Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 16 of 18
Quote:That is stunning, Frem.
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
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.
You and HK amaze the hell out of me.
--------------------------
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe: "That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.
--Henry David Thoreau
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I can't accept what I can't understand and so far no one has been able to explain "what" it is and "how" this will work. (I get the "why" you want it to.) So I put your reply into the realm of non-responsive. Ask 100 anarchists and you don't get 125 answers, you get one. Maybe.
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.
So like I said, how about we try this discussion from another angle? If anarchism is truly a description of what you DON'T want (as Frem said) rather than what you DO want, what would you eliminate first, specifically, how do your propose to do it, and what would you hope would result?
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem- I realize I get a little (ahem!) sarcastic,
so thanks for continuing the discussion despite. I hope other people will be drawn in.
I've spent some time thinking about what I would get rid of first. Honestly, I can't decide between "politicans" and "police"... altho I think the national intelligence agenices would be a good start too!!
Getting rid of politicians: Personally I think we should turn our government into a direct democracy. Everything put up for vote by everyone after a suitable discussion period: Say, six months to a year. I can see a few really good outcomes from that: (1) There'd be a lot fewer laws passed, since we wouldn't have a group of leeches and their hangers-on (for the most part) whose sole function it is to bang the gavel from time to time, and (2) People would have to become a lot smarter about, and a lot more involved with their government.
Getting rid of police: This is a kind of partial move. The police almost never prevent violent crime. So as "protection", they suck. We really don't need "beat cops", we need investigators, doctors and neuropsychologists to assess and treat criminals.
So, with that in mind, would you still vote for getting rid of national security agencies first? And if so- why?
PS- How 'bout a new thread? Mayeb we should leave all the bile behind and start fresh.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Pointless, eh ?
Guess we shoulda stayed a british colony then.
You need to read something.
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
These guys actually had a legitimate grievance. The government they were trying to divorce themselves from had done some really harsh and stupid things to them. Yet they are not saying "all government is bad we must give everyone a flintlock, kill the mental defectives and shoot anyone that messes with your stuff." What they said is that governments exist to secure the rights of the people and the powers the government uses to secure those rights are only the ones given to it by the people.
I said it before, the government is a tool of the people. Now you may view it as a tool that has been taken over by special interests and is being used against you - well if that's the case take it back and reform it. You tell us not to blame guns for gun violence because a gun is just a tool. If you truely believed that then you could not blame government for "government violence" either. It's just a tool. If you are too stupid to properly secure your weapons then you deserve to have them used against you.
Note the section on "governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes." These people should know, they lived with a government far far worse than any you've had to experience. You want to abolish it because you cant do everything you want when you want to? That's the hissy fit of a child. Societies are about compromises and deals. Compromises mean that sometimes for the greater good you don't get your own way, deals need someone to enforce them. At it's core that's what governments do, they establish and enforce a social contract between people to their mutual advantage and they oversee the deals the people make to try and keep them fair. That sounds a long way from "give everyone a gun and let them sort it out."
Quote:
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.
Actually Fremworld encourages the bully it doesn't make it less likely. You seem to think that if you just gave him a gun, ordinary meek Joe will be encouraged to stand up for himself against mean bully Burt. If he was going to do it Joe would have stood up for himself already, he doesn't need the dutch courage of a loaded weapon. Burt may beat the shit out of him or Burt may be a coward and back down, in either case the consequences of the encounter are unlikely to be too severe.
Give them both a gun and suddenly the situation can escalate until one or both of them are dead. You always assume that it will be Burt that blinks first and you think that because that has to be the consequence if guns are to make this situation better and not worse. But what if Burt doesn't blink? What if in the ensuing e
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ask 100 anarchists and you don't get 125 answers, you get one. Maybe.
Dang it, Signy, I am so very, very sick of you and Rue, for years now, slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while. I wish the both of you, whom I have grown to respect IMMENSELY, would cease and desist with these premature victory dances. I don't doubt that more than one of your "defeated" foes have simply walked away from the conversation because of this kind of rudeness.
I have every intention of giving you my best understanding of the situation but I have not had the time over the past two days. It's all I've been able to do to keep tabs on the thread between gulps of OJ and brushing my teeth before I'm out the door. Meanwhile you malign everyone who hasn't dutifully jumped through your hoop. It's really frustrating.
The irony of ironies brought to light by this thread (thank you, Geezer, you really asked the right questions this time), is that this kind of presumption and hostility is exactly the "human nature" (why the quotes, btw?) that you build your world view upon and it speaks to exactly why "discussing" philosophical anarchy with you--which for me has EVERYTHING to do with mental health and early childhood development that CANNOT be reduced to the sound-bite your lack of real interest demands--is not something I'm expecting to go well in the least.
And really, that's all I have time for atm. Please, folks, slow it down. Be patient. Ask for clarification and wait until ya get it. And if you have the urge to post a "oh, and another thing I revile anarchism for..." let it wait, k? Please.
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 SignyM:
But please be specific.
First, in abidance with the principles of anarchism, I have no desire to coerce others to be freer than they want to be through the democratic process. So specifically, I would create a libertarian country, NOT an anarchistic one. Libertarianism would be one more baby step towards the ideal anarchistic paradigm, which the world is not ready for yet.
The country would be founded on a Constitution (very similar to the American one) that does 2 things: (1) governs the government, not the citizens; and (2) define citizen rights and the contract for citizenship.
1. The government's function would be limited to these: political structure, public roads, taxation, courts, police, and military.
Political structure would follow a corporate model. Citizens would be similar to shareholders, and the President would be similar to a CEO. There would be no limit in terms, as long as the CEO is performing satisfactorily. Just as the CEO has only one responsibility to the shareholders (protect fiduciary interests), the President would have only one responsibility to its citizens: protect constitutional rights. All other functions of courts, police, and military fall under the same mission.
2. Taxation would be a small sales tax of new goods exceeding a certain worth. For example, it could be 5% of all new items above $500. The bottom line is taxation must be on voluntary, luxury purchases.
3. Public roads and office buildings will be the only land the government is allowed to own and operate. Operations will be performed by government employees, and subcontracting public functions to private providers will not be allowed. (Public tax money will not be allowed to reenter the pockets of private enterprise as in the American system.)
4. Citizenship is earned by signing the Constitution as an explicit social contract. Aspiring citizens agree to pay taxes and abide by Constitutional principles and court decisions; in return, they get citizenship, which earns government protection of those same rights.
5. All rights are derived from the bedrock principle of individual sovereignty. All citizens are sovereigns of the state.
The sovereign right to absolute autonomy over one's own body and bodily functions is categorically inviolable. Autonomy includes what one wishes to think, believe, say, ingest, inject, carry, own, possess, etc. That is, they can say anything, own anything, believe anything, do anything they want to their own bodies, as long as it doesn't violate the sovereignty of another individual.
6. All interactions with other sovereigns have to respect these rights and be consentual. The courts investigate and adjudicate conflicts between sovereign individuals; the state's police enforce court decisions.
7. The citizenship contract can be terminated by the citizen at any time. Non-citizens are welcome to visit or live in the country--they simply are not afforded government protections.
These are the "specifics" in a nutshell. Of course, things could get a lot more specific, but that is the general idea. It is not complicated. Live and let live.
--------------------------
To speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
--Henry David Thoreau
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Genetics may load the gun, but it is environment that pulls the trigger.
Quote:In point of fact genetics is not "the" leading cause of brain dysfunction. Brain development is very complex and any little thing can throw it off... exposure to any number of common viruses, lack of certain minerals and vitamins or exposure to toxins (street drugs, Rx, natural toxins like aflatoxin, different maternal blood type), and in quite a number of cases (like autism and dysplasia) researchers have not YET figured out how to prevent it. Pinning all of our problems on "genetics" and/or "upbringing" overlooks the fact that nature is a bitch with dice in her hands. (In other words "shit happens" by pure chance.) If you get rid of all child abuse you prolly get rid of about 80% of the problem and a fair bit of "brain damage" (which comes from beating or shaking a child) but there is an irreducible developmental neurological component to the issue.
which for me has EVERYTHING to do with mental health and early childhood development
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Got it, with my apologies.
Dang it, Signy, I am so very, very sick of you and Rue, for years now, slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while. I wish the both of you, whom I have grown to respect IMMENSELY, would cease and desist with these premature victory dances.
And thanks for the reply despite my snark.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You see CTS that's a much clearer answer.
1) So how do you get representation (elect presidents, lobby grievances etc?)
2) If the courts adjudicate against you and you refuse to comply, do the police come after you?
3) What rights do corporate entities have in this system? Rights equal to the sovereign individual or lesser?
4) Are there regional states or provinces? What rights, functions and responsibilities do they have if any, how do they derive the income to provide these functions?
5) If 4) who oversees interstate commerce?
6) How do you deal with harmful actions like pollution, and acts of violence (gang violence) that can not be dealt with by the individual?
7) In the event of national disaster/pandemics, do you take collective action, if so who decides when and how to do that and under what authority.
8) In the event that a person's "personal sovereignty" is in conflict with the public good -- say for example someone wanting to travel with a highly contagious disease --- at what point does the group have the right to over ride that sovereignty (if ever.) If not do you just let him do as he likes and then try to fix the damage later?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"slamming folks for not responding to you when they are simply absent from this forum for a while"
I think the last time I did that was two years ago, and it was with Geezer who was actively posting on other threads while ignoring one where he just didn't have an answer. Time to update your internal references.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME