Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 12 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Anthony- But if your hands are busy carrying a child (they don't start walking until 1 y/o) and water, or your eyes are bad, your hearing is crappy and your hands a bit shaky...
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
Or just unlucky, too slow or too hesitant.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's what friends are for.
I find it interesting that folks think severing the Government bonds which chain us together by force, would somehow sever the personal bonds which hold us together as people.
Or are we dancing around that particular fact deliberately ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
That's what friends are for.
I find it interesting that folks think severing the Government bonds which chain us together by force, would somehow sever the personal bonds which hold us together as people.
Or are we dancing around that particular fact deliberately ?
No, Frem, you've read your Alice Miller. It's because, psychologically, they don't distinguish between external government and self-government.
That's why "anarchy" makes 'em so crazy: because they can't imagine self-governance in the absence of external government.
To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.
Geezer, you might want to add any number of books by Alice Miller to your reading list, For Your Own Good would be a good start.
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
That's why "anarchy" makes 'em so crazy: because they can't imagine self-governance in the absence of external government.
To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.
Geezer, you might want to add any number of books by Alice Miller to your reading list, For Your Own Good would be a good start.
Interesting comment. I find myself agreeing. Maybe Fremd is right about folks just not being ready yet.
Alice Miller is on the reading/googling list. Thanks, HK.
This all started when I picked up a copy of "Radicals For Capitalism: A (Freewheeling) History fo the Modern American Libertarian Movement", by Brian Doherty, at the library. I'm a bit more than half way through its 600 pages of small print text (plus 100 pages of notes), and end up several times a day taking the book over to the computer to look up a particular person, philosophy, cross-reference, book, or pamphlet. Fun stuff.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Even with government there are gangs, and mobs, and “warlords” who are willing to shot anyone in the head to secure their interests. It’s got nothing to do with a “rotten species.” You have this ridiculous notion that the reason I don’t agree with anarchy is because I hate the human race or think we lack any since of nationalism. But that’s not even remotely true. The reason I disagree with anarchy is because I’ve never seen an instance of it ever working and neither you, nor anyone else, has given me any rational reason to believe it could possibly work.
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.
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
"Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth."
No, I think it's that most people understand once you have any power structure - and I include businesses and individuals with more accumulation than others, as well as government - you will have a positive feedback cycle until you're back to a single ruling entity. And it's not b/c people are evil as a group (though some truly are), it's b/c the evil people WILL commandeer available power structures to their own ends. And b/c the 'good' people don't know how to relate in large groups to keep that from happening.
I hope for an anarchic society eventually - but it will be VERY different from today's, and I think it will also be low technology, by necessity.
Edited to add:
LeGuinn was very aware of this, she made a point of addressing these specifics in her book.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:And what a miserable mischaracterization of my opinion.
What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.
I can understand Libertarianism... altho the very government functions that they would keep (police, military) are the exact ones that I would choke-hold. The other problem is Libertarianism doesn't address is the problem of the commons, because in that philosophy there is no commons: everything is owned by somebody.
What I can't really grasp is anarchy because I find that it just doesn't match "human nature". The problem is that most people are TOO cooperative. They have no interest in constantly being on guard- all they want is an occupation that provides them the basics and security, a safe neighborhood, and time for having fun- which I find very normal and typical the world over. But SOME people are sociopaths, perverted compulsives, adrenaline junkies and the like. And once they develop a modicum of power it will snowball as that power allows them to accumulate more power, unless society takes specific measures to keep power from accumulating. Aside from "give everyone a gun" and "imagine a new paradigm" I haven't heard anyone address how this would work. And in lieu of me slogging thru a ton of reading, I would hope that someone could provide a short, well-reasoned and specific example of how to get from "here" to "there", and how to maintain that system in the face of the constant tendency for power to accumulate.
.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
To these folks, anarchy is shooting your lover in the head and running naked in the streets, hooting. Because they identify so powerfully with the forces of repression that they can't imagine freedom being anything but some sort of lawless Hell on Earth. What a miserable view of humanity and what an unjust appraisal of themselves as members of such a rotten species.
Actually no that's not what I see at all. My concerns can be broken down as follows.
1) How do you deal with the bad actors and by this I'm not talking about Frem's "Burt" who exists as part of your community and everyone can see is an asshole. I'm talking about the sexual predator, the gang banger, the spree murderer? These people exist and I see nothing in this system that prevents that or mitigates that risk. Giving everyone a gun is not the answer unless you want to live with it in your hand your whole life. In our world "society" in general tries to stop these people via a professional police force that is paid for out of general taxation. If that is to be replaced by "renta-cops" then only the rich will see any justice. The lesson will be clear, rape and murder the daughters of the poor. Rob from those unable to afford a pinkerton to come after you. Above all always use extreme force, because you don't want to give the other guy an even break. Kill everyone seems like a good idea too since it's unlikely the victims families can afford the investigative talent to find you if you leave no witnesses.
2) Bad actors in larger groups. Organized crime and street gangs won't disband because you abolish governments. In fact if you arm the populous it becomes essential for bad guys to mass together for their own protection. Again I think the notion is that they will allow you to face them in a fair fight, which is exactly what any gang will try to avoid, they will target your leaders and your families first. In then end it will become your gang vs their gang with innocents someplace in the middle.
3) Small concentrations of power. Home owners associations can be pains in the ass without the need of government. In fact any concentration of people that get it in their heads they know better than you is going to be a problem. Right now we try to limit the power of the simple majority by creating a meta majority nationally to offset it. But in the absence of that, who stops injustice? I think you guys imagine yourselves to be amongst the upstanding leaders of this new community, or perhaps you don't care because you figure you'll just shoot anyone that tries to tell you what to do. If you're the only black family in a town, if you own property there and that property is the only thing you own what do you do if the local community starts to re-enforce lunch counter rules or says that blacks cant walk on the sidewalk. Yes you can be ruggedly individual and you could carry a gun, but they also have guns and there are more of them. Right now they burn you out they know that the government will come into their community and kick their asses. How do you stop people from ethnically cleaning their neighborhoods? Or does that even bother you because I'm assuming most of you guys are white?
4) Large Concentrations of power. So far nobody has addressed what happens with any big concentration of power like big businesses and the like. They have the deepest pockets so they can buy their own level of justice from the Pinkertons. If Megacorp dumps dioxin in your creek what do you do? Get some good old boys with shotguns in a pickup and go fix it? Let me know how that works when you run into Blackstone or whoever it is Megacorp uses for security. Oh I suppose you could leave and take a hit on all that property you threw away.
Of course when Mexico wants Texas back it might be more interesting...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Actually no that's not what I see at all. My concerns can be broken down as follows.
1) How do you deal with the bad actors and by this I'm not talking about Frem's "Burt" who exists as part of your community and everyone can see is an asshole. I'm talking about the sexual predator, the gang banger, the spree murderer? These people exist and I see nothing in this system that prevents that or mitigates that risk. Giving everyone a gun is not the answer unless you want to live with it in your hand your whole life. In our world "society" in general tries to stop these people via a professional police force that is paid for out of general taxation. If that is to be replaced by "renta-cops" then only the rich will see any justice. The lesson will be clear, rape and murder the daughters of the poor. Rob from those unable to afford a pinkerton to come after you. Above all always use extreme force, because you don't want to give the other guy an even break. Kill everyone seems like a good idea too since it's unlikely the victims families can afford the investigative talent to find you if you leave no witnesses.
Actually, it does seem that you expect people without the state to govern them to resort to, and get away with, more violence than currently. This might be a worthwhile argument if it wasn't for the amount of damage that the "the sexual predator, the gang banger, the spree murderer" get away with in our current system because folks have signed over their responsibility for their own safety to the police, and don't take elementary precautions. They then are surprised when bad things happen, and wonder where the police were.
The folk in Southwest D.C. would probably get a laugh out of the "private police only protect the rich" considering how well the public police don't protect them.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, is anyone going to come up with a specific, to-the-point description of HOW to create and maintain a system of "self governance" that doesn't accelerate the monopolization of power?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME