|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
 Posted - 08/13/2003 : 21:54:45 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
The labor movements and the forming of unions officially put an end to the idea of pure capitalism in the U.S.
Unions are a scourge!
They do nothing but cause trouble and more confussion.
Before you say it, ok, one time they might have been needed but today they are obsolete...for what they were supposed to be.
And yes, I worked in a place that had one. They took my money, as the government does, without my consent and did nothing to benifit me. |
 |
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 05:02:58 [Permalink]
|
Well, I'll have to read the FAQ on that. I'm not aware of those kinds of limits on anarchism.
Tucker, like most of the people in prisons, was not a danger to anyone. Bush is. That's my point. You seem to be saying that we now have some answer to crime and we don't. We don't seem to be concerned with illegitimate authority. Anarchism is mostly concerned with limiting illegitimate authority. Those are the ones that do the most harm.
quote:
Anarchism has no mechanism to punish wrong-doers. Order is supposed to be kept by people acting in the best interest of society. Sociopaths and criminals do not recognize such strictures as your case illustrates. Tucker was labled a criminal and she fries because she got caught. Bush isn't out of the woods yet. I've written my Congressman concerning his unfounded invasion of a sovereign nation. Both are dangerous to society.
|
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 05:05:11 [Permalink]
|
Unions do nothing because government has taken away their power. If you want to limit government, then the people will have more say in what goes on instead of government taking from the poor to give to the wealthy. Socialism is what happens when illegitimate authority is removed from the equation.
quote:
Originally posted by Snake
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by jmcginn
The labor movements and the forming of unions officially put an end to the idea of pure capitalism in the U.S.
Unions are a scourge!
They do nothing but cause trouble and more confussion.
Before you say it, ok, one time they might have been needed but today they are obsolete...for what they were supposed to be.
And yes, I worked in a place that had one. They took my money, as the government does, without my consent and did nothing to benifit me.
[/quote] |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 07:08:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
I believe that you do not have a full grasp on the system that the US employs now.
I would like to believe I have a good grasp on the system we have now, although I am sure there are areas where I am weak. I understand some officials can be recalled, but I am not aware of any recall provisions for federal officials nor am I aware of any recall provisions in my state.
I also understand that we can petition the government and form lobby interest groups and get in our reps. ear, but when it all comes down to it, he/she still doesn't have to listen to the majority. He doesn't have to uphold his/her promises, etc. It also doesn't stop him/her from breaking his duty and listening to his constituents, especially since the majority of the political positions do not appear to have a recall provision.
I also understand that being vocal is important, but sadly in our society, giving large campaign donations can be just as important, and both of these components may and often do fail to honor what the majority desires.
quote:
Getting society to change from one way of thinking since it has been so thickly ingrained is near impossible.
However it was quite easy to get them to go from an egalitarian society to a caste system? Teotihuacan provides a great example of how a loose collection of egalitarian societies were unified into a caste state system in less than several hundred years. If it can go one way, surely it can go the other way? If not then I need conclusive evidence as to why it can't.
quote:
You remove authority which would be necessary to pull down these elite people.
No, anarchy removes authority from the hands of the few and places it in the hands of all. They would be opposed by the people. Yes block voting is a problem that could be hard to address, but its a problem our society has now as well.
Can you please tell me which tribes, I would love to read more on them?
quote:
Changing societal attitudes is a gargantuan task. It takes many centuries to change them and then only if the predominant attitude is perceived to be beneficial.
I agree, it could take centuries to accomplish. However the more I think about it, the more possible it seems and just because its hard and it takes a long time to do, does not mean it should be attempted. Striving for small improvements and small steps towards better goals all seem well justified. The fact that people were convinced to leave egalitarian societies to join caste ones, implies that they can be convinced to do just the opposite.
Majority rule is not always right. And is the antithisis of anarchy. Anarchy requires consensus rule, that means a single member can block a decision on principle and counter-proposals have to be generated which address the objection. This can be said of some elected leaders who do what they think is right instead of what the majority tells them whether good or ill.
As I have been trying to point out, it is easier to go from an egalatarian system to a caste one because a caste system allows people to be sheep. Using Maslow's heirachy of needs, self-actualization rarely happens because most people are stuck in the lower levels. Egalatarian rule requires self-actualization levels out of a majority of it's members. Caste systems trade off self-actualization for steps higher on the heirarcy than they are currently.
The tribes in South and Central America (names of which maddeningly elude me, It was on a few NOVA and NATURE programs 20 years ago. They mentioned some of the legends of the tribe wherein a powerful and corrupt leader was overthrown by their tribe and used to teach their young their form of governance) had abundance around them and little or no competition from outsiders. In addition, the tribes were made up of close families. These two factors fulfill all the way up to the Esteem level of Maslow's Heirarchy.
Current society has most of it's members in the Safety to Love levels, so they tend not to try self-actualization. (Thus, sheep people get some of their Esteem levels met.)
Going from Anarchist rule to Authoritarian rule is easier because it is downhill on Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Going the opposite way requires a lot of effort.
The people can only be moved toward a more self-actualizing form of government when the lower needs are met.
http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 07:19:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
Well, I'll have to read the FAQ on that. I'm not aware of those kinds of limits on anarchism.
Tucker, like most of the people in prisons, was not a danger to anyone. Bush is. That's my point. You seem to be saying that we now have some answer to crime and we don't. We don't seem to be concerned with illegitimate authority. Anarchism is mostly concerned with limiting illegitimate authority. Those are the ones that do the most harm.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">
Anarchism has no mechanism to punish wrong-doers. Order is supposed to be kept by people acting in the best interest of society. Sociopaths and criminals do not recognize such strictures as your case illustrates. Tucker was labled a criminal and she fries because she got caught. Bush isn't out of the woods yet. I've written my Congressman concerning his unfounded invasion of a sovereign nation. Both are dangerous to society.
[/quote]
I'm saying we have a mechanism in place to combat crime. It isn't always effective, but it is there. Tucker was sentanced to death as punishment for her crime. I understand that you are objecting to the death penalty in this case. It does not mitigate the fact that she committed a crime and was punished by the system.
There are some concerns with illegitamate authority. Sometimes, those concerns are glossed over due to partizan politics. Bush was warned by the Congress and House about acting without an authorization of force outside Iraq. Democrats and some moderate Republicans raised objections to a quick march to war and the claim of authority by Bush through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. In the end, partizan politics won the day. You are underlining the failures of the system we currently have.
You say anarchism is interested in limiting illegitamate authority but the methodology has no way of dealing with offenders. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 08:53:10 [Permalink]
|
| And I'm saying that we have no methods now. Karla Faye Tucker killed. George Bush killed. No one stopped those crimes. We imprison people and execute people because of their income level and skin color, not because it limits crime. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 08/14/2003 08:55:02 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 09:27:24 [Permalink]
|
There are methods of dealing with crime mentioned in this FAQ.
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secI5.html#seci58
I don't know that this FAQ is the last word on what an anarchist society would be, either. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 10:22:49 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
Majority rule is not always right. And is the antithisis of anarchy. Anarchy requires consensus rule, that means a single member can block a decision on principle and counter-proposals have to be generated which address the objection. This can be said of some elected leaders who do what they think is right instead of what the majority tells them whether good or ill.
Actually anarchy does not require consensus and most reject it as opposed to direct democracy:
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca212
I agree that the majority isn't always right, and anarchy accounts for the minority:
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca211quote:
If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways.
quote:
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making.
A few notes on the composition of anarchy, from the FAQ:
quote:
The association is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood).
quote:
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political authority, but as this authority is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical
I would add that I think an anarchist society would require a Bill of Rights, that is enforced by the authority invested in the people as a whole instead of in a state authority. Of course this can create problems of people warping or ignoring the BoR, but we have that problem in our states now, and at least the decision to warp/ignore the BoR is based upon open debate and majority decision, not simply the whim of an elite minority.quote:
Using Maslow's heirachy of needs, self-actualization rarely happens because most people are stuck in the lower levels. Egalatarian rule requires self-actualization levels out of a majority of it's members. Caste systems trade off self-actualization for steps higher on the heirarcy than they are currently.
Anarchy doesn't require self-actualization, but instead provides for the basic needs below (physiology, safety, love, and esteem) better than a caste system thus allowing more people to self-actualize. It provides all of these needs to more people, instead of allowing just a handful of elites to recognize it.
The reasons people are stuck in these lower levels in a caste system are IMO:
1. Elites hoard the wealth thus always leaving them in states of deprivation of required needs.
2. Elites are authoritative over the lower classes thus denying them esteem.
3. Creating a competitive isolated environment thus degrading the love one receives and also creating unneeded threats to safety.
Anarchy breaks down these barriers by:
1. Sharing the wealth to all thus providing better for the physiological need for all.
2. Breaking the hierarchical chain so that people are not just called "equal" but truly are "equal".
3. Involving the people in all forms of decision making thus empowering the people and thus raising their esteem.
4. Creating a more communal environment thus increasing the love one gets and their feelings of safety.
The only time it would appear that it would be easier to go from egalitarian to caste would be when the people are being deprived of needs lower on the chain and the caste system can provide it. If people are being provided their basic needs, say up to around Love, then the transition in either direction IMO is equal in difficulty.quote:
Going from Anarchist rule to Authoritarian rule is easier because it is downhill on Maslow's Heirarchy of Needs. Going the opposite way requires a lot of effort.
Huh? How can reducing what people get to satisfy their needs ever be easier? I agree if their basic needs are not met, you probably are not going to get self-actualization, but if their basic needs are met then going up is just as easy as going down if not easier.
I still cannot accept that the majority of all people want to be led like sheep. I still think that is a product of the shepherd civilization we live in. If people were given the needs I mentioned above and started to experience self-actualization I think it would spread and become engrained into the culture.
Finally I would argue that more people do not self-actualzie in a capitalistic caste system as we have now because they cannot achieve their basic needs adequately. They are suppressed by the wealthy elite and denied true equality in power and wealth. If they were provided with these basic needs then the majority would rapidly self-actualize. |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 10:28:15 [Permalink]
|
Gorgo,
quote:
I don't know that this FAQ is the last word on what an anarchist society would be, either.
Yes I agree and I believe they state as much in their intro:
quote:
We are sure that many anarchists will not agree 100% with what we have written in the FAQ. That is to be expected in a movement based upon individual freedom and critical thought. However, we are sure that most anarchists will agree with most of what we present and respect those parts with which they do disagree with as genuine expressions of anarchist ideas and ideals. The anarchist movement is marked by wide-spread disagreement and argument about various aspects of anarchist ideas and how to apply them (but also, we must add, a wide-spread tolerance of differing viewpoints and a willingness to work together in spite of minor disagreements). We have attempted to reflect this in the FAQ and hope we have done a good job in presenting the ideas of all the anarchist tendencies we discuss.
I would also say that it appears to be a useful and thorough reference, that clearly defines the anarchy I wish to discuss and addresses many of the points against it. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 08/14/2003 10:35:03 |
|
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 10:44:42 [Permalink]
|
Valiant Dancer,
You also seem to be implying that because Maslow placed his needs on a pyramid that it is hard to get people to go from one step to the next when actually he implied that when a person gets what he needs at one step he will automatically move to the next step.
For example when a person gets what they physiologically need and feels safe they will automatically start to socialize and seek social bonds including love. There is no natural resistance to taking these steps as Maslow indicates.
If that is not what you are arguing then it would probably mean that you are arguing that it is too hard to provide all of the needs for the majority of the people so we shouldn't even try. Let the subserviant mass remain unfulfilled with their needs while the elites continue to get more than what they need.
So it appears that you are either arguing in summary:
1. It is hard to get people to take the steps to the next level if their needs are met at the lower level. Something Maslow does not hint at.
2. It is too hard to provide all of the lower needs for the majority of the people.
http://www.accel-team.com/human_relations/hrels_02_maslow.html
Please clarify. |
| Edited by - jmcginn on 08/14/2003 10:45:26 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 10:55:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
And I'm saying that we have no methods now. Karla Faye Tucker killed. George Bush killed. No one stopped those crimes. We imprison people and execute people because of their income level and skin color, not because it limits crime.
I see. So you are advocating some form of pre-emptive crime fighting.
Nice dream. Won't work.
While minorities and poor are less likely to recieve competent counsel which increases the likelihood of conviction (rightly and otherwise), there is no pre-emptive crime fighting tool which does not infringe upon human rights or due process. I don't know where the anarchist society is going to get cures for all societies ills and sociopath prevention training, but I don't believe this is a reasonable expectation.
The current methodology is to punish law breakers in an attempt to discourage, not completely prevent, crime. Sociopaths exist. How will they be prevented from doing criminal acts under anarchism?
Bush killed under the guise of authority. He may still be punished for that abuse of power. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 11:23:02 [Permalink]
|
I understand that you think that the present system attempts to discourage crime, but of course that is not the goal at all. The goal is to lock up poor people and people of color.
Sociopaths exist, and when they exist as police officers and presidents, that simply increases crime. Without private property and the need to lock up poor people and people of color, we would have far fewer people locked up. As far as criminals, we are doing little about people like George Bush, corporate criminals and corrupt police. Those are the people that do the most harm. |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 11:23:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by jmcginn
Valiant Dancer,
quote:
Majority rule is not always right. And is the antithisis of anarchy. Anarchy requires consensus rule, that means a single member can block a decision on principle and counter-proposals have to be generated which address the objection. This can be said of some elected leaders who do what they think is right instead of what the majority tells them whether good or ill.
Actually anarchy does not require consensus and most reject it as opposed to direct democracy:
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca212
I agree that the majority isn't always right, and anarchy accounts for the minority:
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secA2.html#seca211quote:
If someone finds themselves in a minority on a particular vote, he or she is confronted with the choice of either consenting or refusing to recognise it as binding. To deny the minority the opportunity to exercise its judgement and choice is to infringe its autonomy and to impose obligation upon it which it has not freely accepted. The coercive imposition of the majority will is contrary to the ideal of self-assumed obligation, and so is contrary to direct democracy and free association. Therefore, far from being a denial of freedom, direct democracy within the context of free association and self-assumed obligation is the only means by which liberty can be nurtured. Needless to say, a minority, if it remains in the association, can argue its case and try to convince the majority of the error of its ways.
quote:
Anarchists recognise that majorities can and do make mistakes and that is why our theories on association place great importance on minority rights. This can be seen from our theory of self-assumed obligation, which bases itself on the right of minorities to protest against majority decisions and makes dissent a key factor in decision making.
So what is to stop criminals from refusing to be bound by common law? This same "power" of individuals to refuse to be bound by anarchist concepts such as sharing wealth and communal help. Sociopaths refuse to be bound by societal norms now. What authority does the society have under anarchy to punish them. They choose not to be bound by their decision.
quote:
A few notes on the composition of anarchy, from the FAQ:
quote:
The association is organised around an assembly of all its members (in the case of large workplaces and towns, this may be a functional sub-group such as a specific office or neighbourhood).
quote:
Although the assembled people collectively legislate the rules governing their association, and are bound by them as individuals, they are also superior to them in the sense that these rules can always be modified or repealed. Collectively, the associated "citizens" constitute a political authority, but as this authority is based on horizontal relationships between themselves rather than vertical ones between themselves and an elite, the "authority" is non-hierarchical
I would add that I think an anarchist society would require a Bill of Rights, that is enforced by the authority invested in the people as a whole instead of in a state authority. Of course this can create problems of people warping or ignoring the BoR, but we have that problem in our states now, and at least the decision to warp/ignore the BoR is based upon open debate and majority decision, not simply the whim of an elite minority.
Now you are imposing some form of authoritarian structure. The Bill of Rights can be refused by members of the society who do not wish to be bound by it and there would be no recourse for the society against them. It is unenforceable without a central governing body, albeit less that the current trappings of authoritarian government.
quote:
quote:
Using Maslow's heirachy of needs, self-actualization rarely happens because most people are stuck in the lower levels. Egalatarian rule requires self-actualization levels out of a majority of it's members. Caste systems trade off self-actualization for steps higher on the heirarcy than they are currently.
Anarchy doesn't require self-actualization, but instead provides for the basic needs below (physiology, safety, love, and esteem) better than a caste system thus allowing more people to self-actualize. It provides all of these needs to more people, instead of allowing just a handful of elites to recognize it.
And this is enforced.......how? Anarchy cannot be family to an individual. It is a governing system.
quote:
The reasons people are stuck in these lower levels in a caste system are IMO:
1. Elites hoard the wealth thus always leaving them in states of deprivation of required needs.
2. Elites are authoritative over the lower classes thus denying them esteem.
3. Creating a competitive isolated environment thus degrading the love one receives and also creating unneeded threats to safety.
Quite a conspiracy theory. Doesn't explain how members of the lower castes can obtain self-actualization plateau of Maslow's Heirarchy. Esteem comes from family and collegues, not usually from elites. Elites hoard wealth. Wealth makes physiological needs to be met easier.
quote:
Anarchy breaks down these barriers by:
1. Sharing the wealth to all thus providing better for the physiological need for all.
2. Breaking the hierarchical chain so that people are not just called "equal" but truly are "equal".
3. Involving the people in all forms of decision making thus empowering the people and thus raising their esteem.
4. Creating a more communal environment thus increasing the love one gets and their feelings of safety.
By what authority can anarchy compel this?
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 11:35:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
There are methods of dealing with crime mentioned in this FAQ.
http://flag.blackened.net/sai/faq/secI5.html#seci58
I don't know that this FAQ is the last word on what an anarchist society would be, either.
A lot of pie-in-the-sky statements about crime "naturally" being decreased by 90%. I'm very skeptical about that.
From what they describe, you have arbitration for civil suits and vigilante groups for criminal with the option that someone may have to go it alone. As with most vigilante groups, accuracy may be a problem. Again, there is no mention of how punishment is applied to a criminal or what authority the group has over a person who declines to be bound by the strictures of anarchy. There are also no prisons or way to protect the public from criminals.
"So instead of prisons and a legal code based on the concept of punishment and revenge, anarchists support the use of pubic opinion and pressure to stop anti-social acts and the need to therapeutically rehabilite those who commit anti-social acts."
So peer pressure is gonna work against sociopaths and serial killers. Keep dreaming.
|
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/14/2003 : 11:41:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Gorgo
I understand that you think that the present system attempts to discourage crime, but of course that is not the goal at all. The goal is to lock up poor people and people of color.
Sociopaths exist, and when they exist as police officers and presidents, that simply increases crime. Without private property and the need to lock up poor people and people of color, we would have far fewer people locked up. As far as criminals, we are doing little about people like George Bush, corporate criminals and corrupt police. Those are the people that do the most harm.
So you keep saying. I do not agree with your assessment. I see the system is flawed and I want to fix it. (That's why I vote regularly and write my elected officials about problems I see.)
Again, anarchy lacks the basic tools to combat or stop sociopaths and criminals. You may think peer pressure will do it, but sociopaths know what they do is wrong. They just don't care.
Corporate criminals are beginning to be reined in and corrupt police are still being prosecuted. Or am I missing something? |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
