Limits of State Power
POSTED BY: SergeantX
UPDATED: Sunday, December 14, 2025 21:53
VIEWED: 37205
PAGE 13 of 36
Quote:
one of Rue's favorite books is The Dispossessed by Ursula LeGuin. Strange to say but... it's a book about an anarchist society. I suspect there is more anarchist in us than we thought.
Not only that, but LeGuin is also a Kropotkinist, and within that novel also explores how consensus itself can become a powerful institution in it's own right, leading to conflict - and how one of the most important characteristics of free thinking folk is the ability and willingness to commit heresy.
I'd highly recommend backing that up with "The Left Hand of Darkness" also by Le Guin, which doesn't gloss over some of the more unpleasant aspects of 'younger' forms of Anarchism, and touches on the some of the concepts which make it work, like the lack of strong nationalism or ambition for it's own sake, as well as the concepts of 'having enough stuff' or not caring too much what someone elses beliefs are - they're not explored in detail so much, but they're there.
Lemme also add two more texts to that reading list, whether one agrees with them in detail or not, they do raise and address some of the more salient points we've discussed here.
No Treason - Lysander Spooner.
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
Our Enemy, The State - Albert Jay Nock
http://www.barefootsworld.net/nockoets0.html
Very much well worth the time to read, if not print out and keep handy.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I've already addressed that. Please read my posts.
You said "Government should force the powerful to give up that power." I'd think questioning who decides the definition of 'powerful' in that scenario is valid.
Quote:In the meantime the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used their jurisdiction[49] over the issue and has laid down guideline rules that it expects the telecommunications industry to follow. ... On 1 August 2008 the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview Martin stated that “We are preserving the open character of the Internet.” The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, software that is commonly used to download movies, television shows, music and software on the Internet.
So it was public opinion, not government, that stopped these changes. Why would I be worried about that?
Quote:Better to be a well-fed slave than a starving one!
So it's better to be a well-fed slave?
Quote:But in the USA and its extreme so-called free-market free-trade clones the differences tend to be more extreme.
As for 'capitalism seems to work best for the most powerful', this could apply to pretty any system.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:Better to be a well-fed slave than a starving one!
So it's better to be a well-fed slave?
That would seem to be the national consensus. But it stands in sharp contrast to earlier sentiments:
Quote:
Originally posted by Patrick Henry:
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
When I refer to "laws of convenience", I mean laws that might not directly involve protecting potential victims, yet make it easier for us to get along peacefully...
First of all thanks for clarifying on this, still pretty new to this whole discussion.
Quote:
I don't think it ought to be the government's job to go around making sure people do things that are good for them. Laws that protect people from themselves are demeaning and unnecessary.
Why do you say unnecessary? Continuing on with the seat belt example, don't you think it's a bad thing if human beings are not taking a very straight-forward safety precaution and some of them dying because of it? So you say unnecessary, but the only question in my mind is, is the state intervention effective? And then, is it worth it?
You say such a law is demeaning, I say the fact that human beings can be (and often are) so irrationally careless with their own lives is demeaning. A low opinion of humanity forms a large part of my political thinking, and I'm afraid in some respects humans are more like sheep in need of subtle cajoling than fully rational beings. And I include myself in this - because it's very natural for the human mind to assume concerning grave misfortune: 'it will never happen to me' - this instead of a more rational, risk assessment calculation.
And there are I think other examples of human psychology where we are generally weak, and irrational and under-evolved to deal with the modern world (drug dependency is another, quite depressing example) - and these things in my view diminish the value of our proud instincts for self-reliance and personal responsibility.
Now to me these same principles of human folly/weakness apply to activities such as cigarette smoking, and in a nation's right to gun ownership/use. These things I see as profoundly silly and bad for society, but...
I draw a line between these examples and the seat belt example, because these are cultural, and I don't see it as the state's place to play God and trample on the human soul - even if it is only on its most foolish manifestations.
So back to the seat belt example, where we are on opposite sides of the line - do you disagree with and dislike that law specifically, or just in principle? Or do you see it as a 'slippery slope', or something like that?
Heads should roll
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
kpo,
It's definitely the principle I'm opposed to. But not necessarily the slippery slope. I DO think those kinds of laws are proliferating as a trend, but I don't see them leading directly to totalitarian government.
I'm saying such laws are unnecessary because they don't relate to the reasons we need government in the first place. We need government (settle down, Frem - merely stating the prevailing theory) so that we can have civilized social interaction. We need it to settle disputes, to apprehend bullies and violent predators. We need it maintain a commons where we can interact with some sense of order and trust.
But we don't need it to tell us the right way to live. We don't need it to tell us what church to go to or what books to read. We don't need it to maintain our health, to feed us, to cloth us, to make sure we brush our teeth before bed or tuck us in at night.
Signym said in another thread that of all our rights, the most important was "the right to think freely". (sorry for stealing this Signy, but I really like it ) I amend it slightly to say that most important is the "right to think for yourself". That means the right to form your own opinions, make your own judgments and act on them. It also means the right to form stupid opinions, make poor judgments and act foolishly. That's fundamental to the concept of liberty.
The only time we need government to step in is when that foolishness threatens other people. Outside of that, basic freedom requires people be allowed to think for themselves.
The other reason that kind of law is a bad idea has to do of the one-size-fits-all approach to solving problems. That's really my beef with majority rule government in general. We're all stuck with what the majority decides we should do. Sometimes, that's the only practical way to go. Sometimes, we need everyone needs to be on the same page. But most of the time it's not necessary. And when its not, we should let - even encourage - people to think for themselves.
I don't think it's wise for society to force conformity when it's not required. For one thing, it puts all our eggs in one basket and commits us to one solution. And, sometimes the majority is just plain wrong (hard to believe, I know). Why not hedge our bets and let the free thinkers try out alternatives?
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I've already addressed that. Please read my posts.
I have. I don't see a direct answer. Who decides, and using what criteria, who has so much power that the government needs to control them?
Quote:
In the meantime the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has used their jurisdiction[49] over the issue and has laid down guideline rules that it expects the telecommunications industry to follow. ... On 1 August 2008 the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the US, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software.
As requested again and again, cites would be nice.
Quote:
Better to be a well-fed slave than a starving one!
But considering the planned starvation of slave populations in Stalinist Russia and present-day North Korea, this isn't even a valid comparison. Besides the fact that present-day Russia isn't capitalist at all.
Quote:
But in the USA and its extreme so-called free-market free-trade clones the differences tend to be more extreme.
Oh bull. Compare the average person(a million a year starving out of a population of 25 million. 4% starving to death in a year) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/57740.stm in North Korea with Kim Jung Il's standard of living. How many starve to death in the US? Compare the average person in Russia with Putin.
Hell, compare the standard of living in countries with a capitalist economy with those with socialist or communist economies. Once again, even the social welfare states like Sweden make their money for social programs through taxing their successful capitalist economies. You have yet to refute this. I don't believe you can.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
First of all, why do you say unnecessary? Continuing on with the seat belt example, don't you think it's a bad thing if human beings are not taking a very straight-forward safety precaution and some of them dying because of it? So you say unnecessary, but the only question in my mind is, is the state intervention effective? And then, is it worth it?
The fun of this, to me, is - how far do you go? If we save lives mandating seatbelts, wouldn't we save more mandating a nationwide automobile helmet law? how about a 25MPH speed limit? It's the 'if it saves one life, it's worth it' argument. I guess it does seem to me to be leading to the slippery slope where everything possibly dangerous is banned. Too much fat in that steak - you can't have it. Skiing? you could hit a tree.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:By that criteria, neither is the USA.
Besides the fact that present-day Russia isn't capitalist at all.
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Who decides, and using what criteria, who has so much power that the government needs to control them?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The answer to your question is... I would propose that businesses and governments be run by self-elected boards and that no organization have a "unitary executive" ... President or CEO etc. I thought I had said that several times already. Is that clear enough for ya?
----------------------
We should have strapped him into a glider, filled it nose heavy w/ explosives, and dropped his Allah lovin' ass into a large, empty field. After which, release wild boars into the area so they could make good use of his remains. Now THAT's justice.- rappy
Yeah, that's what Sheikh Issa said. Seems you both have a lot in common.- signy
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME