REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

If the rules were gone tomorrow

POSTED BY: FREMDFIRMA
UPDATED: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 20:14
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3719
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, July 20, 2009 6:23 AM

FREMDFIRMA


If the "Rules" were gone tomorrow.

Would you really change how YOU live, all that much ?
Run wild in the streets ?
Harm your fellow man ?

Or would you, simply go about your life as you do, with a few minor adjustments ?

So think about it, good and hard, and see if you can even name three things you would change about your own personal life - and if it takes you more than a few seconds, ponder maybe why that is.

Lemme see here...

1. I would adopt several unwanted children, and try to give them a better life.

2. Offer to replace the officially educated by practically incompetent (and much despised) guidance counselor at the local high school.

3. Yanno, offhand, I can't think of a third...

-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, July 20, 2009 6:26 AM

RUE

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


"If the "Rules" were gone tomorrow."

The global economy would collapse, money would be worthless, you couldn't get gas, or medical care or ... anything.

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

Silence is consent.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 6:48 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I disagree, very strongly, in fact.

What, you think every drop of petrol would evaporate overnight, every doctor would just vanish from the earth ?

You need to let go of your fear, doll, before it consumes you.

-F

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 7:09 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


I'm afraid we need rules to keep more people from entertaining their lesser impulses. Predators in particular, but there's a long list of "bad intentions" that more "average" folk might visit if they had no social or legal barriers to be concerned with. Rodney King L.A. and Katrina New Orleans come to mind.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 7:55 AM

RUE

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



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

Monday, July 20, 2009 7:55 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Would you really change how YOU live, all that much ?
Run wild in the streets ?
Harm your fellow man ?


I'd make new rules, find some like minded folks, and we'd impose them.

Rule #1. No PN on RWED.
Rule #2. Add a meal between lunch and dinner (around 2:30).
Rule #3. No musical Ice Cream trucks.
Rule #4. Only persons owning apple trees may vote.
Rule #5. No speeding.
Rule #6. No murder without a license.
Rule #7. Limit number of sitcoms and reality shows on the networks...mandate scifi hours/week.
Rule #8. Proper BBQ preparation class required for graduation (with a standardized taste test).
Rule #9. Guns.
Rule #10. Restrict apple tree ownership.

The rest will just fall into place naturally.

Edited to add: Rule 11, no dogs eating dogs...no eating dogs by anybody. Licensed cat eating...ok.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 8:29 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


No rules?

Wouldnt that be sweet?

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 8:35 AM

BYTEMITE


I'd try to barter for a gun (just in case), and then not know how to use it. But at least I'd LOOK intimidating! That's 9/10ths of the battle, anyway, most people aren't actually going to persist mugging or raping you if you're flashing iron in their face.

I already have water stored for an emergency... The question is how am I gonna get food. Supermarkets will be a no-go because of the likely looting, and that's going to draw desperate activities LIKE the killing and the raping.

Probably I'd try to find some people who are growing food, then offer to help them grow and protect said food. Assuming they don't kill/mug/rape me first.

Until I meet people who would accept me, though, I'd anticipate a lot of wilderness wandering. Which at least I'm good at. I can probably survive a good while out there because I know what plants are edible and I can out-hike a lot of people, and I have the equipment I'd need to survive a long period of time.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 8:50 AM

ECGORDON

There's no place I can be since I found Serenity.


I might start smoking pot again. Other than that it would be business as usual.



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

Monday, July 20, 2009 8:53 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I'm afraid we need rules to keep more people from entertaining their lesser impulses. Predators in particular, but there's a long list of "bad intentions" that more "average" folk might visit if they had no social or legal barriers to be concerned with.


I have to mostly agree with this. I've found in working so much with the public that a lot of people are decent and honest folk. I more than likely couldn't stop them if they wanted to rob the place, but fortunately that's usually been a non-issue. However, there are still people who will attempt to be dishonest, right to my face, and there are still more people whose level of dishonesty increases in proportion to their likelihood of being caught for it. If people can fill up their gas tanks and drive away without paying, never having looked anyone there in the eye, a lot of people will, a whole lot more than will actually walk into a place with a gun and hold it up. Libraries have alarm systems, and the books there are free, at least for a time. So why is that? Because there are a lot of people who would walk out without documenting which books they're taking. Not all people, but enough of them. There's a lot of honest people in the world, but there are quite a few who are only honest because they fear repercussion. And still more who won't be stopped by that fear, and do terrible things until they are caught and stopped. Now maybe, if the rules were gone tomorrow, those people would be stopped anyway. Maybe enough of the basically good people would band together to go after someone who was doing harm. But that would require them to ignore any fear they had of being harmed themselves, and that also wouldn't mean the rules were gone, just maybe a bit different.

[/sig]

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 9:05 AM

AGENTROUKA


As you can probably guess, it's not their own behavior many people would worry about, but that of others.

For example, I can very clearly imagine a vast increase in speeding and related accidents.

I know a number of people who'll start shop-lifting all over the place.

I can also think of a few child custody cases that would immediately take a turn to badness.


And what does "no rules" really mean? No laws? No one to enforce them? No social rules? Let's say you mean law and law enforcement, is it all magically gone in society as it stands right now?

Asking such a question without dicussing the long-term and short-term implications in a practical way is a bit disingenuious, since they would be a bit more than "minor adjustments".

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 9:35 AM

LEADB


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If the "Rules" were gone tomorrow.

Would you really change how YOU live, all that much ?
Run wild in the streets ?
Harm your fellow man ?

Or would you, simply go about your life as you do, with a few minor adjustments ?


I'd break down and actually get the gun I've pondered obtaining, train in it's use, and be prepared to use if the moral situation required it. Not sure if you consider it a minor adjustment or not; but I'd surely classify it as a 'middling' adjustment.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 9:41 AM

JAMERON4EVA


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Would you really change how YOU live, all that much ?
Run wild in the streets ?
Harm your fellow man ?


I'd make new rules, find some like minded folks, and we'd impose them.

Rule #1. No PN on RWED.
Rule #2. Add a meal between lunch and dinner (around 2:30).
Rule #3. No musical Ice Cream trucks.
Rule #4. Only persons owning apple trees may vote.
Rule #5. No speeding.
Rule #6. No murder without a license.
Rule #7. Limit number of sitcoms and reality shows on the networks...mandate scifi hours/week.
Rule #8. Proper BBQ preparation class required for graduation (with a standardized taste test).
Rule #9. Guns.
Rule #10. Restrict apple tree ownership.

The rest will just fall into place naturally.

Edited to add: Rule 11, no dogs eating dogs...no eating dogs by anybody. Licensed cat eating...ok.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.




Hey, what about eating bats?

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 10:25 AM

HERO


Quote:

Originally posted by jameron4eva:
Hey, what about eating bats?


Thats up to you...I'd suggest hitting someone with one and taking their food.

H

"Hero. I have come to respect you"- Chrisisall, 2009.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 12:37 PM

KWICKO

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


Quote:

Rule #5. No speeding.



Rule #5. No Speed Limits.


There... fixed that for ya!

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 12:58 PM

MISSTRESSAHARA


Steal (*ahem* borrow) enough money to pay for 6 more season's of Firefly.

Well you said no rules.

{{{*********~A footer is the closing of an article, not a kinky sex move~*********}}}

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 1:40 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 1:52 PM

CHRISISALL


No hard & fast "rules"?

This is how I would live my life then:

Mostly the same, but I would stop at stop signs & observe the speed limits (former ones, I assume) at my own discretion.

And make fun of lawyers more openly.


The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 2:25 PM

FREMDFIRMA


Quote:

Asking such a question without dicussing the long-term and short-term implications in a practical way is a bit disingenuious, since they would be a bit more than "minor adjustments".

Very disingenuous indeed - but the intent was to see folks *reactions* to the concept itself, more than get the questions answered.

Funny how folks fear their fellow man - which isn't without merit, mind you, but I wanted to illustrate very clearly WHY people, as a general rule are not "ready" for self-rule/anarchism - they do NOT have the required mentality for it to function properly, and it would devolve into chaos and disorder, which is despite propaganda to the contrary, a very different thing than anarchism.
(Again, removing legal rules by no means instantly destroys social rules, which every human society has, whether codified into laws or not.)

Most folk it seems would see to their defenses and go about their business much in the fashion that they do - very few would actively choose predation as a lifestyle, but it's worth pointing out that the one most bent on doing so is technically a Govt employee, which oughta tell ya something, neh ?

I find it ironic that most folk worry not about themselves, but those mysterious, nebulous "other people"... which are out there, sure, but I suspect not in the numbers or degree which the folk offering to control us all "for our own good" would have us believe.

Maybe y'all folk might consider a little faith in your fellow man - not sayin risk your neck or your stuff over it, but perhaps not lookin at everyone else as an imminent threat to you and yours might be a happier, healthier way to live your life, eh ?

-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, July 20, 2009 2:39 PM

FREMDFIRMA


And this required it's own post.

On a personal note: for them that don't know, I do private security now, thanks to uncle scams murderous taxes driving me out of the taxi biz.

And I have prettymuch taken over coverage of site three personally cause it's close to my residence and I enjoy the work.
(not to mention my lazy ass can use the exercise..)

So, that said - for liability and other reasons, I carry no weapon on duty, which is a bit of a shocker to folks who know me, given my rabidity about it - but I decided to commit to an experiment since the opportunity presented itself.

Now, the people of the apartment complex community that is site three are very fond of me, I enjoy my job and happen to be personable, effective and polite - without that stupid jackboot complex which the management has had real problems with regarding their previous security services, I regard these folk with a familial kind of protectiveness, and respect their privacy and persons.

And so, as a gesture of my faith in those human bonds, I carry a standard-issue sports whistle on a lanyard - in the vanishingly rare case that I might wind up in a situation beyond my ability to deal with personally.

The question is, should I ever find the need to sound that whistle, would members of this community actually come to my aid ?

Me, I'd lay damn good odds on yes, else I wouldn't be carrying the silly thing in the first place.

-Frem
*PS - One of the residents with a similar taste in literature (who calls me a Hobbit cause I am short and slightly hedonistic) chose to refer to it as the "Horn of Gondor", once I told him it's purpose.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 4:57 PM

BYTEMITE


In my defense, I'm completely paranoid. I don't even trust my own family.

But just because I am that, doesn't mean I don't think most people are decent. It's just a gap between my logic, and what I feel.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 5:13 PM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Funny how folks fear their fellow man

I only fear them on the road. Without "rules", I could avoid them more efficiently.


The laughing Chrisisall

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 6:20 PM

CANTTAKESKY


Frem,

I think there needs to be a distinction between "rules" and "consequences." Most people think of them as the same thing. But they are not.

Right now, consequences are dealt out to the poor, whether or not they deserve it, and are easily avoided by the rich who can play around the "rules." Rules are supposed to equal consequences, but they don't, and they never will.

I think without consequences, there are a good number of people whose selfish instincts, which are kept in check right now by their perception of "rules = consequences," will cause much suffering in the world. I believe a large part of many genocides happened because the consequences for murder were removed. The Cultural Revolution is a good example; many ordinary people lynched, tortured, and murdered each other for no good reason.

I am all for no more rules. But I do not want to live in a world with no consequences.

If there were no more rules tomorrow, I would:

Speed. Lots and lots of speeding. :)
Drive around without a seatbelt, take my kids out of those stupid car seats.
Practice medicine without a license.
Homeschool any way I want without filling out paperwork or worrying about passing tests.
Put in a new septic tank for my house without asking for permission first.
Sell lemonade from my living room.
Keep all of my lemonade money because I don't have to pay taxes anymore.
Give to charities without worrying about 501c3 forms.
Start a charity without worrying about 501c3 forms.
Go stimulate the economy with all the money I earned that I now get to keep.

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

Monday, July 20, 2009 7:11 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:

Asking such a question without dicussing the long-term and short-term implications in a practical way is a bit disingenuious, since they would be a bit more than "minor adjustments".

Very disingenuous indeed - but the intent was to see folks *reactions* to the concept itself, more than get the questions answered.

Funny how folks fear their fellow man - which isn't without merit, mind you, but I wanted to illustrate very clearly WHY people, as a general rule are not "ready" for self-rule/anarchism - they do NOT have the required mentality for it to function properly, and it would devolve into chaos and disorder, which is despite propaganda to the contrary, a very different thing than anarchism.
(Again, removing legal rules by no means instantly destroys social rules, which every human society has, whether codified into laws or not.)



Yes, you already made that pretty obvious by the way you posed the question. I don't think anyone here would even dispute that assertation, but at the same time the biased way you asked the question was bound to draw a biased answer, which is sort of self-serving on your part and undermines you.

I find it much more convincing when you don't work with self-fullfilling verbal traps and instead say what you mean to openly.

Quote:


I find it ironic that most folk worry not about themselves, but those mysterious, nebulous "other people"... which are out there, sure, but I suspect not in the numbers or degree which the folk offering to control us all "for our own good" would have us believe.



And yet it doesn't take every bad person in the world to be a threat to you when you encounter one or two. People have a right to be worried about predation or even the careless endangerment of other people without being labled paranoid.

The changes in systematic self-defense that people would have to make in their lives are more than minor, to account for the things we DO take advantage of now (law, law enforcement, judicial system) and that this is what people focus on is also not paranoid but normal.

We once had a very interesting conversation about your vision of how an anarchist society would work and I found it convincing up to the point where you couldn't account for the concentration of many people in big cities and how that would affect stress levels and social behavior, long term.

THAT was a good conversation. This one I find myself resenting you for because it's so obviously manipulative.

It robs you of some credibility to sit back and gloat about a reaction you foresaw when that reaction is NOT as irrational as you imply.

Quote:


Maybe y'all folk might consider a little faith in your fellow man - not sayin risk your neck or your stuff over it, but perhaps not lookin at everyone else as an imminent threat to you and yours might be a happier, healthier way to live your life, eh ?



Sure, maybe hiking off into the woods is a little much, but looking at the sudden removal of rules as a social shock, especially to people who are already in a desperate situation, and recognizing it as a destabilizing factor is only realistic.


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

Monday, July 20, 2009 8:34 PM

FREMDFIRMA


CTS - That's actually a more complex discussion which would be better done in it's own thread, cause the general topic of this one is going in a somewhat different direction.

AgentR -
Quote:

Yes, you already made that pretty obvious by the way you posed the question. I don't think anyone here would even dispute that assertation, but at the same time the biased way you asked the question was bound to draw a biased answer, which is sort of self-serving on your part and undermines you.

Not so much, cause I wanted folk to offer their perspectives within that window, and get them to really think about WHY they obey the "rules" and what, to them, the important ones that really MATTER, were.
Quote:

I find it much more convincing when you don't work with self-fullfilling verbal traps and instead say what you mean to openly.

Not self-fulfilling as much as focusing the discussion, and I phrased things in such a way to draw an emotional response which'd be likely a more honest one than otherwise offered.

The idea wasn't to draw a stock response, or even one in favor of any specific bias, but rather by deliberately leaving the question so vague invoke a level of uncertainty that would encourage them to clarify their position on matters.
Quote:

And yet it doesn't take every bad person in the world to be a threat to you when you encounter one or two. People have a right to be worried about predation or even the careless endangerment of other people without being labled paranoid.

The changes in systematic self-defense that people would have to make in their lives are more than minor, to account for the things we DO take advantage of now (law, law enforcement, judicial system) and that this is what people focus on is also not paranoid but normal.


While not so very sure those things are any kind of advantage, I am well aware of that point, but there's a difference between thinking the rules serve as a set of guardrails to make society run smoothly, the same way locks keep honest people honest - and thinking we're all a bunch of savage, rapacious barbarians who would destroy all of existance if the leash slipped even a little.

Too many lawmakers seem to hold the latter position, if you ask me - but given that a substantial part of my current contract with site three involves protecting them FROM the local police force, it's pretty fair to call my perspective on that more biased than usual.
Quote:

We once had a very interesting conversation about your vision of how an anarchist society would work and I found it convincing up to the point where you couldn't account for the concentration of many people in big cities and how that would affect stress levels and social behavior, long term.

That's because of the very issues raised here, which I am going to get in a bit more detail about in a moment, make it currently not viable with our level of social and emotional development.
Quote:

THAT was a good conversation. This one I find myself resenting you for because it's so obviously manipulative.

It robs you of some credibility to sit back and gloat about a reaction you foresaw when that reaction is NOT as irrational as you imply.


Actually I think you mistake me - if baiting people to actually think and react qualifies as manipulation, perhaps, but you mistake me quite a bit if you take my encouragement of folk to re-examine core beliefs as gloating.
Quote:


Sure, maybe hiking off into the woods is a little much, but looking at the sudden removal of rules as a social shock, especially to people who are already in a desperate situation, and recognizing it as a destabilizing factor is only realistic.


Very much so, VERY much so - and it is indeed this that is the very heart of the matter, because the reactions expressed (save one gleeful predator) range between mildly disturbed to outright horrified, but they ALL fall within that range, you see ?

It's not that folks are un-ABLE to leave those codified structures behind, it is also that they are un-WILLING, and that raises a key point upon which I wind up at odds even with most other anarchists - see, despite its myriad flaws, people as a whole WANT the system we have, at least in preference to NO system, and to force our system, or lack of one, down the throat of those unwilling is in fact diametrically opposed to everything anarchism IS.

And so that cannot be done, shouldn't, even if it could.

But what CAN be done is paring down the "rules" instead of stacking more just for the purpose of making more - that we COULD do, and in my opinion, we SHOULD do - I mean, do we really *need* some of the more ridiculous and archaic stuff on the books ?
Aren't there some very valid reasons for an audit ?

Most folk are simply not comfortable with NO rules, and yet, they do feel there are too many, and that they are too restrictive, and so with that point of agreement there is a strong basis for consensus, is there not ?

Beginning FROM THAT POINT - I bet we could tie a lot of political ideologies together in a unified cause, were we to try to.

=======

And now, as promised - why the discussion of anarchism breaks down past a certain community size.

A great part of that is our horribly stunted mental, social and emotional development, something which our current system is built around sustaining indefinately in much the same fashion slaves were kept illiterate, and for much the same reasons.

We are, at this time, barely capable of seeing beyond ourselves, our own needs, and some folk limit themselves to only that, and our personal problem solving skills are very primitive, us/them, on/off, good/evil, with violence as a quick result of frustration or even misunderstanding, looked at a certain way, there's a couple breeds of chimp (bonobos?) which I consider a little further along, in all honesty.

I personally (opinion only) see our human relationship with external government to be something along the nature of an abusive personal relationship mixed liberally with stockholm syndrome, but that's just my personal viewpoint.

In order for any large scale collective to actually WORK, the first thing that would have to happen would be for doing harm unto a fellow person for gain or amusement to be as universally morally and socially, personally repulsive as outright infanticide or cannibalism, no law can replace the ingrained personal morality of a human being, nor can any law override it for very long.

You simply cannot *impose* an internal change by external force, you can only encourage or discourage it, and then only if the person you are speaking with actively chooses to internalise and act upon your words.

We're missing that key piece though, the idea of harming each other for gain or pleasure being anethma - and without it anachism on a wide scale simply will not WORK - we need to develop that key piece first, and allow natural progression, rather than forcing an unwanted model upon the unwilling and hoping they will develop it.

========

Oh, and add a dash of unintended irony, as I had to have YET AGAIN, a conversation with the youngest niece about the fact that not ALL rules are stupid and pointless just because some of them are - complicated by the fact that she's a mid-teen, has a similar mindset, AND will listen to no one else since they failed to treat her with anything remotely resembling respect...
There's a very LARGE difference in talking TO someone, and talking AT them.

At least she listens to me, but every time I talk to her I am pointedly reminded of WHY anyone and everyone wanted to throttle my ass when I was that age...

She's WAY too much like me for her own damn good!

-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  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 1:08 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Not so much, cause I wanted folk to offer their perspectives within that window, and get them to really think about WHY they obey the "rules" and what, to them, the important ones that really MATTER, were.



Then why phrase the question in the way you did? Because the "rules are gone TOMORROW" aspect really only focuses attention on the sudden and unprepared disappearance of current "rule" infrastructure without anything to replace it.

Of COURSE people will anticipate an amount of chaos and react with apprehension to it.Then claiming you wanted people to think about WHY they follow rules is...not very credible. You steered people toward a particular reaction and then went all "Oh, why are you afraid of the people around you?"

Come on.

Quote:


Not self-fulfilling as much as focusing the discussion, and I phrased things in such a way to draw an emotional response which'd be likely a more honest one than otherwise offered.



But only one particular, very understandable response that you then proceeded to attack.

I can’t help but feel that if you had wanted an honest discussion, you would not have started with a hypothetical, drawn the expected reaction and then concluded that people are generally paranoid. You would have stated a thesis and invited people to discuss it. Or maybe presented a more neutral scenario, without the factor of sudden change.

Quote:


While not so very sure those things are any kind of advantage, I am well aware of that point, but there's a difference between thinking the rules serve as a set of guardrails to make society run smoothly, the same way locks keep honest people honest - and thinking we're all a bunch of savage, rapacious barbarians who would destroy all of existance if the leash slipped even a little.



And yet we have all seen riots break out when sudden shocks to the social system and lack of law enforcement occured.

You’re deliberately ignoring the practical implications of your own scenario when you accuse people of paranoia because they quite rightly anticipate the destabilisation that any sudden change often brings.


Quote:


Actually I think you mistake me - if baiting people to actually think and react qualifies as manipulation, perhaps, but you mistake me quite a bit if you take my encouragement of folk to re-examine core beliefs as gloating.



I don’t think your question was well-suited to encourage that, though. You posed a question that WOULD draw a particular answer. Then stepping in to say „Oh my, you all said this – but it’s wrong!“ (when the it really wasn’t) is not encouraging independent thought. It’s more how a demagogue would act.

Quote:


Quote:


Sure, maybe hiking off into the woods is a little much, but looking at the sudden removal of rules as a social shock, especially to people who are already in a desperate situation, and recognizing it as a destabilizing factor is only realistic.


Very much so, VERY much so - and it is indeed this that is the very heart of the matter, because the reactions expressed (save one gleeful predator) range between mildly disturbed to outright horrified, but they ALL fall within that range, you see ?



Because you proposed SUDDEN change! Not a more neutral situation that would allow people to examine the concept in an of itself, without the destabilizing effect of sudden change.

Quote:


But what CAN be done is paring down the "rules" instead of stacking more just for the purpose of making more - that we COULD do, and in my opinion, we SHOULD do - I mean, do we really *need* some of the more ridiculous and archaic stuff on the books ?
Aren't there some very valid reasons for an audit ?



So why not just pose that thesis and discuss it, instead of mind games? Most people would agree with you, actually, and you could have started a decent discussion without treating people like children.

Quote:


And now, as promised - why the discussion of anarchism breaks down past a certain community size.
(...)
In order for any large scale collective to actually WORK, the first thing that would have to happen would be for doing harm unto a fellow person for gain or amusement to be as universally morally and socially, personally repulsive as outright infanticide or cannibalism, no law can replace the ingrained personal morality of a human being, nor can any law override it for very long.
(...)
We're missing that key piece though, the idea of harming each other for gain or pleasure being anethma - and without it anachism on a wide scale simply will not WORK - we need to develop that key piece first, and allow natural progression, rather than forcing an unwanted model upon the unwilling and hoping they will develop it.



Fair enough, now I understand your strategy. It’s one hell of an uphill battle at the moment, though, sadly.


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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 3:41 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK


Quote:

Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Would you really change how YOU live, all that much ?
Run wild in the streets ?
Harm your fellow man ?


I'd make new rules, find some like minded folks, and we'd impose them.

Rule #4. Only persons owning apple trees may vote.
Rule #10. Restrict apple tree ownership./B]



Haha... that's pretty good man!

Pretty much how it is now though since voting means nothing. Only those with the apple trees can really do anything in the world, and I'm pretty sure nobody on this forum owns any.

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

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 4:11 AM

BYTEMITE


Huh? Where was I scared? I was having fun, this was a fun hypothetical, and so long as other people weren't around, I'd have fun in a post-apocalyptic-whatever world too. I wouldn't have to go to work, and I'd be able to spend all my time hiking in the woods. What's wrong with the woods? I like the woods.

If "all the rules were gone tomorrow" which implies a sudden, unprepared for change, chaos would be EXPECTED. People have been living with the rules too long to know yet what to do without them.

And if I see a bunch of confused people, and since confusion generally leads to either anger or fear, I'm of the mindset to get the hell AWAY from people until things calm down. And the safest place I can think of would be the woods, because where I live has plenty of nearby pristine wilderness.

Of course, that's assuming I don't get stupid and try to talk down the mob. I've been known to do that.

This has rapidly become not fun. Think I'll bow out here.

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 5:35 AM

FREMDFIRMA


I really do think you've badly mistaken my methods and intentions, AgentR, and if it came across like that to you it surely wasn't by design.

Wasn't lookin for a brawl, but to challenge folks perceptions within a discussion about what "rules" are vitally important and WHY folks perceive them to be so.

Another thing worth a mental thrashing over is why chaos leads to violence in human society - figuring out the exact why would be of benefit to it's prevention not only along future paths, but here and now in cases of civil disorder or natural disaster.

Something we can still do here, mind you, instead of arguing.

One of the hazards of having a thought process a bit crossways from most folk is coming across in ways you didn't mean to, I guess.

Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity - I *DO* have my moments, yanno.

Speakin of which, I've been known to try talking down a mob myself, with middling success, although there was the time I talked UP a mob over a school dress code issue...
Erm, it went a little TOO well, one might say.

-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  

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:03 AM

BYTEMITE


Hee, yeah, I guess I felt a little bit tricked, didn't expect to be attacked for what I said. Doing better now. And I was actually more offended about the comments about the woods. Bizarre, but when you like a particular past time, you rush to defend it. I don't think anyone meant anything by it now.

Anyway, I just wanted to mention, yeah, sometimes we see really bad chaotic reactions to a natural disaster, when rules can't be enforced, but you did get me thinking.

Remember a couple summers back in New York, when the power went out? Hot, no AC, everyone was expecting them all to kill each other. But no, the newscasters reported on people getting together and making it a big party and grilling hotdogs out on the sidewalk.

What I think, is we need to not forget the things that bring us together and make us remember we're all people.

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:08 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I really do think you've badly mistaken my methods and intentions, AgentR, and if it came across like that to you it surely wasn't by design.



Hmm. I guess I did utterly neglect the option that it might not have been by design. Maybe take it as a compliment?

Quote:


Another thing worth a mental thrashing over is why chaos leads to violence in human society - figuring out the exact why would be of benefit to it's prevention not only along future paths, but here and now in cases of civil disorder or natural disaster.

Something we can still do here, mind you, instead of arguing.



Good idea.

My vague guess would be that it's generally dependent upon the circumstances. In general, I think, it's often a case of escalation, uncertainty mixing with adrenaline. Maybe opportunistic behavior meets with resistance, maybe rational responses are drowned out by fear.

I was once in a near stampede during a very badly organized public new year's party. It was a huge crowd jammed into a narrow corridor with two exits at the same end. People started shoving, people were squeezed together painfully. A friend who was with me, generally as gentle as a lamb, ended up forcing her way through the crowd so we could get out. I did TRY to stay calm, but whenever someone shoved me, I felt rage.

So I think large amounts of stress can lead to aggression and violence even in normally gentle people.

It would be interesting to see a study comparing situations where escalation occured with situations that stayed calm and safe!


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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:11 AM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Bytemite:
And I was actually more offended about the comments about the woods. Bizarre, but when you like a particular past time, you rush to defend it. I don't think anyone meant anything by it now.



Sorry if I offended you! I didn't mean to, but I hadn't read the woods part as enjoying a hobby in the context you mentioned it, and more like a retreat from crowds. My mistake.

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:32 AM

BYTEMITE


It was both, I kind of get out into the woods NOW to avoid crowds. It's not so much I'm afraid of the crowds I encounter day to day, I'm just comfortable on my own or in smallish groups. I feel like I can be myself more.

So heading out into the woods is my natural response when things get stressful in general, and would be in this case.

I don't know if anyone could tell, but my tone when I was talking about getting a gun and all the raping and killing was intended to be ironic. I think that stuff would be going on in a really bad breakdown, and it would bother me, but I'm not really afraid it would happen to ME. Which is why I was so cavalier about the idea.

The gun thing would really be more for cougars and bears. I'm only 5'5 and look edible. Normally I don't need a gun in the mountains because I'm usually not up there more than a week at a time backpacking, but I've run across cougars before, and if I spend longer up there, I'd want something to scare them off.

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:37 AM

AGENTROUKA


D'oh.

I'm starting to get a real complex about my inability to detect sarcasm. It's gettng sad.

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 6:42 AM

BYTEMITE


It's okay. I didn't really make it clear. When I was writing that, I was thinking it in my "Kaylee-voice" so to speak, but it occurs to me that might not have come across the internet as "bubbly naive" as intended, but rather "Omigosh gonna die!"

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:08 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg


I think the question is, if there were no LAWS. Societies will always have "rules" to follow. Things which a culture or group find acceptable, or not.

The problem is, right now, our "laws" are just meant to line the pockets of those in "power".

Anyone else notice the upswing in "enforcement" of driving laws, as the recession bites down?


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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 7:32 AM

RUE

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


"You need to let go of your fear, doll, before it consumes you."

We tried the 'no rules' thing in a very minor way - it was called deregulation. Remember how that worked out ? It wasn't very long ago, you know.

Granted, a lot of rules\ laws are stupid. And I have no problem with the idea of eliminating many and reworking the rest. But some are very necessary to YOUR daily existance.

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

There's something about the title of your post that makes me want steak. At Outback.

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

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 8:48 PM

CUDA77

Like woman, I am a mystery.


I'd speed more and I'd marry both my girlfriends. That's really about it.


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

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:20 AM

FREMDFIRMA


You know what the penalty for Bigamy is, right ?
Twice the bitchin!

AgentR
Quote:

I'm starting to get a real complex about my inability to detect sarcasm. It's gettng sad.

Well, one could start with the automatic and completely justified assumption that anything said by Me, Kwicko, Chrisisall or SixStringJack says is just dripping with sarcasm and snark, cause we're like that, yanno...

And you can *always* tell when I really am gloating about something, cause I have a special icon for it.


As for rules, I think a good case for the rules being perfunctory would be the american highway system - your chances of getting caught are low enough that most people obey the rules simply cause it wouldn't WORK no other way, rather than in fear of punishment.

-F

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:39 PM

KWICKO

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


Quote:


The changes in systematic self-defense that people would have to make in their lives are more than minor, to account for the things we DO take advantage of now (law, law enforcement, judicial system) and that this is what people focus on is also not paranoid but normal.



I have to question this. I in no way expect the police to act as any kind of "defense" for me. At best, they're there for clean-up after the fact; at worst, they're in my way. As for "taking advantage of law enforcement", I'd call that a laughable concept to anyone who's every lived in a bad neighborhood. The one time I *did* call the cops, it was a "shots fired" call, because there was a drive-by outside my house. I told them on the phone how many shots (11, 9mm semi-auto), who they were fired at, and what I saw of the shooter. FOUR AND A HALF HOURS LATER a lone police cruiser actually drove by. Didn't bother to stop, but did slow down a bit.

Wow, did I ever feel safe knowing they were on the case...



Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 3:50 PM

LEADB


The last time I called the police, there were a couple young men scuffling with a crowd of about twenty 'friends' hanging 'watching the action'. 2 police cars rolled in about 5 minutes later; with 2 more showing up about 10 minutes after. No arrests made, but everyone was 'sent home'. Average age was probably about 20.

I was fairly pleased with how it was handled, all things considered.

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:00 PM

KWICKO

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


Honestly, I can't really think of what I'd do that differently. I'm not a big rules-follower by nature as it is. I'd definitely speed- as in, I'd drive at a reasonable and prudent speed for my abilities, those of my vehicle, and with respect to the prevailing weather and light conditions. On a clear day with little to no traffic and a nice, flat, clear road, I've been known to cruise for miles on end at 130mph or so. Nobody died as a result. Nobody was endangered, and I got where I was going much faster than I would have otherwise.

Would I speed *more* if there were "no rules"? I dunno. I tend to drive more by what's reasonable than by what's posted on the signs anyway, so speed limits have never really had much meaning to me. I knew they were a scam way back when Nixon proposed a 55mph national speed limit "to save fuel", which then of course became "to save the children". At night, I tend to drive UNDER the limit, because my night vision is going to shit as I age. On the highway in daylight, I tend to be looking well over a mile ahead. Some cars I'm comfortable driving at well over 100mph, and some I'm not comfortable driving over 70mph.

Mike

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day...
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.


If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college...

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 4:04 PM

KWICKO

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


Quote:


Well, one could start with the automatic and completely justified assumption that anything said by Me, Kwicko, Chrisisall or SixStringJack says is just dripping with sarcasm and snark, cause we're like that, yanno...



Too bloody true, that!

If you EVER see a post by me that you think is completely serious, you've definitely misread it. I actively search for the mirth in any situation.

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

Wednesday, July 22, 2009 8:14 PM

AGENTROUKA


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:


The changes in systematic self-defense that people would have to make in their lives are more than minor, to account for the things we DO take advantage of now (law, law enforcement, judicial system) and that this is what people focus on is also not paranoid but normal.



I have to question this. I in no way expect the police to act as any kind of "defense" for me. At best, they're there for clean-up after the fact; at worst, they're in my way. As for "taking advantage of law enforcement", I'd call that a laughable concept to anyone who's every lived in a bad neighborhood. The one time I *did* call the cops, it was a "shots fired" call, because there was a drive-by outside my house. I told them on the phone how many shots (11, 9mm semi-auto), who they were fired at, and what I saw of the shooter. FOUR AND A HALF HOURS LATER a lone police cruiser actually drove by. Didn't bother to stop, but did slow down a bit.

Wow, did I ever feel safe knowing they were on the case...



Mike




Well, it's not handled so badly everywhere, though. That's it's own kind of problem, but for many people it DOES work. Not as self-defense, per se, though not all cases where police come in handy are pure self-defense. If there are drunk male prostitutes setting fires next to cars outside my apartment building, the police are there in five minutes. If someone attacks me, I have to option of having it investigated without charge and sentences being dole dout on them. If someone steals from me, and I have no idea where they are, police generally have the infrastructure tu track that person down. No, it doesn't deter everyone, but many.

I dd think about this before posting, and weighed how I would handle cases. In many ways it's the people around me and my own choices that protect me, but I STLL count on the current infrastructure of law and law enforcement in many ways, and removing that WOULD mean having to replace their function.



As for the speeding, when I brought that up, I was mainly thinking of the assholes who speed within city limits, in residential areas. People already do that and I can see the numbers going up.

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

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Tue, November 29, 2022 01:07 - 2112 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Tue, November 29, 2022 01:01 - 194 posts
Balenciaga clothes slammed by furious parents over 'disgusting' campaign showing children holding BONDAGE-clad teddy bear handbags
Mon, November 28, 2022 21:00 - 14 posts
Turkey as the new Iran
Mon, November 28, 2022 20:51 - 30 posts
Lying Schiffhead Won't Comply With Congressional Subpeonaes
Mon, November 28, 2022 20:40 - 1 posts
China,
Mon, November 28, 2022 20:32 - 217 posts
Check this out, you dumb Covid mandate supporting F*cks! :smile:
Mon, November 28, 2022 20:28 - 42 posts
Vox: The weird sorrow of losing Twitter
Mon, November 28, 2022 20:21 - 3 posts
Will there be Gary Plauché Level Push back against 'Groomers'?
Mon, November 28, 2022 20:13 - 15 posts
Steve Bannon Believes The Apocalypse Is Coming And War Is Inevitable
Mon, November 28, 2022 13:01 - 59 posts
All things Space
Mon, November 28, 2022 12:06 - 133 posts
Ellen Page is a Dude Now
Mon, November 28, 2022 11:56 - 135 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL