Help from Libertarians/Anarchists
POSTED BY: Geezer
UPDATED: Friday, January 18, 2008 14:04
VIEWED: 12974
PAGE 5 of 18
Before I go - though it may not seem like it, I'm working on playing nicer.
But it's going to mean a few broken crowns during practice.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, you're irritating the hell out of me and I agree with you.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My ability to alienate ... something or other. You get the drift, I'm sure. I have few talents, but apparently that's one of them.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:Quote:Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force. Sometimes there is a thin line between the two. But most times, force uses a gun, and influence doesn't.
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Then I don't understand the point? If the contention is that government has become the instrument of the powerful then how does removing it help if the powerful can still influence things?
We'll get back to this later.
Quote:Quote:Think Mal again. Would he blame the gun?
I have a question. A thief breaks into a house steals the owners gun and uses it to hold him up. Is this the gun's fault or the owners for not keeping it close to hand. Should we ban guns to remove the possibility of the ones we own being used against us or should we just maintain better control of the ones we have?
I asked the question for a reason. You see every time the gun debate comes up I hear the same quotes things like
"A gun's just a tool and you don't blame a tool." and "Guns don't kill people it's people that kill people." You could argue that a thief could come into your home, steal a hammer and use it to beat you with. That being the case it would be stupid to ban hammers right? I mean the tool isn't responsible for how it's used. If you had kept that gun close to hand you would have been the guy using it against the thief not the other way around? The gun isn't at fault if you don't control it well enough and allow it to be used against you.
Let us accept that premise, the gun is a tool, the hammer is a tool. Now here's the thing, government is a tool, it was created by the people with the intention of being used for a variety of tasks including defending them, just like that gun was made to be used for defence.
Now if we accept your argument that bad people have taken control of your government and are using it against you then the fault is yours, you should have been more careful with it. You have a weapon (the government) for your self defence and you let a thief take it from you and use it against you. The weapon isn't responsable you are. The irony here is that you probably wouldn't call for a ban on guns just because one could be stolen and used against you and yet here you are arguing just that for the best weapon you have.
I've heard people say that banning guns won't work because all it does is take them out of the hands of honest citizens because the thieves will still have theirs. That's true in this debate too. Any mobster, corporation or lunatic that can get a few hired killers together could rule the roost.
The situation is like having a magnum in your bedside table and being so scared that it might be used to kill you that you get rid of it leaving yourself at the mercy of any punk with a .22.
If you are so convinced that government is being co-opted then take it back. It's your weapon only you are to blame if someone uses it against you.
Quote:
Joss is a liberal, but he created the quintessential anarcho-libertarian in Mal's character. Mal is a good reference point for all such questions. Frankly, I am duly impressed that Joss et. al. understand libertarianism that well.
Mal is a fictional character, the hero of a TV show strangely enough things are set up so he can win. Reality is a little different. In westerns the claim jumper who threatens the rancher and his virtuous family is seen off by John Wayne, or Audie Murphy. In real life guys like that and their families were murdered because no matter how many guns they had in the house a determined man could always buy more....
There was something else
Quote:
Right-anarchists don't have a problem with influence; they just have a problem with force.
What the hell is a "Right-Anarchist?" It sounds like neo-con somebody that wants to purloin an idea he really doesn't really agree with?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Aiyee!
Rue, jeez, don't know what to say. I've never seen you so snarky with someone who isn't an ideological monster or authoritarian lapdog. I think you're comin' down a little ton-of-bricksish on CTS who may simply have a RL > RWED situation going on.
Here's my answer to your parasitism quandary. In the sense that you're using the word, I would say that we are all parasites on the achievements of the past. Perhaps, Marx is correct and human culture is in an evolving, developmental process. Maybe statism as we know it is a phase in human cultural development like adolescence. Unavoidable, but dangerous as all get out if developement stops there. So the corporate culture that a future anarchistic moment would "parasitize" is its own past. Perhaps anarchy would represent a total lack of materialistic, technological progress beyond its point of departure. Maybe humans would live for a millennia or two without wars and without a lot of technological development beyond what we see now. Until there's a social revolution and the anarchic age passes away beneath some future army's heels.
Maybe anarchy wouldn't be the final chapter in human social development; doesn't mean it would be the nightmare that leaps so readily to mind.
Am I the only one that sees a low grade hysteria in the questions/accusations coming from the folks that profess not to "get" anarchy? I guess it's unavoidable to a degree, but I find it fascinating that the very idea of anarchy is such a hot button. It seems to strike a pretty deep chord with all kinds of people.
And I gotta say your syllogism, Rue, doesn't make any more sense to me than it did to CTS. Money is a kind of influence, for there are surely many forms of influence other than money (love, for instance). Same with force; force is only the crudest Newtonian form of influence. Since there are other types of influence besides money and force, then money does not equal force just because they're both a kind of influence.
Rue, what's going on over there?
HKCavalier
Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
I recommend Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress" for another view of non-government in action.
I was just gonna plug that, and some of RAH's later work- parts of The Number Of The Beast, The Cat Who Walked Thru Walls, and the some of the other late novels touch on Libertarian ideas.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
'Utopia' (Thomas Moore) might also be considered communistic.
Not pickin' on YOU, as I have no desire to offend, but so might the society envisioned by the disciples of Jesus Christ. Read the Book of Acts. Also the history of the early brotherhoods-- the Franciscans come to mind...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason why I put that in was b/c sometimes people throw labels around, and I think we're supposed to be distracted and react to the labels. So I put in a label of my own that seemed apropos. Anyway, it seemed like the thing to do.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
As long as one owns a running ship (which is not as limited a commodity as land), one has a shot at sovereignty.
AS the old cliche has it: " What is a boat? A hole in the water into which you throw money. What is a bigger boat? A bigger hole."
And a space ship would be an even bigger hole. . Witness Mal's recurring troubles with morality and the need to fuel the ship, do maintenance and feed the crew.
He's LUCKY to be scraping by from crime to crime, dealing with folks who diss him and cheat him. Somebody more honest, less brutal, and slightly less lucky would run out of oxygen to breathe and protein to eat, and would wind up either dead or stranded somewhere, unable to afford fuel to boost the ship.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wait, did I ever argue that?
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Now if we accept your argument that bad people have taken control of your government and are using it against you ...
I think govt is an inherently evil tool, just like some people think guns are inherently evil tools. The issue is, do we ban them only in our own lives, or do we ban them for everyone, whether they like those tools or not?
I used to want to ban govt for everyone, until I realized I had no right to do that. So now I am just trying to figure out how to get it out of my own life.
Quote:Yeah, but you missed the point. They won't have a monopoly on force, like govt has a monopoly. As I said, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics represent force in small denominations vs. the big denominations of govt.
Any mobster, corporation or lunatic that can get a few hired killers together could rule the roost.
Quote:It is more like having a magnum that you know WILL kill you vs. taking your chances with the punk with a .22. (Yeah, the analogy breaks down a bit here, but it's a good one.)
The situation is like having a magnum in your bedside table and being so scared that it might be used to kill you that you get rid of it leaving yourself at the mercy of any punk with a .22.
Quote:And "guys like that" can always buy more as well... Yeah, some of those guys died, but some didn't.
In real life guys like that and their families were murdered because no matter how many guns they had in the house a determined man could always buy more....
Look, govt has always been supported by the argument that you need them to protect yourself from punks, mobsters, corporations, lunatics, etc. IF you can trust the govt to do the protecting that is. What gives govt the magical ability to be exempt from punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics? I say, you have to fight punks, mobsters, corporations, and lunatics whether they are in govt or not. I'd rather have them separate than all united under magical umbrella of "authority."
Quote:Right anarchists are folks who want to distinguish themselves from the original anarchists, the communists. They accept that hierarchy is impossible to abolish, so they simply want to abolish government.
What the hell is a "Right-Anarchist?"
--------------------------
When buying and selling are controlled by legislation, the first things to be bought and sold are legislators.
--P. J. O'Rourke
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME