Help from Libertarians/Anarchists

POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 15 of 18

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"what about the feeble ?"

I am all in favor of giving humans, regardless of age, at LEAST the same level of mercy we give pets.

Usually I am applying that statement differently, as you well know, but I apply it here to this situation as equally valid.

-F

You know I was going to answer Rue with "they'd shoot them" since the answer to almost every problem in your brave new world seems to be solved with pointless violence but it was a lil too sick to even say in disgusted jest.

I have an autistic nephew. Nice kid, sweet natured, loves movies and cartoons but will never be able to hold down a job or live unsupervised. My sister-in-law is scraping together every dollar to provide for his future after she passes. Shame Fremworld would take the national socialist option ....

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 17, 2008 9:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
"But there are also people born that way."

Absolutely, incontrovertibly, and utterly untrue.

With reams of hard proof behind it courtesy of the work of Doctor Bruce M Perry, CITIVAS and the Child Trauma Academy.

That is an *excuse* - and it's one being endlessly shelled out in order to avoid funding early intervention that prevents these seeds from blooming into monsters.

Humm pretty sure that you'll find that there is a structural abnormality in the sections of some people's brains linked with impulse control. So I suspect Rue is right, some people are born bad. Not to say that some aren't also made that way, but studies done by sociologist find sociological problems and solutions. Studies done by neuroscientists tend to see other things.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro03/web1/arutigliano.html

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/04/980410101830.htm

http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?article_id=218391848&ca
t=1_7

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:47 PM

Pointless, eh ?

Guess we shoulda stayed a british colony then.

Violence is part of life, in fact, many times it is defense of life, no sense dressing it up and pretending it doesn't happen - someone tries to harm you, take from you, and will not reason or negotiate, and you have the means and ability to clobber them, you're GOING to do it... let's not pretend otherwise.

As I pointed out in another thread, discussing Ghandi and non-violence, excercising the maturity to NOT use violence and attempt other means first does not mean you are unable, or unwilling, to do so - it just shows that one is humane enough to prefer other options if they are at all available.

There's a big difference between non-violence and complete pacifism.

Reason and negotiation are always the logical first choice, but when you're dealing with the Socio-Emotive barbarians our society is so effective at producing, it does not always work, and so you keep the means and ability to commit that violence handy, yes.

Speakin of which, while the tendancy may be there, without the environment in which it festers, the monster is stillborn and you get a person instead - THAT is what CITIVAS and The Childtrauma Academy is all about, when it comes right down to it.

Genetics may load the gun, but it is environment that pulls the trigger.

And regardless of obfuscatory spin, to me a brain dead body, once the Ka has fled that body, if it ever even inhabited it, is just a body - you're talking about someone capable of meaningful interaction with another human being, intentionally and willfully distorting the position, as you have from the beginning of this thread, as many have.

Like I been sayin, the mental disconnect here is too wide, but it does tell me a lot, the pyschotic rabidity with which the ideas here being expressed are attacked.

Were we to achieve the necessary Socio-Emotive maturity casting aside those structures would require, does not it then logically follow that violence would quickly fade as a pointless and wasteful form of negotiation ?

Never occured to you, eh ?
Didn't think so.

-Frem

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

GEEZER

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
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 ?

The wary populace, or individuals within it, hire folk who are experienced in tracking and apprehending sociopaths.

This is pretty much what we do now, except we have no choice in the hiring, and the cops don't lose their income if they don't do a good job.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:55 PM

Quote:
I have an autistic nephew. Nice kid, sweet natured, loves movies and cartoons but will never be able to hold down a job or live unsupervised. My sister-in-law is scraping together every dollar to provide for his future after she passes. Shame Fremworld would take the national socialist option ....

And I have a brain damaged daughter (near-fatal stroke at birth). I just can't imagine how this brave new world would accommodate her. Her best option would be a Scandinavian country. Or she could just die like the moms and kids in stateless Somalia. But that sounds kinda like Nazi Germany which I'm sure the anarchists aren't aiming for. (Or are they? Is anarchy based on some Nietzschian philosophy of absolute individualism?)

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 17, 2008 2:58 PM

Frem, you said "ask 100 anarchists and you'll get 125 ideas". The problem is, I've asked about 6 anarchists and I've gotten ONE idea- yours.

So in the interests of furthering the discussion along more productive lines, why don't you all - everyone who proposes some form of Libertarianism or Anarchy- come up with what you would eliminate first, why, how you would do it, and what you would hope to see. Maybe by tackling specific issues we would find that we agree in practice on most things, and get to some irreducible difference. But please be specific. Saying "I want to eliminate tyranny" is kind of a non-starter. Maybe we should start a new thread.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:04 PM

Quote:
I am all in favor of giving humans, regardless of age, at LEAST the same level of mercy we give pets.

Nah, we don't shoot our pets. We either kick them out onto the street or "euthanize" them. That's pretty merciful, innit?"

Quote:
But there are also people born that way."- Rue

Absolutely, incontrovertibly, and utterly untrue.-Frem

Frem, you are absolutely, incontrovertibly, and utterly wrong. I can't go into detail right now, but I KNOW brain-damaged children, and children whose brain didn't develop properly, and some of them really ARE violent. In fact, if you look at "death row" you'll see a very high percentage of brain-damage and borderline retardation.

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

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:

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.

But this happens NOW, Fletch. The professional police force paid for by general taxation cater to the rich and powerful, and pay only lip service to the poor and disenfranchised. All anarchy would do is take away the lip service.

Quote:
In then end it will become your gang vs their gang with innocents someplace in the middle.

Right now, it is simply their gang vs. innocents.

Let me try to phrase it another way. In the anarchist's view, all these problems exist, with or without government. All govt does is provide an illusion that these problems don't exist.

--------------------------
When a sixth of the population of a nation which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.
--Henry David Thoreau

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:25 PM

I think we probably should, Siggy, IF there's any point to discussing it when everything one says is taken through some bizarre mental permutation to mean something else and then spat back at them with willful distortion and hostility practically dripping off it.

I fail to see the point of "discussing" anydamnthing with folks not interested in discussing it, and I thank you for some attempt to be reasonable here, but what's the point if it's all ignored or distorted then mocked.

I feel very much like an evolutionist trying to have a rational discussion with creationist zealots, and you'll note that I do not, EVER, participate in those discussions, yes ?

For very much the same reason, and the behavior of folks here is why you'll not see those 125 responses - I'm probably the only damn fool left even willing to bother, and even *I* can see it's pointless, I knew that from the start, and said as much.

But even if I don't bother anymore, I WILL answer your one question for you, out of respect for you trying to be reasonable, but that's prolly the last I will bother with this, to be honest...

First thing I would do is kill off our Federal intel/enforcement agencies (CIA, NSA, FBI, USDOJ, BATFE, etc) by defunding them and charging many of the personnel for the crimes they have committed - and the result I would expect of that is a near instantaneous drop in violence, combined with a stock writedown of many media agencies amd ISPs, the collapse of most hard-right crackpot militias for lack of money, and the price of illegal street drugs to spiral out of sight due to the supply drying up.

Oh yeah, and a massive budget surplus once both their exploitive highway robbery "official" budgets and all that black bag, hidden in other programs shit or downright theft are removed like the damned boat anchor upon us that they are.

No sense payin outrageous fees for a guard dog that sucks up to burglars and mauls your children, is there ?

EDIT -
And again, you're taking "Cause I SAY so" up against 20-25 YEARS of hard science, peer-reviewed, sourced and proven research proving exactly the opposite.
http://www.childtrauma.org
http://childtraumaacademy.org/default.aspx

It doesn't fly.

So science ONLY matters when it agrees with you ?

Please, you wanna distort a position and then flame it, go play with the wingnuts, cause I smell the reek of Zealotry here, and I have better things to do than waste my breath on those.

-F

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
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.

No, no, no. Libertarianism accepts the concept of commons, or public good. It simply limits the public good to very few functions compared to what is seen as public good in socialism.

Remember, Libertarianism is not anarchism, and while there is some overlap in philosophy, one supports the presence of government (public good) and the other doesn't at all.

Quote:
Aside from "give everyone a gun" and "imagine a new paradigm" I haven't heard anyone address how this would work.

That is because "give everyone a gun" and "imagine a new paradigm [of self-government]" are exactly how anarchy would work, in a nutshell. All other "solutions" would be details derived from these two principles. If these arguments don't do it for you, nothing will. Just accept that you will never accept anarchism.

That's ok.

--------------------------
Seven social sins: politics without principles, wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, and worship without sacrifice.
--Mahatma Gandhi, a list closing an article in Young India (22 October 1925)

PREV PAGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 NEXT PAGE