Help from Libertarians/Anarchists

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 13 of 18

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:06 PM

Doesn't work that way, Siggy.

You ask 100 different Anarchists, you'll get 125 different answers.
(it's an old joke..)

You can't just slam together some top-to-bottom fully detailed "system" and then try to drop it in place and force it on everyone, that is a solid recipe for every kind of disaster imagineable.

What must be done, is start kicking down and scrapping existing structures that EVERYONE despises and no longer have much of, if any, useful function for the people being forced to finance them.

And you keep scrapping them, till you're down to a bare minimum that everyone seems to want or need, and then move to absorbing them as a function of the community, eliminating, or whatever seems to work best - remember, yer dealing with PEOPLE, not machines, so it's very much a "what everyone can live with" kinda thing.

The whole BASIS of Anarchy is a lack of coercion.
"What do you WANT ?"
"What do you NOT want ?"

"Out of that, what can you live with, based on the logical choices we have ?"

And so on and so forth, but thing is, you just can NOT bridge the mental gap with most folk today in the here and now, it's just not gonna happen and we're just not ready for it.

We gotta grow a set of wings first, before we're ready to fly away from the nest, right ?

Socio-Emotively we're still painting on the cave walls, and it's gonna STAY that way until we stop crushing the humanity out of our children.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 10:09 PM

"Of course when Mexico wants Texas back it might be more interesting..."

Oh I just can't resist...

You couldn't GIVE Texas back to them, hell, WE don't want Texas... it's fulla TEXANS! uggh!

-F

RUE

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:25 PM

But we've seen what doesn't work - and out of control private interests aren't the answer either.

Here are some of the things we have to thank them for:
black lung
E coli O157H7 contaminated food - and MRSA and MRSE
pcbs, dioxins, pbde's and other dangerous and persistent chemicals spread world-wide
strip mining
poverty wages
goon squads and company towns

How do you recommend people deal with that after the fact ? Better yet, how do you recommend we prevent irreversable and deadly problems in the first place ? And if you don't have answers for known problems, how do you expect people to take you seriously ?

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

FLETCH2

Wednesday, January 16, 2008 11:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
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.

I don't see that at all sorry. Yes I agree that these people are out there and do damage in our current world, that's my point. Irrespective of the changes you make to government lone preditors and the organised gangs like the Mafia, the Crips and the KKK will still be out there.

In the current system if someone is victimised the crime is investigated using public money because it's understood that it's a common problem. I know it may not do the victim of the initial crime any good but the point is that if you don't catch a Ted Bundy he will just keep on killing.

So to replace the current system of investigation for one where the victim pays to investigate the crime produces the exact circumstances I'm mentioning. A new Ted Bundy would just target the poor and keep killing, safe in the knowledge that if the family lacks the resources to pay for the cops "gorgeous serial killer" package nobody will hunt him down.

The suggestion that victims are somehow at fault for being victims -- I assume because they were not packing "heat"-- is also bogus. People like Bundy prey on people when they are vulnerable or ill prepared not when they are sitting there gun in hand and waiting. Will you arm every child over 8? How do you deal with holding a gun while carrying groceries to your car?

So get real and address the issue.

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:55 AM

Well Frem, I know how that goes. I can't tell you the number of times I've come up with a fairly detail solution (how to do a total analysis, how to go through a complex protocol of medication trials) and sometimes my plan works brilliantly but sometimes it gets totally derailed by reality!

Still, I'd feel a lot more comfortable if I felt we were heading towards something instead of just away from something. We need a way to keep predators and control freaks from hijacking the system. I can thinks of lots of ways to keep power from being monopolized.... economic democracy, the power of the cell-phone camera and the internet... but there have to be some structures in place for that to happen (laws, internet) and if you toss out some critical items you may find yourself in a deep hole with no way out.

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

GEEZER

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So to replace the current system of investigation for one where the victim pays to investigate the crime produces the exact circumstances I'm mentioning. A new Ted Bundy would just target the poor and keep killing, safe in the knowledge that if the family lacks the resources to pay for the cops "gorgeous serial killer" package nobody will hunt him down.

Or the private security companies might hunt him down as a public service for the advertising and good will value. Individuals or groups who are concerned about crime might also either track such a person down, or hire it done. Once again, lack of a government doesn't mean people don't care.

Quote:
The suggestion that victims are somehow at fault for being victims -- I assume because they were not packing "heat"-- is also bogus. People like Bundy prey on people when they are vulnerable or ill prepared not when they are sitting there gun in hand and waiting. Will you arm every child over 8? How do you deal with holding a gun while carrying groceries to your car?

People have been convinced that they can be careless about their security, anything from locking doors to having a plan on how to get out of the house, or defend themselves if necessary, because they've been told the police will protect them. The police have no legal responsibility to protect you as an individual, only 'society'. In fact they will often limit your ability to protect yourself.

I suspect that people who had to contract and pay for private police service would find that they could reduce their payments by taking simple precautions, and would understand that they're the primary person responsible for their own security. This doesn't necessarily mean being armed, just being aware.

People not "packing heat" get robbed all the time now. In many places exactly because the robbers know they won't be packing. Wouldn't you rather people at least had a choice?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:14 AM

So Neo-Bundy will only be caught as an act of charity, publicity or vigilantism? That is really reassuring.

If someone murders your child and you can't afford to pay to have them found I guess we just forget about it right?

GEEZER

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
So Neo-Bundy will only be caught as an act of charity, publicity or vigilantism? That is really reassuring.

Under our current system, the real Ted Bundy managed, in five years, to kill between 29 and 100, depending on who you ask. Now that really must give you faith in the folks who have the responsibility for protecting us now.

Or if folks paid more attention to their own security, because they realized they were the primary ones responsible for it, your neo-Ted might have been either balked from killing so many or stopped much earlier.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:41 AM

Old-Ted fooled even the police. Let's give neo-Ted a little credit and think he could do the same with a wary populace who isn't quite as experienced with sociopaths. B/c sooner or later, you will have a neo-Ted who's a skilled pathological killer and liar.

What then ?

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

RUE

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:45 AM

On a more general note:

For those of you who want an anarchic society of any type, I have a question. Let's suppose a couple has a child who is brain damaged and who will survive, but never be self-supporting. The parents are loving and do everything they can, but sooner or later, as people do, they die.

What is the place for this person who is utterly dependent on the goodwill of others ?

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

PREV PAGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NEXT PAGE