Libertarian and Anarchist Society Part III

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 01:14
VIEWED: 7614
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:07 PM

FREM SAID (In Part II)

This isn't something you could drop wholesale on our current society, ours is way, way too screwed up for that, we're talking about an end point here, or were, initially - which is giving a lotta folk mental issues with the getting there from here part, it seems.

Thing is, when thrown back on their own resources, and over time developing a far greater sense of personal and community responsibility than we have now, folks would be less inclined to pop out kids THEY would have to be responsible for - You want em fed, clothed, educated, you'd better be ready, willing and able to do it... sure, members of your clan/tribe/etc might help, and if things go bad, might even be willing to take over responsibility if they had to, but you cannot depend on that, you don't have a Government sticking a gun to folks heads and forcing their actions.

Moral distortions aside, isn't it perhaps better for folks to have a kid cause they want to, when they feel they are ready and able to handle it, then make that decision based on medical coverage, employer leave policy, and government bailout/tax breaks ?

You are wholly right about piling people who do not know each other, nor actively wish to associate as a point of violence - put too many rats in the same cage and carnage does result, and that same study they heated the cage and wound up with an even more adverse reaction.
The murder rate of Baltimore city, on average, at least *doubles* when the temperature clears 90F.

Not sayin rats and people are all that much alike, but overpopulation within limited space and resources is a primary cause of violence between mammals, sure.

And yes, I do believe our technological advancement would take a sharp hit, and stagnate for quite a while until new methodologies for development and production come about, that's inevitable given how exploitive the current system of such is - but you also wouldn't have Government jackboots protecting monopolies and making it illegal for you to build your own variations of things were you able and inclined to do so.

Educationally, I see basic education as a parental responsibility, which, if neglected could be corrected by the child themself - if little johnny's parents didn't bother to teach him how to read, he can go convince aarons elderly grandfather to do it in exchange for helping take care of the old codgers legwork, since he don't walk so well anymore.

You wanna learn how to do something, fine - find someone who can do it and convince them that you're worth the effort, give them a hand, or even contract as an apprentice if you like.

As for the population problem, sadly, I think that's gonna sort itself in the next 50-80 years, and it won't be any kinda way you or I would like, alas - barring radical improvements and investment in space travel and colonisation, which would, in our current industry/production model require Government to do.. *hiss*

A catch-22 I am less than fond of, but could deal with if they'd actually DO it, which is unlikely cause every pysch study they've done on it has the same result of what would happen the instant a colony out of their effective reach became in any way self-sufficient, it'd be 1776 all over again.

The path there, either way, lies in not producing, or at the very LEAST producing less, mentally screwed up people - the mentalities and emotive patterns demanded for success in our current society are wholly destructive and unsustainable, which is gonna lead to that... erm, population correction... sooner or later, which I would prefer to be later or even not at all, but it's not like my opinion here is in the majority, right ?

Even IF we stopped it right this instant, we'd need a minimum of 2-3 generations to rebalance and more likely 4-5, and that's a damn long time, mind you - I wanna start rolling the boulder down the hill, though, in my lifetime at least.

One useful point is, that folks with a more adult socio-emotive profile CAN survive in this society, it's stressful, unpleasant and being unwilling to "stic

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:14 PM

Wow. Well said.

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:18 PM

Siggy, I got no problem with legit questions, beyond the fact that I might be busy with RL stuff and unable to address them as speedily as some would like - but a lot of questions are couched in terms and assumptions that render answering them as pointless as "So, are you still beating your wife", and other such setups.

I did note Rue's comment about technology taking a hit or not continuing to advance, and HKC already stated that it wouldn't, I thought we were clear on that point initially, and then realised perhaps it should be re-iterated.

Thing is, a lot of what HKC says approaches unity with what I say, only he does one hell of a better job than I do of articulating it... point in example...

He mentions the Genie, and letting it out of the bottle - compare that to my own comments such as "The more a persons humanity is suppressed, the more distorted the form in which it finally expresses itself."

We're saying the same thing - but HE manages to get it across, while when I say the same thing it either doesn't get across, or is instantly dismissed, or no one pays attention to it.

This is also why I am more inclined to give you a direct answer, as well, because you simply ask the question - rather than distorting the whole concept, throwing in assumptions that change it's nature radically, and then framing the question in such a way that no answer is going to make SENSE...

I cannot stress how wide the mental disconnect between the two forms of thought are, it's VERY hard for me to "get" what someone is asking unless they're very direct about it, without assumptions that other aspects of society would remain exactly the same, few of which, if any, would... and that changes the whole nature of the question and answer into something that would not even apply, you see?

And that is driving the folks trying to explain things up a wall, when even trying to get THAT across in either direction is also contaminated by various levels of hostility and snark in both directions - to be honest, I did not expect this discussion to be as productive as it has been, and I am seriously grateful to HKC for his ability to conceptually express a lotta things I been sayin around here for years now.

I already made my point for the folk I don't feel are here TO discuss it, so I need not re-iterate, just, if you want straight answers, ya need straight questions that are not pre-loaded with assumptions, right ?

-Frem

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 5:40 PM

When people who I repsect and admire all point to something that I can't seem to see, I want to take a GOOD LOOK in that direction. Thanks for continuing the discussion.

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

SIGNYM

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:26 PM

I wanted to give you some insight on people being "born evil". (Evil is a pejorative word, but some kids are really tough to take.)

Quote:
With such a mess up came seizures by late Sunday night/ Monday morning. Her nurse had to give her ativan yesterday and again this morning.... Of course the last couple of days the "old" Riley is back. Screaming, running, throwing stuff , just being obnoxious.

http://brain.hastypastry.net/forums/showthread.php?t=27116 son is 15. He had his first seizure when he was 6. He was diagnosed with complex partial seizures. I had taken him to a psychiatrist when he was 3 because of his severe temper tantrums. She told me it was because he was delayed in his speech. When Ryan had is last EEG in Nov 2002, it was normal: The first normal EEG since he was 6. We started tapering off Tegretol. After a couple of months with less Tegretol the mood swings and violent behavior started. We never increased the Tegretol to more than 400 mg during that time. However, after he tried to choke my husband and broke so many things in our home, I took him back to the psychiatrist. He diagnosed Intermittent Explosive Disorder He raised his Tegretol to the dose he was taking before, 1000 mg. Within a couple of weeks, he was better, but then one day he refused to go to school. Then he threatened suicide. He was cycling between being completely manic and running around to stopping and crying and saying he wanted to die. I called the pdoc who said to call the police and have him admitted to the hospital. Is it possible that he is having "deep brain or" or "limbic area," seizures? Or could the EEG just have been wrong? thank you!

www.medhelp.org/forums/neuro/messages/32442.html
And who can forget Seung-Hui Cho and the massacre at Virginia Tech?

Quote:
Cho's family, particularly family members who remained in South Korea, had concerns about Cho's behavior during his early childhood. Cho's relatives thought that he was mute or possibly mentally ill. According to Cho's uncle, Cho "didn’t say much and did not mix with other children." ... During an ABC News Nightline interview on August 30, 2007, Cho's grandfather reported his concerns about Cho's behavior during childhood. According to Cho's grandfather, Cho never... {made} eye contact, never called him grandfather, and never made physical contact to hug him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seung-Hui_Cho

A lot of kids have seriously abberant behavior because of developmental issues. I could go on about some of Bill Gates' more interesting quirks too. Again, not their fault.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:29 PM

That's what CITIVAS and the ChildTrauma Academy DO though, Siggy, is find ways to solve, mitigate, or prevent such aberration on a long term basis, while recognizing how critical early intervention and non-adversarial childrearing is.

That's why I keep mentioning them, because relative to this discussion their work is extraordinarily important.

Cho, on the other hand, is another can of worms, which I am very reluctant to open and would rather *not* get sidetracked discussing in detail, but.. umm.. how many of those students who Cho gunned down execution style were armed ?

Weapons restrictions aside, we have completely vilified self-defense in this society to the point where wackos and criminals DEPEND on "sympathetic environment" to work their will.

HKC has already touched on that point, but in Cho's case it shows the complete failure of learned helplessness as a defense measure - one doesn't have to be paranoid, just accepting of the fact that such things can happen in an imperfect world and be prepared to deal with that via means other than denial.

No, it's NOT possible to weed out or mitigate every potential screwball, nor would you want to, Harry Harrison, in his Stainless Steel Rat series, throws a couple of shots in that direction, and he's got a point cause some of those screwballs have lead to social and technological advancements no one else would have ever thought of.

But we can do our best to find out what, why, and how, and put real and actual effort into helping those folk rather than dismissing them and writing them off - as you may surmise, there's a little personal experience with the being written off thing going on there, as well as some lasting bitterness over it.

I was "born evil" too... am I a monster, then ?

-Frem

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

FREMDFIRMA

Wednesday, January 23, 2008 11:37 PM

Not sure how to really express this one, carrying over from another thread where we were discussing negotiation...

Any of you ever seen the movie,
The Outlaw Josey Wales ?

One of the things that makes it my favorite movie is when he goes off to settle matters with the Comanche, and ACTUALLY NEGOTIATES like a mature, adult, human being instead of shooting everyone in sight.

In fact, that movie does show up a lot of the mindset I am talking about, even better so because Wales is imperfect, a bit on the vengeful side perhaps, but also humane, at times even charitable - without regard to Governments or laws.

If you haven't seen it, it's worth a watch, cause it's quite entertaining as well.

-Frem

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

GEEZER

Thursday, January 24, 2008 12:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Not at all. That's a complete mis-representation of everything I, Rue, and Fletch2 have said. We have said, over and over.... and over and over... that people are MOSTLY cooperative.

Okay. Would they be any less cooperative in a society with no government? It seems to me that people in that situation would have a great motivation to be at least as, or even more, cooperative than they are now. Many of the posts from the 'statist' side of this discussion seem to think that without government it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. I've tried to mention voluntary cooperative associations, which have been successful in areas without law or government, but no one seems to believe they will work, despite examples.

Prior to the New Deal, lodges and benevolent societies provided low-cost medical care.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=2545

Folks in the West formed vigilance committees when government law enforcement was absent or corrupt.
http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f72h2.html

Claim associations recorded and enforced land claims. http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

Iceland had private law enforcement for 300 years. http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:44 AM

"Would they be any less cooperative in a society with no government?'

They might be, or more, or the same. The question is - what do you do with the very few who will never cooperate ? For whom people are prey or goods to be consumed ?

A society without the means to deal with those very few people will eventually be gamed by them. They WILL take over the existing power structure - be it money, status, religion - or force. And they will amass control by those means.

Then what ?

***************************************************************
UK Le Guin's answer is to just not have power structures. No money (and obviously no business), no religion, no property, no organizations.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:39 AM

Simple, don't feed them easy, docile, disarmed victims ready-made like we do now.

Do not glorify their actions.

Do not hold them up as role models and icons of "success".

Do not rationalize or justify what they do.

In short, cut off the damn gravy train and actually make it *difficult* for them to feed, rather than actively enabling them as our current society does.

I though this was obvious, not meaning snark there, just... from the paths this discussion has taken, I thought that would stand out, is all.

-Frem

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

RUE

Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:47 AM

No it's not obvious.

CTS has no problem with people having more money, influence, or power - as long as it's not governmental. That sounds like a recipe for an oligarchy, which btw we already have.

Don't feed them victims ? What about a monopoly or consortium in which everybody is the victim ? That kind of thing seems to be allowable.

Pardon me, but you all seem to have such a fixation on guns as the problem - AND the answer - that everything else is just a big blank.

No professional public ambulance service ? Well, if only people had enough guns. Medical insurance company got you by the short-hairs ? Guns'll fix that ! People with enough economic power to gouge whatever price they want. Guns work there too !

Out of curiosity, do you have an answer that's NOT guns ?

***************************************************************
No snark meant - but it seems like a mantra. And I'm not hearing anything else. Some people will exert their 'will to power' through any available avenue. I'm surprised you don't seem to understand that.

As an after-thought - I actually can imagine a new paradigm. And as I've said before - I would give up everything I have if it would mean a fair world for those who can't run the race. But better minds than mine have stumbled on the issue of the sociopath on their way to that world.

Anyway, I have to get on with life. I'll be looking for your reply tomorrow.

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:10 AM

Are you NOT reading my posts, or just being intentionally nasty ?

I have no IDEA how to express to you, in terms I have not already, repeatedly, ad nauseum, the core foundation of the concept itself.

ONE, quit producing so many mentally screwed up folks, this is bloody obvious, one screwball does not equal the entire destruction of society - they're not xenomorphs, allright ?

TWO, severing the bonds of Government does NOT in any way mean severing the SOCIAL bonds that hold people together as a family, clan or community.

THREE, laying down and taking it doesn't work, period - and vilifying the people that don't is directly counterproductive to expressing the lesson that crime does not pay.

And again, you are taking social constructs that would not likely exist as they are, if at all, in the society we're discussing, dropping them wholesale into it and then making assumptions based on them and their conduct.

For example - WHAT medical insurance company ?

The whole CONCEPT of insurance, especially Government mandated insurance is an outright fraud, protection racket and legalised theft - IF insurance existed, it would most certainly NOT function in the organised crime model it follows here, it would not, could not, function because no one would willingly pay to be ripped off, abused and not covered effectively in spite of ruinous fees.

If someone is gouging, you find another supply or do without, or build it yourself - remember no Government to ensure protected monopolies that ALLOW and ENCOURAGE gouging, besides which no Government strongarm preventing you from building the item your damn self if you have the means and ability - or hiring someone else to do so.

And if I get sick and collapse, any member of the community will call upon the medical services in place, whether it be a hospital, local doc or what have you, who's funding and support would likely be gleefully provided by that community, given the need and use of such services...

Your absolute hysteria towards something that is a mere tool, and only a small PART of active self defense, no more and no less than locking doors, being alert, knowing how to de-escalate... bothers me greatly, you focus on one tiny aspect of a greater whole, refuse to see anything BUT that aspect, then go ballistic about it.

And then you LIE, every time you bring it up, as if no one has offered other solutions or alternatives outside of that, which they have, and this is not the only thread you've pulled that stunt in, either.

And go out of your way to be malicious to one specific person, repeatedly, because they disagreed with you passionately on ANOTHER SUBJECT ENTIRELY and you can't seem to let it go.

Frankly, I don't know what to tell you but to re-evaluate your approach to the situation, cause if you have not gotten anything but "guns, guns, guns" out of a discussion that has so far spanned three entire threads, there's not a damned thing I can say that's gonna make any difference.

*sigh*

-Frem

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:30 AM

Geezer, I think my issue with your posts is not that people are nasty bastards. They're not. I'm having a problem with what you seem to be proposing as an alternative to government function, which is "private" (for profit) business.

As long as businesses are small, things work well. But once you get past the "several person" stage, then the for-profit business starts to build momentum. And I see nothing in YOUR proposals between anarchism and corporatism, which is what we have now. And, IMHO, corporatism is the epitome of a pathological, inhuman system. So maybe if you clarify what size of business you envision, and whether there is any barrier to concentration of power in the monetary arena it would further the discussion. (And yes, I think businesses can form monopolies without government support.)

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:44 AM

Quote:
And then you LIE, every time you bring it up, as if no one has offered other solutions or alternatives outside of that.

But, they haven't. YOU haven't.

So, what does "society" do if a family beats their children and locks them indoors? The one thing that this society seems awfully impoverished in is action on anything other than an individual level. No neighborhood councils, no "shunning", no advanced medical care (forget heart surgery). And, as you can see from my post to Geezer I don't trust large-scale coordination to corporations either. There just seem to be critical functions which are missing.

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

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:45 AM

Frem,
I agree with what you wrote about medical insurance but how exactly do you agrigate medical costs in this situation? Both socialised medicine and insurance essentially do the same thing, they agrigate groups of patients together in such a way that the vast majority of healthy ones pay dues that help pay for the expensive procedures and chronic care situations.

Now say you have a heart attack and need a bypass, the cost of that kind of proceedure could clear out most families lifetime worth and still leave them in debt. Is this cost agrigated in some way or will people just let sick relatives die?

GEEZER

Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I think my issue with your posts is not that people are nasty bastards. They're not. I'm having a problem with what you seem to be proposing as an alternative to government function, which is "private" (for profit) business.

As long as businesses are small, things work well. But once you get past the "several person" stage, then the for-profit business starts to build momentum. And I see nothing in YOUR proposals between anarchism and corporatism, which is what we have now. And, IMHO, corporatism is the epitome of a pathological, inhuman system. So maybe if you clarify what size of business you envision, and whether there is any barrier to concentration of power in the monetary arena it would further the discussion. (And yes, I think businesses can form monopolies without government support.)

This is where we get back to Fremd's notion that it is going to require a change in basic mindset for Anarchism to work on a large scale. I'm stating my understanding of this as someone studying, not a disciple, and welcome any correction or expansion.

To have an Anarchist society, it's pretty much a given that the large majority of folks would have to espouse Anarchist economic and social philosophy. The first rule of this philosophy is that every person owns himself and his property, and no one has the right to initiate force against any person or their property. From this rule we can derive rules against murder, assault, rape, theft, fraud, vandalism, pollution, price-gouging, etc. It also pretty much takes government right out of the picture since governments generally work only if they can initiate force, be it war or taxation.

Also, Anarchist economic theory posits that in any unforced transaction, both sides will receive benefit.

Now build a corporation using that mindset. You can accumulate capital from shareholders, use it to produce a product, and sell it on the open market. You can hire and fire employees. You can make or lose money.

Your corporate Anarchist mind-set doesn't allow you to price-fix, which causes a forced transaction with your customer. It doesn't allow you to defraud the customers or stockholders or employees. It doesn't allow you to use strongarm tactics on workers to keep wages low. It doesn't allow you to stifle competition.

Also consider that even if a corporation was made up of people who don't abide by these rules, they'd face a society that does, and is dedicated to enforcing them. This gets into a private judiciary, which I'm reading up on now. Lots of ideas to sift through.

So I don't really think it's the size of the company that matters, as much as the character of the people who make it up. People philosophically inclined to not initiate physical or financial force against others would have a hard time justifying the corporate excesses you fear within their company, and an even harder time justifying it to a society of Anarchists.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, January 24, 2008 2:53 PM

Siggy, if you truly believe that I have offered no solution to any of the problems facing us now - in any of this whole discussion, we got nothin left to talk about.

To say that I have not, that others have not, is absolutely as dishonest an assessment as it gets, and I do believe that to be intentional, and yes I am annoyed as hell about it.

Someone asks a question, I give em an answer... they don't LIKE the answer, and so act like I never gave it, no, I do not play that game - it's inherently dishonest to keep rephrasing the same questions cause you don't like the answers you are getting.

And once again, to the questions below that statement, answers that in ten post or less, someone else will pretend were never given....

"The one thing that this society seems awfully impoverished in is action on anything other than an individual level."

That is absolutely by intent and design, in order to prevent needless concentration of power and abdication of responsibility by the individual.

Of COURSE there would not be a Neighbohood Council, why bother to choose Anarchy if the first thing you do is start rebuilding Government ?

What YOU might see as critical functions, and I would need to details to be sure - are likely some of the very things Anarchists wish to be RID of.

For example, exploitive, rapacious power company monopolies, protected and encouraged by Government.

Depending on how you, personally, wanna live your life, electrical power may seem a necessity to you, maybe the quaker down the street doesn't want any, but you do - so you either cut a deal with a provider, or figure out some other way.. maybe put up a wind unit, a couple solar panels, move in a generator and contract for some diesel if you like... or, and this is most likely, get unanimous agreement and pool resources within the community to buy power service for the community as a whole.

Fletch, I would see medical care as a function of the community, folks would contribute labor, supplies, power, food, money, services - with the understanding that they will be cared for if something happens to them, without question.

And given the nature of the mentality we're talking about, an out of town visitor, should they fall ill, would have no need for concern as they would be cared for in the same fashion as would a member of that community should they fall in in his.

Most of the expense of medical care comes from the stupidity and exploitation within our current care model.. the hospital pays $8 for a single aspirin while the purchasing dept gets a nice kickback from the aspirin company and then charges your insurer $12 for it, who passes the cost onto you at approximately $14... and everyone gets paid while you get screwed.

In the society we're speakin of, say one of the guys on the outskirts of town produces aspirin (I dunno how it's made, mind, just makin an example, technical feasibility aside for the moment) for the local drugstore, who buys it in bulk lots cheaply depending on resale over time at a profit, but he generally doesn't sell direct to people cause small lots are a hassle... etc etc

But he DOES skim off some of each lot for the community hospital, having cut a contract with them to ensure longterm care for his disabled uncle, and for himself should anything happen to him.

There's also the fact that with a service based model configured around actual use, costs would be significantly lower, one set of quick stitches and a bandage wrap isn't gonna cost you $1200 like it does now - the hospital would have less interest and incentive to try gouging because people would be more reluctant to support it.

Say grandaddy carl keels over, he needs a bypass, the family rushes him off, or if needs be they call the hospitals transport service (this is where I would make my own contribution cause I can drive an ambo) and get him in and stable... gramma ellen, when she is not visiting him during his recovery, chooses to donate labor to the hospital cafeteria, which also allows her to bring him a cooked meal

GEEZER

Thursday, January 24, 2008 3:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So, what does "society" do if a family beats their children and locks them indoors? The one thing that this society seems awfully impoverished in is action on anything other than an individual level. No neighborhood councils, no "shunning", no advanced medical care (forget heart surgery). And, as you can see from my post to Geezer I don't trust large-scale coordination to corporations either. There just seem to be critical functions which are missing.

I know that I've mentioned voluntary organizations several times. Think of existing volunteer fire companies (many with ems), church and civic charitable organizations, legal aid societies, neighborhood watches, etc. One would think that in an Anarchist society, the people would understand the importance of developing these to a higher level. Anarchism isn't rugged individualism, and cooperation doesn't disappear if government does. (also see my last post on Anarchist-minded corporations)

A family beating its children and locking them indoors is initiating force against them. This would violate the basic Anarchist mind-set of the community in the gravest way, and would obviously draw a response. The local neighborhood watch, or a concerned individual, could file charges against the family (I'm still researching private judiciary, please be patient) or remove the children in dire circumstances. Remember that it is permissible to respond to the initiation of force with appropriate force, be it legal or physical. Also remember that the children are not the 'property' of the family, and can be removed if they request it.

As to advanced medical care, consider the Shriners' hospitals for children. Between charitable institutions and for-profit hospitals run with the Anarchist business mindset, I can't see any reason why medical care should decline.

As Fremd has noted, you can't just drop folks into an Anarchist world if they're not ready for it. This stuff won't work as long as most people think they, or their goverment proxies, have the right to enforce compliance from anyone else, either for the 'greater good' or for personal gain.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 24, 2008 4:20 PM

Quote:
For example, exploitive, rapacious power company monopolies, protected and encouraged by Government.

Frem, the reason why I keep asking the same quesiton over and over isn't because I don't like the answer, it's because the answer doesn't seem to address my question. Now, maybe my questions don't make sense from you anarchist perspective, in which case we're suffering from a real disconnect.

I've boiled down one of my conundrums to this: People WILL form associations which are much larger than the 150 or so people that one can include in the "monkeysphere". Why? Because its more efficient and you can't stop it. There is a minimum number of people required to maintain an advanced society... specialization dictates that it be so. (For example, how many heart surgeons can a population of 150 support?) That minimum is WELL beyond 150 people... the more advanced the technology, the more people are required to support that degree of specialization.

So how do you handle interactions that are well beyond a monkeysphere's-worth? Geezer proposes, for example, a mix of charity and for-profit business. Now, IMHO the two cannot exist together without ONE of them suffering in function... usually it's charity that suffers.

It seems to me that unless you limit how these interactions between groups takes place, SOME will inevitably form pathological characteristics. And its probable that the most pathological will "win", simply because "the host" has no coordinated defenses (and I don't mean violent defenses, I mean collective defenses) Saying that these associations and coordination won't form, or won't become pathological, is denying reality. They have, and they will cotinue to do so, based on sheer economics. You need more than a philosophy of "monkeysphere" to deal with it. You need a system of feedbacks. It seem to me that the challenge is to find the minimum structure that will be self-sustaining, and yet not have the capacity to itself become a problem. That's quite a challenge.

Geezer's proposal is voluntary or private judiciaries. But that implies "laws" and the power to enforce them. Your vision doens't seem to include the concept of "laws". CTS' concept seems more like Libertarianism (supports government police, military, and judiciary but nothing else.) So I'm getting a scattershot of ideas to sort out.

I promise to read through all of your posts carefuly and address each particular point.

Once again- thank you ALL for the conversation. It's been mind-challenging for me.

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

RUE

Thursday, January 24, 2008 5:20 PM

Frem

The only thing I hear is: people will be different. We don't know at this point how to fix the 5% born sociopaths, but in my magical world we'll have figured it out. And things will be different. We don't have a plan but we have a vision so it must be possible.
Trust me.

You want very specific questions but then you don't come up with specific answers - the nuts and bolts HOW of it all.

Can one person ruin a society ? Look at Bill Gates. Without a gun or fist raised, without the help of government he has appropriated an entire concept for his personal gain. And in the meantime he's foisted on society a monopoly that it to this day hasn't gotten free of.

Do you really think we're better off with Billy boy's products running our lives, or do you think it might be nice to have some better ideas, better products and better prices ?

How does your model take Bill Gates into account ? How does it keep Bill Gates from gaining control of an entire industry ?

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

RUE

Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:09 PM

And to repeat a question in a very specific way -

Like SignyM I have a family member (not a daughter) disabled by a stroke at an unusually young age. For the last 20 years every decision I've made has been about providing for this person after I'm gone. So I wonder what place your society has for a disabled person who has no immediate family to care for them.

CTS has said that 'people' would be more generous if there was no safety net. That unfortunately wasn't borne out by Reagan's big deinstitutionalization fiasco - the deadly consequences of which we are still dealing with today.
Now Geezer says that if there's a need there will be a provider. What he doesn't take into account in his world is that for-profit providers will only be there if there is money to be made. The deciding factor is profit not need. Look at 'orphan diseases' which exist in such low numbers that literally no business is working on them b/c the investment is too high and the profit - would not be there.
Now you seem to be saying the same as CTS - if you need it, it will be there. But as I have pointed out already, and at length - it simply isn’t. Where people have the choice to help - be it looking out for a sick old man in a crowd, supplying food banks, or housing and caring for the deinstitutionalized - it just DOESNT HAPPEN. And what in your world would be so different to make it happen ? People will be different ? HOW will that happen ?

So, if I had to ask ONE specific question it would be this -
Given my concern for the helpless (which out of sheer humanity should be your very specific concern too) - why would I pick your society with its hypotheticals and maybes over Sweden where the government looks after people very well - in a very demonstrable practical way ?

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 24, 2008 6:50 PM

Rue- People CAN be different. People in the USA are particularly harsh because of our hyper individualism, our basic acceptance of social Darwinism underlying capitalism, and (above all) the monopolization of our ethics by the corporate oligarchy. Given those stresses, the constant assault on social connections, etc I'm surprised that we are as generous as we are.

What I find disturbing is that anarchists seem to embrace certain aspects of our current paradigm as the solution to our problems when I think they may actually be part of the problem.

I note that the cultures which come closest to non-adversarial child rearing are the most "socialist" of economies. Perhaps socialism is a necessary step towards anarchism.

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

FLETCH2

Thursday, January 24, 2008 7:07 PM

Except socialist societies are not exactly examples of bare knuckle personal liberty. For one thing the care you are talking about is provided by high taxation -- CTS, Frem and Geezer don't actually agree that much when you get down to specifics but they REALLY don't like paying taxes. Socialist economies control industry through regulation, that's hardly a free for all without government interference. Lastly moving power into the society produces more authority not less. There you WOULD have works comitees, local councils, trade associations and unions all of which are power structures an Anarchist would want to do away with.

I can't think of a system that goes further away from Anarchism than that?

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 24, 2008 7:13 PM

I agree. But supposedly capitalism is a necesary step towards communism, so maybe any system eventually creates its own nemesis.

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

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:37 PM

FREM

Quote:
Thing is, when thrown back on their own resources, and over time developing a far greater sense of personal and community responsibility than we have now, folks would be less inclined to pop out kids THEY would have to be responsible for - You want em fed, clothed, educated, you'd better be ready, willing and able to do it...

The lowest birthrates are in the most socialist nations and the highest birthrates where government helps the least. Tagging overpopulation on "government aid" is just... well.. silly.

Quote:
I do believe our technological advancement would take a sharp hit.. until new methodologies for development and production come about

Which will require more than monkeysphere philosophy to redevelop.

Quote:
As for the population problem... is gonna lead to that... erm, population correction... sooner or later, which I would prefer to be later or even not at all, but it's not like my opinion here is in the majority, right

You have GOT to be joking! I think we all see the looming population problem and I think we'd all rather have it resolved in a nice way, so climb down from that cross, Frem!

Quote:
In the end, to my mind there's really only 2 ways this can go - and I could be wrong, since we're lookin at hundreds of years and more here. We keep producing jack sociopath the corpo-climbing backstabber who'll turn on anyone and anything to smash them out of the way as he climbs that ladder to the 'success" carrot our society holds up in front of him like a plow mule, till our resources run low and we fight a series of extremely destructive wars over the remainder which if we are very lucky don't leave our planet an irradiated hulk - causing a total social collapse and possibly restarting the cycle all over again...

Or we grow the fekk up and begin actually embracing our humanity instead of rejecting it, going through that necessary stage of anarchism or semi-anarchism, which might be an end point, or maybe just a beginning, but is far less likely to result in the utter destruction of our species as a whole.

I agree with the first part. I'm still thinking about anarchism as "The Solution".

Quote:
As far as the supposedly irredeemable kids go, by your own rules *I* should be a fully functioning sociopath, having such a diminished emotional capacity, but it's that very drive to cling to the humanity I DO have that has lead me to understand it's crucial importance, so just because a kid has "issues" does not automatically and outright condemn them to that fate, unless abandoned as "hopeless" by folk who believe they're "born bad" and we shouldn't waste the time and effort...

Just bc kids are born a certain way doesn't make them "irredeemable". Thats' two different concepts. I think we NEED to run down that Seung-Hui Cho bunny trail, because a LOT of the brain-damaged kids I know have very nice families that are totally overwhelmed by their children's issues, which are far beyond what a nuclear family can handle. (Often needs medical and therapeutic involvement as well.) There is no intention of "writing people off", or only dealing with them when they become violent. My only point is that it takes more than a passive "Let's not screw 'em up" approach, because these kids WILL be born and they MUST be accounted for. Too many studies show that a single asshole can throw off a work group of thirty people or more.

Quote:
For example - WHAT medical insurance company ?

Er... the one that Geezer seems to be proposing?

Quote:
And if I get sick and collapse, any member of the community will call upon the medical services in place, whether it be a hospital, local doc or what have you, who's funding and support would likely be gleefully provided by that community, given the need and use of such services...

Which needs more than a small community for support.

Quote:
That is absolutely by intent and design, in order to prevent needless concentration of power and abdication of responsibility by the individu

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

CANTTAKESKY

Thursday, January 24, 2008 8:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
CTS' concept seems more like Libertarianism (supports government police, military, and judiciary but nothing else.)

I said specifically that it WAS libertarianism, not anarchism. I also said specifically that was because we are not ready for anarchism yet.

Sig, it sounds like you would have no problems understanding left anarchism, the original anarchism proposed by Marx. It is pure communism, with the intent to abolish all hierarchy (everyone is equal, no differences in social status, wealth, power, etc.). Of course, such a society cannot sustain a specialized economy and is likely to be small and agrarian. Communists understand this and accept this limitation.

What you have a hard time wrapping your head around is right anarchism, or anarcho-capitalism. Now right anarchism will allow for larger societies and specialization. But the power differentials means more power struggles and violence. Right anarchists understand this and accept this limitation.

What you can't have is both large, specialized societies and no hierarchy/power/violence. Every model has its limitations. The trick to understanding the different kinds of anarchism is to understand the pros and cons of each.

Then you compare it to the pros and cons of the current system. After that, it is a matter of taste or personal preference. See, some of us are ok with all the weaknesses in a right anarchistic society, whereas you would find those same weaknesses unacceptable and fundamentally flawed.

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you're trying to figure out how a perfect anarchist society would work, that allows all the pros and none of the cons. Such a thing doesn't exist. I don't know if this helps, but that's what I am seeing in your questions.

--------------------------
There are two sides to every question.
-- Protagoras, from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers
Greek philosopher (485 BC - 421 BC)

SIGNYM

Thursday, January 24, 2008 9:32 PM

Quote:
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that you're trying to figure out how a perfect anarchist society would work, that allows all the pros and none of the cons.

Of course!

What's the point of having a thought-experiment if you don't go for the gusto? I can propose all kinds of fixes, tweaks, and modifications to the current system, but I don't think that's what Frem and HKC have in mind.

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

RUE

Thursday, January 24, 2008 10:57 PM

SignyM

I guess I wasn't clear enough. What I was asking Frem is - how do you expect people to be different if you have the exact same inputs, minus government of course.

You have your profit oriented business - check, which means a competitive society - check, lack of socially accepted support system and individual insecurity - check ... given the economic basis of living he's proposing, how does he expect people will learn to be different ? B/c they are all imagining that they need to be 'nicer' ?

***************************************************************
And in a slightly different direction - there was a Swedish (maybe Danish) couple charged w/ child endangerment in NYC b/c they left their toddler unattended in a stroller outside a store while they went in to shop. What they said in their defense was - oops - you know people do this all the time where we come from. It's just expected your child will be safe and all sorts of passers-by will tend to them if they are crying or having a problem. (They got off the charges.)

Now is that society so incredibly humane b/c they have a socialist government - or do they have a socialist government b/c they are so incredibly humane ?

I'm guessing it's the latter.

FLETCH2

Friday, January 25, 2008 12:15 AM

I have a few Swedish observations.

I mentioned the idea of "enough" before. I think that's a major cultural component. It doesn't really matter what your neighbor has as long as you are comfortable. You don't buy a bigger/faster/more expensive car to outdo your neighbour, you buy what appeals to you. I work in tech so maybe I just associate with geeks more, but if someone bought something and thought it was great he would show it off not in the spirit that he had one and you -- poor loser --- did not, but because it made him happy and he wanted to share that with you.

Office doors were never closed (other than during the few REALLY personal private meetings) because it was understood that you were always available to help whoever needed it. There was less formal hierarchy, your manager was one of the team whose job it was to insure the smooth running of the department, not some kind of superior being gifted to us. Often managers were paid less than the engineers they managed, because promotion did not necessarily mean becoming a manager so senior people could stick with what they were good at rather than being forced to manage to make more money.

My work group did far far more stuff together outside of work than in any country I have lived in. We went canoe racing, we went to festivals together, we went out after work to eat on a regular basis as a group. Groups are important in Sweden, group activity is encouraged in the tax system, so if you are a photography group and you equip a darkroom, you can right off those expenses as a company would.

It isn't an overly violent place. Alcohol is seriously taxed so few people can afford to get drunk enough to swing punches. Outside of work and groups they chose to join Swede's seem a very private people. An invite to someone's house is a big deal, they are also big on family.

They are very big on education, civically responsible, I dunno, grown up. You can walk through the center of their parliament building, politicians go out on the street, you don't get the impression that anyone there sees anyone else as being that big a deal.

It's not socialism as such, there are some VERY rich people in Sweden but i think Swede's just see them as other people who just happen to have more money, not people that are happier, more successful, wiser or better than anyone else. A friend of mine was married into a family where his father in law had inherited several million dollars and worked as a policeman. He worked there because he liked it and the money meant he could get a nicer apartment and a new car when SAAB brought out a new model. Other than that he just worked as normal.

Over there you're not special because of what you do, that's just your job it has nothing to do with who you are as a human being. You're not really special because of your money, it's considered distasteful to flaunt wealth but on the other hand people don't seem overly envious either. You just get on and do things with the minimum of fuss happy that you have enough.

However, downside for Frem. First, they have an aggressively progressive tax regime. I think I worked out once that based on my salary I was paying about 60% taxation. Taxes are targeted to discourage antisocial behavior like drinking. They make it tough to get drivers licensed at least in part to make people reluctant to drive. Almost all financial transactions require government issued ID.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 25, 2008 12:38 AM

Egads, this is prolly gonna be way longer and more complex than I would like....

Quote:
Frem, the reason why I keep asking the same quesiton over and over isn't because I don't like the answer, it's because the answer doesn't seem to address my question. Now, maybe my questions don't make sense from you anarchist perspective, in which case we're suffering from a real disconnect.

Without a doubt, and it's one I don't happen to be all that hot at bridging, and I'm getting very frustrated about it.

As for private judiciary, having thought on it a while, you'll note my constant use of the word Contract.

And I don't mean one forced down the throat of another, allowing the writer and forcer to change terms at whim, neither - real a EULA, or a phone service agreement, or a loan contract in our current society...

Absolute insanity, yes ?

AND forced on you with no choice, either due to Government regulation and Law, or by an exploitive cabal of businesses with a Government protected monopoly, and effective competition outlawed or regulated right out of business.

I mean an actual CONTRACT, written and approved by both parties with mutually agreed upon arbitration and enforcement provisions.

And believe me, in THAT environment, Contract Enforcement would be serious, SERIOUS business indeed - a breach of contract could lead to asset seizure, punitive measures, being blacklisted, or even abrogation of other contracts via domino provisions (i.e. break one contract with this collective, and ALL contracts with that collective and the individuals thereof would be voided by default) - there would not be, like there is now, the ability for a company to depend on Government and it's corrupt Judiciary to protect them if they abrogated it and laughed in your face, cause they would NOT be laughing for long.

I can't really stress how serious a business that would become, and entirely private, scaling to the needs and styles of one contract type or another, most likely - but Contract Enforcement would be a key part of doing business.

The only example that comes to mind right off would be the Bonding Authority in David Drakes Hammers Slammers series, which, if anyone here has read those - shows how that would work, albeit in a wholly different society and environ, it's not the best example, I know.

Quote:
So, if I had to ask ONE specific question it would be this -
Given my concern for the helpless (which out of sheer humanity should be your very specific concern too) - why would I pick your society with its hypotheticals and maybes over Sweden where the government looks after people very well - in a very demonstrable practical way ?

If the post detailing how medical services would be an integral, organic PART of the community rather than a seperate entity doesn't get it across, nothing I can say will.

Quote:
I note that the cultures which come closest to non-adversarial child rearing are the most "socialist" of economies. Perhaps socialism is a necessary step towards anarchism.

A possibility I will not dispute, given the medical care example posted above, which could be described, if you looked at it sideways and squinted really hard, as a socialist model, although it's obviously more interconnected than that.

Quote:
they REALLY don't like paying taxes.

Nope, especially when they go to things directly against our own beliefs... but I got no problem contracting payments for the benefit of both self and community, say... pooling resources and contracting for waste pickup and disposal as a community - as long as agreement is unanimous amongst everyone who contracted.
Those who chose not to or opted out can contract it individually, find another provider, or DIY, but Taxes are the very essence of coercion.

Technology

Quote:
Which will require more than monkeysphere philosophy to redevelop.

Not necessarily true, look at the impact of the internet, and imagine going back to 1950-1960 and trying to explain it to those folks ?
Technology is a pretty strange thing at times

GEEZER

Friday, January 25, 2008 12:46 AM

Fremd

Back to my original goal of asking questions of folks in the know, what do you think of the Nonaggression Principle?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

RUE

Friday, January 25, 2008 1:43 AM

Which needs more than a small community for support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, why ?
Especially if it only has a small community TO support ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, take a 'simple' angioplasty - something that a significant fraction of the population will (probably) eventually need. It takes a lot of training, equipment and practice to field a team that can do that kind of thing and not screw up too much. Far more than local resources can muster.

Or take the '1 in a million' case (like SignyM's daughter). You just can't create the expertise locally.

***************************************************************
I think what we are all hoping for, though is change - we know what a screwed up place this is. What we can't get together on is means.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 2:21 AM

Okay I'm gonna try to mentally create an anarchist system for a city of a million... which is about what you'd need to support a major university-hospital, a major university research (not a corporate R&D department 'cause for the most part they REALLY don't do blue-sky research) and some cultural institutions.

Frem, I'm going to tell you a dream that i had.... Like Rue's dream of "enough".

It had to do with a guy who woke up in the future. This future was populated by small villages of people in "organic" houses, with other people who wandered in and out on various affairs... definitely well-connected to the wider world. This future's great cultural tradition was a sort of competition called SANYAGOHING. (Yeah, I even dreamt up a name.)

Now, what this competition was was a kind of performance art that took place every few months. The ONLY RULE was that a performance group COULD NOT reject anyone who volunteered, and the group would be judged on how well they integrated all of the diverse talents.

The man went to a SANYAGOHING. One perforamce was a rousing, muscular dance of bright colors... men tossed women in the air while the oldsters played instruments and children twirled streamers and clapped and sang. It hard to keep in his seat and not get up and dance.

Another was music and song... voices and flutes and harps rose into the deep blue of twilight while children sang down the aisles, scattering rose petals as they, and and the elders carried candles, hugging the audience in a sign of peace. The man was in tears, it was the most inspirational moment of his life.

And then the third group got on stage. They divided themselves somewhat unevenly, their song and dance got off to a ragged start. So they stopped, rearranged themselves somewhat and started again, only worse. Several people split off from both groups, and went towards the back of the stage to discuss. The audience started to murmur, and the man mentally cringed for the performers. The performance started again, but it seemed that the smaller group wanted to do something entirely different while the larger group couldn't agree to disagree. The audience started to laugh out loud as the performers split, reassembled, argued and discussed, as some walked off and others tried to bring them back until they ALL wallked off, still arguing.

They won the prize.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 25, 2008 3:08 AM

Did I not say technology basis and advancement would take a hit ?
That would likely include medical technologies.

We're not talkin wild-west here, but some fallback would occur, yes... thing is, and I am not quite sure how to express this...

Death is part of life, some people just do not have the abject terror of it that others do, for a multitude of reasons - if the cost of saving a few means the misery of millions, where is the benefit, regardless of what you believe ?

I have some pretty harsh personal experiences with our medical care system that cause me to lack respect for it, not only from my own misadventures, but watching folks dignity and comfort stripped away as they were "vampirised" to keep them alive at any and all cost, even when that cost was causing them to suffer needlessly with no hope of recovery - so I cannot offer you an unbiased viewpoint.

There's also a big flaw in the idea of "city of one million" - if you crammed a million anarchists THAT close together in a modern "city" environment with no room to breathe and no real resources that did not have to be externally imported... you'd wind up with a bloodbath of epic proportions, the models are so completely incompatible I cannot even begin to express it, people are not perfect, and the closer you pack them together, the harder the sharp edges of those imperfections grind the nerves of every one, population density is a proven factor in interpersonal violence for that very reason.

There's also, once again, taking a fully formed structure from this society, (Big, industrialised, modern tech hospital and affiliated complex, run in our current or-else force-control methology) plunking it down into a wholly different society, wholesale, unchanged, and then making assumptions based on that.

Oh and Siggy ?
Whole premise falls apart on "Rule" and "Could not Reject" - right there.

Anyhow, the population density issue is one that I honestly do NOT have an answer for, but we damned well better solve - before it solves itself in some extremely deleterious fashion.

Did I mention that I wanted off this rock ?

But we'd have to have somewhere to GO, and some way to get there - and that doesn't seem to be much of a priority for any earthly Government for reasons I've repeated ad naseum by now.

One last bit, is that I will to some degree dispute the level of support certain medical techniques or educations need - I know it's a lot, but I also know full and well that "education" is also padded in many ways to ensure the University's bottom line, too.

It's not my field and I have no expertise within it to comment beyond that, but I do know that the "frankensteins" I have enlisted to handle stuff do it on one holy hell of a lot less than the so-called experts who said I would never, ever, walk again.

Again, I don't have an unbiased viewpoint to offer you, no sense trying to say otherwise.

-Frem

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

RUE

Friday, January 25, 2008 3:31 AM

"also know full and well that "education" is also padded in many ways to ensure the University's bottom line"

From personal experience I can say that I needed every bit of my education for what I did back then and what I do now. It's medical and scientific - and there's a lot to learn, which doesn't happen by skimming a few books.

Frem - I'm getting the impression that if every one in the anarchy got together and said - you know, we all really DO want to pay something like a tax to support --- X --- medical training and research, materials technology, ways to heal the planet - you'd have a problem with that. Same as "rule" and "reject". What if that's just what they decided ?
No ? You seem to have a problem with any group action at all. Am I wrong ?

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

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:23 AM

Frem- your anarchism ALSO has a rule: the rule of individual sovereignty. Kinda like: "The one rule is there are no rules". Doesn't that smack of self-contradiction?

Your form of anarchy is inevitably tied to primitivism. Given that family members have survived and thrived due to medical intervention, I don't want to give that up. You say that nobody is "irredeemable" but you don't want to put the ass behind it to make it so. So yeah... kiss 'em off. And as far as I'm concerned, if you tag "technology" as an equal problem with "government" then you don't have a clear idea what you're talking about.

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

HKCAVALIER

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:45 AM

Hi Everyone,

I have another evening off (been working double shifts this whole month), so I thought I'd spend part of it with you!

Here's an analogy: say you're talking to an acquaintance about your plans for marriage, about how you and your partner plan to share responsibilities, make sharing feelings--particularly difficult, negative feeling--a major focus of your routine, be sure to make time both for the two of you as a couple and for each of you separately, yadda-yadda-yadda--you get the idea. And your acquaintance stops you in the midst of your description and says, "But, my friend, how are you going to have your wife's respect if you don't beat her? And how are you going to have any peace in your home if your wife doesn't respect you?"

Okay, so, first of all, it's obvious that your acquaintance doesn't share your definitions of "respect" or "peace." But that's not really your main problem, is it? Your main problem is that what your acquaintance is proposing is abhorant, immoral and, thank goodness, criminal. So what the heck do you say to the guy?

Okay, imagine that you're having this conversation 100 years ago and by some bizarre twist of fate you nonetheless propose this typical modern opinion about love and marriage. How do you set this guy straight in that context? And when his 5 friends chime in, laugh at you, accuse you of being childish or insane, what would keep you from simply walking away?

Okay, so a hundred years ago, a man beating his wife was an entirely acceptable method of keeping order in the home in a lot of places. What was it that changed in the past hundred years to make wife beating unacceptable around your neck of the woods? Was it a law that suddenly made men cease beating their wives? Was it a government program?

Of course, some of you may notice that wife beating in certain circles is still an entirely acceptable practice, even in places where the law of the land forbids it! Some of you may recall various prominent law enforcement officers recently going to jail for spousal abuse! Why there was even a very famous fellow in the news not too long ago who brutally murdered his wife and his neighbor and he's not only still a free man, but he now gets to beat his new girlfriend! How can it be?

Laws don't make a community or a culture moral. The collective will of the people make it moral. And that collective will exists under any regime.

Here's a thing: division of labor is basic to even the most rudamentary social systems. Problems arise when one segment of the culture's labor is more onerous than another's. Then the division is between the quality of life of one segment and the quality of life of another and you have invented a class system. But some jobs are just more unpleasant than others! Perhaps a just society would pay those people doing the undesirable jobs more than those doing the easier or shall we say, "cooshier," jobs. Hmmmmm?

Part of my difficulty in talking to folks about this is that so many of you seem to accept your privileges, your affluence, your class status as your right. You see what Frem and I propose as taking away your rights. You become almost unreachably defensive. You imagine the anarchist gastapo forcing you to give up your myriad modern conveniences only to have them siezed by all the terrible retarded sociopaths who were born bad and who want to rule the world.

I'm sorry, I started this post full of enthusiasm for my little analogy and now that I've gotten this far, I've half a mind to scrap it and just let y'all go on envisioning your ugly world and perpetuating the ugliness on down through posterity. This thread has afforded me the opportunity to feel a lot more alone than I expected it to. And though I am by no means a stranger to being misunderstood, this thread has raised that feeling amoung my fellow browncoats to a new height.

Signy has noted that the three people who have spoken on behalf of anarchism in this thread are either gun nuts, martial arts enthusi

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:59 AM

HKC- My personal belief is that people, for the most part, are caring folks who just really "want to get along".

AFA taking personal responsibility for self-protection, you seem to think that you and just a few other people do that. Really, don't you think that's just a bit presumptuous?

I've often long thought that the people who REALLY make our lives comfortable: garbagemen, janitors etc are waaaay underpaid. IMHO any average working person is worth way more than Bill Gates. So again, you seem to be operating on some mistaken assumptions about my motivations.

Now, what I would like to see... not that anyone is asking... is "economic democracy": Anyone who works is an equal part-owner. I look at it this way: concentrating power up until now has meant concentrating arms, moral authority, and money. The answer isn't tao take it away, but to spread it all around and make it so that nobody can grab it from anyone else.

There is one emerging arena of concentrating power, and that is the power of ideas. And that is why I'm for open source and open access to the inet.

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

HKCAVALIER

Friday, January 25, 2008 7:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
HKC- My personal belief is that people, for the most part, are caring folks who just really "want to get along".

AFA taking personal responsibility for self-protection, you seem to think that you and just a few other people do that. Really, don't you think that's just a bit presumptuous?

???

No, I was saying that owning a gun or studying martial arts were respectable ways to take personal responsibility for one's life--NOT the only ways. Forgive me, but I thought you were defending people who "didn't want" to take such an interest, but blithely ceded that responsibility to the government.

Quote:
I've often long thought that the people who REALLY make our lives comfortable: garbagemen, janitors etc are waaaay underpaid. IMHO any average working person is worth way more than Bill Gates. So again, you seem to be operating on some mistaken assumptions about my motivations.

Signy! Just because I spoke to you directly in the latter part of my post, doesn't mean I was directing all my remarks to you. I was dropping class distinction into the discussion in the interest of finding common ground.

I seriously don't know what's happened to make you think I am attacking you with my every word. Don't you ever have serious disagreements with friends? I was talking generally about this epic thread up to the stuff about brain-damage = genetic evil. I did intend to challenge you on that issue. You have anything to say about that? Or about the substance of my post? (Genuine questions, not demanding anything of you.)

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.

FLETCH2

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hi Everyone,

I have another evening off (been working double shifts this whole month), so I thought I'd spend part of it with you!

Here's an analogy: say you're talking to an acquaintance about your plans for marriage, about how you and your partner plan to share responsibilities, make sharing feelings--particularly difficult, negative feeling--a major focus of your routine, be sure to make time both for the two of you as a couple and for each of you separately, yadda-yadda-yadda--you get the idea. And your acquaintance stops you in the midst of your description and says, "But, my friend, how are you going to have your wife's respect if you don't beat her? And how are you going to have any peace in your home if your wife doesn't respect you?"

Okay, so, first of all, it's obvious that your acquaintance doesn't share your definitions of "respect" or "peace." But that's not really your main problem, is it? Your main problem is that what your acquaintance is proposing is abhorant, immoral and, thank goodness, criminal. So what the heck do you say to the guy?

Okay, imagine that you're having this conversation 100 years ago and by some bizarre twist of fate you nonetheless propose this typical modern opinion about love and marriage. How do you set this guy straight in that context? And when his 5 friends chime in, laugh at you, accuse you of being childish or insane, what would keep you from simply walking away?

Okay, so a hundred years ago, a man beating his wife was an entirely acceptable method of keeping order in the home in a lot of places. What was it that changed in the past hundred years to make wife beating unacceptable around your neck of the woods? Was it a law that suddenly made men cease beating their wives? Was it a government program?

Of course, some of you may notice that wife beating in certain circles is still an entirely acceptable practice, even in places where the law of the land forbids it! Some of you may recall various prominent law enforcement officers recently going to jail for spousal abuse! Why there was even a very famous fellow in the news not too long ago who brutally murdered his wife and his neighbor and he's not only still a free man, but he now gets to beat his new girlfriend! How can it be?

Laws don't make a community or a culture moral. The collective will of the people make it moral. And that collective will exists under any regime.

I disagree. Collective will in the South continued the practice of slavery there and yet that system was never moral. Further collective will is another way of saying the rule if the majority or mob rule, hardly a good example?

Good laws are based on principles not morals. To lead a "moral" life could mean just blindly following the rules laid down by your religion, to live a principled life is to made a stand on an issue and defend it even when doing so is uncomfortable to you. US Civil Rights legislation was good law because it was based on principle, not the morals of a few and certainly not on the collective will of many of the folks involved.

FLETCH2

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:21 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Hi Everyone,

Part of my difficulty in talking to folks about this is that so many of you seem to accept your privileges, your affluence, your class status as your right. You see what Frem and I propose as taking away your rights. You become almost unreachably defensive. You imagine the anarchist gastapo forcing you to give up your myriad modern conveniences only to have them siezed by all the terrible retarded sociopaths who were born bad and who want to rule the world.

Actually no. What I actually see are people that can't really function in the modern world, ones who basically don't fit in because their mental, emotional and intellectual toolkit doesn't actually offer anything that's... well very useful. They can exist here but they'll never amount to much.

I think they somewhat like the idea of going back to a wild west kinda world where the few mental tools they have might actually benefit them. The kind of place were ammunition for fuel oil is a big deal and hospitals just doll out locally made aspirin, patch up bullet wounds but let anyone with anything more complex die because ya know God was calling them home. I'm sure they think they'll be big men in such a world because they know how to look after themselves.

No wait, that's only some of them. The rest are just going to get rid of government and let anybody else that wants to fill the vacuum. As long as they don't have to pay taxes they're shiny. These folks are talking private ambulances, private cops, I suspect the kinds of deals they are thinking of probably don't involve ammunition.

So now we've got the pointless finger pointing and characterizations out of the way can I make a suggestion. Seems to me that what you're proposing is not going to come about in your lifetime, because most sane people given a choice would probably want things like schools (and not old Mr Johnson teaching you for the price of chores) hospitals (and not the place where you pay for thirdworld healthcare by working in the gift ship) and a reasonable amount of security (that doesn't involve living life as a survivalist.)

So, with so many failed states out there, places where good old fashioned yankie dollars are actually worth serious amounts of goods and there is no gov to cramp your style. Why not head out there and found a colony? This is not a "if you dont like the country you are welcome to leave" kind of comment but if a lawless third world kind of existence is what you want there are places that can do that for you, places where you could prove your ideas in practical ways to those that doubt they will work?

So how about it Frem, HKC? People that founded this country did so to get away from a political system they didnt agree with back home, Frem says you need space to make this work. Lots of that in Africa. CTS even has contacts?

HKCAVALIER

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:37 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I disagree. Collective will in the South continued the practice of slavery there and yet that system was never moral. Further collective will is another way of saying the rule if the majority or mob rule, hardly a good example?

Criminy, Fletch, you must think I'm a goddamn idiot. I said "Law's don't make a community moral. The collective will of the people make a community moral." The "OR NOT!" was implicit. Crap, I was talking about a collective will that promotes spousal abuse. I was saying that it is the collective will of the community that determined the moral character of a community not a law or a cop or a judge. That is all.

Quote:
Good laws are based on principles not morals. To lead a "moral" life could mean just blindly following the rules laid down by your religion, to live a principled life is to made a stand on an issue and defend it even when doing so is uncomfortable to you. US Civil Rights legislation was good law because it was based on principle, not the morals of a few and certainly not on the collective will of many of the folks involved.

If you say so. Again, your definitions of "respect" and "peace" are different from mine.

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.

AGENTROUKA

Friday, January 25, 2008 10:17 AM

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my thoughts in the Part II thread, Frem!

You certainly piked my interest with your mention of a population "correction".

Quote:
As for the population problem, sadly, I think that's gonna sort itself in the next 50-80 years, and it won't be any kinda way you or I would like, alas - barring radical improvements and investment in space travel and colonisation, which would, in our current industry/production model require Government to do.. *hiss*

I'm sure you mentioned this as an aside, not part of the main subject, so don't answer it here if you don't want to, a PM would be fine. I'm just curious what exactly you're referring to. Self-destruction by war? A collapse because we mismanaged our resources? Disease? Something to do with demographics?

Another thought is, a family-based society would naturally imply the having of children. Possibly more children than today, as people would actually have the time and possibly more resources to do so. Would this create population density problems long-term, if health care remains as generally effective as it is now? Or do you think it'll balance out. Many European countries actually have a negative population development these days, so people might still choose to have few children, one or two, but considering the community/family-based support, I am assuming it'd be more like 2 or 3 or more. What do you guys think?

Now, concerning cities:
I take it, the general idea is to reduce the density of living, which, if I read this correctly, then led to an exploration of what this would mean for medical expertise, etc?

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Did I not say technology basis and advancement would take a hit ?
That would likely include medical technologies.

We're not talkin wild-west here, but some fallback would occur, yes... thing is, and I am not quite sure how to express this...

Death is part of life, some people just do not have the abject terror of it that others do, for a multitude of reasons - if the cost of saving a few means the misery of millions, where is the benefit, regardless of what you believe ?

The death thing wouldn't even be that scary to me. I'm more concerned about things like disfiguration or debilitation illnesses that can be healed through surgery or other highly complex treatments. I get that dealing with chronic pain may not be as complex in that regard and need less of a support system, but - for example - things like a child's foot getting run over by a car.

A colleague's friend's son had that happen to him one day ago and highly skilled surgeons are working to save his foot. It's mangled, but there's a chance.

It could just be cut off and he would live, hell, even walk, but the chance that he may keep it is something that I think should not be swept aside as being coddled by our current previleges. Being concerned about that doesn't necessarily need to be judged, as were talking about some pretty fundamental achievments in terms of quality of life. My uncle lives because of dialysis and he is glad of it. He hates not being able to travel anymore, but he jokes with his wife, sees friends, etc... He's not being vampirised.

To me, to be honest, the idea of your society seems quite attractive. Freedom to travel whenever, no paperwork, take up work as I go - or open a kindergarten for my circle of friends without a million of hoops to jump through or getting registered or complicated taxes...
What I find far more scary is the idea of that period of getting from one system to the other, because that's where I see the greatest suffering happening, before things settle into their new un-governmental structures.

External alien invasion crisis that has everyone pulling together aside, are there certain ways to bring about gradual change with a minumum of discomfort? Just... basically voting toward it? Supporting alternative support structures to make the governmental ones unnecessary? I'm curious about the process.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 1:54 PM

HKC- Okay, points taken.

Quote:
Signy and others point at the tiny percentage of people who are born with poor impulse control, autism, or problems with aggression caused by brain-damage and use these unfortumates to prop up their belief in intrinsic evil.

First of all, it's not a tiny percentage. By the time you add up the numbers of kids with poor impulse control, epilepsy (Which is often associated with behavioral issues), bipolar disorder, ODD, OCD, traumatic brain injury, borderline retardation and autism you're looking at about 10% of children. Having lived in that world for 19 years, I can tell you that MOST families love their children and struggle with their issues. Dealing with kids like that in a non-adversarial way is an endurance exercise in patience and energy.

"Evil" is a pejorative word. I only used it because someone else did; I truly don't believe that children are "evil" but they may have disorders that predispose them to violent acts. Actually, I'm more concerned about the BIll Gates of the world: As Rue said, with nary a fist raised or a shot fired he's created a monopoly worthy of the robber barons of old. I read an interesting study of robber barons: They tend to be antisocial, lacking empathy, and single-minded in the extreme, and have some bizarre behaviors. Anarchism simply doesn't have the means to deal with these kinds of people. As long as there is "free energy" in the system, some people are bound to take it up.

I don't find anarchism un-doable as proposed but incomplete or (in some versions) internally conflicted. For example, I can't imagine anarchism and for-profit corporations (no matter how "friendly") existing together because I think they're intrinsically at odds with each other, corporations representing ONE form of concentrated power.

BTW- Fletch2, thank you for getting those characterizations out of the way. They have been lingering on the sidelines for quite a while, and so far it seems have been mostly one-sided (from the anarchist's end).

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

HKCAVALIER

Friday, January 25, 2008 4:01 PM

Thank you, Signy.

Hey, look what I found!

http://books.google.com/books?id=AvK6UW0bAc8C&dq=the+drama+of+the+gift
ed+child&pg=PP1&ots=FKeGw0Ltt1&sig=Fig_6WzQGLx6CS-oyIU_oNNXxis&hl=en&prev=
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=&q=the+drama+of+the+gifted+chil
d&btnG=Google+Search&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail (URL split up to keep the thread from getting too wide--thanks leadb--sorry, got a wide screen computer and didn't notice any problem.)

It's the entire text of Alice Miller's book, The Drama of the Gifted Child! Huzzah! Her writings are at the heart of Frem's and my theories of why the world rewards sociopaths and destroys children's empathy all in the name of love and good parenting. I challenge ANYONE to read this book and still say they don't understand where Frem and I are coming from! (Not sayin' you'll agree, but I hope it would put an end to the prejudice).

You say, "I read an interesting study of robber barons: They tend to be antisocial, lacking empathy, and single-minded in the extreme, and have some bizarre behaviors. Anarchism simply doesn't have the means to deal with these kinds of people." Alice Miller handily accounts for exactly this sort of "bizarre behavior." And again, when you say that anarchism hasn't "the means," I can't help thinking you're talking about some kind of force-based control of other people's behavior. And when you say "these kinds of people" And in the present context, I can't help thinking that your demonstrating a lack of empathy that goes to the heart of why "these kinds of people" are a problem in the first place.

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.

RUE

Friday, January 25, 2008 4:16 PM

"You see what Frem and I propose as taking away your rights."

Hunhhh ?

My problem with Frem's version is not that he goes too far - it's that he doesn't go far enough. You can't have a viable anarchy and have all the same systems in place that concentrate wealth and power - like private property (goods and land), money, guns, nuclear families and parental authority, organizations, and the ideology that justifies them. ALL those things make the interaction between individuals something other than a free association between equals - just in and of themselves. And THEN you have the problem of the born sociopath who willingly manipulates every system for gain with complete (and I do mean complete) disregard for the people affected.

And my contention has been that if you have those things - those power structures ripe to be gamed by the few - you ALSO need the means for society as a whole to deal with that.

You can't have one without the other.

But the other thing I've noticed is an easy-breezy - sometimes downright callous - disregard for the weaker and slower in the systems they propose. Think on it - they want systems of unequal power, no collective rein on what people with power might do - and complete and utter disinterest in the helpless, the slow, the infirm, in the face of the very systems that could easily victimize them.

Let me ask you personally HKC - do you find that approach moral ?

***************************************************************
Oh - and double shifts - that sucks.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 4:33 PM

HKC_ I worry about the vanishingly small percentage of people who would take over an anarchist system because the number of people who determine our current economic, social, moral and political landscape is "vanishingly small" ... about 0.00001% of the population. It doesn't take many people to really mess things up, if the conditions are right!

The thing I find troubling about Frem's proposals is that he would sacrifice a much larger number of people to deal with this 0.00001% on his way to his "preferred system". Now personally I've always thought systems were to serve people, not the other way around.

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

FLETCH2

Friday, January 25, 2008 4:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I disagree. Collective will in the South continued the practice of slavery there and yet that system was never moral. Further collective will is another way of saying the rule if the majority or mob rule, hardly a good example?

Criminy, Fletch, you must think I'm a goddamn idiot. I said "Law's don't make a community moral. The collective will of the people make a community moral." The "OR NOT!" was implicit. Crap, I was talking about a collective will that promotes spousal abuse. I was saying that it is the collective will of the community that determined the moral character of a community not a law or a cop or a judge. That is all.
Quote:
Good laws are based on principles not morals. To lead a "moral" life could mean just blindly following the rules laid down by your religion, to live a principled life is to made a stand on an issue and defend it even when doing so is uncomfortable to you. US Civil Rights legislation was good law because it was based on principle, not the morals of a few and certainly not on the collective will of many of the folks involved.

If you say so. Again, your definitions of "respect" and "peace" are different from mine.

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.

Are you saying that it's ok for a society to oppress a man because of the colour of his skin? Jack seems to have no problem with the idea of ethnic cleansing, he thinks that if a community in anarchist world doesn't want to live with "niggers" they have the right to force them out, even if that families property rights are violated even if violence is used.

Geezer disagrees with that, but then he's just reading the material and he seems more a Libertarian anyway. What I haven't heard is a rejection of that idea from the people that "believe hard" so how about it? Clear that up for us right now, who else suffers for your "better world?"

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:28 PM

Quote:
Frem - I'm getting the impression that if every one in the anarchy got together and said - you know, we all really DO want to pay something like a tax to support --- X --- medical training and research, materials technology, ways to heal the planet - you'd have a problem with that. Same as "rule" and "reject". What if that's just what they decided ?
No ? You seem to have a problem with any group action at all. Am I wrong ?

I don't have a problem with an agreement that is unanimous by all affected by it.

I have a problem with an agreement that is NOT unanimous being forced on people who did not agree.

That right there is more or less the root concept I have tried express repeatedly... not sure how I can express it beyond that.

Quote:
Your form of anarchy is inevitably tied to primitivism.

I do not see it so, yes, initially Technological progress and development would take a hit, sure - but only until new models and metholodolgies were created, we're a VERY adaptive species, it's one of our greatest strengths.

And our current models of business, logistics, education and research are so abysmally corrupted, wasteful and abusive... and becoming more so, that past a certain point they will bog down and be unable to function as intended, between regulations, fees, red tape and silliness caused by lack of actual HUMAN interaction and decision making, it's a wonder they work at all.

Case in point, automated phone support systems designed in part to frustrate you into giving up, unable to hold the company which sold you the product to it's end of the deal.

It's like bailing out a boat while the hole in the bottom gets bigger and bigger, eventually your boat is GOING to sink because it will reach a point where it's flooding faster than you can bail out the water - Government does this to EVERYTHING eventually, it's like a cancer that grows and grows and chokes off everything else seeking it's own existance and expansion.

Our current models are wholly unsustainable, and when the brick wall our little train is headed for looms closer and closer, that jump one felt "too dangerous" a little while back starts looking more and more like a good idea, you understand ?

Given the choice between a maybe-disaster and a guaranteed one, I think imma bet on the maybe.

Quote:
I'm sure you mentioned this as an aside, not part of the main subject, so don't answer it here if you don't want to, a PM would be fine. I'm just curious what exactly you're referring to. Self-destruction by war? A collapse because we mismanaged our resources? Disease? Something to do with demographics?

AR - one of the things that makes our current model unsustainable is that it's based on limited resources being used faster than they can be replaced (not just oil, but that's a big one), and sooner or later that *IS* going to catch up with us - we'll find ourselves embroiled in wars over it, which ironically tend to consume or destroy those resources at a far greater rate than peace... leading to less resources, leading to more war... until we either wipe ourselves our, turn this place into an unihabitable radioactive wasteland, or the societies and Governments involved completely implode, throwing us back into barbarism - from which we might find another way, or might, and this is what scares me, just might be dumb enough to repeat the entire cycle AGAIN... I use the sig line I do for a reason.

One especially scary thought is that it wouldn't be fuel per se, that did us in over oil, it would be plastic, most plastic is petrol based, and our whole society is practically built on it, just imagine if THAT resource cut short or dried up rapidly ?

Quote:
What I find far more scary is the idea of that period of getting from one system to the other, because that's where I see the greatest suffering happening, before things settle into their new un-governmental structures.

You and me both, but see the Train analogy above... like I said, imma bet the maybe.

As for the kid you mentioned, I can totally empathi

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:36 PM

Okay Frem- maybe you're just "triaging" kids out of the loop. But the plain fact is that without advanced treatment there are kids who will suffer- medically, emotionally, socially- possibly even fatally- on this train trip that you propose. Maybe you think it's 'worth it'.

Quote:
And yes, I was a "write-off" myself, it's why I can so effectively relate to them when no one else can

Oh Jesus Christ on a Crutch, Frem! My kid was a "write off" too. Not expected to survive. Not expected to walk or talk. Climb down from that cross. You're not the only person who's "beat the odds" around here. I think my girl has more bravery in her little finger than most have in their whole soul.

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:47 PM

RE: Personal Interaction.

Ok, just cause it's in my mind and I need to express it before I lose the train of thought here.

EXAMPLE ONE.
Saturday morning, you notice your car has a flat, and not wanting to use your spare, you call the local garage to send out a mechanic.

He comes, he does the work, you pay him, he leaves.

EXAMPLE TWO.
Saturday morning, you notice your car has a flat, and not wanting to use your spare, you call the local garage to contract a mechanic.

He comes, you negotiate, seeing he's a young guy, probably on an apprenticeship, offer him a full course, home cooked dinner instead of coin - and he accepts, on the condition that he has to finish his shift first.

He comes back, and you set a place at the table and share dinner and stories with him, he offers you some tips on vehicle maintainence, and your wife gives him some advice on getting those grease stains out.

You take him for a forthright, personable fellow, and earnest if inexperienced, so you inquire about a long term vehicle maintainence contract with his company, specifying him as the tech (your daughter thinks this a GREAT idea, to your chagrin, but what the hey, he's got a worth ethic) and he says he will discuss it with his boss, and shyly asks about perhaps a laundry contract, which your wife politely declines, but suggests a friend who would probably be quite interested, since she lives alone and is not mechanically inclined.

And having resolved your current contract with him, bid him a good evening.

Now, of those two examples, which would YOU prefer ?

-Frem

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

FLETCH2

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:50 PM

I would use my spare. Otherwise I would want the fastest solution, after all I need to go places.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 25, 2008 5:57 PM

I don't get it - on the one hand you say they are "Born Evil" and we can't do shit about it, and then when I point out we can, and that sometimes they managed to self-correct, you flame me ?

I am beginning to question your honesty in...
Hell with that, I *AM* questioning your honesty in this discussion.

You gotta point, make it.

In ANY society there are *going* to be people you can not help, and in my opinion this one is worse because people who could be helped, who would be, are shunned, cut out, and left to sink because of our inhumane "success" model of devil take the hindmost.

We live in a world where people sever FAMILY bonds just to stay or get ahead, and those with easily treatable conditions are left to suffer and even die if they don't have the means or resources to bend our current system.

We live in a world where so much of a persons resources are consumed by an agency that acts directly counter to their benefit (Government) that folks are UNWILLING to help another, because they NEED that time, those resources, to pay the extortion.

Maybe you don't understand, maybe it's a crossed wires issue, but damn me, I'd settle for a world where folks where willing and able to help, although less effectively, than one where that help would be far more effective but no one can or will give it.

I doubt that'll get across, but I tried.

-Frem

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 25, 2008 6:08 PM

HKC, alas that isn't the full text, several pages are skipped and not displayed.

-F

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 6:21 PM

Quote:
I don't get it - on the one hand you say they are "Born Evil" and we can't do shit about it, and then when I point out we can, and that sometimes they managed to self-correct, you flame me?

I DID say some kids are "born evil". I adopted the pejorative term because I wanted to underscore that fact that some kids are living in an unimagineably different mental, emotional, and perceptual landscape than most. SOME PEOPLE ARE TRULY NOT LIKE OTHERS, my daughter included. I don't need to see myself in her or her in me, or think that she's just like everyone else. She isn't.

I DID NOT SAY THAT NOTHING COULD BE DONE FOR THEM. That was YOUR interpretation. How can I POSSIBLY make that any clearer???

I think that we should put all that we can into understanding their landscape, and integrating them as best we can so that they do not create a hazard for others. Or themselves.

I see all of the failings in our system that you do. But my point is that there are many sources of power. Guns are only one. Moral authority another, majority rule is another, money, ideas... YOUR system- aside from reverting us to primitivism in the short run (and in the long run too, I suspect) along with the inevitable killing of the vulnerable- is incomplete.

I'm looking at a solution in a different direction. One that isn't going to sacrifice the lives of kids like mine.

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

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 6:22 PM

That was just in case you didn't see it the first time!

GEEZER

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:29 PM

Probably too late in the discussion, but maybe worth a try.

Hey, Gang! Let's have a thought exercise!

Clear away all those mindsets and preconceptions, now!

We've got two rules, one assumption, and a scenario.

Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

Assumption. In a free market, if there is demand for a product or service, the market will fill it.

Scenario. In the land of Geezerdonia, 80% of the people believe in the two rules and the assumption above. They are scrupulous about obeying and enforcing these rules.

So what would such a society be like? Remember, you gotta stay within the rules, and accept the asumption and scenario for the length of the exercise.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:34 PM

OH, and Frem... Once I (IT WAS ME, NOT HER DOCTORS) found my daughter's dx and successful (albeit late) treatment I spent the next ten years of my life shepherding parents of similarly afflicted children into the right direction, making the right contacts, sharing information, pushing the medical establishment in the right direction. Because of our communications, we moved... yes, WE moved... the USA medical establishment to research, diagnose, and treat a problem they had not recognized before.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 8:41 PM

Quote:
Scenario. In the land of Geezerdonia, 80% of the people believe in the two rules and the assumption above. They are scrupulous about obeying and enforcing these rules.

Then I will look for a place of concentrated poulation, put all of my money into a costly but essential service, like water or sewage, and deliver it at the most economical rates possible, expanding my base until I can take full advantage of economies of scale and develop a near-unbreakable monopoly.

What about you?

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

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, January 25, 2008 9:21 PM

I'm sick of this, you ask my opinion, or for my interpretation, then examine it within the context of our current model, where it would not work - then tell me that it wouldn't work, period ?

On top of that, first you flame me for not working towards it, then flame me for pointing out that I do, and how - and them flame some more for daring to be annoyed about your flaming.

You deliberately gave the impression first, that there is no preventing or mediating any of these kids, something I pointed out is untrue, and had to do so repeatedly, then in spite of a long and detailed history, some of which has been posted here, mind you, of doing exactly that, such as I can, passionately - accused me of doing nothing about it, a blatant lie that I initially let past as a misunderstanding, and then when I did point out in more detail than I would like, since it is an important point - you respond with...

Quote:
So get off your 24-carat-gold pedestal of self-importance.

Frankly, you folks have been disingenious, closeminded, and downright nasty from the start, hostile in every possible way to both the concept and the folks expressing it, a damned poor way to enter or maintain any discussion, much less this one - and it may just be me, but these episodes of extreme snark seem to come right after someone pokes holes in the conventional worldview, but aren't we poking and pointing out the holes in both ? or is the conventional off-limits in spite of it's blatant unsustainability ?

I think the status quo is gonna blow up in our face and would like to move towards something else, with a certain ideal in mind - we're just gonna hafta agree to disagree, because *I* do not believe in ramming a system or worldview down peoples throats when it isn't wanted...

Either way, I've had enough, this *IS* exactly like trying to discuss Evolution with Creationist Zealots and about as productive - at this point you ain't lookin for answers, yer lookin for stuff to flame, well... all I got to say to that is suffer in silence, cause I'm done discussin it.

-Frem

EDIT: And so you edit out the part I quoted, after I quoted it... imma grit my teeth and assume good intentions, and just leave it at that.

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 9:34 PM

Quote:
but these episodes of extreme snark seem to come right after someone pokes holes in the conventional worldview

Wow, YOU think that's "extreme snark"?
So whatever, Frem. I've agreed with many of your points: yes you CAN prevent a lot of "problem children". But I've stuck on another: SOME kids are "born that way", they inhabit a lanscape thru no fault of their own that's just a whole bunch of standard deviations from the norm. Then you totally misrepresented what I meant by that: I never said they were "irredeemable", and said MANY TIMES exactly the opposite. And while I applaud your work, which I'm sure does a great deal of good, you are NOT the only one who knows anything of this!

I note, for the record, that you had not ONE QUESTION to ask of MY proposed solutions. Is is because you're so wrapped up in your self-perceived martyrdom that you can't even listen?

Quote:
I'm sick of this, you ask my opinion, or for my interpretation, then examine it within the context of our current model, where it would not work - then tell me that it wouldn't work, period ?

Yep, I'm telling you it won't work period, under ANY model. Ive' been trying to tell you that it's INCOMPLETE.

Okay. Now that we got that snark out of the way... are you prepared to listen?

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

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 10:01 PM

So Geezer- do you see any bar to me forming a monopoly on water-provisioning under your system? 'Cause I don't. If you do, tell me how.

'Cause if you can't, that's ONE hole in the anarchist paradigm.

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

GEEZER

Friday, January 25, 2008 11:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Then I will look for a place of concentrated population, put all of my money into a costly but essential service, like water or sewage, and deliver it at the most economical rates possible, expanding my base until I can take full advantage of economies of scale and develop a near-unbreakable monopoly.

Couple of possibilities.

1. It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?

2. So you have a monopoly? If you charge a fair price, who cares? If you don't, market demand for cheaper water will generate competition.

3. With an evil laugh you declare "I will crush my competition by any means and force you to pay my prices for water. Ha Ha He He!!", and proceed to do so. You're then initiating force and are fair game.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

Edit to add: You also have to consider if it would be possible to raise the money for your scheme from a population in which 80% of the people wouldn't support the proposition that you should be able to force people to pay your price, and your's alone, for water.

RUE

Friday, January 25, 2008 11:28 PM

"1. It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?"

What if you own all the land with good access to the water table or surface water ? What's the competition going to do then ? Get a posse and run you off your land ? I thought that was in direct violation of Geezer-rules.

"3. ... crush ... by any means and force you to pay my prices for water."

But business means are legitimate by Geezer-rules - see owning all the land with good access to the water table or surface water. Doesn't mean you have to use guns. DUH !

So, to reiterate the question - what's to keep an abusive and ironclad monopoly from forming ? And further - with no 'rules' against it - what can fix the problem ?

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

SIGNYM

Friday, January 25, 2008 11:50 PM

Quote:
It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?

Let's assume I'm an astute businessman and have another business that provides me a steady source of money. Or, as Rue says, I own the source.

Quote:
So you have a monopoly? If you charge a fair price, who cares? If you don't, market demand for cheaper water will generate competition.

Except that because of economies of scale, I can keep my prices just below the point where it would become attractive to invest de novo.

Quote:
With an evil laugh you declare "I will crush my competition by any means and force you to pay my prices for water. Ha Ha He He!!", and proceed to do so. You're then initiating force and are fair game.

With an evil laugh I buy out any competition and THEN make people pay my price, which is finely calibrated to keep people out of my business.

Force?
What force?

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

FLETCH2

Friday, January 25, 2008 11:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:

1. It's a free market, so what's to keep a competitor in the water business from matching your prices until you run out of capital?

There is a cost to entering a market, especially one where there is infrastructure involved. You would have to build plant to deliver product to your customers or if you share plant (assuming Siggy lets you) then you would almost certainly have to pay him to use it.

Can you make a case to spend billions installing duplicate plant for a commodity that probably wont make that mack in profit in a 20-30 year timeframe (unless your plan is to force Sigy out and then replace him with high pricing to make back your investment.)

Quote:

2. So you have a monopoly? If you charge a fair price, who cares? If you don't, market demand for cheaper water will generate competition.

How? If the cost of entering a market is so large how do you setup in competition?

Quote:

3. With an evil laugh you declare "I will crush my competition by any means and force you to pay my prices for water. Ha Ha He He!!", and proceed to do so. You're then initiating force and are fair game.

Well it's not violence. Even if you consider all capitalist activity as inherently coersive nobody is forcing you to pay at gunpoint. If you are saying that it's ok to apply violence to anyone you have a grievence with then you have a problem.

Quote:

Edit to add: You also have to consider if it would be possible to raise the money for your scheme from a population in which 80% of the people wouldn't support the proposition that you should be able to force people to pay your price, and your's alone, for water.

Do I need more than the 3% with money?

RUE

Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:08 AM

"Edit to add: You also have to consider if it would be possible to raise the money for your scheme from a population in which 80% of the people wouldn't support the proposition that you should be able to force people to pay your price, and your's alone, for water."

Family money isn't an issue by Geezer-rules. Neither are consortia, personal connections, or bankrupting or buying out competition to get 100% market share. It's all good.

And there you are.

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

RUE

Saturday, January 26, 2008 12:39 AM

So, to reiterate the question - what's to keep an abusive and ironclad monopoly from forming ? And further - with no 'rules' against it - what can fix the problem ?

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 1:55 AM

Nothing, as far as I can tell.

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

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Are you saying that it's ok for a society to oppress a man because of the colour of his skin? Jack seems to have no problem with the idea of ethnic cleansing, he thinks that if a community in anarchist world doesn't want to live with "niggers" they have the right to force them out, even if that families property rights are violated even if violence is used.

Fletch, this is getting out of hand. I don't know where the hell you get your idea of who I am. Not from what I've written here, that's for sure. It's hard for me to imagine that you read the post you just quoted. I said, "...it is the collective will of the community that determined the moral character of a community not a law or a cop or a judge." You talk about a "rule of law" but communities will ignore a law if enough of them don't agree with it, even law enforcement. This can be a good thing (hint: Gandhi) or a bad thing (hint: Spousal abuse). It is my considered opinion that law does not rule. What governments are most adept at doing is maintaining the illusions of their people.

I did make a mistake when I spoke of the "three people" speaking on behalf of anarchism. I was thinking of Frem, CTS and me--I wasn't including Jack. I don't take him seriously, particularly now that he's outed himself as comfortably racist as well as homophobic. At best, he's one of your "bad" anarchists.

Quote:
What I haven't heard is a rejection of that idea from the people that "believe hard" so how about it? Clear that up for us right now, who else suffers for your "better world?"

I'm sorry, Fletch, but this is the last you'll be hearing from me. Your contempt is too thick for me to try and breach anymore. Again, I dismissed Jack long ago. And as I've said again and again and again, anarchy will not work until the race as a whole sanes up a good deal. It may not happen in my lifetime, but stranger things have happened.

The question of "how do we get there from here?" has been asked repeatedly. My answer is simple: when the majority of people want it. When such folks are willing, of their own free will, to give up a lot of the privileges we enjoy today at the expense of the global underclass. When such people are all willing to make a personal commitment to making it work, because they know the alternative all too well.

That's it.

It will not happen if people have to fight a revolution with guns. It will not happen as long as people think their problems can be solved by power-mongers.

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.

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 2:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
What if you own all the land with good access to the water table or surface water ?

Okay, if you're going to impose impossible conditions on the exercise, you aren't playing fair. But that's sort of your way, isn't it?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:05 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
[ Let's assume I'm an astute businessman and have another business that provides me a steady source of money. Or, as Rue says, I own the source.

You're the only astute businessman in the country? Come on.

Quote:
Except that because of economies of scale, I can keep my prices just below the point where it would become attractive to invest de novo.

So you're selling water at a loss. Fine if you want to.

Quote:
With an evil laugh I buy out any competition and THEN make people pay my price, which is finely calibrated to keep people out of my business.

Maybe they don't want to sell. If you can sell water at a loss, all they have to do is wait until you're broke and buy you out.

Besides, the mindset of 80% of the population is that they won't be pushed around. They'd probably decide it's worth it to pay a few cents more for their water just to take you out of play.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
There is a cost to entering a market, especially one where there is infrastructure involved.

Absolutely. And SignyM would have the capital on hand to personally do that? Investors would be needed, and most of those potential investors would morally balk at ripping people off.

Quote:
How? If the cost of entering a market is so large how do you setup in competition?

Use a different method? Delever a better product? How do bottled water delivery companies stay in business when you can get it from the tap? Appeal to people's opposition to getting ripped off? Remember, you got 80% of the population morally opposed to getting ripped off.

Quote:
Well it's not violence.

Force, not violence. "Pay my price or die" isn't force?

Quote:
Do I need more than the 3% with money?

Nonsense. Look who invests in stock now.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Neither are consortia, personal connections, or bankrupting or buying out competition to get 100% market share. It's all good.

Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:19 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
So, to reiterate the question - what's to keep an abusive and ironclad monopoly from forming ? And further - with no 'rules' against it - what can fix the problem ?

Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:00 AM

Geezer- Frem's definition of "force" seems to be putting a gun to someone's head. Now, in the scenarios that we posed there was no such thing. And really, it's not "pay my price or die", it's just... pay my price or do without. Feel free to move elsewhere, or look for alternatives.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:08 AM

Quote:
Okay, if you're going to impose impossible conditions on the exercise, you aren't playing fair. But that's sort of your way, isn't it?

No, that's not "impossible conditions" that's just good business sense. In YOUR world, there is nothing wrong with someone buying a property with a natural spring, or a water table that's only 15 feet below the surface. And if I were going to distribute water, I'd look exactly for that.

AFA "selling water at a loss"... do you know anything about "economies of scale?" If I build my business large enough, my operations will be more efficient per unit cost than a competing but smaller operation. So I can sell water at price that would be a profit to me, and a loss to them.

See Economy 101.

Besides, you can keep the water business. I've decided I'm going to build a an integrated monopoly in general parcel delivery, safe deposit vaults, security, and (most important) toll roads. Less work, more money.

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

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer- Frem's definition of "force" seems to be putting a gun to someone's head. Now, in the scenarios that we posed there was no such thing, so... how do YOU define "force"?

I think Fremd's right, and you haven't been reading his posts, since gun to head is absolutely the last option in a long list starting with discussion and compromise. This doesn't seem to penetrate your head.

However.

First, force in response to initiated force is not a given. Other options such as the already mentioned discussion and compromise would be the start. If that didn't work, maybe a boycott or shunning. Maybe a publicity campaign. Once again, maybe people upset enough to spend a bit more for another source of whatever.
Force in response to initiated force could be a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game), in extreme circumstances it possibly could be physical violence, but only after plenty of other options were exhausted.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:29 AM

Quote:
a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game)

Lawsuits imply laws. Your system has no laws except that of the contract. If your customers signed a contract, or were willing to do business on one model but changed their minds later, how are you liable?

And nothing prevents you from entering into your own publicity campaign or otherwise convincing people that your ways are best. You've got lost of money to buy media time... right?

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

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:29 AM

Quote:
a lawsuit, it could be property damage (remember, if you initiated force, your property is fair game)

Lawsuits imply laws. Your system has no laws except that of the contract. If your customers signed a contract, or were willing to do business on one model but changed their minds later, how are you liable?

And nothing prevents you from entering into your own publicity campaign or otherwise convincing people that your ways are best. You've got lots of money to buy media time... right?

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

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, that's not "impossible conditions" that's just good business sense. In YOUR world, there is nothing wrong with someone buying a property with a natural spring, or a water table that's only 15 feet below the surface. And if I were going to distribute water, I'd look exactly for that.

Rue proposed you buying up all the water sources. So you're not actually reading Rue's posts either.

Quote:
Besides, you can keep the water business. I've decided I'm going to build a an integrated monopoly in general parcel delivery, safe deposit vaults, security, and (most important) toll roads. Less work, more money.

Explain how you're going to finance this.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Lawsuits imply laws. Your system has no laws except that of the contract.

Wrong.

Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:34 AM

Quote:
Explain how you're going to finance this.

Set up a secure vault so people can park their papers and valuables safely. That's pretty cheap. Maybe provide notary-type or certification services at the same time. Parlay that money into some trucks. Teach kids how to drive in exchange for them making deliveries. Yanno, build from the ground up. The last part would be buying or building roads and turning them into toll roads.

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

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:26 AM

Quote:
Signy:
6ix, somehow I don't think YOU'RE ready for anarchism. Or even libertarianism.

Explain yourself.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:48 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
My view can be summed up like this--- your personal freedom to swing your arms ends at the end of my nose. Now depending on who's talking the libertarian/anarchist answer to this seems to be.

1) Psychologically healthy enlightened people don't swing their arms.
2) People would have to pay restitution for busting your nose.
3) Suck it up! Concern about your nose should never curtail my rights to swing my arms.
4) If you had a gun you could shoot the guy that's attempting to bust your nose.

None of which really helps me if I don't want my nose busted.

Yeah, you're right Fletch. I much prefer today's method of a cop taping off the area and putting a chalk line around my nose after the fact.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 26, 2008 7:49 AM

I hate to say it, but this all really is a moot point at this juncture. A majority of the proles would never want or allow this to happen today, nor would they be equipped to handle it emotionally, physically or spiritually were it to happen.

We've all been coddled too long and in far too many aspects of our lives that today, like farm-bred pigs who will eventually be served up as tomorrow's bacon, we've had nearly all sense of personal responsibility or self empowerment bred out of us to the point that the only time we even display any sense of self-preservation anymore is when we're ratting each other out to save our own asses. Just watch any episode of CSI or Law and Order, or read up on the Republican "Organ Doner" witch hunt of 2001 in Illinois and see how they all toppled like dominos if you're intrested in an example which seriously impacted my life for years afterwards, or simply if you didn't quite catch my meaning there.

Anarchy will only happen when the current system crumbles to the ground and those who are not equipped to handle it will not survive, period. It will be a great period of time for individualists and champions of the ideals of man over Government, but unfortunately, some of the stronger assholes will then gain enough power and centralize it to to such a point that they eventually one day re-enslave the population and aside from the year on the calendar they'll be in a no different position than we find ourselves today.

Mankind's biggest flaw is it's herd mentality which we just can't seem to break away from. As far as human society is concerned, Darwinism is thrown out the window. The strong are beaten down while the weak are put on pedastals.

Is it really indoctrination we recieve in school? Or do they just teach the path of least resistance because for the most part we're all the more willing to be lead blindly down the easiest path?
-------------------------------

Just you watch Frem... when Fux News and CoNN puts on the spin later this year and start telling the people of Georgia state and the like that their localy elected officials are assholes for making sure they aren't allowed in federal buildings or that they're responsible for the hoops they have to jump through with the FEDs and how it will take 8 hours to get on a plane because they don't have the Real ID, who do you think those idiots are going to believe?

Personal liberties being breeched, I'd suspect, woudn't even make it on most people's radars in the first place, and then most of the people who falsely claim that things like that matter to them are going to think twice and do a 180 a few down the years when they can't get a job without that REAL ID. Soon the people will view those of us fighting the Real ID in the same light they view those of us who refuse to pay unConstitutional income taxes criminally levied on each and every one of us. Those income taxes, as I know Frem knows, were only 1% at first, and meant to support war. Look what they've become today...

Shit.... most people I talk to about the Real ID even today don't have a clue what I'm talking about. But they could tell you in depth what a crappy mother Britney Spears is.

Maybe that makes it all a little more clear for your royal highness Signy. Sorry if that was too potty mouth or immature for you like my last post you quoted obviously was.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:41 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"You see what Frem and I propose as taking away your rights."

Hunhhh ?

Hey Rue.

I actually try not to post in RWED threads that go this long (I know, but this one got to me). Too much is said for me to speak to it all. So I end up kinda glumping a few hundred posts into one idea. It can end up making sense to very few people outside my own head.

I was talking about the confusion of rights with privileges. I was reading a general staunch support of the status quo in the anarchy discussion as a whole. I would include the many miracles of modern medical science as privileges to the extent that they couldn't exist in a non-exploitative system. On the way to achieving social justice, life might get harder than it is now for the most affluent of us, y'know what I mean?

Quote:
You can't have a viable anarchy and have all the same systems in place that concentrate wealth and power - like private property (goods and land), money, guns, nuclear families and parental authority, organizations, and the ideology that justifies them. ALL those things make the interaction between individuals something other than a free association between equals - just in and of themselves.

I see your point, certainly. I'll say I don't see the obsession with personal property as healthy in the least. That a concept of personal property might in some way exist, y'know, sure--but this rigid worship of personal property as the ultimate truth, not so much.

I don't hold with the libertarians much at all, unless they're running for President against a panel of fascists.

I don't see Frem praising the nuclear family and wanting to keep parental authority in tact (I have done some skimming, so I could be wrong, but I don't think that would be at all consistent with what I have read of Frem's position)--I'm pretty sure he keeps talking about clans and uncles and great-aunts for a reason.

Quote:
And THEN you have the problem of the born sociopath who willingly manipulates every system for gain with complete (and I do mean complete) disregard for the people affected.

This, Rue, I absolutely disagree with. And I still find it plenty disturbing that you would make such a statement. The kind of sociopath you describe is made, not born. Some children will bend to evil's easy answers more readily than others, but the evil is ex-utero. You know, Alice Miller has written a number of very persuasive books on the subject--I would be fascinated to hear your take on her.

Quote:
But the other thing I've noticed is an easy-breezy - sometimes downright callous - disregard for the weaker and slower in the systems they propose. Think on it - they want systems of unequal power, no collective rein on what people with power might do - and complete and utter disinterest in the helpless, the slow, the infirm, in the face of the very systems that could easily victimize them.

I'd say that was a thoroughly unsympathetic reading of Frem's ideas--a mischaracterization perhaps engendered by the general hysterical atmosphere that persists in this thread.

Quote:
Let me ask you personally HKC - do you find that approach moral?

I have to make a distinction between Frem's colossal sense of irony and his heartfelt beliefs. Honestly, I think he likes to outrage people whom he decides are clueless anyway. Oh, and let me be clear--I don't quite understand CTS's position regarding "the feeble" and I don't want to discuss anything Jack has to say on the subject. The position you describe is indeed immoral, ugly and would to my mind be cancerous in an anarchist system.

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.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:12 AM

Quote:
...I don't want to discuss anything Jack has to say on the subject.

Ha! Have I finally acheived PN status on the board? Go me!

Don't sweat it bro. The truth is so hard to handle they're making it illegal to speak it anymore.

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 3:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
Explain how you're going to finance this.
Set up a secure vault so people can park their papers and valuables safely. That's pretty cheap. Maybe provide notary-type or certification services at the same time. Parlay that money into some trucks. Teach kids how to drive in exchange for them making deliveries. Yanno, build from the ground up. The last part would be buying or building roads and turning them into toll roads.

So, you start a business. And of course since no one else in the country has the business acumen to do this you end up with a monopoly. I don't think so. This also assumes that you actually make money in the first place.

It's kind'a funny, because what you want to build, with a coercive monopoly on water & sewer, or roads, or security, or mail delivery, is what we got right now. It's called the government.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:41 PM

Quote:
And of course since no one else in the country has the business acumen to do this you end up with a monopoly.

Geezer, if your model worked we would NEVER develop monopolies. But clearly, monopolies develop! I'm using Bill Gates as my model. He jumped into a market at the beginning, and by buying up and destroying competitors, offering PC OEMs his product with a carrot... and a stick if other systems were loaded, and weaseling on his deals with IBM, built a monopoly long before the DMCA became law. And "people" think that Bill Gates is a god.

Or, I could use WalMart as another example. People FLOCK to WalMart. They LOVE it! The fact that it depends on slave-labor wages elsewhere just kinda goes by them. I could point to Rockefeller, who built a monopoly on oil; Cornelius Vanderbilt (shipping),

My point is that monopolies develop NOT because of government but because monopolies ARE MORE EFFICIENT. They can take advantages of economies of scale, and even more efficient if they're integrated horizontally (like the mail-toll road- storage service I proposed) or vertically (like oil companies) they become even MORE efficient.

And, as you know, under capitalism the most efficient company wins. The end state of capitalism, with or without the government, is monopolism. And unless you build specific barriers to monopolism into your system, monopolies will develop. IF, as Frem says, the initial state of anarchism will cause a technological hit, they'll be a lot of "ground floor" to jump in on: water, roads, sewage, medical care, ... and plenty of people ready to jump in on it. And SOME of them will be Bill Gateses and Rockefellers.

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

FLETCH2

Saturday, January 26, 2008 5:48 PM

Well colour me confused. My understanding is that nobody is coersed into giving up their wealth and that nobody is coersed into teaching or assimilating the anarchist mindset. So how can you know he won't raise the money? You have no idea what a William Gates the sixth may place his cash into? There may be incentives for the poor and downtrodden to buy into your system but what would be in it for the rich? Unless you plan to set up a Guillotine in Time Square as part of your revolution there will still be people with excessive personal resources. There would still be foreign corporations there would still be american corporations.

If your argument is that well these organizations would be staffed by anarchists why would they? There are no labour laws any more I can chose the people that work for me, I can select the ones that share my worldview.

Siggy is talking about building from scratch because he wants to personalize it, but what is to stop Vivendi owning your local water company? Or Blackstone?

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:02 PM

Quote:
This, Rue, I absolutely disagree with. And I still find it plenty disturbing that you would make such a statement. The kind of sociopath you describe is made, not born.

Bill Gates. Sam Walton (Walmart). Soros. Rockefeller. Vanderbilt. Hearst. Warren Buffet. Len Bosack and Sandy Lerner (Cisco). Larry Page and Sergey Brin (Google) Baron von Rothschild. Andrew Carnegie, Andrew Mellon, Leland Stanford, Rupert Murdoch, Carlos "Slim" Helu (Mexico, telephone)...

Some of these were "born" that way (Bill Gates, Rockefeller). Some of them were "made" that way (the current batch of waltons) and some of them- quite nice, and apologetic even for their success (Soros, Buffet) saw an opportunity and took it.

As long as the system allows people to concentrate wealth. some people will. And unlike government, you can't vote them out. They'll spend all the money it takes to convince you that they're the saviors of the human race, and most people will believe them. Or, they'll disappear into the woodworks and you'll never know who they are.

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

FLETCH2

Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:05 PM

Just an observation here. If you look back at how the industrial revolution started it was because after enclosure big land owners had an excess of capital being generated from their land. They felt the need to invest it and this gave the new industrialists the capital they needed to get started.

So in Geezerland we have low level people, supposedly of an anarchist mindset with excess capital.

1) Are you really saying they would pass up investment with a good return if they thought it violated anarchist principles? Are you sure absolutely 100% would?

2) Are you really saying that if Siggy builds an 80% monopoly these people will put money into a competitor, one that can and probably would lose as some kind of public service? Case in point, seems that Blueray has likely won the HD format wars (with no help from government) would an anarchist push money into HD DVD now to try and prevent a monopoly, even though by doing so he would loose money?

3) Wouldn't the safer investment be to put money into Siggy's company since it is now at a scale where it' making money?

Capitalism is about using your money to realize profit, not to tinker with the market place for social reasons. If my product is better than anyone elses or if the cost of entering my market is too large I can end up with a defacto monopoly. Unless you are really saying that people will invest in competitors with little chance of succeeding as part of some kind of social compact, I can't see how you counter that?

SIGNYM

Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:08 PM

6ix- YOUR view of anarchism is post-apocalyptic, knife-between-teeth piracy to the max. That's not anarchism, that's anarchy. That's why your views on anarchism are moot.

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

HKCAVALIER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:18 PM

Hey Signy,

I think part of the problem you're having with understanding anarchist thought is that you're working from what I would call a "systems to individual" model, where the external world determines human behavior, laws and police keep the wayward individual in line--the individual person is not trustworthy, largely powerless and external authority is practically deified; while anarchists are working from an "individual to systems" model, where the beliefs and commitments of individuals determine what happens in the system, change is effected by individuals forging bonds with other human beings until a culture wide shift occurs. That's why Frem and I put so much emphasis on mental health and non-adversarial child rearing. Parents teach, promote and indoctrinate their children in the "us and them" principle that you take so completely for granted that you can't seem to envision a world not ruled by it. Our mega-communal, rats-in-a-cage, insects-in-a-hive, strangers-in-a-crowd, way of life destroys empathy further. That's why I would exclude 6ix from a discussion of anarchist social theory, because he does not demonstrate a whole lot of empathy guiding his thought.

Addiction is a serious issue for any individual to deal with and so it is a serious stumbling block to anarchy. Addiction destroys empathy, but even more crucially, it destroys the healthy relationship to the self, because the addict's identity is so polluted by the addiction. When addiction begins in the teenage years or earlier, when one's fully aware identity is still forming, it is extremely difficult to break the addiction because the individual really has no concept of a self with out the addiction. He literally can't imagine himself separate from the addiction and his addiction becomes his primary relationship, trumping even marriage and family.

Anyway, under capitalism addiction to money, to buying, is rewarded supremely. The destructive power of this addiction has gone almost wholly below our cultural radar of late. Another excellent book to read: When Society becomes an Addict by Anne Wilson Schaef.

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.

FLETCH2

Saturday, January 26, 2008 6:21 PM

Let's look at iPod a moment. Hitachi creates a really small hard drive. Doing so was very expensive, the market for such a device was not overly clear a few of their competitors look at doing something similar but it's a gamble and in a capitalist society only a few are willing to take risks on greenfield projects.

Steve Jobs sees it and immediately sees an application. Up front he buys all of Hitachi's production. He starts building iPods, he has competitors but none can match his product, only Hitachi makes the drives and Apple bought them all. the result isn't a 100% monopoly but it is market dominance. When flash chip capacity starts getting dense enough Jobs does the same again, he leverages his capital and buys close to 80% of the high density flash memory being produced in Asia. he locks in a very large discount by buying in bulk and locks his competitors out of teh market for a year. It's great business in time the market will adjust, now it's shown to be profitable more people will be building small HD and flash chips there will be competition but Apple effectively controls that market space now, everyone else is scrambling to be a distant second.

So how do you stop that happening with say a wonder drug? Pharma company X has a cancer cure, hospital chain Y buy's their entire years production and says we are the only ones that can cure cancer, come to us and pay our price. In a year, two years there may be a competitor but the folks that wait for that could die. What then? There is no violence or force in this picture unless you think that making a profit is the use of force?

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 8:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, if your model worked we would NEVER develop monopolies.

The two rules and an assumption model? I know. That's what I'm saying.

Quote:
But clearly, monopolies develop! I'm using Bill Gates as my model. He jumped into a market at the beginning, and by buying up and destroying competitors, offering PC OEMs his product with a carrot... and a stick if other systems were loaded, and weaseling on his deals with IBM, built a monopoly long before the DMCA became law.

Rule 1. It is wrong to initiate force against any person or their property.

Apply theis rule to Gates' rise to power. Did he break it? Then Rule 2 applies.

Rule 2. If someone initiates force against you or your property, you are within your rights to respond with force.

If not, and he continues to deal non-coercively, so what?

Quote:

And, as you know, under capitalism the most efficient company wins. The end state of capitalism, with or without the government, is monopolism.

So that's why I can only buy McDonald's burgers, and Whole Foods and Trader Joe's folded, right?

Quote:
And unless you build specific barriers to monopolism into your system, monopolies will develop.

If you build specific barriers to coercion into your system, like having 80% of the population morally opposed to it, you can have a monopoly, but you can't have a coercive monopoly.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

GEEZER

Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
1) Are you really saying they would pass up investment with a good return if they thought it violated anarchist principles? Are you sure absolutely 100% would?

Would you pass up an investment with good return if it was in child slavery and prostitution? Kidnapping and butchering people for pet food? Violating the Non-aggression Principle would strike most Libertarians/Anarchists as at least as bad.

Quote:
2) Are you really saying that if Siggy builds an 80% monopoly these people will put money into a competitor, one that can and probably would lose as some kind of public service?

No. I'm saying that if Siggy's 80% monopoly becomes a coercive monopoly, folks will take it down. If it deals fairly, so what?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

LEADB

Saturday, January 26, 2008 9:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
....

http://books.google.com/books? ...{balance suppressed}

HKCavalier

Would you mind going up and editting that post... that long URL with no spaces is making the whole thread 'very wide'. Shoot a couple spaces in there and caution folks it's had spaces added to keep the thread usable.

Thx much.

SIGNYM

Sunday, January 27, 2008 12:05 AM

Quote:
No. I'm saying that if Siggy's 80% monopoly becomes a coercive monopoly, folks will take it down. If it deals fairly, so what?

Geezer: What's a "fair" price? What's coercive? I mean, what if the only "coercion" I apply is to charge about 50% more than in a fully competitive system? Anarchism doesn't seem to have much to say on the topic of fair prices. So who's going to determine if my prices are fair? You and a mob?

So, yeah.. TAKE money away from the successful business-builder, you, you... communist!!

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

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE