A story and a question.
POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Sunday, January 13, 2008 16:14
VIEWED: 10475
PAGE 1 of 2
(DISCLAIMER: THIS IS A FICTION-FABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING A POINT)
Once upon a time, somewhere in the United States, there was a colony.
This colony had but one single rule, do no harm to others.
And for a while, this colony prospered.
And then one day, along came a man, let's call him Burt.
Burt decides that these people need his guidance, in spite of the fact that they got on quite well so far without it.
And so Burt goes around trying to convince them that he could do a better job of running their lives than they could... and gets ignored, mocked and laughed at for his troubles.
Undeterred by this, Burt then decides his guidance shouldn't be free, and levies a tax on them - which is almost universally ignored, however, in any collective of people there will be those who act against their own interest, or are fearful even of negligable threats, and so Burt takes these peoples money.
After a while, Burt has taken enough money from these people to hire two strongarm goons.
Now Burt goes around demanding his tax, without directly threatening violence, bending the rule for all it's worth - and many more people pay, unwilling or unable to call him on his threats, and the few that do, he goes away, biding his time.
Two years later, now Burt buys a used light armored vehicle(LAV) from a surplus dealer, and has since hired ten more guys, with the money he has taken from these people, to help him take more.
And now resistance becomes futile, those who paid up first, Burt lets off easy, a little collaboration payback, but those who initially resisted pay more, and those who continued to resist got smashed flat in their houses by Burts APC or gunned down by his men, and the one rule of the colony is thrown out in favor of hundreds of rules, drafted by Burt for his benefit and cheered on by the people who he let off light for their initial cooperation, some of which by this time have even been hired by him to enforce those rules.
And so a despotism forms, at least in the theory of those who don't really understand how social anarchism works.
And while there is an obvious moral to the story there, the question I wanna ask and discuss is actually more specific.
At what point of this, had you been armed, and unafraid - would YOU have shot Burt dead ?
I'll save my answer for after, so as not to influance the other answers.
(And if you have a non-violent solution you prefer, offer that if you wish.)
==================================================
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
According to my conscience, I probably would not 'shoot Burt dead' until he actually started physically harming people.
According to your story, Burt doesn't begin the act of physically harming people until 'resistance becomes futile.'
I note for the record that your story is structured in such a way that if you don't kill Burt BEFORE he starts physical violence, you are committing suicide.
The story is essentially framed to make an argument in favor of pre-emptive warfare (or murder, as the case may be.)
Hence, according to your story, following my conscience gets me killed.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well if this had happened where I came from then at some point prior to the APC -- probably at the "2 goons" stage-- some folks would have taken Burt out and given him a good kicking. In the US preditory tactics by sociopathic nobodies may be ignored, elsewhere they are dealt with.
But I suspect that in this little diatribe "Bert" is an analogue for "Government" and if so then you are being somwhat short sighted. Governments dont suddenly decide to be, elect themselves powers and lean on voters like small scale mafiosi. No opressive organisation -- hell not even the Mafia-- starts life that way, they start out as a group of people attempting to solve a common problem --- in the Mafia's case I think it was to resist the Italian occupation of Sicilly.
Since groups are essential to human survival and as we are a social species, we group easily. At some point group administration, or just the need to co-ordinate a group effectively, results in leaders, rules and other restrictions of personal liberty.
This stuff doesnt happen because one person decides to be an antisocial jerk to his neighbours, in fact most group leaders tend to be the most popular folks in any group, which "Burt" doesnt seem to be. Instead we start to see "mission creep" in which organisations start taking on far more responsability and power than they have any reason to have.
If you want to see an example of low level tyrany don't look to "Burt" and his renta-goons, look to Sandy and her "Homeowners association" you know? The folks that can decide what you do with your own private property on behalf of the "neighbourhood."
True story, a few years ago I was looking at having a house built and I wanted a seperate detached garage at the back of my property, the reasons for this is that my wife and I are both crafters and so having some space out of the way where we could work seemed good. The developer told us that if we wanted the garage it had to be built at the same time as the main house, because while the homeowners association could not over-ride the developer on a vacant plot any changes made after the house was built needed their approval which was unlikely to happen for free standing garages.
Actually that's an interesting question. Do you get long with your homeowners association? Seems they would drive a guy like you nuts.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I, personally, hate Homeowner's Associations. My sister bought in a 'community' and wanted a picket fence laquered to have a natural 'wood' color.
The Association threatened to fine her unless she painted it white.
When the color of your house and fence is forced on you, that's excessive and obtrusive power.
Worse, the Association had no dues cap, so they could vote themselves higher dues every year to eternity. I suppose this ensures that over time, only the 'right' people can afford to live in your community.
Bah. They are paying the price now. HOA 'Communities' are among the hardest hit during this home equity crisis.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Tolkien had it down. As Gandalf said: "Yet the way of the Ring to my heart is by pity, pity for weakness and the desire of strength to do good. Do not tempt me!"
I don't believe the Burts of this world act out of greed. They aren't bullies. They start as something necessary and beneficial, and it's only over time that they forget. They become self-interested and jealous of their position of power. They move past their bounds, and the result is evil to some but not all. I believe that the guilt lies not with them, but with the ones who won't see the evil being done, because it doesn't affect them personally and they've lost their ability to empathize.
By which I mean: your story is too simplistic to apply to the real world.
As for homeowner's crap: I live in VT. I do as I please.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
interesting story and question...well up to the point that he started threatening people, I don't see anything wrong with his behavior, but even then, a threat without following through on it is just words, so I guess I wouldn't say you could take any action against him at that point either, other than to make some threats of your own.
Now when he starts harming people, that's the turning point, I wouldn't kill him, but he would definitely need to be stopped. I'm assuming that this colony of yours has no police force so I suppose at that point a police force would need to be formed and a prison built where burt could be separated from society.
"Haha, mine is an evil laugh."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Two years later, now Burt buys a used light armored vehicle(LAV) from a surplus dealer, and has since hired ten more guys, with the money he has taken from these people, to help him take more.
And now resistance becomes futile...
Nope. And now Geezer trots over to the same surplus dealer, buys a few LAWs & claymores, rounds up a few like-minded neighbors, and waits for Burt & Co. to come by.
BTW, your scenario ignores the option of folks having a heart-to-heart with Burt back around the hiring of goons phase and recommending that he relocate for health reasons.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Exactly the discussion of views, concepts and ideas I had hoped to provoke! 
Imma withhold comment still, but thank you for your input and keep it comin.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, if I were granted infinite knowledge of the future to know what Bert would eventually do, then surely I might be inclined to pop-a-cap in Bert. Of course that’s not a very realistic answer because I don’t have infinite knowledge of the future, so I have to go with others on this: your story is a bit naïve. Although perhaps parables often are, but if anything it speaks to me of the danger of an anarchist society. The problem with anarchy, and the reason why it has never worked, is that they are not stable and will always be subject to either collapsing in to riots or being subjected by a single strong individual leader.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
At what point of this, had you been armed, and unafraid - would YOU have shot Burt dead ?
You should have set your example in FantasyLand...I'd have called the FBI. You did say you were in the United States, which has laws against private folks setting up their own taxes and hiring goons to enforce them.
Fact is the FBI is in the business of shutting down just this sort of "organized" crime.
Should have named your villian RICO.
H
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well not as many responses as I had hoped for, but given their overall quality, better than expected.
It gives me a good deal of comfort that no one bought either of the obvious baited hooks.
I actually put time and effort into making it oversimplistic and something of a Kobayashi Maru type of damned either way situation to see what folks would come up with.
Anthony - kinda let the cat out of the bag early here, but for the record, I agree, pre-emptive warfare is kind of idiotic, but you do have to have SOME response, right ?
Fletch - you make a great point, but didn't it occur to you that from this angle, Burt himself might be the antisocial jerk that sparked such a formation in response to his presence ?
Thus resulting in a group meaning to do something right, unknowingly destroying their own premise ?
As for the homeowners, meh heh, get to that in a second post.
Mal4 - I made it deliberately oversimplistic to get folks to put some thought into "but it's more complicated than that!" as a direct allegory to current and potential future world events - since everyone seems to see things in such black and white terms.
There's a lot of shades of grey in this, cause Burt himself is a side issue, it wouldn't be Burt that slid down the slope but rather the folks who came together to deal with him, and then realized if they could bend Burt to their will as a group, welll...
Evildino, therein lies the double-ended trap of the story, cause those two things are unwelcome and unwanted, leading to the question of how to handle Burt, without becoming LIKE him.
Geezer - Isn't it ironic that us folks more willing to use violence in our defense are also more likely to come up with a solution that doesn't require it ?
The most logical solution given the impossible and oversimplified situation is to somehow convince Burt to leave BEFORE violence ensues, isn't it?
Finn - I do not necessarily believe that is true, while that seems to be the theory that is espoused against it, allow me to point out the historical fact that every such colony has fallen to malicious government action, rather than into collapse or culthood.
I wrote this story primarily to show folks who DO espouse that theory how idiotic it is.
Hero - Again, we're back to the beating Burt by becoming worse than Burt problem, given their nature and pattern of behavior, I couldn't say the US Gov was any better, and your argument falls completely flat - local and city governments DO "set up their own taxes" and "hire goons to enforce them" from my point of view.
The story assumes some sovereignity, by it's nature and intent, and I note for the record you're the only one suggesting running to big daddy gov to solve the problem for you.
Thanks a bunch for your input, everyone, it gives me stuff to think about, and I hope you recieved in kind.
-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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
As for the Homeowners ?
You know, I don't know if we have one, I think we might, but for mine own, I've never heard one peep out of them and highly doubt I ever will.
Whatever they might want of me, it sure isn't worth it to them to cross up with someone both willing and capable of making mincemeat out of em, and given the actions taken in preventing those yucks down at city council from jacking our property taxes, which everyone here hates, and sending Walter and his secretary outta town on a rail, I doubt they'll ever pester me for money neither, given how much less graft they'll be shelling out cause of that.
I'd like to talk to some of the folk trying to elect me to the city council tho, I don't have the time OR the interest, and I sure hell do NOT wanna do it - and some folk seem to be putting my name forward anyway as a replacement to Walter, but I am not qualifed to do the freakin job if they gave it to me, I don't have the education or the political bent to make it work, and as I said, neither the interest or desire.. sounds good on paper, but ludicrous in fact.
Who in their right *mind* elects an Anarchist to city council, I ask you ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, I'm still thinking about this.
Generally, people are able to respond individually to about 100 individuals. So the largest social grouping in which one may expect a direct face-to-face response is about 100 people. In today's world we're screwed by people we never see in ways we don't even notice. Heck, each time I buy sugar for my coffee I've just been extorted a little bit by the sugar lobby. I'd like to pop a select 500 or so in the nose for robbing me blind but it's all legal. So your example is a simplistic situation.
Still, it can apply to small towns, gangs, and classroom bullies. But let's take the case of the classroom bully... everyone knows who he and his hangers-on are (and they are a SMALL minority), face-to-face response IS possible, and yet nothing happens? Why?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because in my experience, personally, Siggy...
The school almost without fail comes down on THEIR side, and everybloodybody knows it, thus resulting to the eventual escalation by their victims to violence.
Birds of a feather, and all that, very FEW school bullies are ever upbraided for their actions.
And ponder this scenario.
Kid gets roughed up by Bullies.
Kid goes to Admin, laughed off, and punished for being a tattletale.
Admin gives Bullies a verbal rebuke that only serves to identify the Kid as a "rat".
Kid loses sympathy of community.
Kid gets roughed up by Bullies even worse.
Kid brings a weapon.
Kid stands off Bullies, goes on about his business.
Bullies go to Admin, complaining of weapon.
Admin confronts Kid, confiscates weapon, punishes Kid.
Bullies corner Kid in stairwell and kick him to death.
That happened, in 1978, one of the cases collected by the NIE report on the causes of school violence - and their conclusion was that eventually we would see shootings if the current practices were continued, a couple years later an independant FBI study come to the same conclusion and so informed them, and eventually the shootings came since policy did not change, has NOT changed.
Zero-Tolerance doesn't stop it, addressing the fact that such folks require the collusion of the school to operate does.
Beyond that, IF the Kid does not die, as actual fatalities are rare - what message does it send to them ?
You wonder why kids grow up despising us, our society and our authority structures, when we fail to protect them, strip them of any right or ability to solve problems, punish them for trying, and then turn around and pat the problem on the back ?
Morality aside, the school is negligent - by requiring a student to be at a certain place, at a certain time, and unarmed*, they MUST assume some of the blame when those facts send a child unarmed into a pre-meditated ambush, usually at the edge of school property at 3:15pm or a bus stop.
Go on, search violent crime statistics among persons under 18 cross-referenced by time of day.
But the schools response is that it's not their responsibility.
*-By armed I mean something non-lethal like capsicum spray, but remember some kids go to school in the inner city, and you got gang issues there.
They should not NEED to self-defend, WE are responsible for making them safe, and we FAIL, by instead making them defenseless.
I don't have an easy answer to that, Siggy, since my own response to such folk, once I realized the school admin was more or less their ally and protector, was to counterattack immediately with such apalling force as to be without a doubt intended to be lethal, and not stop till unconscious or physically restrained.
By early high school, no one would come near me, NO ONE, friend or foe, it wasn't till the final year that other folks would even speak to me, and I left soon after that.
No, I wouldn't reccommend my response - but it's a cursed ugly world we have created for them when a Middle School kid feels he *HAS* to beat someone into the trauma ward with a chair just to be left ALONE, isn't it ?
So yeah, I have a very biased opinion on it - show me ONE school admin in any of these violence cases who did not go out of their way to protect the bullies and/or help them harrass their victims, and I might change that viewpoint.
I also, fyi - once took a pounding, an unprovoked attack (over a girl *eyeroll*) standing there with my hands in my pockets as another student beat on me right in front of the Teacher and Assistant Principal...
And they STILL suspended me under their idiotic policy of suspending all parties in a fight.
So I broke his arm in two places a week later.
If yer gonna hang, might as well do something to deserve 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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well not as many responses as I had hoped for, but given their overall quality, better than expected.
By the time I got to this thread everything I'd have said has been said.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And they STILL suspended me under their idiotic policy of suspending all parties in a fight.
Been there done that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Most humans are born to cooperate and live in groups. Therefore an anarchist society of independent individuals is unlikely.
So starting with a slightly different scenario - you have a small group of interdependent individuals. Virtually everyone is happy to get along and cooperate on some level with some people. But there's this guy (I hesitate to call him Burt as I like the character Burt Gummer from Tremors, so I'll call him -) Brut. Now Brut was born without that happy-to-get-along quality, let's call it prolactin; and had no hesitation in thinking of people as a means to his own kind of happiness, let's call it dopamine. As a result he made life uncomfortable enough for most people that one-by-one they were only too happy to give him a little something to satisfy his dopamine urge and get him to go away.
Now, everyone else is working off the same playbook. They're not interested in power, control and excess - they just want to be secure and enjoy life. But Brut has no interest in that and over time, he accumulates enough stuff that it gives him power. He has more to trade with, more to buy with, and an interest in manipulating people to his own ends.
The happy people don't see it coming. They have no sense of urgency about 'taking control back from Brut', or confronting him, or 'taking back his power'. THEY certainly don't want it. And so Brut meets another Brut from a different group. It's to their mutual advantage to pool resources and fleece the sheeple.
And over time you get - corporations. Economic systems that treat the vast majority of people as food for the maw. Conditioning by people like Brut that individuals can't cooperate to rein in people like him. That's it's a natural order of things and beyond the peoples' abilities to change.
Killing Brut wouldn't help, b/c there will always be another Brut born in the future. Development of common wisdom would be better. That people can and need to cooperate with each other to deal with people like Brut. Even if it's only having him go on his way.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bwhahahahaha...
Good food for thought, Rue... but what has me laughing is you dead-bang-nailed my inspiration for calling our fictional protagonist Burt.
I went through several variations of the story over time, one of which was "what to do about the crazy guy" and if there was ever a guy who'd give the neighborhood he lived in fits, it'd be ole mister Gummer, wouldn't it ?
"I am completely OUT... of ammunition..... that's never happened before..."
-Burt Gummer.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Another way to look at things is to view the historic record. History and anthropology tells us that modern humans started out in small, highly mobile hunter-gatherer groups. In more northern latitudes where resources were limited these tribes rarely grew beyond an extended family group, lets say less than 30 people total. They had few material possessions because they needed to be able to carry all they had in order to move with the game and with the seasons. As recently as 1000 years ago most people on earth probably still lived that way, there are a few holdouts to this day.
Now when agriculture comes along a number of things happen.
1) There is a reliable source of food so groups grow larger. This is good because
2) Primitive agriculture is labour intensive needing a lot of men and for the first time organisation of groups bigger than a dozen.
3) Excess production finally produces surplus, this does two things, first it means that as a group these folks have more goods to trade with others. Second a surplus means that as a society you can afford to have people who specialise in things that are not immediately involved in securing food resources. If Umi makes better pots than you do or works faster it might be worth your while to give her some of your excess food in exchange for her making you better pots -- comparative advantage at a tiny scale.
4) Land becomes valuable in a way that it wasn't before. Yes in hunter-gathering times some places had richer resources than others and no doubt if two wandering tribes entered the same area at the same time there may be conflict. But Agriculture changes things, you have an investment in land you have cleared, tilled and sown, you have an investment in planted crops, grain stores and permanent buildings. The tribe now has fixed assets and territory it has an interest in defending rather than just a range in which it wanders.
Now here's the thing. At this point in human history the fundamental building blocks for the anarchist lifestyle are in place, you have small groups, self governed, materially independent and made up of independent individuals that probably owned some part of the land they where working.
The interesting thing is that none of these people anywhere ever managed to maintain that system. If you look at what happens next world wide, in Europe, through China to Japan and India, basic Feudal systems emerge where a defacto leader rules via an elevated class the leaders and this aristocracy effectively "owning" all the land.
That didn't happen because someone decided to but the squeeze on, it happened because at various points power naturally concentrated either because it as given to someone, they took it or there was mission creep in response to some crisis. Feudalism was very successful for a long time, in fact humans have probably spent more of their history in feudal societies than in democratic ones, it seem to prove that once a stable form of government is found no matter how distasteful it takes a lot to displace it (a similar point was made in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence.)
So history seems to show that you are screwed that the kinds of systems you are interested in creating simply dont remain stable over time.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I believe that the guilt lies not with them, but with the ones who won't see the evil being done, because it doesn't affect them personally and they've lost their ability to empathize.
Woe onto you non-smokers, for it was you who turned a blind eye when they taxed me to death and cast me out into the bitter cold for my own benefit.
You're next fatty. Eat those twinkies while you still can afford them.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Are you talking to moi? Resorting to name calling, Jack?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:Woe onto you non-smokers, for it was you who turned a blind eye when they taxed me to death and cast me out into the bitter cold for my own benefit.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I believe that the guilt lies not with them, but with the ones who won't see the evil being done, because it doesn't affect them personally and they've lost their ability to empathize.
You're next fatty. Eat those twinkies while you still can afford them.
Or is this a display of your powers of empathy, that you feel for twinkie lovers as you feel for yourself? And my lord - if you didn't post about your victimized status as a smoker, what would you post about? Oh - your victimized status as a manly man living in a world with gay people. Man... you sure do have it rough! I sooo feel your pain.
Seriously though, I'm confused as to your point. Are you maybe saying that the victimization done to you as a smoker is the same as Fred's bully beating people up for money?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"somewhere in the United States " .....
Were I in that colony, and saw this going on as blatently as described, I'd have called the local law. If this colony had none, I'd call the county sheriff. All the while, I'd make sure my weapon(s) were clean, well oiled and loaded. Anytime Burt or his goons approached me or my family, either on / off my property, they'd likely have gotten shot then.
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It was a nice story, though
Around here, someone would have taken a 2x4 to ole burt as soon as he demanded money. Up until that point, we'd like as not just laughed at him.
As far as threats being just words, that ain't always the case. When it comes to my family, I assume that someone stupid enough to put into words what they intend to do, is stupid enough to attempt doing it.
At that point, they beome a 'threat' to my family, and as a direct result, end up on the endangered species list.
I will not sit idly by and see any threat to my family go unchecked. Anyone who does that, in my opinion, lacks true understanding of the concept of family.
Frem, I find myself oddly agreeing with you here. Should we both be afraid of that?
I mean you're the anarchist, and I'm the republican.
Of course if the two of us can agree on something, that means there's hope for America, right? This was a good thread, by the way!
Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Nope. And now Geezer trots over to the same surplus dealer, buys a few LAWs & claymores, rounds up a few like-minded neighbors, and waits for Burt & Co. to come by.
Yeah; I'll bring my toys to the party. Screw Burt.
________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police
- Vote JonnyQuest/Causal, for Benevolent Co-Dictator of Earth; together, toward a brighter tomorrow!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
'I am completely OUT... of ammunition..... that's never happened before...'
My favorite line- 'Broke into the wrong goddamn rec room, didn't ya?'
Yeah, IMHO I think Rue has encapsulated the situation quite nicely. Since people will ALWAYS be born on a bell curve, there will be those people- ranging from assholes to outright sociopaths- to deal with.
But killing off the aggressive ones can help. There WAS that chimp tribe that learned to live peaceably after it's most aggressive members were killed off because those members fought for, and "won", tuberculosis-tainted meat from a restaurant garbage bin. And the tribe sustained that peaceability through several generations and many immigrants. So killing some off would be a good start, but as Rue said, there has to be some common wisdom to sustain the flow.
It might start with school. I heard of a wildly successful elementary-school anti-bullying campaign where the teachers told the children: Look, we know there are bullies in the school. And we know that you know who they are, and that you probably won't tell us. And they make you feel afraid; even if you're not being bullied you see other kids who are. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is not talk to the bullies. Don't eat lunch with them, don't play with them, don't loan them stuff, avoid them whenever you can. The bully problem was solved, and the kids learned a valuable lesson.
But there has to be some mechanism beyond school too, because in THIS society, we revere the bully, we just call them CEOs. And the Legislators are their hangers-on and enablers. Do we just give up on this generation of people who've already formed their pro-bully viewpoint (even if they call it being "righteous" and "heroic"?) Or do we aim for some paradigm shift?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That's not entirely true. There were several large societies.... the five cities including Mohenjo-Daro comes to mind first... without apparent religion or military force. Their ruins didn't have temples, ramparts, armories, weapons, statues, slums, or- curiously- cemeteries. They had a complex irrigation system and covered sewage system. Best as anyone can tell they were thriving agricultural, trading, and artisan cities that lasted 500 years (longer than the USA). The one thing they can tell that did NOT happen to these cities was invasion... none of the cities show evidence of fire or massive death. The culture of Crete is similar for its absence of mechanisms of oppression, or even of self-defense. they were destroyed by a volcano.
The interesting thing is that none of these people anywhere ever managed to maintain that system. If you look at what happens next world wide, in Europe, through China to Japan and India, basic Feudal systems emerge where a defacto leader rules via an elevated class the leaders and this aristocracy effectively "owning" all the land.
BTW- In most areas- even temperate ones- tribes really DO occupy certain portions of land, and warfare to maintain those boundaries is common. It doesn't actually require agriculture to set the stage for warfare. The only areas that I know of where struggle over land doesn't occur are in the Kalahari and the Arctic.
I guess my point is that conflict and oppression is not inherent to developmental stages. Conflict can occur at very primitive levels and cooperation in advanced societies. There's hope for us yet!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
That's not entirely true. There were several large societies.... the five cities including Mohenjo-Daro comes to mind first... without apparent religion or military force. Their ruins didn't have temples, ramparts, armories, weapons, statues, slums, or- curiously- cemeteries.
"Defensively Mohenjo-daro was a well fortified city. Though it did not have city walls it did have towers to the west of the main settlement, and defensive fortifications to the south. These fortifications taken into consideration, as well as a comparison to the Harappa ruins to the northeast, lead to the question of whether Mohenjo-daro was an administrative center."
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology/sites/middle_east/mohenjo_daro
.html
Besides, Mohenjo-daro didn't make it past the 17th century, B.C. Got anything more recent? Maybe in the last 2000 years?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:What difference does that make?
Originally posted by Geezer:
Besides, Mohenjo-daro didn't make it past the 17th century, B.C. Got anything more recent? Maybe in the last 2000 years?
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 SignyM:Quote:That's not entirely true. There were several large societies.... the five cities including Mohenjo-Daro comes to mind first... without apparent religion or military force.
The interesting thing is that none of these people anywhere ever managed to maintain that system. If you look at what happens next world wide, in Europe, through China to Japan and India, basic Feudal systems emerge where a defacto leader rules via an elevated class the leaders and this aristocracy effectively "owning" all the land.
I don't know that that tells us that much about their economic system or system of government though?
Feudalism does not have to be militaristic, in fact the maintenance of defenses is an economic drain on the society. The point I was trying to make was that at a specific developmental point most societies slip easily into a landed aristocracy not necessarily because it's the best system but because it is stable. All that is necessary for a system to continue is that it doesn't fail -- yes I realize that sounds stupid but just as animal evolution doesn't select the best solution, just the best solution that works in that environment so cultures seem to evolve along similar patterns.
Quote:
BTW- In most areas- even temperate ones- tribes really DO occupy certain portions of land, and warfare to maintain those boundaries is common. It doesn't actually require agriculture to set the stage for warfare. The only areas that I know of where struggle over land doesn't occur are in the Kalahari and the Arctic.
I was thinking mainly about purely nomadic peoples like plains indians and ice age era northern Europeans. Their system of hunting and gathering is the most extreme example because it was so dependent on the following of migratory prey. If you lived in an environment that allowed you to hunt/gather in a contained area then yes you would probably hold and defend that territory. However, the base premise I think remains valid. While groups are limited to small numbers, many of whom are blood relations systems such as the one Frem advocates do work. However once an agricultural economy allows the population to rise, resulting in none family groupings, specialisation of jobs and the need to hold larger expanses of prepared terrain, we see a slip towards a less equitable society.
Quote:
I guess my point is that conflict and oppression is not inherent to developmental stages. Conflict can occur at very primitive levels and cooperation in advanced societies. There's hope for us yet!
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Since that was not the point I was making I don't know why you feel the need to refute it? In most of the world and completely independently the coming of agriculture results in social separations within societies. You may build a barrow or a pyramid to bury a dead high king but what made him a king? Why could he command even in death the resources necessary for such an elaborate burial? Was he king because he knew something that others didn't --- I once read a theory that Pharaohs came about because they possessed skills in purifying metals--- was he king because his god said so? Did he win the job through combat? Did he take the job though force?
In Frem's world there would be no kings or emperors but in reality almost everywhere had them and they came about quite independently. So something happens at some point that results in some men being more equal than others. My theory is that it's aggregation, that once you have some power it becomes easier to get more --- kind of a more primative version of it being easier to make money from money. So perhaps back way back the ancestors of Egypt's Pharaohs really did develop the methods needed to purify ore and in so doing they gave themselves a power in a stone aged society that compounded up through the generations until thousands would spend years building their tombs.
Perhaps Conan stye the kings of bronze
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Seriously though, I'm confused as to your point. Are you maybe saying that the victimization done to you as a smoker is the same as Fred's bully beating people up for money?"
Yep, that's about it - cigarette taxes have gotten to the point of ludicrousness, a mistake that, thanks to the lessons of prohibition, they did not make with alcohol, you see.
AND those tax bumps were supposed to go into healthcare, but they didn't - since so many folk turned a blind eye to smokers they just shovelled it into their own pensions, pork or pet projects and the end result was no healthcare benefits AND more taxes, then they whined for more, and more...
And since that worked SO well since so few people stood up to it, now onto the next category, simple divide and conquer.
And nobody outside of jerks like me and Jack seem to care unless it's them being targeted, which means it works just fine.
And so, when those ON the next target list start whining about it, folks like me and Jack get a little snarky about it.
Do you have any IDEA how much benefit to smugglers and organized crime syndicates those manic tax increases have BEEN ?
It's the temperance movement and the idea of prohibition via taxation all over again, the same complete stupidity of the war on (some) drugs and prohibition itself.
I felt the need to make it clear why Jack's so snarky about this issue, and why I agree he's got every right to be.
And yes, when the government steps into a business-customer relationship and forcefully takes a cut LARGER than the ENTIRE COST OF THE FUCKING PRODUCT, yeah, it's EXACTLY like a Bully strongarming a kid for his lunch money.
Strong words, sure, but when that milkshake at Mickey D's costs you $8.95 then perhaps you'll understand the ire.
-F
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Frem, I find myself oddly agreeing with you here. Should we both be afraid of that?
I mean you're the anarchist, and I'm the republican."
Not really, theoretically, although it's since been perverted into something altogether different, state and individual, rather than collectivist, rights were initially part of the platform promised by the Republican party - although I will note that the historical record shows that once IN office, they have never once really held to their word on that, but then what politician ever really does ?
That's where divide and conquer, politically, tends to fall apart - on the question of individual rights.
As an Anarchist, I don't believe in forcible revokation of my individual rights for the good of the whole, because I really don't care about em, don't care much FOR them, and have no intention or desire to stomp on their rights for MY benefit - and utterly RESENT any attempt to do so to me for theirs.
You will find, on that key point, Libertarians, Republicans, Anarchists, and even some of the more minimalist Democrats will agree.
And if you strip party from it and address that key point to someone whom you've backed into a corner with it, they'll usually agree too.
At least when it comes to THEM - point in fact, most anti-gun legislators do, or have, own and carry, in fact the prime mover of the female side of such in michigan was arrested and charged with carrying a throwdown piece with the serial numbers filed off.
Generally, EVERYONE wants *their* rights respected, but as an Anarchist, I want YOURS respected too.
We're not the bomb throwing maniacs the status quo has depicted us as since 1905, we're the allies of unions, gun owners, smokers, pagans and anyone else who believes they have the right to do as they please as long as they're not harming anyone else.
But unlike new-ager fluffy bunnies, for the most part, although we DO have some of those - we're also willing to play pretty damn rough to secure those rights, only an IDIOT stands down when the Gov outlaws resistance to it's usurpations.
You might look into some research there BK, on Anarchism - cause if you want your rights protected, they make damn good allies, as do the IWW, the "iron-fist" of Union Labor, those are the guys they call when they get sick of the fact that their entire union structure is built, managed and run by the very company screwing them - small wonder why it sells em out at every turn and corner, right ?
And that was intially Andrew Carnegies idea, built and run their support org and use it to ruin them, which became the AFL-CIO, and historically, the AFL used to BREAK IWW strikes for the Gov.
Anyhow, the history is rather fascinating if you dig into it, not to mention informative of how things got to be the way they are.
Case in point, find out WHO was the primary resistance to Franco and Musollini while the US was still pro-fascism and supporting those dicks.
-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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I have often shrugged at the 'whining' of smokers over their excessive taxes. Because I think of smoking as a bad habit, I have often neglected to consider the broader implications.
So I tried to imagine something I care about.
Like ammunition.
If the government slapped the same kinds of taxes on ammunition that they put on cigarettes, I'd have a shit-fit.
So I think I understand, Frem.
--Anthony
P.S. Thank Goodness for Indian Reservations.
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"It might start with school. I heard of a wildly successful elementary-school anti-bullying campaign where the teachers told the children: Look, we know there are bullies in the school. And we know that you know who they are, and that you probably won't tell us. And they make you feel afraid; even if you're not being bullied you see other kids who are. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO is not talk to the bullies. Don't eat lunch with them, don't play with them, don't loan them stuff, avoid them whenever you can. The bully problem was solved, and the kids learned a valuable lesson."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHaaaa
Color me dubious...
So, how did the school handle it when the bullies started cracking heads over it, eh ?
Not saying it didn't work, although I am suspicious as hell without any direct evidence - cause for a FACT, they would simply start roughing folks up while the school turns it's usual blind eye and there goes your program.
I do NOT have an answer, damn sure I would like to - and the only sure answer to them in my experience is to either remove them from the school, which is rarely done, statistically they'll just expel the victims for self defense or retaliation....
Or ambush them with superior numbers and/or weaponry off school property and do ENOUGH damage and injury that it's no longer worth it to them to continue, and I mean ENOUGH, as in tramua ward visit.
I've been expelled from more than one school for naught more than refusing to knuckle under, admins prefer this, keeps the status quo, doesn't cause problems, and everything goes smooth, and who gives a crap about YOU, nonhuman less than person!
(which is how society views and treats kids)
Look, I wasn't handing over my stuff, IF they were gonna take it from me, damn straight I better be unconscious when they do - and who got expelled ?
Answer THAT, and you answer the problem.
"But there has to be some mechanism beyond school too, because in THIS society, we revere the bully, we just call them CEOs. And the Legislators are their hangers-on and enablers. Do we just give up on this generation of people who've already formed their pro-bully viewpoint (even if they call it being "righteous" and "heroic"?) Or do we aim for some paradigm shift?"
Bingo - which is, at the root of it, my "Agenda"... to bend our sick societys branches to grow in a new, less inhumane fashion, cause at this point the whole damn thing is inimical to our humanity as a whole, from cradle to grave.
Alice Miller says it better and more gently than I do - but we need folks like me too, I think.
The irony is that I lack a lot of that humanity - whatever it is that drives folk to like other people, need other people, to want to be with them, to want their approval....
I was either born without it, or it was burned out by this screwed up society and its nonstop anti-human conditioning.
So you'll forgive that I have trouble understanding some of the discussion here, cause I cannot wrap my mind around a compulsion to gather, ok ?
-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 | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I agree that the taxes are rather steep. And I do think that there should be a special license for bars to allow smoking inside - a *small* fraction of places. People should be able to sit inside and have a beer and smoke. But more people should be allowed to breathe clean air. I used to smoke, I had no problem going out in the middle of winter for it. I value clean air more than anyone's right to be warm while they poison themselves and those around them. Cause those bars in Boston had NO ventilation.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"Seriously though, I'm confused as to your point. Are you maybe saying that the victimization done to you as a smoker is the same as Fred's bully beating people up for money?"
Yep, that's about it - cigarette taxes have gotten to the point of ludicrousness, a mistake that, thanks to the lessons of prohibition, they did not make with alcohol, you see.
But, you see, I just can't grieve for you and Jack. I can't. It's your choice to smoke. You bring this evil onto yourself, and claiming you deserve some special pity because it's **hard** is ridiculous.
My sister's like you guys. She believes in her god-given right to smoke, and her house is packed with overflowing ashtrays and smells disgusting. I've gotten sick just from visiting. Seriously! My nephew grew up going to the emergency room in the middle of the night with asthma attacks. That's the tragedy. That's what I feel for.
So don't even compare yourself to an innocent victim who has no choice. My nephew is an innocent victim. My sister is not. You, my friend, are not. Human beings are not born with a god-given right to cheap cigarettes. You really want them cheap? Plant tobacco and make your own.
Quote:And the rest of us... well, maybe no one but me... get sick of Jack playing his I'm a poor little abused smoker violin. Good lord. Get over it already! Be a man and accept the consequences of your addiction! Arguing against a stupid policy is fine, (yes, I agree it's stupid) but constantly whinging about it does you no good. I swear, every thread Jack finds a way to play this card. I felt for him the first few times, but not anymore!
And so, when those ON the next target list start whining about it, folks like me and Jack get a little snarky about it.
Quote:Except that not eating makes you starve. Not smoking makes you... ?
And yes, when the government steps into a business-customer relationship and forcefully takes a cut LARGER than the ENTIRE COST OF THE FUCKING PRODUCT, yeah, it's EXACTLY like a Bully strongarming a kid for his lunch money.
Quote:I don't eat Mickey D's. When someone starts charging $10 for a glass of tap water and I have no other options for a thing to drink, I'll be up with the ire. The ire over water. Not the ire over cigarettes.
Strong words, sure, but when that milkshake at Mickey D's costs you $8.95 then perhaps you'll understand the ire.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello Mal,
What if the government levied heavy taxes against (insert your recreation of choice here)?
Or maybe against (insert your favorite food here)?
Would you then find some objection to the practice? Would you feel targeted?
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ok, yeah, now we're gonna talk.
"I had no problem going out in the middle of winter for it."
That's YOU, fine.
Just cause you don't, don't mean no one does.
"Cause those bars in Boston had NO ventilation."
That's a problem ain't got shit to do with smoking, and it's something that oughta be fixed with more than the bandaid of pitching smokers out the door.
"It's your choice to smoke. You bring this evil onto yourself, and claiming you deserve some special pity because it's **hard** is ridiculous."
Ain't lookin for pity, don't give a damn, but when the Gov singles OUR habit out for special extortion and stomping, with selfish little prigg hypocrites cheering it on without a thought that some day THEIR bad habits might come under fire - yeah, I got a problem.
You wanna be so self-righteous as to tell me YOU ain't got no habits others might not care for ?
You wanna try and sell me that one, hmm ?
As for your sister, it's her life, and her house, and her kid - if you think kids maybe deserve rights and treatment like human beings instead of property, then get on the ball and go do something about it, like I do.
And don't go painting neither me, nor Jack as a "victim" - EVER, it's fucking insulting.
We both KNEW damn well what the results and risks were when we put the first one in our mouth and lit it, and frankly, we LIKE our addiction, it gives us pleasure, and speaking for myself, I do NOT inflict it on others, so just shut your little self-righteous trap about it when yer addressing me - what I do with my own life is my own damn business.
But no, that's not good enough, YOU sit there and preach at me while your fucking Government uses YOUR dislike of MY life choices to shovel a damned extortionate tax burden on a product I want.. for my own good, right ?
Hey fuck you too. 
Jack has every RIGHT to mock you, although I doubt he was mocking anyone specifically, just pointing out that those folks like you, who either turn a blind eye or ignorantly cheerlead when the Gov stomped on us - earn NO sympathy from us when they're next up on the chopping block and unhappy about it.
Frankly, I find your self-righteousness and hypocrisy here apalling, and downright ignorant - I have a damned hard time you have no bad habits yourself that could be tax-targeted.
So I guess you never eat anything but the bare minimum for survival, eh ?
Don't drink soda, or coffee, or hell, even bottled water ?
Don't use cosmestics, chew gum, own more than one car, anything at all that some do-gooder neighbor like yourself wouldn't care for ?
Please, by your own attitude here, you've more than shown yourself to be utterly deserving of such mockery, cause folks like you are the exact reason the problem exists, and will continue to exist.
I like you Mal4, so imma cut this bit of scorching short here and sum it up for you real clear and blunt like.
YOU, ain't got no right whatever to make MY life decisions FOR me.
And yer damn government doesn't either - and if you even think for one whit of an instant that maybe you should, or it should....
Then you deserve no rights at all.
Doesn't taste so good when someone else is inflicting that upon YOU, does it ?
-Frem
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I wouldn't feel personally targeted, but I would damn inconvenienced and I'd do what I could to change things. But I wouldn't whinging about it endlessly, and bringing it into every single discussion no matter how tangential.
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What if the government levied heavy taxes against (insert your recreation of choice here)?
Or maybe against (insert your favorite food here)?
Would you then find some objection to the practice? Would you feel targeted?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's see. How to wade through the hostility to what actually can be replied to...
So Fred, this is your version of *talk*ing? Yeeee. I'd hate to be your friend. I know - no danger of that happening anytime soon, now is there?
Quote:Put down the angry a second and read. I said that I thought folks should have a place to smoke inside. But I thought that, in my post, I had a right to tell you my own background with the subject and the place I'm coming from. Clearly, anything about me is of no interest to you, other than to use as a weapon. My mistake.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"I had no problem going out in the middle of winter for it."
That's YOU, fine.
Just cause you don't, don't mean no one does.
Quote:It's a stupid tax, no doubt about it. Did I not say that? More than once?
Ain't lookin for pity, don't give a damn, but when the Gov singles OUR habit out for special extortion and stomping, with selfish little prigg hypocrites cheering it on without a thought that some day THEIR bad habits might come under fire - yeah, I got a problem.
And it's not about pity? Wasn't Jack's post all about empathy? Wasn't that the whole point? Did I not ask if that was his point and you said yes?
Quote:Of course I do. Am I posting every detail of my habits here? Expecting people to get up in arms about the trouble I go through in maintaining my bad habits? Turning the focus of EVERY damned debate on myself? You wanna try to tell me I am?
You wanna be so self-righteous as to tell me YOU ain't got no habits others might not care for ?
As for victim deal - you're the one who said it, Fred. I was responding to you. Recall: it's EXACTLY like a Bully strongarming a kid for his lunch money That's not painting yourself as a victim?
Quote:I did my best. And truly, the frustration in my post that you so obviously picked up on and responded to is what I feel toward her. Which is why I put the story there. I had hoped that by telling about her you'd understand my motivations. Guess I should have spelled it out better.
As for your sister, it's her life, and her house, and her kid - if you think kids maybe deserve rights and treatment like human beings instead of property, then get on the ball and go do something about it, like I do.
Don't worry, I won't again make the mistake of assuming you're interested in hearing about anyone's life details but your own.
Quote:I didn't accuse you of inflicting it on others. I gave my own background, as you have given yours in other threads. Nor did I tell you to stop smoking. I said it's your choice.
We both KNEW damn well what the results and risks were when we put the first one in our mouth and lit it, and frankly, we LIKE our addiction, it gives us pleasure, and speaking for myself, I do NOT inflict it on others,
God, could you just let your emotional reaction pass and READ my post before you reply with all these insults? Because no, it doesn't feel good. And no, my post did not deserve it.
Quote:*sigh* Exactly. I really deserve that. Thanks. /sarcasm
Hey fuck you too.
Quote:I won't be answering these questions. Clearly, you're not interested in anything but your own rage.
So I guess you never eat anything but the bare minimum for survival, eh ?
Don't drink soda, or coffee, or hell, even bottled water ?
Don't use cosmestics, chew gum, own more than one car, anything at all that some do-gooder neighbor like yourself wouldn't care for ?
Quote:And I'm telling you, it shows!
I like you Mal4,
Quote:And as insulting and personal as you've gotten, I still think you deserve rights. I said as much.
Then you deserve no rights at all.
That's the sad thing. You really did have a supporter in me. I said that I don't like the tax, that I think folks should be able to smoke indoors. I just wanted you and Jack to stop shoving this on me constantly, and I disagreed with the comparison you were making to the bullying thing.
And you attack me persona
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:Quote:Are you talking to moi? Resorting to name calling, Jack?
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:Quote:Woe onto you non-smokers, for it was you who turned a blind eye when they taxed me to death and cast me out into the bitter cold for my own benefit.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I believe that the guilt lies not with them, but with the ones who won't see the evil being done, because it doesn't affect them personally and they've lost their ability to empathize.
You're next fatty. Eat those twinkies while you still can afford them.
Or is this a display of your powers of empathy, that you feel for twinkie lovers as you feel for yourself? And my lord - if you didn't post about your victimized status as a smoker, what would you post about? Oh - your victimized status as a manly man living in a world with gay people. Man... you sure do have it rough! I sooo feel your pain.
Seriously though, I'm confused as to your point. Are you maybe saying that the victimization done to you as a smoker is the same as Fred's bully beating people up for money?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
I wasn't calling you fatty. I was agreeing with your post. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Sarcasm doesn't translate well.
As for empathy, I feel sorry for us all. Those who sit back and do nothing while smokers are victimized are going to be themselves victimized. You can't squeeze the blood and money out of smokers forever.... those who don't just give up will eventually resort to making their own or going to the black market. This will leave a VERY LARGE tax void that will need to be filled.
Smoking is pretty much the easiest vice to target. I'm not so old that I don't remember how I didn't like cigarette smoke when I was a kid. (How much of that distain for smoking was due to indoctrination at school and on TV is up for grabs). If you watch the news, you might believe that everyone who doesn't smoke wants to ban smoking, but in reality, people just don't want to have to breath it in. The overwhelming majority of support I've gotten for building an outdoor smoking shelter at work were suprisingly non-smokers and ex-smokers. It's just the whiners and anti-tobacco groups who seem to have the loudest voice, and Big Brother wouldn't ever pass up an oppurtunity to tax the hell out of smokes (in the name of health), when a majority of the people would rather see smokers carry their burden rather than see their own property tax go up.
The whole fatty thing is because whether people want to admit it or not, nobody really cares to look at fat people. When Big Gov moves on and needs to fill the tax void, sweets and potato chips are going to start getting taxed bigtime. They'll say it's for the good of everybody because people will be healthier and skinny people won't be paying so much for insurance for fat people's heart surgerys. The truth though will still be that healthcare will get more and more expensive regardless and this is only another example of how the Government wants complete control and the ability to micro-manage each and every one of our lives.
Have a good day Mal4Prez and relax. I wasn't attacking you at all. I apologize for the confusion.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
Hello,
I have often shrugged at the 'whining' of smokers over their excessive taxes. Because I think of smoking as a bad habit, I have often neglected to consider the broader implications.
So I tried to imagine something I care about.
Like ammunition.
If the government slapped the same kinds of taxes on ammunition that they put on cigarettes, I'd have a shit-fit.
So I think I understand, Frem.
--Anthony
P.S. Thank Goodness for Indian Reservations.
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
Thank you for that post Anthony.
Hey Frem..... if we've even only touched one single person as to the importance of this issue for all of us, and the insideousness of divide and conquer, I feel like that was a job well done.
When they came and took the smokers, I did not care, for I was not a smoker.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I don't eat Mickey D's. When someone starts charging $10 for a glass of tap water and I have no other options for a thing to drink, I'll be up with the ire. The ire over water. Not the ire over cigarettes.
Therein lies the problem with the me-mentality in society.
Don't worry about it. We'll all be paying $10.00 for a glass of tap water soon enough. These things just don't happen overnight. They are the product of decades of gently pusing the envelope.
If you think that I only bring up the smoking thing for the face value of smoking, you need to read deeper. This thread is the very essence of what I am speaking about. I would defend your right to eat shit food if you chose too as well.
EDITED TO ADD: I do find it a little humorous that your original post which made me reply:
"I believe that the guilt lies not with them, but with the ones who won't see the evil being done, because it doesn't affect them personally and they've lost their ability to empathize."
doesn't at all match up with your words to me and your words to Frem about me at all. I suppose you're only speaking about evils done to people who you agree with or which are aligned with your way of thinking.
I really appreaciate the sentiment of that quote and appreciate when people think that way. But you can't just pick and choose when you will apply that doctrine, or you are guilty of sitting back and watching evil being done yourself.
EDITED TO ADD (2): And my stance on homosexuality is perfectly in line with this way of thinking, regardless of how you feel about me for what I have to say about it.
I've never once said that homosexuality should be banned or taxed or that homosexuals were bad people and are going to burn. I challenge you to find a quote where I did (and please, post the entire post and not one sentence which could be misconstrued and bastardized like one particular individual in here constantly does when arguing with me.... that's just infuriating)
Just like an non-smoker doesn't want to be forced to breath in smoke, I don't want to have to be forced to witness homosexuality happening, but I would never tell the Government to pass laws banning or taxing it. I thought the worst thing that could happen (and coincidentally, the platform which is responsible for getting W. a second term) would be for an ammendment for banning homosexuality were to have been added to the Constitution. Not only because I disagree completely with that intolerant, and personal freedom breeching point of view... but because as soon as Bush was out and we had a Democrat back in office, it would be repealed and we would have another prohibition-esque scar on that sacred document.
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
I said that I don't like the tax, that I think folks should be able to smoke indoors. I just wanted you and Jack to stop shoving this on me constantly
Well... I can only suppose that for the breif amount of time where you're being forced at gunpoint to read my posts about smoking, you have an idea of what it is like to have to deal with this every waking moment that I'm not in the privacy of my own apartment and can smoke as I please. Not cool, right?
Christ... They've got everybody believing I'm a murder now by killing them with secondhand smoke, destroying the ozone layer, and even giving babies SIDS....
Don't believe everything that you read.
SMOKING CAUSES SIDS: Actually, I was going to post an MSN.com article that I read probably over a year ago where the Surgeon General linked crib death to smoking, but it's mysteriously not found. Kinda reminds me of 1984.... anyway, check this link out: http://search.msn.com/results.aspx?q=msn.com+smoking+causes+SIDS&FORM=
MSNHBT
If you look at the third hit on this search page you'll see a link titled "Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) - MSN Health & Fitness - Pregnancy ..."
But when you click on it now all you get is a page with MSN Fitness header stating "The page you have requested cannot be found."
DISPELLING THE MYTH OF SECOND-HAND SIDS: http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/sids.htm
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Sure. I well recall the first time I went into Brookline, Mass and found that I could only smoke in my car. Could't even smoke on the sidewalks. Talk about a police state! My favorite coffee shop in Cambridge shut down because of smoking laws. I loved that place! You're not the only one who's lost out.
Originally posted by 6ixStringJack:
Well... I can only suppose that for the breif amount of time where you're being forced at gunpoint to read my posts about smoking, you have an idea of what it is like to have to deal with this every waking moment that I'm not in the privacy of my own apartment and can smoke as I please. Not cool, right?
But hey - it's also not cool that before these laws came along, a person couldn't go into any bar in Boston without having a sore throat and some seriously stinky clothes the next day. Yes, ventilation would solve that problem, and that would be ideal. Next best step would be having both options available - smoking and non-smoking places. As I said, I think that's the way.
So sure, I understand your frustration. But do you understand how frustrating it was when a nonsmoker couldn't go out for a beer and breathe clean air? I don't see you ever even mentioning that. It's as if you think us non-smokers are out for nothing but to ruin your fun. No - I want you to have your fun, really! I just want mine too.
As for the price... you know, there are plenty of things I'd really like to have but I can't afford them. Really. Ask me when I last saw a dentist or bought new clothes, hmm? There've been times when I lived off insta-pasta and sold my plasma to buy gas for my car. So if I don't cry tears for the extra dollars you pay for something you don't *need* to survive. Well... sorry about that. Guess I am lacking in empathy in my own way.
Quote:Oh geez. I have done my best to avoid the second hand smoke argument. I knew very well that that would earn me nothing but hostility, since you're clearly so saturated with it (Kind of like how I'm saturated, hmm?)
Christ... They've got everybody believing I'm a murder now by killing them with secondhand smoke, destroying the ozone layer, and even giving babies SIDS....
Look, here's my real gripe. More than once I've had one of these threads getting all into some issue that interests me, and then your smoking thing comes flying out of nowhere. I find it frustrating. It seems like a way you change the subject. That was the source of me poking at you here, because you brought this damn thing up yet again!
And it was the source of you poking at me, no? I mean, you must have noticed that I've been trying to get you respond to me on the gay thread (the one you started and we got to sparring, then you posted about smoking and disappeared. Yes - you did!!)
So, okay. I didn't respond well to your demand for empathy because I'm sick of the topic. It often doesn't go anywhere, and often doesn't fit the discussion. It really can come off as nothing but poor me whining. Except when you talked about the heated smoking shack at work. That was actually quite cool, because you're doing something about a problem you feel passionate about. That I like.
Oh - and I knew you didn't mean the fatty thing. I was only poking back at you with some snark, not sure if that came through.
BTW, thank you so much for talking rationally. Honestly, Fred shook me up. I have never felt so personally - and damn near violentally, if that's possible online - attacked in the RWED. Maybe I'll feel different when I sleep on it, but I'm thinking I can't be here anymore.
Not asking to be stroked or anything. Just saying... I need a break. This isn't fun. I can handle being told I'm wrong, but being told what an awful person I am, that I deserve insults and mocking and such? Where does that get fun?
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ya know 6SJ, I think it's about time for a serious underground market for tobacco products to spring up. Recently when the Dems proposed raising the cigar tax by 6000%, I thought why should I pay any tax on tobacco produces when I can just have an illegal immigrant bring a few boxes of fine cigars back with them when they go home to visit relatives. Our border is wide open to drugs and illegal immigrants, why not tobacco products. I guarantee you once the Mexican truck drivers start to come into the country regularly they'll be plenty of bootleg tobacco produces available. I predict that revenues from tobacco taxes will begin to decline soon even as the tax rate goes up. Not because high taxes reduce smoking, but because high taxes will make it profitable to bootleg. Isn't it strange that the government would pretend to care about the health effects of tobacco when at the same time setting themselves up as the only beneficiary of smoking.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Sure. I well recall the first time I went into Brookline, Mass and found that I could only smoke in my car. Could't even smoke on the sidewalks. Talk about a police state! My favorite coffee shop in Cambridge shut down because of smoking laws. I loved that place! You're not the only one who's lost out.
Heh.. I remember back in 2000 when I was in the parking lot of Loyola Hospital in the dead of winter, enjoying a smoke inside my car with the windows rolled up because it was so cold that I wasn't even going to walk up to the building to finish my cigarette, when there came a rapping at my car door. I turned aside to see officer friendly there poking my ride with his nightstick. Mind you, back when I was 19 years old, I had a lot more respect for and trust in the police profession and our Government in general, so the hidden meaning behind the cop greeting me with his beat-down stick didn't even cross my mind at the time...
But so it was that this guy made it a point to go out of his way in the middle of the large parking lot to tell me that if I wanted to finish that cigarette, I was more than welcome to leave the premises and smoke 500 feet off the property. He also said that the employees of the builiding had to do the same. This was really a revelation to me. How free a people are we, I thought to myself, that I can't enjoy a cigarette in the privacy of my car, well outside the physical boundaries of the building which the smokers had been cast out of probably a decade before?
Quote:
But hey - it's also not cool that before these laws came along, a person couldn't go into any bar in Boston without having a sore throat and some seriously stinky clothes the next day. Yes, ventilation would solve that problem, and that would be ideal. Next best step would be having both options available - smoking and non-smoking places. As I said, I think that's the way.
So sure, I understand your frustration. But do you understand how frustrating it was when a nonsmoker couldn't go out for a beer and breathe clean air? I don't see you ever even mentioning that. It's as if you think us non-smokers are out for nothing but to ruin your fun. No - I want you to have your fun, really! I just want mine too.
I see what you're saying here and I don't disagree. Actually, I believe you to be the type of person who replied to my original post about the outdoor smoking lounge at work. Most of these people, as I said before, were non-smokers and ex-smokers and they showed a lot of sympathy and said that it was rediculous that we were being forced to smoke outside in sub-zero weather, away from the building so we didn't even have anything to shelter our heads from the snow too. This too, was a revelation to me. It's not your average Joe nobody who is the enemy. Most non-smokers are like you. They don't want to be forced to have to breathe it in, but they don't feel it's right that we're being beaten down at the same time. The people who are doing the beat downs are no different than the neo-cons forcing their point of view and ways of life on the Middle East now. And powerful though they may be, there really isn't many of them.
The ideal solution to this problem, in regards to smoking inside of bars and resturants, is to let the free market decide. Obviously there is a great market out there just waiting to be exploited for the entrapanuer. Hell... I've even thought myself what a great idea it would be to open up a completely smoke free resturant or bar in Milwaukee and smoke my cigarettes outside. People might think me a bit eccentric even for it, and that may even be good for the business. Ideally, it would be a pretty big news story too and perhaps other communities might start springing up non-smoking establishments as well, without Government intrusion mandating it. I think I could make a fortune if it was put together right. Eventually an equallibrium would be reached. Perhaps not 50/50% as far as smoking and non-smoking is concerned, b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkules:
Ya know 6SJ, I think it's about time for a serious underground market for tobacco products to spring up.
Heh... If I didn't only buy whatever buy-one-get-one menthol packs I could find I'd be buying them online from Russia or the American Indians again. As it is now, the $1.00 a pack raise in Wisconsin is only going to effect me $0.50 a pack and seeing as how it's still a few bucks cheaper than buying them in Cook County IL where I grew up, I'm actually just now going to be paying about $0.25 more per pack than I did when I started smoking in IL when I was 17.
If and more likely when the Federal Government passes that $0.61 per pack tax with the bullshit story that they're helping kids, mark my words, I will buy those cigarettes from Putin on principal. Right now, it's just not worth tempting the fates and having to pay a 10 year back-tax on my smoke purchases online when the Wisconsin government is bankrupt and is looking for any way under the sun to extort more money from it's citizens. But if there were a way to buy them with cash from somebody smuggling them in, I wouldn't think twice about it. Again, the market hasn't demanded it yet, but that time will come soon.
Quote:
Recently when the Dems proposed raising the cigar tax by 6000%, I thought why should I pay any tax on tobacco produces when I can just have an illegal immigrant bring a few boxes of fine cigars back with them when they go home to visit relatives. Our border is wide open to drugs and illegal immigrants, why not tobacco products. I guarantee you once the Mexican truck drivers start to come into the country regularly they'll be plenty of bootleg tobacco produces available.
I predict that revenues from tobacco taxes will begin to decline soon even as the tax rate goes up. Not because high taxes reduce smoking, but because high taxes will make it profitable to bootleg. Isn't it strange that the government would pretend to care about the health effects of tobacco when at the same time setting themselves up as the only beneficiary of smoking.
You'rd damn right, and why should you feel guilty about it either? The very same bastards that are making out on the increases in taxes are the very same bastards that are making out off the backs of the illegals. Think about it for a second.....
As you said, the very people who are strongest against smoking for the "health" reasons, are the ones who stand to make the most money off of them. Not very suprisingly, the very people who say that are either proponents for Amnesty for illegals or those for building a great f'ing wall of China on the Southern border are both making money off of the situation either way.
My advice is that if you can find a way to pay for your tobacco on the black market without the use of credit/debit, go for it, and don't have any regrets.
Incidentally, this topic of conversation is the very reason I most fear our trend to move towards a "cashless" society.
you VISA and your anti-cash commercials. "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I do believe I owe ya an apology there Mal4.
Thing is, I DO like you - but I wanted you to really get, to really FEEL, just for a minute, the endless hostility and lack of empathy directed at people who smoke, the crapstorm we face every day from snarky glances to downright holier than thou speeches to endless "you should quit" commercials sponsored by Big Pharma who really only wants to change your brand of product from someone elses pack to their patch.
Only problem is... I seem to have used a jackhammer for a tackhammers job there, and I DO earnestly apologise for it, I can't help but imagine you sitting there with deer-in-the-headlights eyes and smoke rising from the ends of your hair and I feel kinda awful about it cause you really didn't deserve that kind of overkill.
Sorry bout that kiddo, I'll smack my knuckles with a ruler for ya, okies ?
That bein said...
A lotta times Jack doesn't chime in on a topic cause I usually beat him to the punch and make most of the arguments he would, while not indentical in thought or intent (he's a Libertarian, imma Anarchist, but yanno, I'm workin on that ) mentally we are very much like close brothers and a lot of times he prolly feels it would be redundant to add his two cents to an argument already made.
We both feel that the whole smoking issue is a good example, politically - that if you don't protect the rights of folks that do things you don't like, it WILL boomerang on you someday.
Just like the Westboro/Free Speech thread, it's kinda chilling how many folks are willing to take away someone elses right to do something they don't like, but don't see the danger looming there - and taxing a product, luxury or not, into downright prohibition is a sideways form of outright denial, make no mistake about it.
I also find the quasi-religious/moral aspect of it quite disturbing because allowing one group to use the Government as a bludgeon to dictate the morality of another, is a danger to the first amendment in more ways than one could count, and not just tobacco.. blue laws, for example, and many other aspects.
As for the rest of it, for once Jack has stolen my thunder, instead of vice-versa, and he's quite welcome to it.
Again, sorry bout the flamethrowin, that was indeed overkill and I do apologize for it.
-Frem
PS - They start taxin chocolate, and heads WILL roll, however.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
As for the rest of it, for once Jack has stolen my thunder, instead of vice-versa, and he's quite welcome to it.
Hey bud... not trying to steal your thunder. Just bored at work and and this particular thread had caught my interest.
Sorry to turn it into another smoking thing on ya. It's just that what is being done to smokers today is an analogy for almost everything that is wrong with politics and a classic example of intolerance in the world.
Nice original post there Frem. Sure... some people think it a bit simplistic and have been nitpicking, but there are plenty of real life accounts of things just like this that have happened on micro and macro scales throughout history.
They're free to read them if they'd like. But we know better, don't we?
If J.K. Rowling or Terry Pratchett didn't write it, or if it isn't part of Oprah's book of the month club, the proles would just as soon rent the movie version.
And Cracked.com sums that whole story up quite well in their "11 Movies Saved by Historical Inaccuracy":
http://www.cracked.com/article_15014_11-movies-saved-by-historical-ina
ccuracy.html
"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:In the end, once you get past the 100-or-so people that can effectively interact face to face, all authority rests on force. If a city or nations-state has no soldiers or police (people who are legally armed and organized to a degree greater than the average citizen) there is no way an authority can enforce its will when it diverges form the populaces'.
You may build a barrow or a pyramid to bury a dead high king but what made him a king? Why could he command even in death the resources necessary for such an elaborate burial? Was he king because he knew something that others didn't --- I once read a theory that Pharaohs came about because they possessed skills in purifying metals--- was he king because his god said so? Did he win the job through combat? Did he take the job though force?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer: Mohnejo-Daro's "citadel" contained, according to archaeological finds, an elaborate bath, a granary, and two halls of assembly Wow, it's just bristling with weapons, isn't it?
Quote:The civilization in that area lasted over 1000 years. My point was that you can find cooperative civilizations at ANY stage of development. AFA more recent examples Sweden (which has jails without locked doors) and other nations in the region come pretty close.
Besides, Mohenjo-daro didn't make it past the 17th century, B.C. Got anything more recent? Maybe in the last 2000 years?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem, 6ix: I don't mind you smoking.Smoke all you want. But:
Keep your smoke outta my noze and
Keep your health costs outta my pocket.
Okay?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:In the end, once you get past the 100-or-so people that can effectively interact face to face, all authority rests on force. If a city or nations-state has no soldiers or police (people who are legally armed and organized to a degree greater than the average citizen) there is no way an authority can enforce its will when it diverges form the populaces'.
You may build a barrow or a pyramid to bury a dead high king but what made him a king? Why could he command even in death the resources necessary for such an elaborate burial? Was he king because he knew something that others didn't --- I once read a theory that Pharaohs came about because they possessed skills in purifying metals--- was he king because his god said so? Did he win the job through combat? Did he take the job though force?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Hello,
There have been instances where the law enforcement arm of the government has not been better armed than the 'average citizen', and even instances where they had inferior arms.
This was particularly true where a constabulary would be dealing with armed nobility. In such cases, the constabulary would sometimes go out of their way to use superior tactics and minimal force/non lethal weapons to avoid seriously harming a noble. This is because harming a noble could be detrimental to ones career and overall well being.
In fact, I believe that even today, numbers, tactics, and skill count for more than the latest firepower. I honestly believe a well trained police force equipped with Winchesters, Coach Guns, and Colt Peacemakers would be as effective a criminal deterrent as our modern paramilitary police force.
You are free to disagree, of course.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Got anything more recent? Maybe in the last 2000 years?"
If we're talking 'human nature' it doesn't matter how old the example. It's all evolutionarily driven 'human nature' - right ? I mean, if you're going to look to social Darwinism, chimpanzees and baboons for why we are they way we are, mebee a 2000 yr old human example isn't so far off the mark.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:In the end, once you get past the 100-or-so people that can effectively interact face to face, all authority rests on force. If a city or nations-state has no soldiers or police (people who are legally armed and organized to a degree greater than the average citizen) there is no way an authority can enforce its will when it diverges form the populaces'.
You may build a barrow or a pyramid to bury a dead high king but what made him a king? Why could he command even in death the resources necessary for such an elaborate burial? Was he king because he knew something that others didn't --- I once read a theory that Pharaohs came about because they possessed skills in purifying metals--- was he king because his god said so? Did he win the job through combat? Did he take the job though force?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
I half agree. Laws can only work if they can be enforced and in the face of someone not cooperating the only effective response is going to be use of force. I'm not entirely sure that means that someone has to be excessively armed to make that happen.
EVERY society no matter how liberal or enlightened has was of enforcing its rules, hell every parent enforces rules on their children. Now what form that enforcement takes or how far it goes may vary but if your argument is that any time someone makes you do something you dont want to do then you're opressed, well even folks in family group hunter-gather societies are oppressed to some degree.
In any case you seem to have missed the point. Once a group gets above a certain size, maybe even smaller than 100 people you would see an accepted authority. If Umbutu is head hunter and has the best track record finding and killing game then chances are he will be leading your hunting party because you dont want to go home empty handed. No matter what YOU may think he's doing wrong chances are you would let him lead. If you didn't, if you did something against his orders and that cost your tribe a deer you can bet there would be social and maybe physical outcomes.
I'm not questioning that there will be an authority, because any group of any size develops one, what I am asking specifically is why time after time in lots of places under lots of systems we end up with a "strong man" leader and an aristocracy that supports him? You seem to equate that with the practical application of force, that in some way that goes hand in hand with standing armies, big city walls etc etc which is why you keep banging on about your wall less city. But truth is you have no idea how authority was derived or applied in that place. There must have been an authority of some kind to allow the building of something so large to a unified vision. If you transgressed from that authority what happened to you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is a true story.
People I knew grew up in an agrarian and isolated European peasant community - which was small, interdependent and far away from any kind of government - much like Frem's example. There was one guy in the village who was big, selfish, and violent. Everyone avoided him if at all possible. No one challenged him individually, and as a group they didn't get together to do anything about him.
For one thing they were all busy doing the things necessary to keep alive day to day and year to year - draw water, prepare meals, maintain bees, chop wood, plant and harvest grains and seeds, herd geese, slop pigs, repair dwellings and tools and the infinitude of tasks. For another, any kind of challenge was risky. Like the example of a break-in - if you challenge the person you might be safe, but if you run away you will be safe. And frankly everyone was too valuable to risk ending up dead, or permamently disabled, or recovering for months.
If he had happened to get some henchmen or been able to team up with another natural-born goon, the violent dude could have set up for himself a very nice extortion racket. B/c after a time, he WOULD have been too powerful to challenge.
It's not that specialization leads to hierarchy, any more than lack of specialization nullifies inter-group warfare. What happens is, if you have a natural bully and there is no structure for him to get a hold of, when he dies, so does his influence.
But if there is the capability of forming structures or one exists already AND people don't deal with that person as a group, there is a chance he will either take over or create a structure that will live on after him. And you get hierarchies and the structures to maintain them - a religion (the sun won't come back unless I sacrifice the beating heart of a victim !), an ethic (as with the emperor, so with the heavens), or an economy (economic greed is good !), or some combination.
Now either the answer is to live without power structures, or to understand how we humans interact in groups and to develop systems that deal with our outliers. Even if all that it means is that that person has to move on - and without extracting stuff from other people.
And hey - if baboons are able to keep a peaceable culture, why should we be any less capable ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer: Mohnejo-Daro's "citadel" contained, according to archaeological finds, an elaborate bath, a granary, and two halls of assembly Wow, it's just bristling with weapons, isn't it?
The citadel is seperate from the towers and fortifications. See the map on the linked page.
Quote:And then disappeared, leaving no history.
The civilization in that area lasted over 1000 years.
Quote:
My point was that you can find cooperative civilizations at ANY stage of development. AFA more recent examples Sweden (which has jails without locked doors) and other nations in the region come pretty close.
Sweden also has police and an army. Someone collects taxes there, and I'd bet enforces the collection pretty well.
If totally cooperative societies worked, there'd be some more around now. There aren't. Sure, some are more cooperative than others, but none get by without armed law enforcement and a government that uses it to enforce its laws.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh I get your point ! Millions of years of human history and fine examples of war-free cultures that lasted millenia aren't real examples ! B/c, you know, they just weren't 'human' enough to be real examples of human nature !
***************************************************************
You sling quite some crock.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s Signym’s biggest problem. The Harapan civilization appears to have been a peaceful one, but it’s also largely pre-historical. We haven’t even managed to decipher their script or even identify it as Dravidian or Sanskirt, so we have little idea of what wars are in their history. The Harapan civilization was mostly urban and so rigidly organized that it’s unlikely that that a strong central government did not exist. There is evidence for this government, as the temple of Mohenjo-Daro was probably the administrative center. Archeology as also identified copper spearheads. They did have a religion, and archeology has identify religious artifacts and symbols that suggest a form of proto-Shakti or proto-Shiva. In fact one of the first occurrences of the Swastika was found in Mohenjo-Daro. So while the Harapan people have been unusually peaceful, though it’s difficult to know if that’s true or not, it is certainly not true that they lacked a religion or a government. The more likely scenario is that the cites of the Harapan culture were organized around a powerful central aristocracy ruled by a god-king or a priest-king, much like the ancient cities of Sumer.
Originally posted by Geezer:
And then disappeared, leaving no history.
I also remember reading somewhere that cu war axes similar to those used in Egypt were uncovered in some of the Harapan cities.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Millions of years of human history and fine examples of war-free cultures that lasted millenia aren't real examples ! B/c, you know, they just weren't 'human' enough to be real examples of human nature !
Just wrong on so many levels.
1. There ain't no "millions of years of human history". There ain't even millions of years of humans. Just the last 200,000 or so.
2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC.
3. There's not enough information about the Indus Valley civilization of Mohenjo-Daro and its sister cities to determine if it was "war-free" or not. Most sources note that it had towers and fortifications designed for defense, so war was probably not unknown. If SignyM, or yourself, has any compelling evidence about this, please provide citations.
4. Even if Mohenjo-Daro were 'war-free', it still must have had some sort of government willing and able to enforce building codes, rules of sanitation, storage of food in central grainaries, etc.
I suspect that when societies reached a certain size and level of technological sophistication things got too complicated for everything to function efficiently by just group cooperation, since everyone couldn't know all that was going on and still get their own work done. Someone, and not necessarily the bullies and sociopaths, was either chosen for or took leadership and demonstrated the ability to make things run more smoothly and efficiently; by the simplest standard, that their communities thrived when others did not.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just wrong on so many levels.
1. There ain't no "millions of years of human history". There ain't even millions of years of humans. Just the last 200,000 or so.
So then millions of years of evolution had no effect ? PPhhhtt ? Just a vacuum ? Just wondering 'cause that's so silly, it can't possibly be what you mean.
2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC.
Oh dear. No skeletons, no serpent stone, no spear-tip offerings. No necklaces, bones, graves. No footprints. Oh WAIT ! THAT'S where you got the 200,000 year figure isn't it ? From the footprints. Weird how you know about that and then say - there just isn't any history before 3,000 BC.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think you're splitting hairs a little. According to dictionary.com the word "history" has 10 distinct meanings of which the one being used is
"2. a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle: a history of France; a medical history of the patient."
If I dig up a spear, I don't have a "History" I have an artifact. I can tell nothing at all about it other than those facts presented by it's construction and the context in which I find it. I can attempt to construct a theory based on the facts discovered but I can't actually know that I'm correct. Now when you have writing, then you potentially can construct a "history" because if you can read the language then the people tell you about themselves. For example if someone writes that 2000 cats were sacrificed at the temple then you know the cat mummies you may have found were probably the result of those sacrifices and not offerings made to the temple or the remains of dead mousers. It is a fact not a supposition.
For most of the 200,000 years there is no written record. We have artifacts and places which have been interpreted by archeologists, these interpretations could be correct or they could be wrong. For example you dig up a guy who has been buried with armour. Now maybe he was a great warrior and these were the tools of his trade? Maybe he made armour for a living and this was the fruit of his handywork included to show his skill to the gods? Maybe he is a sacrifice given armour so he can defend the community in the spirit world? Perhaps he was a politician wrapping himself in the mantle of the warrior to gain favour in the afterlife?
From the physical evidence we have no way of knowing absolutely, best we can do is to come up with a theory that reflects the observed facts. Archeology is one of those fields where interpretations are made and revised very frequently as new evidence is amassed and analyzed. Pre history, is just that, a period where interpretation is relied upon because there are little or no surviving written records that explain what was actually going on.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And maybe that translation is bogus.
Just look at all the drama over tanslating the new testament - and many of those languages have been in continuous existance since the writings.
Writings are as much an artifact as anything else.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It’s more then just splitting hairs. Rue is confusing prehistory with history.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And maybe that translation is bogus.
Just look at all the drama over tanslating the new testament - and many of those languages have been in continuous existance since the writings.
Writings are as much an artifact as anything else.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
People don't necessarily agree on the interpretation of things in living memory. Was JFK shot by a lone nutjob or as part of an elaborate conspiracy? You can find proponents of both theories even though they are mutually exclusive.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Rue is confusing prehistory with history."
No, Finn is. He cleary has an interpretation of Mohenjo Daro as 'history' though no one can actually read the writings. So, is it 'history' or 'prehistory' ? And if it fits into 'history' as he thinks it does, then why not other archeological finds where people have left their symbols behind that we simply can't read ?
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fletch
Writings are weird. Just b/c something is written doesn't mean it's 'history'. Do we assume that Jesus was really taken up into heaven ? Do we think that a ancient braggart's claim to be ruler of the world is accurate ? And then there's the translation bit.
Personally, I think 'history' needs at least as much interpretation as artifacts.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So then millions of years of evolution had no effect ? PPhhhtt ? Just a vacuum ? Just wondering 'cause that's so silly, it can't possibly be what you mean.
Millions of years of evolution shows that most pack animals, and many herd animals, have dominant leaders who maintain their leadership, breeding rights, etc., by force. Sure you wanta go there?
Still looking for any evidence you have of a 'war-free' Indus Valley civilization.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
And maybe that translation is bogus.
In this case, definition #7 of bogus - That with which Rue does not agree.
As you know perfectly well, but are trying to dance around, properly conducted historical research doesn't rely on any one item, be it text or artifact. It uses many items in correlation to validate and verify the recorded information. Then it's generally peer-reviewed to allow criticism.
BTW, still waiting for cites on that war-free Indus Valley civilization. That's where this digression on history began, and seems like you'd want to get back to the topic.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually Finn quite clearly argued that it was prehistory.
Originally posted by rue:
"Rue is confusing prehistory with history."
No, Finn is. He cleary has an interpretation of Mohenjo Daro as 'history' though no one can actually read the writings. So, is it 'history' or 'prehistory' ? And if it fits into 'history' as he thinks it does, then why not other archeological finds where people have left their symbols behind that we simply can't read ?
Previously posted by Finn (like just a few posts up)
“The Harapan civilization appears to have been a peaceful one, but it’s also largely pre-historical. We haven’t even managed to decipher their script or even identify it as Dravidian or Sanskirt, so we have little idea of what wars are in their history.“
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, it does. It doesn’t change the fact that history is defined on the written word, therefore anything prior to written text is prehistory, not history. We draw a distinction between artifacts from which we assume everything from the archeology (or much of what you‘re talking about is anthropological or paleontological) , and one in which we actually have meaningful references from the people who left the artifacts. One we refer to as prehistory, the other - history.
Originally posted by rue:
Fletch
Writings are weird. Just b/c something is written doesn't mean it's 'history'. Do we assume that Jesus was really taken up into heaven ? Do we think that a ancient braggart's claim to be ruler of the world is accurate ? And then there's the translation bit.
Personally, I think 'history' needs at least as much interpretation as artifacts.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer,
"Millions of years of evolution shows that most pack animals, and many herd animals, have dominant leaders who maintain their leadership, breeding rights, etc., by force. Sure you wanta go there?"
Oh yeah ! Let's talk about giraffes and horses ! After all, they clearly have a lot more to say about human behavior than humans, chimps, bonobos or gorillas !
OR - we could talk about HUMAN evolution and history on the off chance it might be relevant.
Take your pick - let me know.
"BTW, still waiting for cites on that war-free Indus Valley civilization. That's where this digression on history began, and seems like you'd want to get back to the topic."
Dude - not my topic. I'm all for discussing human evolution.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I posted this on my MySpace page, hope it helps......
There comes a time in every country's existence where change is necessary. When the powers that be have gotten TOO power-full and the normal citizens have become weak and drunk on self-indulgence. This time, unfortunately, is now, in our homeland.
I never thought I would say this about my country, my home, America. I never wanted to. I always hoped I wouldn't have to. This is America, after all, the land of the free and home of the brave. We beat the Nazis and Communism. We walked on the moon. We've fought injustice and evil in every part of the world.
In fact, when it comes to the fight against the darkness, we are almost always the first into the battle. And we don't quit. We fight until the job is done. Our country men have had a backbone of steel and iron since we first started calling ourselves Americans.
When our country's founders built the outline for a government, it was on the basis that it would be for the people and by the people. Not the rich, not the political, not the religious, but THE PEOPLE. It would be a land with LIMITED government, and the people would, in general, govern themselves. What a brave, new, novel idea! A revolutionary idea! Let the common man, govern himself!
In a word, this new way of governing would grant the common man FREEDOM.
But, little by little, those ideals were withered away. Our leaders became less and less. The laws became more and more. The people grew away from the belief that they were in charge of their own lives. Our citizens began to believe that others were in charge of their happiness and prosperity.
We are told that if we fail and fall into darkness, it isn't our fault. It's our parents fault, or the governments. It's that race's fault, or your poor biology. You may even have repressed memories that cause you to act evil. You may have post-partum depression. In point of fact, according to what we are told, we are never to blame for the things we do. (But we are made to pay for the evil we visit….unless you are rich enough to get out of it)
We are told to put all our faith in the governing bodies and corporations. We are never to rely on ourselves for anything. Protect ourselves? (That's what the police are for). We buy too much home and can't afford it? (Let the government bail you out). Don't want to raise your children? (Give them to the school teachers and day care). Refuse to learn English? (Bilingual classes) Can't make the grades? (Lower the standards)
And the worst part is that so many believe it. They fall for it. I guess I can understand why. It's easy, and who wants to do things that are hard?
Why learn English? Why try for good grades? Why be careful with your money? Why raise your kids' right? Why try, when you are told its ok to be so irresponsible? Let the government and the corporations take care of you. They can tell you what to do, what to buy, what to think, how to act and what's ok to say.
This, my fellow countrymen and women, has a word. SLAVERY.
You think political correctness is right? The Nazis were the first to develop this ideology in an attempt to control what the people thought.
You think its ok to have cameras on every corner? SpeedPass for every highway? Paper money being taken less and less? Cell phone monitoring? The websites you view are tracked. The books you buy and borrow are tracked. The articles you read and write are watched. Your social security number is followed. It's all done so that it is easier to control and contain you.
The chains are no longer made of steel. They are now made of paper and electronic pulses.
Our so called leaders know this. They want this. It's all the better to have complete control. We act as if with the coming election, everything will chang
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Finn, Finn, Finn
According to Geezer, history goes back 5000 years. "2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC."
Now "Mohenjo Daro was built around 2600 BC." You know how to count backwards when you do BC, right ? That means MJ was 400 years within Geezer's timeframe for 'history'.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
I'm all for discussing human evolution.
Then we're back to my point that there ain't no 'millions of years' of human evolution.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not at all true. There are several current societies that get along quite well w/o them including the !kung!, the Tarahumara, and the Mosuo. If I were an ethnographer I could prolly come up with more examples. AFA Sweden is concerned, I didn't say they were a perfect example, I said they came close. Sweden incarcerates about 70 people per 100,000, the United States about 700.
If totally cooperative societies worked, there'd be some more around now. There aren't. Sure, some are more cooperative than others, but none get by without armed law enforcement and a government that uses it to enforce its laws.
www.newint.org/features/2006/10/01/social-model/
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AAAARRRGGGGHHHHHH Im hoping this doesnt descend into a debate on whether evolution is real or not......I can't take that today.....
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer
So you also wouldn't be able to discuss the millions of years of whale evolution b/c all those fossils along the line weren't modern whales ?
OK, go ahead, look like a stupid kindergartener having a tantrum.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn
According to Geezer, history goes back 5000 years. "2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC."
Now "Mohenjo Daro was built around 2600 BC." You know how to count backwards when you do BC, right ? That means MJ was 400 years within Geezer's timeframe for 'history'.
If recorded history (As Fletch noted, the type of history I was referring to) started the exact same time in all locations, this might be a valid argument.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer
So cool, that's really keeping it on topic, which I'm sure you intend !
So when we speak of 'human history' we can only speak of actual written records b/c there just is no historical past with them ! And when we speak of human evolution we can only speak of modern humans - which means today's humans btw not those from 200,000 years ago. Since humans are evolving faster and more divergently than ever, so those humans from 200,000 years ago - with big teeth and unadapted to seasonal dark, grains and milk - are only 'proto humans'. And not part of 'human evolution' as you claim.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mohenjo_Daro was built around 2600 BC and persisted until about 1700 BC, so by Geezer's own definition of "history" it falls squarely within that time frame. Though there was clearly a language, it has yet to be deciphered. So by Finn's definition of "history" this is a "historical" site.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello,
I think the debate is descending into wrongness here.
What people are saying, and I think we can all agree, is this:
The amount of certainty we can have about ancient civilizations diminishes dramatically at the point that we can no longer read their writings or those of their contemporaries.
When we have artifacts, we can make educated guesses about a culture.
However, when we have writings, we can tell for certain what a people said about themselves and their contemporaries.
This is the reason why 'written history' or 'recorded history' is valued more highly for its informative nature than artifacts of history where there is no writing.
Without writing, context, meaning, and use of artifacts is assumed, sometimes wrongly. This can be true even with writing, but it is especially true without it.
So, there's no need to debate the nature of history or evolution, or further distance yourselves from the actual topic being discussed.
--Anthony
"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not at all true. There are several current societies that get along quite well w/o them including the !kung!, the Tarahumara, and the Mosuo.
Which sorta proves my point. Once you get beyond the nomadic, small-tribal, subsistance lifestyle, the no force concept sorta goes away. Also note that the Mosuo, per Wiki, do enforce execution as a penalty for rape, so seems like they use force occasionally.
Quote:
AFA Sweden is concerned, I didn't say they were a perfect example, I said they came close.
If Sweden is as close as you can get to a society which does not impose laws by force, you're pretty far off your goal.
p.s.
I would suggest that the societies you noted above wouldn't still be in existence if not for the national governments in whose countries they live.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AnthonyT
I disagree. "What people say about themselves" isn't history. Just like "what we say about ourselves" isn't fact.
If you were to read at some point in the future what the US says about itself - and would bother to engrave in some large stone format - what would it say ? - best economic system ever ! never a problem that won't work out right in the end ! most enlightened ! Do YOU believe that ? Should some future archeologist believe that ?
Writings are anything but fact, and therefore anything but history. Once you get past the dictionary (and translation is the trickiest step) they need a LOT of interpretation. Other symbols (that are beyond use-defined) are the same way. How do you interpret the cave paintings ? The Ayers Rock glyphs ? Necklaces with skeletons ? These too, just like writing, are abstract 'symbols' that need interpretation.
Simple useful artifacts are actually the easiest to interpret.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's look again at Mohenjo_daro, since the discussion has gone pretty far off-track as to whether or not it was "historical" (in other words had written records) "advanced" or "cooperative". Just pulling this abbreviated description:
Quote:
Mohenjo-daro was a city of the Indus Valley Civilization built around 2600 BC..
is the largest of Indus Valley
contemporaneous with ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations.
most likely the administrative center of the ancient Indus Valley Civilization.
the most developed and advanced city in South Asia
Indus Civilization settlements spread as far south as the Arabian Sea coast of India, as far west as the Iranian border, and as far north as the Himalayas.
some archaeologists opine that the Indus Civilization may have had a population of well over five million.
The language of the Indus Civilization has yet to be deciphered
has a planned layout based on a grid of streets, which were laid out in perfect patterns.
probably had around 35,000 residents.
The buildings of the city were particularly advanced, with structures constructed of same-sized sun dried bricks of baked mud and burned wood.
The public buildings of these cities also suggest a high degree of social organization.
the great granary at Mohenjo-daro is designed with bays to receive carts delivering crops from the countryside, and there are ducts for air to circulate beneath the stored grain to dry it.
a building similarly civic in nature - a great public bath, with steps down to a brick-lined pool in a colonnaded courtyard The elaborate bath area was very well built, with a layer of natural tar to keep it from leaking, and in the center was the pool.
urban plan included the world's first urban sanitation systems.
waste water was directed to covered drains, which lined the major streets.
It also had a building with an underground furnace (hypocaust), possibly for heated bathing.
{u]lacking city walls... Both Harappa and Mohenjo-daro share relatively the same architectural layout, and were generally not heavily fortified
from the identical city layouts of all Indus sites, that there was some kind of political or administrative centrality
the "Citadel" is known to have the public bath, a large residential structure designed to house 5,000 citizens and two large assembly halls.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM
I'm not in the MJ discussion. I'm waiting for Geezer to decide if the chain of creatures up to today is 'human evolution' and whether he wants to discuss it, or would he rather talk about horse behavior and it's relevance to human behavior.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes. It can be considered historic. Much as, in the figurative sense, we can give a rough date c.3000BC to when “history” begins, because roughly speaking this is when the written language, in general, began to appear. These are all valid points. But this doesn’t mean that every culture in the last 5000 years is historic. In fact, Celtic and Germanic cultures did not become historic until about the start of the post-classical period, which was only around 1500-1800 years ago. Many Native American cultures were prehistoric right up until the last few hundred years. The Harapan culture did have a written language, so technically we could call them historic, but we can’t decipher it and there’s little direct association with other cultures to draw upon. So in practical terms, Mohenjo Daro is essentially prehistoric.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Mohenjo_Daro was built around 2600 BC and persisted until about 1700 BC, so by Geezer's own definition of "history" it falls squarely within that time frame. Though there was clearly a language, it has yet to be deciphered. So by Finn's definition of "history" this is a "historical" site.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually, you’re misinterpreting what Geezer said. He said that there isn’t “much history back past 3,000 BC,” which is a factual statement. There isn’t. That doesn’t actually mean that the history of every culture began at 3000BC. This issue of deciphering the Harapan script is far more crucial to when history begins for the Harapan culture then the date at which written language developed in Mesopotamia or Egypt.
