has to be a reasonable reflection of life as we know it. It's entirely within my right to say that "Firefly" jumped the shark with the movie. It's Joss's responsibility as an artist to make his show relevant to our lives and it is each individual viewer's right to judge whether Joss succeeds or not.

This is the point about art, what makes it so deeply important to us as humans: it is always a colaboration between the creator and the audience. The art of "Firefly" exists between Joss and us. Without us, there is nothing. Without Joss, there is nothing. And Joss lost me with "Serenity."

[/momentary thread hijack]

Edited to add: Heya Chris, it occurs to me that you prolly meant your objection in a far more light-hearted vein than I took it. The whole "Serenity" thing still bugs a good deal. And I'm still very happy that you liked it.

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, August 2, 2006 10:21 AM