Help from Libertarians/Anarchists by Geezer

Hell, I could live with it too.

Wouldn't say I'd like it so much, but fer cryin out loud it'd be a start.

Remember, as noted above I do not believe we're quite "ready" to make the jump at this time, which is why my current push is Constitutional Compliance, which.. summed up, is about the same as what Anthony is proposing here.

MI primary today... I needn't bother pointing out who I picked.

-Frem

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 9:26 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Question: Who controls, monitors, or otherwise keeps in line, corporations? Im thinking EnRon here.

Who would build the roads and maintain them?

Who would govern the products that come in from other countries? (China for example?)

How could we get anything done, or agree on anything?

(Im considering Libertarianism, but would like an answer for these...)

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The idea that you can do away with professional law enforcement as long as everyone packs heat is a gun nut pipe-dream.

Who says you do away with professional law enforcement? Libertarian theory just says it'd be PRIVATE professional law enforcement. Of course, I'm still looking for examples of how that works at the day to day level, but there are already private security companies that work nationwide, Brinks comes to mind.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

No I got that. I even asked a slew of questions further up that nobody decided to answer. Most were at a high level though so lets ask a few more basic ones.

Who pays for the private police? The suggestion is the victim's or their families? Doesn't this mean the poor get a lower level of "justice?"

What happens in the case of in-family murder? Does society forget about it since the perp is hardly likely to hire a competant firm to investigate themselves?

If I'm a bad guy doesn't that make it in my best interest to target victims of limited means? If they can't pay to have the crime investigated doesnt that mean that I can victimise the poor with impunity?

Since prive police obviously have a profit motive doesnt this mean that they will concentrate on cases that offer maximum profit (ie least work with biggest reward?) Wouldn't this imply that something like a store robbery would be more likely followed up on than a burglary (because cleanup rates on burglaries are generally low and investigation labour intensive.)

Can we be sure that the person apprehended actually did the crime if the people that are doing the investigation have a financial interest in catching someone?

I could go on but you get the point. It seems naive to me that people can fear putting this kind of power in the hands of a democratically elected government and yet are happy to place that same power into the hands an organisation only answerable to shareholders.

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

If you want to look at armed stateless systems, you can look at Somalia and the typical street gang. Somalia has been w/o a central government since 1991. You can great cell phone service there, local business owners pay for their own security, different currencies are used but freely traded, the port still handles a fair bit of traffic with Arab states, and common law administered by clan elders is the most frequent way of resolving disputes. BUT infant and maternal mortality is way up, and access to clean water is way down. (Fetching water is "women's work" in Africa.) Because children and women don't have any standing economically or politically, and definitley not by force of arms, they're under-represented in this scheme.

This is the whole flaw that I see: if it all comes down representing your rights with guns, the very young, elderly, ill, and mothers who might otherwise be occupied with their children etc would not be served by such a system. But its' great if you're young and fit.

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

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:00 PM

CITIZEN

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

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:31 PM

KIRKULES

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

A private police force might be better in the case of a stolen cars. The US police don't bother to look for stolen cars, they just wait for them to turn up on the side of the road abandoned when the thieves get tired of them.

At least with the "Gorgeous" package you might get your car back with the wheels intact. And you also get a free wax.

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 12:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:

A private police force might be better in the case of a stolen cars. The US police don't bother to look for stolen cars, they just wait for them to turn up on the side of the road abandoned when the thieves get tired of them.

At least with the "Gorgeous" package you might get your car back with the wheels intact. And you also get a free wax.

You could pay to have a tracking device fitted to your car now that would help if it was stolen. Of course then some private company would know where you go and probably who you see....

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 4:24 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

Anyone who can identify an object 15 yards away and who can exert 5-7 pounds of force can employ a gun, so it's not really the purview of the young and fit.

However, Somalia fails for the same reason the unregulated Wild West regions were failures until they became 'civilized.' Once a group gets a little more power than their neighbors, they can rule the roost. Ten guys with guns trump one guy with guns, and a benevolent government that protects your freedom is the only way to counter the balance.

Though I admit that government power is a lot like the plant in "The Little Shop of Horrors." Feed it too much, and it will devour you.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 6:26 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Anthony- But if your hands are busy carrying a child (they don't start walking until 1 y/o) and water, or your eyes are bad, your hearing is crappy and your hands a bit shaky...

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

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 8:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anthony- But if your hands are busy carrying a child (they don't start walking until 1 y/o) and water, or your eyes are bad, your hearing is crappy and your hands a bit shaky...

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

Or just unlucky, too slow or too hesitant.

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 10:31 PM

That's what friends are for.

I find it interesting that folks think severing the Government bonds which chain us together by force, would somehow sever the personal bonds which hold us together as people.

Or are we dancing around that particular fact deliberately ?

-F

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

Tuesday, January 15, 2008 11:10 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's what friends are for.

I find it interesting that folks think severing the Government bonds which chain us together by force, would somehow sever the personal bonds which hold us together as people.

Or are we dancing around that particular fact deliberately ?

No, Frem, you've read your Alice Miller. It's because, psychologically, they don't distinguish between external government and self-government.

That's why "anarchy" makes 'em so crazy: because they can't imagine self-governance in the absence of external government.

To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.

Geezer, you might want to add any number of books by Alice Miller to your reading list, For Your Own Good would be a good start.

HKCavalier

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:16 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That's why "anarchy" makes 'em so crazy: because they can't imagine self-governance in the absence of external government.

To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.

Geezer, you might want to add any number of books by Alice Miller to your reading list, For Your Own Good would be a good start.

Interesting comment. I find myself agreeing. Maybe Fremd is right about folks just not being ready yet.

Alice Miller is on the reading/googling list. Thanks, HK.

This all started when I picked up a copy of "Radicals For Capitalism: A (Freewheeling) History fo the Modern American Libertarian Movement", by Brian Doherty, at the library. I'm a bit more than half way through its 600 pages of small print text (plus 100 pages of notes), and end up several times a day taking the book over to the computer to look up a particular person, philosophy, cross-reference, book, or pamphlet. Fun stuff.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:37 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.

Even with government there are gangs, and mobs, and “warlords” who are willing to shot anyone in the head to secure their interests. It’s got nothing to do with a “rotten species.” You have this ridiculous notion that the reason I don’t agree with anarchy is because I hate the human race or think we lack any since of nationalism. But that’s not even remotely true. The reason I disagree with anarchy is because I’ve never seen an instance of it ever working and neither you, nor anyone else, has given me any rational reason to believe it could possibly work.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:27 AM

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

"Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth."

No, I think it's that most people understand once you have any power structure - and I include businesses and individuals with more accumulation than others, as well as government - you will have a positive feedback cycle until you're back to a single ruling entity. And it's not b/c people are evil as a group (though some truly are), it's b/c the evil people WILL commandeer available power structures to their own ends. And b/c the 'good' people don't know how to relate in large groups to keep that from happening.

I hope for an anarchic society eventually - but it will be VERY different from today's, and I think it will also be low technology, by necessity.

Edited to add:
LeGuinn was very aware of this, she made a point of addressing these specifics in her book.

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:11 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.

And what a miserable mischaracterization of my opinion.

I can understand Libertarianism... altho the very government functions that they would keep (police, military) are the exact ones that I would choke-hold. The other problem is Libertarianism doesn't address is the problem of the commons, because in that philosophy there is no commons: everything is owned by somebody.

What I can't really grasp is anarchy because I find that it just doesn't match "human nature". The problem is that most people are TOO cooperative. They have no interest in constantly being on guard- all they want is an occupation that provides them the basics and security, a safe neighborhood, and time for having fun- which I find very normal and typical the world over. But SOME people are sociopaths, perverted compulsives, adrenaline junkies and the like. And once they develop a modicum of power it will snowball as that power allows them to accumulate more power, unless society takes specific measures to keep power from accumulating. Aside from "give everyone a gun" and "imagine a new paradigm" I haven't heard anyone address how this would work. And in lieu of me slogging thru a ton of reading, I would hope that someone could provide a short, well-reasoned and specific example of how to get from "here" to "there", and how to maintain that system in the face of the constant tendency for power to accumulate.

.

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:

To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.

Actually no that's not what I see at all. My concerns can be broken down as follows.

1) How do you deal with the bad actors and by this I'm not talking about Frem's "Burt" who exists as part of your community and everyone can see is an asshole. I'm talking about the sexual predator, the gang banger, the spree murderer? These people exist and I see nothing in this system that prevents that or mitigates that risk. Giving everyone a gun is not the answer unless you want to live with it in your hand your whole life. In our world "society" in general tries to stop these people via a professional police force that is paid for out of general taxation. If that is to be replaced by "renta-cops" then only the rich will see any justice. The lesson will be clear, rape and murder the daughters of the poor. Rob from those unable to afford a pinkerton to come after you. Above all always use extreme force, because you don't want to give the other guy an even break. Kill everyone seems like a good idea too since it's unlikely the victims families can afford the investigative talent to find you if you leave no witnesses.

2) Bad actors in larger groups. Organized crime and street gangs won't disband because you abolish governments. In fact if you arm the populous it becomes essential for bad guys to mass together for their own protection. Again I think the notion is that they will allow you to face them in a fair fight, which is exactly what any gang will try to avoid, they will target your leaders and your families first. In then end it will become your gang vs their gang with innocents someplace in the middle.

3) Small concentrations of power. Home owners associations can be pains in the ass without the need of government. In fact any concentration of people that get it in their heads they know better than you is going to be a problem. Right now we try to limit the power of the simple majority by creating a meta majority nationally to offset it. But in the absence of that, who stops injustice? I think you guys imagine yourselves to be amongst the upstanding leaders of this new community, or perhaps you don't care because you figure you'll just shoot anyone that tries to tell you what to do. If you're the only black family in a town, if you own property there and that property is the only thing you own what do you do if the local community starts to re-enforce lunch counter rules or says that blacks cant walk on the sidewalk. Yes you can be ruggedly individual and you could carry a gun, but they also have guns and there are more of them. Right now they burn you out they know that the government will come into their community and kick their asses. How do you stop people from ethnically cleaning their neighborhoods? Or does that even bother you because I'm assuming most of you guys are white?

4) Large Concentrations of power. So far nobody has addressed what happens with any big concentration of power like big businesses and the like. They have the deepest pockets so they can buy their own level of justice from the Pinkertons. If Megacorp dumps dioxin in your creek what do you do? Get some good old boys with shotguns in a pickup and go fix it? Let me know how that works when you run into Blackstone or whoever it is Megacorp uses for security. Oh I suppose you could leave and take a hit on all that property you threw away.

Of course when Mexico wants Texas back it might be more interesting...

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:33 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

Actually no that's not what I see at all. My concerns can be broken down as follows.

1) How do you deal with the bad actors and by this I'm not talking about Frem's "Burt" who exists as part of your community and everyone can see is an asshole. I'm talking about the sexual predator, the gang banger, the spree murderer? These people exist and I see nothing in this system that prevents that or mitigates that risk. Giving everyone a gun is not the answer unless you want to live with it in your hand your whole life. In our world "society" in general tries to stop these people via a professional police force that is paid for out of general taxation. If that is to be replaced by "renta-cops" then only the rich will see any justice. The lesson will be clear, rape and murder the daughters of the poor. Rob from those unable to afford a pinkerton to come after you. Above all always use extreme force, because you don't want to give the other guy an even break. Kill everyone seems like a good idea too since it's unlikely the victims families can afford the investigative talent to find you if you leave no witnesses.

Actually, it does seem that you expect people without the state to govern them to resort to, and get away with, more violence than currently. This might be a worthwhile argument if it wasn't for the amount of damage that the "the sexual predator, the gang banger, the spree murderer" get away with in our current system because folks have signed over their responsibility for their own safety to the police, and don't take elementary precautions. They then are surprised when bad things happen, and wonder where the police were.

The folk in Southwest D.C. would probably get a laugh out of the "private police only protect the rich" considering how well the public police don't protect them.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So, is anyone going to come up with a specific, to-the-point description of HOW to create and maintain a system of "self governance" that doesn't accelerate the monopolization of power?

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:06 PM

Doesn't work that way, Siggy.

You ask 100 different Anarchists, you'll get 125 different answers.
(it's an old joke..)

You can't just slam together some top-to-bottom fully detailed "system" and then try to drop it in place and force it on everyone, that is a solid recipe for every kind of disaster imagineable.

What must be done, is start kicking down and scrapping existing structures that EVERYONE despises and no longer have much of, if any, useful function for the people being forced to finance them.

And you keep scrapping them, till you're down to a bare minimum that everyone seems to want or need, and then move to absorbing them as a function of the community, eliminating, or whatever seems to work best - remember, yer dealing with PEOPLE, not machines, so it's very much a "what everyone can live with" kinda thing.

The whole BASIS of Anarchy is a lack of coercion.
"What do you WANT ?"
"What do you NOT want ?"

"Out of that, what can you live with, based on the logical choices we have ?"

And so on and so forth, but thing is, you just can NOT bridge the mental gap with most folk today in the here and now, it's just not gonna happen and we're just not ready for it.

We gotta grow a set of wings first, before we're ready to fly away from the nest, right ?

Socio-Emotively we're still painting on the cave walls, and it's gonna STAY that way until we stop crushing the humanity out of our children.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 12:09 PM

"Of course when Mexico wants Texas back it might be more interesting..."

Oh I just can't resist...

You couldn't GIVE Texas back to them, hell, WE don't want Texas... it's fulla TEXANS! uggh!

-F

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:25 PM

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

But we've seen what doesn't work - and out of control private interests aren't the answer either.

Here are some of the things we have to thank them for:
black lung
E coli O157H7 contaminated food - and MRSA and MRSE
pcbs, dioxins, pbde's and other dangerous and persistent chemicals spread world-wide
strip mining
poverty wages
goon squads and company towns

How do you recommend people deal with that after the fact ? Better yet, how do you recommend we prevent irreversable and deadly problems in the first place ? And if you don't have answers for known problems, how do you expect people to take you seriously ?

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
This might be a worthwhile argument if it wasn't for the amount of damage that the "the sexual predator, the gang banger, the spree murderer" get away with in our current system because folks have signed over their responsibility for their own safety to the police, and don't take elementary precautions. They then are surprised when bad things happen, and wonder where the police were.

I don't see that at all sorry. Yes I agree that these people are out there and do damage in our current world, that's my point. Irrespective of the changes you make to government lone preditors and the organised gangs like the Mafia, the Crips and the KKK will still be out there.

In the current system if someone is victimised the crime is investigated using public money because it's understood that it's a common problem. I know it may not do the victim of the initial crime any good but the point is that if you don't catch a Ted Bundy he will just keep on killing.

So to replace the current system of investigation for one where the victim pays to investigate the crime produces the exact circumstances I'm mentioning. A new Ted Bundy would just target the poor and keep killing, safe in the knowledge that if the family lacks the resources to pay for the cops "gorgeous serial killer" package nobody will hunt him down.

The suggestion that victims are somehow at fault for being victims -- I assume because they were not packing "heat"-- is also bogus. People like Bundy prey on people when they are vulnerable or ill prepared not when they are sitting there gun in hand and waiting. Will you arm every child over 8? How do you deal with holding a gun while carrying groceries to your car?

So get real and address the issue.

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 2:55 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well Frem, I know how that goes. I can't tell you the number of times I've come up with a fairly detail solution (how to do a total analysis, how to go through a complex protocol of medication trials) and sometimes my plan works brilliantly but sometimes it gets totally derailed by reality!

Still, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I felt we were heading towards something instead of just away from something. We need a way to keep predators and control freaks from hijacking the system. I can thinks of lots of ways to keep power from being monopolized.... economic democracy, the power of the cell-phone camera and the internet... but there have to be some structures in place for that to happen (laws, internet) and if you toss out some critical items you may find yourself in a deep hole with no way out.

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:06 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So to replace the current system of investigation for one where the victim pays to investigate the crime produces the exact circumstances I'm mentioning. A new Ted Bundy would just target the poor and keep killing, safe in the knowledge that if the family lacks the resources to pay for the cops "gorgeous serial killer" package nobody will hunt him down.

Or the private security companies might hunt him down as a public service for the advertising and good will value. Individuals or groups who are concerned about crime might also either track such a person down, or hire it done. Once again, lack of a government doesn't mean people don't care.

Quote:
The suggestion that victims are somehow at fault for being victims -- I assume because they were not packing "heat"-- is also bogus. People like Bundy prey on people when they are vulnerable or ill prepared not when they are sitting there gun in hand and waiting. Will you arm every child over 8? How do you deal with holding a gun while carrying groceries to your car?

People have been convinced that they can be careless about their security, anything from locking doors to having a plan on how to get out of the house, or defend themselves if necessary, because they've been told the police will protect them. The police have no legal responsibility to protect you as an individual, only 'society'. In fact they will often limit your ability to protect yourself.

I suspect that people who had to contract and pay for private police service would find that they could reduce their payments by taking simple precautions, and would understand that they're the primary person responsible for their own security. This doesn't necessarily mean being armed, just being aware.

People not "packing heat" get robbed all the time now. In many places exactly because the robbers know they won't be packing. Wouldn't you rather people at least had a choice?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 3:14 PM

So Neo-Bundy will only be caught as an act of charity, publicity or vigilantism? That is really reassuring.

If someone murders your child and you can't afford to pay to have them found I guess we just forget about it right?

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:19 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So Neo-Bundy will only be caught as an act of charity, publicity or vigilantism? That is really reassuring.

Under our current system, the real Ted Bundy managed, in five years, to kill between 29 and 100, depending on who you ask. Now that really must give you faith in the folks who have the responsibility for protecting us now.

Or if folks paid more attention to their own security, because they realized they were the primary ones responsible for it, your neo-Ted might have been either balked from killing so many or stopped much earlier.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:41 PM

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

Old-Ted fooled even the police. Let's give neo-Ted a little credit and think he could do the same with a wary populace who isn't quite as experienced with sociopaths. B/c sooner or later, you will have a neo-Ted who's a skilled pathological killer and liar.

What then ?

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 5:45 PM

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

On a more general note:

For those of you who want an anarchic society of any type, I have a question. Let's suppose a couple has a child who is brain damaged and who will survive, but never be self-supporting. The parents are loving and do everything they can, but sooner or later, as people do, they die.

What is the place for this person who is utterly dependent on the goodwill of others ?

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:28 PM

"But we've seen what doesn't work - and out of control private interests aren't the answer either.

Here are some of the things we have to thank them for:
black lung
E coli O157H7 contaminated food - and MRSA and MRSE
pcbs, dioxins, pbde's and other dangerous and persistent chemicals spread world-wide
strip mining
poverty wages
goon squads and company towns

How do you recommend people deal with that after the fact ? Better yet, how do you recommend we prevent irreversable and deadly problems in the first place ? And if you don't have answers for known problems, how do you expect people to take you seriously ?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_strikes

I see, by the sea of red, that the deletionists *COUGH*revisionists*COUGH* have been hard at work some more, but at least the listings themselves are still there...

Tell me there, Rue - WHO came in on the side of the Corpies EVERY SINGLE TIME and crushed those strikes, often with violence, sometimes with a massacre ?

EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

The only "order" they're interested in keeping, statements to the contrary aside, is the established order, the incestous Gov-Corp relationship that plagues us to this day since the power and effectiveness of trade unions have been neutered, crippled and demolished, from the Palmer raids to endless legislation to outlaw any *effective* tactic of resistance to the corporate dominion.

And let's not even go into Carnegies little bright idea to create the Union structure itself FOR them so that he could better control and sabotage the ungrateful little bastards, after a hard day of machinegunning them for daring to protest their treatment.

Speakin of, oh gee, look how the NAMES on that list, on the corpie side repeat themselves, over and over, oh my what a coincidence, isn't it ?

Heyyy, aren't those the SAME names that Smedley Butler was naming in a certain congressional hearing not so very long ago ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_plot

You pull the Military and Government support out from under their rabid exploitation, and WE will handle THAT problem in damned short order, believe it.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 6:40 PM

Ted did not spring, fully formed, out of a vaccuum.

Stop CREATING Ted, and the problem goes away.

-F

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:06 PM

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

FremD

That's naive. Sure there are people who are abused and develop rage disorders and the like. But there are also people born that way. And you have to deal with them.

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:34 PM

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

FremD

So what are you saying - that the US government never adopted the National Labor Relations Act in 1935 ? Set up OSHA ? The EPA ? Or that companies never hired private armed thugs to break strikes and kill families ? Never owned towns and all the people in them ?

Because that would just be flat wrong. And you know better.

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:36 PM

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

And no one has answered my question - what about the feeble ?

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 7:45 PM

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

Finally, I let this particular post go in another on the basis of its stupidity - but it is apropos here:

http://www.fireflyfans.net/thread.asp?b=18&t=32252

It confuses me how someone who constantly tells us that we should trust the government to run health care

Look as hard as you can - you will never find me saying we should trust the government for anything at any time. Trust isn't in the equation. Either they are doing the jobs for us we want them to do, or they are not. If they are not, we should get rid of them till we find those are capable.

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

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:38 PM

ANTHONYT

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
On a more general note:

For those of you who want an anarchic society of any type, I have a question. Let's suppose a couple has a child who is brain damaged and who will survive, but never be self-supporting. The parents are loving and do everything they can, but sooner or later, as people do, they die.

What is the place for this person who is utterly dependent on the goodwill of others ?

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

Hello,

It is going to sound cold and callous of me...

But a brain damaged child who can't even feed themselves or control bathroom functions, who has no capacity for reasoning, and who is not expected to recover...

I think they need to die. Even in today's society. It's very sad, but what exactly is the quality of life there?

At least someone with Down's syndrome or some similar malady can contribute to society. But someone who can't think or take care of their most simplistic needs... they need to go.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:43 PM

"But there are also people born that way."

Absolutely, incontrovertibly, and utterly untrue.

With reams of hard proof behind it courtesy of the work of Doctor Bruce M Perry, CITIVAS and the Child Trauma Academy.

That is an *excuse* - and it's one being endlessly shelled out in order to avoid funding early intervention that prevents these seeds from blooming into monsters.

Do your own homework on that front.
http://www.childtrauma.org/
http://childtraumaacademy.org/default.aspx

Or just ask a guy who's run as deep or even deeper in these trenches than I have, Andrew Vachss.
http://vachss.com/av_dispatches/lifestyle.html

NO ONE, is born like that, period.

You're arguing that point from a position of.. what, assumption ?

Against someone who has spent the better part of their life finding the hell out what the causes are and what the hell to do about it - and found other people far and away better within their specialties who have acted on that same evidence, and can offer solid proof, scientific on the one hand, casework on the other, absolutely proving that there is NO SUCH THING as "Born Bad".

That erronous and willfully ignorant assumption is a root cause of the damage, because it's a wonderfully handy excuse not to act - the same way "all humans have an evil nature" is also bunk, but trotted out for the same reason.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:50 PM

"So what are you saying"

I am saying that if you remove the Government active defense of companies that ACT like that... pissed off employees will solve the problem, and likely the threat thereof will solve it with less, or maybe even no, violence.

Who did those assholes call when their private thugs got overwhelmed ?

Or when their corporate townies got sick of being reamed at the company store ?

They called in the Gov, didn't they ?

Did the Gov EVER come in and protect the workers FROM the Corpies ?

So, essentially, past a certain point the poor stomped on labor folks realized that in order to effectively FIGHT a Corp, they would have to first fight, overthrow and remove the US Govt, which they were unable to do - although some of them DID try to destabilise it leading to the Palmer raids.

Remove the ability for a Corp to call in the entire goddamn US Army to protect it from outraged workers - is what I am saying.

Labor can fight a corp, Labor cannot fight a corp, AND the Govt, AND the armies of both.

And to add some fuel to the fire, find out how the USDOJ was formed, and of what and who - and tell me there's not been collusion all the way.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 9:54 PM

"what about the feeble ?"

I am all in favor of giving humans, regardless of age, at LEAST the same level of mercy we give pets.

Usually I am applying that statement differently, as you well know, but I apply it here to this situation as equally valid.

-F

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"what about the feeble ?"

I am all in favor of giving humans, regardless of age, at LEAST the same level of mercy we give pets.

Usually I am applying that statement differently, as you well know, but I apply it here to this situation as equally valid.

-F

You know I was going to answer Rue with "they'd shoot them" since the answer to almost every problem in your brave new world seems to be solved with pointless violence but it was a lil too sick to even say in disgusted jest.

I have an autistic nephew. Nice kid, sweet natured, loves movies and cartoons but will never be able to hold down a job or live unsupervised. My sister-in-law is scraping together every dollar to provide for his future after she passes. Shame Fremworld would take the national socialist option ....

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

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"But there are also people born that way."

Absolutely, incontrovertibly, and utterly untrue.

With reams of hard proof behind it courtesy of the work of Doctor Bruce M Perry, CITIVAS and the Child Trauma Academy.

That is an *excuse* - and it's one being endlessly shelled out in order to avoid funding early intervention that prevents these seeds from blooming into monsters.

Humm pretty sure that you'll find that there is a structural abnormality in the sections of some people's brains linked with impulse control. So I suspect Rue is right, some people are born bad. Not to say that some aren't also made that way, but studies done by sociologist find sociological problems and solutions. Studies done by neuroscientists tend to see other things.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web1/arutigliano.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980410101830.htm

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218391848&ca
t=1_7

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:47 AM

Pointless, eh ?

Guess we shoulda stayed a british colony then.

Violence is part of life, in fact, many times it is defense of life, no sense dressing it up and pretending it doesn't happen - someone tries to harm you, take from you, and will not reason or negotiate, and you have the means and ability to clobber them, you're GOING to do it... let's not pretend otherwise.

As I pointed out in another thread, discussing Ghandi and non-violence, excercising the maturity to NOT use violence and attempt other means first does not mean you are unable, or unwilling, to do so - it just shows that one is humane enough to prefer other options if they are at all available.

There's a big difference between non-violence and complete pacifism.

Reason and negotiation are always the logical first choice, but when you're dealing with the Socio-Emotive barbarians our society is so effective at producing, it does not always work, and so you keep the means and ability to commit that violence handy, yes.

Speakin of which, while the tendancy may be there, without the environment in which it festers, the monster is stillborn and you get a person instead - THAT is what CITIVAS and The Childtrauma Academy is all about, when it comes right down to it.

Genetics may load the gun, but it is environment that pulls the trigger.

And regardless of obfuscatory spin, to me a brain dead body, once the Ka has fled that body, if it ever even inhabited it, is just a body - you're talking about someone capable of meaningful interaction with another human being, intentionally and willfully distorting the position, as you have from the beginning of this thread, as many have.

Like I been sayin, the mental disconnect here is too wide, but it does tell me a lot, the pyschotic rabidity with which the ideas here being expressed are attacked.

Were we to achieve the necessary Socio-Emotive maturity casting aside those structures would require, does not it then logically follow that violence would quickly fade as a pointless and wasteful form of negotiation ?

Never occured to you, eh ?
Didn't think so.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Old-Ted fooled even the police. Let's give neo-Ted a little credit and think he could do the same with a wary populace who isn't quite as experienced with sociopaths. B/c sooner or later, you will have a neo-Ted who's a skilled pathological killer and liar.

What then ?

The wary populace, or individuals within it, hire folk who are experienced in tracking and apprehending sociopaths.

This is pretty much what we do now, except we have no choice in the hiring, and the cops don't lose their income if they don't do a good job.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I have an autistic nephew. Nice kid, sweet natured, loves movies and cartoons but will never be able to hold down a job or live unsupervised. My sister-in-law is scraping together every dollar to provide for his future after she passes. Shame Fremworld would take the national socialist option ....

And I have a brain damaged daughter (near-fatal stroke at birth). I just can't imagine how this brave new world would accommodate her. Her best option would be a Scandinavian country. Or she could just die like the moms and kids in stateless Somalia. But that sounds kinda like Nazi Germany which I'm sure the anarchists aren't aiming for. (Or are they? Is anarchy based on some Nietzschian philosophy of absolute individualism?)

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

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008 4:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Frem, you said "ask 100 anarchists and you'll get 125 ideas". The problem is, I've asked about 6 anarchists and I've gotten ONE idea- yours.

So in the interests of furthering the discussion along more productive lines, why don't you all - everyone who proposes some form of Libertarianism or Anarchy- come up with what you would eliminate first, why, how you would do it, and what you would hope to see. Maybe by tackling specific issues we would find that we agree in practice on most things, and get to some irreducible difference. But please be specific. Saying "I want to eliminate tyranny" is kind of a non-starter. Maybe we should start a new thread.

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

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:04 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I am all in favor of giving humans, regardless of age, at LEAST the same level of mercy we give pets.

Nah, we don't shoot our pets. We either kick them out onto the street or "euthanize" them. That's pretty merciful, innit?"

Quote:
But there are also people born that way."- Rue

Absolutely, incontrovertibly, and utterly untrue.-Frem

Frem, you are absolutely, incontrovertibly, and utterly wrong. I can't go into detail right now, but I KNOW brain-damaged children, and children whose brain didn't develop properly, and some of them really ARE violent. In fact, if you look at "death row" you'll see a very high percentage of brain-damage and borderline retardation.

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

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:21 AM

CANTTAKESKY

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

The lesson will be clear, rape and murder the daughters of the poor. Rob from those unable to afford a pinkerton to come after you. Above all always use extreme force, because you don't want to give the other guy an even break. Kill everyone seems like a good idea too since it's unlikely the victims families can afford the investigative talent to find you if you leave no witnesses.

But this happens NOW, Fletch. The professional police force paid for by general taxation cater to the rich and powerful, and pay only lip service to the poor and disenfranchised. All anarchy would do is take away the lip service.

Quote:
In then end it will become your gang vs their gang with innocents someplace in the middle.

Right now, it is simply their gang vs. innocents.

Let me try to phrase it another way. In the anarchist's view, all these problems exist, with or without government. All govt does is provide an illusion that these problems don't exist.

--------------------------
When a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
--Henry David Thoreau

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

Thursday, January 17, 2008 5:25 AM