Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: Libertarianism/Anarchism - Page 50







Post#1226 at 09-24-2009 04:26 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
09-24-2009, 04:26 PM #1226
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
Not precisely. Matt seems to be endorsing agorism, which is basically the market anarchist equivalent of syndicalism (i.e. you focus on building institutions that will exist in the new society so that they can supplant the old when the old system collapses).
Sure. I'm a syndicalist too, in some sense, but it's incorporated within agorist strategy.

I actually have strong objections to the viability of this strategy as it is in the nature of states to deny people the opportunity to build alternative organizations. Also, the goal is not to convince the government that its services are no longer necessary but to convince the public.
Well, the State can certainly go and crackdown on various alternative institutions that they do not approve of. They've done that in the past, and they'll continue to do it in the future. No question about that. But such crackdowns, especially in today's modern world, are met with severe backlash, so most of the time the cost of suppression is greater than the cost of merely letting it be. Americans, and young people in particular won't stand for that kind of bullshit (partially why I'm a little bit encouraged by the current right-wing movement against Obama -- even if they are, on the whole, hypocritical and myopic), and with the ever-increasing capacity to network and share information with other individuals, it seems like a pretty poor strategy for the ruling class to go out and breakup these alternative institutions, especially when new ones will arise shortly thereafter. Indeed, the complexities and bureaucracies of the legal system can only allow the State to focus on a few things at a time; human capacity for generating new systems, ideas, practices, etc. is way too dynamic for the State to really suppress without descending into totalitarianism.

I think the real beauty of agorist strategy is merging political goals with personal ones: that is, you take steps to improve your own life while defying the State and weakening its hold over your person, as well as that of the society as a whole. The government says don't do drugs, don't steal intellectual property, don't hire (or be) illegal immigrants, don't use underground markets, and so on. And people just ignore that because they recognize that many of the State's rules are brutal, repressive, and stupid. Hopefully we can get them to realize that a world covered in states have (empirically speaking) the same qualities, and we can all get along without having to resort to rulership. I think there is a certain maturity in this thought, and it appears to me, that as a method for convincing the public that we don't really need the State and would be better off without it, that agorist strategy is a great educational tool. And even if it doesn't achieve that desired end, we're still better off because of it.

(My idea of agorism is not ideologically limited in this sense. There is a market component to this, but it doesn't necessarily involve the use of currency.)

As an aside, I've noted previously that anarchy is rarely used to simply mean "no rulers." It usually refers to one of three things:

1) The time before history, i.e. the "state of nature" of the Enlightenment philosophers. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as primitivism.
Which would be a total misunderstanding. The "state of nature," as used by Enlightenment philosophers, is a hypothetical world from which the State could be justified.

2) A hypothetical post-history of near perfect social harmony. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as utopian.

3) An interruption in history where chaos reigns. This leads to the criticism that anarchists promote upheaval for the sake of upheaval.

IMO, only the second criticism of anarchism is valid, since advocacy of "going back to nature" or violent revolution are both rare and non-essential to the concept. The idea of a better future, however, is essential to anarchism and thus it is forever subject to charges of utopianism. OTOH, all the good ideas in politics have been attacked as utopian, so that doesn't really kill the concept.
Well, utopianism only becomes a problem if the bumps along the way to utopia, combined with the possibility of achieving such a utopia, makes the strive for this end undesirable. I think that's the criticism Odin was offering. But I don't see anarchism as utopian, because it's not really a true endpoint, or a place of perfect social harmony; rather, I think of it as more of an ongoing project in maximizing human freedom. Furthermore, I think that in the process of achieving statelessness, nearly all steps that are libertarian in nature are (in a consequentialist sense) beneficial to human society.

To be clear, I am not really an anarchist. I think that violence, coercion and heirarchy will probably always be present and frequently have competitive advantage over peace, cooperation and networks. However, I think the trend is toward ever decreasing influence of the former -- so having a conception of anarchy (def. #2) is useful as a guide star.
I don't see how this negates your credentials as an anarchist. Even if someone believes anarchy is realistically unachievable, as long as they regards it as a desirable development, I think that they qualify.
Last edited by Matt1989; 09-24-2009 at 04:41 PM.







Post#1227 at 09-24-2009 04:37 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
09-24-2009, 04:37 PM #1227
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
The government does indeed belong to me, and to all of us.
What you're describing is an illusion created by the people who created the power structure and those who currently maintain it. They are on top, they have the power, and they can force you to do almost anything. So long as the system holds, your rights as an individual are null and void if its in their best interest to violate them. They say you have freedom of choice, but that choice occurs within the context of approved and acceptable options that do not challenge the State's legitimacy as it exists today. The ruling class currently controls the media, the candidates, products, laws, etc. and you have to do what they say (because they say it, no less!) or they will use violence against you. The suggestion that we own the government, and that the government works for us is a sentiment that I find difficult to take seriously.







Post#1228 at 09-24-2009 04:46 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-24-2009, 04:46 PM #1228
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
What you're describing is an illusion created by the people who created the power structure and those who currently maintain it. They are on top, they have the power, and they can force you to do almost anything. So long as the system holds, your rights as an individual are null and void if its in their best interest to violate them. They say you have freedom of choice, but that choice occurs within the context of approved and acceptable options that do not challenge the State's legitimacy as it exists today. The ruling class currently controls the media, the candidates, products, laws, etc. and you have to do what they say (because they say it, no less!) or they will use violence against you. The suggestion that we own the government, and that the government works for us is a sentiment that I find difficult to take seriously.
I don't find the system to be as onerous as you describe, Matt. I believe you are exaggerating, and the result of such exaggeration is that people simply give up and don't even try to change anything.







Post#1229 at 09-24-2009 04:47 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-24-2009, 04:47 PM #1229
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
The government does indeed belong to me, and to all of us.
Keep reciting your rulers' mantra. It's what we were all brought up to do.

The facts of the matter, rather than the mere dialectic, are that "all of us" belong, in fact, to the government. Again, any simple attempt to put the ruling class' myth to the test will demonstrate that fact.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1230 at 09-24-2009 04:50 PM by Bob Butler 54 [at Cove Hold, Carver, MA joined Jul 2001 #posts 6,431]
---
09-24-2009, 04:50 PM #1230
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Cove Hold, Carver, MA
Posts
6,431

Left Arrow Anarchy and Utopia

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
There are, to my mind, two cogent arguments against the argument for unplanned social systems. The first is the argument that this was possible before, but is not any more due to complexity. That argument is very weak though, as modern research shows that networks handle complexity better than hierarchies. The second is that while any particular function may be handled by a networked system, you can't have the entire economy function that way at the same time (i.e. some amount of hierarchy is always necessary, the question is where best to put it). That second argument is much stronger, strong enough to make me step back from full endorsement of anarchism.
It may be that computers and networks will make complex solutions more possible than in the past. I have daydreamed about computer networked direct vote democracy. If one votes yes for a project that requires expenditure, one has to pay for it. Vote no, and you don't have to pay for it. Use a service after voting against it, and one owes back tax. Such an organization might be more plausible in the future, and would get rid of a lot of the coercion, but I don't see any of the anarchists getting serious about describing how a future network like that might work.

Or, in another example, if cars in the near future have GPS systems and wifi, they could calculate from weight, speed and location how much wear and tear they put on a given road. Only those who use roads might have to pay for them, and they would pay appropriately.

It is one thing to object to coercion. It is another thing to seriously attempt to describe a post-coercion civilization.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
But, to argue that I have to explain how a network will solve a problem does miss the point. The whole reason to have a network is because individual nodes in the network (i.e. single persons like us) are not capable of optimizing the problem. Only the interactions of all of the people in the network produce a solution. In other words, if I could tell you with great certainty how precisely to structure the provision of a particular social good, then why not use a hierarchical system with me in charge?
Because you aren't really offering anything the average citizen would consider better than majority rule representative democracy financed by a fairly traditional tax structure. I personally think representative democracy is prone to corruption. The wealthy are one way or another over represented. I can also in abstract agree with an argument that representative democracy with majority rule and taxation has to be coercive. I'd as soon create a non-coercive system, if someone were to seriously work out what a successful system might look like.

But right now people are not yet angry enough to seriously consider alternate systems. There is no revolution pending. There is anger. Some might even fear violence leading to ugly anarchy. I'm not seeing real proposals that will be ready to implement should the revolution actually start.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
Part of the issue is that the libertarian approach to policy often entails digging into the complex effects of current policies and recommending what to remove. The default presumption in our current society is to figure out what rules to add. Can you not agree that changing the rules in a subtractive fashion is just as much a policy recommendation as doing so in an additive fashion? In both cases, you are describing the effects of current policy and recommending a change intended to produce better results. Also, would you not agree that if the subtraction occurred in a different order than simply rolling back chronologically that the results would be different from any society previously experienced?
Add. Subtract. Both. Whatever. Just propose something specific enough that one can judge whether it might work and suggest how it might be tweaked. Abstract technobabble doesn't much interest me.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
As an aside, I've noted previously that anarchy is rarely used to simply mean "no rulers." It usually refers to one of three things:

1) The time before history, i.e. the "state of nature" of the Enlightenment philosophers. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as primitivism.
2) A hypothetical post-history of near perfect social harmony. This leads to the criticism of anarchism as utopian.
3) An interruption in history where chaos reigns. This leads to the criticism that anarchists promote upheaval for the sake of upheaval.

IMO, only the second criticism of anarchism is valid, since advocacy of "going back to nature" or violent revolution are both rare and non-essential to the concept. The idea of a better future, however, is essential to anarchism and thus it is forever subject to charges of utopianism. OTOH, all the good ideas in politics have been attacked as utopian, so that doesn't really kill the concept.
These are quite different things. The word 'anarchy' might apply to all three, but none is like the other unless one is a Luddite trying to create a non-machine post history that duplicates pre history. In my opinion...

  1. The primitive utopia wasn't really. In some places one was eternally on the edge of sustenance. It was a hard life. If the land was good enough to produce a surplus, there was over population and thus conflict. I'm not enthusiastic about returning to hunter gatherer level civilization.
  2. Most political systems present themselves as the best possible system that will lead to perfection. None of them are as good as they might claim to be. Some present democracy with capitalism as the best of all possible societies. If there is any pretense that democracy with capitalism is utopian, I'd renounce it, though. D/C has a long way to go to reach utopia. The anarchists have a lot further to go. I'd like to see a working system before I even consider if it is the best of all possible systems.
  3. Failed states exist. If there are no examples of the idealist's utopian anarchy, there are lots of examples of failed governments leaving territories in misery and chaos. There is little real evidence for pre or post history benevolent anarchy. There is lots of evidence for real world ugly anarchy. When the state doesn't exist, one can look up what happens in the history books.


Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
To be clear, I am not really an anarchist. I think that violence, coercion and hierarchy will probably always be present and frequently have competitive advantage over peace, cooperation and networks. However, I think the trend is toward ever decreasing influence of the former -- so having a conception of anarchy (def. #2) is useful as a guide star.
I will cheerfully steer away from violence, coercion and hierarchy. I am dubious on steering towards something that has never existed, and something you can't describe well enough to attract a sizable following.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
Here is where I disagree. The conditions in which people are actually in a kill-or-be-killed situation are increasingly rare.
They are rare in the developed world. They are very common in the third world. I believe the crisis is centered to a great degree where on where kill-or-be-killed is still real.

Quote Originally Posted by Kurt Horner View Post
I think it could be easily argued that your FDR quote is ridiculously naive. Freedom from want?!? Anarchism is way more plausible than liberation from desire. The former requires social and economic progress -- the latter inherently requires a change in human nature. A desire to have more in life is part of the human condition.
Here, you seem to be going strawman. FDR was talking about establishing minimum basic living conditions. He had no intent to genetically modify man to change his basic nature. The above argument is not worthy.







Post#1231 at 09-24-2009 04:51 PM by Matt1989 [at joined Sep 2005 #posts 3,018]
---
09-24-2009, 04:51 PM #1231
Join Date
Sep 2005
Posts
3,018

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
I don't find the system to be as onerous as you describe, Matt. I believe you are exaggerating, and the result of such exaggeration is that people simply give up and don't even try to change anything.
If anything, I'm being generous, since I'm talking about possibilities, and not what actually goes on. (And you probably don't want to hear me babble on about that. That shit is depressing.) I can see why this might be discouraging to statists, but it tends to motivate libertarians and anarchists.







Post#1232 at 09-24-2009 04:52 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-24-2009, 04:52 PM #1232
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
I don't find the system to be as onerous as you describe, Matt. I believe you are exaggerating, and the result of such exaggeration is that people simply give up and don't even try to change anything.
Actually, the result of seeing one's rulers as what they are -- which is to say, mere humans who sit atop a system that empowers them at the expense of the masses -- and of recognizing that the power of the rulers to rule is contained wholly within the myth they perpetuate among the masses is hardly apathy.

People, you see, generally don't like being ruled -- at least, not by other people. When one un-deifies the ruling elite; when their myths are stripped bare for what they really are, then people will start to see the true scope of action available to them, and will be able to start making use of it.

Apathy comes of having one's choices and one's field of vision restricted. Recognition of reality is movement in the direction opposite that.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1233 at 09-24-2009 05:10 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-24-2009, 05:10 PM #1233
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Keep reciting your rulers' mantra. It's what we were all brought up to do.

The facts of the matter, rather than the mere dialectic, are that "all of us" belong, in fact, to the government. Again, any simple attempt to put the ruling class' myth to the test will demonstrate that fact.
It depends on how crazy you want to get, I suppose. I read and talk about all sorts of wild ideas. The government hasn't tried to curtail me one bit.

See, I don't consider government to be an "it" but a "we."







Post#1234 at 09-24-2009 05:19 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-24-2009, 05:19 PM #1234
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Actually, the result of seeing one's rulers as what they are -- which is to say, mere humans who sit atop a system that empowers them at the expense of the masses -- and of recognizing that the power of the rulers to rule is contained wholly within the myth they perpetuate among the masses is hardly apathy.
It is not a myth. It is a promise that got off track and can be reclaimed.

People, you see, generally don't like being ruled -- at least, not by other people. When one un-deifies the ruling elite; when their myths are stripped bare for what they really are, then people will start to see the true scope of action available to them, and will be able to start making use of it.

Apathy comes of having one's choices and one's field of vision restricted. Recognition of reality is movement in the direction opposite that.
It does, and in some ways I believe your diagnosis is correct.

Your solution, however, is extremely problematic. There needs to be a system in place to check those who would abuse power. You will have some sort of governmental body in place in order to enforce society's rules and norms. Don't call it the "state" if that word bothers you. But some sort of rule, convention, law, whatever -- has to be in place, and it has to be clear, consistent, and enforceable.







Post#1235 at 09-24-2009 05:22 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-24-2009, 05:22 PM #1235
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
We are the government.
Exactamente!!!
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1236 at 09-24-2009 05:23 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-24-2009, 05:23 PM #1236
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Matt1989 View Post
If anything, I'm being generous, since I'm talking about possibilities, and not what actually goes on. (And you probably don't want to hear me babble on about that. That shit is depressing.) I can see why this might be discouraging to statists, but it tends to motivate libertarians and anarchists.
Please don't refer to me as a "statist." I am no anarchist, but neither am I wedded to stasis.







Post#1237 at 09-24-2009 05:30 PM by haymarket martyr [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,547]
---
09-24-2009, 05:30 PM #1237
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,547

Glad you brought up the subject Child of Socrates. The intentional use of a term like "statist" is intended to be used in a negative fashion to cast the advocate of any formal governmental structure in a false light. It is meant to be a pejorative. Anarchists hate it when some try to paint them as advocating complete chaos and lawlessness when the tables are turned on them. It would be nice if a term like "statist" could be purged from the lexicon.







Post#1238 at 09-24-2009 05:36 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-24-2009, 05:36 PM #1238
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
People, you see, generally don't like being ruled -- at least, not by other people.
Maybe it's just my Asperger's showing, but I like clear, stable, and dependable lines of authority. As long as those in authority are kept honest and accountable, I really don't mind. There is nothing I hate more than trying to get something accomplished and struggling when it seems like nobody in particular is in charge and everyone is passing the buck.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1239 at 09-24-2009 05:40 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-24-2009, 05:40 PM #1239
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Ah, hell. Screw the state anyway. Let's just take the next step:

Integral World Government







Post#1240 at 09-24-2009 05:45 PM by Child of Socrates [at Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort joined Sep 2001 #posts 14,092]
---
09-24-2009, 05:45 PM #1240
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Cybrarian from America's Dairyland, 1961 cohort
Posts
14,092

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Maybe it's just my Asperger's showing, but I like clear, stable, and dependable lines of authority. As long as those in authority are kept honest and accountable, I really don't mind. There is nothing I hate more than trying to get something accomplished and struggling when it seems like nobody in particular is in charge and everyone is passing the buck.
Right. Not everyone in real life is an INTP. NTTIAWWT







Post#1241 at 09-24-2009 06:03 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-24-2009, 06:03 PM #1241
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
It is not a myth. It is a promise that got off track and can be reclaimed.
That is, of course, an integral part of the myth. As far as one can see, however, whatever extent people managed, for whatever brief time (in countless instances throughout history) to assert their supremacy over their rulers, the ruling class has always moved back in with great speed to set affairs back to rights.

As, of course, they should, since their interest is in ruling, after all.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1242 at 09-24-2009 06:09 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-24-2009, 06:09 PM #1242
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Maybe it's just my Asperger's showing, but I like clear, stable, and dependable lines of authority. As long as those in authority are kept honest and accountable, I really don't mind.
Of course, you are not describing people as they actually are; honesty and accountability are the first enemies of authority. But those who would rule have come (actually, rather long ago) to recognize that people would allow -- even desire -- to have themselves put under Angelic rule. When the myth of rule by actual angels proved difficult to sustain, the ruling elites shifted to the myth of rule by angelic systems, or even angelic 'fundamental principles'. Those seem to be working out a lot better for them.

But you -- and, like I said, people in general, do not like being ruled by other people. That is, by real, actual people fundamentally like themselves. The fact that systems of government all are that very thing is something that anarchism strives to bring to the awareness of increasing numbers of people.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1243 at 09-24-2009 06:12 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
09-24-2009, 06:12 PM #1243
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Of course, you are not describing people as they actually are; honesty and accountability are the first enemies of authority. But those who would rule have come (actually, rather long ago) to recognize that people would allow -- even desire -- to have themselves put under Angelic rule. When the myth of rule by actual angels proved difficult to sustain, the ruling elites shifted to the myth of rule by angelic systems, or even angelic 'fundamental principles'. Those seem to be working out a lot better for them.

But you -- and, like I said, people in general, do not like being ruled by other people. That is, by real, actual people fundamentally like themselves. The fact that systems of government all are that very thing is something that anarchism strives to bring to the awareness of increasing numbers of people.
That's strange; I thought that accountability and integrity create authority with someone reasonably competent and clear-headed.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#1244 at 09-24-2009 06:16 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-24-2009, 06:16 PM #1244
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by Child of Socrates View Post
Right. Not everyone in real life is an INTP. NTTIAWWT
No doubt. I'm an ENTP, myself.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1245 at 09-24-2009 06:18 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
09-24-2009, 06:18 PM #1245
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
That's strange; I thought that accountability and integrity create authority with someone reasonably competent and clear-headed.
??? I don't get what you are saying. Please expand on it a little bit (or at least use a couple of sentences to say it -- I'm unclear which parts of what you said are subject, object, and referent...) so I can respond to your idea rather than to just my best guess as to what your idea is.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#1246 at 09-24-2009 07:45 PM by Chas'88 [at In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky joined Nov 2008 #posts 9,432]
---
09-24-2009, 07:45 PM #1246
Join Date
Nov 2008
Location
In between Pennsylvania & Pennsyltucky
Posts
9,432

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Sorry, I don't think you have justified dismissal. Shoes, of course, have been made by private enterprise all along. Shoemaking has seldom if ever been a function of the government.
In the 1930s, Hoover bought a shoe factory in Schulkyll Haven, PA that for the entire Depression made the majority of the shoes for US citizens during the Depression. It was passed in ownership via the government from president to president until JFK ended the business.

~Chas'88
"There have always been people who say: "The war will be over someday." I say there's no guarantee the war will ever be over. Naturally a brief intermission is conceivable. Maybe the war needs a breather, a war can even break its neck, so to speak. But the kings and emperors, not to mention the pope, will always come to its help in adversity. ON the whole, I'd say this war has very little to worry about, it'll live to a ripe old age."







Post#1247 at 09-24-2009 09:34 PM by Kurt Horner [at joined Oct 2001 #posts 1,656]
---
09-24-2009, 09:34 PM #1247
Join Date
Oct 2001
Posts
1,656

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
It may be that computers and networks will make complex solutions more possible than in the past. I have daydreamed about computer networked direct vote democracy. If one votes yes for a project that requires expenditure, one has to pay for it. Vote no, and you don't have to pay for it. Use a service after voting against it, and one owes back tax. Such an organization might be more plausible in the future, and would get rid of a lot of the coercion, but I don't see any of the anarchists getting serious about describing how a future network like that might work.
The back tax wouldn't work, since it implies that you've pre-defined how much a person's contribution is. A more dynamic system would allow differing contributions to different projects, depending on degree of preference. That system couldn't penalize "free riders" though, but I don't see that as a bad thing. I don't need to describe this system, I can just provide links:

Prosper
Lending Club

Now, as of yet P2P lending doesn't handle very large projects. But, it certainly seems scalable. It's basically a bond market where the bonds are very, very small. It could conceivably replace fractional banking as our primary means of funding collective projects.

A similar non-interest system could be used for public goods. You have a P2P platform set up for, say, a town and you post projects on that platform. (Stoplight on 5th and B Street, Water main extension on the east side, renovating the firehouse, etc . . .) If you add a comment section to each project, then you can have town hall meetings that anyone can make time for and no one has to hear about projects they don't care about. This doesn't even have to be strictly anarchic. You could take a city government and run the entire city budget this way. The city council would redirect funds from projects that didn't get funding and define the minimum monthly contribution from people in the town. Right now, most people have no idea what their city government even does and certainly no idea where their tax money goes. This way, they would know exactly where.

Does the city government above qualify as anarchy? No. They're still levying taxes. But it sure seems like a vast improvement over what we have now.

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
Or, in another example, if cars in the near future have GPS systems and wifi, they could calculate from weight, speed and location how much wear and tear they put on a given road. Only those who use roads might have to pay for them, and they would pay appropriately.
Good luck on that one. Most road wear is caused by big trucks. Companies like having their shipping costs externalized into the tax system. This would be a good idea, but I think you'd find a lot of resistance.

Quote Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54 View Post
It is one thing to object to coercion. It is another thing to seriously attempt to describe a post-coercion civilization.
Sure, it's tough. I'm fairly sure such a society isn't even achievable in my lifetime. When asking for specific policy changes, you're asking about incremental improvements. Anarchism is a description of the overall long term goal. That's why I can advocate a new kind of city government (with taxes) above and I'm not violating my principles. That city would be a net gain, an evolution toward a less coercive society.

Do you see what I mean when I feel you're being unfair? I don't need to describe what the anarchist ideal society is any more than liberals or conservatives or anyone else does. In fact, people generally don't talk about politics or economics that way -- and they never do when getting down to practice. Libertarianism informs how I'm going to evaluate policy, it doesn't lay out an immutable 10-step process for achieving utopia.

(The rest of your post, I'll get to later.)







Post#1248 at 09-24-2009 09:58 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-24-2009, 09:58 PM #1248
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
That is, of course, an integral part of the myth. As far as one can see, however, whatever extent people managed, for whatever brief time (in countless instances throughout history) to assert their supremacy over their rulers, the ruling class has always moved back in with great speed to set affairs back to rights.

As, of course, they should, since their interest is in ruling, after all.
If you are going to frame things that way, there is no way your dream society would keep a new "ruling class" from forming and thus "ruining" your society.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1249 at 09-24-2009 10:03 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-24-2009, 10:03 PM #1249
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Of course, you are not describing people as they actually are; honesty and accountability are the first enemies of authority. But those who would rule have come (actually, rather long ago) to recognize that people would allow -- even desire -- to have themselves put under Angelic rule. When the myth of rule by actual angels proved difficult to sustain, the ruling elites shifted to the myth of rule by angelic systems, or even angelic 'fundamental principles'. Those seem to be working out a lot better for them.

But you -- and, like I said, people in general, do not like being ruled by other people. That is, by real, actual people fundamentally like themselves. The fact that systems of government all are that very thing is something that anarchism strives to bring to the awareness of increasing numbers of people.
If people think all politicians are scoundrels then only scoundrels go into politics, the negativism and cynicism feeds on itself, perpetuating corruption while the wannabe utopians whine and play armchair revolutionary and everyone else tunes out.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#1250 at 09-24-2009 10:05 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
09-24-2009, 10:05 PM #1250
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
??? I don't get what you are saying. Please expand on it a little bit (or at least use a couple of sentences to say it -- I'm unclear which parts of what you said are subject, object, and referent...) so I can respond to your idea rather than to just my best guess as to what your idea is.
Good, trustworthy people earn the respect and deference of their fellows, and that confers authority on those individuals.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
-----------------------------------------