Fighting back, for real by SignyM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Byte, YOU did not make an ass of yourself today. I did. Please, do not take my faults onto yourself. And before I go any further, I'm going to have to do the right thing first, and that is apologize.

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

Monday, February 28, 2011 4:44 PM

You don't need to.

I've derailed enough threads. Please continue.

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

Monday, February 28, 2011 4:53 PM

NIKI2

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

Well said, Sig, and I agree with all of it...that's part of why I disagree with the "anti-government" folk. As far as I know, the ONLY way to ever curtail bad things done by monopolistic big corporate powers is government.

Anyone who thinks there aren't ocrporations who shoot and/or rob people is deluding themselves, in my humble opinion.

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

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

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 9:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
And if you can come up with an EFFECTIVE answer to monopolistic power that doesn't involve government... well, you can't, can you?

Well, violence isn't always the answer, this I know as well as any...

But, yanno - sometimes it *IS*.

Again, grinding up Government and Corporations against each other is a useful answer, but when the Government is acting as a shield PROTECTING the Corporation, as they have many times sending in Police/Military forces to crush resisters who were defending themselves and their rights in the name of "restoring order"...

Then what ?

Cause time and and again it's been proven that the Unions *can* fight a Corporation, and it's damn goons, but what they CANNOT do, is fight a Corporation, and it's goons, backed up by the full might of the US Armed Forces - and if they could, what is to stop them from taking over entire ?

So there's my take on the problem - Corporation does abusive shit, people get pissed off about it, stand up, fight back... and GET CRUSHED BY THE GOVERNMENT.

So where here is the Government the good guy, cause I ain't seein it that way.

Disclaimer: Being a direct descendent of the freakin Hatfields, this is a lil more personal to me than it'd otherwise be.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Matewan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Tuesday, March 1, 2011 10:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

2. My corporation cannot shoot people, their govt. Can

Unless of course your organisation is a private military of private security organisation, or has bought the services of such an organisation to protect its profit making capacity.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 5:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

I wanted to get back to this, I've just been freakin busy for the past couple of months and will continue until June, I think. Anyway:

Quote:
Again, grinding up Government and Corporations against each other is a useful answer, but when the Government is acting as a shield PROTECTING the Corporation, as they have many times sending in Police/Military forces to crush resisters who were defending themselves and their rights in the name of "restoring order"...

Then what ?

Cause time and and again it's been proven that the Unions *can* fight a Corporation, and it's damn goons, but what they CANNOT do, is fight a Corporation, and it's goons, backed up by the full might of the US Armed Forces - and if they could, what is to stop them from taking over entire ?
So there's my take on the problem - Corporation does abusive shit, people get pissed off about it, stand up, fight back... and GET CRUSHED BY THE GOVERNMENT. So where here is the Government the good guy, cause I ain't seein it that way.

\ Frem, that is assuming that governments "never" change, or can "never" BE changed. But I can point to Brazil- a notoriously corrupt and fascistic military dictatorship if there ever was one... which has become quite reasonable, certainly a MUCH better version than its former self. South Africa. Germany. Japan. Peru. Chile. France. In fact, there are dozens if not hundreds of examples of government improving itself VASTLY over some former self. That's not because "government" is fundamentally good, but because it has to respond to the pressures which create it. THOSE pressures are ultimately rooted in the population's view of right and wrong.

On the other hand, what I CAN'T do is point to a corporation which has fundamentally changed- except for the worse (when it got larger). That's not because corporations are inherently "evil" but because (like government) corporations respond to the pressures which create them. And BY CHARTER there is only ONE pressure on corporation, and that is "maximum profit". When you have system - which we do- in which the most profitable entity will also grow the fastest you will inevitably create an environment of frighteningly rapacious business. Because anything "less" rapacious will be overwhelmed - driven under or bought out- by its more ruthless brethren.

To point to several instances of where the government did bad and say SEE?? I TOLD you! Government is bad, has always been bad, and will always remain our enemy! is to ignore the many instances when it was NOT bad. But are you so anti-government you would rather cut off your hands than grab what could be an extremely effective tool and use it to your benefit?

BYTE: Same answer here. Torches and pitchforks against ConAgra? Really? REALLY??? Yanno, in order to be TRULY effective, your response has to go beyond your little community. It has to be as large as the entities you're fighting... international, actually. Thinking that you're going to do a Harlan County and that it's going to be effective is just... I dunno. Ignoring history. After Harlan County, miners are STILL dying by the droves working for Massey Energy (and the Koch brothers), mountaintops are now being removed, and there isn't a fracking well that the dirty energy businesses haven't loved.

The problem with Libertarians is that you're so individualistic that you'll never get together enough to fight against something that is quite literally a billion times your size. That's worth some consideration: A BILLION times your size, no exaggeration. Frem is right that a single grain of sand is ignorable, but when banded together can become a sandblaster. But here is the essential part:

YOU ALL HAVE TO BE AIMING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AT THE SAME TIME. But if you keep spitting on any form of organization or unity ("You have your government, I'll have mine", "You have your union, I refuse to join") you will always be exactly where TPTB want you to be... so small, you've not even worth noticing. And if you decide to pull a Captain Mal and exist on the fringes, you will STILL be dependent on the corporations for your existence.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 6:40 AM

Quote:
But I can point to Brazil- a notoriously corrupt and fascistic military dictatorship if there ever was one... which has become quite reasonable, certainly a MUCH better version than its former self.

WTF?!?!?

Old Brazilian policy: The jungle cannot be defeated
New Brazilian policy: The amazon will be gone in 20 years

Old Brazilian policy: The indians are autonomous
New Brazilian policy: The indians must be mainstreamed or killed

Old Brazilian policy: Brazil is a multiracial nation
New Brazilian policy: Brazil for the whites, concentration camps for everyone else

Old Brazilian policy: We will stay out of international military affairs
New Brazilian policy: We must develop our own international nuclear arsenal

Um... Not sure what planet you live in. Since the socialists came into power, things have gone from bad to Much Much Worse. If you don't believe me check out the wholesale ecodestruction and genocide in Matto Grosso and Rodondia.

Yes, Sig, Govts. change. Improve? Not so much.

Also, South Africa is a total disaster. Many of the others you mention contrast modern govts. with wartime ones, not historical ones. I'll grant you Chile.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:08 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, you're as off-base as PN. Not a single thing you posted is true.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 9:27 AM

Year by year amazon destruction goes up and down, in down years, the Brazilian govt. hands out massive spin on how the trend is falling, but a simple look a the satellite map shows its accelerating, and the above claims were based on public statements of the leading socialist party, including statements about a white Brazil, mainstream indians, destroying the forest within 20 years, etc. Sure, they pump out propaganda to the contrary, but while dictatorship was not good, neither is democracy, it's as clear as looking at Haiti

Not falling:

Unrelated but interesting data I found looking:

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 9:53 AM

I beg to differ on that assessment, given it was the exact same thing I was told back in the mid-80's when I decided to go after WWASPS and their damn hellcamps, not enough resources, not enough people, they won't even notice, much less be affected by you, yadda fucking yadda.

My answer to that, is that if you know exactly where to put it, even ONE grain of sand will jam up the machine - not to mention getting people on-side is also a bonus, since as I am fond of telling the wackos, allies trump bullets any day of the week.

But you never do seem to hear what I say - you can't sit there and say corporations are the problem, and government is the solution, WHILE dancing around the fact that those corporations are enabled and protected BY that government.

Stephan Molyneux has an excellent parable about how that goes, when you try to work with a system that's rigged to begin with.
http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/molyneux/molyneux3.html

Also, I recently read a VERY good deconstruction of the "scale" issue, worth payin a mind to.
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/02/21/your-ideas-can-only-w
ork-on-a-small-scale/

Quote:
There is a certain kind of criticism against radical ideas that is difficult to answer, not because the criticism is a good one but because it is so vague and insubstantial that it’s hard to just get a grip on what exactly it implies. This criticism is the one which states authoritatively: “your idea sounds good in theory, but it can only work on a small scale!”

Certainly thought provoking, even if one doesn't agree, and I am seeing of course some example of the Social Sea Change worldwide in response to our old debate about the shadow question - "What do you want ?" - because you brought up the alternate context of "What do you NOT want ?", and people all across the world may not know the answer to the first, but they seem to have finally grasped the answer to the second, haven't they ?

My focus isn't really systems however, my focus is PEOPLE - the systems we have work the way they do because we've turned our whole childrearing and educational systems into an assembly line for sociopathy, thus any OTHER system, no matter how benevolent in intention, you replace it with is going to fail in the same fashion, first things first, we need to stop mentally screwing people up beyond repair before they have sufficient mental and emotional resources to defend themselves from our so-called society.

Hell, if they weren't crowded to overflowing with sociopaths, the systems we HAVE might even work - consider for a moment what a business structure might be like if harming/exploiting someone for the sake of profit/amusement was seen in the same light as infanticide or cannibalism ?

So in the end, far as I am concerned the problem doesn't exist because of systems, but because of the people within those systems, and THAT, is what I focus on changing.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 11:19 AM

I know this isn't addressed to me, but I'm gonna respond anyway, because I think it's so on target.

Quote:
Frem:
My answer to that, is that if you know exactly where to put it, even ONE grain of sand will jam up the machine -

Well said. A very Taoist concept that.

Quote:
not to mention getting people on-side is also a bonus, since as I am fond of telling the wackos, allies trump bullets any day of the week.

You're much better at this than I. Now I understand why you ally yourself at times to people whose world view is completely antithetical to your own.

Mark two things for DT to work on: I'm uncommunicative and allyless.

Quote:

can't sit there and say corporations are the problem, and government is the solution, WHILE dancing around the fact that those corporations are enabled and protected BY that government.

Also very true.

As for the rest, yes, everyone changes. Almost everyone.

Re: Ideas on a small scale argument, though there is some underlying truth in it, it's really not that the idea doesn't work on a larger scale, it's that the idea changes when you scale it up, in subtle ways which can be destructive.

Consider a social collective farm. People think this, upscaled, would be communism, but it wouldn't. It would be more like the Ukrainian collective kolkhoz system (I feel there was another word, but it's not coming up on a search, and the wikipedia article got merged.) Anyway, if you are looking at communism, you have to say "Okay, how would my farm work if it had not just collectivism, but a militant hierarchy, and the people who ran it were not farmers and never talked to the people in the field, and ran all the food through a centralized distribution system." - These are the subtle changes that upscaling the system has that people seem not to notice.

Curiously, as I right this, I see a parallel in natural. Humans are 90% mice genetically, but about 80% of that difference is not visible. Much of it scale related, such as that the hemoglobin needs to disperse oxygen at a much slower rate in a human than in a mouse. etc.

In general I find it's fairly easy to get everyone to agree on the problem and near impossible to get the to agree on a solution. This actually is a strong part of what's pulling me over to your anarchy side: If we delete what's here, and replace it with "nothing" then we can start over and try each part piece by piece.

As for this system, I don't think it would work: This system of govt. created this system of education, and if you destroyed that, it would create it again, because it has both the power to do so and the will, because it has multiple agendae to fill that can be met by programming the people.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 3:42 PM

RIONAEIRE

Beir bua agus beannacht

I agree with the "a single grain of rice can tip the scale" theory, but I agree more often with Signe's theory that people usually need to band together to affect change. If the Native Americans would have all banded together and killed every European who showed up, after they found that the first ones were problematic for them, then things would be very very very different on the North American land mass, individuals doing things to fight the coming hoards weren't enough.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 5:32 PM

I figure we really need to do all three options here. End government, end corporations, and revamp education so people start thinking for themselves and don't get wrapped up in this pecking-order behaviour that breeds sociopathy.

The question we all seem ultimately to be fighting over is which do we need to do first, do we need to end government (DT), do we need to end corporations (SignyM), do we need to revamp education (Frem). From there it gets into the other arguments.

I'm of the belief we need to try to do all three at the same time, or at least progress on all three efforts at the same rate.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 5:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RionaEire:
I agree with the "a single grain of rice can tip the scale" theory, but I agree more often with Signe's theory that people usually need to band together to affect change. If the Native Americans would have all banded together and killed every European who showed up, after they found that the first ones were problematic for them, then things would be very very very different on the North American land mass, individuals doing things to fight the coming hoards weren't enough.

"A completely coherant River means writers don't deliver" KatTaya

I think, actually, that's what they did *wrong*. If they had behaved more openly towards european, they would have done better. The real trick was to turn the europeans into indians. They could probably have won over the whites without too much difficulty by offering an alternative to british rule. The problem was it was a warlike society, and every tribe was at war with every other. Once they became combative with the Europeans, they were doomed because the whites had better weapons. Not really superior numbers, very similar numbers, but better weapons, and yes, better organization, but they weren't hyper organized.

Other places the indians fared much better. The Aztec empire had the advantage of organization. This was not a military advantage, they still got their asses kicked, but it meant that once Cortez had defeated Montezuma, they all accepted him as emperor, and that made him a mexican. Most mexicans today speak spanish, but more people speak Aztec today than did then. It was their ability to turn the spanish into mexicans that saved them.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 6:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I think, actually, that's what they did *wrong*. If they had behaved more openly towards european, they would have done better. The real trick was to turn the europeans into indians. They could probably have won over the whites without too much difficulty by offering an alternative to british rule. The problem was it was a warlike society, and every tribe was at war with every other. Once they became combative with the Europeans, they were doomed because the whites had better weapons. Not really superior numbers, very similar numbers, but better weapons, and yes, better organization, but they weren't hyper organized.

I'm just reading about this at the moment, in a book about the Pilgrims and the Puritans, its called
'Mayflower', lots of stuff I didn't know about the Indian/European interface that happened back then. According to the author (Nathanial Philbrick - isn't that the coolest name for someone writing about such things) the Indians were not particularly hostile, but were varied in their responses. The Pilgrims seemed batshit crazy at times, hardline god botherers with a taste for violence. But they needed to ally themselves with the Indians, or at least some of the Indians.

If the Pilgrims had landed 15 years earlier, they probably would have been slaughtered. By the time they arrived the Indian population had been decimated by plagues carried by earlier European sailors visiting for trade purposes. They were in a vulnerable position and generally allied with the colonists (although they did engage in quite a bit of politicking and deception amongst themselves and with their dealings with early colonists).

What is kind of interesting to me is not so much the differences of these two peoples, but the similarities, even technologically the Europeans were not astoundingly superior and they lost that superiority when they traded arms. The Indians had the advantage of numbers (for a long time), they knew the land and how to survive and prosper in it. As a race, they were physically superior, fitter, taller, hardier. They suffered with introduced diseases. But in some strange way, they were alike, and they understood each other in ways that surprised me.

Anyways, apols for preaching to those who know. It's an interesting book. I'm just up to King Phillip's war. Never heard of him before.

http://nathanielphilbrick.com/books/mayflower

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:31 PM

Quote:
YOU ALL HAVE TO BE AIMING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AT THE SAME TIME.

? Technically we are. We don't have to have the same ultimate society in mind to have similar goals for now.

For any of our ideas of supplanting the current system to work, we have to get rid of both the current corporations and the current government, because both have entrenched interests that will subvert every effort we attempt.

To you, getting rid of the current government means getting rid of politicians you see as particularly corrupt and prone to corporate interest, but you don't want to dismantle the entire thing yet.

Most of us are willing to try it your way for now, but if that doesn't work, and the corruption grows back, you're probably going to want to replace the government again, whereas we'll want to try more drastic measures.

But in any case, your efforts to get the government to attack the corporations do not in any way hurt OUR interests. Why do you think so strongly that we're working at cross purposes? I don't see it this way at all.

As for torches and pitchforks, you asked:

Quote:
And if you can come up with an EFFECTIVE answer to monopolistic power that doesn't involve government... well, you can't, can you?

Your question inherently assumes that all nation-level and global-level controlling interests are defeated. The scenario of no government can only occur when there are no controlling interests to take over the power vacuum. Removing a legislative government to make way for corporate take-over is not "no government," that's a corporatocracy (or possibly fascism). Other controlling interests are also a danger of assuming power, and the only defense against any of this it to make sure those interests operate mostly on a local level.

Torches and Pitchforks therefore is still the answer and preferred method of choice for the situation of localized monopolistic controlling interests where no government exists. It might even be effective still against large entities: your first post in this thread seems to be a torch and pitchfork march - or at least protester and sign march - of angry British citizens against large banks, businesses, and their government.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 7:45 PM

lol@Philbrick

Yes, great name.

That's not where the indians went wrong, that's where they went right. The issue with diseases is probably exaggerated, the indians hadn't had contact with europeans, but they had has contact with other indians who had had contact with europeans for 130 years at that point. Any plague that was going to strike had struck.

Indian genocide started much later. Specifically, you can blame the british, for employing the indians against the americans in the revolutionary war, but by that time, they had already made a fairly major mistake, in allowing american colonists and indians be two distinct civilizations, it made them an easy target.

The indians had guns, but not the means to manufacture them, and nowhere near as many. When sullivan's raiders came to new york, sent by george washington, it was a total slaughter. The war was over at this point, washington just wanted rid of the iroquois. If the iroquois had turned the new yorkers into iroquois, it would have been impossible, not militarily, but politically, because washington desperately wanted new york in his union, and not just the city, he wanted the state, partly for albany, and partly because without it, his union would not be connected to new england which he desperately wanted, and which might otherwise become part of canada.

Things really headed south in georgia though, when Oglethorpe decided to take out the Cherokee. The Cherokee were the last indians to play nice. They set up a democracy, elected a congress and president, passed a constitution, even build a capital modeled on our then capital in Philadelphia, and opened embassies in european countries. They adopted somewhat western dress and spoke english, they became, partly, like us, but at the same time, distinctly themselves, and they wanted to be recognized as a democratic nation state. What they didn't count on was that georgia was actually a bunch of savages (I'm so going to get flamed for this post) and came in and slaughtered 1/2 the country, took their land, and marched the other half out to oklahoma.

After word of what happened to the Iroquois and the Cherokee got out west, every Indian nation that the US encountered was prepared to fight to the death, and I don't blame 'em one bit.

At some point, European immigration actually petered out, and there really weren't enough settlers to fill the land they were taking. As a result there are still some Sioux and some Navajo out there.

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

Saturday, March 5, 2011 8:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
lol@Philbrick

Yes, great name.

That's not where the indians went wrong, that's where they went right. The issue with diseases is probably exaggerated, the indians hadn't had contact with europeans, but they had has contact with other indians who had had contact with europeans for 130 years at that point.

Squanto spoke English and had been to England. It appears as if trade (and kidnapping of Indians) was relatively common.

From wiki (and Nathaniel says much the same)

On his way back to the Patuxet in 1614, Tisquantum was kidnapped by Englishman Thomas Hunt. Hunt was one of John Smith's lieutenants. Hunt was planning to sell fish, corn and captured natives in Málaga, Spain. There Hunt attempted to sell Tisquantum and a number of other Native Americans into slavery in Spain for £20 apiece.[1]

Some local friars discovered what Hunt was attempting and took the remaining Native Americans — Tisquantum included — in order to instruct them in the Christian faith.[2] Tisquantum convinced the friars to let him try to return home. He managed to get to London, where he lived with and worked for a few years with John Slany, a shipbuilder who apparently taught Tisquantum more English. Slany took Tisquantum with him when he sailed to Cuper's Cove, Newfoundland.[3] To get to New England, Tisquantum tried to take part in an expedition to that part of the North American east coast. When that plan fell through, he returned to England in 1618.[citation needed] At last in 1619 Tisquantum returned to his homeland, having joined an exploratory expedition along the New England coast. He soon discovered that the Patuxet, as well as a majority of coastal New England tribes (mostly Wampanoag and Massachusett), had been decimated the year before by an epidemic plague, possibly smallpox; it has recently been postulated as having been leptospirosis.[4] Native Americans had no natural immunity to European infectious diseases.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 1:33 AM

Byte, I am all in favor of attacking on all three axis at once, and there are other advocates and their orgs who focus on those other things - while cooperation with mostly-anarchist folk is indeed a lot like cat-herding, sometimes an attack on one front, while rebuffed directly, will leave an opening on one of the other two for a followup, and it's quite helpful to have someone and their org handy and willing to ram it home.

And even on a single focus, it helps always to have allies, whether they even know it or not - it wasn't me or mine which struck the final blows in Feb2009, but rather Jordan Riak, Shelbey Earnshaw, and a few other folk I will not name publicly, but they GOT those critical shots cause of folk like me hamstringing the beast - kinda like the way Merry clipped the Witchking from behind and set Eowyn up for the kill shot.

So it doesn't necessarily have to be close cooperation or even willing/intentional - something one isn't ever likely to get from me because all too damn many folk have this fucking my-way-or-the-highway attitude about it, and if you don't go about it just how they want you to, THEY attack you! - and then you wind up fighting them AND the powers that be, so fuck that noise.

You wanna help me, fine, you wanna go your own way, fine - you wanna get in MY way, fine, just don't whine when you get squished....

I don't mind someone riding the coattails, or coming in on a flank, or even gankin the other guys from behind - but when they plant themselves firmly in my path, fuck up my operations, cause they don't like the way I am doing things, well.

That can get ugly, really, really, really ugly, cause I'll go out of my way to make a point about it, which is also one of the reasons I walked off and left primary operations to Justin.

Quote:
There are those who say I have no more mercy than a surgeon treating cancer.
There are those who say that even such as I must retire, as a blade is retired when grinding use wears it to a sliver—be that sliver ever so sharp.
They say, they say . . .
And they are all of them correct.

David Drake, from the introduction of Redliners

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 1:40 AM

Pfft, they'd have done better to have slaughtered those fucks the minute they arrived, you ask me.

Sure they were fleeing religious persecution, but no one ever seems to mention just how justified that persecution was - the religion in general was becoming more tolerant, less militant and rabid, and THESE assholes were the ones who wanted to get back to the bad ole days, and kind of succeeded, in how they treated the natives, and immigrants, and as the bough is bent so grows the tree...

Thankfully our founding fathers, many of em, were Deists who'd had their fill and more of these crusading, bloodthirsty, obnoxious fucks, and took great pains to keep their madness as far removed from government power as possible, not that it's worked so well over the years, but it sure as HELL beat putting them in charge!

Hell, when I wrote that explaination of WHY the Na'vi from Avatar should have left no survivors, and went into great detail of how important a total wipeout was - what cultures do you think I was referencing for the values in question ?

They should have scoured the continent clean of those bastards as soon as their true nature started to become clear, and then made sure any further landing left no survivors - eventually the europeans woulda got the hint.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 2:22 AM

Frem

Quote:
Pfft, they'd have done better to have slaughtered those fucks the minute they arrived, you ask me.

Nah, they'd have returned with more guns.

Violence doesn't always defeat an enemy, sometimes it just breeds violence.

Quote:

Thankfully our founding fathers, many of em, were Deists who'd had their fill and more of these crusading, bloodthirsty, obnoxious fucks, and took great pains to keep their madness as far removed from government power as possible

They did? Washington ordered Sullivan's raids himself. It was the US Army or what there was of it, that enforced Georgia's attack on the Cherokee. It wasn't Oglethorpe phooey, I don't remember who was gov. at the time.

At any rate, there was a massive planning of genocide by the founding fathers. Also eco-destruction. Many of them do not come off well

I get the parallel of the Na'vi, that's pretty clearly what it's about, but you did make an excellent point about the information that those soldiers carried back, and that they would return with more guns.

But if you look at Roanoke, that doesn't really support the idea. I suppose the Viking conflict did, but they did not in fact slaughter the Vikings, only sent them packing. I had an email correspondence with an indian woman who runs a museum, she had a strange respect for vikings.

Anyway, you're missing my point: They would have lost. There were only about as many indians as europeans in any given area at any time, and they were outgunned.

ETA:

It won't work. It's a complicated problem.

First off, the europeans knew it was there, the only thing stopping them from coming was the lack of proper ships. The vikings had repeated demonstrated that if you are willing to spend many weeks at sea, you will eventually find land. Even the most ignorant of Europeans would envision an ocean forever with occassional islands, but also, everyone who had any power knew the earth was round, not only did it look round when you stood up and looked around you, but it cast a round shadow on the moon.

There are people today who are ignorant, that's nothing new, but no one should assume an entire population is ever ignorant, and the kings and queens had court astronomers and the like, they knew what it was they needed to know.

How big the Earth is was another matter, and even Columbus got it wrong. But if you knew what the vikings knew, and the Chinese knew, and the Venetians had been to China and knew what they knew, you knew that it was just a matter of sailing in one direction, you'd find land. Eventually, anyone who knew anything about it, knew that they would end up back where they started, because the earth was round.

Given that, europeans were going to be coming forever. If the indians were to capture or kill anyone, it had to be columbus. Then they had to immediately reverse engineer his ships. The problem was that Montezuma II was incredibly corrupt and Mexico was inefficient in part because it was de facto ruled by an underhanded merchant elite, who had a land based trade empire much larger than mexico, and they had no interest in going to sea. The subject had come up many times, but the Aztecs had not amassed a decent navy, and I think it was internal economics and politics stopping them. Everyone knew that there were caribs and arowaks going this way and that by sea, but the aztecs were cutting themselves out of that game.

Taking out columbus was simply beyond the capabilities of the caribs and arowaks, who were at war with one another when he arrived. They quickly made peace with each other and went to war with spain, but it was no use, they were very seriously outgunned.

As for war in later territories, the presence of an extant european power was the only thing that was going to stop another european power. That's the reason that there is still an amazon, because portugal had staked a claim that was larger than they could settle.

If the atlantic were larger than the pacific, the exact same thing would have happened from the other side: China, Japan and Korea would be the conquering imperial powers, and Russia would have been France ;)

Actually, russia would have been a little late.

India might have gotten in on it even.

But if indians kill off everyone who lands in virginia, than each time, virgina is still empty as far as the next invader is concerned.

It's just logistically difficult for a population the size of london to defend an area many times the size of Europe. With Denmark, Sweden, England, France, Spain and Portugal, all attacking at once, you have the indians with their no navy against six attacking navies. What, exactly, are they supposed to do? The population density at any given area is negligible, and if they concentrate to defend that area, then the european fleets can relocate to another area in far less time than the indians could move to defend it. Even at six knots, the slower colony ships were traveling 24 hours which made them 4 times as fast as any land force. Once they had a beachhead, they could easily defend it, Europe had been at war with Europe forever, and knew how to defend and they also knew that it was going to be easier to fight indians than other europeans.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 3:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE, ET AL:

Quote:
YOU ALL HAVE TO BE AIMING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AT THE SAME TIME.-Signy
Technically we are. We don't have to have the same ultimate society in mind to have similar goals for now.-Byte

Technically, we aren't. If I am of a mind to use law to achieve my objective, and you are busy undercutting the force of law to achieve yours.... that puts us VERY much at cross-purposes. It's as if we are in a house which is being invaded by armed robbers. I pick up a gun and you take the gun from my hand because "guns are always bad". I don't know how I possibly be any clearer. I my view, you are taking a weapon from my hand.

Maybe than comes from my background as a government regulator, but I see a lot of good that the government does. Business by and large is NOT allowed to foul the air, or put toxins in food. Last time I checked, the Cuyahoga river hasn't caught fire lately, and 2000 people haven't died in a smog siege. http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/image.php?rec=1642&img=2323

Is government perfect? Of course not. But when it fails, it fails because it represents the owners. And when it fails, it fails because people fail to become involved. The remedies to fixing government are there. They are as simple as the voting lever, or attending the town council meeting, or protesting at the White House. Engaged people ended the Vietnam War. Engaged people created Social Security, which... despite your mental reflex... has kept millions of elderly people from dying of poverty. There are many things that government could be doing that it isn't, things that business would never do. Like creating national north-south wildlife corridors to mitigate global warming, reforesting land and rehabilitating degraded environments. Do you see business doing any of that??? Of course not: there's no profit in it! DO you see local groups organizing a coordinated national effort? Of course not, the project is too large.

There are a lot of things that government is doing that it should stop, like putting money on a conveyor to the wealthy and fighting wars everywhere in the world. So let's change what we need to change. I promise to fight the corporations if you promise to stop taking my gun away from me. Let's be a little more selective about what we're doing, m'kay? Because you are talking about DESTROYING government and that seems to be your first priority, while I'm talking about keeping the good (which you don't believe exists) and getting rid of the bad.

Oh, and BTW: Just because we think we have a fellow-feeling or we think we've identified a common enemy doesn't mean we're all moving in the same direction at the same time. You are too young to remember, but the Freedom Marches... the ones that defeated Jim Crow laws... were organized. They had publicists and lawyers and "muscle" working on their side. They thought about the racial mix of the buses heading south, the route the were going to take, the response they were going to have to the expected violence. They had a physical destination and a strategic goal. They collected money from the people who couldn't go (due to family obligations and so forth) to support the ones who could.

Having warm and fuzzy feelings ... or feelings of mutual tolerance... about each other is not about to achieve strategic success. It takes a LOT more than that.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 4:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Technically, we aren't. If I am of a mind to use law to achieve my objective, and you are busy undercutting the force of law to achieve yours.... that puts us VERY much at cross-purposes.

Again, much, if not most of the time I have been at this, and we're talkin a span of damn near thirty fucking years here, the force of law has been on the side of the bad actors...

When "the law" approves of what they do, supports it, encourages it, PROTECTS THEM FROM ME ?
AND THEN WHAT ?

Read up on the Ludlow Massacre for example, Howard Zinn has an especially in-depth piece if you can find it anywhere, go on, tell me which side "the force of law" was on in that case, at Matewan and Blair Mountain and all the other places my ancestors stood tall and tried to do better, and got massacred, mowed down and crushed by people with "the force of law" in hand.

Or all the times "the force of law" was on the side of those who wished to abuse their kids by shipping them off to concentration camps, I could go on and on - not that, mind you, I am above turning that very weapon upon them anytime I have the chance, but when you find yourself looking down the barrel of a weapon so much more often than holding the grip, removing it from play is a logical idea.

Despite being rather studiously ignored when I bring up decent points and counter arguments, despite folk going on as if I never said a word without even a goddamn acknowledgement, I want one point to come through loud and clear, so that there is not one whit of ambiguity or doubt.

Yes, I will take any assistance, intentional or not, from prettymuch anybody, that does not, and never has mean I necessarily consider the source to be any kind of ally, and this is the point I want razor sharp so there is no mistaking it.

I DO NOT TRUST YOU.

In fact, half the reason I wanna knock that gun out of your hand, is not cause I wanna remove my opponents favorite and most effective, most useful weapon against my efforts, oh no...

It is because if we ever get done with them, five minutes later YOU will be pointing it at ME - in order to make your better world.

So don't take me for a fool, or insult me by pretending otherwise, I know damn well you don't suffer from my moral repugnance at the notion of forcing ones ways and values down upon others at bayonet point, and it is this very factor which causes us to work at cross purposes, cause while you're not okay with them doing it to you, that is not so true in the opposite direction and I am bloody well aware of it.

Just as I mean to grind up these republican neo-feudalist punks and then push the democrat globalists right off the cliff after em while they're busy celebrating, so too are there factions that will get a shank in their spine, metaphorically, for much the same reason - for example, if the mighty-whitey-righties run a corrupt politician out of office because he ain't pale enough for them, you really think I'm *not* going to take the chance to blow the legs out from under them while they're still busy crowing about it, even if I *did* stand by and let them do it ?

Conversely, you're welcome to accept my assistance, intentional or not - but you'd be insane to trust someone who has it in for your intentions so obviously, wouldn't you ?

Anyhow, again, systems versus people - all systems are made up OF people, change the people, change the system, but since no one wants to discuss that point since it pokes holes in whatever grand little notion they think is gonna make it all better, I really don't see any need to continue, since I've made all the points I wanted to, and will again likely be ignored.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 5:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Again, much, if not most of the time I have been at this, and we're talkin a span of damn near thirty fucking years here, the force of law has been on the side of the bad actors...

And in that same timespan from where I sit, the force of law has been more on the side of good. I know, because I enforce it. So I stack my experience up against yours, and in that span of time I've probably done more good than you. So you can stop being such a friggin "hero".

I can tell you that the government is like a football... the way it goes depends on which team is carrying the ball at the moment. There have been times when we have been GRATEFUL to be successfully sued by environmental organizations because yanno what? The pressure from the business side is never-ending. But for every corrupt cop or crooked politician, there are employees who are busting their ass to make things better. But they need support.

You want to solve the problem??? GO AFTER BUSINESS. That's the source of the problem. Stop attacking the football and start attacking the other side.

You keep pointing to this instance or that.... yes, indeed, the government HAS come down on the wrong side. But you (who claim not to serve the blind god) are so blinded by your own hate that you cannot see the good that IS being done. And speaking of trust... well, I don't trust you either, and that's why. You have an overweening view of the effect of the rugged individual, and a vast under-appreciation of the problems we're facing.

And, I'm not trying to destroy YOU, Frem. Or take your weapon of choice from your hands. You, OTOH, are trying to destroy me.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 7:03 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Gonna add something here, because not only have you pissed me off, but I feel you've got a real cognitive disconnect and a lack of rationality (Inability to ratio).

So, let me be real specific:

In the past 30 years - about roughly since I started working for it- agency has reduced the number of pollution-related deaths by at least 10,000 per year. That's 300,000 lives saved over my career. If I were to divide that by our average number of employees, over that time, each and every employee- including myself, has saved the lives of 500 people. About 17 people per year per person. Unless you're an ER doctor, it would be hard to stack up those kinds of stats. It's a record I'm proud of. THAT is fighting back- FOR REAL. What have you done to stack up against that?

Could it have been done more efficiently? Yeah, probably. Is there politicking going on in the background? Undoubtedly. But could it have been done by individuals with pitchforks and flambeaux? I doubt it.

IF you have a problem in your town, your town council can take care of it. But what about ocean overfishing? Is your town council going to be effective with that?

SO, let me get to the whole concept of "unions". Let's assume that unions DID manage to get rid of corporate ownership. Yanno what would happen? THEY would wind up trying to solve the very problems you say don't need solving: system problems. Who gets loans? What about unemployment? What problems need solving first? How do we prepare for natural disaster? How do we keep power from concentrating again?

They would wind up mediating the problems you say don't need to be mediated: Who gets the river water, the fishermen or the farmers? How clean does the air need to be for the people downwind?

I'm sorry, but your inability to envision that societies are NOT just the sum (or the average) of their individual parts, but inevitably become complex systems that can go off on dangerous development tangents is just that: an inability. Because YOU can't envision more solutions doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't necessary.

And now, I'm going to go to work, on my own time and my own dime, to get out a report that will help clean up the air.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 7:28 AM

Where in hell have I ever had a mental reflex against social security?

Whatever. Believe what you want, but we're not enemies. All this means is I have no reason to tell you what my plans really are.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 8:22 AM

Frem,

You have a certain eloquence I admire

The hand of govt. as a steady regulator of the environment is currently poisoning us hillbillies, and has been for years. It was in abeyance, but now it's back, and it's in my own back yard, and we're pretty sure it's those corporate thugs in their govt-halliburton alliance that poisoned my sister, and I can tell you that the feeling here was if it weren't for a govt. regulation *endorsing* the frackers, hillbillies here would be ridding is of them in a simple point and click manner, and I wouldn't be stopping them.

This is the same govt. that *deforested* the entire damn country, I might add, and is married to the corporations, and I might have mentioned a couple times that my uncle works for the EPA, and he says regulation is a marriage of the corporate corrupt and the well meaning hapless ineffectual dupes.

Allow me to summarize this "govt. as a force for good" argument more simply:

"The one ring, I can use it's power for good, if only it were mine, all mine, my precious!"

But this does risk becoming gang up on Sig day, so let me mediate it with this:

Sig, I get that you *intend* to do good with govt, and maybe, at times, you actually succeed. That said, you have to recognize that the large machine is pretty much a juggernaut of evil, and has been from its inception. There's been no real change in policy since its dawning in the sweat of slaves and the blood of indians, only a change in tactics of enslavement and in targets of slaughter. Is it a step up that we slaughter foreign arab nations instead of foreign indian ones, or that, in the interim, we slaughtered foreign asian ones?

I might disagree with Frem about *how* the indians and early settlers should have put the nails in the coffin of this machine, but I have no quibble about that they should have done so.

(If anything, I think the monster is less salvageable than he do. )

And
Frem, On this point, you just recommended to me basically the same thing I was saying about the indians and the settlers, re: Brazil, as a solution.

Sig, if you define yourself as govt, then yes, you are putting yourself in his line of fire, but that does not mean that he is aiming at you as such.

Sig is not entirely wrong about govt. as football, but the goal here is not to *win* the game, it is to *end* the game, and to that end, killing the football is a goal.

Still, "going after" corporations is a strategy, but not in a hostile manner. I would say "convincing them not to frack" for instance, is a potentially winning one, and one I've considered. I think that psychologically, threats and punishments and vinegar is not the way to do this one.

Frem, if I may...

I think he means not that *you* signym, would point the gun at him, but that your buddies would. Govt. is more than a football, but that's close:

Govt. is the one ring.

The difference is subtle but important. It is still a macguffin, but it lures the most corrupt, and controls them, bending them to do evil, because once you hold the power of the ring, what gets accomplished is not *your* agenda, but whatever it is that the *ring* wants.

And that is determined by the money and power which, this time, is actually older than corporations. It's money itself.

Quote:
Frem
Just as I mean to grind up these republican neo-feudalist punks and then push the democrat globalists right off the cliff after em

Oh, and Frem, I know we had a disagree about this before, but I've had a change of strategy, so I'm just gonna go ahead and let you do that. Let me know if you need a hand. I see now that neither party can be saved, and it doesn't really matter in what order they are destroyed. Personally, I recommend stoking the corruption until they cave under the weight of their own greed. Just a thought.

Quote:
Frem: change the people, change the system

I think I've addressed this one. The good have nothing to gain from power because their aims can be achieved without its abuse, the wicked will have much more to gain from power because it is absolutely essential to achieving their aims. Ergo, IMHO, Nietzsche is right. The existence of power is the problem. Sure, it's stacked with evil people, but if you remove those people, in 20 years time you'll have a whole new crop of them. You must remove that power. You must toss the ring into Khazad Doom.

Quote:
Sig: And in that same timespan from where I sit, the force of law has been more on the side of good

On what planet? Even in California environmental law over the last 30 years the govt. has been apocalyptically *bad*. I'll grant you the atmospheric regulation, but I do think that if the govt. weren't stopping the people with pitchforks from solving the problem, they would have done so.

Quote:
Sig Who gets the river water, the fishermen or the farmers?

You gotta check out what corporate corruption with the aid of big govt. regulation has done to them:

The govt. hands out trillions of dollars to these corporations. You think a fine here or there makes that net balance negative?

And, yeah, we are trying to get all levels of govt. to fight this, but if there were not govt., it would be over in 20 minutes.

And while people have been trying to get govts. in Brazil and Africa and Indonesia, etc. to put a stop to it over the last 30 years, 1/2 of all of the species of life on this planet have been destroyed forever.

I'm sorry, I'm sick of failure. I'm siding with whatever works.

Everyone gets to play. If the citizens have the freedom to fight the power, the people will win, because they way outnumber the power. The gun in the hand of the govt. prevents anyone else from fighting, and so far, we the people aren't satisfied with the job the govt. has done.

ETA:

Sig. Let me translate the argument here into Firefly terms. You've essentially just said "The problem here is Blue Sun, so Mal et al, stand back and let the Alliance handle this."

Examining that as being the way we see it, you can see where the lack of faith in that solution is coming from.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 3:46 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Sig. Let me translate the argument here into Firefly terms. You've essentially just said "The problem here is Blue Sun, so Mal et al, stand back and let the Alliance handle this."

Examining that as being the way we see it, you can see where the lack of faith in that solution is coming from.

Well, apparently you missed the movie (Serenity. You might have heard of it. [/snark]) where Mal goes on a rampage to ... guess what?

REFORM GOVERNMENT.

So stick THAT us your ass!

AND BTW- nobody is saying "Let the Alliance handle it". What I'm saying is: kick the Alliance's ass.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 4:02 PM

The problem is with people who want to bring down government, is that they simply want to replace the powers that be with their own set of problems.

Hate to continue to harp on about evolution, but we are a heirarchical species. we jockey amongst each other in every single setting to determine who will lead and who will follow. it happens down to the very minutae of society, to morning coffee clubs at school right through to who controls our resources.

Doesn't mean that you can't have governance that is better and fairer than others. My biggest issue with people who want no government is they deny the existence of power dynamics. In a libertarian system, in any system, people will vie for power and control, and in fact a system that denies these basic heirarchies eg communism, is far more dangerous to people's liberties that a system that accepts them, but has systems in place to make in a transparent one with checks and balances. That power game will play out anyway, but under the surface.

Doesn't mean there isn't alot that needs fixing witht he status quo. But no governance is not an option.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 4:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:

So stick THAT us your ass!

Sig,

You're really fucking insane.

I'm going to second that "I don't trust you" I don't get why you think we should let you have the gun. The people should have the gun. The govt. has had the gun for a couple centuries now, and that hasn't exactly worked out so great.

Magon,

We're a tribal species. And your tribal leader is insane. I think you should see to that

We got along for millions of years without Big Brother. The real reason why Rome fell? Flat out failure to compete with barbarian Germany. That didn't say anything about Romans or Germans, it said something about Rome, such as that Romans were fleeing Rome in droves.

*When* we take down TPTB, we will replace it with something else, something more free, and more independent, something that protects the rights of the people to not be interfered with, and if I have a say in it, that also helps protect the Earth, by putting that power and responsibility into the hands of every citizen, so a small group of people can't fuck it up for everyone else.

And yes, Magon, there will always be a power struggle, but there doesn't have to be a big mucking gun in the center of the table that one group gets to wield against the others, that just exaggerates the power imbalance. And there doesn't need to be a one ring, because when there is, then that determines what gets accomplished.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 5:11 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Magon,

We're a tribal species. And your tribal leader is insane. I think you should see to that

We got along for millions of years without Big Brother. The real reason why Rome fell? Flat out failure to compete with barbarian Germany. That didn't say anything about Romans or Germans, it said something about Rome, such as that Romans were fleeing Rome in droves.

*When* we take down TPTB, we will replace it with something else, something more free, and more independent, something that protects the rights of the people to not be interfered with, and if I have a say in it, that also helps protect the Earth, by putting that power and responsibility into the hands of every citizen, so a small group of people can't fuck it up for everyone else.

And yes, Magon, there will always be a power struggle, but there doesn't have to be a big mucking gun in the center of the table that one group gets to wield against the others, that just exaggerates the power imbalance. And there doesn't need to be a one ring, because when there is, then that determines what gets accomplished.

My leader is insane? Depends which one you are talking about. I'd say 'incompetent' would be the word of the moment to discuss any of my leaders, and that includes my work. Actually that one is a bit insane, but I won't go there.

Well Dreamtrove you are indeed aptly named on this site, because frankly dream on is what I say. What you write sounds absolutely fantastic, but impossibly so. Because with power struggles you get winners, people who come out on top and then they hold the power. What I hope for is that they are basically sane, and that there are protections from them weilding their power too much.

As a citizen of this planet, I don't need to be involved in every single decision affecting my life. I'd have to spend my whole frakking life making decisions, and I already get asked to make too many. These days, thanks to free market economics and other wonderful mechanisms , I have to make decisions about which electricity, water, gas, telecommunications, pension fund, banking and investment services, health insurance, car insurance, house insurance, personal and liability insurance companies and of course ALL of them assure me that their company offers the best deal. Then I have to decide what school my son goes to, what sort of schooling he has (public/private/alternative), what type of medical treatment I choose for my family, homeopathic, conventional, naturopath, reflexology, chiropractor, osteopath, reiki massage, what religion I want to follow, mainstream Christianity, fundamental christianity, catholicism, buddhism, taoism, hinduism, deism, theism, gnostism, atheism, agnosticism, undecided (the most common religion in Australia), where I am going to live and what career path I will follow, what chararities and causes will support, what diet to follow, what child rearing philosophy I should take etc etc etc.

I probably make about 3 times as many decisions as my parents,as much of those options were not available to them. So I don't want or need input into thousands upon thousands of decisions that governments/decision making bodies make. Here is my decision, I choose a system where I can have a vote to elect someone to act on my behalf who think kind of along the same lines as I do to make the majority of those decisions, having heard their plans before they get into their governance role. I'd also like them to have access to expert opinions nad research, to be able to be accountable and have limited terms, so that I can also replace them if they turn out to be duds. I'd like there to be limits to the type of power that they can wield, and for there to be as much scrutiny and transparency about what they do as possible. Oh wait, that's how the system we have is supposed to work! Oh well, I vote for that one. That's my choice. In the meantime, I'm off to examine some insurance options in my spare time.

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

Sunday, March 6, 2011 9:05 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

BYTE: Not mad at YOU Byte, at Frem. Of course, you can tell me what you want to do, or not, as you wish. But let me add that unless you plan on getting at least several HUNDRED people behind your plan; it's not likely to be very effective. You may be planning on securing some safety for yourself and a few others and that's a good thing, but you're sure not going to improve much of anything because THAT takes coordinate effort of more than a few people.

Quote:
Sig,You're really fucking insane.

Once again, words failed you.

Quote:
I'm going to second that "I don't trust you" I don't get why you think we should let you have the gun.

huh. Did I say "let me have the gun"? Did I??? Of course not, ya boob!

So let me spell this out for you slowly and carefully, so that there can be no mistaking what I say, because you both seem to have a GREAT delight in taking whatever I say and turning it 180 degrees around.

You and Frem both believe that ALL government is bad. In your mind, there can be NO government, ever.

And I'm here to tell you, that just ain't gonna work.

Let me expand on the idea that I had of unions actually getting rid of corporate ownership. And let's even say, for the sake of argument, that every individual is perfectly well-adjusted. For the sake of discussion, I'm assuming that there is no deterioration towards chaos and violence.

Nonetheless, there will still be problems. Water rights, air rights, fishing rights need to be negotiated among groups, even among continents. Large projects ... like eradicating an invasive fish from an entire river system, or building a canal across many boundaries... will need to be coordinated, Because these kinds of projects are useful in the long run but are not PROFITABLE in the short run, they're not likely to be undertaken by a system of profit-oriented cooperatives, no matter how internally democratic. All of this shit will need to be negotiated. Now, eventually groups will get tired of hashing out the same shit over and over and over again. Eventually, precedents will be set. A rather uniform set of rules that can be called on over and over will be established. And once again you'll have .... government.

Also, consider that if there are assets to be bought and sold... tools, robots, grain... there will be an internal currency. If there is international trade... and there will be, to maintain any sort of technological society... there will be international currency. Then you run into the problem of small groups of people hoarding currency, as DT so kindly pointed out in the eugenics thread. Larger cooperatives will take over smaller ones because THEY are internally more efficient. Sooner or later, the SAME CONCENTRATION OF POWER ARISES. It's been a historical trend since before the days of Hammurabi, and it doesn't seem to matter whether the source of power is land/soldiers, church/ theocracy, trade routes/naval power, or money/profit.

So here's the deal, as I see it:

Since power seems to concentrate rather persistently, and governments seem to form simply because they make society more productive, instead of having a French Revolution and just destroying things and HOPING that things will turn out better than they did the last couple of dozen times, how about creating something really new?

I think the Founding Fathers were on to something. Like good engineers, they tried to build in feedback systems to prevent monarchic power. What they DIDN'T anticipate was the emergence of a DIFFERENT kind of power- money power. They didn't anticipate it developing its current stranglehold.

So, rather than saying "no" government (which is impossible) we should DESIGN a government with the appropriate feedbacks that would not only keep the government small, it would short-circuit the "bigness" that seems to inevitably develop over time. perhaps one of the function of government would be to help set up currency-less trade, for example.

That's the theoretical aspect of government.
-----------------
Here's the practical one.

Our bridges, sewers, roads, water supply, and electrical grid are falling apart. Whose going to replace the roads and bridges... a for-profit company? Can you imagine what a NIGHTMARE it would be to have a toll booth on every frigging bridge, highway and byway? And who is going to keep the air and water clean? Industry?

I think you've gotten so used to having government there in the background, you take it for granted. You use it as a kind of all-purpose whipping boy because it's easy to see when it screws up and even easier to ignore when it works. DT, it's not "government" that's fracking your water supply, nor is it "government" that's removing mountaintops. Government may be failing in its duty to protect you FROM INDUSTRY, but NEVER FORGET WHERE THE REAL PROBLEM LIES.

Now, when you consider what to do first, which will be an easier line of attack? What will you do to the industry to stop the fracking??? What CAN you do, if anything? I suppose you can monkeywrench... good luck with that.

Or you can grab the responsible politician by the balls and squeeze until he cries for mercy. Or, you can try both. But nowhere do I see "Let's destroy the department of whatever" as a useful option.

And I stand behind what I said before. Last year, I prevented 17 deaths. And each and every person in my agency did the same, including the office assistants and maintenance folks. That's not even counting the many hundred illnesses that we prevented. We have pushed industry into cleaner and cleaner technology, and yanno what? They hate us.

And since we tend to be an aggressive agency, I don't mind taking some of credit for fruitful actions of our friends in the EPA, CARB, Canada, Hong Kong, Singapore, mainland China and even the EU (even if they ARE kind of snobby about it). About half of the people I work with are environmentalists, most of the remainder are "just" dedicated professionals trying to do a good job.

That doesn't mean that we don't need or appreciate a kick in the pants once in a while to keep management going in the right direction. The many citizens groups that sue us provide a welcome countermeasure to all of th pressure that we feel from industry. So it's an open process, especially to anyone who wants to get involved, as it should be.

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 1:56 AM

Yanno, I find it really irritating to have my statements ignored, run through the wash-n-dry cycle of someone elses perceptions and misconstrued, deliberately misinterpreted, or have strawmen taped over them - especially when that's done on purpose.

Firstoff, though, I *will* address that little bit of snark.
Me, a hero ? *snort*, exactly what are you smoking that you'd have that perception, AND how did it not occur to you that there *IS* actually an organisation and allies behind the showy front ?
This is done for tactical reasons, on the personal scale, by now everybody KNOWS that no matter how threatening I play it, the clobbering isn't gonna come from me, but rather one of my "bullygirls" you've dismissed as a non-threat while I hold your attention - standard issue stage magician misdirection, basic tricksterism.
And the same carries for drawing it down organisationally - while I am playin crash boom bang and making a lot of racket, it's Justin, or Gus, or Alice, or even another org allied to from which the real blow is coming, and the illusion of a tiny cult of personality is just that, an illusion, for that reason and to protect the other people involved from retaliation politically and personally.

In an MMO, they call that "Tanking", but it's kind of the same principle, and I thought most had figured it out already - not to mention my ability to play on crowd dynamics to raise all manner of holy hell.

Secondly, imma address a point DT made about facing a new wave twenty years down the road even if you DO manage to clean house - this is an argument I've discussed several times before, what I consider Robespierres inherent mistake, scraping off the top without thought to the source of people so messed up they think that way.
Sure, you're gonna occasionally have the folk born with mental misfire - but most folk AIN'T, they *become* that way because of what our social and educational structures do to them, and that is a problem I address both for it's own sake, and because it cuts off the supply line of both would be tyrants, and their would be jackboots.
Simple when you think about it, in practice, not so goddamned easy.

As for "government" - yeah, I do see it as The One Ring, but also you might give notion to previous discussions about the monkeys and the pile of resources all in one place, cause that too can be viewed as "government", and sure thing I'd like to scatter the pile a little...
Speakin of Tolkienesque analogies though, it's also worth a note that Hobbits were prettymuch collectivist anarchists, and you DO get to see, in the books, the result of bringing "government" and "law and order" to them don't you ?

But again and again I've said it, only to be ignored in favor of your favorite strawman, that I'd remove government overnight and let everything crash to pieces while laughing amidst the rubble - shit, why not just file me in with the bomb throwing nihilists why don't you, if you're not going to listen to a fuckin thing I say ?

Firstoff, there's the problem of causing a total socio-political meltdown, and the related casualties - time and time again I have mentioned this, and pointed out that I've gotten in some pretty nasty set-tos with other anarchists about it, so you're ignoring that.

Secondly, there's the issue of our society and the people in it, being unable to handle or cope with that, they've been trained to certain dependancies, AND are not mentally, emotionally, or socially advanced enough for it to friggin work, as I have stated, over and over, and you're ignoring that.

Thirdly, there's the issue of infrastructure, which I am all in favor of not only having, but doing right, and in fact I issued a rather longish lecture to Wulfie on the nature of how property taxes PAY for infrastructure and it's one of the few "government" functions which really wouldn't change even in an anarchist collective cause by economy of scale and bargaining collectively it's far cheaper and more effecient, that one you mighta not seen....
AND the "who would pick up the trash" argument ties right in with that, cause it was people like me who started those arguments with other anarchists who DO take governmental type functions so much for granted they are freakin blind to the consequences of not having them any more.

And Fourth, who exactly is it that's always making the argument that taking away or smashing things other people want and/or need, is every bit as morally reprehensible as forcing things they don't want down upon them - how can you possibly attribute the things you do in my direction in spite of the obvious evidence to the contrary ?

And finally, the whole bloody lot of this ignores a years-long history of me repeating these things, only to have you completely ignore them in favor of your illusory strawmen the minute your temper gets up, and I really hate repeating myself when it's so goddamn obviously futile.

Again, change the PEOPLE, change the SYSTEM - I know it's ten minutes long, but it's ten minutes well spent to understand the NATURE of what I hope to do!

By extending the "monkeysphere" to where instead of a hard line between "Us" and "Them" it becomes an expansive sphere encompassing all other people, scaled by how MUCH you care about them, you remove a lot of the social and political drives to do harm, even for profit - by itself this is no pancea, but it's a damn good foundation for the rest.

Cause here's the rub, for almost THREE HUNDRED YEARS people been saying "oh, but our government will work, it will, I promise, if you just do this..." and for three hundred years all it's gotten is worse, sure you have periods of progression and regression, but it's moved pretty steadily in one direction when you view the history as a whole - insanity is doing the same thing over and over again hoping for different results, and at this point you really have to ask yourself if maybe you should try something else...

OH NOES, HERESY!!.... right ?
*shakes head*

Anyhow, I don't see why you feel so threatened - even if someone like me got into a position to start hacking pieces our of government it ain't like what you do would be at risk, think on this...
Firstoff you have our tremendously bloated military and alphabet spook to deal with, corporate welfare, porkbarrell, legislation rollback (as in eliminating some of the thousands of laws which don't even apply any more, or maybe shouldn't BE laws in the first place) and so on and so forth, but not just that...

So long as there's the problem and potential of an industry polluting, dumping waste or what have you, the function you serve is GOING to be needed by society, by any society, even a minarchist, collective, whatever, cause if you don't smash it flat, then the only way to go about it is to scale it down and put the decision making power as close as possible to the humans most effected BY that decision, yes ?
In fact THAT has been a problem so long as there's been a Federal Government, some assholes in washington making decisions on stuff that'll never affect them, for people hundreds of miles away who WILL be affected by the results of those decisions, which is on the face of it moronic and as sure a vehicle for corruption as there ever was existed.

Now, we're unlikely to get to that point in either of our lifetimes, but say we do get lucky, say everything goes according to the gorram plan (yeah, right!) and a smooth scaledown and social transformation is under way.
Eventually that's gonna come down to folk sitting at a table trying to figure out how to integrate you and what you do into it, not chasing you out of town with pitchforks and torches - that'd be the corpies, especially if someone keeps building government up and making it ever easier for them to subvert it.
In which case who's side of that do you really think I'd be on given how passionately and bitterly I hate the bastards ?

I'd have more to say, but I have run short on time and have to go into town for a bit, I will say one thought occurs to me when folk speak of the concentration of wealth as a problem to be addressed, just a top of the head though that'd merit some discussion if anyone would actually listen to a damn thing I say once in a while...

Said notion: Perishable Money.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 3:07 AM

CANTTAKESKY

I didn't want to get into a slugfest with Siggy and Magon, cause yanno, what does that accomplish.

But I will say I am enjoying your arguments, Frem.

You can pass out weapons in the Congo to women to defend themselves from rapists, but they won't use it. One has to change the mentality, empower the mind, before physical independence can occur.

What needs to happen is for an existing or new anarchistic society to gain sufficient publicity in the Western world. It won't be a perfect society, cause what is. But it will demonstrate that having no government is a viable option, even if it isn't an option that one might choose for oneself.

Baby steps.

Little defeat big
When little is smart
First with the head
Then with the heart
(from The Power of One, movie)

I'll leave with today's quotation from the Dalai Lama:

"Whatever the intellectual quality of the education given our children, it is vital that it include elements of love and compassion, for nothing guarantees that knowledge alone will be truly useful to human beings. Among the major troublemakers society has known, many were well-educated and had great knowledge, but they lacked a moral education in qualities such as compassion, wisdom and clarity of vision."

It all starts in the mind and heart. The rest is logistics.

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 5:28 AM

Signym introduces the gun metaphor, where govt. is the gun, and we should allow govt. to have the gun so that it can solve problems, which means that we are not allowed to solve them ourselves:

Quote:

Signym: I pick up a gun and you take the gun from my hand because "guns are always bad".
Signym: I promise to fight the corporations if you promise to stop taking my gun away from me.

Frem: half the reason I wanna knock that gun out of your hand, is ... because if we ever get done with them, five minutes later YOU will be pointing it at ME
DT: I think he means not that *you* signym, would point the gun at him
DT: The gun in the hand of the govt. prevents anyone else from fighting, and so far, we the people aren't satisfied with the job the govt. has done.

But I reject the gun analogy because I think it's flawed. It assumes that one can possess govt. and control its actions. Even if this were true, I would think it was a bad idea, but I think this analysis is naive. Rather, I propose:

Quote:

DT: Govt. is the one ring.

Quote:

You and Frem both believe that ALL government is bad. In your mind, there can be NO government, ever.

More distorted words.

Quote:

DT: The only problem with anarchy is that someone would come along and set up a govt. You need a govt. that does nothing other than prevent someone else from setting up a govt.

Never let it be said that words fail me, but that I fail words.

Magon,

your tribal leader Sig.

Moving on

Frem, CTS, and oh whoever is actually listening...

Quote:
Frem:

Secondly, imma address a point DT made about facing a new wave twenty years down the road even if you DO manage to clean house - this is an argument I've discussed several times before, what I consider Robespierres inherent mistake, scraping off the top without thought to the source of people so messed up they think that way.
Sure, you're gonna occasionally have the folk born with mental misfire - but most folk AIN'T, they *become* that way because of what our social and educational structures do to them, and that is a problem I address both for it's own sake, and because it cuts off the supply line of both would be tyrants, and their would be jackboots.
Simple when you think about it, in practice, not so goddamned easy.

The problem with this idea, while a good one, it isn't foolproof, because people change. Take a guy who isn't a jackboot, send him to war, and pretty soon you may find him shooting kids.

Consider the good christian girl who wants to wait until she gets married to have sex. If a guy goes in and plays by good christian rules, this will be true. But when the bad boy comes in on his motorcycle, and rides off with her in the sunset, it turns out, that's not so true anymore.

Why?

Because all of our belief structures are built within a framework of context. Just like the girl would not behave in an unchristian manner in her christian community with her christian boyfriend, those rules don't apply when she's sneaking into some rich dude's empty vacation home with party snacks stolen from a convenience store by a guy who just got out of jail. The context within which those beliefs were held has been broken.

So, your average American would never pick up a guy and shoot someone, or so they would say. But what if people were shooting at them, all of a sudden, all the time? Their stance on that might change.

Quote:

As for "government" - yeah, I do see it as The One Ring, but also you might give notion to previous discussions about the monkeys and the pile of resources all in one place, cause that too can be viewed as "government", and sure thing I'd like to scatter the pile a little...
Speakin of Tolkienesque analogies though, it's also worth a note that Hobbits were prettymuch collectivist anarchists, and you DO get to see, in the books, the result of bringing "government" and "law and order" to them don't you ?

Those little scraps are the power of govt, which accumulates over time, because govt. always acts to increase its power. Ergo, govts., if created, should be made like replicants: With a built in expiry date.

It's also worth noting that govts. are controlled by those outside govt, Sauron and his ring wraiths in this analogy, are not govt, govt, is the ring, and the wraiths are going to do everything in *their* power to increase their hold over the course of govt., by introducing new control mechanisms, etc. As they do this, the power of the ringbearer is going to decrease, and the power of Sauron over it will increase.

BTW, Property taxes are perhaps my least favorite tax because they are the one thing that enforces the class structure.

Anyway, if you construct a new ring, you have to know that there's an army of wraiths out there waiting to take it over and deliver it to their master Sauron, and they will start in on it right away.

This is precisely what happens time and again to govt. regulatory agencies. They are basically little microcosmic govts., and about 20 years in, they end up getting controlled by their own little ring of wraiths that come from the industry that the agency was created to regulate.

Quote:
Perishable Money.

Yes, no one listens when I say it either. That's why I bothered to go into the whole rant against capitalism and the problems with persistent capital so that people would see why the gold standard is NOT the answer, but instead some new form of currency.

If you replace the currency system, IMHO, you've dealt with 90% of the problem of govt. The problems are that the new system has to be able to evolutionarily replace the current capitalist* one, and that would not be controlled or controllable by anyone.

* Capitalism, from capital, belief in capital.

Capital: Extent wealth, commodity or equity.

We don't have a system called productivism or wagism or laborism or innovationism.

Where socialism is a colossal fail of socialism is that it DOES hand direct control over to govt, and you've just very nicely illustrated many of the problems with govt. It's sort of like saying "What hobbits can have will be fairly distributed across the shire, as overseen by Sauron."

I hope everyone can see the flaw in that plan.

Frem, good rant. It's rare that a rant that long by anyone is so filled with cogent ideas.

Quote:
CTS:
I didn't want to get into a slugfest with Siggy and Magon, cause yanno, what does that accomplish.

Lol. Oh dear. Yes, there was also that aspect, but hey, both me and Frem have gotten a lot of ideas out in I think decent form, even if they fall on deaf ears across the gap, at least we're hearing them ;)

Quote:

What needs to happen is for an existing or new anarchistic society to gain sufficient publicity in the Western world. It won't be a perfect society, cause what is. But it will demonstrate that having no government is a viable option, even if it isn't an option that one might choose for oneself.

And TPTB will crush it like a bug.

I think that this is half of a good idea, but I think it should be ushered into under the cover of night with the minimal possible mention.

As for the rest, that's why I'm looking into psychology. An example brought up in a thread here: video games can hijack our "priority of action" that thing which makes us quit one task when a more important task comes up. Understanding this is essential, because if you knew what was happening, you might look and say "hey, they're hijacking my priority of action!"

We need a much more *aware* populous, not just more compassionate or less obedient and violent.

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 5:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, maybe we agree more than not.

But there is STILL the thing that I think can't be ignored, from a theoretical basis, and that's the human societies are NOT JUST the sum (or the average) of their parts.

Let me analogize a society with "life". You start out with a few pioneering plankton, as they spread to take over the world a change takes place: they begin to differentiate. Complexity evolves. They start to occupy different niches in the environment and different roles with respect to each other. ... some thrive in warm shallow waters, others in deep. Some begin to predate. Others are particularly good at fusing their genes with others. Over time, a whole ecology has evolved.

It's the same with society. As you add more and more people, a different kind of social ecology evolves. Interactions are not longer limited to the monkeysphere. People engage with thousands of others every day, economically speking, without even seeing them. They may be oppressed or robbed by people they will never meet, in ways that are subtle.

Look at the sweep of history. People HAVE changed over the millenia. In ancient times and in other places, people thought VERY differently than we do now. They were less individualistic. Or more. They were less cooperative. Or more. They believed that fate ruled their destiny. Or not. They believe in fairness. Or they believed in raw naked power. They had slaves. OR they believed in freedom. But across ALL of those societies, whether based on agriculture or trade or raiding or technology, one thing has ALWAYS happened: As societies got bigger they became more complex. Technology advanced. And the "pyramid" of society got taller and taller, until it became an insupportable drain and came crashing down (or was brought down).

I simply do not see how changing individuals can or will address these complex, abstract interactions. In mathematical (?) terms, changing the individuals is necessary but not sufficient.

I post in hopes that people will see what I see, and aid me in my thinking. But I don't see that happening.

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 5:36 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

GAK! What is WITH these error messages???

Anyway I will use this empty spot to ask a question of both Frem and DT, which maybe I should have asked before:

How do you view "government"? How is it different from mutual agreement on "the rules of the road", so to speak? At what point does mutual organization become the much-hated "government"?

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 5:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
GAK! What is WITH these error messages???

Use the beta. The old site had become very buggy, and often entire posts disappear. I've found that whether or not you get the error message has no bearing on whether or not your post was posted. Each happens about 50% of the time.

http://beta.fireflyfans.net/mboard.aspx?bid=18

ETA: I post to learn, and get critiques on ideas I have or hold. Generally I like constructive ones that point out strengths and weaknesses, not ones that say I'm wrong, and should return to some older way of thinking that I long ago discarded as limited or incorrect.

ETA2: Govt., ideally, protects the rights of the people, preventing one group from inflicting control over another.

Govt. goes wrong when it either collects power itself, or favors one group over another, directly interferes in the lives and limits the rights of the people, or simply fails to provide the service for which it was created: To protect the rights of the people.

Our govt. fails on every level. It has a good founding document, but it has been growing in corruption for centuries. by 1830 it was a disaster, and it hasn't gotten better since. Now it's out destroying the world, and favoring the world elements that meant he most harm to the people against the people themselves.

A good govt. would never be visible to the people. There would be no police, no infrastructure, nothing from govt. at all. Only an invisible hand that put an end to any abuses, such as fracking, if the people were unable to do it themselves, but it should not step in to stop the people from solving problems themselves.

Ideally, I believe that no govt. is possible, if it only is able to protect against the formation of govt. Short of that, the open competition of many govts. might be better than the monopoly of one. I can even see possibly several concurrent govts. of New York, and I could choose which one to be a member of, and then I could choose my tax rate, services, etc. from that govt. Just a thought.

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 6:48 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

We can go on and on about the abuses of "government", and point to numerous failures and abuses of the past and present. And we can talk- and even agree- on the "lowest possible level" theory of social organization. But it seems that, historically-speaking, hierarchies tend to grow taller and taller with increasing social/ technological complexity, until any benefit that they may have had (providing order, creating roads, what-have-you) is overtaken by their parasitism and becomes insupportable. Revolution results. Standard of living is lost, chaos ensues, and the whole thing starts all over again.

HOW DO WE PREVENT THAT?

It's not enough, IMHO, to "change people". This is not a "people" thing, it's a "systems" thing.

It's not impossible. Evidence of the past (Mohenjo-Daro, Crete) shows that some civilizations existed with little evidence of hierarchy, war, or internal police. When they fell, they fell to environmental pressures (changed river course, vulcanism). But how did they get "there", and - more importantly- how did they KEEP from moving through the stages of increasing hierarchy?

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 6:53 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
I think that this is half of a good idea, but I think it should be ushered into under the cover of night with the minimal possible mention.

You mean I should NOT be suggesting it on FFF?

You're right, of course.

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

Monday, March 7, 2011 7:04 AM