Originally posted by rue:
Finn, Finn, Finn
According to Geezer, history goes back 5000 years. "2. Even with the 200,000 years of humans, there ain't much history back past 3,000 BC."
Now "Mohenjo Daro was built around 2600 BC." You know how to count backwards when you do BC, right ? That means MJ was 400 years within Geezer's timeframe for 'history'.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
While WE think they are 'prehistorical' 'cause we can't read their writing, they certainly were not incapable.
Obviously the presence of writing means organization and the ability to create a uniform and extended 'script' for a society. As a literate society they were definitely different from any pre-literate society we think of as 'prehistorical'. Perhaps that's the better definition. They aren't preliterate, which is what people think of when they think of 'prehistorical'.
***************************************************************
But please - carry on the MJ discussion w/out me. It'll go faster and better that way. I'm just waiting for Geezer to decide if he wants to get into human evolution.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, but one big turning point of ANY civilization is the creation of a written language. To call the Indus civilization "prehistoric" calls up an image of barbarians in animal pelts living in wattle huts. We shouldn't mistake our ignorance for theirs.
In any case, simple weapons have been excavated from Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa, but no armories or walls or indications of battles or armies. They worshiped a Mother Goddess and a God (possibly) but there is no evidence that they sacrificed to them. The mechanisms of brute-force or religious oppression don't seem to be present, so perhaps cooperation was obtained by a comfortable life for all.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You are both missing the point. Nobody is saying that having writing makes culture X better than culture Y. What they are saying is that because of writing (if we can read it) we know more about culture X than we could about culture Y. This is true even if we don't trust the absolute accuracy of the writings themselves. If a giant statue has the words "Ishma Tep ruler of the world had me made" carved on it, then we know that someone called Ishma Tep had enough resources to have a huge statue made, even if we doubt that he actually did rule the world. If we know from other sources that there was a ruler called Ishma Tep that maybe invaded a neighbour, well that helps verify those other sources.
Siggy has made an interpretation of an historic site for which we have no written history. When Geezer asked for an example within the last 2000 years (ie one where a written history might exist that would be more reliable than just Siggy's interpreation) he was told this was unimportant.
It is not unimportant. We have no idea what was actually going on in the civilisation Siggy is interpreting, as such any interpretation even one made in good faith could be bogus. A cite has been asked for to give an example of a society from a period where there would be written sources.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Let's look again at Mohenjo_daro, since the discussion has gone pretty far off-track as to whether or not it was "historical" (in other words had written records) "advanced" or "cooperative".
Okay. Back to your original statement.
"There were several large societies.... the five cities including Mohenjo-Daro comes to mind first... without apparent religion or military force. Their ruins didn't have temples, ramparts, armories, weapons, statues, slums, or- curiously- cemeteries."
I've seen several descriptions of weapons found at the site. Here's one. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0004-3648(1966)28:2/3%3C211:WOWITS%3E
2.0.CO;2-C
Lack of city walls does not equate to lack of war. Consider the Maya and Inca whose cities had no walls. Also note that Mohenjo-Daro is sited on an elevation perfect for defense. http://picasaweb.google.com/Ali.S.Ishaq/Mohenjodaro/photo#508003973574
3879586
Googling 'Mohenjodaro religion' gets many competing theories; proto-Buddist, proto-Hindu, Earth-Mother, etc. Nothing specific, but no indication that there was no religion. Same debate about temples, but no conclusions.
If you have a specific citation for the 'no religion, no military force, no weapons' bits, I'd be glad to look at it.
A city population of 35,000, and a civilization of up to 5 million, with uniform and enforced building codes, sanitation, measurement, food collection and storage, indicates someone was providing law and regulation and enforcing compliance.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I did more googling and changed my statement to say that there were weapons but no armories. No depiction of wars (like the Greeks) or victim sacrifice (like the Mayans). No apparent temples, no big statues.
Some houses were bigger than others, but even the worst house had two rooms. Strangely, all of the bricks in both MD and Harappa were the same size.... clearly they had a system of weights and measures. Mohenjo-Daro was rebuilt at least seven times- possibly after serious flooding... right on top of the old site. The elevation of "the Citadel" could be a safe haven from serious flooding.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Who's with me?"
I can name a buncha folk here who would be, but yanno... you oughta think about Ron Paul, dude.
Gee, he wants them to READ the fekkin bills before they sign em, well duh - what kinda criminal negligence does it take to NOT do that ?
http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-paul-congress-should-be-
allowed-to.html
And he has spoken the deepest of blasphemies to the status quo - he told Israel they can get by on their own money for once instead of all of ours... guess HE won't be getting the nod and the soft money tidal wave from AIPAC, eh?
And didn't they get accused of.. yanno, SPYING ON US - damn, anyone else did that we'd be at war with em.
But yeah, that foreign aid ? hell no, not NOwhere till our OWN people have enough food, shelter and necessary resources, you know ?
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml? itemNo=942091&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
I swear, he might LOOK like he's gonna dry up and blow away any minute, but that dude has balls of Neutronium or something...
To utter such sentiment in the faces of the PNAC/Clean Break/NeoCon/Likud cabal would be the kiss of death for most folk.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I did more googling and changed my statement to say that there were weapons but no armories. No depiction of wars (like the Greeks) or victim sacrifice (like the Mayans). No apparent temples, no big statues.
Some houses were bigger than others, but even the worst house had two rooms. Strangely, all of the bricks in both MD and Harappa were the same size.... clearly they had a system of weights and measures. Mohenjo-Daro was rebuilt at least seven times- possibly after serious flooding... right on top of the old site. The elevation of "the Citadel" could be a safe haven from serious flooding.
All this is a possible interpretation of the site, along with several possibilities, but there's still no compelling evidence that there was no government enforcing laws and codes. The very existence of a multi-city system of uniform weights and measures, and uniform building and sanitation codes, argues for a method of creating, implementing, and enforcing these uniform standards.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Haven't read all the responses but if someone comes onto my property to take money or possessions by force, and is not empowered by the goverment to do so, I will defend myself in any way I feel necessary.
Talk is just that. Sticks and stones. One can talk and yell and scream until they turn blue in the face. When one takes out a weapon to threaten me or mine with harm, I will do what it takes to defend myself. If that 'means' is to shoot to kill, then I will do it.
The oath of the President of the United States does not just apply to that office.
"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Wow, this is a huge thread! I'm sure in my effort to scan it all relatively quick, I'll miss something I'm sure I wanted to respond to, but, I'm at work, and really shouldn't even be reading this in the first place:)
>Yep, that's about it - cigarette taxes have gotten to the point of ludicrousness, a mistake that, thanks to the lessons of prohibition, they did not make with alcohol, you see.
I'm a non-smoker and am hugely offended by being forced to be subjected to second hand smoke. Living in CA has sheltered me a bit from that. When I go back east to visit family, I'm easily disgusted by the way smokers treat those who do not want to be subjected to the harmful smoke.
That said . . .
>AND those tax bumps were supposed to go into healthcare, but they didn't
That I would have a huge problem with. If it was said that the increased money would be put into a specific location and it wasn't, there should be more of a public outcry, especially if that money is going into already deep pockets.
But as for the cost of something that is recreational? You either chose to pay it to continue with the habit you enjoy, or not. Someone above said something to the effect of. . . so long as its only harming yourself and not others, and you keep your bills from whatever health problems you have because of it, to yourself, I don't care what you put into your body:)
"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>What if the government levied heavy taxes against (insert your recreation of choice here)?
When they do that to a recreation that isn't harmful to others, (like second hand smoke) perhaps you may have my sympathy.
"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well Leia, some folk are just rude, I know it's not the same healthwise as some idiot in front of you at the grocery checkout blabbering away on a call phone - although behind the wheel of his SUV, now that's potentially health threatening, I give you, but still it's a matter of lack of respect or politeness, and should be addressed accordingly outside of the issue of smoking in general.
As a general rule I try not to subject others to it who do not want to be, my home in fact has a smoking area (my office, fully ventilated) because smoke tends to STICK to things, and I really like our wallpaper and carpet, which over time would have to be replaced if I could even find those colors and styles again, you see.
My cab is company property, so it's their decision, the fleet cabs are nonsmoking, and for luxury car services we have a smoking and nonsmoking car, so it's customer choice there.
Even outdoors I try to do so away from folk and upwind if possible, so not everyone's an arse about it, but yeah, some people are, and some are just boneheaded, as for the latter, one can always try tactful diplomacy.
Oh, and kids are a total no-go with me, any child too young to effectively make such a decision (imop 14-16ish) comes near me and imma not smoke around em, even if the parent smokes - I'm kinda hardline on childrens rights even if society isn't, and keen on bending society to someday accept that they're human beings too, even before those "magic numbers" that force us to legally accept them as such.
Then again, I had a guy at six flags come 40 YARDS out in the parking lot, upwind, to give me a rather nasty diatribe about it and demand that I quit entire - that kinda thing gets a little OLD after a while, you know ?
Person to Person, it's not really an issue that a little mutual respect cannot solve - but when folks get the Government involved as a brute force bludgeon in an attempt to make my lifestyle choices and decisions for me, I get pretty cranky about it, is all.
When a PERSON says to me "dude, your foggin me out here" or "man, if I wanted to smoke, I'd have bought a pack myself." (I have strange friends) I got no issue, I can always smoke one later, yanno ?
But when they go to the Gov as a hammer to force me, then I gotta problem.
Hope you understand that.
-Frem
Wow, talk about prophetic...
Lawsuit Filed Over Bottled Water Tax
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22510714/
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
>Well Leia, some folk are just rude,
The vitrol with which you responded to further up the thread illustrates that very clearly. I don't know you at all, and if that post had been directed at me, I'd have flamed you up one side and down the other. At least Mal4Prez had the maturity to keep things civil.
No, I'm not saying this to start a flame war, but since you mentioned rudeness, I couldn't say nothing. I was going to, but then you responded.
I understand that you are passionate about this subject and defend what you love, but it doesn't have to descend into rudness, does it?
I do appreciate that you offered a bit of an apology to Mal4Prez. I think it was Jack who thought you didn't need to provide one. To this, I have to ask . . .
If I say 'fuck you' with a smile on my face is it more polite than saying it with a scowl? It's still rude.
> I know it's not the same healthwise as some idiot in front of you at the grocery checkout blabbering away on a call phone - although behind the wheel of his SUV, now that's potentially health threatening,
I completely agree with you. You will have to have hands free in cars soon. A law I fully support even though it will make my life more difficult - and expensive since I'll have to buy an earpiece.
>I give you, but still it's a matter of lack of respect or politeness, and should be addressed accordingly outside of the issue of smoking in general.
I agree.
"A government is a body of people usually notably ungoverned."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, well, given that I gave my SELF a boot in the rear for that one, sure, that was nasty...
Thing is, THAT, in essence, is exactly what is delivered by the rest of society, at most smokers, on and on, all day, every day, day after day - to be so virulently vilified, treated as a social outcast, general leper and public whipping boy isn't... rude ?
Sure, yeah, I went somewhat overboard on it, but I really did want folks to get the concept of HOW IT FEELS to be on the recieving end of that sort of thing.
As for civility, as you say, is a nastiness covered with it any less nasty ?
In either direction ?
I'd rather someone be honest than polite, that's just me tho, your mileage may vary...
Oh, and till my personal seconhand smoke, in light of the details above, affects you personally, can we dispense with that entire line of rationale ?
It's kind of ridiculous to go blaming folk for stuff they didn't do to you pre-emptively.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME