Its disgusting, it really is.
POSTED BY: Smartbutdumbblonde
UPDATED: Friday, August 4, 2006 05:13
VIEWED: 6387
PAGE 4 of 6
Quote:
Except the balance of force there was much more even than the balance of force that would naturally occur within an anarchistic society. Anarchy works directly against the ideal of the strong defending the weak, a government doesn't. Thus you are far more likely to find exploitation of the weak in anarchy than in any other system, anarchy actually promotes it.
Doesn't fly.
Number one - in order to even HAVE a disparity of force, there would have to be organisation.. you're telling me that Anarchists would willingly submit themselves in warlord-flunkie fashion to a strongman ? Anarchists, mind you!
I reject that, categorically, the mere attempt to DO something like that would get you shot so fulla holes they could bury you at sea without a coffin.
Also, defense/exploitation of the weak ? in an armed Anarchist society ?
Not possible.
You see someone roughing up an old man in a wheelchair in our society, step in to defend him, and YOU may face charges or a civil suit.
In the society CTS and I are discussing it would be a toss-up which hit the bastard first, your .45 or the old mans sawed-off 12 Gauge.
Armed people are not victims, you can kill them, but you CANNOT make them victims.
A Government is where these problems come from - case in point, and this is a factual case I am referencing.
(From a 1978 NEA File warning of school violence.)
Bigger kids pick on smaller kid in school, rough him up pretty bad - since smaller kid is NOT allowed to defend SELF *by* Government, in this case, the school admin, he then takes his problem to them - and what happens ? hmmm ?
Summarily dismissed, laughed off, labelled a tattletale and by that now "justifying" the predatory actions of the bigger kids while labelling it as kids being kids.
Smaller kid, now realizing the Government that disarms him, also will not protect him, decides he is going to defy said Government, and the next day, does come armed.
Bigger kids corner and accost smaller kid in the lower hallway, smaller kid draws knife, indicates willingness to defend self - bigger kids retreat, run straight to admin, carrying tales.
Admin accosts, penalizes, and disarms smaller kid.
Later that day, smaller kid is accosted in the downstairs stairwell and kicked to death by bigger kids.
Oh yeah, did him a lot of good, didn't it ?
I submit to you that the "Government" of the school directly aided and abetted his victimizers, just as Governments in general aid and abet social victimizers of all kinds, from sexual predators to economic predation via Usury, arm-in-arm with all the abuses of the populace.
Quote:
In anarchy everyone’s freedoms will be competing with each others, and therefore by necessity the only people who will be free are the strongest who can take the freedom's from others.
As far as this would-be social breakdown, how many times can we repeat it ?
Everyone would be armed.
In due time the folks who would try such things would be quickly (and admittedly, bloodily) weeded out of the populace because we're not talking sheeple, we're talking about Anarchists who know damned well those kind of things lead to Governments, which lead to worse - and would consider it a dire and imminent threat.
Apparently it's never occured to some folk that most Anarchists, peaceable folk that they are, get EXTREMELY violent when someone tries to force them against their will.
If, as with our theoretical, they DID have a homeland, and for once COULD practice what they believe without governmental interferance - you couldn't take over, it's just not possible... oh you could kill them, sure, but all you'd ever get would be the real estate, and a whole damned lot of corpses, surrounded by used brass and empty weapons.
Once an Anarchist gets out of the reach of "The Gov", they'll die before ever submitting to an oppressive authority again, they're NOT the type of people who cow easily, or bow to fear... and lets be completely honest here, a lot of them are quite a bit crackers.
Arguments like the ones
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:I don't think you fully grasp the "everyone else is armed" concept.
in an anarchy whoever gains power has absolute carte blanche.Quote:You're welcome to disagree. That's why I want to start my own country--people who don't like it or believe in it don't have to be there, right?
It's a nice idea that you have, but it's not remotely realistic.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
Regarding the everyone is armed concept-it doesn't matter if you give everyone a battery of ballistic miisiles, some people will be stronger than others, and those people will tend to step on the weaker ones.
There will be a person/group that is stronger than you, and they will bend you to their will or they will kill you. (Unless you're doing the oppressing.) I don't know too much about how different anarchists are to the rest of us, maybe you will all resist the warlord until you're all dead on the floor and there's only the strongest remaining. But the reason modern democratic government developed was because people wanted it, so they didn't have to cower to the warlords. And there have always been warlords. It's just the way people work.
Of course you can make your own country, but I really don't think it would last very long.
not lazy just don't care (about anything but Firefly)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Doesn't fly.
Number one - in order to even HAVE a disparity of force, there would have to be organisation.. you're telling me that Anarchists would willingly submit themselves in warlord-flunkie fashion to a strongman ? Anarchists, mind you!
I reject that, categorically, the mere attempt to DO something like that would get you shot so fulla holes they could bury you at sea without a coffin.
Except Frem what you’re talking about isn't anarchy. You’re talking about some mythical thing where everyone has the same goals. How do you prevent people with disparate goals 'joining' your anarchy? You can't, therefore by assuming that you are only talking about an anarchy populated with people who share your views you are not talking about anarchy at all.
Quote:History is replete with the exploitation of people, even armed people. Besides two people with guns killing a third is still a form of the strong preying on the weak.
Also, defense/exploitation of the weak ? in an armed Anarchist society ?
Not possible.
Quote:Maybe you can explain how the outcome of this would be drastically different if the bigger kids had no brake on their own activities? Would the smaller child become superman without government perhaps? Or would that child still get beaten up but just happen to feel able to defend themselves if they happened to be capable of doing so?
Bigger kids pick on smaller kid in school, rough him up pretty bad - since smaller kid is NOT allowed to defend SELF *by* Government, in this case, the school admin, he then takes his problem to them - and what happens? hmmm?
Quote:It makes no difference. If everyone has guns it's the same as NO ONE having guns. Since when has the strongest necessarily meant a Neanderthal with a club?
As far as this would-be social breakdown, how many times can we repeat it?
Everyone would be armed.
The strongest could just as easily be a bunch of people who all decide they want your strawberries.
Quote:Well firstly this doesn't happen. Those 'undesirable elements' would be the first to attack, they'd be the ones most likely to win/survive UNLESS the 'desirable elements' decided to band together into some king of 'force' to stop them. But again here you’re not talking about true anarchism, which is what I was talking about; you're talking about a gathering of likeminded individuals.
In due time the folks who would try such things would be quickly (and admittedly, bloodily) weeded out of the populace because we're not talking sheeple, we're talking about Anarchists who know damned well those kind of things lead to Governments, which lead to worse - and would consider it a dire and imminent threat.
It sounds very much that you are advocating removing government injustices and immoral acts for GREATER injustices and immoral acts committed by individuals.
Quote:Then you aren't referring to my argument.
Arguments like the ones you are presenting, and belief in them, is WHY we are in the middle of what I consider WWIII right now, sooo, where's the good result of Government?... the only legacy I see is the piled corpses of the innocent dead.
And perhaps we could look at the genocides of Africa, occurring at times when states had reached a point of anarchy, where are the good results of anarchy?
If total government control is Yang, and no Government is Yin then the argument you seem to think I am making is in the Yang portion and the argument you are making is in the Yin portion.
The argument I am actually making is Yin/Yang, balance is required between these two opposing view points. Your predicate would be proved if every area without government control was largely free of violence and oppression and every government was greatly more oppressive and violent than that. This is blatantly not the case.
Your proposed ideal requires the removal of undesirables from the equation. The moment you do that you stop talking about anarchy. In fact it's starting to sound more and more like an armed
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Oh, Ok. I see. Then if I am reading you correctly, you are saying every ship has to have a captain? Someone will inevitably rise and be at the helm? There is no such thing as an anarchistic ship?
Originally posted by citizen:
My point was whether people are free to leave Serenity is a non-issue.
If that is the case, I see the misunderstanding. I am talking about leaving the core planet and Alliance system, and carving out a section of space where everyone owns their own spaceship, and captain their own boats however they see fit--as long as they don't initiate force against other ships. So in my country, we will all own land, and we will all be little dictators on our own land, and we will all leave each other alone unless someone is being hurt.
I don't know how to make it clearer. Hope that helps.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Nope you can have an anarchistic ship, if you are the only one on it.
Originally posted by canttakesky:
Oh, Ok. I see. Then if I am reading you correctly, you are saying every ship has to have a captain? Someone will inevitably rise and be at the helm? There is no such thing as an anarchistic ship?
Which leads neatly to:
Quote:I think I understand more or less where you are coming from, but the problem is we are a social species. We will concentrate toward social groups, alpha males and females will gravitate to leadership of these groups (not necessarily Patriarchal though, many early Human cultures may have been Matriarchal).
If that is the case, I see the misunderstanding. I am talking about leaving the core planet and Alliance system, and carving out a section of space where everyone owns their own spaceship, and captain their own boats however they see fit--as long as they don't initiate force against other ships. So in my country, we will all own land, and we will all be little dictators on our own land, and we will all leave each other alone unless someone is being hurt.
I don't know how to make it clearer. Hope that helps.
It's Human nature, it's how we work.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Or look at it this way. Since we don't have really have a global government, we have global anarchy right now. Every country is armed, some better armed than others. There are bullies who try to invade other countries and exploit them, and there are alliances to dominate the culture and economy of the planet. There are wars as well as goodwill amongst the countries. We are still social and interdependent.
The little countries, despite being bullied, are acknowledged to have the right to be armed, independent, and free to do as it pleases as long as it doesn't invade others. It isn't perfect, but for the most part, national sovereignty is respected.
In my scenario, it would be like a bunch of little countries made up of a population of 1 or more. Everyone who owns land would have his own "country."
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting discussion folks.
One thing I'd like to say here (well a couple, I guess): Firstly, I sure don't consider Serenity a dictatorship, even metaphorically. Was Wash on the Politburo or something when he "forced" Mal to take him on a mission in "War Stories?" Um, ain't you folks ever heard of cooperation? I mean is any agreed upon organization between people a no-no with the anarchist crowd? And do the statists among us truly believe that people only behave because there's gun pointed at 'em? Holy moly, no wonder you're all so trigger happy!
First of all, Mal hires these folks, pays them to run his ship. So they do. Win/win, mutually beneficial arrangement. These folks are doing what they want and getting paid to do it. None of them would work for Mal if they didn't respect his judgement (Jayne is an exception, he lives in a fascist state of one, 24/7).
So, seems to me that your arguments for and against anarchy are totally dependent on your abysmal assessment of human nature. What is it that makes y'all think human beings can't cooperate and get along? And don't tell me it's self-evident, look at history, blah-blah-blah. Is that how it is in your personal lives? Forget the pornography that passes for news coverage these days, are people so vicious and untrustworthy in your actual lives? Y'all look at history your way and I'll look at it mine.
You know what I think? I think the folks that live by force and brutality are fewer and less free of oversight now than at any other point in human history. Is this because of the freakin' governments of the world? Hell no! Governments are always, always some 3 hundred years behind the curve of human developement. More and more people are ready to negotiate with other people, share and prosper, while our governments are still transitioning out of feudalism.
More and more people are getting just a little bit saner (that's part of the reason the force-fetishists have upped the anti so much of late). In this century the human race has begun to notice things--children, for instance! Women! Homosexuals! Slavery! Infectious diseases! Radiation! The Earth itself!
Sharing love and other information is easier now than at any time in our history. Marriage laws are becoming more and more inclusive with every passing year. Yes, the world is still a mess and the governments of the world are just beginning to face the innevitable PR mess of everyone knowing what they're really up to, mostly by trying to remove civil liberties and classify everything (and they're finding that it's kinda like trying to close Pandora's Box--or they would if they ever read a book in their lives).
But the human race, as a whole, will never return to the dark ages, "1984" was and always will be a specifically middle class terror, and Oprah Winfrey is more powerful, gets more of her will carried out than Queen Elizabeth ever did. And does she do it with guns? No, Oprah Winfrey gets her power because millions of people all over the freakin' world, love and respect her.
I'm not expecting anyone to be on the same page with me, but is anybody here even cracking the same books I'm reading? Just currious.
(We return you now to your regularly scheduled blood-bath, already in progress.)
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But we do have a world government, at least ostensibly. Small nations were prayed upon and destroyed on a whim until very recently; it was the creation of the UN and similar organisations that compelled the big boys to leave the little guys alone. Now the UN is starting to lose its power and the little guys are getting more and more endangered.
The little countries, despite being bullied, are acknowledged to have the right to be armed, independent, and free to do as it pleases as long as it doesn't invade others. It isn't perfect, but for the most part, national sovereignty is respected.
There is however a rather disparate problem with the analogy. On a one to one basis if you kill your opponent they probably haven't had a chance to kill you.
In the Nuclear age killing a nation assures that their missiles are on the way to kill you.
If you could wire up some device that would kill anyone who killed you then you'd probably find a similar thing, everyone would have a gun, but no one would dare use it.
But then that's even more oppressive than a government isn't it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Mal has the final say. The analogy at government level is a dictatorship, whether or not its iron fist is irrelevant.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Interesting discussion folks.
One thing I'd like to say here (well a couple, I guess): Firstly, I sure don't consider Serenity a dictatorship, even metaphorically.
Quote:Nothing, save that in large groups a certain amount of artificiality is required to make it happen. You are talking about interpersonal relationships between people who know each other to resolving relationships between people who do not and who are relating on a non-personal level. Communism doesn't work on the nation level because it requires certain qualities of Human interaction that do not exist at the grand nation scale.
So, seems to me that your arguments for and against anarchy are totally dependent on your abysmal assessment of human nature. What is it that makes y'all think human beings can't cooperate and get along?
This is why Communism and possibly Anarchism can work for small groups (less than one hundred) of like minded individuals. But not on the large scale, because for the smooth running of these systems they require interpersonal relationships that don't exist at a higher level.
Quote:Like it or not the Human individual and the Human Group are entirely different animals.
Is that how it is in your personal lives? Forget the pornography that passes for news coverage these days, are people so vicious and untrustworthy in your actual lives?
Quote:But in a democracy is the government not at least partially reflective of the people?
You know what I think? I think the folks that live by force and brutality are fewer and less free of oversight now than at any other point in human history. Is this because of the freakin' governments of the world?
Quote:This statement seems to assume that there has been a stead upward curve from 'darkness' to 'light'.
But the human race, as a whole, will never return to the dark ages
We've slipped back before; it seems naive to assume it can't happen again.
Quote:What bloodbath?
(We return you now to your regularly scheduled blood-bath, already in progress.)
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
it was the creation of the UN and similar organisations that compelled the big boys to leave the little guys alone. Now the UN is starting to lose its power and the little guys are getting more and more endangered.
I would argue that the UN never had power, and the wrong little guy (e.g. Palestine) was never left alone, either before or after the UN was created. No, I don't agree that we ever had or now have a world government. Like in a school playground, some little guys are just picked on more than others.
Quote:Less than a dozen out of 150 countries have nuclear power. How do the other countries survive without such a "device"?
In the Nuclear age killing a nation assures that their missiles are on the way to kill you....If you could wire up some device that would kill anyone who killed you
Look, I know you think it's silly and it's doomed to failure. But I believe most people on earth understand the idea of sovereignty on one's own land, and respect it as long as that sovereignty is reasonably armed.
Most people are not used to the idea of individual sovereignty, simply because individuals have never been able to own land. Even now, most landowners don't really own their land--they are renting it from the govt with property taxes.
If I started a country, that would be the singular difference--true land ownership and its accompanying sovereignty.
Can't Take My Gorram Sky
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME