REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

The Libertarian and Anarchist Society- Part II

POSTED BY: SIGNYM
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 07:17
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 4871
PAGE 3 of 4

Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:20 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Once again not point by point.

The fact that a person is a sovereign individual does not mean that they are not liable to laws. The primary law (some would consider it a natural law) is that you do not initiate force against a person or their property. If you do, force can be used to stop you by that person or their proxies. If they do not stop you, you can later be made to make restitution.

You continue to reject the concept of a nation-wide private law enforcement system. I suppose you would also reject the concept of a private nation-wide mail delivery system. Or private nation-wide banking or credit system.

I will admit I'm still reading up on the 200+ years of Libertarian/Anarchist thought on exactly how this might take place, since I only really got into this a couple of weeks ago, so I don't have the entire justice system charted out in every detail yet. May take a while to answer in the microscopic detail you require. For example, I'm not quite sure what shape badges the private police would wear.

I see the issues you're bringing up, but I'd prefer to look for the answers rather than just rejecting the whole thing out of hand. The current system doesn't work all that great, especially if you haven't got political clout.

Imagine that in 1200AD you had presented John I of England with a copy of the Constitution and told him that this was the way the world would run in the future. Think he'd buy it? Think your head would stay attached to your body?



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 6:36 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
by Fletch: This is incidentally how armed nationalist groups like ETA and the IRA operate. The problem is that it's an arbitary and largely unaccountable concentration of power. In Belfast like I said you could see the wrong girl and take a beating for it if the guy that runs the local IRA thinks it inappropriate. You could be burnt out if you moved onto the wrong street. No government set these guys up --which seems to be what Frem doesn't grasp, they started out as guys with guns defending their communities, but that's the thing about unaccountable power it gets out of hand.


This might happen once, but do you think it would happen twice? Mess with the bull, you get the horns. I see nothing wrong with this type of mentality of protecting your community, and quite frankly, it would be very necessary in an anarchistic society. People would know better than to move in and piss everyone off if they knew that the last guy got burnt out of town. People would find like minded people and live among those who share their ideologies.

This is really a non-issue.

Quote:
Type "home invasion" into a browser, you will see that it's a new popular crime. As to there being 8. This assumes that in order to cope with a more heavily armed population you need to apply a numeric advantage. Home invasions today are usually done by groups of between two and four. Faced with an armed family in the Frem model groups smaller than the typical family unit would be unlikely to assert enough control to avoid the family taking action. Just as lone thieves realised that they could do bigger crimes by massing in 2 and 3 man teams the ways around this is a bigger group. To deal with an armed family of 4 I'm assuming 6 or 8 bad guys.


This is a numbers game. Somebody would have to be really hungry to look at those odds as favorable.... particularly 8 somebodies. What is really worth risking a 50/50 chance that you're going to die? A TV and a Playstation 3? Get real. Home invasion would be next to nil in my opinion. Home invasion has become more and more popular today because even in the communities that haven't outright banned gun ownership there's a fairly good chance that your average suburbanite family is run by one or two parents who are just fearful of guns, and decline their right to bear arms.

Also heavily weighed into the equation before a burgaler or team of burgalers decides to go through with it is the fact that the chance of this leading to their own death if caught by the authorities is absolutely nil, as long as they don't kill the people in the home themselves. They know that with good behavior they'll be back out to steal from houses again after 6 months to 3 years with good behavior..... with three hots and a cot provided to them daily in the interim, paid for by the tax dollars of the very people which they just tried to rob.

These outcasts would eventually be weeded out of society, shunned and die off. If they can't get it in their minds that there is oppurtunity to create a life for themselves, but work well with others to do it, they will eventually die from starvation in the outskirts of town or with a bullet to the brain.

This process woldn't be easy at first of course... there's a lot of spiritual and psychological damage that has been done to mankind by government which would need to be unlearned and there would be casualties both good and bad. Eventually though, the instances of people living like rogues and off the backs of others would decrease to the point of non-existance simply because it would prove to be much harder and not as rewarding as actively participating in the betterment of your own life and that of your community's.

The problem with society today in terms of this current discussion is that it breeds, protects and supports people like this. There would be no place for these people in a truly anarchistic society.

(I did some editing there if you're reading this right now.... just added some points as I thought of them. Sorry about that)

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA


It really is trying to explain color to a person with no eyes, isn't it ?

What isn't seeming to get through is that such folk would be in fact quite friendly and easy to deal with normally because they have better threat assessment skills and faith in their defenses.

AND the simple fact that crossing the line with them means walking into a pint size re-enactment of the battle of thermopylae.

If Ernesto Bandito wants 20 gallons of fuel oil, 6 bushels of apples and 12 pounds of jerked beef, and CAN GET IT for 10 cases of re-loaded 7.62x39mm ammo, it's to his benefit to trade for it (if they'll trade with him) rather than using possibly that much ammo and more, and losing men besides, trying to take it - from folks who'll do their damndest best to make sure he cannot and will not do so.

No, contrary to the insinuation they would not be fearful paranoiacs (that's more OUR baliwick) but hell yes, they WOULD be rabid beyond description when confronted with a real, physical threat.

And HKCav has done a great job of explaining the other end of that mindset - some folk here ain't gonna get it, that I accept and understand...

But I DO think a couple folk here are playing deliberately obtuse and distorting everything expressed for their own reasons, and really oughta come clean about 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  

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:39 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
by Fletch: This is incidentally how armed nationalist groups like ETA and the IRA operate. The problem is that it's an arbitary and largely unaccountable concentration of power. In Belfast like I said you could see the wrong girl and take a beating for it if the guy that runs the local IRA thinks it inappropriate. You could be burnt out if you moved onto the wrong street. No government set these guys up --which seems to be what Frem doesn't grasp, they started out as guys with guns defending their communities, but that's the thing about unaccountable power it gets out of hand.


This might happen once, but do you think it would happen twice? Mess with the bull, you get the horns. I see nothing wrong with this type of mentality of protecting your community, and quite frankly, it would be very necessary in an anarchistic society. People would know better than to move in and piss everyone off if they knew that the last guy got burnt out of town. People would find like minded people and live among those who share their ideologies.

This is really a non-issue.


So if someone with the "wrong" religion or skin colour moves into a neighborhood the self appointed guardians of the community are right to burn them out?

I'm popping this in a seperate reply from the rest of your post because I want to hear you clearly state that mob rule is ok...

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:41 PM

FLETCH2


Deleted --- I was being an asshole

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:47 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
It really is trying to explain color to a person with no eyes, isn't it ?


Being condescending is not answering my questions and there is a lot of no answering going on here for people that claim to have the answer to 4000+ years of human misery. When I don't hear answers I think "cult" because that's the usual crowd who preach and don't explain.

I would be happy with "I don't know" because it is at least an honest answer.

I get the idea that there would be a "psychological change" and that somehow people might be different than they have been in the past. I myself don't see that though and seeing that given as the only explanation as to why this will work reminds me of that old Farside cartoon? the one with two professors standing in front of a blackboard full of maths in the middle of which are the words "and then a miracle happens..."

I don't see it, truly. If you talked about local elected committees, joint security pacts between communities the idea of perhaps electing the people the community pays to enforce the law. Those things I could imagine working but unless you chose to lobotomize everyone at birth I can't imagine how you wouldn't get a big enough concentration of aholes someplace to upset the apple cart.

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:53 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:

This is a numbers game. Somebody would have to be really hungry to look at those odds as favorable.... particularly 8 somebodies. What is really worth risking a 50/50 chance that you're going to die? A TV and a Playstation 3? Get real. Home invasion would be next to nil in my opinion. Home invasion has become more and more popular today because even in the communities that haven't outright banned gun ownership there's a fairly good chance that your average suburbanite family is run by one or two parents who are just fearful of guns, and decline their right to bear arms.



Why 50/50? You have a 2/1 or 4/1 advantage and surprise and you still take 50% casualties? Really? You think that likely?

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:38 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So if someone with the "wrong" religion or skin colour moves into a neighborhood the self appointed guardians of the community are right to burn them out?

I'm popping this in a seperate reply from the rest of your post because I want to hear you clearly state that mob rule is ok...


In today's society where it's been forced upon us that we must all be desegregated like in 1984 I don't think that's the case. You're trying to twist my words here to make me sound like a biggot and it won't work.

If there were no government to give inscentives for communities to become desegregated and there were no punishments for people who decided they'd rather live with their own kind, whether it be based on color, religion, creed, sexuality or whatever.... many people would opt to do just that. Remember, that until the "melting-pot" culture of America, human beings had done just that for however long we've been on the planet. Who am I to say that desegregation under duress is better than the old ways?

Sure, there would be plenty of mixed communities, but I don't see what the problem is if there are communities which come together based on whatever reason they wanted, so long as they weren't breaking the rule that you don't go out and harm another person. Plenty of land and plenty of places for everyone. Why would anyone pull a Sharpton and build a black church in an entirely white neighborhood to piss them off in an anarchistic society? It would be foolish suicidal gesture without political correctness protecting the action and brutally punishing anyone who had a problem with it.

Totally different worlds we're talking about here fletch. I know there are plenty of black folk who don't want white people in their neighborhoods or with their women too. It works both ways and I don't have a problem with that. Just stay away from where you're not wanted because there are plenty of places you can go where you're welcome with open arms if you're there to do your part.

Again.... this seems to me to be a non-issue.

Quote:
Why 50/50? You have a 2/1 or 4/1 advantage and surprise and you still take 50% casualties? Really? You think that likely?


Why not 80/20? Why not 20/80? Your problem is that you think people in this society would be stupid. Nobody is claiming that this is a Utopia full of butterflies and koala bears that crap rainbows. Like I've said before, Anarchism is tough, and I think that's the hardest sell about it. Just because Frem and I don't believe people would walk around paranoid all day long like lunatics, there would be a hightend sence of awareness and there would also be an instinctual desire once it's gone on long enough to do what you can to make sure that situations like this arise as little as possible, whether it be by alarms or traps or just a tight-knit community watch. Perhaps there would be several individuals paid for nightly guard over the community from watch-towers?

I don't see any reason to give this equation anymore than a 50/50 chance of death based on far too many unknown variables coming from either side. I'm just giving 50/50 death for the 8 individuals because there are 4 guns on one side and 8 on the other. 8 people are dying that night and 4 are going to get away. Of course, there are variables there which could never be predicted beforehand as well..

50/50 it is.

Like I said... this stuff probalby would go on for a while and casualties would happen on both sides, but this would just serve unite communities together even more, re-sensitize the youth and populace in general to real life as opposed to all of the fake death they experience in movies and on Playstation and eventually there wouldn't be much of a market for criminals because it would be easier to do honest work and make friends with other like folk than it would to risk your life every time you entered a house that wasn't yours at night.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:39 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:


If Ernesto Bandito wants 20 gallons of fuel oil,.......



Let's ignore the macho posturing and preening a moment and ask a couple of questions.

1) Why would he want any of this stuff? I mean this shopping list sounds like the stuff that might have value in some post apocalyptic survivalist wet dream.

Nobody is going to go to any trouble for apples and fuel oil in a half reasonable world. If things have got so bad that this trade has any significant value then wouldn't Ernesto have at least some interest in securing as much material as he could take?

If this is Fremworld:The mad max years, surely the bullets that are being traded are a limited resource for Ernesto (I know how you make gunpowder from the environment, it's labour and time intensive.) I suspect "Ernesto" will have far more trouble replacing ammo than securing fuel oil.

2) Why do you guy's all believe the other guy is stupid? I mean really, someone will take 50% losses with a 4/1 advantage, Everyones daughter is Buffy. Your average 4 member nuclear family are trained like Jason Bourne, never surprised, never flatfooted, never outgunned, never picked off, never taken out separately? This reads like one of those Turner Diaries books.

Now this is going to shock you. Most people will get along just fine, most people will trade for what they want, most people will be honest actors not because the other guy is packing heat but because realistically there is no point not to get long. Things break down if there is ever a crunch on resources because if that happens people will go to war to secure them as they always have.

What I'm not seeing and I have asked until I am blue is how you deal with the cheats, the frauds, the armed thugs in a way that ensures that nobody gets favorable treatment, nobody gets wrongly accused or persecuted. Saying "people won't think like that" is not going to pass muster. People have thought the way they have for thousands of years, we have as a society built rules to try and stop people's irrational prejudices and passions from doing bad things in the real world. You seem to advocate setting people loose from that and arming them. That's the thing i'm having problems imagining.






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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 9:49 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So if someone with the "wrong" religion or skin colour moves into a neighborhood the self appointed guardians of the community are right to burn them out?

I'm popping this in a seperate reply from the rest of your post because I want to hear you clearly state that mob rule is ok...


In today's society where it's been forced upon us that we must all be desegregated like in 1984 I don't think that's the case. You're trying to twist my words here to make me sound like a biggot and it won't work.

If there were no government to give inscentives for communities to become desegregated and there were no punishments for people who decided they'd rather live with their own kind, whether it be based on color, religion, creed, sexuality or whatever.... many people would opt to do just that. Remember, that until the "melting-pot" culture of America, human beings had done just that for however long we've been on the planet. Who am I to say that desegregation under duress is better than the old ways?

Sure, there would be plenty of mixed communities, but I don't see what the problem is if there are communities which come together based on whatever reason they wanted, so long as they weren't breaking the rule that you don't go out and harm another person. Plenty of land and plenty of places for everyone. Why would anyone pull a Sharpton and build a black church in an entirely white neighborhood to piss them off in an anarchistic society? It would be foolish suicidal gesture without political correctness protecting the action and brutally punishing anyone who had a problem with it.

Totally different worlds we're talking about here fletch. I know there are plenty of black folk who don't want white people in their neighborhoods or with their women too. It works both ways and I don't have a problem with that. Just stay away from where you're not wanted because there are plenty of places you can go where you're welcome with open arms if you're there to do your part.

Again.... this seems to me to be a non-issue.



So the libertarian creed of do no harm to others and respecting other's property is a sham. If you are not "our kind" then we can ignore your "personal sovereignty" and your "property rights" at will. Might is right. Good to know that Jack. You just proved my point so well. There is no "different mindset" No police means that if some cute lil white girl gets murdered the local folks will just hang the nearest "nigger" and call it solved. Unless he's trained his 13 years old to be buffy in which case the lynch mob may loose 50% --- no wait, that only works for folks like you, the superior people... right got that.



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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:06 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Wow.... you really read things the way you want to see them. Can't win an unwinable argument. I hope you're fine with the status quo then.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:12 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
But I DO think a couple folk here are playing deliberately obtuse and distorting everything expressed for their own reasons, and really oughta come clean about it.

Watching this little set of tirades has pushed me to the point of not even bothering to be polite about it.

I mean you, Fletch - you're playing games, deliberately distorting the positions taken into something else, playing strawman and just about any other thing to villanize, rather than discuss, the topic at hand, don't pretend interest, you don't have any, you just wanna verbally fuck with us fine, but drop the damned pretenses already.

Your own posts condemn you on these facts better than anything I have to say would.

In every single post you've distorted the concept or position radically before addressing it, and I have politely bit my tongue long enough, so yes, I am calling you out on it - either discuss the ACTUAL positions instead of the easy strawman distortions you're creating for cannon fodder, or don't bother discussing it at all.

-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  

Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:28 PM

FLETCH2


Then present some positions that you are willing to defend by answering realistic questions. And by that I mean realistic responses to issues so no more 13 year old knife wielding maniacs.

I've noticed that the topic was going down hill but it's going that way because you chose to descend into fantasy rather than discuss any potential downside to your worldview. Like I said in most of the real world that action suggests a cult.

So let's get Lutheran, give me an innumerated set of propositions, which explain what they are, how they come about nd an honest evaluation of any downside. I want realistic explanations which do do not include things like "well suddenly everyone thinks differently" or 13 year old uberkinder.



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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 10:57 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Fletch is just pissed off that he wouldn't be able to watch 12 hours of TV a day in between masturbation sessions in a world where the Government didn't provide everything for him. Can't say I blame you Fletch. You're certainly in the coddled and over medicated majority.

I told you.... Anarchy is a tough sell.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:24 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:


I told you.... Anarchy is a tough sell.



Especially when you aren't explaining it. I understand, it's faith based, like creationism, it doesn't have to make sense to the outside world, it's secret knowledge and most of the poor boobs just don't get it.

Little story.

I knew someone once, paranoid schizophrenic, the man was a fantastic self taught graphic artist --drew the most amazing stuff but he had a fascination with numerology, a system by which you assign numbers to letters to hide a message. Numerologists see secret messages in everything. There is a theory that numerology has been used to encode every major event from the birth of Christ until doomsday in the Christian bible.

Now my friend had an extra wrinkle to his studies. You see he thought that everyone had this special number, made up from your parents names, your name, the time you were born and a few other things. Now if you worked out a person's secret number you could transmit it to them subliminally and take over their mind, kind of like the fruity oaty commercial in the BDM.

Now why is this even relevant? Because he was totally unable to even consider that there were any flaws in his scheme. If you tried to ask him about it, even be honestly interested, he would accuse you of twisting his position, of trying to trip him up or of trying to get him to reveal his secret number.

Most of all he told you that you could never understand that everyone else was too dumb or too ignorant or too scared to see what he saw.

Then Belinda Carlisle released "Heaven is a place on Earth" which my friend analyzed and concluded had a beat structure almost identical to his secret number. Belinda Carlisle was trying to take over his mind but had slightly miss calculated. He would watch the video again and again looking for clues as to what she was trying to order him to do so he could frustrate the plan....


So when people tell me Jack that their fantastic scheme is just too amazing for my simple mind to contemplate, especially when they refuse to explain how this buffo idea could even be expected to work, I keep hearing "Heaven is a place on Earth" in the back of my head. Because I have had that conversation before and got nowhere. So you will forgive me if I ignore your silly little insults. Sit down a while and listen to Belinda, she may be trying to tell you something?

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

Saturday, January 19, 2008 11:32 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Without even finishing your post (which I will right after I finish this), I feel I have to interject.

I never said there wasn't any wrinkles in the plan, did I?

I beleive I said several times that it would take one hell of a lot of work by the individual, it would place much more responsibility on the individual than most people today could handle in our drug culture and I said that there would be casualties both good and bad.

What I did say is that I am not happy with the status quo. I assume that you really aren't either. It's a sad scary world and I don't believe that Government has done anything to alleviate that. None of us being as evil as all of us together have the potential of being. If anything, Government today has taken everything inherently bad in man and magnified it exponentially and to such a frightening scale that at this point the only thing keeping any of us alive anymore is the fear of mutually assured destruction on a grand scale....

Kinda sucks that the extreme Muslims don't seem to care much about their own self destruction, leaving even less sympathy in their eyes for ours.... or so the Administration would have us believe.


EDITED TO ADD: What a great song "Heaven is a place on earth". Belinda helped me graduate into manhood myself. I've actually spent loads of time listening to "Heaven is a place on earth" when I was younger. Used to fantasize about her being in control actually (one too many cartoons as a child I suppose), but sadly for me, that was not reality. Your friend is one lucky man.... He should have just gone with it and stopped fighting it. I woulda.

Patiently waiting for my Mind Control Mistress or the end of the world.... whichever comes first.

Oh where art thou, my Lady?

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:04 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
This might happen once, but do you think it would happen twice? Mess with the bull, you get the horns. I see nothing wrong with this type of mentality of protecting your community, and quite frankly, it would be very necessary in an anarchistic society. People would know better than to move in and piss everyone off if they knew that the last guy got burnt out of town. People would find like minded people and live among those who share their ideologies.


I kinda doubt that principled Libertarians or Anarchists would burn somebody out for minor violations of other's sovereignty. They might, however, refuse to do business with the person, making it difficult to live there. I suspect that as a first move some members of the community would try and educate the person in their philosophy and its benefits. If that didn't work they could decide, individually or as a group, to not trade or interact with the person. Folks who still wanted to trade with him could, but why deal with an ass?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:44 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I don't see it, truly. If you talked about local elected committees, joint security pacts between communities the idea of perhaps electing the people the community pays to enforce the law.


I don't think you do see it, or you wouldn't have written this.

Elected committees who would tell people to do what they didn't want? Not in the philosophy at all. Maybe voluntary committees which try to persuade folks to agree on something.

Joint security pacts would probably be between local militias, or security companies, not communities. How do you know if everyone wants one?

Do you elect your package delivery service? If you elect a sheriff, unless it's unanimous, some folks will be forced to accept a sheriff they don't want. If you have the choice to accept the level or service the local militia provides voluntarily (or to opt out of even that), or can contract with any private firm available, then no one is forced.

As I noted before, I'm coming at this as a theoretical excercise and learning tool, so I really got no dog in this fight. I just find the research and thought interesting. I expect that your practical Anarchist could live with less than a perfect anarchist world completely free of government, and Fremd has stated this above. To hold an ideal of a perfect Anarchist society is no more farfetched than holding an ideal of a prefect democracy.

I must say that I consider it impossible to completely plan an entire society, down to the "what if someone invades your house" level, beforehand. Any society is always a work in progress, and methods of moving forward change with circumstances. Consider how far the US has moved towards "liberty and justice for all" in the past two centuries, and the strange detours it has taken.

I also suspect that if I were able to pick and choose questions at the micro level, I could prove that any form of government or society can't possibly work.

And again, maybe society does have to be ready for a philosophy before it can work. Think King John I and his cronies would buy "All men are created equal"? Think the Church in 1200AD would? Think even the peasants would?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 6:53 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Fletch is just pissed off that he wouldn't be able to watch 12 hours of TV a day in between masturbation sessions in a world where the Government didn't provide everything for him. Can't say I blame you Fletch. You're certainly in the coddled and over medicated majority.
6ix, somehow I don't think YOU'RE ready for anarchism. Or even libertarianism.


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

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:05 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
Watching this little set of tirades has pushed me to the point of not even bothering to be polite about it. I mean you, Fletch - you're playing games, deliberately distorting the positions taken into something else, playing strawman and just about any other thing to villanize, rather than discuss, the topic at hand, don't pretend interest, you don't have any, you just wanna verbally fuck with us fine, but drop the damned pretenses already.
Frem, I'm trying to keep an open mind on this, but even I've coming close to the point where I think what you all have is a "religion". I think it passing strange that the people who are the most for this are already deeply into "self defense" either thru guns or martial arts. Now, for me personally, I've lived in enough crappy neighborhoods to know that I don't WANT to have to stay away from blind spots, not whistle, and keep my Mace in my hand at all times, or sit with a 22 guarding a friend's front porch 'cause someone's gunning for him (literally). And in the end that seems to be very much the society that you propose. I'm old, I have bad knees and a wicked case of plantar fasciitis, my hearing is going, my eyes are shot, and I've got enough problems to take care of without adding to 'em. And I look at my daughter and think... there's no way she would ever survive that kind of "society". So why should I buy into this?

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

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 7:40 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
This might happen once, but do you think it would happen twice? Mess with the bull, you get the horns. I see nothing wrong with this type of mentality of protecting your community, and quite frankly, it would be very necessary in an anarchistic society. People would know better than to move in and piss everyone off if they knew that the last guy got burnt out of town. People would find like minded people and live among those who share their ideologies.


I kinda doubt that principled Libertarians or Anarchists would burn somebody out for minor violations of other's sovereignty. They might, however, refuse to do business with the person, making it difficult to live there. I suspect that as a first move some members of the community would try and educate the person in their philosophy and its benefits. If that didn't work they could decide, individually or as a group, to not trade or interact with the person. Folks who still wanted to trade with him could, but why deal with an ass?

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Reread it. What I was talking about was that in Belfast if a Protestant bought a house in an area the local IRA considered "Catholic" they would burn him out. Jack seems to consider that ok, that if local communities don't like your religion or the color of your skin they have a right to get rid of you. Now that sounds like ethnic cleansing to me, it sounds like Shite death squads "persuading" Sunni's to move out of "their" neighbourhoods in Bagdad.

If this really is ok with Anarchist principle then the "personal sovereignty" and "respect of property" notion is bullshit because what it really means is that you only get those things if your community wants you to have them not as an intrinsic "God given" right. Now in the past I've said that the only rights you have are the ones you can enforce so it may seem strange that I should mention natural rights now. However, if this society is not consistent with the application of it's own principles how long before "the principle of do no violence" becomes "do no violence except to spicks and niggers 'cause they aint REALLY people?"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:08 AM

FLETCH2


I think the point I was trying to make was this.

Militia dude comes to my home to ask me questions about something. Why should I speak to him? Because he has a gun? Because he is somehow a representative of the community? Because the community will black list me in some way if I don't cooperate? That about rentacop? Cant i just send them all packing?

What happens if one of them comes to arrest me? Who's laws are they applying? As a sovereign do I get the choice to say no? What if they represent a community that is not my own, what obligation do I have to accept it's authority?

In our current system we have in effect a social contract under which in order to get the rights and benefits of our society the individual cedes certain rights and powers to the group. In most functional societies irrespective of their political mechanics some form of social contract exists. So when a state trooper knocks on my door I understand that he has a right to be there and ask questions and that I still retain the right to refuse to answer.

When it comes to arresting me that's effectively in the contract too, I've agreed to abide by the societies laws and under that principle an official representative of that society has the right to arrest me to maintain them. Should I refuse to cooperate he has the right to use force to detain me. Now if I commit a crime in a different state my local police will probably arrest me and hand me over to people from the other jurisdiction. Since part of the contract I have with my society includes my respect for my rights I would expect that my local authority would satisfy themselves the request from the other place has merit, that their legal system is fair and that I won't face torture if I am sent there.


Now here's the deal. What all these situations have in common is that the rights I cede to the community are transferable by agreement to other jurisdictions. The contract I have is national not limited to the local township.

Here's the problem I'm having. The right to detain someone is a massive invasion of their personal liberty, under the current system it's possible because I cede that right to a society in which I have a say, in a democracy that's an imperfect say at best but at least the guy knocking on my door represents some entity with whom I have a contract and arguably some control. If it can be anyone, ---the spotty 15 year old kid in camo sent by his militia leader--- then how can I tell if this guy has any authority? Would he have any authority if I myself refuse to accept it? What happens if I refuse to accept it point a gun at him and scoot him off my land? Does the militia tool up and come after me? How is that situation any different from Ruby Ridge?

Once a society has the power to use coercive force against me then I want some say in the nature and extent of that force, because otherwise it can become an arbitrary authority. If you are saying you could not elect a sheriff because not everyone would vote for him how much better is that than a rentacop or a militia dude just showing up at my place without my sayso at all?



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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:
Then present some positions that you are willing to defend by answering realistic questions. And by that I mean realistic responses to issues so no more 13 year old knife wielding maniacs.

Consider yourself slapped upside the head, rather viciously, for an entirely unrealistic distortion, quite deliberate, quite malicious, that I intend to shred rather thoroughly at this point.

Show of hands, folks, how many of you, especially from rural/southern communities, carried a knife growing up ?

How many of you were.. ahem, knife wielding maniacs ?

Stabbed your parents ?

This bullshit, fearful hysteria is completely IDIOTIC, even today most kids out in the sticks carry one, it's a tool, and a damned useful one - you can whittle, cut bait, skin a rabbit, clean a fish, or what have you.

Even now, even today, especially in rural america there's plenty of kids who carry one in thier pocket and what of it, most of them are quite responsible in it's use - somehow the wave of horrible parent stabbings you're trying to sell us just isn't happening, even in our current fucked up society, and I highly doubt that'd be so much of a problem in a society that by it's very nature would place even more emphasis on personal responsibility instead of infanticising children like ours does.

And yes, if someone physically assaults you, with foul or murderous intent, OF COURSE they would probably stab you with it, if they were unable to flee, which is generally the first (and smartest) response of a child or young teen to danger, and they're quite quick about it, too - damn sure *I* wouldn't wanna try chasing one.

Again, I say this smacks of trying to "discuss" evolution with hardcore creationist zealots only pretending to want discussion, and my patience with this shit is about gone.


-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  

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:31 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Siggy,.. look

I'm just sick of it being mired into endless circular useless arguments based on intentional distortions of every single point, which - if not brutally refuted, are then accepted as fact, therefore successfully PREVENTING any real discussion of the topic by that cycle.

It's fuckin pointless, is what it is, allright, and I am at the thin edge of my patience with going round and round UNABLE to even discuss the topic at hand usefully because due to this, it smacks of deliberate sabotage.

And no, said society wouldn't be any more dangerous than this one is now, in fact it would probably be safer since folks would not be rendered defenseless by Government edicts which have little to no impact on criminals.

Severing the bonds of Government does not in any way mean severing social bonds, and your friends and fellow community members would "have your back" in a way far more personal and meaningful in todays era - and not just out of self interest either.
(See Also: MonkeySphere)

Those social structures would endure, strengthen, if anything, into a loose non-coercive family or clan structure more than likely, based on promiximity and chosen association.

Thing is, you seem to be buying the deliberate, malicious distortions of what I have been saying, rather than listening to what I have been saying, which is, I think, the point of the folks making them.

Go back and read carefully what I have already posted, in it's own context, please, because I doubt you would have made that post if you really did 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  

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:44 AM

FLETCH2


I'm not seeing any proposals here Frem. Are you unable to provide a meaningful dialogue? I've explained where I am coming from at least a dozen times. Not seeing things being reciprocated from you.


Use your soapbox,

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:49 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
What I was talking about was that in Belfast if a Protestant bought a house in an area the local IRA considered "Catholic" they would burn him out. Jack seems to consider that ok, that if local communities don't like your religion or the color of your skin they have a right to get rid of you.


I disagree with Jack about that, if that was his intent and he wasn't just riled up by your style of argument.

Quote:
If this really is ok with Anarchist principle then the "personal sovereignty" and "respect of property" notion is bullshit because what it really means is that you only get those things if your community wants you to have them not as an intrinsic "God given" right.


I'm beginning to believe that Fremd is right, and that you aren't trying to learn anything but just picking and choosing one persons opinion on a single issue and trying to apply it to every instance to make points. Jack is expressing his opinion, which differs from most Anarchist thought, from what I can see. I pointed that out above, but you ignored it, just like you ignore any answer which doesn't fit with your preconceptions. I had thought that you had, at least, an open mind in previous discussions, but in this one not so much.



"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:53 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
What I was talking about was that in Belfast if a Protestant bought a house in an area the local IRA considered "Catholic" they would burn him out. Jack seems to consider that ok, that if local communities don't like your religion or the color of your skin they have a right to get rid of you.


I disagree with Jack about that, if that was his intent and he wasn't just riled up by your style of argument.

Quote:
If this really is ok with Anarchist principle then the "personal sovereignty" and "respect of property" notion is bullshit because what it really means is that you only get those things if your community wants you to have them not as an intrinsic "God given" right.


I'm beginning to believe that Fremd is right, and that you aren't trying to learn anything but just picking and choosing one persons opinion on a single issue and trying to apply it to every instance to make points. Jack is expressing his opinion, which differs from most Anarchist thought, from what I can see. I pointed that out above, but you ignored it, just like you ignore any answer which doesn't fit with your preconceptions. I had thought that you had, at least, an open mind in previous discussions, but in this one not so much.



"Keep the Shiny side up"


No actually you did what I wanted and said he was wrong. The first time he said it I gave him the opportunity to correct it because I thought that can't be right. I had kind of hoped that Frem would do the correcting though as "propaganda minister."


However, like I said in the original posts, groups like ETA and the IRA use things like punishment beatings to "protect their community." Today if a cop does it, it becomes national news and we debate the appalling misuse of power, people get fired maybe even arrested. In Belfast the IRA guys don't get punished for that kind of activity. In fact the community may say it's wrong but they don't try to stop them. This is essentially a misuse of an arbitrary authority. How do you prevent it? Obviously Jack believes some of that stuff is ok. If I don't elect Jack if i have no say in a militia he is part of can I control it? If enough Jacks get together in a militia and decide to burn someone out, who stops them? Do the locals protect their neighbours even against quasi official groups?

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 8:54 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I'm not seeing any proposals here Frem. Are you unable to provide a meaningful dialogue? I've explained where I am coming from at least a dozen times. Not seeing things being reciprocated from you.


Use your soapbox,


Yep. When you start using Rue's "Explain several hundred years of theory, philosophy, and argument within the next ten minutes or you're wrong." tactics the chance of meaningful discussion goes right out the window.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 9:14 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I'm not seeing any proposals here Frem. Are you unable to provide a meaningful dialogue? I've explained where I am coming from at least a dozen times. Not seeing things being reciprocated from you.


Use your soapbox,


Yep. When you start using Rue's "Explain several hundred years of theory, philosophy, and argument within the next ten minutes or you're wrong." tactics the chance of meaningful discussion goes right out the window.

"Keep the Shiny side up"



Then why discuss it at all? Just label the complete idea a waste of time and move on. I'm sorry but the suggestion that you have to read this book or that book or this stack of works to "get it" sounds like a cult to me, like "read Dianetics and all your questions will be answered.

We have long and heated discussions here about all kinds of things where a prerequisite of discussion does not involve an extensive reading list. If you are the advocate of a position you should be able to argue the broad points without artificial aids. If this philosophy is so dense you have to complete a required reading list before you are considered informed enough to take part in a discussion what chance does it have? People watch 30 second sound bites of 30 minute speeches, do you think that any of them not already curious or committed to the cause will read 200 years of back story?

I'm asking for salient points with at least some indication that someone has considered any downside. Dogma doesn't have a downside, you wont find any Scientology text expressing any problem with Dianetics because it's part of church teachings. By comparison you can find critiques of every major real and imagined political system, even from the people that propose them. Look at Federalist, if a point was raised against the Constitution it was addressed, sometimes even acknowledged. madison doesn't refer people to do the reading and then come back when they can understand how brilliant he is. They address practical problems that would need to be dealt with by the people there at the time, they don't imagine that everyone has a "road to Damascus" moment and suddenly thinks different.



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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:01 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Quote:
in fact it would probably be safer
I'm hearing a lot of I believes and probablies and maybes. But okay, I'm game- it would have to be a whole 'nuther society. Social structures, ethics, mores, interactions would all have to be different. Right now I'm kind busy. Tell you what- don't tell me to read that graphic story on-line. I started it, and it was just another version of aGee wouldn't it be great if "Utopia". Recommend a book that I can carry around and read at my leisure and I'll get back to this w/o you having to explain the simplest things. Or explain the simplest things so i can "get it" because right now I'm not "getting it".

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

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:17 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then why discuss it at all? Just label the complete idea a waste of time and move on. I'm sorry but the suggestion that you have to read this book or that book or this stack of works to "get it" sounds like a cult to me, like "read Dianetics and all your questions will be answered.


Okay. Explain how America's form of Democracy works. You know it exists, so it should be easy to explain. Assume I know nothing about it. I'm waiting. With questions.

Quote:
We have long and heated discussions here about all kinds of things where a prerequisite of discussion does not involve an extensive reading list.


Yep. And they usually end up like this one. People not trying to find out about a subject, but trying to tear down any idea they don't accept.

Quote:
By comparison you can find critiques of every major real and imagined political system, even from the people that propose them.
And you can find such in libertarian/anarchist literature as well. Even in this thread some of the things folks have said wouldn't fit into mainline L/A thought, as has been pointed out.

BTW, you think that the Federalist and anti-Federalist papers weren't written without a bunch of research, consultation, and editing?

Once again, you're asking three or four folks on a website, all of whom have lives and other calls on thier time, to condense down for you several hundred years of thought, discussion, study, inspiration, and philosophy into a few sentences on a thread which will answer all the questions you may ever have about Libertarianism and Anarchism. This is a bit different from "Is waterboarding torture?"

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:26 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


Like you, I also have a life to live, so I was hoping someone could condense the concepts to their essentials so that I could begin to "populate" my mind with some on-target extensions. But I haven't been given some essential concept yet because when I try to model the concepts that I've been given, it goes off into a weird world that doesn't "look like" anarchism, just more like anarchy. Clearly something is missing.

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

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 10:35 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm hearing a lot of I believes and probablies and maybes.

Most likely you would have heard the same from the Founders, if they were in an honest mood. No one knows for sure, because it hasn't been tried full-sacle. The Libertarians & Anarchists believe it will work, based on centuries of theoretical work, just as you believe Direct Democracy will work. 100% assurance is not available.

Quote:
But okay, I'm game- it would have to be a whole 'nuther society. Social structures, ethics, mores, interactions would all have to be different. Right now I'm kind busy. Tell you what- don't tell me to read that graphic story on-line. I started it, and it was just another version of aGee wouldn't it be great if "Utopia". Recommend a book that I can carry around and read at my leisure and I'll get back to this w/o you having to explain the simplest things.

"Probability Broach" is a ripping yarn, but it does leave some questions. I've got Murray Rothbard's "Power and Market: Government and the Economy" on the way, but as it's apparently 1000 pages or so, It might not be the best to tote around. I think the 'net will be your best friend. Try the Ludwig von Mises Institute mises.org for an economic view.
Quote:
Or explain the simplest things so i can "get it" because right now I'm not "getting it".


I think H. L. Mencken said "Every complex problem has a simple solution - and it is wrong." I'm afraid this complex question doesn't have an easy right answer. I expect to spend a bit of time figuring it out myself.


"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:07 AM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then why discuss it at all? Just label the complete idea a waste of time and move on. I'm sorry but the suggestion that you have to read this book or that book or this stack of works to "get it" sounds like a cult to me, like "read Dianetics and all your questions will be answered.


Okay. Explain how America's form of Democracy works. You know it exists, so it should be easy to explain. Assume I know nothing about it. I'm waiting. With questions.


Not my field of expertise but I'm game (and BTW this is written at about the level I'm taking about.)

First up it's a republic with a representative democracy, which mean that people don't vote on issues and legislation directly but instead elect representatives to act as their agents.

The founding principle is that governments operate with the consent of the people and has only those powers that the people chose to give it.

Obviously there is a problem between the founding principle and the system of government in that it would be possible for the large concentration of power in the central government to be used against the people. To counter this a number of safeguards were included.

1) regular elections, preventing the incumbent from retaining power without periodically renewing his mandate.

2) The division of that power into three branches of government each with a check upon the other. Legislative branch makes the laws, which are proposed in a lower chamber of about 300 delegates and reviewed in an upper chamber with 100. Once legislation has passed this stage it is passed to an elected President who is head of the executive branch. As a check the President has the right to veto any legislation put before him which will force the legislative branch to vote with a 2/3 majority to bypass the veto. It is envisaged that in a diverse country with different public and private interests that getting a 2/3 majority vote would suggest wide spread public support --- though obviously that is not perfect. Once a law is passed it can be challenged if it is seen to violate the principles of the republic set down in a written constitution.

The Judicial branch -- the 3rd branch of government-- can review legislation on constitutional grounds and set aside any laws seen to violate constitutional principles. In lower courts such decisions are frequently appealed and cases often pass up the the Supreme Court, a chamber of 9 experienced justices who will hear arguments and determine if a law meets teh standard to be considered constitutional. If not it will be struck down. Since the Justices are appointed and not elected and as they have to argue any decision based upon teh established principles of the common law they are intended to behave as an apolitical body (though arguments to if that is actually teh case are common.) Changes to the body of the constitution can be made by tabling an amendment which has to be passed by majority of states, usually via public ballot.

Since this process is hard to achieve it is believed that the constitution will not be changed easily or lightly.



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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:09 AM

FLETCH2


What I want is something like that. i'm not asking for every dot and squggle, I want broad strokes here especially about the topic of law and order as detailed.

Edited to add:

I suspect that some of my reaction to this may be cultural. I was watching "Deep Impact" the other night (don't ask) and one of the things I noticed was that Morgan Freeman's President always tells the people that things will work out. The rocket they are sending will destroy the comet, the missiles they believe can deflect it. it's only minutes before the first comet hits that he gives the people the bad news.

Churchill said that the British people have no problem with bad news, we do tend to disbelieve the overly optimistic --it's a deep racial aversion to bullshit and when we think we're being BSed we get sarcastic and we push back. So had someone said early on "yeah there might be situations were one guy with a gun might not be able to defend his family I guess there may be militia patrols" I'd have nodded and things would have moved on.

However when the heavily armed thugs are being mowed down and little Nancy is an accomplished knife fighter at 13, that pushes deep into the red in my BS meter and pushes me deeply into sarcastic. It also means that I escalate things because I so want the other person to level with me that I try to put him in a position where he has to come clean.

I'm sorry that's just the way it is. Our PM gets cross examined in parliament every week, listen to it, it's in our nature to be combative when we see someone feeding us a line.

Anyway, sorry if it rubs you the wrong way, the bad stuff is important to the discussion, I dont see that being considered and I think the other party naive, stupid or deceptive.


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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:17 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
So why should I buy into this?
You shouldn't.

Anarchism isn't for everyone. Not everyone wants or should have that level of responsibility for their own security.

These are candidates for anarchism.

1. People who believe that human beings are generally decent, who won't go go berserk with criminal glee if there were suddenly no laws against crime.

(Ask yourself, if there were suddenly no laws, what would you go out and do to your heart's content? Steal? Rob? Kidnap? Torture? Kill for pleasure? How many of these crimes do you refrain from doing only because you are afraid of getting caught? If you can then assume that most other people are just like you, then you might be a candidate for anarchism.)

2. People who have been disillusioned with government "protection" as either the victim of government violence or victim of government neglect, or both. It doesn't have to be govt, any institutionalized authority will do.

3. People who want to keep all the money they make without giving anyone else a cut, or letting someone else decide which is the more moral way to spend that money. People who object to being forced to finance endeavors (such as war or aid to certain countries) that they have a moral objection to.

4. People who are interested in techonological advancements and inventions which are currently impeded by government bureaucracy or other laws.

5. People who like to solve problems themselves without having to wait on authority to resolve it for them.

You gotta be able to say YES to every single one of these. If not, it simply isn't for you.

--------------------------
What the world needs is not dogma but an attitude of scientific inquiry combined with a belief that the torture of millions is not desirable, whether inflicted by Stalin or by a Deity imagined in the likeness of the believer.
--Bertrand Russell

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:37 AM

HKCAVALIER


Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Frem, I'm trying to keep an open mind on this, but even I've coming close to the point where I think what you all have is a "religion". I think it passing strange that the people who are the most for this are already deeply into "self defense" either thru guns or martial arts. Now, for me personally, I've lived in enough crappy neighborhoods to know that I don't WANT to have to stay away from blind spots, not whistle, and keep my Mace in my hand at all times, or sit with a 22 guarding a friend's front porch 'cause someone's gunning for him (literally). And in the end that seems to be very much the society that you propose. I'm old, I have bad knees and a wicked case of plantar fasciitis, my hearing is going, my eyes are shot, and I've got enough problems to take care of without adding to 'em. And I look at my daughter and think... there's no way she would ever survive that kind of "society". So why should I buy into this?

Hey Signy,

I gotta say this is one of the most interesting threads I've read in the RWED in a long while. Weird kind of litmus test for something or other. I certainly didn't know I was gonna be a spokesman for Anarchist Thought before everyone started trying to clobber Anarchism after Geezer's seemingly innocuous questions.

I think one of the keys here, for instance (one of many), is investment in the status quo. To the extent that you're invested in "the way things are," the more resistant you're gonna be to Anarchism. Ironically, anarchists tend to think they're the one's seeing "the way things are" and that status quo-mongers are living in a fantasy land and making love to their victimization.

Thing is, a serious study of psychology and psychotherapy will tell you exactly the same thing. People are taught at the earliest age to tolerate, accept and ultimately desire to be dominated by external authority.

Here's another thing. There's been a lot of talk on the anarchist side of this conversation about human society not being ready for anarchism. It's odd/interesting to me that no one (to my knowledge--I've done my share of skimming, sorry) on the other side has picked that idea up and said, "No, what you're describing requires a level of socialization that human beings have yet to achieve. Indeed, we are not ready." The reason for this seems to be that the folks who find fault with Anarchist theory have certain set beliefs about human nature that preclude society EVER evolving to a point where a community could be so respectful of the individual as anarchists propose.

To that, I would reply in all seriousness: then how did you do it? Signy, everyone who has contributed to this thread would be, I think, perfectly capable of functioning in an anarchistic context without resorting to murdering each other or stealing each other's stuff. How does a microcosm like this community achieve socialization that is IMPOSSIBLE for humanity at large?

We all want to solve the problem of violence. We want to reduce the amount of violence in the world. And we have all found a way in our personal lives to reduce the amount of violence around us. True, some folks just want to replace the other guy's violence with their own violence and call it good. But I think even they would agree that the goal of a society should be to actually reduce the real amount of violence in people's lives and not just to play some factional shell game.

If we look at history, we can see a definite curve of humanity succeeding in reducing the violence of nature against humanity. We've controlled nature and our immediate environments so we can live our lives in remarkable comfort. But the problem of human on human violence is far more troublesome because one human's attempt to control another human's violence is experienced by that human as violence. (Of course, a lot of environmentalists have been talking since forever about the violence we do to nature by trying to control her, but that's harder for most folks to see.) Our current and traditional child rearing methods often amount to controlling our children, binding their natural impulses the way a zen gardener binds the branches of his bonsai tree so it will fit in his dojo.

So Anarchism suggests that the control model of problem solving has to go! Controlling a problem doesn't solve it, it just locks it up. And problems that simply get locked up tend to grow and grow and grow until they can no longer be contained and then you get all the violence you've been trying to control for years pouring out at you in one day. The Anarchist thinker will see this frightening upsurge in murder sprees as a direct result of our culture's control model--force model of problem solving. Likewise, the attack on 9/11. Sooner or later the genie is comin' out of the bottle and he's gonna be pissed as hell when he does.

This genie is what scares folks so much about anarchism. They've seen the genie in places like Somalia and see what the anarchists are proposing as an engraved invitation for the genie to come to town. But the whole dang point of anarchism is to develop a system where people are not constantly trying to shove their unacceptable genies (read: feelings and fears and impolite thoughts) into the societally approved bottles of law and order, institutionalized coercion and intimidation.

What the anarchists are calling for, in short, is a societal system based on (drum-roll, please)

PERSONAL MENTAL HEALTH!

Because mental health is the only real solution to violence. The more mentally healthy people in the world the less violence there is. As human beings individually put down their weapons and seek peaceful resolutions to all their problems, personal and political, the race as a whole gets a tiny bit saner. Is this crazy talk? Is this religion? Really? I don't think so.

It's not a quick fix, that's for sure. And it's not guaranteed. And no one's saying there will not be heavy losses in the process. But from where I sit, we as a species have a choice to go down this road, improve our mental health, improve our self-respect and our respect for others (humans, animal, and planetary) on an individual basis--not as prescribed by some law or other--or we can choose the road of blame, vengeance and self-destruction. Everyone who has spoken for anarchism in these threads has chosen option number one and I am proud to count myself among 'em!

Does any of that help, Signy?

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  

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:40 AM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
But I haven't been given some essential concept yet because when I try to model the concepts that I've been given, it goes off into a weird world that doesn't "look like" anarchism, just more like anarchy. Clearly something is missing.


It seems like most everyone here is looking for structural details in a paradigm that specifically eschews structure. You want to know how order is going to be enforced in a world without order. You want to know how predictability can be guaranteed in a world with no guarantees.

Yeah, anarchism is chaotic. That might explain why it looks like anarchy.

So here is the essential concept--there is no other--Individual Sovereignty. Lots of sovereign, autonomous individuals interacting in unpredictable, chaotic, and sometimes dangerous ways. There is no structure, there is no order, there is no safety net, there are no guarantees. Maybe that is why you can't get any details on structure, order, safety net, or guarantees.

Want a feel for what it might be like? Think Firefly. No structure, no order, no safety net, no guarantees.

Is anarchism a religion? Not anymore than any other political ideology. They all require faith in someone. Monarchy requires faith in the monarch. Democracy requires faith in the majority. Republicanism requires faith in elected officials. Anarchism requires faith in the human race.

Doesn't sound like a world you can live with or live in? That's ok. It's not for you.

--------------------------
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  

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:51 AM

FLETCH2


HKC

It's an interesting concept but how can you mandate mental health. You seem to think as Frem does that the problems are entirely developmental but what do you do if you are wrong? What if some people are born bad or become bad through injury or disease later in life? If everyone is sovereign how do you enforce healthy child rearing practices? Does the community take your kids and raise them?

I come from a very closely knit community in which there is a "Bad" family, bad in the case that they are a little liberal in the use of violence and not that mindful of other people's property. This sometimes brings them into conflict with the community and the law.

I had problems with one of the sons of this family back in school, my sister is having problems with the younger generation of that same family today. Now if you are right and child development is so important, what do you do here? Stop them having kids? Take their kids off them and "raise them right?" How do you stop this from being perpetuated if as is suggested the people themselves have sovereign rights to self determination?


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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:52 AM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.


HK Yes, it does. Thanks. I feel like I "got it". So really, really- thanks.

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

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 12:38 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Oh. For and example of Libertarian/Anarchist military success see the story of the "over-mountain men" and their victory at King's Mountain N.C. during the Revolution.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 12:41 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not my field of expertise but I'm game (and BTW this is written at about the level I'm taking about.)

First up it's a republic with a representative democracy, which mean that people don't vote on issues and legislation directly but instead elect representatives to act as their agents.

The founding principle is that governments operate with the consent of the people and has only those powers that the people chose to give it.

Obviously there is a problem between the founding principle and the system of government in that it would be possible for the large concentration of power in the central government to be used against the people. To counter this a number of safeguards were included.

1) regular elections, preventing the incumbent from retaining power without periodically renewing his mandate.

2) The division of that power into three branches of government each with a check upon the other. Legislative branch makes the laws, which are proposed in a lower chamber of about 300 delegates and reviewed in an upper chamber with 100. Once legislation has passed this stage it is passed to an elected President who is head of the executive branch. As a check the President has the right to veto any legislation put before him which will force the legislative branch to vote with a 2/3 majority to bypass the veto. It is envisaged that in a diverse country with different public and private interests that getting a 2/3 majority vote would suggest wide spread public support --- though obviously that is not perfect. Once a law is passed it can be challenged if it is seen to violate the principles of the republic set down in a written constitution.

The Judicial branch -- the 3rd branch of government-- can review legislation on constitutional grounds and set aside any laws seen to violate constitutional principles. In lower courts such decisions are frequently appealed and cases often pass up the the Supreme Court, a chamber of 9 experienced justices who will hear arguments and determine if a law meets teh standard to be considered constitutional. If not it will be struck down. Since the Justices are appointed and not elected and as they have to argue any decision based upon teh established principles of the common law they are intended to behave as an apolitical body (though arguments to if that is actually teh case are common.) Changes to the body of the constitution can be made by tabling an amendment which has to be passed by majority of states, usually via public ballot.

Since this process is hard to achieve it is believed that the constitution will not be changed easily or lightly.


So what if the people, throught their representatives, change the constitution to, say, make slavery legal?

And anyway, how does this stop home invasion robberies?

Not trying to mock or anything, but that seems to be the type of questions you're asking. Your description pretty much assumes that folks won't vote in slavery, or whatever, but your description does provide the possibility that it MIGHT happen.

Anyway, I'll try to work up something similar, but it's football and steak time right now. Maybe tomorrow.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 1:17 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not my field of expertise but I'm game (and BTW this is written at about the level I'm taking about.)

First up it's a republic with a representative democracy, which mean that people don't vote on issues and legislation directly but instead elect representatives to act as their agents.

The founding principle is that governments operate with the consent of the people and has only those powers that the people chose to give it.

Obviously there is a problem between the founding principle and the system of government in that it would be possible for the large concentration of power in the central government to be used against the people. To counter this a number of safeguards were included.

1) regular elections, preventing the incumbent from retaining power without periodically renewing his mandate.

2) The division of that power into three branches of government each with a check upon the other. Legislative branch makes the laws, which are proposed in a lower chamber of about 300 delegates and reviewed in an upper chamber with 100. Once legislation has passed this stage it is passed to an elected President who is head of the executive branch. As a check the President has the right to veto any legislation put before him which will force the legislative branch to vote with a 2/3 majority to bypass the veto. It is envisaged that in a diverse country with different public and private interests that getting a 2/3 majority vote would suggest wide spread public support --- though obviously that is not perfect. Once a law is passed it can be challenged if it is seen to violate the principles of the republic set down in a written constitution.

The Judicial branch -- the 3rd branch of government-- can review legislation on constitutional grounds and set aside any laws seen to violate constitutional principles. In lower courts such decisions are frequently appealed and cases often pass up the the Supreme Court, a chamber of 9 experienced justices who will hear arguments and determine if a law meets teh standard to be considered constitutional. If not it will be struck down. Since the Justices are appointed and not elected and as they have to argue any decision based upon teh established principles of the common law they are intended to behave as an apolitical body (though arguments to if that is actually teh case are common.) Changes to the body of the constitution can be made by tabling an amendment which has to be passed by majority of states, usually via public ballot.

Since this process is hard to achieve it is believed that the constitution will not be changed easily or lightly.


So what if the people, throught their representatives, change the constitution to, say, make slavery legal?



In theory yes they could do that. The nature of Democracy is that the people can chose to do stupid thing, that's their right, you just try to make it hard to do.

Quote:



And anyway, how does this stop home invasion robberies?



Such an act is illegal, one of the powers ceded to the government by the people is the power to make and enforce laws; to establish agencies to enforce the law and courts to oversee that justice under the law has been maintained. In the case of such a robbery the crime scene will be investigated by professional law enforcement appointed by the government and payed for by taxation. Once a perpetrator has been identified the same agencies will pursue him if necessary across state and national boundaries with a view to his apprehension. The government has the power ceded by the people to take the suspect into custody against his will if he refuses to cooperate. If he is found in a jurisdiction different from the one in which the crime takes place it may be local law enforcement in that area that arrests him subject to a legal warrant that stipulates the nature of the crime he committed and it's location. No man can be arrested without showing of just cause.

Once arrested he will be put to trial before a jury of his peers in a speedy manor and in accordance with rules of evidence which allows both sides equal access to all materials and witnesses pertinent to the case. Trials are contested between a prosecutor acting for the state and the victims and the defense, acting for the accused. Both will have the opportunity to present evidence and solicit witness testimony. Both have the right to examine evidence and cross examine witnesses provided by the other party. The aim of both parties is to present a reasonable reading of evidence or events that support their various clients positions, in the case of the prosecution that the defendant is guilty of teh crime detailed in the charges, in the case of the defense that the defendant is innocent either in fact or due to mitigating circumstances.

Both viewpoints are weighed by the jury taking into account their own life experiences and the principles of the law. A majority is required to convict. While wrongful conviction is possible it is generally accepted by both parties that the trial is conducted in good faith. Should this be proved otherwise, for example, if the proscution withholds information that could have been useful to the defense, a mistrial is declared and the case reargued.

In the event that after conviction new evidence emerges that could prove the defendant's innocence he has the right to appeal his conviction and ask for a new trial. While a defendant may be tried on separate occasions for separate crimes pertaining to the same incident. He can not be tried again for the same offense. If tried and found innocent he can never again be tried for that same crime.

In the case of home invasion robberies like any other robbery it is hoped that the conviction of others for similar crimes will deter offenders. However emphasis is on investigation and enforcement. the existence of a police service with extensive technical means, a long reach and (being publicly funded) the means to track offenders over long periods and long distances improves the chances that the perp will be apprehended and jailed. The criminal is not safe from repercussions of the the crime because of the victim's race, or poverty, by distance or time.

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 4:54 PM

FLETCH2


Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:


Want a feel for what it might be like? Think Firefly. No structure, no order, no safety net, no guarantees.


Not a great example CTS the Verse has slavery and indentured servitude, both of which kind of invalidate the personal sovereignty idea. Think on this, if Mal and Zoe had got off the train with the "goods" the people in the mining camp would have suffered and died, so Mal's personal freedom can do harm to others and does involve him violating their property rights.


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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:26 PM

CANTTAKESKY


HK, your whole post was brilliant. As clear and insightful as anything I've ever read on anarchism.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
If we look at history, we can see a definite curve of humanity succeeding in reducing the violence of nature against humanity.
And we can also see a definite curve of humantity succeeding in reducing the role of government. We've gone from God-Kings to Monarchs to Elected Officials and even direct democracies. As mankind matured, he's assumed more and more responsibility for self-government.

I see a definite evolutionary trend towards the ultimate Self-Government.

--------------------------
If there were in the world today any large number of people who desired their own happiness more than they desired the unhappiness of others, we could have paradise in a few years.
--Bertrand Russell

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

Sunday, January 20, 2008 11:34 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Not a great example CTS the Verse has slavery and indentured servitude, both of which kind of invalidate the personal sovereignty idea.
There will always be slavery and indentured servitude, with or without government. Anarchism is not a panacea for a perfect world.

And anarchism is not likely to ever be the only or primary political ideology. In the Firefly verse, anarchism was struggling on the outer planets alongside theocracies ("Safe"), petty dictatorships ("Heart of Gold"), and the biggest govt of them all, the Alliance.

However in Firefly, you can escape government if you travel long and far enough, to get a glimpse of anarchism.

--------------------------
...and we'll never be under the heel of nobody ever again.
--Firefly

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

Monday, January 21, 2008 2:04 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Siggy, HKCav finally got it across I see...

That's point ONE.

At point TWO we take a look at our existing structures, and begin dismantling them, starting with the most counterproductive, useless and expensive, I suggested Federal Enforcement/Intel agencies, and also has been suggested Police, which isn't too bad of an idea if as an interm measure they were replaced by community policing done by members of the community in question who were directly answerable to it as a whole.

As more structures are scrapped, the community, collective, clan, tribe, whatever you wanna call your SOCIAL unit in question, may elect to keep, absorb, or eliminate to their own preferences.

But yeah, I been sayin all along, we gotta grow some wings before we can fly here.

And that brings us back to point one, which is kinda my lifes work, as you might have figured out by now.

-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  

Monday, January 21, 2008 8:29 AM

FREMDFIRMA


Addendum by a friend skimming through this thread that's so perfect I just have to share.

"So, when you're scrapping this stuff, the difference between Libertarian and Anarchist... is where you stop, isn't it ?"

I'm buyin him a drink, for that one.

-F

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:19 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


For addidtional reading on historical examples of Anarchy without chaos, see here.

http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm


"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:05 AM

RUE

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


As a quick comment - I find nothing similar between anarchism and libertarianism.

Libertarianism is IMHO pathologically against government, even when it proves lifesaving. It embraces all sorts of power structures and violence as long as they're not government. Rule by violence ? GREAT ! Rule by corporations ! AWESOME ! Whoever has the most - wins !

Anarchism, which I prefer to libertarianism, is about the abolition of power structures.

In fact I find so much difference between anarchism and libertarianism that I put libertarianism as my last preference and anarchism closer to the top. (I haven't made a selection yet.)

However, even select examples of anarchism show that there is a rigidly taught and thoroughly enforced set of social rules - for example the Quakers. And/ or they are low-technology societies where the highest technology is whatever is able to be produced locally.


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

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russian losses in Ukraine
Sat, April 27, 2024 17:57 - 1011 posts
Elections; 2024
Fri, April 26, 2024 01:29 - 2311 posts
14 Tips To Reduce Tears and Remove Smells When Cutting Onions
Thu, April 25, 2024 23:52 - 8 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Thu, April 25, 2024 23:38 - 3570 posts
Scientific American Claims It Is "Misinformation" That There Are Just Two Sexes
Thu, April 25, 2024 20:03 - 17 posts
Another Putin Disaster
Thu, April 25, 2024 19:42 - 1512 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Thu, April 25, 2024 19:19 - 6306 posts
Sentencing Thread
Thu, April 25, 2024 14:31 - 365 posts
Axios: Exclusive Poll - America warms to mass deportations
Thu, April 25, 2024 11:43 - 1 posts
Case against Sidney Powell, 2020 case lawyer, is dismissed
Wed, April 24, 2024 19:58 - 12 posts
Grifter Donald Trump Has Been Indicted And Yes Arrested; Four Times Now And Counting. Hey Jack, I Was Right
Wed, April 24, 2024 09:04 - 804 posts
Slate: I Changed My Mind About Kids and Phones. I Hope Everyone Else Does, Too.
Tue, April 23, 2024 19:38 - 2 posts
 VIEW MORE TOPICS 

FFF.NET SOCIAL